S/O: Affluence

[DawnM]

You're right about everything.  We didn't know better and spent a TON of money on our windows when one of those salesguys showed up.  We didn't have the money to spend.  It was awful.  

 

It wasn't until after my DH took at a job where he had a budget and had to be the person who hired contractors for his company that he figured out the game.  And when the next salesperson came to our house for a roof, I was sooo anxious.  It wasn't until my normally mild-mannered, polite husband made a "you are CRAZY" face to the salesguy, laughed derisively, and said, "Uh...no.  That's a ridiculous quote," that I started to relax.  There are rules to the game that no one tells you. 

 

I think I need to read Hillbilly Elegy.

 

 

I think I do too.

[SereneHome]

Money IS riches, an asset. A person who earns $450,000 in one year IS affluent that year--they have more riches than almost anyone else.

 

You seem to think that doesn't count unless they turn their riches into a more permanently productive sort of asset. It is true that unless they do that they make no progress towards long term wealth, but that does not mean they are not affluent during the year they earn the $450,000.

 

Affluence may be temporary...And yes a person can absolutely be affluent at a given point in time while not attaining either a high net worth or financial independence. That they spend their affluent riches profligately does not mean the riches don't count.

 

Again, it's not that *I* seem to think, it's how affluence defined and not by me!

 

Look, it's obvious that either I am not explaining this well, or it doesn't really matter what I say, bc it seems that all people are getting is that I think $450K is not a lot of money.  Which is not what I said.  But whatever.

 

Yes, affluence can absolutely be temporary.  I never said otherwise.  I simply said that making a lot of money in any given year does not make you affluent if nothing is kept by the end of the period.  It gives you luxuries and comfortable life style for that year, but that is not affluence.  And once more - it is not MY definition. 

 

And in more practical terms  - I think it's dangerous to think that one's high W2 wages makes you affluent bc it doesn't, unless you use it wisely

 

I am officially done.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with you. And I have a fair amount of experience working in banks so I think that my understanding is equally valid.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

I think I need to read Hillbilly Elegy.

You won't be sorry--it's the best book I read all last year.

Now I'm reading it again, slowly, making notes, for my book group meeting in two weeks.

Such a great book.

 

However, I would like to add--we have each other.  How many times has someone put the word out that they are buying a car and don't want to get ripped off, and had others here tell them exactly how best to do that?  How many times have people explained legal matters, or passed on the contact information for a good 'boots on the ground' professional, or helped someone frame a negotiation better here?  This place is a great community for that.  We are very fortunate to have each other.

[8circles]

I've posted the definition numerous time.  But here it is once again

 

Definition of affluent

1. 1 :  having an abundance of goods or riches :  wealthy affluent families our affluent society

 

 

You seem to think that it's *my* definition.  It's not.

 

I know finance.  From business and personal standpoint.  And I can tell you that people who think that high W2 income makes people affluent, rich, wealthy don't really understand finance.  It's really not a slant against them.  It's just a fact.

 

 

 

Again, it's not that *I* seem to think, it's how affluence defined and not by me!

 

Look, it's obvious that either I am not explaining this well, or it doesn't really matter what I say, bc it seems that all people are getting is that I think $450K is not a lot of money.  Which is not what I said.  But whatever.

 

Yes, affluence can absolutely be temporary.  I never said otherwise.  I simply said that making a lot of money in any given year does not make you affluent if nothing is kept by the end of the period.  It gives you luxuries and comfortable life style for that year, but that is not affluence.  And once more - it is not MY definition. 

 

And in more practical terms  - I think it's dangerous to think that one's high W2 wages makes you affluent bc it doesn't, unless you use it wisely

 

I am officially done.

 

I don't understand what you mean - your definition said nothing about having something to show for it after your salary is spent. If you have a different definition that you're using, I'd like to know what it is. Where does your posted definition say anything about that?

 

I don't know why you're getting testy about this. You posted a definition and it sounds to me like you're adding things to it to make your narrative true. 

 

You may know a great deal about finance, but your posted definition of affluence is pretty clear and doesnt require any special financial knowledge to understand.

Edited April 17, 2017 by 8circles

[IfIOnly]

Nope. We gross much more than our net but chose to dump excess into other businesses with their own write offs and what not. We also give generously to charities. It's that or pay a bunch in taxes.

Edited April 17, 2017 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[IfIOnly]

And I should have said a bunch *more* in taxes. The gov't gets us in other ways too especially since we have employees. Then there's business licenses and insurance, etc.

[SereneHome]

I don't understand what you mean - your definition said nothing about having something to show for it after your salary is spent. If you have a different definition that you're using, I'd like to know what it is. Where does your posted definition say anything about that?

 

I don't know why you're getting testy about this. You posted a definition and it sounds to me like you're adding things to it to make your narrative true. 

 

You may know a great deal about finance, but your posted definition of affluence is pretty clear and doesnt require any special financial knowledge to understand.

 

Again!  Not MY definition.  The word itself simply means "accumulated wealth" or

 

noun

1.

abundance of money, property, and other material goods; riches; wealth.

2.

an abundant supply, as of thoughts or words; profusion.

,

This very long, circular discussion started when I posted that having high income doesn't automatically makes a person affluent.  By definition of the word, a person must accumulate assets.

 

Simply getting money does not make one affluent.  Accumulating /keeping money makes someone affluent.

 

This entire thread was based on a premise that making certain income equates to being affluent.  I said that it's simply not true.  Making income is not enough. 

 

I am not getting testy, I am truly perplexed how people don't see the difference. 

 

And again, it's not whether posters agree with me  - I am not making any assertions other than what that word actually means.   They are just assigning their own meaning to the word.

[Jean in Newcastle]

adjective: affluent

1. 1.

   (especially of a group or area) having a great deal of money; wealthy.

   "the affluent societies of the western world"

   synonyms: wealthy, rich, prosperous, well off, moneyed, well-to-do; More

   propertied, substantial, of means, of substance, plutocratic;

   informalwell heeled, rolling in it, made of money, filthy rich, stinking rich, loaded, on easy street;

   upper-class, upscale

   "the affluent families of Newport"

   antonyms: poor, impoverished
2. 2.

   archaic

   (of water) flowing freely or in great quantity.

noun

archaic

noun: affluent; plural noun: affluents

1. 1.

   a tributary stream.

    

    

   There is more than one way to define a word. 

    

   Your definition does not use the word "accumulated" anywhere.  It says an "abundance".  If you want to nitpick, someone with a high salary accumulates that money month by month over a year - an abundance of money.  You are making an interpretation of a definition.  Your definition isn't the Rosetta stone of definitions.  I don't understand the rigidity on this definition.  It actually doesn't move the discussion along at all. 

    

    

 

[TravelingChris]

From my understanding, most millionaires don't have all the fancy accouterments that other people think they have.  My son-in-law's parents are probably millionaires.  They are part owners of a business.  It isn't a glamorous business and they are definitely not upper-class people.  They do have much more wealth than we do but their house is smaller than ours and their clothes do not betray their wealth nor do their habits and travels. 

 

I have lived as a middle income, lower income, very low income, middle income again and upper-income family.  Did our behaviors change?  Well yes,  I don't have to go to the free clinic nor do I have to count out how much I have to spend on food anymore.  There is no way I am saying we are poor or even average income now.  We are not wealthy though unlike our daughter;s in-laws.  They do things like buy a new truck for their son or buy them a house.  We did buy a car for each of our kids but they weren't new and for some, we had to have payments. Also, we didn't buy one for our son after his first one.  They are continuing to buy trucks even when there is nothing wrong with the old one.  We couldn't buy a new truck right now for cash unless we cashed in 401K.  

 

As to COL and wealth, that is how we definitely decided to stay homeschooling. We started out with our son in a private Christian school. In the area, we were living in then, we could afford that tuition, make house payments for a house in a safe area, pay for things like museum classes and YMCA soccer, and be less careful about food spending. Then we were moved to CA. We couldn't afford a house there and so lived on the base in a smaller house than we had in the LCOL area.  We couldn't afford private school anymore. I had to look hard at what extracurriculars the kids did then because those were generally now priced out of our range, We had gone from a place where our income was probably a bit above median to one where we were in the 25% range. Our income had not changed at all.  Even though we did not have housing costs there, almost all of our other expenses rose too including car taxes, insurance, mandatory lawn care we now needed to pay for, many food costs, and other things.

 

 

 

[frogger]

This is true, but it is far more common to have people spend extremely high PROPORTIONS of their income on housing in high housing cost areas than elsewhere.

It would be logical for larger proportions of someone's income to go to housing because space is at a premium. Just like larger proportions go to transportation if you are rural. The thing about having a little condo in a city is that it comes with so many amenities. When I lived in the Seattle area I had roads, drainage, fire service, huge libraries, parks, museums. Transportation was cheap.

 

Housing certainly factors in and sometimes gets ridiculously high. Silicon valley is after all different than Phoenix but you really can't compare housing in the city with housing in the country.

 

Someplace like Barrow on the other hand just has ridiculous housing and no amenities. Look at these prices

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Barrow-AK-United-States

 

and remember those rent prices do not give you paved roads (well a few but the hotel has you take off your shoes in the lobby so you don't get mud everywhere), great drainage, a fancy library, beautiful parks, a hospital, etc. Those things are a ride on a 737 jet away. You can't just cut utilities, transportation, or clothes when you spend $12 for a gallon of milk.

 

Out control housing costs can be painful but I'm just saying it isn't that bad to have a higher percentage go to space if you can still live a nice life. I say that as someone who lived in King County. I have worked in downtown Seattle.

 

I'm not sure how they index cost of living exactly though.

[maize]

Again! Not MY definition. The word itself simply means "accumulated wealth

You say this...then you quote a definition that is NOT "accumulated wealth".

 

If you want to talk about accumulated wealth talk about that; don't insist though that it is the only correct way to define affluence-- the definitions of affluence you yourself quote can certainly apply to a $450,000 salary--that is an abundance of money, whether it accumulates long term or not. The amount of money that represents on a daily, weekly, monthly basis is an abundant--affluent--amount.

 

 

Your definition (accumulated wealth) is certainly not a gold standard accepted in all financial circles. This, for example, is part of a Wikipedia article on affluence in the US:

 

 

"Income is commonly used to measure affluence, although this is a relative indicator: a middle class person with a personal income of $77,500 annually and a billionaire may both be referred to as affluent, depending on reference groups. An average American with a median income of $32,000[7] ($39,000 for those employed full-time between the ages of 25 and 64)[8] when used as a reference group would justify the personal income in the tenth percentile of $77,500 being described as affluent,[7] but if this earner were compared to an executive of a Fortune 500 company, then the description would not apply.[9][10] Accordingly, marketing firms and investment houses classify those with household incomes exceeding $250,000 as mass affluent, while the threshold upper class is most commonly defined as the top 1% with household incomes commonly exceeding $525,000 annually."

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

 

Repeatedly referencing income as a defining factor.

Edited April 17, 2017 by maize

[8circles]

Again!  Not MY definition.  The word itself simply means "accumulated wealth" or

 

noun

1.

abundance of money, property, and other material goods; riches; wealth.

2.

an abundant supply, as of thoughts or words; profusion.

,

This very long, circular discussion started when I posted that having high income doesn't automatically makes a person affluent.  By definition of the word, a person must accumulate assets.

 

Simply getting money does not make one affluent.  Accumulating /keeping money makes someone affluent.

 

This entire thread was based on a premise that making certain income equates to being affluent.  I said that it's simply not true.  Making income is not enough. 

 

I am not getting testy, I am truly perplexed how people don't see the difference. 

 

And again, it's not whether posters agree with me  - I am not making any assertions other than what that word actually means.   They are just assigning their own meaning to the word.

 

Do you think that I'm stupid? Honestly, this is ridiculous. YOUR definition means the definition that YOU have posted several times now. It isn't saying what you keep saying that it says. I'm not accusing you of having written that entry in the dictionary. I'm talking about the definition that YOU have posted. Nobody, not one person, has disagreed with the actual dictionary definitions that YOU have posted. What we are disagreeing with is what YOU keep adding to that definition to fit what your opinion is.

 

NONE of those definitions that you have posted have made any mention of accumulation or keeping money. YOU believe that affluence means that, but the actual definitions that you have posted do not actually say that.

[idnib]

From my understanding, most millionaires don't have all the fancy accouterments that other people think they have.  My son-in-law's parents are probably millionaires.  They are part owners of a business.  It isn't a glamorous business and they are definitely not upper-class people.  They do have much more wealth than we do but their house is smaller than ours and their clothes do not betray their wealth nor do their habits and travels. 

 

I think that tends to be true, or at least it was at the time The Millionaire Next Door was written about 20 years ago. I think the most common auto driven by millionaires at the time of that writing was a Ford truck. Most of them owned a business, had spouses who worked for the business or at least supported it, and lived middle class lifestyles.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have worked as home help for a couple of very wealthy people. They were not ostentatious though they lived and entertained very comfortably. I know one other millionaire who pinches pennies very tightly. But they also choose to use their money to help a lot of other people around the world. None of them homeschool. In fact those with kids used the public schools.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EmseB]

I think I kind of understand what SereneHome might be getting at because I just recently witnessed something really strange.  A family member inherited six figures.  Low six figures, but six figures.  However, this six figures is likely going to be this person's only income for the rest of her life, minus some government assistance coming in.  In other words, it puts her on a very fixed income given that she will probably live another 20 years or so just going by life expectancy.  She won't have another job, likely ever.  She won't get another inheritance.  This money is her hope for survival.  Except on paper if you say that she had a six-figure income this year, that reads affluence on paper.  This person will buy a very tiny, inexpensive home (think less than 30k) and have to watch every penny.*

 

This is a rare circumstance, but this person will not likely ever be affluent even though right now she has just been handed six figures. So I can see how, if you know in the future that $450k will be the only money they ever make again...they are going to have to live very frugally to make it last.  I've thought about this too in the context of a life insurance policy.  If DH dies I will get a chunk of change, but I certainly will not be affluent, not with 4 kids to feed and 10 years out of the workforce.  So, with some context, what the PP was saying can make some sense.

 

And yeah, okay, a person can not know disaster is going to strike and live affluently on that money they earn while they are earning it, and they would be affluent at that time and then not affluent later.  But I can see situations where getting that amount of money dropped in your lap, or even earning it, would not necessarily make you affluent. Namely, knowing you have to spread it out over the course of 20 or 30 years while raising kids.  Then, thank God you had a banner year, or got an inheritance, or had a life insurance policy so that you can have some margin for a few years.

 

*And I will say that globally, this person would very much be considered affluent, but not here in the US.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think I kind of understand what SereneHome might be getting at because I just recently witnessed something really strange. A family member inherited six figures. Low six figures, but six figures. However, this six figures is likely going to be this person's only income for the rest of her life, minus some government assistance coming in. In other words, it puts her on a very fixed income given that she will probably live another 20 years or so just going by life expectancy. She won't have another job, likely ever. She won't get another inheritance. This money is her hope for survival. Except on paper if you say that she had a six-figure income this year, that reads affluence on paper. This person will buy a very tiny, inexpensive home (think less than 30k) and have to watch every penny.*

 

This is a rare circumstance, but this person will not likely ever be affluent even though right now she has just been handed six figures. So I can see how, if you know in the future that $450k will be the only money they ever make again...they are going to have to live very frugally to make it last. I've thought about this too in the context of a life insurance policy. If DH dies I will get a chunk of change, but I certainly will not be affluent, not with 4 kids to feed and 10 years out of the workforce. So, with some context, what the PP was saying can make some sense.

 

And yeah, okay, a person can not know disaster is going to strike and live affluently on that money they earn while they are earning it, and they would be affluent at that time and then not affluent later. But I can see situations where getting that amount of money dropped in your lap, or even earning it, would not necessarily make you affluent. Namely, knowing you have to spread it out over the course of 20 or 30 years while raising kids. Then, thank God you had a banner year, or got an inheritance, or had a life insurance policy so that you can have some margin for a few years.

 

*And I will say that globally, this person would very much be considered affluent, but not here in the US.

But you are talking about a set sum that will cover 20 years. We, including SereneHome were talking about a yearly income. Even if that person spends every single penny of that income, they will be accumulating that same amount the next year - at least as long as they have that job. Obviously some people don't save money, spend wildly and even go into debt. That's how you get celebrities who were worth millions who end up with nothing. But I don't think that is the norm for people who have those kinds of salaries. They can afford a financial planner or two and most follow their advice to at least some degree.

[EmseB]

But you are talking about a set sum that will cover 20 years. We, including SereneHome were talking about a yearly income. Even if that person spends every single penny of that income, they will be accumulating that same amount the next year - at least as long as they have that job. Obviously some people don't save money, spend wildly and even go into debt. That's how you get celebrities who were worth millions who end up with nothing. But I don't think that is the norm for people who have those kinds of salaries. They can afford a financial planner or two and most follow their advice to at least some degree.

Ah, I thought I saw some reference she made to temporary affluence and having to make said money last beyond that one year of good income, or last beyond a paycheck or something. It was a page or two back, so maybe I'm coming in too late. If she was talking about someone earning $450k every year as a long term annual salary as not being affluent, I disagree. I thought I read something different than that somewhere.

 

I could just kind of see the concept of what she was getting at via this rare circumstance showing up in my family. Not that six figures isn't a lot of money, because it is, but all of us are probably one disaster away from having to take our savings (if we have one) and turn it into a fixed income. Anyway, I don't quite agree with her take on affluence totally, but I have seen the concept she's talking about up close. Income doesn't tell all about a person's situation.

Edited April 17, 2017 by EmseB

[Jean in Newcastle]

I agree that income isn't the only piece of a person's financial picture.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jean in Newcastle]

PS- I was one of a couple of people arguing that affluence could be temporary and that it did not have to be accumulated year after year. Though of course the longer you can accumulate it, the better.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IsabelC]

I'm not affluent by any definition of relative wealth. As a family, our income falls below the official "poverty line" in Australia, and we own nothing much of value except the fraction of our home that has been paid off. But that said, I guess you could still call us comfortable by global standards, in that we are able to meet all of our basic needs plus quite a few of our 'wants'. 

I would be interested to know how the average home educating family compares with the average school educating family. I suspect it wouldn't be all the different, though.

Edited April 17, 2017 by IsabelC

[Guest]

I'm not affluent by any definition of relative wealth. As a family, our income falls below the official "poverty line" in Australia, and we own nothing much of value except the fraction of our home that has been paid off. But that said, I guess you could still call us comfortable by global standards, in that we are able to meet all of our basic needs plus quite a few of our 'wants'.

 

I would be interested to know how the average home educating family compares with the average school educating family. I suspect it wouldn't be all the different, though.

I think homeschoolers would average out slightly better off. There are more poor, and poorer, hsers than this board is likely to indicate, but there are A LOT of ps families surviving on food stamps and disability (and similar situations). Some hsers too, but a lot more psers. Edited April 17, 2017 by OKBud

[IsabelC]

I think homeschoolers would average out slightly better off. There are more poor, and poorer, hsers than this board is likely to indicate, but there are A LOT of ps families surviving on food stamps and disability (and similar situations). Some hsers too, but a lot more psers.

I was wondering whether the home educators would be less spread out at both ends though? Because I'd assume that since there seem to be people who home school because they can't afford the best schools, that there would be enough people using pricey exclusive schools to balance the very poor public schooling families, leaving most home educators lumped in the middle between those who can't afford to home school and those who can afford superior schools. (Although that could vary between countries, I guess. I gather there are only around 10% of US school students in private schools, whereas in Australia it's closer to 30%.) 

Edited April 17, 2017 by IsabelC

[LuvToRead]

Again!  Not MY definition.  The word itself simply means "accumulated wealth" or

 

noun

1.

abundance of money, property, and other material goods; riches; wealth.

2.

an abundant supply, as of thoughts or words; profusion.

,

This very long, circular discussion started when I posted that having high income doesn't automatically makes a person affluent.  By definition of the word, a person must accumulate assets.

 

Simply getting money does not make one affluent.  Accumulating /keeping money makes someone affluent.

 

This entire thread was based on a premise that making certain income equates to being affluent.  I said that it's simply not true.  Making income is not enough. 

 

I am not getting testy, I am truly perplexed how people don't see the difference. 

 

And again, it's not whether posters agree with me  - I am not making any assertions other than what that word actually means.   They are just assigning their own meaning to the word.

 

This doesn't mean a houseful of stuff.  Accumulated wealth and an abundance of money are not the same thing.  A hoarder living paycheck to paycheck has a lot of material goods, but I wouldn't consider them affluent.  An abundance simply means more than enough.

 

• Definition of abundance

1. 1:  an ample quantity :  an abundant amount :  profusion a city that has an abundance of fine restaurants

2. 2:  affluence, wealth a life of abundance

3. 3:  relative degree of plentifulnesslow abundances of uranium and thorium — H. C. Urey

 

By this definition of abundance, I fit the definition of affluence.   (even though I don't consider my self affluent).  I have a refrigerator full of food, a closet full of clothes, and a reliable car with a full gas tank.  I

•  

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by LuvToRead

[SereneHome]

Do you think that I'm stupid? Honestly, this is ridiculous. YOUR definition means the definition that YOU have posted several times now. It isn't saying what you keep saying that it says. I'm not accusing you of having written that entry in the dictionary. I'm talking about the definition that YOU have posted. Nobody, not one person, has disagreed with the actual dictionary definitions that YOU have posted. What we are disagreeing with is what YOU keep adding to that definition to fit what your opinion is.

 

NONE of those definitions that you have posted have made any mention of accumulation or keeping money. YOU believe that affluence means that, but the actual definitions that you have posted do not actually say that.

 

No, I am pretty sure I am, for getting into this conversation in the first place

[maize]

The poll is actually quite enlightening, about the makeup of this board if not about homeschoolers in general. The apparent semi bell curve is deceptive because the poll increments are not standardized--if you look at the actual data you see a steady increase in number of respondents at each higher ten percentile mark. Since the bottom 50th percentile is only broken in half we can merely project that the pattern holds there, but I suspect it does especially based on the very small number of respondents in the bottom 25th percentile.

 

The top tenth percentile is split, with more respondents above the 95th percentile. Of you combine the 90th and 95th percentiles together though you see that this is the largest group of respondents. There are more than twice as many respondents who fall into the top 90th percentile as fall into the 61st-70th percentiles, and 3 times as many as fall into the 51st-60th percentiles.

 

Seems that the homeschoolers who answered this poll at least are, in fact, quite affluent on average relative to the overall population. That was rather eye opening to me.

Edited April 17, 2017 by maize

[Jean in Newcastle]

The poll is actually quite enlightening, about the makeup of this board of not about homeschoolers in general. The apparent semi bell curve is deceptive because the poll increments are not standardized--if you look at the actual data you see a steady increase in number of respondents at each higher ten percentile mark. Since the bottom 50th percentile is only broken in half we can merely project that the pattern holds there, but I suspect it does especially based on the very small number of respondents in the bottom 25th percentile.

 

The top tenth percentile is split, with more respondents above the 95th percentile. Of you combine the 90th and 95th percentiles together though you see that this is the largest group of respondents. There are more than twice as many respondents who fall into the top 90th percentile as fall into the 61st-70th percentiles, and 3 times as many as fall into the 51st-60th percentiles.

 

Seems that the homeschoolers who answered this poll at least are, in fact, quite affluent on average relative to the overall population. That was rather eye opening to me.

.

 

This is just anecdotal, but many of the very poor WTMets that I know of on this board have stopped homeschooling in recent years to put their kids in ps so that they could work. So in past years they would have voted but now they would not. I remember hearing one boardie talk about putting down plywood so that they wouldn't fall through the holes in the floor. And another only ate once a day so that her kids could eat. Neither of them have posted in a long time.

[G5052]

I responded, but day-to-day reality is different beyond the number.

 

We live in one of the ten most affluent counties in the U.S., and EVERYTHING is expensive. Thankfully our house is paid for.

 

But DH had to retire early for medical reasons. I work from home, making about what a beginning teacher makes. I've worked at least part-time since my college kid was a toddler, and gradually increased my work over time. We usually have tens of thousands of dollars of medical expenses, and in the fall, we'll have a freshman and a junior commuting to college. So we are comfortable, but tight. We can afford house repairs and will be buying another used vehicle this summer, but no family vacation this year. DD and I are going on a two-nighter four hours away to celebrate her graduation, and DH and I plan a two-nighter two hours away to celebrate our anniversary. DS and I belong to a gym, and he and DD belong to a martial arts studio where they both teach for a tuition reduction. DH and DS enjoy fishing locally, and I occasionally take quilting classes and belong to a quilting guild. DD enjoys art, so I periodically update her supplies.

 

So life is good, but we aren't "living our income."

[maize]

I responded, but day-to-day reality is different beyond the number.

 

We live in one of the ten most affluent counties in the U.S., and EVERYTHING is expensive. Thankfully our house is paid for.

 

But DH had to retire early for medical reasons. I work from home, making about what a beginning teacher makes. I've worked at least part-time since my college kid was a toddler, and gradually increased my work over time. We usually have tens of thousands of dollars of medical expenses, and in the fall, we'll have a freshman and a junior commuting to college. So we are comfortable, but tight. We can afford house repairs and will be buying another used vehicle this summer, but no family vacation this year. DD and I are going on a two-nighter four hours away to celebrate her graduation, and DH and I plan a two-nighter two hours away to celebrate our anniversary. DS and I belong to a gym, and he and DD belong to a martial arts studio where they both teach for a tuition reduction. DH and DS enjoy fishing locally, and I occasionally take quilting classes and belong to a quilting guild. DD enjoys art, so I periodically update her supplies.

 

So life is good, but we aren't "living our income."

And this is reality for many people.

 

Unfortunately there is a much harsher reality for people with lower levels of income--because many of them also have enormous medical bills, and very few have paid for houses.

 

Everything is relative.

[laughing lioness]

This is true with other things too - IQ, for instance.  An IQ of 135 is smart, but the difference between that and someone with an IQ of 155 is enormous and life-defining.

Actually 135 is gifted and 155 is profoundly gifted. An IQ of 100 is average.  Gladwell had an interesting discussion on IQ and performance ability in one of his books (Outlier or David and Goliath) and that regardless of IQ, if you don't have Grit (read the book by Duckworth - excellent) than IQ virtually means nothing. There are also different types of IQ- VIQ (verbal) PIQ (performance) and if there is a disparity (such as with 2e's) than the ability to perform, regardless of IQ is really at risk. 

 

There are so many factors with IQ as well as with how much you make. The people that I know that are affluent take bigger risks financially than those who are not; they have far more investments, they are far more confident about how to generate money if they lost what they had, they are not defined by an employer, etc. etc. 

 

We make a pretty and are on the upper end of the curve- nothing near the affluent stage. My bil is near that. Our lifestyles are grossly dissimilar and their kids consider mine poor.  And we are far more affluent than we ever were when I was not working and we had 5 kids still at home- we have 2 plus a college kid still coming and going and we have far more financial choices. 

[laughing lioness]

.

 

This is just anecdotal, but many of the very poor WTMets that I know of on this board have stopped homeschooling in recent years to put their kids in ps so that they could work. So in past years they would have voted but now they would not. I remember hearing one boardie talk about putting down plywood so that they wouldn't fall through the holes in the floor. And another only ate once a day so that her kids could eat. Neither of them have posted in a long time.

 

I am currently working for an educational company and have homeschooled kids from all over the world. I would say that the trend is for more homeschoolers to be working- I see this even in our local homeschool groups- there are just as many, if not more, homeschooling moms working as not, regardless of their dh's income, and often it's to provide insurance for their families, along with extra income.

[Guest]

Actually 135 is gifted and 155 is profoundly gifted. An IQ of 100 is average. Gladwell had an interesting discussion on IQ and performance ability in one of his books (Outlier or David and Goliath) and that regardless of IQ, if you don't have Grit (read the book by Duckworth - excellent) than IQ virtually means nothing. There are also different types of IQ- VIQ (verbal) PIQ (performance) and if there is a disparity (such as with 2e's) than the ability to perform, regardless of IQ is really at risk.

 

There are so many factors with IQ as well as with how much you make. The people that I know that are affluent take bigger risks financially than those who are not; they have far more investments, they are far more confident about how to generate money if they lost what they had, they are not defined by an employer, etc. etc.

 

We make a pretty and are on the upper end of the curve- nothing near the affluent stage. My bil is near that. Our lifestyles are grossly dissimilar and their kids consider mine poor. And we are far more affluent than we ever were when I was not working and we had 5 kids still at home- we have 2 plus a college kid still coming and going and we have far more financial choices.

135 is gifted? Seriously? I always categorized that as smart/bright but nothing special. Learn something new every day I guess!

[luuknam]

135 is gifted? Seriously? I always categorized that as smart/bright but nothing special. Learn something new every day I guess!

 

 

On tests with a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100, yes, 130 is gifted, 145 is highly gifted, 160 exceptionally gifted, etc:

 

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

[eternalsummer]

Yes, what I am saying is that the difference between moderately or even highly gifted and profoundly gifted can be as significant as the difference between gifted and average (in the same way that being in the top 1/10th of 1% in income is significantly qualitatively different from being affluent to the tune of $350K/yr and 3 cars).

[madteaparty]

The difference between IQ and large income that comes from a salary is that you get to keep your IQ but not necessarily the salary.

Apparently my IQ is not high enough to prevent me from wading into this thread.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Even "money being tight" is relative.  I remember long ago a friend was talking about how tight finances were.  I could really relate.  So when I was given some free tickets to the state fair, I invited this family along because they had been complaining that they could not afford the $25 for tickets for the family to go.  Our free tickets weren't enough for everyone so I gladly contributed an extra $10 to make up the difference even though money was truly tight for us and I often had trouble paying the bills at the end of the month.  So lunch time came and my kids and I pulled out our smashed pb & j sandwiches and our water bottles and the family went to spend a lot more than $25 for greasy fair food.  And then each of the kids went off with $20 in their pocket to buy cheap fair knick-knacks while we looked on.  We did enjoy their company but I felt cheated into helping them even though there were no strings on our offer of tickets.  But I listened to their complaints about money with a much more jaded view after that experience. 

[laughing lioness]

ananemone, on 17 Apr 2017 - 3:07 PM, said:

Yes, what I am saying is that the difference between moderately or even highly gifted and profoundly gifted can be as significant as the difference between gifted and average (in the same way that being in the top 1/10th of 1% in income is significantly qualitatively different from being affluent to the tune of $350K/yr and 3 cars).

 

I agree with you on this - honestly, I am always blown away by how much we make compared to our life-style- older cars, few vacations (and when we take them they are tied in with business), very little retirement. We make way too much for college aid for our kids and not enough to have significant amounts to give them, regardless of the great scholarships they get. We live pretty frugally, even now- though the kids do take music lessons and karate and we have a unique and expensive diet. That being said, I always thought if we made it to this point, we'd been living much better than we actually do. 

My bil (who is a stock-broker, goes by an income of $150K a year is lower middle class while above it is solid middle class. 

A far cry from middle class being defined by owning your own house. 

 

Arctic Mama, on 17 Apr 2017 - 2:53 PM, said:

135 is gifted? Seriously? I always categorized that as smart/bright but nothing special. Learn something new every day I guess!

 

dh did his dissertation on IQ - we talk about all sorts of odd IQ things around here! lol.

Edited April 17, 2017 by laughing lioness

[Ausmumof3]

When we were lower middle class (when I considered us lower middle class) there no budgeting for new shoes, there was just buying used ones. Always. Certainly there was no building of any house. We had no assets.

 

Maybe we were actually lower class (poor) instead of lower middle?

To me not being able to afford new shoes - even cheap ones from target or Kmart would fit lower class or poor definition. Having to budget for a pair of shoes would fit middle.

[Seasider]

You're right about everything. We didn't know better and spent a TON of money on our windows when one of those salesguys showed up. We didn't have the money to spend. It was awful.

 

It wasn't until after my DH took at a job where he had a budget and had to be the person who hired contractors for his company that he figured out the game. And when the next salesperson came to our house for a roof, I was sooo anxious. It wasn't until my normally mild-mannered, polite husband made a "you are CRAZY" face to the salesguy, laughed derisively, and said, "Uh...no. That's a ridiculous quote," that I started to relax. There are rules to the game that no one tells you.

 

I think I need to read Hillbilly Elegy.

This is my dh. He is so friendly and polite, salesmen are shocked when he slides back their estimate with a smile and says, "Aw, c'mon. We both know you can do better than that." He will very pleasantly go back and forth til the price goes waaaay down.

 

My job is to pour iced tea and keep my mouth shut.

 

I will be checking the library for Hillbilly Elegy.

[Ausmumof3]

Every definition I look at has affluent as wealthy or having an abundance of property. I think the word stems from flowing or overflowing in some way though I'm not sure.

 

I don't think we are affluent in that sense. We are more comfortable than others less than others. We have a house (with mortgage) can afford shoes and clothes and school books though we have to be sensible about it and even have pets and kids get to do some activities. We need to do a lot of work to the house which we can't afford right now but probably can save for. I would say that makes us 'comfortable'.

 

It seems like some people would define that as affluent but I think the word affluent implies a higher level of wealth than that. To me the definition of affluent is not "can afford shoes".

 

I didn't answer the polls because finances are different down here anyway.

 

Dhs income on its own is above average but on a similar quiz which takes into account number of kids is below average. However we always have the option of a second income.

[luuknam]

It doesn't surprise me. I have long felt that much of the 'vision' of what a good education is on these boards incorporates a solidly middle to upper middle class world view.

 

 

I don't think that's really all that unique to these boards though - it seems to be what the schools are aiming toward too, except that people here tend to actually intend for their kids to master all that college prep stuff, whereas schools want the students to master it but know it won't happen, yet don't adjust their expectations. Or something along those lines. 

 

I glanced through some ASVAB prep books in the library the other day, and there are a few sections on that that schools seem to neglect these days. If everybody was focusing on prepping for the ASVAB instead of the SAT, you'd see a lot more automotive and shop work appear on people's curricula lists. Not that I'm saying we should all aim to pass the ASVAB... just a musing on the role of what test is the most important and how they influence on what people teach and value.

[luuknam]

It seems like some people would define that as affluent but I think the word affluent implies a higher level of wealth than that. To me the definition of affluent is not "can afford shoes".

 

 

RIght. It's more at the level of shoe-collection of Imelda Marcos.

[Guest]

Every definition I look at has affluent as wealthy or having an abundance of property. I think the word stems from flowing or overflowing in some way though I'm not sure.

 

I don't think we are affluent in that sense. We are more comfortable than others less than others. We have a house (with mortgage) can afford shoes and clothes and school books though we have to be sensible about it and even have pets and kids get to do some activities. We need to do a lot of work to the house which we can't afford right now but probably can save for. I would say that makes us 'comfortable'.

 

It seems like some people would define that as affluent but I think the word affluent implies a higher level of wealth than that. To me the definition of affluent is not "can afford shoes".

 

I didn't answer the polls because finances are different down here anyway.

 

Dhs income on its own is above average but on a similar quiz which takes into account number of kids is below average. However we always have the option of a second income.

Yes, the word "affluent" has the Latin root for "to flow." So, it is an overflowing amount; an abundance.

 

I didn't answer the poll in part because these discussions never go well. What is "poor," what is "comfortable," what is "rich" is highly subjectie.

[maize]

Yes, the word "affluent" has the Latin root for "to flow." So, it is an overflowing amount; an abundance.

 

I didn't answer the poll in part because these discussions never go well. What is "poor," what is "comfortable," what is "rich" is highly subjectie.

It is subjective.

 

It is also, rightly, relative. Which means it all depends on what you are comparing to. On a global scale, the vast majority of Americans are affluent. On a national scale, I would say someone with more income and/or assets than 90% of the population is comparatively affluent. If comparing only to the folks in the bottom 25th percentile, someone at the 75th percentile is affluent.

 

A person at the 95th percentile will tend to think only someone in the 99th percentile is affluent, and someone at the 99th percentile will look at the person in the 99.9th percentile. But from a society wide perspective all of those are affluent--just to different degrees.

Edited April 18, 2017 by maize

[TravelingChris]

I am wondering if I did the poll wrongly.  We have three sources of income (that really matter= not the piddling amounts we make with our saving account((at 1% or whatever it is)) or even our fairly small investments that are not 401K and what dividends we make).  Those are my dh's income which is the largest portion, then his retirement pay, and finally his disability pay.  If I only counted income, I would have put us in a different, lower category.

[Ausmumof3]

RIght. It's more at the level of shoe-collection of Imelda Marcos.

Funny thing is this discussion keeps making me think of a couple whose house DH worked on at one stage. She had a dedicated shoe closet with automatically closing and opening doors and the walls entirely lined with shoes. That is maybe even beyond affluent but definitely affluent.

[Crimson Wife]

I recognize this as true but I also see a lot of implying that wealthy people are actually poor because houses cost x amount.

 

No one is claiming that. But it is impossible to say that an income of $X is "middle class" and an income of $2X is "wealthy" without taking into consideration the purchasing power of those incomes. If housing costs $Y vs. $4Y, then the family making $X may well be better off financially than the family making $2X.

[maize]

I am wondering if I did the poll wrongly. We have three sources of income (that really matter= not the piddling amounts we make with our saving account((at 1% or whatever it is)) or even our fairly small investments that are not 401K and what dividends we make). Those are my dh's income which is the largest portion, then his retirement pay, and finally his disability pay. If I only counted income, I would have put us in a different, lower category.

All of those sources would be included in your income.

[Carol in Cal.]

The thing is, affluence buys you the ability to have a different attitude toward opportunities.

 

I remember when DD wanted to learn soccer we signed her up for some fairly inexpensive community oriented classes to see if she liked it enough to head into team sport classes.

 

I regarded this as good physical exercise and a low-risk way to try something new and kind of 'do PE', as did most of the families.  But there were a few folks who were really pushing their kids hard, and at first I thought, dude lighten up you are obnoxious and you are going to make your son hate this.  But later I heard a mom explaining to her son that they had sacrificed to be able to pay for this class, and that if he didn't pay close attention and try his best at all times, it was like he didn't appreciate that, and that they wouldn't be able to do it again very soon so he had to make the most of this opportunity.  And that, right there, was the affluence difference.  Compared to them, we were affluent.  No question at all.  And that made a big difference in how their son experienced this identical class.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[kathkath]

I found this calculator interesting as it adjusts for family size and location. It calculates what you would need to make to live a modest but comfortable lifestyle based on your family size and the COL where you live. I feel that we live a fairly comfortable life although we do have to be careful and things do get tight sometimes. We make a decent amount below the amount it gives us. We also spend less in every category so we make it work. If we did make that much I still wouldn't consider us wealthy but we would be able to relax a bit.

 

 

http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

 

The chart in the OP doesn't quite seem right to me. Our income certainly doesn't put us in the "top" of anything in our HCOL, High tax area.

We are in a very HCOL area and even with our zip code put in there, it said we only need $1800 for housing. You can't get a 1br apartment for that where we live.

Edited April 18, 2017 by kathkath