4 ms·

Attempting to answer the question a different way... I presented three fictional "couples" and their career choices that would easily get you to the $125,000 p

Attempting to answer the question a different way... I presented three fictional "couples" and their career choices that would easily get you to the $125,000 point in today's labor market. None of these pairing would be considered "highly compensated" or upper class. Middle class would be a more appropriate designation. With regards to the "suck" factor - try running a household in SF, LA, or NYC (with kids and spouse) on that amount. I don't think owning my own home and having good schools is a particularly decadent expectation. Or having good access to health care and support services. Nor should I be expected to leverage myself to the eyeballs to buy a starter home. Would think that the expectation of a professional earning that amount is that they are providing their kids with an environment where their kids can replicate their success.

pborowicz 10y ago
I don't think owning my own home and having good schools is a particularly decadent expectation. To the GOP, your just greedy.
qsymmachus 10y ago
Obviously you are correct that $125k does not go in far in SF, LA, or NYC as it does in Cleveland. But these cities are extreme outliers, and my main point remains that you need a little more perspective about what "definitely sucks" in America. I make right around $125k and live in SF. I have the luxury of not having to think much about how I spend my money, and yet I still have $2000-$3000 left over every single month. For perspective, half of all Americans would not be able to afford a single unexpected $400 expense[1]. That's what definitely sucks, not the fact that I can't afford a house in Bernal Heights. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/tnearly-half-of-americans-say-they-cant-afford-an-unexpected-400-expense/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/tn...
paulmd 10y ago
What you are referring to is what the Wall Street Journal once called the "HENRYs" - High Earner, Not Rich Yet. Or in other words, "once I spend all of my money, I have nothing left!". This is an argument that can be made at virtually any income level. Consider the following article and this really charming infographic they put together: http://www.wsj.com/articles/six-figure-incomesand-facing-financial-ruin-1409936418 http://www.wsj.com/articles/six-figure-incomesand-facing-fin... http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BF-AE118B_05WIc_G_20130104192101.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BF-AE118B_05WIc_G_... (infographic from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873236896045782201...) After all - $400k isn't really that much, after you've paid taxes and put away $22k per year for retirement and the kids' college, and after you're done spending $87k per year on a mortgage, $25k per year on property taxes, $40k per year on maintenance and utilities, $30k per year on groceries, $21k per year on dining out, $26k per year on vacations, $24k per year on car expenses, $12k on country club dues, $10k per year on children's sports, and $9k per year on gifts and donations. Why in fact you're $10k in the hole! I don't quite know how to say this other than bluntly, but $125k is a long ways above median household income everywhere in the country. For comparison, the median household income for New York City is $50,711 and the median household income for the San Francisco Metro Area is $83,222. Most people live off less than $125k, don't pretend it's impossible. Expenses tend to find a way to encompass available income unless you make a deliberate effort to stop that - even for people making $400k per year. $125k isn't "rich" in the sense that you could quit working and live off the income from your investments or commute every weekend from your villa in the Caribbean, but it's vastly more than most people will ever see, and it's enough to be totally financially secure _if you choose to be_. This is really the distinction the article is getting at: some people use "lower/middle/upper" in the sense of income quantiles, other people use it in the sense of working-vs-rentier classes (i.e. proletariat-vs-bourgeois). But there's always been a group of HENRYs - Marx labelled them as the "petit bourgeois".

pborowicz 10y ago

I don't think owning my own home and having good schools is a particularly decadent expectation. To the GOP, your just greedy.

qsymmachus 10y ago

Obviously you are correct that $125k does not go in far in SF, LA, or NYC as it does in Cleveland. But these cities are extreme outliers, and my main point remains that you need a little more perspective about what "definitely sucks" in America. I make right around $125k and live in SF. I have the luxury of not having to think much about how I spend my money, and yet I still have $2000-$3000 left over every single month. For perspective, half of all Americans would not be able to afford a single unexpected $400 expense[1]. That's what definitely sucks, not the fact that I can't afford a house in Bernal Heights. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/tnearly-half-of-americans-say-they-cant-afford-an-unexpected-400-expense/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/tn...

paulmd 10y ago

What you are referring to is what the Wall Street Journal once called the "HENRYs" - High Earner, Not Rich Yet. Or in other words, "once I spend all of my money, I have nothing left!". This is an argument that can be made at virtually any income level. Consider the following article and this really charming infographic they put together: http://www.wsj.com/articles/six-figure-incomesand-facing-financial-ruin-1409936418 http://www.wsj.com/articles/six-figure-incomesand-facing-fin... http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BF-AE118B_05WIc_G_20130104192101.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BF-AE118B_05WIc_G_... (infographic from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873236896045782201...) After all - $400k isn't really that much, after you've paid taxes and put away $22k per year for retirement and the kids' college, and after you're done spending $87k per year on a mortgage, $25k per year on property taxes, $40k per year on maintenance and utilities, $30k per year on groceries, $21k per year on dining out, $26k per year on vacations, $24k per year on car expenses, $12k on country club dues, $10k per year on children's sports, and $9k per year on gifts and donations. Why in fact you're $10k in the hole! I don't quite know how to say this other than bluntly, but $125k is a long ways above median household income everywhere in the country. For comparison, the median household income for New York City is $50,711 and the median household income for the San Francisco Metro Area is $83,222. Most people live off less than $125k, don't pretend it's impossible. Expenses tend to find a way to encompass available income unless you make a deliberate effort to stop that - even for people making $400k per year. $125k isn't "rich" in the sense that you could quit working and live off the income from your investments or commute every weekend from your villa in the Caribbean, but it's vastly more than most people will ever see, and it's enough to be totally financially secure _if you choose to be_. This is really the distinction the article is getting at: some people use "lower/middle/upper" in the sense of income quantiles, other people use it in the sense of working-vs-rentier classes (i.e. proletariat-vs-bourgeois). But there's always been a group of HENRYs - Marx labelled them as the "petit bourgeois".