4 ms·
I guess I’ll spell it out for you. An individual making $400K is rarer than a household making $400K so if the upper bound for a household is $250K, the indivi
by pb7 3y ago
I guess I’ll spell it out for you.
An individual making $400K is rarer than a household making $400K so if the upper bound for a household is $250K, the individual upper bound is far lower, which is nowhere near $400K.
The claim that someone that makes even $300K is “middle class” anywhere is hilarious. That person becomes a millionaire in their 20s while living a very cushy life. You’re incredibly out of touch.
- kodah 3y agoI don't think you really understand what that study is saying nor the guidelines of this website. I was single living in that area on roughly $300k. My effective tax rate (state + federal, post Trump's tax changes) was around 34.64% and my rent was 3.6k per month for a two bedroom duplex in San Jose. I'm not sure how you gander that adds up to being a millionaire in any soonish timeframe. The last time I ran Monte Carlo on my income I'd, maybe, make my first million in my late 40s. You're sitting here telling a story about two people who are married making 400k. Optimizing for married people when folks are forced to commute and only telling that story is a tad disengenuous when millennials are known to get married mostly in their 30s. I have a feeling you're mixing up middle-income and middle-class, which are not the same thing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]