6 ms·

I like the Economist in general but I press the back button when the instant they start shilling for wealth inequality. It’s called “anchoring”. 350k a year w

I like the Economist in general but I press the back button when the instant they start shilling for wealth inequality. It’s called “anchoring”. 350k a year was a ton of money that bought you home ownership, supporting a family, saving for retirement, and some if not all of the finer things even in a desirable geography. 15-25 years ago. 350k is relatively a ton of money compared to dystopian nightmare of constant insecurity at the median. 350k is a damned sight better than typical household income, take home is $19,319.25, which is very comfortable but not “lavish” for a childless bachelor with no debt most anywhere. But throw in funding your 401k, ~18k, renting a single-family home in a desirable geo in a neighborhood you’d park your car on the street: ~13k, couple of car payments/reg/insurance/maintenance, ~11.5k, 4 decent mobile phone plans, decent internet, utilities: 10.5k, couple of grand in student loans: maybe like ~8k, a year’s worth of school clothes and supplies, replace a piece of furniture or two or a TV that craps out, a laptop or iPad or whatever someone broke or lost or was stolen because they’re kids, and the long tail of “major expenses” that you never see coming amortized over a year: ~7k, fund college savings for two public universities: ~5k, healthy groceries you don’t have to ruthlessly optimize and the occasional dinner out with your partner: ~3.5k, save up a robust emergency fund and then build a portfolio that will let you retire before 70 with a life expectancy pushing 90: zero. Hope you’re not passionate about any hobbies that cost money and never want to go on vacation. You did a STEM-heavy undergrad, passed the MCAT, did years of extremely technical advanced degree education, took years off your life pulling crazy hours in a residency, built a practice. You’re among the most highly educated and indispensable members of society. And your “lavish” profligate conspicuous consumption is living in California, sending your kids to public universities, and retiring ever? No, it’s the median that’s barbaric, not a modestly comfortable middle-class lifestyle you worked your ass of for that was pretty mundane for educated folks even a few decades ago.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
P_I_Staker 3y ago
I'm guessing you make close to 350k or over it. 80k a year is a ton of money. It's not so great in the bay area, but in the vast majority of the country, and even in the bay area it's life changing money. It covers a lot. I'm sick of reading defenses of people making 250k+ acting like they're in the poor house. I get families are expensive, but lifestyles have inflated to such an absurd degree. I've been on both sides of this argument, but it's so frustrating. I def agree with the median sucking, however I know plenty of people IN the median that feel differently. It's so strange to hear all this doom and gloom from people like me. I get that we don't have all the luxeries we were promised. In the 90s it would have been $90-150k and you would have a vacation house. These were really prosperous times if you were in the middle class. I get that we've experienced a bit of a "darth vader I changed the deal moment". There seems to be more expenses and we're getting less out of the deal (though more in some other ways). All that said, you're comparing against very prosperous people who were getting a pretty good deal.
Manuel_D 3y ago
> 350k is a damned sight better than typical household income This is an absolutely baffling statement. Median income in the USA is $76,000: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-27... Perhaps it makes more sense if you limited this comparison to top-20 college graduates that could realistically work for top law firms or tech companies. But $350K is still not remotely a slight better than the typical household income.
- svachalek 3y ago
  "damned sight" means "a whole lot" not "slight"
- rendang 3y ago
  "sight better", not "slight better". Not sure if you made a typo or misread the post you're replying to
tunesmith 3y ago
People are gonna bash for complaining about 350k, but you're directionally right; the system is fucked up. The question is whether people can expect a reasonable retirement by working within the system. I think you can make the same argument just by comparing the median income with median expenses, and then actually seeing: can those people max out their 401k's? Do they even have 401k's? Can they max out their Roth's? If they do, what will they have when they retire? Is it enough? I would bet that in those sorts of scenarios, we're further away from "enough" than we used to be.
- trgn 3y ago
  The numbers dont jibe with reality. Yes, 80k (or whatever the median is) feels low, but people are constantly - in reality - retiring, vacationing, sending their kids to school, buying cars, eating out, ... on that income. There's a huge disconnect, I don't know where it stems from. The average/median american is not living in destitution, at the brink of collapse. The fact that 350k feels low, is, I don't know, weird (although, like you, I understand that directionally it _feels_ about right).
  - tunesmith 3y ago
    I met with a fee-only fiduciary financial planner a while back. This was after several years of making income that I knew was above average, even somewhat above average in tech. We plotted out our expenses (which aren't exorbitant), plugged in our account balances, talked about wanting to retire maybe in our mid-late 50s rather than 65. Mind you, this is me maxing out 401k and Roth almost every year, and saving excess into a taxable "retirement" account as well. We answer a bunch more advanced questions, they press the button that runs all the Monte Carlo scenarios, and the result was... we were basically on target. We weren't on the road to fuck-you money, but we were on a road to be able to retire in the desired timeframe and meet our current expenses, maybe with a couple of vacations per year added on top. And I can't explain the emotional reaction I had. Like, I was relieved and proud that I had done a good job saving, but... I also knew that I was far above average in income and saving, and even with that was only "on target" rather than exceeding. I eventually spluttered out my words to the financial planner, asking about all the other people out there that make less and aren't in a position to see financial planners, and with a sad look on his face, he simply said: "It is going to change society."
strikelaserclaw 3y ago
doctors can move to any low col city and make similar amounts to living in CA (which is certainly not available to software engineers wanting to make the big bucks), not to mention a lot of them marry high income spouses as well. Just a FYI, i don't believe wealth inequality really stems from the people making 350-700k working jobs, it really stems from the minority of people / corporations who seem to own a ton of capital.
vel0city 3y ago
After tax takehome for a married $350k income in California would be $230k/yr. Your list of expenses totaled to $58,500. What happened to the other $171,500/yr??
yibg 3y ago
The cost numbers make no sense without a denominator. Take home looks like per month, 401l per year. Rental, per ..? 13k per month for rent is insane, per year is super cheap.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

P_I_Staker 3y ago

I'm guessing you make close to 350k or over it. 80k a year is a ton of money. It's not so great in the bay area, but in the vast majority of the country, and even in the bay area it's life changing money. It covers a lot. I'm sick of reading defenses of people making 250k+ acting like they're in the poor house. I get families are expensive, but lifestyles have inflated to such an absurd degree. I've been on both sides of this argument, but it's so frustrating. I def agree with the median sucking, however I know plenty of people IN the median that feel differently. It's so strange to hear all this doom and gloom from people like me. I get that we don't have all the luxeries we were promised. In the 90s it would have been $90-150k and you would have a vacation house. These were really prosperous times if you were in the middle class. I get that we've experienced a bit of a "darth vader I changed the deal moment". There seems to be more expenses and we're getting less out of the deal (though more in some other ways). All that said, you're comparing against very prosperous people who were getting a pretty good deal.

Manuel_D 3y ago

> 350k is a damned sight better than typical household income This is an absolutely baffling statement. Median income in the USA is $76,000: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-27... Perhaps it makes more sense if you limited this comparison to top-20 college graduates that could realistically work for top law firms or tech companies. But $350K is still not remotely a slight better than the typical household income.

svachalek 3y ago
"damned sight" means "a whole lot" not "slight"
rendang 3y ago
"sight better", not "slight better". Not sure if you made a typo or misread the post you're replying to

tunesmith 3y ago

People are gonna bash for complaining about 350k, but you're directionally right; the system is fucked up. The question is whether people can expect a reasonable retirement by working within the system. I think you can make the same argument just by comparing the median income with median expenses, and then actually seeing: can those people max out their 401k's? Do they even have 401k's? Can they max out their Roth's? If they do, what will they have when they retire? Is it enough? I would bet that in those sorts of scenarios, we're further away from "enough" than we used to be.

trgn 3y ago
The numbers dont jibe with reality. Yes, 80k (or whatever the median is) feels low, but people are constantly - in reality - retiring, vacationing, sending their kids to school, buying cars, eating out, ... on that income. There's a huge disconnect, I don't know where it stems from. The average/median american is not living in destitution, at the brink of collapse. The fact that 350k feels low, is, I don't know, weird (although, like you, I understand that directionally it _feels_ about right).
- tunesmith 3y ago
  I met with a fee-only fiduciary financial planner a while back. This was after several years of making income that I knew was above average, even somewhat above average in tech. We plotted out our expenses (which aren't exorbitant), plugged in our account balances, talked about wanting to retire maybe in our mid-late 50s rather than 65. Mind you, this is me maxing out 401k and Roth almost every year, and saving excess into a taxable "retirement" account as well. We answer a bunch more advanced questions, they press the button that runs all the Monte Carlo scenarios, and the result was... we were basically on target. We weren't on the road to fuck-you money, but we were on a road to be able to retire in the desired timeframe and meet our current expenses, maybe with a couple of vacations per year added on top. And I can't explain the emotional reaction I had. Like, I was relieved and proud that I had done a good job saving, but... I also knew that I was far above average in income and saving, and even with that was only "on target" rather than exceeding. I eventually spluttered out my words to the financial planner, asking about all the other people out there that make less and aren't in a position to see financial planners, and with a sad look on his face, he simply said: "It is going to change society."

strikelaserclaw 3y ago

doctors can move to any low col city and make similar amounts to living in CA (which is certainly not available to software engineers wanting to make the big bucks), not to mention a lot of them marry high income spouses as well. Just a FYI, i don't believe wealth inequality really stems from the people making 350-700k working jobs, it really stems from the minority of people / corporations who seem to own a ton of capital.

vel0city 3y ago

After tax takehome for a married $350k income in California would be $230k/yr. Your list of expenses totaled to $58,500. What happened to the other $171,500/yr??

yibg 3y ago

The cost numbers make no sense without a denominator. Take home looks like per month, 401l per year. Rental, per ..? 13k per month for rent is insane, per year is super cheap.