| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:56 pm: | 
|
cjc-- recently? Being unemployed compared to Bill Gates in a recession, seems to me to be increasing wage disparity.-- BUT not so recently--- check this out:
1936 thru 1960. Big time wage compression. This is when the middle class, as we know it, was built. Now that Class warfare has been declared on the Middle class, (1976 to 2006) the middle class has seen its wages not keep up with inflation since 1975 or so.
In the 4 years of WW2,workers wages tripled. This was a period of wage compression.
Hey Innis..... got any great Kevin Phillips quotes from uhhh
"Wealth & Democracy" that might shed some more light? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2366
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Foj - compared to the people who make 35K I'd agree that people in the 300K + income range may seem rich. However, I'd argue that 300K+ in this neck of the woods (the north east) places you solidly in the middle/upper middle class not upper. Its not even close. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4686
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 12:57 am: |
|
I'd argue that it's a problem that you need a $300K income to be in the middle class. We're not paying any of the traditional middle-class jobs that much money. Even the top person in the local school districts only makes about half of that. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:03 am: |
|
Dear Sportsnut,
Only people who have been making $300K+ for quite some time could think that it only "seems" rich. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:10 am: |
|
OK, what out of touch moron doesn't think that 300K is rich? |
SLK Lives!
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:30 am: |
|
Alleygater-
In the big picture, 300k is well off, but not rich by any means...
-SLK |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9138
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
In Alabama it's rich. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2367
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 10:00 am: |
|
I agree with Tom and Dave. As Tom said it's a shame that it takes that much to be considered middle class and in this area in no way does it make you rich. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dellusional. It makes you well off as SLK says and very comfortable but it doesn't make you rich. I'm not saying that you should feel sorry for anyone in that bracket but it really isn't enough income to be considered "rich" in this area.
Steel I'm not sure what you're saying or implying (but that doesn't surprise me). If I were making 300K living in Alabama I'm sure I'd feel rich, not so here in good old NJ. It's certainly not enough to dine on caviar served by hired help as some would like you to believe. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1897
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
Ah, folks:
"The rich are very different from you and me," to paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald.
SLK says that $300K is comfortable. Well, maybe. Not the kind of comfort that lasts long, if you observe what often happens.
The $300-800K level is usually leveraged to the hilt and needs to bust a-- to get a bigger number next year.
The need to feel the immediate reward for all the hours burned getting that number pushes people to plunge into the higher level of debt/leverage, which gets alleviated with the next raise and bonus (if there are any) until that raise and bonus push to the next higher debt level. And so on...
Frankly, if you're making $800K to $1MM and are highly leveraged, you're less well off and under way more pressure than someone making half that and debt-free.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9142
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
The rich don't really work. They invest. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1898
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 10:31 am: |
|
Well said, dave. The investments are the work. There seems also to be less conspicuous consumption. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13449
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 10:33 am: |
|
Now you folks are arguing over the meaning of words, which doesn't seem very useful to me. $300K means your needs are taken care of. In fact, they are taken care of with a lot less than that. And you have plenty of luxuries, too. Whether you call that well off, upper middle class, rich, or anything else doesn't matter.
There is no income level which will dispell money anxieties, because ambition and self-induced stress are limitless. Once you have a good college fund for your kids, you can worry about how your retirement fund will hold up against a worst-case scenario of a long term economic downturn. Or whatever. So even when someone still has money worries, we can still consider him to be doing very well for himself.
|
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Sportsnut,
-Tom is right as we have now drifted to the semantics of the word "rich" but I think that different people's appreciation of what is a lot of money or what is not a lot of money certainly informs their view of the justice or injustice of the tax system.
He is also right that the anxiety of money never leaves some people no matter how much they make.
-I'm not trying to be mysterious. I would have thought that it was pretty clear that I was simply saying that the word "rich" is relative to anyone's recent financial station in life.
-If someone has been putt-putting along on $25 or $35K for years and suddenly for some reason started making $300K -they be rich.
If you don't personally think that $300K a year is "rich" can you at least please tell me that you think it is a lot of money? Can you give me that concession at least? And if not, -can you give me $300K?
Thank you. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13466
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 4:41 pm: |
|
And what essentials of life does a person earning $300K have to make compromises on? I'm speaking of making choices between paying for medicines or groceries, or even between funding retirement and college for kids. I am under the impression that someone making $300K can take care of all of his essentials and a lot more, unless he made some extremely foolish decisions, such as having 12 kids or buying too large a home or getting into tremendous debt.
I believe I read that median income in Maplewood is $60K, and Maplewood's median is probably well above typical for the US or even NJ.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2368
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 5:28 pm: |
|
A person earning 300K a year shouldn't have to make compromises on essentials. Is that your definition of rich? Having your essentials covered plus a little extra? I think that your impression of "a lot more" slightly off, especially if we are talking about your average NJ family with two kids and decent sized house (in the current market). By the time you pay your taxes, your housing costs, monthly expenses, your childcare, etc. there is little left for the "luxuries" that most people think are in abundance in a 300K household. But I agree that you should easily cover the essentials. I call that upper middle class.
As Chris Rock once said, "Shaq is rich. The white guy who signs his check is wealthy."
While that's only a slight hyperbole he's on target. 300K per year for a number of years could make you rich if you make the right decisions and (as Innis notes) you didn't leverage yourself to get there. 300K is just a number - there maybe other circumstances that you don't know about. Family situations etc. that require extensive financial resources whatever.
Steel, to answer your question, I think that if you have a net worth in excess of $1M (not including retirement accounts, college savings) and you are earning 300K a year on a consistent basis you'd be rich. Not wealthy, but rich. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13470
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 5:43 pm: |
|
sportsnut, it doesn't matter if you use the word rich or wealthy. It's way above most standards of living. Those so-called obligations would not have been heaped on such a person without having that income. Parkinson's law says, "the work expands to fit the space allotted" and similarly, the obligations expand to fit the ability to handle them. No shmoe working as a janitor is going to have the sort of taxes, housing costs, monthly expenses, childcare, etc that the 300K earner agrees to taking on. And note my use of the word "agree." We agree to take on our obligations, and then we bemoan them and wonder how we'll handle them.
A year or two ago, you disclosed the amount you paid in income taxes. I won't repeat it here, but it was equal to my gross annual income, which is above Maplewood's median, so I believe your view might be skewed about what's normal and typical.
I hope to be able to read the report that dougw cited. I took a quick look, and it had a lot of graphs that seemed to show that income disparity is increasing, so yes, I think he cherry-picked one datum to refute a basic conclusion of the paper.
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Damn sportsnut, you really are out of touch. If you want to argue about the word rich vs wealthy than I guess you just don't get it. I take it from your logo that you own a Porsche. If you can afford a luxury car like that then you're rich. There is nothing wrong with being rich, many of us aspire to be that way, but c'mon now. TS and I make a pretty good normal-working-people salary and I remember when our combined household income finally made it over $100K/year. I started saying (jokingly whenever we had a troubling discussion about money), "don't worry about that honey, 'cause we're now rich" and going by the tax table that the US Goverment creates well we are. That doesn't mean we can live extravagently by any stretch of the imagination, we have a hard time paying for our life style here in Maplewood, and we certainly haven't figured out how to save money for our futures, let alone our children's (when we have them). But we have chosen to live this life style. We could make other decisions and prioritize other things and we would probably have a lot more money. If we lived in an area where people earned minimum wage, by comparison we'd be rich. As it is, you live in an area where homes very often cost in excess of a million dollars. By comparison, you don't feel rich. I'm guessing you hob-nob with people who earn skads of cash and so by comparison you don't feel wealthy. I go to sleep every night realizing that even in my little ugly house in Maplewood, that needs lots of repairs that I can't afford to make, that I am doing very well for myself. And that I am VERY VERY FORTUNATE. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |
|
So I don't get my $300K? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 1:13 am: |
|
The truth comes out. And the speaker doesn't even give a ••••.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2369
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:36 am: |
|
The way I use those terms is like this: Wealth can be transferred, rich cannot. I never argued whether someone earning 300K was above most standards of living. I merely pointed out that 300K per year doesn't make you "rich" they way most people perceive "rich" people to be. I know that income disparity is increasing and I don't think its a good thing. I think that there is a certain level at which people drink the "koolaid" and forget about what its like to be an employee. I think someone here once mentioned that the true upper echelon earners are part of a club that once you are accepted into you do your damnedest to keep others out of. I'd like to think that if I ever attained that status I wouldn't do the same thing, but I'm sure that's what most have said prior to joining that elite group.
Alley - First of all I don't "hob-nob" with anyone. It is precisely that attitude that annoys me. My car is just that, a car. It is something that I'd wanted since I was a kid, long before I knew how expensive they were. Just about anyone could own one if you really wanted to. My dad, who was a welder by trade and as blue collar as you can get, used to bust my balls when I was younger by introducing me to other union guys he worked with who owned them just to show me that regular guys could own them as well. But I digress. It is really you that is out of touch - I believe I have a very firm grip on reality in this area. You said it yourself that you considered yourself "rich" at 100K, yet you know that that isn't enough money to go out and do and pay for all the improvements to your home that you'd like. I don't think 300K in this area entitles you to that either. As I said its allows you an upper middle class lifestyle. Its a great life, don't get me wrong but its not rich. I don't consider myself fortunate that my family's income is what it is. I consider myself fortunate that my family has avoided the sort of catastrophic illness/prolonged job loss that often leads people into financial ruin. I purposely avoided buying a much larger house so that I wouldn't be a slave to it. All the renovations on our home have been paid for with cash (except the new kitchen which is 50/50) to avoid the situation that Innis describes above. Is that prudent? Only time will tell, but I'd rather have less money in the bank than have an equity loan equal to what I paid for my home like so many others do.
Maybe my view is skewed by the industry that I'm in. When I was just starting out I prepared a lot of tax returns for individuals who make ungodly amounts of money but from what I see now (the 20 or so returns I still do) 300k places people in the upper 50% range.
Steel - Yes it is a lot of money - I reread your question and realized after your last post that I completely didn't answer the question you asked. If I could cut you a check for 300K without feeling the impact I'd consider that rich probably even wealthy. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13477
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:45 am: |
|
Once again, you're describing your own personal belief system about the meanings of particular words. That doesn't matter.
I know that income disparity is increasing and I don't think its a good thing. I think that there is a certain level at which people drink the "koolaid" and forget about what its like to be an employee.
Very glad to hear it. Those points are very important to me, and I'm glad when others agree.
But I think it's also useful to know where you stand relative to others. 300K is not the upper 50%. As I said, I believe 60K is the median in Maplewood. I'll look it up again. Consider what this means, if it's true. It means if you make 60K, half the households -- HALF! -- make less than you. And it means the guy at 300K is probably in the upper 10%, maybe less.
And as I said before, having money worries at the same time as having a high income is a product of one's own choices.
If half your clients make 300K or more, your clients are not a representative sample of any place, except maybe Far Hills.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
sportsnut - you dont have to quibble about rich and wealthy. I think we all know the difference but and its a real issue, if you take a walk down South Orange Ave into Newark to say Sanford Ave and ask what the annual income of the first 20 adults you speak with are, I bet you wouldnt have more then 1 above 50,000 per year.
People are struggling out there making ends meet. They work hard and they live their lives as well as they can. Its not getting easier for them, its getting harder. The government continues to cut the benefits that would help these people like daycare, like food stamps, like after school programs, like student loans and aid, like medicare... The list goes on.
The ability to earn the living you are making is not done in a bubble. Maybe you are near the top of the middle class but the middle class is still supported by a working class. If the working class slips into poverty it wont be long before the middle class is dragged down with it.
Ask any of those Newark residents who you poll if they consider 300K per year to be rich and you would get affirmative answers. Bring a random resident to South Orange and drive around and stop at any house and ask if they think the owner of that house is rich and you would get an affirmative answer.
What is perceived as rich depends on the perspective you are looking at. I see a 300K wage earner as plenty rich. I would certainly trade places in a second. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
Hoops, thanks for being more articulate than myself. It's a love/hate thing for me. I love that my point (or at least a similar one) is being told, but I hate that I was unable to make it clearly all by myself. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Alley- Hoops is - isnt he?
Sports- The fact of the matter is that Economists (professionls in their field) Use quintiles. You seem to be running away from this fact, and you seem to be replacing this fact with your personal obeservations.
The top quintile, or top 20% of family income nationally is about 85k/annum and higher. The suburban part of Essex County is generally well to do. Upthread it was stated that Maplewood has a median income of 60k/annum. TO me this sounds like individual income. Since family income of 60k is just enough to get a mortage, and most families in Maplewood/South Orange own their own houses, and do so easily. 60k family income is not enough to "easily" own a house in this area.
A family with 60k income a year, would most likely buy a house in a more urban area. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2371
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Foj - I'm not running away from anything. I'm merely stating (again) that in this part of the country 300K, while being a great household income, would not make you rich or wealthy or whatever you want to call it. I'd like to see what the top 20% of family income in the greater NYC metro area is, that would be far more relevant to the discussion and point I'm trying to make.
I didn't make any observations about those who are struggling or the reasons they are struggling. I agree with all that Hoops says and his final point about perception is the one I was really arguing. The perception is that 300K is rich, the reality is that it isn't. That's really all I was trying to say. Would most people making 75K a year want to switch places? Of course they would, but that wasn't the question. Who wouldn't want to switch places with someone earning 4 times as much as they are.
Its funny how supposedly open minded people can have such pre-conceived notions about people because of the income bracket they are in (caviar and hired help) or the car they drive (hob-nobbing). |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Ummmm sounds to me like you have a distorted notion of what is rich. IMO, you set the bar too high. And IYO, I set the bar too low. I would say I have the federal government's tax table and a whole slew of information and data to back up my argument though. What do you got? An opinion?
Just because you CHOOSE to live in an area that is affluent doesn't mean that you aren't wealthy. The poor dude living in the slum thinks you're rich. But you choose to live in the greater NYC metro area. Wait a second, I'm pretty sure East Orange, Newark and Irvington are all in the greater NYC metro area. Right? Why don't you go live there and you won't only be wealthy YOU'LL ALSO BE RICH. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5519
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Well, if you go back to Joe Lieberman's plans in the 2004 season to cancel out the tax cuts for 'the wealthy', you have to start raising them on those making $135K. 135K is rich to a Democrat who's peddling class warfare. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13490
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Alleygater, to be fair, the area skews things because of the cost of living. I'd say if you're raising two kids with a household income of $50K, you're facing some challenges serious enough to classify you as poor. And given the statistics, that places you squarely in middle income by national standards.
But sportsnut, you keep focusing on words such as "rich" and "wealthy." What do they mean to you? If "rich" means you get to choose whether or not to work for your living, then yeah, $300K isn't rich. You still have to earn money to pay your mortgage and feed the family.
My guess is that the fifth quintile in the NYC metro area starts at $90K or $100K. So while you may have empathy for your car mechanic, you might gain even more if you learn what he earns. I don't know, but I'll guess $70K or $80K. Maybe even less.
cjc, I'm not sure I agree or disagree that $135K in the NYC area is wealthy. That income won't dispell money worries, but it does assure that you will have everything you need.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1100
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:47 pm: |
|
first post:
"We probably can all agree that a person earning 70K per year is considered middle class and one who earns 386 is upper middle - some might say wealthy."
Most recent post:
"I'm merely stating (again) that in this part of the country 300K, while being a great household income, would not make you rich or wealthy or whatever you want to call it. "
Sportsnut--- I will never agree to the first quote. Ever. Because its utter BS.
National Median Family income was recently about 44k.
The 80 percentile is about 85k.
You say 70k is middle class. Statistics say its about 44k.
You say "one who earns 386 is upper middle - some might say wealthy". Statistics say its solidly in the Upper class.
Then after getting your horns busted by a few MOLers, you qualify your first post, and include "in this part of the country" in your litiny. AS if that makes everything all-right. Well its not. AS the reaction to your distorted world view indicates. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4706
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 12:28 am: |
|
But add that into your equation: living in this part of the country. That's pretty darn good. Sure, you could have as nice a property in Fargo for a lot less. But you'd be in Fargo. One of the things your income gets you is being 30 minutes from Manhattan and all the options that brings. That's why the Bay Area is so expensive; it's cool to live there, and it sucks to live in Dubuque. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 1:24 am: |
|
Sportsnut, I have been giving this some thought, I realize now that my car statement wasn't exactly fair to you. Sorta like a low blow. I realize that with how the car industry gives out nearly free money to people with very low interest loans, or sometimes very high interest loans VERY EASILY to almost anyone who wants one, you often see extremely poor people with luxury cars. Go to the ghetto and you will surely see quite a few Lexus, Escalades, Beemers, etc. And most certainly they couldn't all have been bought with drug money. Of course many of those cars do get reposessed, and very many people might say that it was very stupid for someone with very little money to make their car one of their highest financial priorities. But clearly you don't have to be rich to buy a nice car.
But I also have been thinking, that while a bottom of the line Porsche is only 45k-55k (only about 3 times more expensive than a new low-end car), that the intial cost of the car is actually only a small part of the extra expense of having a luxury car. I'm guessing (since I don't know all that much about luxury cars) that you aren't going to put cheap gas in your car, you want to baby it with the good stuff. You MOST CERTAINLY can't take your car to a normal mechanic, because you wouldn't trust it there, nor would they even have the more expensive parts. And god forbid you get in an accident or an SUV backs into your vehicle, the body work is going to be exponentially more expensive on the sports car. Oh let's not forget the outrageous prices the insurance company will require that you pay because it is expensive to replace, they are usually driven really fast, and because your car is probably red. In general, that luxury car, REALLY ends up being a hugely expensive luxury, that somebody who is poor might not understand when they had first bought it.
So where am I going here? While I apologize for being snarky about your car, my comment really does have some validity to it. I understand that you decided to scrimp and save to have it. And maybe it was a real stretch for you to buy it, but you clearly earn enough money to keep your car over the long haul. And like your decision to buy a home in an expensive area, you did the same with your car. Poor people usually don't have the flexibility to make those decisions. They don't have an option. You could have bought a cheaper car, but you chose not to. That is the reason why someone might assume that you are rich...and no matter how much you want to protest over the word "rich", it doesn't change the fact that you live a lifestyle that a HUGE HUGE HUGE percentage of people can't. And I'm sorry to say that the lifestyle I am talking about includes your car. I believe you implied that you came from a lower class childhood. I did too. But it certainly helped me to have some perspective on what it is like to be poor, and what it means to be rich. Just because your life now feels mostly the same as when you were middle-class, doesn't mean that you aren't now rich. It just means that you didn't notice a dramatic change. Got it. Being Rich vs. being upper middle class vs, being just middle class can feel very much the same according to different criteria. But you can't compare yourself only to your neighbor in Maplewood and cry that you are poor.
I said this before. I have the ugliest and lowest value house on my entire street. Probably by A LOT of money. But I am certainly not poor. I realize that compared to MOST people in this country that my household's income makes us rich. It might be time to look at the rest of the country and for that matter the rest of the world. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 1:26 am: |
|
It wasnt in sportsnut first post, and he hasnt asked to correct it. So I aint buying what you are selling.
Quite Frankly I would consider moving to the country If I had been making 386k for even just the last 3 years. I would build a solar house.
Sports nut got tagged for saying what he said, because those posters consider what he said, to be off base. No way 386k is middle class.
386k in Beverly Hills, is that then middle class? Because of the area your'e refering to. Or 386k on South Munn St. in East Orange, means its super upper class?
Gimme some of what you are smokin, I want a toke. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2372
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 9:06 am: |
|
Foj - sorry for not responding to you ASAP but a death in the family will do that.
I think you may have lost some of your brain power with all that solid research on the voting machine scandals and its affected the way you are looking at my posts.
As compared to national averages 300K seems weathly, strike that is wealthy. If I were living in Alabama or Kansas I'd consider myself fairly well off. But again here in this part of the country I'd still contend that its upper middle at best. I presented this very question to the people I had lunch with yesterday. One definitely makes over 300K (a VP) the other 4 definitely not but all of them earn six figure salaries. One person considered 300K to be "rich" all others said no, not in this area where two incomes are common and the cost of living is so high.
The guy in my post who earns 386 lives in Stamford CT. He considers himself well off and solidly upper middle. I understand about the choices we make about where we choose to live and its doubtful that if this same guy did the same job somewhere else in the country that he'd earn the same money. The fact is it would probably be lower, but his job would still be one of the better paying jobs placing him solidly in the middle class.
Alley - I appreciate your apology. I see what you are saying. I, never however, cried that I was poor. In fact I have nothing to complain about financially especially if it is of my own doing. BTW, my car is not red, it is dark blue so if you see it wave and I promise I won't thumb my nose at you.
I'd love to go on about this but I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind and you all are certainly not going to change mine. I've seen thousands of tax returns in my 20+ years to help me form my opinions.
Got to go and get ready. Grandma passed away at the age of 98. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
We are discussing the different lifestyles that ""386K" could allow in different parts of the country, with different choices that people make.
I made the point in an earlier posting that many, if not most, people in the $300K-800K range are overleveraged. That is, they make a good deal of money as salaried workers, between base and performance bonus, and they leverage the bucks by getting the next bigger house, car, weekend house in Columbia County, individual soccer and tennis coaches for the kids, etc, all understandable things but not really "necessary."
So they're squeezed, and next year's pay package had better be higher. It's a position many of us have been in, and it's an uncomfortable one.
But rich they ain't. And wealthy they most certainly aren't.
The real question that is begged by the thread's title is: Is the disparity between the "haves and have mores" (as Bush calls them) and the "have nots" getting bigger, and are we developing a larger group of "have nots" vs a smaller and increasingly wealthier class of "have mosts" or "have alls"?
If the answers are yesses, the country is in trouble. We have for several generations criticized the "banana republics" of Latin America where the richest 2% of the population has 95% of the wealth and the land.
Who believes that the US is moving in that direction, and why?
Who believes that the US is moving in the opposite direction, and why?
Who believes that the US fundamentally has no direction, and why? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Sportsnut- give your family my best-
Thank you for accepting my point based on facts:
"As compared to national averages 300K seems weathly, strike that is wealthy." (the bold is mine).
I will grant you that perception of ones own position in life based on income and local comes into play. But this perception can, and is overblown. When ones income puts oneself solidly in the upper class (top 20% income earners), but one "sees" oneself as middle class, based [possibly) on the fact that one lives in a well to do area, I can't help but think that one has been caught up in a sort of "keeping up with the Jones'" trap.
Lets say Joe owns a house in Beverly Hills.... this house is the cheapest around, and Joes income is the lowest of all the residences in Beverly Hills. And Joe makes "the 386k". What could possibly be the rationalization that Joe is low or middle income earner? Based on Joe being the poorest in his area?
I used to live in Pound Ridge NY, bordering Stamford. Nice area. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13516
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
sportsnut,
Sorry about your grandmother, but hallelujah that she lived so long.
Stop by the Irvington post office, or even the DMV anywhere, and see if the clients there are likely to be your tax clients. Most of them have easy tax forms, and they probably do them themselves or use H&R Block. Your sample of the population is skewed. You may charge more than H&R Block, and your clients hear about you through word of mouth, and the word of mouth network is not an even cross section.
How many welders do you know nowadays? That might give you an idea of how your social circle is not a representative sample.
I'm not saying you're wealthier than you deserve, mind you. Just that a person making over $100K is in the top quintile in the NYC metro area. Use whatever label you want, even lower middle class if you like, but it's not in any statistical middle of the population.
Please give my regards to your family.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Sportsnut: May she rest in peace-98 years is a long life. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page