Support NeoGAF

[SouthernDragon]

Look it's nice that you can call spending $30 for a meal for 2 a big weekend, that's great i wish i could do the same but going to a fast food chain to grab a snack is not an acceptable evening out for an adult couple nor is it all that healthy. And you support 4 on 50k that's great too. Lucky you live in Miami.

In Sydney 50k would be about $700-750 after tax. Take out $400 a week for rent on a 2 bedroom apartment and $250-300 for groceries and you have $50 left for the week. I'm not sure what you do for a living but $50k is not a bad single wage in Sydney. It's about avg for someone who has no tertiary education and has not completed a trade.

Again i'm not trying to say $200k a year is poor, it just isn't rich when you have 2-3 kids and is nowhere near rich in a city with a high cost of living. And no you can't just move to a cheaper city, cheap city's are cheap for a reason.

And it's expensive for a reason. Higher quality of life, food, educational opportunities, and a safer environment. The reason we live so "cheap" in Miami is because we got the house years ago and have a much lower mortgage payment, don't have car debt (old cars), have minimal student loans (scholarships), and cook mostly at home.

This is to point out that it is possible to live in an expensive city, spend intelligently, and do fine. 200k is not necessary in most cases.

P.S. It's not a fast food chain for a snack, it's a decent local restaurant with reasonable prices. I resent your insinuation that I'm treating my date poorly, especially when I'm on a part-time budget for the most part and doing the best I can.

The median house in Miami currently is $155k. The median house in San Francisco is $625k. How do people not understand that cost of living differs drastically and can affect what income means?

The housing market cratered here, thus the lower price of housing. Our house went from 60k when we bought it 20 years ago to 400k at the peak of the bubble to 250k now. The cost of living DOES fluctuate drastically, especially in Miami. We have some of the largest wealth disparities in the States, and the crazy price/cost fluctuations that go with it.

Context does matter, but like I stated previously, if you are having difficulties with 200k it's because you are living in a nice area with good opportunities for your children, far better than what's available to most. 200k doesn't get you a "middle" class living, not anywhere. If you live in Manhattan and earn 200k for a family of four, the trade off is LIVING IN MANHATTAN.

 

[Cyan]

The median house in Miami currently is $155k. The median house in San Francisco is $625k. How do people not understand that cost of living differs drastically and can affect what income means? Paying a mortgage like that is $36k a year and we haven't even gotten to property tax yet. If you make 50k, you just spent all your money on the house and have nothing left over; not even money for food.

Why are you buying a house in the Bay Area on 50k a year?

Edit:
Man, I don't know why I'm even arguing with you on this one. This article is basically the inverse of a Ripclawe anti-welfare hit piece: it shows dumb people saying dumb things with the express purpose of making you mad.

Ultimately, I agree with you. Cost of living varies widely from place to place, and what seems like a boatload of money in one area might not be nearly so much in another. Especially if one has a family.

Bottom line is, while I think people need to know how to manage their money no matter how much they earn, and while it annoys me when folks making a lot more than most people naively complain about living month-to-month, it's not really my business. Their money, their problems. I just wish they wouldn't mouth off to newspapers about how tough they have it.

 

[Gallbaro]

The median house in Miami currently is $155k. The median house in San Francisco is $625k. How do people not understand that cost of living differs drastically and can affect what income means? Paying a mortgage like that is $36k a year and we haven't even gotten to property tax yet. If you make 50k, you just spent all your money on the house and have nothing left over; not even money for food.

Isn't SF proper the classic example of limousine liberal?

 

[Cyan]

Isn't SF proper the classic example of limousine liberal?

I don't know off the top of my head, so I looked it up. Apparently it originally referred to rich New Yorkers supporting then-Mayor Lindsay, and later to rich Bostonians busing their kids to private schools.

So, no.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

People keep bringing up this cost of housing argument as if it means anything. It means nothing. Your house doesn't exist in a vacuum. You pay more to live in a big city? Cool, that means you're getting things that someone living in a rural area is not. You're paying for certain luxuries that this other person does not have. Stop bringing up this nonsense argument and acting like everyone's house exist in some kind of vacuum and a 3 bedroom apartement in x city is exactly the same as a 3 bedroom in y city.

 

[Cyan]

Cost of living encompasses more than just housing. And yes, you're getting some things the rural folks aren't: access to better amenities, access to better/more jobs, and a higher salary to make up for the cost of living.

All that doesn't actually address the point, which is that regardless of those things you're getting in exchange for the higher cost of living, 50k in NYC is not the same as 50k in rural Appalachia.

 

[Karakand]

People earning 6 figures get squeezed like people living at the poverty line. It's all about cost of living man. 7 figures is pracitcally living on the razor's edge. In Zurich. Why are you laughing at me? Wait, come back.

 

[teh_pwn]

This is the old way of thought.
In case you haven't noticed pretty much nothing but apple has grown over the last 12 years, and you would have had to have some serious balls to invest any substantial money in apple 12 years ago.

I watched my 401k go from 20k to 12k last year in a matter of a quarter, its now back up to 20 but so what.

Id rather take my chances with gambling in vegas, at least there's no illusion about what you are doing. (note i do neither, the only money i put in is in my 401k) There are much better ways to invest your money than gambling in the stock market and assuming your going to get a 9% return, your not though.

The fundamentals of the stock market have not changed and you cannot extrapolate short term trends and say that "things are different now". The stock market by nature is volatile short term, but very consistent long term. It's part of the concept of risk and why reward is given to the risk of short term loss of purchasing power.

But even then your short term trends are wrong. My IRA and 401k are up 40%, and they started in 2006-2007.

Did you even bother to check what you were saying had any truth? Are you looking at indices without factoring in dividends or something? Are your 401k fees insane?

Even without factoring in dividends, the market is up:
VISVX (small cap value): Up 64% in the last 10 years WITHOUT factoring in the ~2% annual dividends
VIMSX (mid cap): Again up over 89%, without factoring in 2% dividends.
Windsor II (Large Cap Value - had significant holdings in banks): Even this fucker is up 13%, without factoring in dividends. Since inception it's had an average of 10% annual interest.

What exactly has changed again? Maybe you're thinking APPL is the market average. The growth it had in the last 5 years is well above the average, let alone stocks during a recession. It probably won't continue much longer. Or at least I hope. A 1+ Trillion USD company of any sort is scary.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

This is the old way of thought.
In case you haven't noticed pretty much nothing but apple has grown over the last 12 years, and you would have had to have some serious balls to invest any substantial money in apple 12 years ago.

I watched my 401k go from 20k to 12k last year in a matter of a quarter, its now back up to 20 but so what.

Id rather take my chances with gambling in vegas, at least there's no illusion about what you are doing. (note i do neither, the only money i put in is in my 401k) There are much better ways to invest your money than gambling in the stock market and assuming your going to get a 9% return, your not though.

no i said past 12 years. look it up, why do you think people in their 40s 10 years ago are worried about their 401k's they haven't grown substantial;y in that same amount of time and now they aren't sure if they will be able to retire.

A person that has invested 50% in US stocks and 50% international stocks through low-cost index funds would have seen $10,000 grow to $17,000 over a decade. A portfolio including bonds would have done even better, since we're in a bond bull market. Sure, returns haven't been as great as the 80s and 90s, but they've done better than inflation.

And this includes two very large recessions. The stock market has had periods where an investor would be underwater if they had only been invested for about a decade. But staying invested for at least 2-3 decades has generally returned very good results (6-7% real returns over inflation each year).

Short term volatility can be very bad, of course, with the stock market in 2009 losing roughly 50% of its value. But if you can weather the storm of short term market volatility, your risk has tended to be rewarded provided you diversify your investments.

Individuals that have seen their 401K gutted are those that have probably tried to time the market, sold when their account was low, and weren't invested when the market recovered very quickly.

People that emotionally invest probably shouldn't invest at all.

 

[Desavona]

And it's expensive for a reason. Higher quality of life, food, educational opportunities, and a safer environment. The reason we live so "cheap" in Miami is because we got the house years ago and have a much lower mortgage payment, don't have car debt (old cars), have minimal student loans (scholarships), and cook mostly at home.

This is to point out that it is possible to live in an expensive city, spend intelligently, and do fine. 200k is not necessary in most cases.

Really ? Is Miami a third world city compared to Sydney? I was quoting general prices for the cheaper suburbs outside Sydney CBD. Safer? Maybe, we still get stabbings, drivebys, gang wars, drug problems etc. not to the extent of somewhere like Detroit i assume but i'm sure its not much worse/better than Miami.

Educational opportunities, does Miami not have public schools? Does it not have a University? How is Sydney any better?

Better food ? Like i have been saying to you from the start, your $30 will get you dinner for 2 at a fast food joint down here or a takeaway joint. So obviously Miami has access to cheaper food meaning you can get more quantity and quality for you $.

P.S. It's not a fast food chain for a snack, it's a decent local restaurant with reasonable prices. I resent your insinuation that I'm treating my date poorly, especially when I'm on a part-time budget for the most part and doing the best I can.

If you can take her to a nice place for $30 that's great! My point was that in Sydney you most likely can't. Therefore people require different levels of money to survive in different cities around the world. And that's my point, a 200k family of 4 is not rich "everywhere they go".

Context does matter, but like I stated previously, if you are having difficulties with 200k it's because you are living in a nice area with good opportunities for your children, far better than what's available to most. 200k doesn't get you a "middle" class living, not anywhere. If you live in Manhattan and earn 200k for a family of four, the trade off is LIVING IN MANHATTAN.

Yes but the trade off back is you have to work in Manhattan to make 200k. That's why it's so expensive to live in places like these. High demand and high competition for goods and services. Ultra competitive workforce that is highly educated and not just locals but international migrants as well. High cost of living is a byproduct of the high wages which is a byproduct of the competitive nature of the jobs market. If everyone in an area is making making bucks then the goods and services will be priced accordingly. Again if you don't live in these places you most likely wont make that money. No one is going to pay what i get paid to do what i do out in regional Australia and that's if they even have any jobs there.

 

[rinse82]

are those incomes gross? cause if it is, I can totally relate to the 166k families being 'not rich'.

me and my wife are about 150k combined with no kids and we're nowhere near 'rich', living in the suburbs outsid Toronto

 

[SouthernDragon]

Really ? Is Miami a third world city compared to Sydney? I was quoting general prices for the cheaper suburbs outside Sydney CBD. Safer? Maybe, we still get stabbings, drivebys, gang wars, drug problems etc. not to the extent of somewhere like Detroit i assume but i'm sure its not much worse/better than Miami.

Educational opportunities, does Miami not have public schools? Does it not have a University? How is Sydney any better?

Better food ? Like i have been saying to you from the start, your $30 will get you dinner for 2 at a fast food joint down here or a takeaway joint. So obviously Miami has access to cheaper food meaning you can get more quantity and quality for you $.

If you can take her to a nice place for $30 that's great! My point was that in Sydney you most likely can't. Therefore people require different levels of money to survive in different cities around the world. And that's my point, a 200k family of 4 is not rich "everywhere they go".

Like I mentioned earlier, Miami has extreme wealth disparities. So we'll have very affluent areas and very poor ones. I have cheaper housing because I live in a middle class area bordering a poor one, and I get all that comes with it. I've been mugged in my neighborhood and my house was almost broken into while my family was there but I was not. While these incidences are mercifully rare for my household personally, it's not unusual in our surrounding area.

Thus, the trade off for the relatively low price of living in Miami for me. But if I try to move to a safer place, our costs easily climb by 50% on rent alone, not accounting for increased transportation costs.

Yes but the trade off back is you have to work in Manhattan to make 200k. That's why it's so expensive to live in places like these. High demand and high competition for goods and services. Ultra competitive workforce that is highly educated and not just locals but international migrants as well. High cost of living is a byproduct of the high wages which is a byproduct of the competitive nature of the jobs market. If everyone in an area is making making bucks then the goods and services will be priced accordingly. Again if you don't live in these places you most likely wont make that money. No one is going to pay what i get paid to do what i do out in regional Australia and that's if they even have any jobs there.

I'm honestly not understanding your argument. I never said you didn't have to work for the privilege of living in such an area, or that living there was not expensive.

It's precisely that. You do have to work hard, and you do have to pay more than most, but the fact of the matter is that you do have the opportunity to work those jobs and pay for the comfort and opportunities that living and working in that area gets you.

The fact that your job or skill set is only viable there isn't part of the argument. Your education, location, and earning power give you access to things, experiences, and opportunities you wouldn't have other wise.

"Rich" isn't restricted to total assets or annual income. It's more than that. It is, quite literally, the "wealth of opportunities" that become available to you and your children.

Let me put it this way, and I'm going to draw a picture, comparing you and I. I will naturally make some assumptions and freely admit they are likely not true in your particular situation, but I only do so to illustrate my point.

Your family makes 200k a year (I know you don't, you stated it) and is left over with 100 a month after expenses.

My family makes 50k a year and is left over with 100 a month after expenses.

While you and I both have razor thin margins, your location, work, social circles, education, and extracurricular/hobby activities have given you an advantage and access to opportunities I simply don't have, even though we are both living paycheck-to-paycheck.

 

[Desavona]

Like I mentioned earlier, Miami has extreme wealth disparities. So we'll have very affluent areas and very poor ones. I have cheaper housing because I live in a middle class area bordering a poor one, and I get all that comes with it. I've been mugged in my neighborhood and my house was almost broken into while my family was there but I was not. While these incidences are mercifully rare for my household personally, it's not unusual in our surrounding area.

Thus, the trade off for the relatively low price of living in Miami for me. But if I try to move to a safer place, our costs easily climb by 50% on rent alone, not accounting for increased transportation costs.


I'm honestly not understanding your argument. I never said you didn't have to work for the privilege of living in such an area, or that living there was not expensive.

It's precisely that. You do have to work hard, and you do have to pay more than most, but the fact of the matter is that you do have the opportunity to work those jobs and pay for the comfort and opportunities that living and working in that area gets you.

The fact that your job or skill set is only viable there isn't part of the argument. Your education, location, and earning power give you access to things, experiences, and opportunities you wouldn't have other wise.

"Rich" isn't restricted to total assets or annual income. It's more than that. It is, quite literally, the "wealth of opportunities" that become available to you and your children.

Let me put it this way, and I'm going to draw a picture, comparing you and I. I will naturally make some assumptions and freely admit they are likely not true in your particular situation, but I only do so to illustrate my point.

Your family makes 200k a year (I know you don't, you stated it) and is left over with 100 a month after expenses.

My family makes 50k a year and is left over with 100 a month after expenses.

While you and I both have razor thin margins, your location, work, social circles, education, and extracurricular/hobby activities have given you an advantage and access to opportunities I simply don't have, even though we are both living paycheck-to-paycheck.

And that's my point 200k is not the same everywhere. 200k in an expensive city with 2 kids to support is not rich nor is it poor. To expand my point a little more the requirements of maintaining earnings of 200k assuming both adult members of the family need to work full time to make that amount has added expenses such as child care. You could reduce your outgoings by having one stay at home or work part time to look after the kids but that would also reduce your earnings.

You could move to cheaper housing but that may mean longer travel to work increasing transport costs and travel time reducing time looking after the children etc. If you move to a cheaper city all together the money for the role you have is also reduced accordingly in most cases. It's not such a cut and dry issue as OMG 200k so rich.

If the family was making 200k passive income from real estate or other investments where you are not required to work 9-5 and be tied to a certain area then yeah that would be considered rich kids or no kids. For the opportunity to increase income as an employee you usually have to incur higher living costs but it depends on the role.

 

[SteveMeister]

And you are far less likely to be making $200k in, say, Miami or Detroit, than you are in Manhattan or San Francisco.

 

[Stet]

And that's my point 200k is not the same everywhere. 200k in an expensive city with 2 kids to support is not rich nor is it poor. To expand my point a little more the requirements of maintaining earnings of 200k assuming both adult members of the family need to work full time to make that amount has added expenses such as child care. You could reduce your outgoings by having one stay at home or work part time to look after the kids but that would also reduce your earnings.

You could move to cheaper housing but that may mean longer travel to work increasing transport costs and travel time reducing time looking after the children etc. If you move to a cheaper city all together the money for the role you have is also reduced accordingly in most cases. It's not such a cut and dry issue as OMG 200k so rich.

If the family was making 200k passive income from real estate or other investments where you are not required to work 9-5 and be tied to a certain area then yeah that would be considered rich kids or no kids. For the opportunity to increase income as an employee you usually have to incur higher living costs but it depends on the role.

Okay, but a lot of people are ignoring the folks from Toronto, where this article was written, who have said that unless you want to live in the most expensive neighbourhoods in the city, it's super easy to live on a quarter of 200k.

 

[LProtag]

Some people have a skewed idea of money.

Or maybe I'm just bitter I'm going to be a teacher and I'll never make six figures (or anything above 60k, and that's if I'm lucky).

 

[Blackhead]

Why are you buying a house in the Bay Area on 50k a year?

Edit:
Man, I don't know why I'm even arguing with you on this one. This article is basically the inverse of a Ripclawe anti-welfare hit piece: it shows dumb people saying dumb things with the express purpose of making you mad.

Ultimately, I agree with you. Cost of living varies widely from place to place, and what seems like a boatload of money in one area might not be nearly so much in another. Especially if one has a family.

Bottom line is, while I think people need to know how to manage their money no matter how much they earn, and while it annoys me when folks making a lot more than most people naively complain about living month-to-month, it's not really my business. Their money, their problems. I just wish they wouldn't mouth off to newspapers about how tough they have it.

You think the people profiled in this article are dumb?

People earning 6 figures get squeezed like people living at the poverty line. It's all about cost of living man. 7 figures is pracitcally living on the razor's edge. In Zurich. Why are you laughing at me? Wait, come back.

Why is you wisdom no longer dispensed on more deserving topics, like football for instance?

 

[ElNino]

Okay, but a lot of people are ignoring the folks from Toronto, where this article was written, who have said that unless you want to live in the most expensive neighbourhoods in the city, it's super easy to live on a quarter of 200k.

Who are these people? They are delusional to think it is "super easy" to live in Toronto for 50k a year.

Considering average rent is around $1000/month and the average cost of a house is approaching $500k, I would not consider it easy to live on $50k. It's possible, but you would have to make quite a few sacrifices. Not having a vehicle helps (which is what we did when we started in the city), but rent/home prices on the subway lines are generally much more expensive.

 

[Stet]

Who are these people? They are delusional to think it is "super easy" to live in Toronto for 50k a year.

Considering average rent is around $1000/month and the average cost of a house is approaching $500k, I would not consider it easy to live on $50k. It's possible, but you would have to make quite a few sacrifices. Not having a vehicle helps (which is what we did when we started in the city), but rent/home prices on the subway lines are generally much more expensive.

I'm one of them. I support two people. I don't own a vehicle and I walk to work and back but that's pretty much the only concession I have to make. I don't really have to watch my spending on lunch throughout the week and I've never had to wonder if I'd be able to afford that bottle of bourbon I'm eyeing. I'm able to afford vet bills for three cats and a rabbit as well as food and litter on top of it. I have a 100k line of credit that I pay off every month. I don't use credit cards to float debt, and if I do buy on credit, I pay it off at the end of the month.

To be honest, I feel well off. If I had 4x the salary I have now, I'd probably be throwing most of it into savings or investments.



Maybe we just have modest needs.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I'm one of them. I support two people. I don't own a vehicle and I walk to work and back but that's pretty much the only concession I have to make. I don't really have to watch my spending on lunch throughout the week and I've never had to wonder if I'd be able to afford that bottle of bourbon I'm eyeing. I'm able to afford vet bills for three cats and a rabbit as well as food and litter on top of it. I have a 100k line of credit that I pay off every month. I don't use credit cards to float debt, and if I do buy on credit, I pay it off at the end of the month.

To be honest, I feel well off. If I had 4x the salary I have now, I'd probably be throwing most of it into savings or investments.



Maybe we just have modest needs.

Don't own a car and I'm assuming you don't own a house. Is this what is expected to be the standard and that owning a car and a house makes you rich?

 

[Stet]

Don't own a car and I'm assuming you don't own a house. Is this what is expected to be the standard and that owning a car and a house makes you rich?

The people in the article all live near a subway line. You don't need to own a car in Toronto. The poster I quoted specifically mentioned rent being high, and the $800 on wine dude in the article rents as well.

 

[ElNino]

I'm one of them. I support two people. I don't own a vehicle and I walk to work and back but that's pretty much the only concession I have to make. I don't really have to watch my spending on lunch throughout the week and I've never had to wonder if I'd be able to afford that bottle of bourbon I'm eyeing. I'm able to afford vet bills for three cats and a rabbit as well as food and litter on top of it. I have a 100k line of credit that I pay off every month. I don't use credit cards to float debt, and if I do buy on credit, I pay it off at the end of the month.

To be honest, I feel well off. If I had 4x the salary I have now, I'd probably be throwing most of it into savings or investments.



Maybe we just have modest needs.

Well, you don't have kids... that is what makes it possible for you.

When we first lived in the city we didn't buy a car either for two years, but we lived right on the subway and both worked downtown so it was fairly easy to do so. However, I can't imagine living the city with children and not having a car, especially if both parents work.

 

[Stet]

Well, you don't have kids... that is what makes it possible for you.

When we first lived in the city we didn't buy a car either for two years, but we lived right on the subway and both worked downtown so it was fairly easy to do so. However, I can't imagine living the city with children and not having a car, especially if both parents work.

I don't have kids, but I also don't make 200k a year. Supporting kids on 50k would be a struggle. Supporting kids on 200k not so much.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Well, you don't have kids... that is what makes it possible for you.

When we first lived in the city we didn't buy a car either for two years, but we lived right on the subway and both worked downtown so it was fairly easy to do so. However, I can't imagine living the city with children and not having a car, especially if both parents work.

Oh he doesn't have a kid? I assume support two meant a three person household which would include a kid. Ya, having a kid makes a huge difference in how much you spend.

I don't have kids, but I also don't make 200k a year. Supporting kids on 50k would be a struggle. Supporting kids on 200k not so much.

You don't have a kid, but already know what it takes and costs to have one?

 

[Stet]

You don't have a kid, but already know what it takes and costs to have one?

Gee, you act as if I live in a vacuum and have absolutely no friends or coworkers with kids.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Gee, you act as if I live in a vacuum and have absolutely no friends or coworkers with kids.

Just because you have friends and coworkers with kids doesn't mean you completely understand the financial cost of having one. I too have friends and coworkers with kids, but you don't see every aspect of what it costs until you have one.

 

[Gallbaro]

Just because you have friends and coworkers with kids doesn't mean you completely understand the financial cost of having one. I too have friends and coworkers with kids, but you don't see every aspect of what it costs until you have one.

Most kids are a walking liability of Love.

Others:

Walking liability of the unloved. --even more expensive.

 

[ThLunarian]

Just because you have friends and coworkers with kids doesn't mean you completely understand the financial cost of having one. I too have friends and coworkers with kids, but you don't see every aspect of what it costs until you have one.

Are you suggesting that kids cost over 100k per year?

That's bad news for anyone in Toronto who has kids but makes less than that. I'm guessing all those people are living on the streets?

 

[ElNino]

I don't have kids, but I also don't make 200k a year. Supporting kids on 50k would be a struggle. Supporting kids on 200k not so much.

Of course, supporting a family with kids is certainly possible on 200k. It just doesn't make us rich. ;-)

 

[Marty Chinn]

Are you suggesting that kids cost over 100k per year?

That's bad news for anyone in Toronto who has kids but makes less than that. I'm guessing all those people are living on the streets?

I'm suggesting they cost more than people think. Going from a two person household without kids, and without a car, suddenly you'd have to consider a car, then car insurance, then gas, daycare if you have both people working, more food, diapers, cleaning supplies, a stroller, car seat, a place for the baby to sleep, baby proof items, life insurance, savings for the kid, and so forth. That's just one kid. Have another one? A lot of that stuff can double.

Of course, supporting a family with kids is certainly possible on 200k. It just doesn't make us rich. ;-)

And this is the key point that many of us are making. We're not saying people on 200k struggle. We're saying they shouldn't be considered rich. Not struggling != rich. Owning a car and a house should not automatically qualify you as rich.

 

[Bgamer90]

Heh, I see that people are still making generalizations as if the cost of living is exactly the same wherever you go.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Heh, I see that people are still making generalizations as if the cost of living is exactly the same wherever you go.

Yep, it's crazy that some people don't understand this even when someone tells them about it.

 

[Oppo]

I'm in Toronto (East York) and we pull in that amount, between myself and my wife. No kids.

I'd say we do well but we are far from "rich".

 

[killakiz]

I'm in Toronto (East York) and we pull in that amount, between myself and my wife. No kids.

I'd say we do well but we are far from "rich".

What kind of cars do you guys drive, and what do you both do?

 

[ThLunarian]

Heh, I see that people are still making generalizations as if the cost of living is exactly the same wherever you go.

I don't buy the cost of living argument because I can guarantee you that there are people in NYC and Toronto who make 50k and have kids to support. Those people might struggle, but they would not be considered "poor". Anyone in the same city who makes quadruple that much has enough extra disposable income to qualify as rich in my book.

 

[Oppo]

What kind of cars do you guys drive, and what do you both do?

No car. We make frequent use of TTC and Zipcar. We're a 10 minute walk from the Danforth so it's easy.

My wife is a director at a performer's union and I do web/app design.

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

I'm suggesting they cost more than people think. Going from a two person household without kids, and without a car, suddenly you'd have to consider a car, then car insurance, then gas, daycare if you have both people working, more food, diapers, cleaning supplies, a stroller, car seat, a place for the baby to sleep, baby proof items, life insurance, savings for the kid, and so forth. That's just one kid. Have another one? A lot of that stuff can double.



And this is the key point that many of us are making. We're not saying people on 200k struggle. We're saying they shouldn't be considered rich. Not struggling != rich. Owning a car and a house should not automatically qualify you as rich.

The only one I have a problem with is the single guy that spends £25,000 on food, wine and entertainment/holidays.

My brother is married with 3 teenage kids and admits he can't budget for shit but manages fine on a household income I'm guessing around ~£30,000 after taxes. Much less than half the single guy.

And this is England. Apart from rent, I'd wager most things are more expensive than even Canada.

Doesn't matter if you earn 165k a year or 20 million, if you spend most of you're disposable income frivolously, no shit you are going to end up poor!

 

[Fugu]

Who are these people? They are delusional to think it is "super easy" to live in Toronto for 50k a year.

Considering average rent is around $1000/month and the average cost of a house is approaching $500k, I would not consider it easy to live on $50k. It's possible, but you would have to make quite a few sacrifices. Not having a vehicle helps (which is what we did when we started in the city), but rent/home prices on the subway lines are generally much more expensive.

I live in Toronto on probably half of that. I have access to a car but I don't use it. I live at Eglinton and Bathurst so I'm certainly not doing terribly location-wise. Yes, I have to make sacrifices -- like not spending $1000 on wine every month -- but not having to make sacrifices is the very characteristic that makes one well-off. If you can not make sacrifices and still have some left over, I would define you as rich.

My mom makes around the amount discussed in this article (probably more). She is definitely not having any money problems.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I don't buy the cost of living argument because I can guarantee you that there are people in NYC and Toronto who make 50k and have kids to support. Those people might struggle, but they would not be considered "poor". Anyone in the same city who makes quadruple that much has enough extra disposable income to qualify as rich in my book.

I live in Toronto on probably half of that. I have access to a car but I don't use it. I live at Eglinton and Bathurst so I'm certainly not doing terribly location-wise. Yes, I have to make sacrifices -- like not spending $1000 on wine every month -- but not having to make sacrifices is the very characteristic that makes one well-off. If you can not make sacrifices and still have some left over, I would define you as rich.

My mom makes around the amount discussed in this article (probably more). She is definitely not having any money problems.

Why is it a hard line that if you're not struggling then that automatically makes you rich? To me, it's a much more categorized range. Even on a simplified level you have Poor, Struggling, Comfortable, Rich, and then Filthy Rich. What puts you in which category isn't just how much money you make, but your living situation and the cost of living in your area as well.

 

[KHarvey16]

A single person or a family of four shouldn't struggle on 200k a year, but being rich encompasses more than simply "not struggling." I wouldn't call any of them rich. As a separate issue anyone that takes in 200k whining they live paycheck to paycheck lacks perspective.

 

[Clipjoint]

Everyone's definition of "rich" is different. To a factory worker in China, an American making minimum wage is "rich." To a single mother working two jobs in Ohio, a person making 70k/year is "rich". To an engineer making $150k, a millionaire is "rich".

It's tough to put the concept into perspective unless you've lived in a lower income lifestyle for an extended part of your life. I had times when I looked into my bank account and saw single digits. There was a period where I literally had nothing but one bagel to last me for dinner over two days. Now I'm at a point where I'm making enough money to cover all my expenses, in a lifestyle I enjoy, while also putting some cash away in savings and retirement. I'm not making 6 figures, but knowing how difficult and degrading and shameful it feels being poor in this country, I definitely feel like I'm already rich.

 

[Bay Maximus]

They're not rich, but they are hood rich.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

It's tough to put the concept into perspective unless you've lived in a lower income lifestyle for an extended part of your life. I had times when I looked into my bank account and saw single digits. There was a period where I literally had nothing but one bagel to last me for dinner over two days. Now I'm at a point where I'm making enough money to cover all my expenses, in a lifestyle I enjoy, while also putting some cash away in savings and retirement. I'm not making 6 figures, but knowing how difficult and degrading and shameful it feels being poor in this country, I definitely feel like I'm already rich.

This I agree with.

Though the most important thing for lower income people is you need to be at the top of your game in budgeting.
we had $1,000 a month between 3 people we made it work and had an enjoyable lifestyle.
now Im doing my own thing making so much more but im still having about the same level of enjoyment.

 

[DGRE]

Cost of living encompasses more than just housing. And yes, you're getting some things the rural folks aren't: access to better amenities, access to better/more jobs, and a higher salary to make up for the cost of living.

All that doesn't actually address the point, which is that regardless of those things you're getting in exchange for the higher cost of living, 50k in NYC is not the same as 50k in rural Appalachia.

His point is: all those things play into someone's standard of living, i.e. their level of wealth. Rich does not simply mean you can wipe your ass with fifty dollar bills. It is a lot more than that.