I'm comfortable with my interpretation, so-called bro who in no way is my bro.
DudeBroMan wrote:
WhyRegisterHere? wrote:
It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
Translated, that means that rich people are known throughout history to be phukking arsseholes.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're not a biblical scholar, bro.
highhoppingworm wrote:
Location is everything. I am being very specific to the top 3-5 most expensive cities to live in, and even more specifically speaking to the metropolitan areas. And yes.. I am defining it based on lifestyle.
You mentioned Boston. The median household income in there (including surrounding cities and towns) is $85,000 per year. Where’s the disconnect between that median household income being what it is there, but an upper-middle class lifestyle requiring several times that median income?
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
I'm tired of people inflating what it means to be "middle class". Let's hit the big ones first.
Middle class means your kids don't go to private school. Middle class means you don't max out your 401k. Middle class means you don't put $12k per year into a 529. Middle class doesn't mean you take two, week-long vacations to Hawaii every year.
Now the smaller stuff. $70 a day for food? My household gets by on less than half of that. $350 a month on "baby items"? Diapers are maybe $100 a month. You only have to buy one crib, stroller, and car seat ever, per kid, at a total cost of maybe $1500. How the hell are you spending $4200 on baby crap every year? $500 a month on entertainment? $400 a month on clothes? You could get by on less than half of all that crap.
Good points. Everyone thinks they're "middle class" just like how everyone thinks they're "above average" in something.
DudeBroMan wrote:
Gordon Gekko wrote:
But how much was your house and how much cash you put down for it?
US "home ownership" is a pretty loose term when you can "own" a home with just 3% down.
Basically you own nothing.
I understand how home ownership works, bro.
In the US it is also understood that when someone asks you the question, "Do you own your own home?" they are not asking "Is your home completely paid off?" They are asking if you have a mortgage rather than renting.
I didn't invent the language, broseph. So no need to give some pedantic lecture about the intricacies of the home buying process.
Dude, please don't call me bro.
From what I learned is that most Americans don't understand anything about finances. They buy everything for a low monthly fee and they don't understand what interest is and how this effects your overall payment.
WhyRegisterHere? wrote:
I'm comfortable with my interpretation, so-called bro who in no way is my bro.
If you were a biblical scholar, you'd understand that we are all bros. Guess you missed that class in seminary.
another data point wrote:
Yeah, I hear you. I live in the Boston suburbs and my spouse and I make probably just over $300k combined. But I think of us as more like upper- or upper-upper middle class. Two kids in public school, an objectively modest house, one car (Subaru) -- all these seem middle classish. But our public school is great, our house is probably worth just under $1M and we have significant annual savings (401ks, backdoor Roth, 529s, and taxable), a vacation condo, and we usually take 3-4 weeks of family vacation per year. We basically live relatively modestly day-to-day (cook all meals at home, etc.) and then spend a lot on travel/experiences (e.g., season ski passes). By any measure, I think we're doing a lot better than "middle class", but I guess I don't really think you're rich until you can walk away and still maintain your lifestyle. No way we could do that yet, but maybe in 15 years or so. I think this illustrates one key point the author of the original article seems to miss badly -- expenses change over time. It sucked when we paying about $50k/yr for day care/preschool, but we're not anymore. After school care isn't cheap, but it's more like $10k/year and that's only for a few more years (summer camps are still insane though). And in 15 years, my kids will (hopefully) be out of college or nearly there, so no more 529s -- another $20k/yr freed up. Our mortgage will be paid or nearly paid. So that's another $25k/year. Once we're ready to walk away from our jobs, we obviously won't need to save for retirement, so there is another 50k/year. And just like that our annual expenses are down by ~$100k (and hopefully our incomes are still going up!). So not everyone is going to need $5-7M to retire and maintain their (upper-) middle-class lifestyle, as the author asserts. I'm thinking we'll need about $3-3.5M to call it, which is a lot of money for sure, but should be achievable by most households making >$300k I would think.
Sounds more like you are one of the upper 3-5%. They always think they are "Middle Class" but obviously they are not.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspxGordon Gekko wrote:
Dude, please don't call me bro.
From what I learned is that most Americans don't understand anything about finances. They buy everything for a low monthly fee and they don't understand what interest is and how this effects your overall payment.
Apologies, Bilbro Baggins. I'll be more broactive in not taking the brocassion to call you bro.
well, seeing as how some of the Wall Streeters we taxpayers had to bail out make nearly 10,000 times that amount.....
Actually, Gordon Gekko was a huge bro, as he was an illegal size mover
DudeBroMan wrote:
Gordon Gekko wrote:
Dude, please don't call me bro.
From what I learned is that most Americans don't understand anything about finances. They buy everything for a low monthly fee and they don't understand what interest is and how this effects your overall payment.
Apologies, Bilbro Baggins. I'll be more broactive in not taking the brocassion to call you bro.
Thanks Dude!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxYOQS6ggkGordon Gekko wrote:
another data point wrote:
Yeah, I hear you. I live in the Boston suburbs and my spouse and I make probably just over $300k combined. But I think of us as more like upper- or upper-upper middle class. Two kids in public school, an objectively modest house, one car (Subaru) -- all these seem middle classish. But our public school is great, our house is probably worth just under $1M and we have significant annual savings (401ks, backdoor Roth, 529s, and taxable), a vacation condo, and we usually take 3-4 weeks of family vacation per year. We basically live relatively modestly day-to-day (cook all meals at home, etc.) and then spend a lot on travel/experiences (e.g., season ski passes). By any measure, I think we're doing a lot better than "middle class", but I guess I don't really think you're rich until you can walk away and still maintain your lifestyle. No way we could do that yet, but maybe in 15 years or so. I think this illustrates one key point the author of the original article seems to miss badly -- expenses change over time. It sucked when we paying about $50k/yr for day care/preschool, but we're not anymore. After school care isn't cheap, but it's more like $10k/year and that's only for a few more years (summer camps are still insane though). And in 15 years, my kids will (hopefully) be out of college or nearly there, so no more 529s -- another $20k/yr freed up. Our mortgage will be paid or nearly paid. So that's another $25k/year. Once we're ready to walk away from our jobs, we obviously won't need to save for retirement, so there is another 50k/year. And just like that our annual expenses are down by ~$100k (and hopefully our incomes are still going up!). So not everyone is going to need $5-7M to retire and maintain their (upper-) middle-class lifestyle, as the author asserts. I'm thinking we'll need about $3-3.5M to call it, which is a lot of money for sure, but should be achievable by most households making >$300k I would think.
Sounds more like you are one of the upper 3-5%. They always think they are "Middle Class" but obviously they are not.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx
Yeah, I get that. That’s why I literally said: “By any measure, I think we're doing a lot better than ’middle class’”. Still, it is different to be dependent on a salary (as we are) rather than totally passive income generated from accrued wealth. We are the 99%!!!
another data point wrote:
Gordon Gekko wrote:
Sounds more like you are one of the upper 3-5%. They always think they are "Middle Class" but obviously they are not.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspxYeah, I get that. That’s why I literally said: “By any measure, I think we're doing a lot better than ’middle class’”. Still, it is different to be dependent on a salary (as we are) rather than totally passive income generated from accrued wealth. We are the 99%!!!
Our story is pretty much the same. I crunched the numbers the other day and we missed the 1% cut-off but made the top 2%,, based on accumulated wealth.
But i can tell you we are definitely middle class. Modest professional type jobs, live in an expensive city, small house, nondescript cars, one child in an expensive college, etc. And i can tell you that no one on earth besides my wife would have any idea, not even our son.
It's not about the bank account. It's how you live or how you spend, or perhaps social status. Middle class is how we grew up and that is fine by us. That's how we live and what we are.
A click baity article title and and even click-baitier thread title.
mysalarytake wrote:
baffled here wrote:
[quote]mysalarytake wrote:
Does she work full time? Why if it's contributing less than 10% to your total income? I'm around your income (single), but if my partner (or I) was making significantly less than the other I would hope one of us would either find a higher-paying job, stop working and enjoy life, or go found a potentially-lucrative startup or lifestyle business or something with all that time. If she's doing something she's passionate about like to give back then I get it, but I have an acquaintance who's a partner at a consulting firm (>$1m) and his wife works for well under $100k for something she doesn't really enjoy and we don't get why.
She likes to keep up her skills and works 2-4 days a month.
For many people (my wife included I suspect), working is part of an identity. Choosing that career path, going through all the hoops to make it there, establishing and maintaining professional relationships, after enough time it becomes a part of our identity. This is why retiring kills people. Also, many people in relationships feel the need to contribute, even if it is a fraction of what their partner makes. It is part of maintaining independence in a relationship, which is healthy for the individual and the couple. If my wife made 10x more than me, I'd still be in my job (although I'd work slightly, but not much, less).
I suppose if I was in finance, managing hedge funds, IBanking, some other toxic industry which values profits/money above all else I might feel differently, but we both quite enjoy what we do and the money differential isn't really a factor for us.
That makes sense, especially only working 2-4 days a month but still wanting to keep an identity and contribute. If I had a wife with a much more lucrative job than myself I probably wouldn't want to sit around doing leisurely stuff all the time either, so thanks for sharing.
This is LRC, where a 15 min guy calls himself an "average" runner with no talent.
So $350k is middle class by that standard.
HOOWIE wrote:
Click bait CNBC article. Not worth reading.
unlike this non-clickbait thread, eh?
wealth doesn't define me wrote:
another data point wrote:
Yeah, I get that. That’s why I literally said: “By any measure, I think we're doing a lot better than ’middle class’”. Still, it is different to be dependent on a salary (as we are) rather than totally passive income generated from accrued wealth. We are the 99%!!!
Our story is pretty much the same. I crunched the numbers the other day and we missed the 1% cut-off but made the top 2%,, based on accumulated wealth.
But i can tell you we are definitely middle class. Modest professional type jobs, live in an expensive city, small house, nondescript cars, one child in an expensive college, etc. And i can tell you that no one on earth besides my wife would have any idea, not even our son.
It's not about the bank account. It's how you live or how you spend, or perhaps social status. Middle class is how we grew up and that is fine by us. That's how we live and what we are.
Except you are not middle class. Your upper middle class/rich. You just don't want to label yourself that way.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
wealth doesn't define me wrote:
Our story is pretty much the same. I crunched the numbers the other day and we missed the 1% cut-off but made the top 2%,, based on accumulated wealth.
But i can tell you we are definitely middle class. Modest professional type jobs, live in an expensive city, small house, nondescript cars, one child in an expensive college, etc. And i can tell you that no one on earth besides my wife would have any idea, not even our son.
It's not about the bank account. It's how you live or how you spend, or perhaps social status. Middle class is how we grew up and that is fine by us. That's how we live and what we are.
Except you are not middle class. Your upper middle class/rich. You just don't want to label yourself that way.
I think the jury is still out on that one. My point is simply that class is a social construct, not one solely based on wealth or income. I live by middle class values, and am frankly proud of the fact.
And to be honest, that was the way it was at least as i was growing up, though today it may be different.
wealth doesn't define me wrote:
I think the jury is still out on that one. My point is simply that class is a social construct, not one solely based on wealth or income. I live by middle class values, and am frankly proud of the fact.
And to be honest, that was the way it was at least as i was growing up, though today it may be different.
It doesn't matter what values you think you live by.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/24/opinion/income-inequality-upper-middle-class.htmlGordon Gekko wrote:
wealth doesn't define me wrote:
I think the jury is still out on that one. My point is simply that class is a social construct, not one solely based on wealth or income. I live by middle class values, and am frankly proud of the fact.
And to be honest, that was the way it was at least as i was growing up, though today it may be different.
It doesn't matter what values you think you live by.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/24/opinion/income-inequality-upper-middle-class.html
Good article.
And i must apologize in that I most certainly do consider myself in the upper middle class category, just not in the upper class. In general terms, upper middle class is a subset of middle class, but i see that in reading a couple of articles, it is it's own class as distinct from middle class. And I see that dsdaddfdff clearly said i was upper middle, a point that i apparently missed.
Another good article that reinforces differing ways of interpreting social class, both objective and subjective, and how very few people place themselves in the upper class or the lower class.
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
MSU men > NAU by 1 point even though Nico Young and Colin Sahlman tripled!!
Start Lists for the Men's and Women's Mile/1500 at Pre are up
Do Australians consider their culture closer to Britain's or America's?