Study shows that 350k/year is barely scrapping by as middle class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$350k for a couple who work full time with young kids is not that much.

$350k with a SAH spouse with no day care or pre school and only one commute who can live further out as no rush to pick up kids is a lot.

good point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we mentioned yet that they save 50k per year off the bat? And yes, they stretched to far on housing once you consider PITI.

And they're also paying $53,000/year for preschool plus childcare. Hey, here's a new rule . . . when your childcare expenses nearly equal the medial *salary* for the country, you ain't middle class.

It is appalling that (i) this has to be said, and (ii) some dimwits will disagree with it.

How much is childcare for middle class?

Say $100,000 is solidly middle class. Assume, after taxes (but not including health care and retirement savings, they take home $80,000. $53,000 in childcare is more that 66% of their take-home.

It's less than that.

Middle class families use in-home childcare, frequently unlicensed. They leverage friends and family for childcare. They work offset schedules to avoid having to have childcare (e.g. dad has a regular 9-5 job and mom works 3 12hr night shifts a week as a nurse). They stop paying for afterschool care when their kids are still in ES. They don't send their kids to summer camps or, if they do, it's the cheap program at the church or at a county park.

Yes, I have friends who are middle class. Mom is a GS-12 and Dad works a blue collar job. They make about $140K combined. They live in PG County.

They have their older kid in full-time pre-school at a church and pay about $525 per month for him. They have their younger one in daycare 3 days a week (same church) for $300/month. The Mom works a flex schedule of 4 10-hour days and takes Fridays off and has the younger kid. Grandma watches the younger child one day a week. Mom drops kids off at school, then goes for her long days. Dad goes to work early and leaves early enough to pick them up from preschool/daycare.

So, daycare costs about $825/month or about $10K for two children per year. A far cry from $53K for one child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that $350k should be a comfortable UMC income. Many people would even consider that rich. But it doesn’t go nearly as far as one would expect. That’s our exact income before bonuses. We spend more on some things, less on others, but this isn’t too far off. We have a lot of expenses to make life as two working parents, with long hours and travel, work. We spent more on a house closer in vs having long commutes. One of our kids requires expensive therapy and tutors. We eat takeout way too often bc we get home too late to cook. We have an after-school nanny to shuttle the kids to appointments and activities. Sure, we could get rid of some of these “luxuries” but then one of us would have to cut back at work and our income would decrease. It would be a different ballgame if one of us made $350k and the other SAH. But there is a high cost associated with having both parents work at relatively high paying but not very flexible job.

And $350K is more than comfortable UMC income. The reason that it "doesn't go nearly as far as one would expect" is that you spend your money on luxuries. If you lived in true middle class areas, say Gaithersburg or Vienna, then you would have loads of disposable cash to take vacations, buy a yacht, and invest in expensive hobbies. Instead you spend your money for the luxury of living close in, for the convenience of having a nanny. And having an lower upper class in come means that when your child has special needs, you can afford to select therapies and tutors that are best suited for your child instead of taking what insurance will cover. You have the option to buy lunch and get takeout when you come home late. A middle class family would be cooking on weekends so that when they come home late, they can heat up a meal. They would be asking friends to carpool or trying to get a retired family member to move to the area to help with transportation for your child. And they wouldn't be paying for extra activities for their children.

Your entire post is filled with luxuries that you justify. Just because you spend all of your income and don't have a lot of disposable income leftover after you've spent it, does not mean that you didn't have a high income to begin with. It just means that you live a much wealthier life-style than a true middle class income could afford.

It's such a joke that the downtown lawyers and doctors and lobbyists are trying to claim being middle class. How do you think the paralegal in your office or the PT therapist that works in the same hospital or the office manager of your lobbyist firm live. They have the same commute issues that you have on 1/3 of your income and may not have a high income spouse to augment their income. These people are middle income staff (as opposed to the building security guard, the janitor or the gift shop clerk at the hospital who are making low income wages). The middle income people have to make the same commute, they have the same issues of childcare, they might have special needs children, and they still have to eat lunch and dinner. How do you think they do this on 1/3 of your income? You've deluded yourself into thinking that a standard with no qualifications defines middle class. It doesn't. The standard of home, childcare, food and expenses is upper middle class at best in the outer suburbs, but when you move everything into the close-in areas, then it becomes completely unattainable in close in. You pay the luxury upcharge to move everything into the convenience zone. And that requires an upper class income to do so.

They're poor. They're not middle class. That's the WHOLE POINT you nitwit. The middle class is being hollowed out. People who used to be middle class (i.e. the office manager) is now in fact poor because it costs so damn much to live in coastal cities.

No, office managers are not poor, they're middle class. What's happening in this thread is that rich people are defining "middle class" up so it includes whatever luxury goods they feel entitled to, and then when people point out that lots of less rich people can't afford them, that automatically means that those other people must not be middle class. In reality, the life described in this post isn't a middle-class one at all, but a rich one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that $350k should be a comfortable UMC income. Many people would even consider that rich. But it doesn’t go nearly as far as one would expect. That’s our exact income before bonuses. We spend more on some things, less on others, but this isn’t too far off. We have a lot of expenses to make life as two working parents, with long hours and travel, work. We spent more on a house closer in vs having long commutes. One of our kids requires expensive therapy and tutors. We eat takeout way too often bc we get home too late to cook. We have an after-school nanny to shuttle the kids to appointments and activities. Sure, we could get rid of some of these “luxuries” but then one of us would have to cut back at work and our income would decrease. It would be a different ballgame if one of us made $350k and the other SAH. But there is a high cost associated with having both parents work at relatively high paying but not very flexible job.

And $350K is more than comfortable UMC income. The reason that it "doesn't go nearly as far as one would expect" is that you spend your money on luxuries. If you lived in true middle class areas, say Gaithersburg or Vienna, then you would have loads of disposable cash to take vacations, buy a yacht, and invest in expensive hobbies. Instead you spend your money for the luxury of living close in, for the convenience of having a nanny. And having an lower upper class in come means that when your child has special needs, you can afford to select therapies and tutors that are best suited for your child instead of taking what insurance will cover. You have the option to buy lunch and get takeout when you come home late. A middle class family would be cooking on weekends so that when they come home late, they can heat up a meal. They would be asking friends to carpool or trying to get a retired family member to move to the area to help with transportation for your child. And they wouldn't be paying for extra activities for their children.

Your entire post is filled with luxuries that you justify. Just because you spend all of your income and don't have a lot of disposable income leftover after you've spent it, does not mean that you didn't have a high income to begin with. It just means that you live a much wealthier life-style than a true middle class income could afford.

It's such a joke that the downtown lawyers and doctors and lobbyists are trying to claim being middle class. How do you think the paralegal in your office or the PT therapist that works in the same hospital or the office manager of your lobbyist firm live. They have the same commute issues that you have on 1/3 of your income and may not have a high income spouse to augment their income. These people are middle income staff (as opposed to the building security guard, the janitor or the gift shop clerk at the hospital who are making low income wages). The middle income people have to make the same commute, they have the same issues of childcare, they might have special needs children, and they still have to eat lunch and dinner. How do you think they do this on 1/3 of your income? You've deluded yourself into thinking that a standard with no qualifications defines middle class. It doesn't. The standard of home, childcare, food and expenses is upper middle class at best in the outer suburbs, but when you move everything into the close-in areas, then it becomes completely unattainable in close in. You pay the luxury upcharge to move everything into the convenience zone. And that requires an upper class income to do so.

They're poor. They're not middle class. That's the WHOLE POINT you nitwit. The middle class is being hollowed out. People who used to be middle class (i.e. the office manager) is now in fact poor because it costs so damn much to live in coastal cities.

No, office managers are not poor, they're middle class. What's happening in this thread is that rich people are defining "middle class" up so it includes whatever luxury goods they feel entitled to, and then when people point out that lots of less rich people can't afford them, that automatically means that those other people must not be middle class. In reality, the life described in this post isn't a middle-class one at all, but a rich one.

No the reality is that the "rich" are getting really effing rich and leaving everyone else in the dust.

Google how the .1% lives and compare it to this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a “stupid article.” It was vetted by FIRE proponents and they agreed with the estimates. As a family with HHI around $320K in NW DC, these estimates are spot on.

The trick is to get a job in DC or Boston, and then move to a LCOL area while continuing to telecommute with the same job. I have a few colleagues doing this and they are very happy, especially in the young kid years.

But NWDC is a decidedly NOT middle class place. Just because you choose to buy in one of the (if not THE) most expensive neighborhoods in the metro area (and country as a whole) does not mean you call yourself "middle class" just because you don't have mounds of money left over after paying the mortgage. That's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class people do not own $1.8m houses. Nor do they spend $24,000 on preschool. Or $2,000 a month on food.

What a stupid article.

Assuming preschool means daycare for a 4 year old, $24k is about right inside beltway.

If it’s 3 days a week with limited hours yeah that’s wrong.

Not really though. We send DD to an expensive program and it costs more like $18K. $24K is what full-time infant care often costs. Food is more like $1,000/month, including going out over the weekend.

\

But that is an EXPENSIVE PROGRAM. Not targeted to someone who is middle class. If you are middle class and you want to spend that tuition for your preschooler, then you are making some sacrifices elsewhere. You're not "Scraping by" you are prioritizing one thing at the expense of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we mentioned yet that they save 50k per year off the bat? And yes, they stretched to far on housing once you consider PITI.

And they're also paying $53,000/year for preschool plus childcare. Hey, here's a new rule . . . when your childcare expenses nearly equal the medial *salary* for the country, you ain't middle class.

It is appalling that (i) this has to be said, and (ii) some dimwits will disagree with it.

How much is childcare for middle class?

Say $100,000 is solidly middle class. Assume, after taxes (but not including health care and retirement savings, they take home $80,000. $53,000 in childcare is more that 66% of their take-home.

It's less than that.

Middle class families use in-home childcare, frequently unlicensed. They leverage friends and family for childcare. They work offset schedules to avoid having to have childcare (e.g. dad has a regular 9-5 job and mom works 3 12hr night shifts a week as a nurse). They stop paying for afterschool care when their kids are still in ES. They don't send their kids to summer camps or, if they do, it's the cheap program at the church or at a county park.

Yes, I have friends who are middle class. Mom is a GS-12 and Dad works a blue collar job. They make about $140K combined. They live in PG County.

They have their older kid in full-time pre-school at a church and pay about $525 per month for him. They have their younger one in daycare 3 days a week (same church) for $300/month. The Mom works a flex schedule of 4 10-hour days and takes Fridays off and has the younger kid. Grandma watches the younger child one day a week. Mom drops kids off at school, then goes for her long days. Dad goes to work early and leaves early enough to pick them up from preschool/daycare.

So, daycare costs about $825/month or about $10K for two children per year. A far cry from $53K for one child.

$525 a month for full time preschool?! We are an interfaith family in MoCo and visited both our local synagogue and church for tours. Both are about 1700-1800 to send one child full time! And neither is "fancy" or anything...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that $350k should be a comfortable UMC income. Many people would even consider that rich. But it doesn’t go nearly as far as one would expect. That’s our exact income before bonuses. We spend more on some things, less on others, but this isn’t too far off. We have a lot of expenses to make life as two working parents, with long hours and travel, work. We spent more on a house closer in vs having long commutes. One of our kids requires expensive therapy and tutors. We eat takeout way too often bc we get home too late to cook. We have an after-school nanny to shuttle the kids to appointments and activities. Sure, we could get rid of some of these “luxuries” but then one of us would have to cut back at work and our income would decrease. It would be a different ballgame if one of us made $350k and the other SAH. But there is a high cost associated with having both parents work at relatively high paying but not very flexible job.

And $350K is more than comfortable UMC income. The reason that it "doesn't go nearly as far as one would expect" is that you spend your money on luxuries. If you lived in true middle class areas, say Gaithersburg or Vienna, then you would have loads of disposable cash to take vacations, buy a yacht, and invest in expensive hobbies. Instead you spend your money for the luxury of living close in, for the convenience of having a nanny. And having an lower upper class in come means that when your child has special needs, you can afford to select therapies and tutors that are best suited for your child instead of taking what insurance will cover. You have the option to buy lunch and get takeout when you come home late. A middle class family would be cooking on weekends so that when they come home late, they can heat up a meal. They would be asking friends to carpool or trying to get a retired family member to move to the area to help with transportation for your child. And they wouldn't be paying for extra activities for their children.

Your entire post is filled with luxuries that you justify. Just because you spend all of your income and don't have a lot of disposable income leftover after you've spent it, does not mean that you didn't have a high income to begin with. It just means that you live a much wealthier life-style than a true middle class income could afford.

It's such a joke that the downtown lawyers and doctors and lobbyists are trying to claim being middle class. How do you think the paralegal in your office or the PT therapist that works in the same hospital or the office manager of your lobbyist firm live. They have the same commute issues that you have on 1/3 of your income and may not have a high income spouse to augment their income. These people are middle income staff (as opposed to the building security guard, the janitor or the gift shop clerk at the hospital who are making low income wages). The middle income people have to make the same commute, they have the same issues of childcare, they might have special needs children, and they still have to eat lunch and dinner. How do you think they do this on 1/3 of your income? You've deluded yourself into thinking that a standard with no qualifications defines middle class. It doesn't. The standard of home, childcare, food and expenses is upper middle class at best in the outer suburbs, but when you move everything into the close-in areas, then it becomes completely unattainable in close in. You pay the luxury upcharge to move everything into the convenience zone. And that requires an upper class income to do so.

They're poor. They're not middle class. That's the WHOLE POINT you nitwit. The middle class is being hollowed out. People who used to be middle class (i.e. the office manager) is now in fact poor because it costs so damn much to live in coastal cities.

Stop with the name-calling. It doesn't improve your arguments, it just makes you look crass.

And no, you are wrong. They are not poor. In the Washington DC metro area, the median income is about $85K across the three jurisdictions. A middle class family makes around $75-150K. An office manager or physical therapist who make $75-90K is exactly middle class. And they may have a partner so that they have a household income in the $125-150K and makes them towards the upper end of middle class.

I know many people in that income bracket. And they live out in PG County or Charles County or Loudon County and they still have the commute into town. They just make far different choices than the rich because those choices are not even options for them. Living inside the beltway or having childcare downtown are not options for the middle class.

And while the COL is very high inside the beltway, there are still many middle class families that can live in this area by making less expensive choices. Not everything in the area costs as much as Arlington, NW DC and Bethesda/CC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class people do not own $1.8m houses. Nor do they spend $24,000 on preschool. Or $2,000 a month on food.

What a stupid article.

Actually full-day daycare does cost 18-30k in the DC area.

My child goes to daycare full time in Reston for$310/wk. $16,120/yr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we mentioned yet that they save 50k per year off the bat? And yes, they stretched to far on housing once you consider PITI.

And they're also paying $53,000/year for preschool plus childcare. Hey, here's a new rule . . . when your childcare expenses nearly equal the medial *salary* for the country, you ain't middle class.

It is appalling that (i) this has to be said, and (ii) some dimwits will disagree with it.

How much is childcare for middle class?

Say $100,000 is solidly middle class. Assume, after taxes (but not including health care and retirement savings, they take home $80,000. $53,000 in childcare is more that 66% of their take-home.

It's less than that.

Middle class families use in-home childcare, frequently unlicensed. They leverage friends and family for childcare. They work offset schedules to avoid having to have childcare (e.g. dad has a regular 9-5 job and mom works 3 12hr night shifts a week as a nurse). They stop paying for afterschool care when their kids are still in ES. They don't send their kids to summer camps or, if they do, it's the cheap program at the church or at a county park.

Yes, I have friends who are middle class. Mom is a GS-12 and Dad works a blue collar job. They make about $140K combined. They live in PG County.

They have their older kid in full-time pre-school at a church and pay about $525 per month for him. They have their younger one in daycare 3 days a week (same church) for $300/month. The Mom works a flex schedule of 4 10-hour days and takes Fridays off and has the younger kid. Grandma watches the younger child one day a week. Mom drops kids off at school, then goes for her long days. Dad goes to work early and leaves early enough to pick them up from preschool/daycare.

So, daycare costs about $825/month or about $10K for two children per year. A far cry from $53K for one child.

$525 a month for full time preschool?! We are an interfaith family in MoCo and visited both our local synagogue and church for tours. Both are about 1700-1800 to send one child full time! And neither is "fancy" or anything...

That's a choice you will be making to pay that high price.

You all act like these expensive options are mandatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we mentioned yet that they save 50k per year off the bat? And yes, they stretched to far on housing once you consider PITI.

And they're also paying $53,000/year for preschool plus childcare. Hey, here's a new rule . . . when your childcare expenses nearly equal the medial *salary* for the country, you ain't middle class.

It is appalling that (i) this has to be said, and (ii) some dimwits will disagree with it.

How much is childcare for middle class?

Say $100,000 is solidly middle class. Assume, after taxes (but not including health care and retirement savings, they take home $80,000. $53,000 in childcare is more that 66% of their take-home.

It's less than that.

Middle class families use in-home childcare, frequently unlicensed. They leverage friends and family for childcare. They work offset schedules to avoid having to have childcare (e.g. dad has a regular 9-5 job and mom works 3 12hr night shifts a week as a nurse). They stop paying for afterschool care when their kids are still in ES. They don't send their kids to summer camps or, if they do, it's the cheap program at the church or at a county park.

Yes, I have friends who are middle class. Mom is a GS-12 and Dad works a blue collar job. They make about $140K combined. They live in PG County.

They have their older kid in full-time pre-school at a church and pay about $525 per month for him. They have their younger one in daycare 3 days a week (same church) for $300/month. The Mom works a flex schedule of 4 10-hour days and takes Fridays off and has the younger kid. Grandma watches the younger child one day a week. Mom drops kids off at school, then goes for her long days. Dad goes to work early and leaves early enough to pick them up from preschool/daycare.

So, daycare costs about $825/month or about $10K for two children per year. A far cry from $53K for one child.

$525 a month for full time preschool?! We are an interfaith family in MoCo and visited both our local synagogue and church for tours. Both are about 1700-1800 to send one child full time! And neither is "fancy" or anything...

It's in Hyattsville. As I said, they (and I) live in PG County. That said, I used centers and it was about $1000/month per child 2 years ago, again, in PG County. You also pay an UMC up-charge for MoCo. Lots of things are much more expensive in MoCo than in PG or Charles Counties.

https://www.mystandrew.org/preschool/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we mentioned yet that they save 50k per year off the bat? And yes, they stretched to far on housing once you consider PITI.

And they're also paying $53,000/year for preschool plus childcare. Hey, here's a new rule . . . when your childcare expenses nearly equal the medial *salary* for the country, you ain't middle class.

It is appalling that (i) this has to be said, and (ii) some dimwits will disagree with it.

How much is childcare for middle class?

Say $100,000 is solidly middle class. Assume, after taxes (but not including health care and retirement savings, they take home $80,000. $53,000 in childcare is more that 66% of their take-home.

It's less than that.

Middle class families use in-home childcare, frequently unlicensed. They leverage friends and family for childcare. They work offset schedules to avoid having to have childcare (e.g. dad has a regular 9-5 job and mom works 3 12hr night shifts a week as a nurse). They stop paying for afterschool care when their kids are still in ES. They don't send their kids to summer camps or, if they do, it's the cheap program at the church or at a county park.

Yes, I have friends who are middle class. Mom is a GS-12 and Dad works a blue collar job. They make about $140K combined. They live in PG County.

They have their older kid in full-time pre-school at a church and pay about $525 per month for him. They have their younger one in daycare 3 days a week (same church) for $300/month. The Mom works a flex schedule of 4 10-hour days and takes Fridays off and has the younger kid. Grandma watches the younger child one day a week. Mom drops kids off at school, then goes for her long days. Dad goes to work early and leaves early enough to pick them up from preschool/daycare.

So, daycare costs about $825/month or about $10K for two children per year. A far cry from $53K for one child.

$525 a month for full time preschool?! We are an interfaith family in MoCo and visited both our local synagogue and church for tours. Both are about 1700-1800 to send one child full time! And neither is "fancy" or anything...

That's a choice you will be making to pay that high price.

You all act like these expensive options are mandatory.

There is literally NOTHING anywhere near us that costs $525 a month for full time or is 10K a year for two children. Nothing. In home day cares, the cheaper option, are around 1200 a month for one child, and we have two children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we mentioned yet that they save 50k per year off the bat? And yes, they stretched to far on housing once you consider PITI.

And they're also paying $53,000/year for preschool plus childcare. Hey, here's a new rule . . . when your childcare expenses nearly equal the medial *salary* for the country, you ain't middle class.

It is appalling that (i) this has to be said, and (ii) some dimwits will disagree with it.

How much is childcare for middle class?

Say $100,000 is solidly middle class. Assume, after taxes (but not including health care and retirement savings, they take home $80,000. $53,000 in childcare is more that 66% of their take-home.

It's less than that.

Middle class families use in-home childcare, frequently unlicensed. They leverage friends and family for childcare. They work offset schedules to avoid having to have childcare (e.g. dad has a regular 9-5 job and mom works 3 12hr night shifts a week as a nurse). They stop paying for afterschool care when their kids are still in ES. They don't send their kids to summer camps or, if they do, it's the cheap program at the church or at a county park.

Yes, I have friends who are middle class. Mom is a GS-12 and Dad works a blue collar job. They make about $140K combined. They live in PG County.

They have their older kid in full-time pre-school at a church and pay about $525 per month for him. They have their younger one in daycare 3 days a week (same church) for $300/month. The Mom works a flex schedule of 4 10-hour days and takes Fridays off and has the younger kid. Grandma watches the younger child one day a week. Mom drops kids off at school, then goes for her long days. Dad goes to work early and leaves early enough to pick them up from preschool/daycare.

So, daycare costs about $825/month or about $10K for two children per year. A far cry from $53K for one child.

$525 a month for full time preschool?! We are an interfaith family in MoCo and visited both our local synagogue and church for tours. Both are about 1700-1800 to send one child full time! And neither is "fancy" or anything...

That's a choice you will be making to pay that high price.

You all act like these expensive options are mandatory.

There is literally NOTHING anywhere near us that costs $525 a month for full time or is 10K a year for two children. Nothing. In home day cares, the cheaper option, are around 1200 a month for one child, and we have two children.

DP but you're kind of missing the point that the reason nothing near you is that cheap is because you live in an expensive area. It's like living in Tribeca and complaining that your secretary gets cheaper childcare in Yonkers. Yeah, but she spends 3 hrs/day commuting and you don't. Choices, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we mentioned yet that they save 50k per year off the bat? And yes, they stretched to far on housing once you consider PITI.

And they're also paying $53,000/year for preschool plus childcare. Hey, here's a new rule . . . when your childcare expenses nearly equal the medial *salary* for the country, you ain't middle class.

It is appalling that (i) this has to be said, and (ii) some dimwits will disagree with it.

How much is childcare for middle class?

Say $100,000 is solidly middle class. Assume, after taxes (but not including health care and retirement savings, they take home $80,000. $53,000 in childcare is more that 66% of their take-home.

It's less than that.

Middle class families use in-home childcare, frequently unlicensed. They leverage friends and family for childcare. They work offset schedules to avoid having to have childcare (e.g. dad has a regular 9-5 job and mom works 3 12hr night shifts a week as a nurse). They stop paying for afterschool care when their kids are still in ES. They don't send their kids to summer camps or, if they do, it's the cheap program at the church or at a county park.

Yes, I have friends who are middle class. Mom is a GS-12 and Dad works a blue collar job. They make about $140K combined. They live in PG County.

They have their older kid in full-time pre-school at a church and pay about $525 per month for him. They have their younger one in daycare 3 days a week (same church) for $300/month. The Mom works a flex schedule of 4 10-hour days and takes Fridays off and has the younger kid. Grandma watches the younger child one day a week. Mom drops kids off at school, then goes for her long days. Dad goes to work early and leaves early enough to pick them up from preschool/daycare.

So, daycare costs about $825/month or about $10K for two children per year. A far cry from $53K for one child.

$525 a month for full time preschool?! We are an interfaith family in MoCo and visited both our local synagogue and church for tours. Both are about 1700-1800 to send one child full time! And neither is "fancy" or anything...

That's a choice you will be making to pay that high price.

You all act like these expensive options are mandatory.

There is literally NOTHING anywhere near us that costs $525 a month for full time or is 10K a year for two children. Nothing. In home day cares, the cheaper option, are around 1200 a month for one child, and we have two children.

That is $29,000 per year, still a far cry from the $53,000 in the original budget. And if you lived in Hyattsville, you too could have the option of the $525/month preschool. But you don't want to live in Hyattsville. That's fine. But when you keep making expensive choices (no to Hyattsville, no to in-home daycare, and so on), then you run out of money quickly and start to feel poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that $350k should be a comfortable UMC income. Many people would even consider that rich. But it doesn’t go nearly as far as one would expect. That’s our exact income before bonuses. We spend more on some things, less on others, but this isn’t too far off. We have a lot of expenses to make life as two working parents, with long hours and travel, work. We spent more on a house closer in vs having long commutes. One of our kids requires expensive therapy and tutors. We eat takeout way too often bc we get home too late to cook. We have an after-school nanny to shuttle the kids to appointments and activities. Sure, we could get rid of some of these “luxuries” but then one of us would have to cut back at work and our income would decrease. It would be a different ballgame if one of us made $350k and the other SAH. But there is a high cost associated with having both parents work at relatively high paying but not very flexible job.

And $350K is more than comfortable UMC income. The reason that it "doesn't go nearly as far as one would expect" is that you spend your money on luxuries. If you lived in true middle class areas, say Gaithersburg or Vienna, then you would have loads of disposable cash to take vacations, buy a yacht, and invest in expensive hobbies. Instead you spend your money for the luxury of living close in, for the convenience of having a nanny. And having an lower upper class in come means that when your child has special needs, you can afford to select therapies and tutors that are best suited for your child instead of taking what insurance will cover. You have the option to buy lunch and get takeout when you come home late. A middle class family would be cooking on weekends so that when they come home late, they can heat up a meal. They would be asking friends to carpool or trying to get a retired family member to move to the area to help with transportation for your child. And they wouldn't be paying for extra activities for their children.

Your entire post is filled with luxuries that you justify. Just because you spend all of your income and don't have a lot of disposable income leftover after you've spent it, does not mean that you didn't have a high income to begin with. It just means that you live a much wealthier life-style than a true middle class income could afford.

It's such a joke that the downtown lawyers and doctors and lobbyists are trying to claim being middle class. How do you think the paralegal in your office or the PT therapist that works in the same hospital or the office manager of your lobbyist firm live. They have the same commute issues that you have on 1/3 of your income and may not have a high income spouse to augment their income. These people are middle income staff (as opposed to the building security guard, the janitor or the gift shop clerk at the hospital who are making low income wages). The middle income people have to make the same commute, they have the same issues of childcare, they might have special needs children, and they still have to eat lunch and dinner. How do you think they do this on 1/3 of your income? You've deluded yourself into thinking that a standard with no qualifications defines middle class. It doesn't. The standard of home, childcare, food and expenses is upper middle class at best in the outer suburbs, but when you move everything into the close-in areas, then it becomes completely unattainable in close in. You pay the luxury upcharge to move everything into the convenience zone. And that requires an upper class income to do so.

They're poor. They're not middle class. That's the WHOLE POINT you nitwit. The middle class is being hollowed out. People who used to be middle class (i.e. the office manager) is now in fact poor because it costs so damn much to live in coastal cities.

No, office managers are not poor, they're middle class. What's happening in this thread is that rich people are defining "middle class" up so it includes whatever luxury goods they feel entitled to, and then when people point out that lots of less rich people can't afford them, that automatically means that those other people must not be middle class. In reality, the life described in this post isn't a middle-class one at all, but a rich one.

No the reality is that the "rich" are getting really effing rich and leaving everyone else in the dust.

Google how the .1% lives and compare it to this thread.

The fact that there are people with more money than you — even people with A LOT more money than you — doesn’t mean that if you make $350,000 and live in a $1.8 million home, you’re not rich.