Family of Four on 90k - An Upper Middle Class Existence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You think those of us making less are somehow clueless what things cost ? No we aren't. We just have to make do with less. So we know it is possible to live on less. Hearing that someone making four times as much can't seem to figure this out is so frustrating.

Well, the point is, we are more alike than we are different. Okay? Next time there is a pitch fork gathering of the masses aiming for the gates of "the wealthy" defined as people making over $250k, you'll remember this exchange and realize that the middle class spans a large swath of the population.

[Anonymous]

Reading this thread it seems like there are a lot of people who obsess over strange things. Someone (OP?) is extremely upset that hypothetical people with $300-400k income would complain about financial problems when they get by with $90k. Hey, I get it- make closer to $90k than $300k. But why dwell on it so much. Maybe I just don't open enough of those threads or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread it seems like there are a lot of people who obsess over strange things. Someone (OP?) is extremely upset that hypothetical people with $300-400k income would complain about financial problems when they get by with $90k. Hey, I get it- make closer to $90k than $300k. But why dwell on it so much. Maybe I just don't open enough of those threads or something.

They aren't hypothetical people. They are here about twice a month with the exact same complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:39 -- I agree that historically, the U.S. has been a place that over time people have been able to work their way up the economic ladder through hard work and education. But I think we're slipping away from that. I worry that my generation (millenials) will see less economic mobility than prior generations due to a combination of increasing higher education costs and high rates of unemployment for recent grads. Also add in inflation for housing, groceries, healthcare, etc.

Of course some people are lazy and will blame their lack of success on the system being rigged. But I also genuinely think it is harder to climb the SES ladder than it was for past generations. Income inequality is only getting worse in this country and I find it a little smug when older people can't imagine why 20 and early 30-something's find it hard to follow in their footsteps with the house, kids, savings etc.

I am a Gen X-er, just cracked into the 40's, I am not *that* much older. When I graduated with a tech degree in the late 90s, we were hit with the tech bubble burst, followed by a stressful recession. The generation before me can talk about how unemployment cracked over 10% in the early 80's. My point is every generation can talk about some economic issue. What's been annoying is that the millenials are thus far the only generation to blame their lack of success on external factors, along with a sense of entitlement. This is not just me talking here, but a general trend of your generation.

Yes, tuition costs are higher now in absolute terms but it's the rate of increase that is most indicative of "who had it worst". Take a look:

http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-rates-growth-published-charges-decade

As you can see, the annual tuition increases were worse for my generation and even Gen-Y than yours. You don't hear us complaining about it. Okay, I did actually complain about it - I remember going to the MD general assembly and protesting tuition increases together with a bunch of other students. But the point is we didn't let that be an excuse for excessive student loan debt or not being able to get a good education. One significant difference, however, is that student loans and other forms of financial aid are far more plentiful now than it was when I went to college. It was rare for college kids to rack up huge debts because it was tougher to get loans. Also, fewer of your contemporaries are working their way through school, as shown here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/how-many-students-can-actually-work-their-way-through-school/258836/

I recruit/hire people for my company and we have plenty of junior level positions that we simply are unable to fill. When my wife and I started working in our early 20s, we understood that our strength was not experience, but youth and energy. We were willing to work hard, travel, be willing to put in some strange hours because the older guys with family weren't. Instead of eager and energetic go-getters, we get a bunch of laid back slackers with no ambition and who think their degree should automatically guarantee them a $60k salary.

1) There are less students working b/c of cuts in Federal work study over the 2000s, as well as the growth of unpaid internships which became a necessity to get a job after college.
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/103805/colleges-universities-brace-for-big-cuts-in-work-study-programs/

2) Yes, there was high growth in tuition over the 80s, then 90s, than the 00s. But this growth compounds, so the aughts do have a harder time than you did. And there was a shift to more loans rather than direct aid in the 00s, which is not captured in your sticker-price tuition chart
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2023423-155/story.html

And you came to this country with a positive net-worth and apparently no family to support in their old age? You are already *way* ahead of 95% of US college graduates. It's well known that getting a degree overseas is the way to go b/c you don't pay any tuition.

if you only had $2k to you name, how did you come up with a $60,000 downpayment on your $300,000 rowhouse?

You are making a lot of (incorrect) assumptions here.

You do understand that there are several people on this thread. The Gen X pp above, is not the same person as the PP who came to the US with $2k (me).

If you think that you get free degrees and don't pay any tuition overseas then you are willfully ignorant. You realize, you just made a wide sweeping statement about every other country in the world. And where was their any mention of parents or in laws who may or may not need support?

As for, how I bought a house -- the same way that you did, no doubt. I arrived, I found a job and made sure that my expenses were less than my earnings and I saved. More specifically, I lived in a shared house for 5 years where the rent was split between me and the six other young people I lived with. I found a temp job paying $15 an hour when I first arrived, and a professional job at a non profit soon after. I continued to live frugally. My downpayment was about $15k, a large chunk of which came from the only Christmas bonus I have ever received. I did 5 percent down and had a second loan (HELOC) to avoid PMI. House cost somewhat less than $300k, I was rounding up. Closing costs were rolled into the loan. When I bought the house I was earning about $70k. It's not possible to buy a house as soon as your arrive in the country even if I'd had tens of thousands of dollars. You need a US work history and a credit history, neither of which I had.

Sigh, so I like how you constructed a strawman argument about the tuition. I'm assuming your tuition was free, paid for by a generous government or parents, and that you haven't been sending money home to your family, because you skimmed right over that.

And yes, many immigrants come from Europe, Asia (China & India), without any student debt. Compared to the US? Don't be ridiculous.

I see you did the low-money down route, so basically you just leveraged yourself to the hilt and could have easily ended up underwater. You gambled and won the housing lottery, just accept your good fortune.

So I'm curious PP - what is your story? Why so bitter? Are you unable to buy a house?

so???

Sorry, some of us work during day. You know and have parents.

I came from rural America, went to good college and studies engineering not that different than PP.

I was foolish about money in that went into engineering and did what I love rather than go into investment banking or consulting. This is what I am bitter probably, b/c my experience is from rural America where homes cost less than cars. About $40k student loans. We are still worried about supporting parents who have no retirement except their house, a failure to launch sibling, and a sibling with serious mental health issues.

I make same as the PP, around 90k, and we've live in cheap apartments since college (mice, no parking, load neighbors, etc) but definitely not urban pioneers b/c safety is a concern. I'm a country boy and the big city can be scary

We have saved up (no cable, no smart phones until just this year, cheap cars we run to the ground), and just bought a small townhouse in the shady part of a good school district. Our priorities were a short commute, good schools, low monthly cost.

My point for PP was that even though she bought in a sketchy neighborhood, and seems to be infazed by what she assets are low ranked schools, the appreciation in her house is mostly from the bubble. Not her sweat equity or business acumen. It is unlikely to happen again where someone can buy a $300k place in ft totten and it will be worth $1m by 2020 (which is what she experienced). That sort of massive wealth creation gives her a lot of options that most people earning 90k dont get. It would change our lives if we had a chance like that, but we can't take the same gamble she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You think those of us making less are somehow clueless what things cost ? No we aren't. We just have to make do with less. So we know it is possible to live on less. Hearing that someone making four times as much can't seem to figure this out is so frustrating.

Well, the point is, we are more alike than we are different. Okay? Next time there is a pitch fork gathering of the masses aiming for the gates of "the wealthy" defined as people making over $250k, you'll remember this exchange and realize that the middle class spans a large swath of the population.

huh? The folks who have been complaining on dcum make 400k and claim to be poor. Not sure how that fights into your comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You think those of us making less are somehow clueless what things cost ? No we aren't. We just have to make do with less. So we know it is possible to live on less. Hearing that someone making four times as much can't seem to figure this out is so frustrating.

Well, the point is, we are more alike than we are different. Okay? Next time there is a pitch fork gathering of the masses aiming for the gates of "the wealthy" defined as people making over $250k, you'll remember this exchange and realize that the middle class spans a large swath of the population.

huh? The folks who have been complaining on dcum make 400k and claim to be poor. Not sure how that fights into your comment.

fits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread it seems like there are a lot of people who obsess over strange things. Someone (OP?) is extremely upset that hypothetical people with $300-400k income would complain about financial problems when they get by with $90k. Hey, I get it- make closer to $90k than $300k. But why dwell on it so much. Maybe I just don't open enough of those threads or something.

They aren't hypothetical people. They are here about twice a month with the exact same complaints.

^^^but there aren't enough of them hanging out/complaining on this thread so PPs are trying to draw them in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:39 -- I agree that historically, the U.S. has been a place that over time people have been able to work their way up the economic ladder through hard work and education. But I think we're slipping away from that. I worry that my generation (millenials) will see less economic mobility than prior generations due to a combination of increasing higher education costs and high rates of unemployment for recent grads. Also add in inflation for housing, groceries, healthcare, etc.

Of course some people are lazy and will blame their lack of success on the system being rigged. But I also genuinely think it is harder to climb the SES ladder than it was for past generations. Income inequality is only getting worse in this country and I find it a little smug when older people can't imagine why 20 and early 30-something's find it hard to follow in their footsteps with the house, kids, savings etc.

I am a Gen X-er, just cracked into the 40's, I am not *that* much older. When I graduated with a tech degree in the late 90s, we were hit with the tech bubble burst, followed by a stressful recession. The generation before me can talk about how unemployment cracked over 10% in the early 80's. My point is every generation can talk about some economic issue. What's been annoying is that the millenials are thus far the only generation to blame their lack of success on external factors, along with a sense of entitlement. This is not just me talking here, but a general trend of your generation.

Yes, tuition costs are higher now in absolute terms but it's the rate of increase that is most indicative of "who had it worst". Take a look:

http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-rates-growth-published-charges-decade

As you can see, the annual tuition increases were worse for my generation and even Gen-Y than yours. You don't hear us complaining about it. Okay, I did actually complain about it - I remember going to the MD general assembly and protesting tuition increases together with a bunch of other students. But the point is we didn't let that be an excuse for excessive student loan debt or not being able to get a good education. One significant difference, however, is that student loans and other forms of financial aid are far more plentiful now than it was when I went to college. It was rare for college kids to rack up huge debts because it was tougher to get loans. Also, fewer of your contemporaries are working their way through school, as shown here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/how-many-students-can-actually-work-their-way-through-school/258836/

I recruit/hire people for my company and we have plenty of junior level positions that we simply are unable to fill. When my wife and I started working in our early 20s, we understood that our strength was not experience, but youth and energy. We were willing to work hard, travel, be willing to put in some strange hours because the older guys with family weren't. Instead of eager and energetic go-getters, we get a bunch of laid back slackers with no ambition and who think their degree should automatically guarantee them a $60k salary.

1) There are less students working b/c of cuts in Federal work study over the 2000s, as well as the growth of unpaid internships which became a necessity to get a job after college.
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/103805/colleges-universities-brace-for-big-cuts-in-work-study-programs/

2) Yes, there was high growth in tuition over the 80s, then 90s, than the 00s. But this growth compounds, so the aughts do have a harder time than you did. And there was a shift to more loans rather than direct aid in the 00s, which is not captured in your sticker-price tuition chart
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2023423-155/story.html

And you came to this country with a positive net-worth and apparently no family to support in their old age? You are already *way* ahead of 95% of US college graduates. It's well known that getting a degree overseas is the way to go b/c you don't pay any tuition.

if you only had $2k to you name, how did you come up with a $60,000 downpayment on your $300,000 rowhouse?

You are making a lot of (incorrect) assumptions here.

You do understand that there are several people on this thread. The Gen X pp above, is not the same person as the PP who came to the US with $2k (me).

If you think that you get free degrees and don't pay any tuition overseas then you are willfully ignorant. You realize, you just made a wide sweeping statement about every other country in the world. And where was their any mention of parents or in laws who may or may not need support?

As for, how I bought a house -- the same way that you did, no doubt. I arrived, I found a job and made sure that my expenses were less than my earnings and I saved. More specifically, I lived in a shared house for 5 years where the rent was split between me and the six other young people I lived with. I found a temp job paying $15 an hour when I first arrived, and a professional job at a non profit soon after. I continued to live frugally. My downpayment was about $15k, a large chunk of which came from the only Christmas bonus I have ever received. I did 5 percent down and had a second loan (HELOC) to avoid PMI. House cost somewhat less than $300k, I was rounding up. Closing costs were rolled into the loan. When I bought the house I was earning about $70k. It's not possible to buy a house as soon as your arrive in the country even if I'd had tens of thousands of dollars. You need a US work history and a credit history, neither of which I had.

Sigh, so I like how you constructed a strawman argument about the tuition. I'm assuming your tuition was free, paid for by a generous government or parents, and that you haven't been sending money home to your family, because you skimmed right over that.

And yes, many immigrants come from Europe, Asia (China & India), without any student debt. Compared to the US? Don't be ridiculous.

I see you did the low-money down route, so basically you just leveraged yourself to the hilt and could have easily ended up underwater. You gambled and won the housing lottery, just accept your good fortune.

So I'm curious PP - what is your story? Why so bitter? Are you unable to buy a house?

so???

Sorry, some of us work during day. You know and have parents.

I came from rural America, went to good college and studies engineering not that different than PP.

I was foolish about money in that went into engineering and did what I love rather than go into investment banking or consulting. This is what I am bitter probably, b/c my experience is from rural America where homes cost less than cars. About $40k student loans. We are still worried about supporting parents who have no retirement except their house, a failure to launch sibling, and a sibling with serious mental health issues.

I make same as the PP, around 90k, and we've live in cheap apartments since college (mice, no parking, load neighbors, etc) but definitely not urban pioneers b/c safety is a concern. I'm a country boy and the big city can be scary

We have saved up (no cable, no smart phones until just this year, cheap cars we run to the ground), and just bought a small townhouse in the shady part of a good school district. Our priorities were a short commute, good schools, low monthly cost.

My point for PP was that even though she bought in a sketchy neighborhood, and seems to be infazed by what she assets are low ranked schools, the appreciation in her house is mostly from the bubble. Not her sweat equity or business acumen. It is unlikely to happen again where someone can buy a $300k place in ft totten and it will be worth $1m by 2020 (which is what she experienced). That sort of massive wealth creation gives her a lot of options that most people earning 90k dont get. It would change our lives if we had a chance like that, but we can't take the same gamble she did.

I would think engineering would be relatively luctative. I majored in environmental science... LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread it seems like there are a lot of people who obsess over strange things. Someone (OP?) is extremely upset that hypothetical people with $300-400k income would complain about financial problems when they get by with $90k. Hey, I get it- make closer to $90k than $300k. But why dwell on it so much. Maybe I just don't open enough of those threads or something.

They aren't hypothetical people. They are here about twice a month with the exact same complaints.

^^^but there aren't enough of them hanging out/complaining on this thread so PPs are trying to draw them in.

OP tried to draw them in - but that was in response to several other threads.

[Anonymous]

This is in response to 8:35 above- don't want to quote again since it's so long- but PP's house probably didn't just appreciate due to the bubble- sure it's a part but gentrification has lead to crazy increases in housing prices in many DC neighborhoods, and it's not like those places went rock bottom again when the bubble popped. From my limited experience looking at home values when we were house shopping, it was more outlying, exurban areas that really got screwed by the bubble. Investing in a gentrifying inner city neighborhood is a risk that I'm not sure I would have had the courage to take, but for PP it worked out. It doesn't sound like you (as a self described country boy) would have wanted to take that kind of risk even if you had the means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry, some of us work during day. You know and have parents.

I came from rural America, went to good college and studies engineering not that different than PP.

I was foolish about money in that went into engineering and did what I love rather than go into investment banking or consulting. This is what I am bitter probably, b/c my experience is from rural America where homes cost less than cars. About $40k student loans. We are still worried about supporting parents who have no retirement except their house, a failure to launch sibling, and a sibling with serious mental health issues.

That's a rather unhealthy "grass is greener on the other side" mentality. I went into engineering as well and while I made the decision to change careers, my engineering background gives me a unique competitive advantage in my current business against my peers who tend to be marketing and sales types. My wife is in finance, with numerous friends in investment banking due to their heavy duty math background. I am not sure I would have survived in that high pressure environment. I certainly don't want to go live in NY.

Anonymous wrote:
My point for PP was that even though she bought in a sketchy neighborhood, and seems to be infazed by what she assets are low ranked schools, the appreciation in her house is mostly from the bubble. Not her sweat equity or business acumen. It is unlikely to happen again where someone can buy a $300k place in ft totten and it will be worth $1m by 2020 (which is what she experienced). That sort of massive wealth creation gives her a lot of options that most people earning 90k dont get. It would change our lives if we had a chance like that, but we can't take the same gamble she did.

I will concede that for most people, their primary home provides shelter and is not really an investment. At least when they purchased it, the idea of it appreciating is simply assurance that they are likely to not lose money, rather than some calculated decision to invest with an expectation of certain rate of return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You think those of us making less are somehow clueless what things cost ? No we aren't. We just have to make do with less. So we know it is possible to live on less. Hearing that someone making four times as much can't seem to figure this out is so frustrating.

Well, the point is, we are more alike than we are different. Okay? Next time there is a pitch fork gathering of the masses aiming for the gates of "the wealthy" defined as people making over $250k, you'll remember this exchange and realize that the middle class spans a large swath of the population.

huh? The folks who have been complaining on dcum make 400k and claim to be poor. Not sure how that fights into your comment.

They are misusing the term poor, then. Poor means difficulty with even essentials. The kind of "poor" complaining we hear from people making 400k is likely just relaying that their finances are tight despite the high income; again a misuse of the word poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:39 -- I agree that historically, the U.S. has been a place that over time people have been able to work their way up the economic ladder through hard work and education. But I think we're slipping away from that. I worry that my generation (millenials) will see less economic mobility than prior generations due to a combination of increasing higher education costs and high rates of unemployment for recent grads. Also add in inflation for housing, groceries, healthcare, etc.

Of course some people are lazy and will blame their lack of success on the system being rigged. But I also genuinely think it is harder to climb the SES ladder than it was for past generations. Income inequality is only getting worse in this country and I find it a little smug when older people can't imagine why 20 and early 30-something's find it hard to follow in their footsteps with the house, kids, savings etc.

I am a Gen X-er, just cracked into the 40's, I am not *that* much older. When I graduated with a tech degree in the late 90s, we were hit with the tech bubble burst, followed by a stressful recession. The generation before me can talk about how unemployment cracked over 10% in the early 80's. My point is every generation can talk about some economic issue. What's been annoying is that the millenials are thus far the only generation to blame their lack of success on external factors, along with a sense of entitlement. This is not just me talking here, but a general trend of your generation.

Yes, tuition costs are higher now in absolute terms but it's the rate of increase that is most indicative of "who had it worst". Take a look:

http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-rates-growth-published-charges-decade

As you can see, the annual tuition increases were worse for my generation and even Gen-Y than yours. You don't hear us complaining about it. Okay, I did actually complain about it - I remember going to the MD general assembly and protesting tuition increases together with a bunch of other students. But the point is we didn't let that be an excuse for excessive student loan debt or not being able to get a good education. One significant difference, however, is that student loans and other forms of financial aid are far more plentiful now than it was when I went to college. It was rare for college kids to rack up huge debts because it was tougher to get loans. Also, fewer of your contemporaries are working their way through school, as shown here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/how-many-students-can-actually-work-their-way-through-school/258836/

I recruit/hire people for my company and we have plenty of junior level positions that we simply are unable to fill. When my wife and I started working in our early 20s, we understood that our strength was not experience, but youth and energy. We were willing to work hard, travel, be willing to put in some strange hours because the older guys with family weren't. Instead of eager and energetic go-getters, we get a bunch of laid back slackers with no ambition and who think their degree should automatically guarantee them a $60k salary.

1) There are less students working b/c of cuts in Federal work study over the 2000s, as well as the growth of unpaid internships which became a necessity to get a job after college.
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/103805/colleges-universities-brace-for-big-cuts-in-work-study-programs/

2) Yes, there was high growth in tuition over the 80s, then 90s, than the 00s. But this growth compounds, so the aughts do have a harder time than you did. And there was a shift to more loans rather than direct aid in the 00s, which is not captured in your sticker-price tuition chart
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2023423-155/story.html

And you came to this country with a positive net-worth and apparently no family to support in their old age? You are already *way* ahead of 95% of US college graduates. It's well known that getting a degree overseas is the way to go b/c you don't pay any tuition.

if you only had $2k to you name, how did you come up with a $60,000 downpayment on your $300,000 rowhouse?

You are making a lot of (incorrect) assumptions here.

You do understand that there are several people on this thread. The Gen X pp above, is not the same person as the PP who came to the US with $2k (me).

If you think that you get free degrees and don't pay any tuition overseas then you are willfully ignorant. You realize, you just made a wide sweeping statement about every other country in the world. And where was their any mention of parents or in laws who may or may not need support?

As for, how I bought a house -- the same way that you did, no doubt. I arrived, I found a job and made sure that my expenses were less than my earnings and I saved. More specifically, I lived in a shared house for 5 years where the rent was split between me and the six other young people I lived with. I found a temp job paying $15 an hour when I first arrived, and a professional job at a non profit soon after. I continued to live frugally. My downpayment was about $15k, a large chunk of which came from the only Christmas bonus I have ever received. I did 5 percent down and had a second loan (HELOC) to avoid PMI. House cost somewhat less than $300k, I was rounding up. Closing costs were rolled into the loan. When I bought the house I was earning about $70k. It's not possible to buy a house as soon as your arrive in the country even if I'd had tens of thousands of dollars. You need a US work history and a credit history, neither of which I had.

Sigh, so I like how you constructed a strawman argument about the tuition. I'm assuming your tuition was free, paid for by a generous government or parents, and that you haven't been sending money home to your family, because you skimmed right over that.

And yes, many immigrants come from Europe, Asia (China & India), without any student debt. Compared to the US? Don't be ridiculous.

I see you did the low-money down route, so basically you just leveraged yourself to the hilt and could have easily ended up underwater. You gambled and won the housing lottery, just accept your good fortune.

So I'm curious PP - what is your story? Why so bitter? Are you unable to buy a house?

so???

Sorry, some of us work during day. You know and have parents.

I came from rural America, went to good college and studies engineering not that different than PP.

I was foolish about money in that went into engineering and did what I love rather than go into investment banking or consulting. This is what I am bitter probably, b/c my experience is from rural America where homes cost less than cars. About $40k student loans. We are still worried about supporting parents who have no retirement except their house, a failure to launch sibling, and a sibling with serious mental health issues.

I make same as the PP, around 90k, and we've live in cheap apartments since college (mice, no parking, load neighbors, etc) but definitely not urban pioneers b/c safety is a concern. I'm a country boy and the big city can be scary

We have saved up (no cable, no smart phones until just this year, cheap cars we run to the ground), and just bought a small townhouse in the shady part of a good school district. Our priorities were a short commute, good schools, low monthly cost.

My point for PP was that even though she bought in a sketchy neighborhood, and seems to be infazed by what she assets are low ranked schools, the appreciation in her house is mostly from the bubble. Not her sweat equity or business acumen. It is unlikely to happen again where someone can buy a $300k place in ft totten and it will be worth $1m by 2020 (which is what she experienced). That sort of massive wealth creation gives her a lot of options that most people earning 90k dont get. It would change our lives if we had a chance like that, but we can't take the same gamble she did.

I would think engineering would be relatively luctative. I majored in environmental science... LOL

yep. figured engineering would be safe middle class job. work hard but do interesting work, get small house with good schools. instead to have that life you have to either commuter from exurb va and md (like all my colleagues) or settle for th. not looking to be rich but thought we were working hard and doing right. people just 5-10 years older could do it at this point easily b/c housing everywhere was more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is in response to 8:35 above- don't want to quote again since it's so long- but PP's house probably didn't just appreciate due to the bubble- sure it's a part but gentrification has lead to crazy increases in housing prices in many DC neighborhoods, and it's not like those places went rock bottom again when the bubble popped. From my limited experience looking at home values when we were house shopping, it was more outlying, exurban areas that really got screwed by the bubble. Investing in a gentrifying inner city neighborhood is a risk that I'm not sure I would have had the courage to take, but for PP it worked out. It doesn't sound like you (as a self described country boy) would have wanted to take that kind of risk even if you had the means.

You are right. The bubble didn't ever impact my part of the city (prices never went down). PP is unbelievably bitter and for no reaso. How exactly would having a ton of equity change your life? You still need somewhere to live. You still have to pay back whatever you buy against your house. I still have the same house I bought ten years ago. I still live in the same neighborhood and have the same commute. I don't have any more cash spare because my house is now worth more. If I move and cash out my equity where does that take me? I still need a home.

PP just had different priorities and was/is unwilling to take a chance -- those are CHOICES that he consciously made, just like I made choices that worked out. Taking a chance in DC means living somewhere with questionable schools, alongside a lot of people living on the poverty line and all the problems that go with it. But you know what, for every drug deal or shooting or panhandler asking for money or syringe/vodka bottle/knife I find on the local playground, there are dozens of great neighbors (rich or poor, black or white, gay or straight, young or old) who are friendly, open and committed to improving the neighborhood. You just need to open your eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is in response to 8:35 above- don't want to quote again since it's so long- but PP's house probably didn't just appreciate due to the bubble- sure it's a part but gentrification has lead to crazy increases in housing prices in many DC neighborhoods, and it's not like those places went rock bottom again when the bubble popped. From my limited experience looking at home values when we were house shopping, it was more outlying, exurban areas that really got screwed by the bubble. Investing in a gentrifying inner city neighborhood is a risk that I'm not sure I would have had the courage to take, but for PP it worked out. It doesn't sound like you (as a self described country boy) would have wanted to take that kind of risk even if you had the means.

I agree there is some gentrification effect, but part of that was driven by the housing bubble (people couldn't afford upper nw so looked east). but again this is an external effect, gamble on a neighborhood and win type appreciation, not sweat equity that boosts a house by $500k. it worked out birdie many people it won't; haven't people been gambling on acps schools improving, and there are always neighborhoods that are tr next big thing but never make it. pp helped by being a pioneer but she did not effect the change on her own but benefitted from good timing and luck. and reproducing that luck with a declining dc economy seems unlikely, despite her assurance that anyone could replicate her success today.