Is 300k the new 100k? At what HHI does one "make it"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time: you need HHI 320K to be ok here. Two 15-10s or bust. No shame in going to flyover country with less and buying a 3500 sq ft sfh on an acre for 360K.

What a specific standard! What am I going to tell all my friends who don't earn that much, yet manage to live in DC?

Tell them to piss off.

Funny, because I was going to tell you to piss off!

[Anonymous]

If you're raising kids in DC, yes. I loved DC but said I'll never go back with a HHI less than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:100k, or "hitting six figures", used to be a huge milestone for the college grads of the late 80s/early 90s.

Now, 100k is solidly middle class.

Is 300k the new bench mark for having "made it"?

If not 300, what is it?

Depends where you live. I am in Chicago and hhi varies between 250k and 350kk. We are comfortable, but don't feel rich. We have no debt and we are saving for a house. Hoping to put 50% down and have a very comfortable emergency fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the naysayers need to understand that this is a really expensive area. Make 101k with household income for 220k. Live in a small rambler where schools are an 8, send kid to preschool, two old cars, no debt except mortgage. Max out retirements, eat out 2x/week, shop at whole foods/farmers markets and save a little on top of it. One vacation per year usually to the beach. Great, right? And I should be grateful. But now imagine if one of us loses a job or worse dies, we won't be able to afford even school, mortgage and retirement. That is the root of my financial insecurity.

My definition of being well-off is to make more so we can continue lifestyle on the lower income or alternately have an acceptable lifestyle on the lower income. At 100k, it is difficult.

First bold: You assume the "naysayers" don't live in this area. We do. We understand it is pricey, but 100-250K around here is MORE than enough. More.
Second bold: Yeah. Imagine if that happens to someone making 50,000 or 500,000. The same consequences apply for the most part. You live within your income, you lose one of the incomes, you're gonna suffer. Not really seeing your point here. All is hear i "waaah wahhha mo' money mo'problems."

This is where you are wrong. The consequences are the not the same when the remaining salary is 100K vs 300K. With 100K, you can't afford your kid or a 'shit-sack' in a good school district. At 300K or 500K, you could still do this.

So, how do you explain all the people with kids who manage tonsurvive around d here on 100k? Oh the horror! They rent or live in a townhomes/condo.

or many of them have extenuating circumstances:
-bought a house 10+ years ago (which is either their current house or rolled into their current house)
-have grandparents who pay for private school so they can live in an area with crummy schools
-won the charter lotttery
-etc
-etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the naysayers need to understand that this is a really expensive area. Make 101k with household income for 220k. Live in a small rambler where schools are an 8, send kid to preschool, two old cars, no debt except mortgage. Max out retirements, eat out 2x/week, shop at whole foods/farmers markets and save a little on top of it. One vacation per year usually to the beach. Great, right? And I should be grateful. But now imagine if one of us loses a job or worse dies, we won't be able to afford even school, mortgage and retirement. That is the root of my financial insecurity.

My definition of being well-off is to make more so we can continue lifestyle on the lower income or alternately have an acceptable lifestyle on the lower income. At 100k, it is difficult.

First bold: You assume the "naysayers" don't live in this area. We do. We understand it is pricey, but 100-250K around here is MORE than enough. More.
Second bold: Yeah. Imagine if that happens to someone making 50,000 or 500,000. The same consequences apply for the most part. You live within your income, you lose one of the incomes, you're gonna suffer. Not really seeing your point here. All is hear i "waaah wahhha mo' money mo'problems."

This is where you are wrong. The consequences are the not the same when the remaining salary is 100K vs 300K. With 100K, you can't afford your kid or a 'shit-sack' in a good school district. At 300K or 500K, you could still do this.

So, how do you explain all the people with kids who manage tonsurvive around d here on 100k? Oh the horror! They rent or live in a townhomes/condo.

or many of them have extenuating circumstances:
-bought a house 10+ years ago (which is either their current house or rolled into their current house)
-have grandparents who pay for private school so they can live in an area with crummy schools
-won the charter lotttery
-etc
-etc

No extenuating circumstances here and we are doing fine on 90k.

[Anonymous]

One "makes it" based on net worth, not HHI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time: you need HHI 320K to be ok here. Two 15-10s or bust. No shame in going to flyover country with less and buying a 3500 sq ft sfh on an acre for 360K.

You are comical.

I know people that make a shade over 100K and make it just fine in the DC area. You don't need a 5,000 sq ft house, there are plenty of nice houses 2,500 sq ft or less out there.

They make 100K or a shade over. Are they expecting to be able to contribute significantly to their childrens' college costs, and do they plan to retire before age 67? If the answer is no to both, they are doing "just fine" on a daily basis, but not long term.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone else read the short story "The Rocking Horse Winner"? I can't remember the author. The point is no matter how much money you have, you will always be dissatisfied if you can't live within your means. And your kids will pick up on the financial stress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the naysayers need to understand that this is a really expensive area. Make 101k with household income for 220k. Live in a small rambler where schools are an 8, send kid to preschool, two old cars, no debt except mortgage. Max out retirements, eat out 2x/week, shop at whole foods/farmers markets and save a little on top of it. One vacation per year usually to the beach. Great, right? And I should be grateful. But now imagine if one of us loses a job or worse dies, we won't be able to afford even school, mortgage and retirement. That is the root of my financial insecurity.

My definition of being well-off is to make more so we can continue lifestyle on the lower income or alternately have an acceptable lifestyle on the lower income. At 100k, it is difficult.

First bold: You assume the "naysayers" don't live in this area. We do. We understand it is pricey, but 100-250K around here is MORE than enough. More.
Second bold: Yeah. Imagine if that happens to someone making 50,000 or 500,000. The same consequences apply for the most part. You live within your income, you lose one of the incomes, you're gonna suffer. Not really seeing your point here. All is hear i "waaah wahhha mo' money mo'problems."

This is where you are wrong. The consequences are the not the same when the remaining salary is 100K vs 300K. With 100K, you can't afford your kid or a 'shit-sack' in a good school district. At 300K or 500K, you could still do this.

So, how do you explain all the people with kids who manage tonsurvive around d here on 100k? Oh the horror! They rent or live in a townhomes/condo.

Those people work until they're physically unable to work any longer, and their kids take out huge loans for college or go to NoVa and they pay as they go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the naysayers need to understand that this is a really expensive area. Make 101k with household income for 220k. Live in a small rambler where schools are an 8, send kid to preschool, two old cars, no debt except mortgage. Max out retirements, eat out 2x/week, shop at whole foods/farmers markets and save a little on top of it. One vacation per year usually to the beach. Great, right? And I should be grateful. But now imagine if one of us loses a job or worse dies, we won't be able to afford even school, mortgage and retirement. That is the root of my financial insecurity.

My definition of being well-off is to make more so we can continue lifestyle on the lower income or alternately have an acceptable lifestyle on the lower income. At 100k, it is difficult.

You lost me at small rambler, only in this area and SF/NY are people living in those who are college educated professionals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the naysayers need to understand that this is a really expensive area. Make 101k with household income for 220k. Live in a small rambler where schools are an 8, send kid to preschool, two old cars, no debt except mortgage. Max out retirements, eat out 2x/week, shop at whole foods/farmers markets and save a little on top of it. One vacation per year usually to the beach. Great, right? And I should be grateful. But now imagine if one of us loses a job or worse dies, we won't be able to afford even school, mortgage and retirement. That is the root of my financial insecurity.

My definition of being well-off is to make more so we can continue lifestyle on the lower income or alternately have an acceptable lifestyle on the lower income. At 100k, it is difficult.

First bold: You assume the "naysayers" don't live in this area. We do. We understand it is pricey, but 100-250K around here is MORE than enough. More.
Second bold: Yeah. Imagine if that happens to someone making 50,000 or 500,000. The same consequences apply for the most part. You live within your income, you lose one of the incomes, you're gonna suffer. Not really seeing your point here. All is hear i "waaah wahhha mo' money mo'problems."

This is where you are wrong. The consequences are the not the same when the remaining salary is 100K vs 300K. With 100K, you can't afford your kid or a 'shit-sack' in a good school district. At 300K or 500K, you could still do this.

So, how do you explain all the people with kids who manage tonsurvive around d here on 100k? Oh the horror! They rent or live in a townhomes/condo.

or many of them have extenuating circumstances:
-bought a house 10+ years ago (which is either their current house or rolled into their current house)
-have grandparents who pay for private school so they can live in an area with crummy schools
-won the charter lotttery
-etc
-etc

Or they just don't have the same ideas of what "necessities" are as most of the people on this forum. (For instance, they send their kids to public school, not private school, even though no one on DCUM would think that's possible where they live.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time: you need HHI 320K to be ok here. Two 15-10s or bust. No shame in going to flyover country with less and buying a 3500 sq ft sfh on an acre for 360K.

You are comical.

I know people that make a shade over 100K and make it just fine in the DC area. You don't need a 5,000 sq ft house, there are plenty of nice houses 2,500 sq ft or less out there.

They make 100K or a shade over. Are they expecting to be able to contribute significantly to their childrens' college costs, and do they plan to retire before age 67? If the answer is no to both, they are doing "just fine" on a daily basis, but not long term.

I don't think having your college paid for by your parents, or retiring well before 67, are standard expectations for most people in the country, though. If that's what you consider a bottom-line minimum, the problem isn't the salary, it's your sense of what you ought to be able to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the last time: you need HHI 320K to be ok here. Two 15-10s or bust. No shame in going to flyover country with less and buying a 3500 sq ft sfh on an acre for 360K.

Hahahaha

We have hhi of a little under $100k and we have a great life. We have accumulated a net worth of $1.4m, on that income. Have a great house close to downtown, take several vacations each year (overseas every other year), eat out frequently and basically have no day to day worries about money.

We also recognise our good fortune and that we ARE well off.

[Anonymous]

10:05 here - we're planning to retire in our 50s and are on track to do so. Also have significant college savings for our kids who are both under five.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time: you need HHI 320K to be ok here. Two 15-10s or bust. No shame in going to flyover country with less and buying a 3500 sq ft sfh on an acre for 360K.

What a specific standard! What am I going to tell all my friends who don't earn that much, yet manage to live in DC?

That they should move?