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

Forum Index » Money and Finances

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics