Anonymous wrote:OP, salaries are adjusted to location so location is relevant when discussing class. No one cares if 80k is a high HHI in bum-f Arkansas. 80k qualifies for subsidized housing for a family of 4 in Fairfax County. So obviously the COL of a particular location matters.

Don't tell OP her HHI of 100k is close to qualifying for government assistance. She can't stand the thought that she is that "low."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

YOU are the "person" who feels slighted that people here have accused you of being (God forbid), lower class, middle class, poor. You just can't stand that some of us DC yuppies think of your 100k salary as "low." And then you go on a rant about how you support Trump because all the rich liberals think of you as low class. You, old lady, are cray.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

Yeah, it's you. You need to seek psychological help.

Middle income is not the same as middle class. The overlap between the two has to do with how the income is generated.

Here's one way to think about it (Class: A Guide Through the American Status System):

The Top Class (out of sight)
Wealth through inheritance alone. Multi-generational.

The Upper Class
They often inherit a good amount of money, but they earn it too doing some slight and attractive type of work.

The Upper-Middle Class
They earn large amounts of money through things like investment banking, medicine, big law, etc. If they stop working, their income stops.

The Middle Class
Corporate white collar workers.

The Proletarian Class

A person making $100,000 is likely middle class, even if that's well above the median income.

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

OP, salaries are adjusted to location so location is relevant when discussing class. No one cares if 80k is a high HHI in bum-f Arkansas. 80k qualifies for subsidized housing for a family of 4 in Fairfax County. So obviously the COL of a particular location matters.

I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your first example is a bit out of touch with housing prices in SF.

What do you mean? I simply posted a link to the NPR report that showed, clearly, that $100k is NOT lower-class in SF (despite another poster saying it was). So these are not my figures, but researched statistics.

1) the data is four years old - SF has seen even higher housing prices since then, and 2) it includes people who bought homes years ago or are protected by rent control. A family, especially one with children, moving there now would have a very hard time making it on $100k.

I agree with that, but it doesn't mean that $100k is lower-class in SF. What this means is that the middle class cannot afford to live there (comfortably) and that it really takes an upper class income to live nicely there.

So that's getting to my point. It's not that $100k is a below-average income....it's actually above the median. The fact is that the middle class is priced out of some housing markets. What I see happening (at least here on DCUM) is that people are thinking that if it takes $300k to buy a home in DC, then $300k is middle-class. In reality, it takes an upper income to buy in the city - and that's what $300k is. Upper income, not middle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your first example is a bit out of touch with housing prices in SF.

What do you mean? I simply posted a link to the NPR report that showed, clearly, that $100k is NOT lower-class in SF (despite another poster saying it was). So these are not my figures, but researched statistics.

1) the data is four years old - SF has seen even higher housing prices since then, and 2) it includes people who bought homes years ago or are protected by rent control. A family, especially one with children, moving there now would have a very hard time making it on $100k.

Anonymous wrote:I think your first example is a bit out of touch with housing prices in SF.

What do you mean? I simply posted a link to the NPR report that showed, clearly, that $100k is NOT lower-class in SF (despite another poster saying it was). So these are not my figures, but researched statistics.

I think your first example is a bit out of touch with housing prices in SF.

Obviously it's different in different locations. I live/work in San Francisco. A coworker was able to transition his job to home. He then moved to New England. His COL just went WAY down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been some amazing posts recently that seem to show that many DCUMers do not realize what a "good" income is, not only here in the DC area but in cities throughout the country, and that their perspective is skewed. I thought this could make for an interesting discussion.

Three examples pop immediately to mind:

1) Someone claimed that people with incomes only slightly more than $100,000 are considered LOWER CLASS in San Francisco. (Yes, really.)
2) Another poster told a college-educated professional earning $100,000 that she is "way below average" and was sorry that she was unsuccessful in her career.
3) A couple in their 40s with a guaranteed income in retirement of $11,000 a month (pensions and SS) was concerned that the $3 million they had saved thus far (in addition to the guaranteed income) would not be sufficient once they reach retirement.

Others have made attempts to explain that once you cross the six-figure threshold (especially when you are talking about an individual salary as opposed to HHI), you are actually well above average....that the poverty line for a family of 3 is something like $35,000 and that an income of $85,000 is squarely middle-class....or that studies of cities across the country show that the median family income in all but two of them is less than $100K. These statements to show how middle-class people live are often met with disdain and cursing, for what reason I don't know. (Maybe some sort of weird humblebrag.)

Linked below is a report from NPR showing that the median income (and that's for households, not individuals) range from a low of $30K in Detroit to a high of $103K in Seattle. In ALL instances, a family income of $250,000 or more was considered upper income. The chart uses data from 2013, but inflation has been pretty flat the past four years.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities

Social security is not guaranteed for those in their 40's. It's probably safe to assume a 40YO will receive 70% of their benefit.

OK, then. Even if we are to take that out, they are still left with about $5,000 guaranteed (with COLA) and $3,000,000 - which, continuing to save - would grow to at least $5,000,000. With a 4% withdrawal rate AND the guaranteed pensions, they would still have $20,000 per month. The point remains that such a figure is probably in the upper 1% of retirees, and quadruple the median income.

Anonymous wrote:There have been some amazing posts recently that seem to show that many DCUMers do not realize what a "good" income is, not only here in the DC area but in cities throughout the country, and that their perspective is skewed. I thought this could make for an interesting discussion.

Three examples pop immediately to mind:

1) Someone claimed that people with incomes only slightly more than $100,000 are considered LOWER CLASS in San Francisco. (Yes, really.)
2) Another poster told a college-educated professional earning $100,000 that she is "way below average" and was sorry that she was unsuccessful in her career.
3) A couple in their 40s with a guaranteed income in retirement of $11,000 a month (pensions and SS) was concerned that the $3 million they had saved thus far (in addition to the guaranteed income) would not be sufficient once they reach retirement.

Others have made attempts to explain that once you cross the six-figure threshold (especially when you are talking about an individual salary as opposed to HHI), you are actually well above average....that the poverty line for a family of 3 is something like $35,000 and that an income of $85,000 is squarely middle-class....or that studies of cities across the country show that the median family income in all but two of them is less than $100K. These statements to show how middle-class people live are often met with disdain and cursing, for what reason I don't know. (Maybe some sort of weird humblebrag.)

Linked below is a report from NPR showing that the median income (and that's for households, not individuals) range from a low of $30K in Detroit to a high of $103K in Seattle. In ALL instances, a family income of $250,000 or more was considered upper income. The chart uses data from 2013, but inflation has been pretty flat the past four years.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities

Social security is not guaranteed for those in their 40's. It's probably safe to assume a 40YO will receive 70% of their benefit.

There have been some amazing posts recently that seem to show that many DCUMers do not realize what a "good" income is, not only here in the DC area but in cities throughout the country, and that their perspective is skewed. I thought this could make for an interesting discussion.

Three examples pop immediately to mind:

1) Someone claimed that people with incomes only slightly more than $100,000 are considered LOWER CLASS in San Francisco. (Yes, really.)
2) Another poster told a college-educated professional earning $100,000 that she is "way below average" and was sorry that she was unsuccessful in her career.
3) A couple in their 40s with a guaranteed income in retirement of $11,000 a month (pensions and SS) was concerned that the $3 million they had saved thus far (in addition to the guaranteed income) would not be sufficient once they reach retirement.

Others have made attempts to explain that once you cross the six-figure threshold (especially when you are talking about an individual salary as opposed to HHI), you are actually well above average....that the poverty line for a family of 3 is something like $35,000 and that an income of $85,000 is squarely middle-class....or that studies of cities across the country show that the median family income in all but two of them is less than $100K. These statements to show how middle-class people live are often met with disdain and cursing, for what reason I don't know. (Maybe some sort of weird humblebrag.)

Linked below is a report from NPR showing that the median income (and that's for households, not individuals) range from a low of $30K in Detroit to a high of $103K in Seattle. In ALL instances, a family income of $250,000 or more was considered upper income. The chart uses data from 2013, but inflation has been pretty flat the past four years.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities