Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok let's use logic here.

Take the average household income and house price from 1985 in Fairfax or Montgomery county. Then take into account that the average job had a pension, so take that you need to save at least 15 percent of your income to retire at age 55. Also factor in that in order to get an average job you need to have a college degree which wasn't that case in 1985 and is a major cost.

What you end up with is that the cost of living that is very high because of no more pension, high housing and education costs. That's the reality of today and why people feel like they are worse off then their parents even though they appear to be earning a lot. Think about why there is so much outrage and why people want to make America great again , which probably can never happen again.
https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/retirement-calculator.aspx

Here's the problem. While Fairfax and Montgomery counties were middle class in 1985, they are not any more and have not been for 20 years. In 1985, the population of the region was about 3M. In 2018, the population was 6.22M, more than double. And the housing stock has not doubled in that time. The housing stock has gone up about 25-50%. So you have double the number of people trying to fit into 1.5 the number of homes.

That means that those with more means will get the homes closer in. Those with less means will have to move further out or into the less desirable areas. The middle class now live in Reston, Oakton, Burke, Ft Washington, Clinton, Largo, Lanham, Greenbelt, Laurel, College Park, Beltsville. To get bigger homes, they move to Centreville, Chantilly, Waldorf, Brandywine, Upper Marlboro, Bowie.

So, while it is true that you need to factor in retirement savings which is now self-funded through IRAs and 401Ks, you can't still use Fairfax County and Montgomery County as your standard for middle class because the middle class does not buy homes in those towns any more,.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok let's use logic here.

Take the average household income and house price from 1985 in Fairfax or Montgomery county. Then take into account that the average job had a pension, so take that you need to save at least 15 percent of your income to retire at age 55. Also factor in that in order to get an average job you need to have a college degree which wasn't that case in 1985 and is a major cost.

What you end up with is that the cost of living that is very high because of no more pension, high housing and education costs. That's the reality of today and why people feel like they are worse off then their parents even though they appear to be earning a lot. Think about why there is so much outrage and why people want to make America great again , which probably can never happen again.
https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/retirement-calculator.aspx

Here's the problem. While Fairfax and Montgomery counties were middle class in 1985, they are not any more and have not been for 20 years. In 1985, the population of the region was about 3M. In 2018, the population was 6.22M, more than double. And the housing stock has not doubled in that time. The housing stock has gone up about 25-50%. So you have double the number of people trying to fit into 1.5 the number of homes.

That means that those with more means will get the homes closer in. Those with less means will have to move further out or into the less desirable areas. The middle class now live in Reston, Oakton, Burke, Ft Washington, Clinton, Largo, Lanham, Greenbelt, Laurel, College Park, Beltsville. To get bigger homes, they move to Centreville, Chantilly, Waldorf, Brandywine, Upper Marlboro, Bowie.

So, while it is true that you need to factor in retirement savings which is now self-funded through IRAs and 401Ks, you can't still use Fairfax County and Montgomery County as your standard for middle class because the middle class does not buy homes in those towns any more,.

I think I agree with you but having a hard time following your neighborhood selections. Reston, Oakton and Burke are not MC neighborhoods

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok let's use logic here.

Take the average household income and house price from 1985 in Fairfax or Montgomery county. Then take into account that the average job had a pension, so take that you need to save at least 15 percent of your income to retire at age 55. Also factor in that in order to get an average job you need to have a college degree which wasn't that case in 1985 and is a major cost.

What you end up with is that the cost of living that is very high because of no more pension, high housing and education costs. That's the reality of today and why people feel like they are worse off then their parents even though they appear to be earning a lot. Think about why there is so much outrage and why people want to make America great again , which probably can never happen again.
https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/retirement-calculator.aspx

Here's the problem. While Fairfax and Montgomery counties were middle class in 1985, they are not any more and have not been for 20 years. In 1985, the population of the region was about 3M. In 2018, the population was 6.22M, more than double. And the housing stock has not doubled in that time. The housing stock has gone up about 25-50%. So you have double the number of people trying to fit into 1.5 the number of homes.

That means that those with more means will get the homes closer in. Those with less means will have to move further out or into the less desirable areas. The middle class now live in Reston, Oakton, Burke, Ft Washington, Clinton, Largo, Lanham, Greenbelt, Laurel, College Park, Beltsville. To get bigger homes, they move to Centreville, Chantilly, Waldorf, Brandywine, Upper Marlboro, Bowie.

So, while it is true that you need to factor in retirement savings which is now self-funded through IRAs and 401Ks, you can't still use Fairfax County and Montgomery County as your standard for middle class because the middle class does not buy homes in those towns any more,.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?

Not quite. As I said, she works 4 10 hour days a week (flex week schedule) and takes Tuesdays off. Her mother watches her son on Thursdays. Alternatively, she could have worked Thursdays and had her 2 year old son in the mixed age class with his brother for another $190. Then he would have been $695 per month for 4 days a week daycare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?

Not quite. As I said, she works 4 10 hour days a week (flex week schedule) and takes Tuesdays off. Her mother watches her son on Thursdays. Alternatively, she could have worked Thursdays and had her 2 year old son in the mixed age class with his brother for another $190. Then he would have been $695 per month for 4 days a week daycare.

So what is your point exactly? Yes, people who have flexible schedules can pay for less childcare. People who have grandparents who sometimes watch their kids for free can also pay less in childcare.

The point is that you don't have to pay $28K to have your child in daycare in this area like the one person up-thread suggested. The point is that the true middle class makes choices between compromises because it's what they can afford. Yes, maybe they can afford more than $10K a year. Maybe they'll make compromises and spend as much as $15-18K per year (up to $1500 per month), but they aren't spending $28K per year as the one person suggested. And the true middle class does not make $350 or even $250K per year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 to most of this although I don't think those daycare costs are the norm at all. We are in Silver Spring and I looked at a LOT of daycares, but the absolute lowest I found was an in-home for $250 per week (maybe it went down to $200 for a toddler, but I can't remember). That's still $10k for one kid, and in this case it was a bit sketchy and we ended up at one that cost $300/week instead (which is still pretty reasonable in this area). Where the heck is someone finding a licensed daycare for $5000 per year?

I'm the one who posted. Here are some. All are fairly close to Silver Spring, MD. You are paying a premium to live in Montgomery County. That premium comes with increased costs on everything if you want to stay local. If you are willing to branch out some (especially going to PG County), you'll find inexpensive options. Also note that for the most part, the church-based preschool/child care are cheaper than centers. It used to be that in-home based childcare was the cheapest, but I have noticed that lately many of the in-home childcares have raised their prices.

Note, that these are all under the average costs, but I know families who send their kids to both the first two and they are good facilities. The families are typical middle class families that earn between $100-150K per year and have to find reasonable cost child care.

Hyattsville: https://www.mystandrew.org/preschool/
College Park: http://www.ucnskids.org/tuition-and-fees
Beltsville: https://www.hopechristianacademy.org/apply/tuition-costs
Laurel: https://christianacademyoflaurel.org/admissions/
Laurel: https://www.care.com/b/l/kristland-family-daycare/laurel-md

All of the above are no more than $600/month and between $5K-7K per student per year. The family that had two for about $10K had their younger 2 year old only in the 3-day a week program with grandmother watching him one day a week and Mom on a 4x10 hour day schedule watching him one day a week.

This is the cheapest I found in Silver Spring ($8400/year for 1st child, $7500/year for sibling discount)
https://fcs.school/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Financial-Info-Sheet-2019.20-updated-1.pdf

Christian Academy of Laurel is school year only. Great if you are a teacher, bad if you work 12 months a year like most people

The mystandrew link says the preschool is only open 9:15-1:15 each day. That is why it is so cheap. That is for SAHMs,not working moms.

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

fcs.school is school year only. Not suitable for working moms.

Anonymous wrote:Ok let's use logic here.

Take the average household income and house price from 1985 in Fairfax or Montgomery county. Then take into account that the average job had a pension, so take that you need to save at least 15 percent of your income to retire at age 55. Also factor in that in order to get an average job you need to have a college degree which wasn't that case in 1985 and is a major cost.

What you end up with is that the cost of living that is very high because of no more pension, high housing and education costs. That's the reality of today and why people feel like they are worse off then their parents even though they appear to be earning a lot. Think about why there is so much outrage and why people want to make America great again , which probably can never happen again.
https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/retirement-calculator.aspx

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?

Not quite. As I said, she works 4 10 hour days a week (flex week schedule) and takes Tuesdays off. Her mother watches her son on Thursdays. Alternatively, she could have worked Thursdays and had her 2 year old son in the mixed age class with his brother for another $190. Then he would have been $695 per month for 4 days a week daycare.

So what is your point exactly? Yes, people who have flexible schedules can pay for less childcare. People who have grandparents who sometimes watch their kids for free can also pay less in childcare.

The point is that you don't have to pay $28K to have your child in daycare in this area like the one person up-thread suggested. The point is that the true middle class makes choices between compromises because it's what they can afford. Yes, maybe they can afford more than $10K a year. Maybe they'll make compromises and spend as much as $15-18K per year (up to $1500 per month), but they aren't spending $28K per year as the one person suggested. And the true middle class does not make $350 or even $250K per year.

Most people around here need childcare five days a week and Grandma isn't around to help. Not a choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?

Not quite. As I said, she works 4 10 hour days a week (flex week schedule) and takes Tuesdays off. Her mother watches her son on Thursdays. Alternatively, she could have worked Thursdays and had her 2 year old son in the mixed age class with his brother for another $190. Then he would have been $695 per month for 4 days a week daycare.

So what is your point exactly? Yes, people who have flexible schedules can pay for less childcare. People who have grandparents who sometimes watch their kids for free can also pay less in childcare.

The point is that you don't have to pay $28K to have your child in daycare in this area like the one person up-thread suggested. The point is that the true middle class makes choices between compromises because it's what they can afford. Yes, maybe they can afford more than $10K a year. Maybe they'll make compromises and spend as much as $15-18K per year (up to $1500 per month), but they aren't spending $28K per year as the one person suggested. And the true middle class does not make $350 or even $250K per year.

Most people around here need childcare five days a week and Grandma isn't around to help. Not a choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?

Not quite. As I said, she works 4 10 hour days a week (flex week schedule) and takes Tuesdays off. Her mother watches her son on Thursdays. Alternatively, she could have worked Thursdays and had her 2 year old son in the mixed age class with his brother for another $190. Then he would have been $695 per month for 4 days a week daycare.

So what is your point exactly? Yes, people who have flexible schedules can pay for less childcare. People who have grandparents who sometimes watch their kids for free can also pay less in childcare.

The point is that you don't have to pay $28K to have your child in daycare in this area like the one person up-thread suggested. The point is that the true middle class makes choices between compromises because it's what they can afford. Yes, maybe they can afford more than $10K a year. Maybe they'll make compromises and spend as much as $15-18K per year (up to $1500 per month), but they aren't spending $28K per year as the one person suggested. And the true middle class does not make $350 or even $250K per year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?

Not quite. As I said, she works 4 10 hour days a week (flex week schedule) and takes Tuesdays off. Her mother watches her son on Thursdays. Alternatively, she could have worked Thursdays and had her 2 year old son in the mixed age class with his brother for another $190. Then he would have been $695 per month for 4 days a week daycare.

So what is your point exactly? Yes, people who have flexible schedules can pay for less childcare. People who have grandparents who sometimes watch their kids for free can also pay less in childcare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What "middle class" neighborhood has a median home price of 1.6 million? It's definitely not Silver Spring, which is my definition of middle class in the DC area.

No that is low class, bad schools and a high proportion of low income people (more than 10%)

Dont be fooled by realtors and other cheerleaders of real estate, Bethesda is middle class, it's just not as affordable as it was in the past.

LOL. I know a lobbyist that lives in Silver Spring and has a wife that has never worked. Silver Spring is not a low class area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?

Not quite. As I said, she works 4 10 hour days a week (flex week schedule) and takes Tuesdays off. Her mother watches her son on Thursdays. Alternatively, she could have worked Thursdays and had her 2 year old son in the mixed age class with his brother for another $190. Then he would have been $695 per month for 4 days a week daycare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ucnskids.org is 2 days a week only. Again, ok for SAMHs, not suitable for working moms.

That's for the 2's class.

For the 4 yo class, my friend has her 4 yo in the T-Th class ($565) and the M or T mixed year class ($190). So she pays $755 for the month for the 4 yo. Her 2 year old (about to turn 3) goes M-W-F for $505, about to go down to $485 for the month.

I can assure you that my friend, a working mom does find it suitable.

Does your friend work on Tuesdays and Thursdays like the rest of us?