Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all the replies here, but I'd say that your definition of "survival" is probably what's making you feel so strapped. $3k per month mortgage (I think you said) is not a bargain mortgage. $1100 per month for food and kids stuff (again, I think you said) does not sound like people who are trying to keep their spending down. I'm not saying it's easy to live in this area on incomes that are anywhere near normal - but to characterize your spending as barely surviving is really making it seem as if you live in a bubble.

You want to live a higher-income life than you comfortably have, is what it comes down to. And, look, I'm the same way - husb and I earn about $150k, have no kids, pay $600 per month toward student loans, $2k per month for rent. And it seems like we are just barely keeping our heads above water. But in reality that is bullshit. We order in food every time we want it. We keep an expensive cable package because we feel like keeping it. I buy clothes a fair amount. My husband likes to buy comic books. We may not have a whole lot of savings, and we may not have a huge amount of extra $ once we're done accounting for all the stuff we buy - but that's not barely surviving!

Comment again after having two kids on your salary.

Anonymous wrote:I have said this on many threads, and I will say it again.

Being cash strapped because you spent all your $$ is NOT the same as being poor. You are making choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make $200k and could "survive" on less. We would have one car, have a smaller house, live further out, not have both a nanny and part time preschool. We don't eat out (really, maybe 3 times a year), we would not buy organic, not max out our $401ks, not fund $800/month to our kids 529s, not max out our roths, and not save $800 every month.

Really, OP, stop eating out, and determine your budget. And stop feeling bad for yourself. Learn how to manage your money better.

Oh, gadh. Sorry, this made me crack up. My husband and I had to give up our gold-plated dog walker when we started making less than $1 million. But somehow we've survived.

I am so sorry for your loss.

Thank you. It's been really hard. Especially when we were then forced to eat the dog, because we could no longer afford free-range beef raised in our penthouse.

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all the replies here, but I'd say that your definition of "survival" is probably what's making you feel so strapped. $3k per month mortgage (I think you said) is not a bargain mortgage. $1100 per month for food and kids stuff (again, I think you said) does not sound like people who are trying to keep their spending down. I'm not saying it's easy to live in this area on incomes that are anywhere near normal - but to characterize your spending as barely surviving is really making it seem as if you live in a bubble.

You want to live a higher-income life than you comfortably have, is what it comes down to. And, look, I'm the same way - husb and I earn about $150k, have no kids, pay $600 per month toward student loans, $2k per month for rent. And it seems like we are just barely keeping our heads above water. But in reality that is bullshit. We order in food every time we want it. We keep an expensive cable package because we feel like keeping it. I buy clothes a fair amount. My husband likes to buy comic books. We may not have a whole lot of savings, and we may not have a huge amount of extra $ once we're done accounting for all the stuff we buy - but that's not barely surviving!

Anonymous wrote:Survive? Honestly. Is that the word you really wanted to use? People in third world countries who eat rice (when they're lucky) and drink dirty water are "surviving." You are priveleged beyond all bounds of imagination.

Now shut the fuck up and go figure it out. If you're smart enough to make $200K HHI, you're smart enough to figure out how to live within your means.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, come on. There are plenty of undervalued homes located throughout the Washington DC metro area that are more than affordable to most people making $100K per year. There is a lot of value to be had in downcounty MoCo and PG County. In my neighborhood, homes are going for about $300K and we are walking distance to metro!

And then basically pay for another house by going private with two kids for 13 yrs.

50yo PP with two kids here. We live in downcounty MoCo and our kids go to public school. No need for privates - they are getting a good education thanks to MCPS.

What you are saying tells me not that you find it hard to "survive" on $200K in this area. You find it hard to attain the best of everything for your family on $200K. Which is altogether different.

BINGO. There are a lot of highly educated Feds, journalists, professionals making less than $200k for a family of four and feeling like somehow they deserve more. Fact is, wages have stagnated. It was easier to have a nice lifestyle even ten years ago. Sudden influx of NYC-type wealth in DC has skewed everyone's expectations. Ten or fifteen years ago, shabby chic and gentille poverty was fine -- now it's not.

gentile poverty? No this area used to be middle managers and government workers so the housing stock and lifestyle wasn't that high.

Since the money moved in during the 90s the area has transformed and the col has shot up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make $200k and could "survive" on less. We would have one car, have a smaller house, live further out, not have both a nanny and part time preschool. We don't eat out (really, maybe 3 times a year), we would not buy organic, not max out our $401ks, not fund $800/month to our kids 529s, not max out our roths, and not save $800 every month.

Really, OP, stop eating out, and determine your budget. And stop feeling bad for yourself. Learn how to manage your money better.

Oh, gadh. Sorry, this made me crack up. My husband and I had to give up our gold-plated dog walker when we started making less than $1 million. But somehow we've survived.

I am so sorry for your loss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make $200k and could "survive" on less. We would have one car, have a smaller house, live further out, not have both a nanny and part time preschool. We don't eat out (really, maybe 3 times a year), we would not buy organic, not max out our $401ks, not fund $800/month to our kids 529s, not max out our roths, and not save $800 every month.

Really, OP, stop eating out, and determine your budget. And stop feeling bad for yourself. Learn how to manage your money better.

Oh, gadh. Sorry, this made me crack up. My husband and I had to give up our gold-plated dog walker when we started making less than $1 million. But somehow we've survived.

Anonymous wrote:We make $200k and could "survive" on less. We would have one car, have a smaller house, live further out, not have both a nanny and part time preschool. We don't eat out (really, maybe 3 times a year), we would not buy organic, not max out our $401ks, not fund $800/month to our kids 529s, not max out our roths, and not save $800 every month.

Really, OP, stop eating out, and determine your budget. And stop feeling bad for yourself. Learn how to manage your money better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In came back to the DC area in 2008 after working abroad for 5 years. My salary then was $65,000. My DW and I bought a house near DTSS for $228,000. We could have sold it at the peak of the bubble for about $600K.

From 2002 - 2003, we were single income as my DW went to grad school. Our mortgage payment was $1500/mo. In 2004, we went back overseas for four years (Korea). During this time, and this is the only time in our 17 years of marriage, we were dual income. We rented out our SS house for $1600/mo. We saved enough money while overseas for a down payment on another house. So, we bought a second home as a primary residence and continue to rent out the SS house.
We currently have a net work of $500K, $100K iinvested and available for college and $300K in my TSP.

I make approximately $140K as a Fed. DW is SAHM. We seem to be doing OK. We dont' take extravagant vacations. We drive old cars. DD is in public schools in FFX and we are happy with them. So, it is completely doable depending on your lifestyle choices!

Must be nice to have taken advantage of the housing boom and not have childcare expenses.

Your children will not always require childcare costs. Just wait until braces and driver's license and college. There will always be another boom and bust cycle and you will be on the beneficial side then. We bought at the top of the last boom (1989), 24 years later you guys are telling us we caught a "lucky" break. It took over 10 years before our house value increased.

But prices at the top of that boom were still lower, relatively speaking and adjusting for inflation, than prices are now. My parents bought a house in Burke (so not even an area that's boomed as much as the closer-in suburbs) for about $320K in 1999, before the last run-up. That's the equivalent of $447K now, according to this inflation calculator: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.

That house is probably worth about $600K or 650K now. Even if you bought at the top of the last boom, if you bought 25 years ago housing was still much cheaper relative to salaries then it is today.

Our income was quite a bit lower too. The metro DC area has been a high cost area for many decades.

OK, let's compare. Let's take a typical mid-level federal worker. A beginning GS-12 made $48,796 in 1999: http://archive.opm.gov/oca/99tables/GSannual/fsc/dcbgsf.htm. Adjusted for inflation that's about $68K, according to the government calculator I used before. That same beginning GS-12 makes 74K today. So yes, a little more -- about 8 percent more, relative to inflation. Meanwhile the house in Burke costs maybe 30 to 50 percent more than it did back then. And in many close-in neighborhoods, prices have skyrocketed even more. I stand by what I said before -- houses are much more expensive relative to salaries than they were 15, 20 or 30 years ago.

And? They are still quite high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In came back to the DC area in 2008 after working abroad for 5 years. My salary then was $65,000. My DW and I bought a house near DTSS for $228,000. We could have sold it at the peak of the bubble for about $600K.

From 2002 - 2003, we were single income as my DW went to grad school. Our mortgage payment was $1500/mo. In 2004, we went back overseas for four years (Korea). During this time, and this is the only time in our 17 years of marriage, we were dual income. We rented out our SS house for $1600/mo. We saved enough money while overseas for a down payment on another house. So, we bought a second home as a primary residence and continue to rent out the SS house.
We currently have a net work of $500K, $100K iinvested and available for college and $300K in my TSP.

I make approximately $140K as a Fed. DW is SAHM. We seem to be doing OK. We dont' take extravagant vacations. We drive old cars. DD is in public schools in FFX and we are happy with them. So, it is completely doable depending on your lifestyle choices!

Must be nice to have taken advantage of the housing boom and not have childcare expenses.

Your children will not always require childcare costs. Just wait until braces and driver's license and college. There will always be another boom and bust cycle and you will be on the beneficial side then. We bought at the top of the last boom (1989), 24 years later you guys are telling us we caught a "lucky" break. It took over 10 years before our house value increased.

But prices at the top of that boom were still lower, relatively speaking and adjusting for inflation, than prices are now. My parents bought a house in Burke (so not even an area that's boomed as much as the closer-in suburbs) for about $320K in 1999, before the last run-up. That's the equivalent of $447K now, according to this inflation calculator: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.

That house is probably worth about $600K or 650K now. Even if you bought at the top of the last boom, if you bought 25 years ago housing was still much cheaper relative to salaries then it is today.

Our income was quite a bit lower too. The metro DC area has been a high cost area for many decades.

OK, let's compare. Let's take a typical mid-level federal worker. A beginning GS-12 made $48,796 in 1999: http://archive.opm.gov/oca/99tables/GSannual/fsc/dcbgsf.htm. Adjusted for inflation that's about $68K, according to the government calculator I used before. That same beginning GS-12 makes 74K today. So yes, a little more -- about 8 percent more, relative to inflation. Meanwhile the house in Burke costs maybe 30 to 50 percent more than it did back then. And in many close-in neighborhoods, prices have skyrocketed even more. I stand by what I said before -- houses are much more expensive relative to salaries than they were 15, 20 or 30 years ago.