Anonymous wrote:We only bring in 350k or so and we're definitely middle class around here.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:If you're pulling in $200K but live in a McMansion with no equity and a massive ARM, leverage yourself to your eyeballs to take extravagant vacations, and lease 7-series' for each of your kids, and losing your job means you lose all of that the next month the bills are due, you're working class.

lol.. nobody making 200k is doing any of that stuff. 200k = getting by, no private school, shopping at Aldi or shoppers, driving Hondas and living in a 1800sf shitshack with a tiny lot and a carport. To do the stuff you are talking about would be at least 400-500k or more if you are really leasing 7 series for your kids. That's probably actually getting to $1M.

New poster here. See I don't understand this, how could 200K be getting by? What you described is how my family of 4 lived but my parents barely had a HHI of 60K. I also lived in the NYC metro area, so COL is higher than DC. Had I grown up on 200k life would have been SO good and I would still be in the NYC area.

If you're just getting by on 200k in this area then something is wrong with your day-to-day expenses or you have crazy debt of some kind. I can see where the OP is coming from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We only bring in 350k or so and we're definitely middle class around here.

Gag

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're pulling in $200K but live in a McMansion with no equity and a massive ARM, leverage yourself to your eyeballs to take extravagant vacations, and lease 7-series' for each of your kids, and losing your job means you lose all of that the next month the bills are due, you're working class.

lol.. nobody making 200k is doing any of that stuff. 200k = getting by, no private school, shopping at Aldi or shoppers, driving Hondas and living in a 1800sf shitshack with a tiny lot and a carport. To do the stuff you are talking about would be at least 400-500k or more if you are really leasing 7 series for your kids. That's probably actually getting to $1M.

Anonymous wrote:If you're pulling in $200K but live in a McMansion with no equity and a massive ARM, leverage yourself to your eyeballs to take extravagant vacations, and lease 7-series' for each of your kids, and losing your job means you lose all of that the next month the bills are due, you're working class.

Anonymous wrote:We only bring in 350k or so and we're definitely middle class around here.

Anonymous wrote:For Middle Class, think 'Roseanne' or 'The Middle'.

Anonymous wrote: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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
80k is tough to live on in DC metro area if you have a family and want to buy. It's a great HHI for somewhere more rural, but here, it's peanuts. Interesting you think that this "teacher" took that comment as a slight instead of, say, thinking to herself, "you know, teachers ARE underpaid around here." You know, because everyone knows teachers tend to be underpaid.

But OP's point is that statistics bear out that a lot of/most people *are* living on that amount. And they can't all be unicorn outliers who inherited a house or whatever. A few years ago, I worked with a GS-9 who was supporting a wife and kid on his income. I wouldn't want to do it, but a lot of people do it.

I agree with OP that it's to our peril to pretend that $100K is barely scraping by...even if it means that housing is out of reach in some cities.

I'm OP. Yes, exactly....thank you. When people bemoan an individual earning $100k as unsuccessful career-wise or exclaim how their income of $430k leaves no room for "extras" (both of which I've seen on DCUM), it makes those with incomes that are truly average frustrated and ignored. (This matter of not being able to afford a house in a major city on a $150k family income is irrelevant. They are still making 3x what the average famiy is, and it comes across as being insensitive - at best - to the average working American.)

Democrats are really good with identifying with the truly lower-income and advocate for all sorts of public assistance programs. For the most part, they have those votes. Where they lose out is with the lower-middle and working class (say, HH incomes of $40,000 to $80,000) where the bulk of voters fall. So when a Democrat makes a comment about "how does a person live on $80,000?" to someone whom he knows nothing about (certainly not their salary!), he is showing the same tone-deafness that cost votes at the polls.

Some of you get this, but some still do not. That scares me for the next election.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
80k is tough to live on in DC metro area if you have a family and want to buy. It's a great HHI for somewhere more rural, but here, it's peanuts. Interesting you think that this "teacher" took that comment as a slight instead of, say, thinking to herself, "you know, teachers ARE underpaid around here." You know, because everyone knows teachers tend to be underpaid.

But OP's point is that statistics bear out that a lot of/most people *are* living on that amount. And they can't all be unicorn outliers who inherited a house or whatever. A few years ago, I worked with a GS-9 who was supporting a wife and kid on his income. I wouldn't want to do it, but a lot of people do it.

I agree with OP that it's to our peril to pretend that $100K is barely scraping by...even if it means that housing is out of reach in some cities.