How much to live comfortably Boston metro (Lowell, Cambridge: daycare, houses)

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by timberline742

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Not even close.

I would say its somewhere in-between the figure I mentioned and the figure you mentioned. With a family of four you usually have two parents in their prime earning years. Therefore the household income will be higher if you exclude singles starting out and retirees.

Looking at the medium earnings for men and the medium earnings for women is probably a good figure to use. If you have two parents each earning the medium for their gender than the families income would be 113 thousand dollars. You're right that figure is probably more accurate than the 172k that I quoted earlier.

Comparing Boston to Chicago it looks like the average household income is about 10 grand less than it is in Boston.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

I would say its somewhere in-between the figure I mentioned and the figure you mentioned. With a family of four you usually have two parents in their prime earning years. Therefore the household income will be higher if you exclude singles starting out and retirees.

Looking at the medium earnings for men and the medium earnings for women is probably a good figure to use. If you have two parents each earning the medium for their gender than the families income would be 113 thousand dollars.

With a family of four you have one or two. A mean less than two. Not every family has two people working.

And I have no idea where you're getting your numbers, nor do I know why you think it is ok to exclude adults of any age. Not everyone is in their prime earning years all the time and they still need to pay housing, taxes, etc. That makes no sense.

But the median family income is not even close to $113k. The figure I mention is actually collected data, not just made up. Heck, even looking at fairly solid towns, Brookline's media household income is <$100k, as is Arlington, there are a bunch of towns where it is more than $100k, sure, but those aren't very populous towns. They're the wealthy towns of the metrowest, and some others. We know what the median household income is, like, what it actually is (within a confidence interval). And half the household earn less.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

Yes the per capita income the Middlesex county is 43k. That means for a family of four the average income would be 172k. For Essex county the average is 35k and for Norfolk the average is 45k. The suburbs of Boston is one of the wealthiest regions in the country, that's why it is so expensive to live here.

I think per capita income is better than looking at the average household income. Families in kids often have two parents in their prime working years therefore they make more than the statistics for the average household. The average household includes people living by themselves and retirees. While looking at per capita income might overestimate the averages slightly I think it is still a good estimate on what the average four person family makes.

I disagree. I don't think per capita income is a very useful measure. If you have a neurosurgeon making 500K, and his housekeeper who makes 20K, the per capita income would be 260K, but the housekeeper is in far worse straits. Take the neurosurgeon's kid and the housekeeper's kid, and you get 130K, which pretty much tells you nothing about any of these 4 people.

Household income is much more insightful. The neurosurgeon making 500K has pretty much the same standard of living whether he has 4 kids or 5.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by timberline742

With a family of four you have one or two. A mean less than two. Not every family has two people working.

And I have no idea where you're getting your numbers, nor do I know why you think it is ok to exclude adults of any age. Not everyone is in their prime earning years all the time and they still need to pay housing, taxes, etc. That makes no sense.

But the median family income is not even close to $113k. The figure I mention is actually collected data, not just made up.

Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers: $62,347.
Median earnings for female full-time, year-round workers: $50,920.

That's the figures that I looked at. The household income includes people living by themselves, people who are retired, young roommates living together. All of these households would skew the average household income to be less than the average for a family with two parents. Of course if your looking at single moms their life is alot harder. I would say that in today's day and age families where only one parent works is relatively rare. The only people I know who do this usually have a wealthy breadwinner that allows the other parent to be a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad. If I had to venture a guess I would say that an average of 1.8 to 1.9 parents work in a four person family.


And those are medium income figures so they are probably a better representation than the average per capita income figures that I stated earlier. Having a mean vs an medium probably makes the typical incomes look larger. I shouldn't have looked at the per capita income as that was not a good statistic to use. However I still think that 113k is probably closer to the typical four person family in the Boston area than 72k.

[timberline742]

Young adult roommates living together often earn more than the median. Three to five people living together all earning $30, 40, or 90k and you're well above the median, and yes, I personally know many people earning 80k, 90k, or more than live with roommates in my area.

But it still doesn't make any sense to cherry pick out two workers in their prime earning years and then exclude the rest of the population to reflect a norm. Let the data reflect the norm.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

A year or two ago, Bill Maher cited a study regarding how much it took for a family (I believe of 4) to have what is generally considered a "middle class" lifestyle, which was a decent house in a safe neighborhood, 2 decent (not luxury) cars, a non-luxury vacation each year, etc - a nice lifestyle but not extravagant. It was just over $100K. So, if you're looking at a higher cost area like DC, NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc., (even though Chicago is a bit less expensive than Boston), I'd say you have to up that slightly.

I'd put a few more hard metrics around that. Let's call it a small post-war 3 bedroom single family home on a small lot on a fairly high traffic street in a town that has GreatSchools.org 6 or better schools. Let's call it 1,600 square feet and an 8,000 square foot lot. Laminate counter top, vinyl flooring in kitchen & bath. Functional but dated and needing some work.

You'd be hard pressed to find that home for less than $400K inside the 495 belt and that's with a huge amount of shopping. 5% down, PMI, 2% property tax rate. Call it $25,000 in mortgage, PMI, taxes, and insurance. $90K in income gets you the worst house in that town and you're going to have to put a lot of sweat equity into it.

So my answer is $90K. Even that limits your locations and you could easily have an awful commute with no hope of buying into a town with an easier commute.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Young adult roommates living together often earn more than the median. Three to five people living together all earning $30, 40, or 90k and you're well above the median, and yes, I personally know many people earning 80k, 90k, or more than live with roommates in my area.

But it still doesn't make any sense to cherry pick out two workers in their prime earning years and then exclude the rest of the population to reflect a norm. Let the data reflect the norm.

I understand what you're saying. However I wasn't picking two workers in their prime years I was picking what the average worker makes in the Boston metro area. According to the census the average household size is 2.53 people in Massachusetts. The 72k average household income certainly includes lots of groups that aren't four person families. I do understand what you're saying I just find it hard to believe that the average four person family in the Boston area makes only 72k a year. I wish the census collected statistics that shows with the average family with kids makes, excluding the retired/single households from the data.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

I understand what you're saying. However I wasn't picking two workers in their prime years I was picking what the average worker makes in the Boston metro area. According to the census the average household size is 2.53 people in Massachusetts. The 72k average household income certainly includes lots of groups that aren't four person families. I do understand what you're saying I just find it hard to believe that the average four person family in the Boston area makes only 72k a year. I wish the census collected statistics that shows with the average family with kids makes, excluding the retired/single households from the data.

They do, since they're collecting the data on the individual level within the household.

And the average household isn't earning 72-73k a year, I bet the average is higher. The median is earning that, which you know is different. It wouldn't surprise me at all that half the families in the metro area earn less than that, I'm actually surprised it is that high. Again, this board skews VERY affluent.

Plus, of course there are tremendous amount of one parent families, yet they're still families. We have to remember that. So, assuming that the regular or normal family is two working parents plus children isn't reflective of what is actually going on in society.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by timberline742

They do, since they're collecting the data on the individual level within the household.

And the average household isn't earning 72-73k a year, I bet the average is higher. The median is earning that, which you know is different. It wouldn't surprise me at all that half the families in the metro area earn less than that, I'm actually surprised it is that high. Again, this board skews VERY affluent.

Plus, of course there are tremendous amount of one parent families, yet they're still families. We have to remember that. So, assuming that the regular or normal family is two working parents plus children isn't reflective of what is actually going on in society.

100% true, I was focusing on the ideal situation where there are two parents/two kids. The OP asked about a family of four so I was focusing on. But yes it is much harder for single parents which make up a sizable minority of families. Looking at data from the site below it looks like 35% of kids are raised with a single parent.

Children in single-parent families by race | KIDS COUNT Data Center

[GeoffD]

Statewide, median household income is $66K. I imagine it's much higher inside the 495 belt.