Leaving Chicago (Downers Grove, Knoxville, Tennessee: catholic schools, income, tax)

[ajolotl]

Originally Posted by grapico

A lottle bit.

I don't need to estimate the cost of living. I've lived in the city for 25 years. I know what it takes to live in the really nice neighborhoods comfortably. If anything I low balled it. It's not a secret -- most middle class families go to the suburbs for exactly this reason.

If you are committed to the city of course you can live here for much less. I just think the average family wouldn't be willing to make those sacrificies and would tend to move to the burbs.

[softdev]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

Yeah, you can do ok for 200K, but it's tight with kids in private school (22K per year per child no tax break)

Yea at that level, most need to send their kids to public. Which luckily there are quite a few good options in near north.

I was thinking more about the amount of money where I started to experience a crossover point and felt that I really enjoyed and benefited from living here. Not that you can't live comfortably for less, but that it you can reap the benefits of living here vs., say, a suburb near atlanta georgia, and honestly say that it far superior.

I hear what you are saying though. In shuttling between DC and NYC, life definitely was dramatically more enjoyable, without kids, at the 200 mark then when it was at 140 when we started out. A lot of the little luxuries like buying new Apple gadgets when they come out and going out to eat most nights could become a regular part of life. And with a bit more salary and a lower cost of living, we are really enjoying life here - despite my initial reservations.

[CarolinaBredChicagoan]

Look. Anyplace is more comfortable at 300k a year than at 50k a year, but to say that that's whats necessary is a bit of a stretch. When I first moved to Chicago, I made 30k. I was single and had a roommate, but I got by okay.

So yeah. 300k would be nice, but I'd say that you could do okay on half that, even with a few kids.

[synapse]

I can tell you that while Phoenix is far more affordable than Chicago, there's disadvantages to the cost of living too. In Chicago, you get a city with outstanding museums, festivals, culture, art, and restaurants - even in the suburbs you can get to the city easily. In Phoenix, there are museums, festivals, culture, art, and restaurants - but all of it is second tier compared to Chicago, and the sprawl of Phoenix, requiring a car to get anywhere, is unbelievable. You could make an argument that only the scenery and weather is better. It's a big, big change. Phoenix is a nice city in its own right - but it's no Chicago.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan

Look. Anyplace is more comfortable at 300k a year than at 50k a year, but to say that that's whats necessary is a bit of a stretch.

Um, yeah. The median household in the region earns $52K, the median family of four $75K. (These figures are not compiled just for the city on an annual basis, but city median incomes tend to be lower.)

To say that only the richest 2% -- which is what a $250K HH income represents nationally -- are capable of enjoying life (and, by extension, that the rest of us are unhappy suckers who are gasping in poverty) is a stretch. I'm having a grand time here on a tiny fraction of that money, thank you. No, I don't have children, but they don't cost $100K a year, and in fact fewer than half of households have kids at home. Although the cost of housing might be lower in some dusty desert town, the cost of water or energy or cars will get you; jobs pay less; and the quality of life is much poorer from my city-kid perspective.

In any case, the "minimum amount that I can live on" varies tremendously between people. I know (and envy) people who live richly on less than me, and others who are perpetually in crisis while pulling down multiples of what I earn. To each their own.

[ajolotl]

Let me state it another way. If I had 100K/year and could choose anywhere to live (with kids) it wouldn't be the city of chicago. If I had 200K/year it wouldn't either. However, with 300K per year it might be my top choice. That is all I meant.

Obviously you can live here on welfare and section 8. I'm just talking about when it becomes optimal. I'd guess it varies a lot from person to person, but 300K isn't a ridiculous figure given how much money is required just for private school and the mortgage.

[ajolotl]

I was talking about enjoying life at all. That would be crazy to say you need 300K per year to enjoy life. I don't think I said that at all.

I think you can enjoy chicago on 60K for a family of four, probably less. I was talking about the income level that made it worth living in chicago vs. someplace cheaper and with better schools and less crime. The things that make chicago special are difficult to access at 60K, so I personally would be happier in Knoxville, TN at that income level.

It's something I've thought about a lot when considering whether or not to move. At no point have I been unhappy here, though. I've always found it to be a really cool city.

Originally Posted by paytonc

Um, yeah. The median household in the region earns $52K, the median family of four $75K. (These figures are not compiled just for the city on an annual basis, but city median incomes tend to be lower.)

To say that only the richest 2% -- which is what a $250K HH income represents nationally -- are capable of enjoying life (and, by extension, that the rest of us are unhappy suckers who are gasping in poverty) is a stretch. I'm having a grand time here on a tiny fraction of that money, thank you. No, I don't have children, but they don't cost $100K a year, and in fact fewer than half of households have kids at home. Although the cost of housing might be lower in some dusty desert town, the cost of water or energy or cars will get you; jobs pay less; and the quality of life is much poorer from my city-kid perspective.

In any case, the "minimum amount that I can live on" varies tremendously between people. I know (and envy) people who live richly on less than me, and others who are perpetually in crisis while pulling down multiples of what I earn. To each their own.

[knitgirl]

Originally Posted by synapse

I can tell you that while Phoenix is far more affordable than Chicago, there's disadvantages to the cost of living too. In Chicago, you get a city with outstanding museums, festivals, culture, art, and restaurants - even in the suburbs you can get to the city easily. In Phoenix, there are museums, festivals, culture, art, and restaurants - but all of it is second tier compared to Chicago, and the sprawl of Phoenix, requiring a car to get anywhere, is unbelievable. You could make an argument that only the scenery and weather is better. It's a big, big change. Phoenix is a nice city in its own right - but it's no Chicago.

And there are those of us who would argue that neither the scenery nor the weather are better . I'm a water person, not a desert person and I like having 4 seasons. Winter isn't a whole lot of fun, but I'd rather deal with cold and snow than a summer down there.

[supernerdgirl]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

I was talking about enjoying life at all. That would be crazy to say you need 300K per year to enjoy life. I don't think I said that at all.

I think you can enjoy chicago on 60K for a family of four, probably less. I was talking about the income level that made it worth living in chicago vs. someplace cheaper and with better schools and less crime. The things that make chicago special are difficult to access at 60K, so I personally would be happier in Knoxville, TN at that income level.

It's something I've thought about a lot when considering whether or not to move. At no point have I been unhappy here, though. I've always found it to be a really cool city.

LOL Knoxville isn't enjoyable at all.

[ajolotl]

spoken like a person with no kids...

Originally Posted by supernerdgirl

LOL Knoxville isn't enjoyable at all.