Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may be talking about Andrew Schiff, and he deserved all the backlash he got for his sense of entitlement. He, and others like him, conveniently forget that living in a premium area is a form of "luxury," even if it doesn't come with a 1,000-square-foot walk-in closet, tray ceilings, and a gourmet kitchen. He also dropped over $30K per year on private school. The only way he deserves even a modicum of your sympathy is if you believe that society's chosen ones really do deserve it all - luxury cars, vacations, savings, college funds, dining out, the newest toys, AND the prime locations.
I honestly don't recall the name of the person who wrote the article. And my sympathy was limited. He did, after all, choose to live in Brooklyn, and that's why his place was small. He certainly could have afforded a large, nice house if he moved to the suburbs, which is exactly the reason why many people move to the suburbs. I don't actually feel bad for anyone who's earning 300K.
I think that we've got a huge problem, though, in this country, when in some cases, even $300K by no means gives you any kind of 'luxury' lifestyle (although there's a valid argument that being able to live in NYC itself is a 'luxury'.) We have way too many people who are making not just millions, but in many cases, tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars a year. No one needs that much money. And that sort of income inequality causes a lot of large problems in our society. (And there's another issue that there are a lot of cities where it's gotten so expensive that no one can afford to live in the city, like San Francisco -- no one who has any kind of job that doesn't require a lot of education can live in or even near the city, and you do need workers at all levels of the pay and skill scale.)
And I find it sad that most people I know could not afford to buy a house and raise their children in the the towns where they grew up. I've seen this phenomenon in Chicago, DC, Philly, and Boston. And these are people who didn't grow up in luxury houses, by any stretch. But people who lived in what were 'typical' suburbs, where it didn't take a ridiculous amount of time to commute downtown, and many of the parents did work downtown. And people would go into the city on weekends and on weekend nights, because it would take only a half hour or less to get downtown (maybe as much as an hour on crowded rush-hour days). It is amazing how so many people can't even touch a house in those towns, even though that's where their parents lived or still live, so they end up having to go much further out.
Real estate is absolutely out of control anywhere east of 495. And I say this as someone who works in real estate and has bought 2 homes of my own. Agents love saying: "It's a great time to buy." An honest agent will tell you there's only one GREAT time to buy and that's at the bottom of the market. The rest of the time is a matter of deciding if it's the best time to buy for your situation? Want to live the urban lifestyle in retirement? Down size to a city condo. Just had your 4th kid? Get a bigger place. Want to become an investor? Get a multi-family. Sometimes, even in a seller's market, you'll get a deal if you're "lucky" enough to find a motivated seller and are able to cash in on someone's misfortune (divorce, foreclosure, death). If you're looking for a reason to buy and you have a long term goal, I would say to focus on interest rate more than anything. A lot of money is less painful when it's cheap.
I think prices will only get worse before it gets better, and it will get better more slowly than it got out of control. However the cycle will never stop because we will always need a place to live and our population will keep growing either through birth or migration.
I will say this much about the 128 belt: you might get twice the house for half the money in south Florida, but I'd rather pay the taxes and have my kids go to school in needham than Miami.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtecluder617
My wife and I make a combined 155K and I wouldn't consider ourselves "upper class". Not even remotely. We have a modest home, both drive Hondas, and although we are comfortable we're not able to save as much as we like. Which is a big reason why we're leaving the state. We want a bigger home but simply can't afford it within an hour of Boston and with good schools.
Part of the problem with the term middle class is that everyone thinks they're middle class. That's why politicians love it. Traditionally, the top 20% of the income distribution is 'upper class" and the middle three quintiles is middle class. I don't know where those values lie in Massachusetts or Greater Boston, but it wouldn't surprise me if $150k or so household is approaching upper class territory.
I will say this much about the 128 belt: you might get twice the house for half the money in south Florida, but I'd rather pay the taxes and have my kids go to school in needham than Miami.
You can also get twice the house for half the money in metro-Atlanta or metro Charlotte. In those places, you can buy into a town with an excellent school system at those prices. It's not for me but you don't have to move to South Florida to find affordable housing. ...and Miami has a lot of the same problem Boston has, the towns with the excellent school systems are totally unaffordable. Everybody with high income wants to buy in and it drives up the prices. You can find affordable housing in Boston. You just wouldn't want to put your kids into the school system and you probably don't want to deal with the property crime issues.
Real estate is absolutely out of control anywhere east of 495. And I say this as someone who works in real estate and has bought 2 homes of my own. Agents love saying: "It's a great time to buy." An honest agent will tell you there's only one GREAT time to buy and that's at the bottom of the market. The rest of the time is a matter of deciding if it's the best time to buy for your situation? Want to live the urban lifestyle in retirement? Down size to a city condo. Just had your 4th kid? Get a bigger place. Want to become an investor? Get a multi-family. Sometimes, even in a seller's market, you'll get a deal if you're "lucky" enough to find a motivated seller and are able to cash in on someone's misfortune (divorce, foreclosure, death). If you're looking for a reason to buy and you have a long term goal, I would say to focus on interest rate more than anything. A lot of money is less painful when it's cheap.
I think prices will only get worse before it gets better, and it will get better more slowly than it got out of control. However the cycle will never stop because we will always need a place to live and our population will keep growing either through birth or migration.
I will say this much about the 128 belt: you might get twice the house for half the money in south Florida, but I'd rather pay the taxes and have my kids go to school in needham than Miami.
I can assure you there are plenty of as good or better schools outside MA and in places one can get twice to three times the house for the same money.
Then you better tell Amazon, Facebook, and Google to stop opening offices here. Oh and BTW, there's this whole biotech thing going on here that is bringing in a different kind of technology.
There's a strong difference between "opening offices" and actually putting a HQ. HQ means incorporation and where taxes are paid.
Biotech well there's been consolidate of that as well. Wyeth was bought out just as EMC was bought out. There have been many regional companies that frankly have closed. We've seen this with retail (Bradless, Ames, Caldors), technology (Wang, Digital, Lycos (nowhere near where it was back in the day), Lotus etc).
Also look as to what percentage of employees are independent contractors. There's a huge difference between actual FTE status and 1099'd. Heck just look at some of the visa holders. Not that it's bad by any means but just because an organization exists there doesn't mean they are hiring. Companies move for taxes now and then and often times people move with them, just like those in the military.
"You don't guarantee your grandchildren will go to Harvard by living in Newton or Lexington. Harvard doesn't want their whole freshman class -- or their whole student body to be full of people who grew up 5 or 10 miles away. If you have a smart kid (which is a big "if,") they'd probably have a better shot at getting into Harvard if they live someplace else. "
"In total, one out of every 20 Harvard freshmen attended one of the seven high schools most represented in the class of 2017—Boston Latin, Phillips Academy in Andover, Stuyvesant High School, Noble and Greenough School, Phillips Exeter Academy, Trinity School in New York City, and Lexington High School."
That's really strong influence if you ask me. Yes it doesn't mean everyone that goes automatically gets into Harvard bu the fact that just seven schools represent 5% of the entire enrollment is pretty strong.
"In fact, Noble and Greenough, Exeter, and Andover were all founded by Harvard College graduates, and Noble and Greenough was originally established as an all-boys preparatory school for Harvard.
And Harvard’s relationship with Boston Latin is well established."
See what I mean..the alumni started other schools so of course there's going to be a stronger connection. This reminds me that supposedly Goldman Sachs only hires people from a few schools that their management comes from.
Having said this Ivy league doesn't impress me as I know a grad that's been out of work for four years now. The second an employer sees "Harvard" or anything of Ivy league they know this person could jump ship at the drop of a hat. So why hire them? It automatically overqualified you for everything. Then again you get two grades. One on the transcript and the one you really earned Harvard Professor Gives Two Sets Of Marks To Combat Grade Inflation | Here & Now But I would say the worst of all is when frankly as a benefit staff can send their kids there for free. Obviously you aren't going to give bad grades to your coworkers kids so everyone gets a good grade. Just like VW cars..look the other way, sure this diesel is "clean"...Bureaucracy at its finest!
You don't guarantee your grandchildren will go to Harvard by living in Newton or Lexington. Harvard doesn't want their whole freshman class -- or their whole student body to be full of people who grew up 5 or 10 miles away. If you have a smart kid (which is a big "if,") they'd probably have a better shot at getting into Harvard if they live someplace else.
Maybe not Harvard, but you definitely have a better shot at getting into a "tier 1" school by growing up in Newton/Lex. I grew up in a town similar to Lexington and pretty much everyone ranked in the top half went to a tier 1 school (e.g. US News Top 50). For example I wasn't even ranked in the top 1/3 of my class, but I still went to a school ranked similar to BU/BC and the guy ranked 1 below me went to Cornell. Even in towns like Natick that are considered good, average kids are only going to Framingham State or Suffolk. But in a top tier town like Lexington, average kids are going to UConn or Northeastern which is a huge step up from their average counterparts in Natick. If you're extremely intelligent and ranked near the top of your class, it doesn't really matter what school district you go to. However if you're somewhere in the middle like the rest of us, you have a better chance at getting into a good university if you grow up in a top tier town.
My son is in the home remodeling business (worker, not owner) and his soon to be wife is a Chemo Nurse at a major Boston Hospital. Their combined income will be about $150K. If the old 3 to 4 times one's income for a home, they should be able to afford $450 to $600K. I would lower this to to 2.5 to 3 times so a home $375K to $450K. They are primarily looking at condos in an upscale North Shore town.
Maybe not Harvard, but you definitely have a better shot at getting into a "tier 1" school by growing up in Newton/Lex. I grew up in a town similar to Lexington and pretty much everyone ranked in the top half went to a tier 1 school (e.g. US News Top 50). For example I wasn't even ranked in the top 1/3 of my class, but I still went to a school ranked similar to BU/BC and the guy ranked 1 below me went to Cornell. Even in towns like Natick that are considered good, average kids are only going to Framingham State or Suffolk. But in a top tier town like Lexington, average kids are going to UConn or Northeastern which is a huge step up from their average counterparts in Natick. If you're extremely intelligent and ranked near the top of your class, it doesn't really matter what school district you go to. However if you're somewhere in the middle like the rest of us, you have a better chance at getting into a good university if you grow up in a top tier town.
Well, US News is somewhat questionable, but even accepting that top 50 = "Tier 1" for purposes of this discussion, that's a lot of schools. And it's actually 100 schools, because they rank colleges separate from universities. I think part of it is the reputation of the schools, but a bigger part is the students themselves -- in some schools, the kids are obsessed with colleges, and they tend to have a lot of kids go to good schools. In other areas with some different demographics and emphasis on certain schools, more people will be satisfied with a lower tier school (even if they might have been able to get into a higher-ranked school).
This is really interesting, so thanks for the link. BUT, I have to note that most of those feeder schools are either private schools or magnet schools, which have rigorous entrance requirements in the first place, and private schools overall generally have a much higher emphasis on college admissions, and their students (or their families) have somewhat self-selected as far as a primary goal being admission to Harvard or another top college. It is interesting, though, that Lexington is among the schools mentioned. It's not as simple as living in Newton or Lexington -- the families have to have already 'bought into' a certain mentality.
As far as your point as to the "impressiveness" of an ivy league degree, you are correct. An Ivy League degree will get you in the door, and it certainly helps get a first job. But as you get older, and further into your career, where you went to college matters less than what you've done since then. And I've met a few Ivy League graduates who were utterly unimpressive employees/workers/people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
"You don't guarantee your grandchildren will go to Harvard by living in Newton or Lexington. Harvard doesn't want their whole freshman class -- or their whole student body to be full of people who grew up 5 or 10 miles away. If you have a smart kid (which is a big "if,") they'd probably have a better shot at getting into Harvard if they live someplace else. "
"In total, one out of every 20 Harvard freshmen attended one of the seven high schools most represented in the class of 2017—Boston Latin, Phillips Academy in Andover, Stuyvesant High School, Noble and Greenough School, Phillips Exeter Academy, Trinity School in New York City, and Lexington High School."
That's really strong influence if you ask me. Yes it doesn't mean everyone that goes automatically gets into Harvard bu the fact that just seven schools represent 5% of the entire enrollment is pretty strong.
"In fact, Noble and Greenough, Exeter, and Andover were all founded by Harvard College graduates, and Noble and Greenough was originally established as an all-boys preparatory school for Harvard.
And Harvard’s relationship with Boston Latin is well established."
See what I mean..the alumni started other schools so of course there's going to be a stronger connection. This reminds me that supposedly Goldman Sachs only hires people from a few schools that their management comes from.
Having said this Ivy league doesn't impress me as I know a grad that's been out of work for four years now. The second an employer sees "Harvard" or anything of Ivy league they know this person could jump ship at the drop of a hat. So why hire them? It automatically overqualified you for everything. Then again you get two grades. One on the transcript and the one you really earned Harvard Professor Gives Two Sets Of Marks To Combat Grade Inflation | Here & Now But I would say the worst of all is when frankly as a benefit staff can send their kids there for free. Obviously you aren't going to give bad grades to your coworkers kids so everyone gets a good grade. Just like VW cars..look the other way, sure this diesel is "clean"...Bureaucracy at its finest!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
