Quality of life for people who make less than $100K (Garden City: section 8, purchasing)

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

Yes, and in Westchester as well, where modest houses can have property tax bills that approach the price of a new Toyota each year. That's not an affluent house, either, it's a split foyer or ranch house -- even a modest cape cod style house can have a $9k tax bill. I would not classify people who live in such houses as upper middle class, just middle class.

Thank you! Point proven........

[ChasT]

I didnt know taxes was that much....this was an interesting post.

[Henna]

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that socio-economic class is not simply a matter of how much one earns. There are other factors as well such as educational attainment and occupational prestige.

Someone who did not finish high school, engages in low-class sorts of behaviors (yes, I realize that's subjective), but has won the lottery and takes an annual payout of $300K a year, does not, in my opinion, become automatically upper-middle-class just by dint of annual income.

Likewise, a person who has grown up with all sorts of opportunities, has advanced degrees from extremely reputable educational institutions, engages in behaviors that are respectable and healthy, can carry on a conversation with anyone from any walk of life, yet chooses to have a career in the arts or in public service where their income is well below 100K per year, does not automatically become "working poor" or "working class" or "lower class" because of their low income.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no statistics to back it up.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by Henna

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that socio-economic class is not simply a matter of how much one earns. There are other factors as well such as educational attainment and occupational prestige.

Someone who did not finish high school, engages in low-class sorts of behaviors (yes, I realize that's subjective), but has won the lottery and takes an annual payout of $300K a year, does not, in my opinion, become automatically upper-middle-class just by dint of annual income.

Likewise, a person who has grown up with all sorts of opportunities, has advanced degrees from extremely reputable educational institutions, engages in behaviors that are respectable and healthy, can carry on a conversation with anyone from any walk of life, yet chooses to have a career in the arts or in public service where their income is well below 100K per year, does not automatically become "working poor" or "working class" or "lower class" because of their low income.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no statistics to back it up.

Good point. In an earlier post here I too touched base on social class vs. economic class based on income/assets.

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by Henna

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that socio-economic class is not simply a matter of how much one earns. There are other factors as well such as educational attainment and occupational prestige.

Someone who did not finish high school, engages in low-class sorts of behaviors (yes, I realize that's subjective), but has won the lottery and takes an annual payout of $300K a year, does not, in my opinion, become automatically upper-middle-class just by dint of annual income.

Likewise, a person who has grown up with all sorts of opportunities, has advanced degrees from extremely reputable educational institutions, engages in behaviors that are respectable and healthy, can carry on a conversation with anyone from any walk of life, yet chooses to have a career in the arts or in public service where their income is well below 100K per year, does not automatically become "working poor" or "working class" or "lower class" because of their low income.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no statistics to back it up.

You use the term "working class" or "working poor" likes it some kind of dirty word or insult, why?

And both of your examples, the % of people that would fall into those catorgory's, would be very low.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

You use the term "working class" or "working poor" likes it some kind of dirty word or insult, why?

And both of your examples, the % of people that would fall into those catorgory's, would be very low.

Quite the contrary, I see a use by that poster of prevailing terminology - not a morally or socially biased label.

[crisp444]

Even if I were to accept the premise that class distinctions should vary between MSA's (which I reject), some of your class distinctions are still unreasonable, even when applied to the NYC metro area alone.

Here is list of some of the most affluent municipalities/towns in the NYC metro area and their respective median household incomes. Under some of your definitions, these would be "middle" class towns... and "upper middle" class and "upper" class towns literally would not exist!

Scarsdale: $182,792
Bronxville: $144,940
Darien: $160,274
New Canaan: $178,651
Westport: $147,391
Alpine: $130,740
Upper Saddle River: $127,635
Woodcliff Lake: $123,022
Millburn (includes Short Hills): $130,848
Westfield: $120,978
Old Brookville: $133,192
Garden City: $142,788
East Hills: $149,796

As for the most affluent Manhattan zipcodes, there are several with median household income of $100,000+, but almost none with median household income of $200,000+. Most tracts below 96th Street have median household incomes of $100,000 and below, and would be considered "middle class" (or below!) by some of you.

Want to know the median household income within a 1 mile radius of East 62nd Street (located in 10065, one of the most coveted zip codes in all of the city) in the Upper East Side? $105,601. Even the mean household income (which allows billionaire and mega millionaire households to skew the data) barely cracks $200,000!

[crisp444]

Originally Posted by Henna

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that socio-economic class is not simply a matter of how much one earns. There are other factors as well such as educational attainment and occupational prestige.

Someone who did not finish high school, engages in low-class sorts of behaviors (yes, I realize that's subjective), but has won the lottery and takes an annual payout of $300K a year, does not, in my opinion, become automatically upper-middle-class just by dint of annual income.

Likewise, a person who has grown up with all sorts of opportunities, has advanced degrees from extremely reputable educational institutions, engages in behaviors that are respectable and healthy, can carry on a conversation with anyone from any walk of life, yet chooses to have a career in the arts or in public service where their income is well below 100K per year, does not automatically become "working poor" or "working class" or "lower class" because of their low income.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no statistics to back it up.

I will agree that "having class" and being part of the "upper middle class" or "upper class" are two totally different things. Some of the most polite people and cultured people I have met are very well-off; some of the most crass and ingorant people I have met are very well-off.

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by crisp444

Even if I were to accept the premise that class distinctions should vary between MSA's (which I reject), some of your class distinctions are still unreasonable, even when applied to the NYC metro area alone.

Here is list of some of the most affluent municipalities/towns in the NYC metro area and their respective median household incomes. Under some of your definitions, these would be "middle" class towns... and "upper middle" class and "upper" class towns literally would not exist!

Scarsdale: $182,792
Bronxville: $144,940
Darien: $160,274
New Canaan: $178,651
Westport: $147,391
Alpine: $130,740
Upper Saddle River: $127,635
Woodcliff Lake: $123,022
Millburn (includes Short Hills): $130,848
Westfield: $120,978
Old Brookville: $133,192
Garden City: $142,788
East Hills: $149,796

As for the most affluent Manhattan zipcodes, there are several with median household income of $100,000+, but almost none with median household income of $200,000+. Most tracts below 96th Street have median household incomes of $100,000 and below, and would be considered "middle class" (or below!) by some of you.

Don't you understand that in Mannhattan, you'll have people living in apartments that are 'rent controlled', therefore, they can afford to live in that neighborhood. And that's the ONLY way they could live there. Or they'll have a bunch of roommates to help with the rent. Then you got the people who are on government assistance. I tried telling you NOT to read into EVERYTHING from those stats.

Stats are good to get a ball park idea about something. But they ain't as black and white as you make them out to be.

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by crisp444

Even if I were to accept the premise that class distinctions should vary between MSA's (which I reject), some of your class distinctions are still unreasonable, even when applied to the NYC metro area alone.

Here is list of some of the most affluent municipalities/towns in the NYC metro area and their respective median household incomes. Under some of your definitions, these would be "middle" class towns... and "upper middle" class and "upper" class towns literally would not exist!

Scarsdale: $182,792
Bronxville: $144,940
Darien: $160,274
New Canaan: $178,651
Westport: $147,391
Alpine: $130,740
Upper Saddle River: $127,635
Woodcliff Lake: $123,022
Millburn (includes Short Hills): $130,848
Westfield: $120,978
Old Brookville: $133,192
Garden City: $142,788
East Hills: $149,796

As for the most affluent Manhattan zipcodes, there are several with median household income of $100,000+, but almost none with median household income of $200,000+. Most tracts below 96th Street have median household incomes of $100,000 and below, and would be considered "middle class" (or below!) by some of you.

You do realize that median means that, half make more and half make less (or atleast a good portion still make more). You act like the median incomes means that is the top of the top, and nobody makes more than that.