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.
Your average falling-apart, bank-owned, 3 bedroom, (no den, no basement) tiny-lot, 55 year old house in a gang-infested neighborhood with bad schools costs $300,000 in Southern California. And that's post crash.
People struggle to make the payments, Mom and Dad both work, and they are NOT going to Hawaii once a year and taking the dog in to be groomed every week.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-29-2012 at 04:41 PM..
It's hard to imagine $100K not being enough. Our household income is about a third of that and we have a house big enough for all of us and our pets, two vehicles, a closet full of clothes and a bedroom full of toys for each kid, a computer for everyone in the house, and money in our savings. I do live in a city known for low cost of living, but there can't be that big of a gap...there have to be people making less in the more expensive cities, otherwise who works at daycares and fast food restaurants?
They struggle or live in bad neighborhoods etc.
Where I live, a nice but not exclusive middle class neighborhood, the median home value is 6 times what it is in where you live (not that my house costs that much) but the cost of living gap is roughly 6 times. So if you are making 33K a year to live comfortably, in this area you can assume at least 150K to live at the same comfort level.
Quote:
It might be better to say that 100K not enough to live the lifestyle you want to live...if you need things like vacations and a new car every few years, plus lots of dinners out and after-school activities for the kids, then $100K might not go that far, I don't know.
When the cost of the same home itself is 6 times as much, then it isn't about vacations and new cars.
Quote:
Sometimes though, I have friends who live in my city who are depressed because they have to leave their infants and go back to work because they "can't afford to live" otherwise...and I know first-hand that it depends on what you're willing to give up to be with your kids...and again, not everyone should feel like they have to stay home with their kids, it's lovely that we live in a time when we're not expected and obligated to all be housewives if we don't want to.
To live on 33K we would have to be willing to give up our house, living in the state with all of our family, etc. It is not necessarily being greedy to say 100k isn't enough "to live" sometimes it is FACT.
Aren't we all smart enough to know it really DOES matter WHERE you live? Never ceases to amaze me. Additionally, how do we know what people actually put down on a home, or how much credit card or school debt they have, or car payments, etc. etc. Total gross income means very little.
Where we lived before we made closer to 200K combined and I returned to work after having both children. Then, three months later, we made a lifestyle change -two years in the making- predicated on the ability to spend more time with our young children; I left the 100K job to be an at-home mom, we moved to a lower COL area and have half the income we did before but we live well in a nice home on less than 100K.
My dh income was about half of that when we starting having kids. I went back to work part time when the two oldest were in preschool, but the extra money was only part of the equation.
I like what I do (I'm a magazine writer and local reporter) and it would be difficult to find the time to write if I were home all day being pulled in 100 directions. And, I like having time with other adults. And, as a woman, I feel secure knowing that I have the skills and professional experience to support myself and my kids if I had to.
Conversely, some of the SAHM moms I know haven't kept up with current technology and changes in their professions so it would be very difficult for them to re-enter the workforce if they wanted to. So, their options will be limited when their last child leaves for college.
Being well rounded makes me happy. Even if my husband made $200,000 I'd still want to work at least part time.
I didn't go back to work after baby #2. We couldn't afford it easily though and to be honest we lived on credit from time to time. There never seemed to be enough money but life ran so much smoother with me being home that it was worth the tradeoff. I didn't really like working anyway but I guess it would be different if I had a specific career or something.
It truly depends on where you live. 100k is modest where I'm from. You can survive if you live in a rental in an outer borough but if you want to buy a home or live in Manhattan it's definitely not enough to raise a family on.
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.
