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.
For retirement we moved to an area where the average household income is mid-$20k/year. We see a lot of families here raising children with that level of household income.
Since our pensions total less than $20k/year, we are still doing okay because we live in this low COL area.
Of course we are aware that in other areas people earn a lot more. We used to earn a lot more when we were working, we used to live in high COL areas.
We have friends and relatives who still earn $100k to $250k.
There are a lot of poor, uneducated people who have an interest in personal finance. The success of the Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman self help gurus are evidence of that.
The people that listen to them are, by and large, neither poor nor uneducated. They may have mismanaged their money but they are not poor.
I work for a community college. Most of the posters on here write at a level that's better than about 60% of my students, indicating they have considerably more education. The average joe/jane does not concern him or herself with these larger financial issues like we do. We have an intellectual interest in this & want to discuss or argue about it.
The average joe's interest in finance is how he's going to pay for a vacation & when he can take it, how he can get a better job, what he's going to do this weekend, how he can afford to get his truck lifted, etc., etc...
It's well documented that about half the country lives from paycheck to paycheck.
With some 330 million Americans, by definition about 3.3 million are 1%'ers. Hard numbers aren't available at my fingertips, but I'd surmise that if we set a threshold of $1M of net worth (assets minus liabilities, and not accounting for pensions), there would be some ten million Americans who pass that threshold. If we lower sufficiently far the threshold of pecuniary (as opposed to cultural) membership in the upper class, then a great many persons would qualify.
What I have observed on City-Data, is a strong and vocal group of persons who advocate extensive savings, of rigorous investment and living below our means. There's rampant and vehement disagreement in how to invest… trade-actively or rely on buy-and-hold, use the stock-market or rely on real-estate or other methods, and so forth. But broadly we agree on the benefits of strong savings-discipline. The broader public, I gather, is more likely to live at their means, or slightly below them, than to be so aggressive in saving and investing. Thus the two-earner couple earning $200K is liable to spend say $180K annually (including taxes), with limited resulting annual growth in their net worth. This means much commonality between the higher-earners and the lower, where both accumulate wealth only very gradually. Contrast this with the couple earning $200K but spending say $80K/year (including taxes). Their increase in net-worth will be prodigious, placing them quite outside of the American mainstream. This property of being outside of the mainstream, is overrepresented on City data, by my supposition.
The key observation therefore isn't about income, but about persistent disparity, year after year, between income and expenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SQL
I actually think the complete opposite. I don't think that people who are as important as those earning six figures and having the type of responsibility that comes with that level of salary are spending much time on an public forum. Especially one like this, where membership is very non-exclusive.
You may be surprised. People of some importance and/or career-success may frequently find themselves in airport lounges, during business-travel; in boring meetings, where one must pretend to be attentive, but actual concentration can wander; and in all sorts of circumstances where the cadence of work slows down, and distractions can be afforded without lost productivity. This Forum is a useful outlet, not so much for killing time or engaging in shrill repartee, but in writing down one's thoughts, in assembling paragraph-by-paragraph material for a book or some other written-record with pretense towards being archival. Provocative threads give reason to write, to examine new ideas, to generate new thoughts of one's own. It's a kind of discussion-group, where group members pique each others' curiosity and stimulate mutual output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SQL
There are a lot of poor, uneducated people who have an interest in personal finance. The success of the Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman self help gurus are evidence of that.
These really are just lowbrow entertainment. Contrast this with discussions on investment-strategies, economic theory and the like. I doubt that Dave or Suze have much to say about Schumpeter, Ricardo or Keynes.
I work for a community college. Most of the posters on here write at a level that's better than about 60% of my students, indicating they have considerably more education.
As an aside, I'd have to say that the overall level of writing and critical thought in the Economics forum and its sub-forums is consistently higher than many of the other CD topics I've visited. Perhaps that's not saying much, but I recently wandered into the elections sub-forum, and oh boy, what a difference.
The people that listen to them are, by and large, neither poor nor uneducated. They may have mismanaged their money but they are not poor.
I work for a community college. Most of the posters on here write at a level that's better than about 60% of my students, indicating they have considerably more education. The average joe/jane does not concern him or herself with these larger financial issues like we do. We have an intellectual interest in this & want to discuss or argue about it.
The average joe's interest in finance is how he's going to pay for a vacation & when he can take it, how he can get a better job, what he's going to do this weekend, how he can afford to get his truck lifted, etc., etc...
It's well documented that about half the country lives from paycheck to paycheck.
Even most people who have overspent and are in debt, like me, are not "poor." My bills are higher than they should be, but I am certainly not worrying about basic necessities.
As an aside, I'd have to say that the overall level of writing and critical thought in the Economics forum and its sub-forums is consistently higher than many of the other CD topics I've visited. Perhaps that's not saying much, but I recently wandered into the elections sub-forum, and oh boy, what a difference.
People who are even thinking about serious economic and financial issues are generally not stupid. It's a situation where the topic matter weeds out idiots naturally.
Given that the $100k + house holds are more likely to have two adults, and often have children as well, this means there are probably 80 - 100 million Americans living in $100K plus households. That's a lot of people. And this doesn't even count the retirees or business owners who may have slightly less than $100k incomes, but millions in assets.
Or, to look at it another way, there are at least six entire counties with median HHIs of over $100k. If you live and work in one of those places, especially in one of the nicer towns or neighborhoods, everyone you know may very well be earning in that range or married to someone who is.
There are a lot of affluent people in this country.
My last city was an affluent suburb with a median HHI over $120k. I don't know the finances of everyone I met, but almost everyone was considerably better off than the average person on the street in the state.
I said generally speaking. Doesn't mean that there aren't people on average or below average incomes that can do it, but if you are basically living paycheck to paycheck like many Americans at or below the median household do, serious investing isn't really going to be on your radar. I used Bogleheads as an example. Go there and tell me it is chock full of people who are making the median household income or less. It is a high income/asset bubble for the most part.
I don't completely disagree. It's just that the reality could be soooo much different for most average earners and it drives me crazy that it isn't.
I actually think the complete opposite. I don't think that people who are as important as those earning six figures and having the type of responsibility that comes with that level of salary are spending much time on an public forum. Especially one like this, where membership is very non-exclusive.
I think the opposite. People who make upper income do come to forums like this. They are interested in money and learning even more. I think a lot of lower income that "don't want to think about it".
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.
