What, In Your Mind, Is A "Good Salary"? (payments, reports)

[Lacerta]

Of course, cost of living for an area is going to be the biggest factor, but I think it depends on personality as much just about anything else. I consider my household to be upper middle class and we only make $60k a year max. But I'm not a "stuff" person, so I waste less money than some.

Originally Posted by k374

by good I would mean the ability to save for a secure retirement, enjoy some comforts (few vacations and other small luxuries), own a reasonably sized home, provide for all my children's needs, own 2 decent cars and afford a hobby or two. If you budget well I think it can be done in the following brackets:

In small town america: $60k/yr
In lower cost of living metros (Example Houston, Atlanta): $90k/yr
Medium cost metros (Seattle, Chicago, Boston): $120k/yr
In ultra high cost metros (NYC, San Francisco or Los Angeles): $200k/yr

I would agree with this definition and would add to the end "without having to look at a checkbook balance before making a purchase."

I don't have kids, but am married with 2 cats and I would call Boise a "lower cost of living metro". You said $90k/yr if well budgeted. I meet all of your requirements there (saving for retirement, own a decent home, small luxuries/vacations, 2 cars, hobbies, everything but the kids) at $60k/yr, so that allocates $15k per kid for a 4 person household, which seems like plenty to me, considering many bills don't increase much with more people (mortgage, utilities, etc). So I feel that $60k for a couple in my area is very comfortable, and $90k would be an upper middle class income level for a family of 4 very comfortably. If the family was naturally frugal, like my husband and I, or with careful budgeting, $90k could even be a lower upper class lifestyle.

Originally Posted by hindsight2020

The fact of the matter is that by simple theory of marginal utility the 70K household is a much more sensible cutoff for "working class", since all households below it are simply too close to the cost-of-living line to be able to take advantage of the disposable income necessary to truly afford the things we equate with comfortable excess living (the toys and travel). Everybody else below is working to stay above the water line and in the case they too want excess, absent credit, they would have to exercise the "chicken OR lasagna" prioritization that is simply nonexistent in the 100K household, for the same excess.

The real "fact of the matter" is that you can't generalize for the entire nation that way. k374's breakdown I quoted above is much more realistic. You say that "all households [emphasis mine] below [70K] are simply too close to the cost of living line...". Simply untrue. As I mentioned above, Hubby and I currently make 60k and have made substantially less than that (as little as 30k in a given year) and we are debt free outside of a modest mortgage on a nice house in a nice neighborhood, and we do not live paycheck to paycheck, we have 2 cars (that are normal cars, not beaters, both bought new and still in great shape), we are saving for retirement, we travel on occasion, we buy what we want when we want, without checking bank balances first, etc. In other words, we live an upper middle class lifestyle on far less money than $70k. I would say in our married decade, we have averaged maybe $45k a year. Therefore, I would feel comfortable saying that even if we had a couple of kids, we could still live a very comfortable upper middle class life on $70k or less. And there are many places where the cost of living is much less than here.

All that said, I voted for the $90k+ category, since the question was asking about a family of 4 not in a major metro. So the higher amounts I think are excessive, and put you closer to the "upper class" line, or just mean you aren't good with money. The lower amounts, while it is possible to live well on lower amounts (obviously), especially in more rural areas and smaller communities, the majority of people aren't that good with money and I didn't feel the intention of the poll was asking about rural households.

[OngletNYC]

Originally Posted by k374

by good I would mean the ability to save for a secure retirement, enjoy some comforts (few vacations and other small luxuries), own a reasonably sized home, provide for all my children's needs, own 2 decent cars and afford a hobby or two. If you budget well I think it can be done in the following brackets:

In small town america: $60k/yr
In lower cost of living metros (Example Houston, Atlanta): $90k/yr
Medium cost metros (Seattle, Chicago, Boston): $120k/yr
In ultra high cost metros (NYC, San Francisco or Los Angeles): $200k/yr

It is much more realistic to make $90k/yr in Atlanta as a couple than it is to make $200k/yr in LA. Even though the cost of living is double in LA the salaries may only be 10-15% higher but then the taxes are MUCH higher so essentially you earn even less.

I like your breakdown, but would move Boston up -- real estate is on par with NYC and SF, with very slightly lower salaries.

[formercalifornian]

A good salary is an amount adequate to pay my expenses with at least 20% left over for long-term savings.

[trishguard]

It depends on where you live. If you are single or have dependents. Whether you want to own your home or rent a place and if you want to live in a good or bad area. And the costs associated with those choices for your particular part of the country.

[TFW46]

Here is an example of a nice (no drug dealers) 2br/2ba condo that even has a pool and a gym for $20,000


Your link took me to an 876-sq ft condo for sale for $40,000 -- and all the photos are of the outside sign, pool and gym...no photos of the condo inside (which says something about the probable condition of the inside). This may not be relevant to the discussion but I point it out for your own information.

[shiphead]

70K-100K is good to me. Everyone I've been around growing up has lived comfortably with savings and health insurance has had this wage.

[hindsight2020]

Originally Posted by w1ngzer0

70K-100K is good to me. Everyone I've been around growing up has lived comfortably with savings and health insurance has had this wage.

For a single unattached person, sure. For a household of 4, you're in 'treading water' land. And a life of treading water sucks. Why do you think we're in hole we're in? 'Cause no one thought to themselves: "gee, if I go in debt for a college degree so that I can MAYBE make 70-100K household income with a job I hate, that would allow me to afford the necessities of life, a monastic lifetime of "either/or" logic and enough savings to last me 5 years of retirement and then I'm hosed, man that would be swell". So, everybody makes up the difference by mortgaging the value of their future labor and try to catch up to the standard they deem worth pursuing in the first place. Absent that credit, no one would work as hard as they do in this country, they wouldn't consider it worth it.

Also, if the recipe for a good life is to be able to afford your single unattached life, as a goal, you just killed your civilization, as you deemed your replacement value not worth it. So when single people look at these target salaries, they better assume the cost of raising their replacement value to the same or higher standard as they are hoping for themselves. [hint: it can't be done in america today, i'm worse off than my father, my unborn children are already worse off than me].

Even in the south, you'd be amazed how little 70K takes you as a household. My household makes about 80K in the south, and we have no children. You'd be rather disappointed at the standard of living we lead. It's a tread water existence. We have none of the luxuries of discretionary travel, shopping without abandon, none of the toys we want, zilch. What we have is a conservative savings plan that gets dinged every year with the travel emergencies, cross-country drives to family during Xmas, pending MX on the 10-year old cars; all these automatically represent hardships to the monthly budget.

Hell I'm surprised my wife hasn't left me yet and started pinging about all the commodities we should be able to afford as a function of our "hard work and education sacrifices". I guess growing up poor as dirt as she did makes you tolerant to a tread water existence.

And if you want to know the truth, I'm frugal out of a sense of self-preservation, I sure as heck wouldn't choose to live this crap of a lifestyle for giggles. My wife doesn't drive a 10 year old car with inoperative power windows for giggles, I'm not typing this on a 5 year old laptop with a broken monitor hinge, I don't drive a 10 yr old jeep with no AC in LOUISIANA, my house is not tiny and in a bad district according to my peers, for GIGGLES. These things puts a 70K household in the savings OR windows, savings OR medical bill, savings OR retirement, savings OR air conditioner,savings OR hobbies, savings OR a life worth breaking my back for, savings OR OR OR OR!
Truth of the matter is that 70-100K ain't that comfortable.

I don't really enjoy my day to day, I spend a good 50% of my working hours day-dreaming about all the things I would do and all the places I would go if I won the lotto yesterday. And I don't think that's how life's supposed to go. I don't have a vocational grievance (I'm good at what I do), I have a paycheck grievance. Doing what I love won't make up for not earning what I need to in order afford do the things I want to do by choice, not necessity.

I think Americans in general skip my aforementioned mental conflict and go in debt to afford what they want. There's your 70-100K....with debt up to their eyeballs that is

I do feel a little better venting on C-D though . You know you're working poor when you put "internet message board" at the top of your entertainment and hobby monthly budget column.

[MovedfromFL]

Originally Posted by hindsight2020

For a single unattached person, sure. For a household of 4, you're in 'treading water' land. And a life of treading water sucks. Why do you think we're in hole we're in? 'Cause no one thought to themselves: "gee, if I go in debt for a college degree so that I can MAYBE make 70-100K household income with a job I hate, that would allow me to afford the necessities of life, a monastic lifetime of "either/or" logic and enough savings to last me 5 years of retirement and then I'm hosed, man that would be swell". So, everybody makes up the difference by mortgaging the value of their future labor and try to catch up to the standard they deem worth pursuing in the first place. Absent that credit, no one would work as hard as they do in this country, they wouldn't consider it worth it.

Also, if the recipe for a good life is to be able to afford your single unattached life, as a goal, you just killed your civilization, as you deemed your replacement value not worth it. So when single people look at these target salaries, they better assume the cost of raising their replacement value to the same or higher standard as they are hoping for themselves. [hint: it can't be done in america today, i'm worse off than my father, my unborn children are already worse off than me].

Even in the south, you'd be amazed how little 70K takes you as a household. My household makes about 80K in the south, and we have no children. You'd be rather disappointed at the standard of living we lead. It's a tread water existence. We have none of the luxuries of discretionary travel, shopping without abandon, none of the toys we want, zilch. What we have is a conservative savings plan that gets dinged every year with the travel emergencies, cross-country drives to family during Xmas, pending MX on the 10-year old cars; all these automatically represent hardships to the monthly budget.

Hell I'm surprised my wife hasn't left me yet and started pinging about all the commodities we should be able to afford as a function of our "hard work and education sacrifices". I guess growing up poor as dirt as she did makes you tolerant to a tread water existence.

And if you want to know the truth, I'm frugal out of a sense of self-preservation, I sure as heck wouldn't choose to live this crap of a lifestyle for giggles. My wife doesn't drive a 10 year old car with inoperative power windows for giggles, I'm not typing this on a 5 year old laptop with a broken monitor hinge, I don't drive a 10 yr old jeep with no AC in LOUISIANA, my house is not tiny and in a bad district according to my peers, for GIGGLES. These things puts a 70K household in the savings OR windows, savings OR medical bill, savings OR retirement, savings OR air conditioner,savings OR hobbies, savings OR a life worth breaking my back for, savings OR OR OR OR!
Truth of the matter is that 70-100K ain't that comfortable.

I don't really enjoy my day to day, I spend a good 50% of my working hours day-dreaming about all the things I would do and all the places I would go if I won the lotto yesterday. And I don't think that's how life's supposed to go. I don't have a vocational grievance (I'm good at what I do), I have a paycheck grievance. Doing what I love won't make up for not earning what I need to in order afford do the things I want to do by choice, not necessity.

I think Americans in general skip my aforementioned mental conflict and go in debt to afford what they want. There's your 70-100K....with debt up to their eyeballs that is

I do feel a little better venting on C-D though . You know you're working poor when you put "internet message board" at the top of your entertainment and hobby monthly budget column.

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about?

With the radical cuts to teacher pay here in GA, we are now living on $39k for a family of 4. I can't even find a teaching job, as all areas here are cutting between 60-1,000 jobs this fall. Our pay could decline another 15%. Yes, that's 15%.

Back in FL, 2 teacher incomes would give you around $76,800 (9 years experience). Then you're looking at several hundred per month for health insurance out of that pay.

$80-100k is comfortable in the south, or you don't know how to budget. Get off the cell phone. Change your own oil. Mow your own yard. Clean your own house. Turn the heat down/ AC up. Only buy fresh, whole foods (no sugar/prepackaged). Don't have pets. Stay at Motel 6 on trips. Get used cars and pay them off. Carry the min. insurance. Get your hair cut at the local beauty school ($4.99 here). Walk around the neighborhood instead of joining the gym. Only buy used furniture on Craigslist. Eliminate all meals out.

Yep, these are what we face now and it does suck, but I could live like a king on $80-100 after these years.

[shiphead]

Originally Posted by MovedfromFL

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about?
$80-100k is comfortable in the south

You can do the same in California. The person I was referring to was my friends dad, a civil engineer and a father of 3. I don't know what kind of lifestyle people live where they can't afford 80K to 100K a year..

[user_id]

Originally Posted by MovedfromFL

$80-100k is comfortable in the south, or you don't know how to budget.

I think $80k~$100k is comfortable in the vast majority of locations. I can live comfortably for $40k a year here in Southern California.

Anyhow, the idea that $80k~$100k is not comfortable is just crazy. The essentials in the Los Angeles area would be around:

$1,500.....2~3 bedroom in a decent area.
$500........food
$400.......Amortized cost of car, insurance, gas (double for 2 cars).
$200.......Utilities (Internet, basic cable, electric/gas, water/sewer)
$80.........Cell phones
$100......Clothes, misc.
$200.......health (assuming employer plan)

For a total of $2,980/month, where as after tax $80k is around $5,300/month. Making $2,320 more a month beyond fairly generous essentials is pretty darn comfortable in my mind.