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 rich folk are slamming a lot of other people with your rich attitudes."
It's not about being, rich. It's about the cost of living. In Chicago, where I live, simply owning a car is expensive, as is rent. 32K would force you to choose between moving into a dangerous neighborhood, a tiny apartment, or giving up your vehicle.
"When I retired we were able to move away from high COL areas, out to a low COL area. We moved out from an apartment, into a 4800 sq ft house on 150 acres with 1/4 mile river frontage."
If you like that, great. But for city-lovers that would be considered highly undesirable, regardless of your income.
The point is that a retiree with $32k income, isn't going to live in Chicago....or NYC, Boston, DC, LA, SF, or a number of other high COL areas. If they absolutely have to live in one of those areas, then they can't retire on $32k a year.
I realize there's people here who can't exist for more than 24 hours outside of one of these big metro areas, but don't paint this lifestyle as a necessity for retirement.
Geez, I just noticed this thread. It seems to me there should be no issue living on $32K per month. Personally I can get by on less than half that amount.
That might be of comfort to those who wish to retire to the middle of a cornfield or the side of a mountain. But such places would be considered highly undesirable places to retire for most people.
Good Lord. No, it would be undesirable to you, and the people you know. And there's other options outside of Chicagoland other than living in a cornfield. Shocking I know. We even have running water and electricity.
I totally agree with you. I think the reason that happens is that they have never had to live with less money. Or if they did, it was in the beginning of their work lives.
Either that, or they're blowhards. Everybody on the Auto forum drives either a BMW or Lexus. And $100k a year salary in the employment forum means you're an under performer. It's necessary to establish that persona, otherwise they can't assume their role here as authority figures, and tell people they can't retire on $32k a year.
No, I'm saying if you take a random point in the United States, such as using a dart on a map, you are likely to hit farmland or mountains, because that's the vast majority of the land area of the continental US (I guess you might want to add desert to that.)
The point is, for some people, living in a remote area is a big negative. This would include people whose family is in a specific metropolitan area, or elderly people who can no longer drive and don't want to be utterly isolated. It's not elitism to want a tolerable lifestyle, and for some people a tolerable lifestyle cannot be achieved in a remote rural area.
One doesn't need to live in a 10 million population metro to achieve those goals. A small metro of 100,000 works just fine. It's not a large metro or cornfield decision.
The point is that a retiree with $32k income, isn't going to live in Chicago....or NYC, Boston, DC, LA, SF, or a number of other high COL areas. If they absolutely have to live in one of those areas, then they can't retire on $32k a year.
I realize there's people here who can't exist for more than 24 hours outside of one of these big metro areas, but don't paint this lifestyle as a necessity for retirement.
These are rich, liberal areas. There is probably more assistance for the poor and elderly than in cheaper, rural states.
Geez, I just noticed this thread. It seems to me there should be no issue living on $32K per month. Personally I can get by on less than half that amount.
Either that, or they're blowhards. Everybody on the Auto forum drives either a BMW or Lexus. And $100k a year salary in the employment forum means you're an under performer. It's necessary to establish that persona, otherwise they can't assume their role here as authority figures, and tell people they can't retire on $32k a year.
I'm not going repeat myself, but I'll say this. I am fully aware that one can retire comfortably in say Dubuque, IA, on 32K a year. And I'm perfectly aware that Dubuque is a wonderful place for many people. But there are people who would choose to live in more expensive places, and might voluntarily choose to save more for retirement so that they may do so. (The comment about cornfields was in response to suggesting throwing a dart at a map and choose a place to retire, not a comment on small cities.)
It's not snobbery to aspire to a higher retirement income, if you can achieve this in an honorable fashion. It is not putting people down to want to live in a larger city. (And by the way, Chicago, is not nearly as expensive as the other places you listed.)
Anyhow, I'm done with this thread. I think I've made my position clear.
If the statement made is: "I don't WANT to live off 32K a year, and I probably wouldn't want to live any where I COULD live off 32K a year," is that offensive? The statement makes no judgement about others who live off 32K, or the places where one could do that.
32K a year is $2,666. a month. Are we talking about with a mortgage? Is the person paying rent? With or without a car or payment, having money for travel and eating out? or not. With health insurance already paid or not? Taking into account any prescriptions and co-pays? Does the person have cable TV, a cell phone, internet service? Is the person pinching every. darn. penny…..clipping. every. coupon, baking their own bread, growing their own produce? shopping at thrift shops? to get their expenses within the 32K a year?
There's a thread here that was posted about living like a king on 20K a year. At least now we're up to talking about 32K.
i could live on 32k a year if i give up our health insurance and housing costs . i think those two are about 32k a year .
one good thing about living in nyc or the boroughs is 1/2 the entire housing stock for millions of people are rent stabilized .
it is not widely known but if you are stabilized and 62 or over and have less than a 50k taxible household income and your rent represents 1/3 of your income you are exempt from future rent increases .
the landlord gets a tax abatement for the difference in rent increases that they can't pass on . that is one incredible perk if you live here and qualify .
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-05-2016 at 04:41 AM..
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.
