Will the home prices ever go down? (Boston: lawyer, houses)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Dom Cobb

When you factor in child care costs, I would say that is middle to upper income;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bos...mIiXO/amp.html

The reality is, if you're bringing in 250k as a household, you are well into upper class for the Boston metro area. You're among the top 5% (according to census data), not even the top 20% (which would be considered "upper class"). The top 5% is well above "middle class" (aka middle three quintiles). You could use different definitions of where upper class separates from middle class, but any method is going to put 250k in the upper class.

How those people choose to spend their money, dining out, children, boats, whatever is their business, but it doesn't effect what they earn.

[Dom Cobb]

Originally Posted by timberline742

The reality is, if you're bringing in 250k as a household, you are well into upper class for the Boston metro area. You're among the top 5% (according to census data), not even the top 20% (which would be considered "upper class"). The top 5% is well above "middle class" (aka middle three quintiles). You could use different definitions of where upper class separates from middle class, but any method is going to put 250k in the upper class.

How those people choose to spend their money, dining out, children, boats, whatever is their business, but it doesn't effect what they earn.

Clearly you either purchased your home a long time ago or had your family help you. I’m not quite at the 250k mark, it with one child it’s been hard enough to save any real money to move into a decent suburb with good schools.

We drive a 10 year old car that’s been paid off and we’ve had to pay off student loans as well for the last 10 years and pay 25k per year post tax for child care. Yes, having children is a choice, but the economic disincentive should not be the reason why some people do not have them. Lumping having a boat and child into the same category is not an apples to apples comparison.

Back to the main point; housing is extremely expensive, regardless of what your economic strata is. Find me a house for 600k (that is not a complete gut job) in a good suburb with good schools and my point is then off the mark.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Dom Cobb

Clearly you either purchased your home a long time ago or had your family help you. I’m not quite at the 250k mark, it with one child it’s been hard enough to save any real money to move into a decent suburb with good schools.

We drive a 10 year old car that’s been paid off and we’ve had to pay off student loans as well for the last 10 years and pay 25k per year post tax for child care. Yes, having children is a choice, but the economic disincentive should not be the reason why some people do not have them. Lumping having a boat and child into the same category is not an apples to apples comparison.

Back to the main point; housing is extremely expensive, regardless of what your economic strata is. Find me a house for 600k (that is not a complete gut job) in a good suburb with good schools and my point is then off the mark.

Neither is true.


And no one said life is easy if you choose to have kids (a choice) and live in a high cost area. That's a different thing that claiming to be middle class when you're in the top 5% of all households in the metro area. Yes, its expensive here, no one is debating that, but at 3x gross (which I still think is conservative) you can get a 750k place here without much trouble.


And yes, plenty of people choose to not have children primarily due to the cost. Not everyone can have everything, but really... advocating for subsidies for upper class people that took on both student loan debt and want to fund two children... not realistic at all. That would be horribly bad policy.


I have my masters (and a couple of other degrees). My partner has her masters. We both have professional jobs. Neither of us have kids, and even then its a struggle for both of us. It's a high cost area, we chose it, yeah, its going to be a challenge. We shouldn't get assistance because of that. If we decided to have kids we should expect it to be harder and have to live worse than we do. That would be a trade off we would be making. That's life.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by timberline742

The reality is, if you're bringing in 250k as a household, you are well into upper class

Originally Posted by timberline742

You could use different definitions of where upper class separates from middle class, but any method is going to put 250k in the upper class.

250k is not upper class. It really isn't even upper middle class.

The term upper class is reserved for people like the Kardashians and your boy Trump.

[wolfgang239]

You must be heating your house by burning dollar bills. $250kish is much, much more than enough to get all of those things here.

[Dom Cobb]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Neither is true.


And no one said life is easy if you choose to have kids (a choice) and live in a high cost area. That's a different thing that claiming to be middle class when you're in the top 5% of all households in the metro area. Yes, its expensive here, no one is debating that, but at 3x gross (which I still think is conservative) you can get a 750k place here without much trouble.


And yes, plenty of people choose to not have children primarily due to the cost. Not everyone can have everything, but really... advocating for subsidies for upper class people that took on both student loan debt and want to fund two children... not realistic at all. That would be horribly bad policy.


I have my masters (and a couple of other degrees). My partner has her masters. We both have professional jobs. Neither of us have kids, and even then its a struggle for both of us. It's a high cost area, we chose it, yeah, its going to be a challenge. We shouldn't get assistance because of that. If we decided to have kids we should expect it to be harder and have to live worse than we do. That would be a trade off we would be making. That's life.

Last point, as this becoming a tedious discussion as you are clearly myopic and cannot put yourself outside of what you know.

My wife and I are leaving Boston in a few months for mostly of cost of living that many others and myself have outlined in this thread and elsewhere. Good luck to you and everyone else.

I’d ask you to remember this thread as you age into your 60s and 70s and demand that you don’t have anyone serve or help you that is 30 or younger. No 30 year old doctor or police officer or trash collector - since having children is an individual economic choice and does not have a societal benefit. Yes, providing any economic incentive to have a generation of skilled workers behind you to help you is bad policy.

We should be encouraging educated people to have more children, not less or none at all.

[BostonMike7]

I kinda agree with other posters here in saying 250k is fine to live in the area.

Now what you spend the money on is a different debate really. Some people have expectations of only living in top tier towns, and sending their kids to top schools. Then I can see why people say it's tough to survive here on $250k/year.

Plenty of people in this state live in average towns, go to average schools, drive average cars, and would be plenty comfortable on 250k. Plenty of kids grow up and go to these average schools and become quite successful as well.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Dom Cobb

Last point, as this becoming a tedious discussion as you are clearly myopic and cannot put yourself outside of what you know.

I am myopic? Wow. You're the one thinking the top 5% of earners need handouts to sustain their lifestyle, that YOU believe is middle class, when it clearly is not. A couple earning that much is doing VERY VERY well, even for the Boston area. It's in the top 5% of all households. Really. Let that sink in. These people are among the tops in the region. And you want subsidies for them. That is just nuts.

Originally Posted by Dom Cobb

We should be encouraging educated people to have more children, not less or none at all.

No, no we should not be doing that. Not by having the government subsidize the very well off on the backs of the real middle class.

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

I kinda agree with other posters here in saying 250k is fine to live in the area.

Now what you spend the money on is a different debate really. Some people have expectations of only living in top tier towns, and sending their kids to top schools. Then I can see why people say it's tough to survive here on $250k/year.

plenry of people in this state live in average towns, go to average schools, drive average cars, and would be plenty comfortable on 250k.

More than "comfortable". The vast vast majority would feel like they hit the lottery.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Dom Cobb

Find me a house for 600k (that is not a complete gut job) in a good suburb with good schools and my point is then off the mark.

Took me all of 30 seconds, and this one is for $165k less than that:

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...48_rect/12_zm/?


I give you it's not a huge house or anything, but you never specified having specific requirements. Perfectly comfortable house for most normal families.


You already get benefits for having kids, it's called having Dependents. Other tax breaks are available for things like child care, health care and education. That you expect direct subsidies when you are already earning FAR more than most families in the Boston area, is outrageous. The world don't owe you anything. GET OVER IT.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

I kinda agree with other posters here in saying 250k is fine to live in the area.

I agree. But no way is 250k upper class.