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.
Millenials are pushing 40. I don't consider a 40 year old earning $100k rich. And I don't even live in a high COL area.
I don't disagree, but you're only looking at a small section of the sample when you whittle it down like that. The oldest Millennials are three years shy of 40 and $100k is the absolute lowest salary one can have in order to meet the criteria. It also includes 22 year olds making $500k. The real meat and potatoes of this will be the people in between those two data points - the people in the middle of that range making above the minimum qualifying salary of $100k. You have to set the salary bar somewhere and considering where a 22 year old college grad is career-wise vs a 37 year old professional, $100k nationally vs average per capita ($35k for this age range is the average) sounds like a reasonable threshold.
In Illinois, you're right on the taxes. However in terms of property value, it's actually much cheaper to own a home in the Chicago area than it is the SF bay area, LA area, NYC area, even the DC area these days. Even considering the high taxes, Chicago home values haven't shot up as much as they have in other cities, and overall it still might be cheaper to own a home there compared to elsewhere. Levels in most parts of the region are still lower than where they were at at the peak of the housing cycle/boom (2006/2007/2008). However considering millennials are more preferring to live in the city over the suburbs and how Chicago is the only "cool" part of Illinois (not the suburbs), it doesn't surprise me Illinois outside of Chicago is losing younger people out to other cities; especially the Chicago burbs, many of which are associated with "old money".
So yes, Chicago's property taxes are higher than the ones I literally just randomly clicked on in good neighborhoods of these cities that are within that $250k range. But people act like in Chicago and NJ you're paying $10/yr while elsewhere you're paying $1500/yr. It's not true. Most importantly, wages are higher in a city like Chicago so that little difference is most likely entirely outweighed by the higher wage in Chicago PLUS the cost of car ownership in the Sunbelt would drag that difference away even further!
I don't disagree, but you're only looking at a small section of the sample when you whittle it down like that. The oldest Millennials are three years shy of 40 and $100k is the absolute lowest salary one can have in order to meet the criteria. It also includes 22 year olds making $500k. The real meat and potatoes of this will be the people in between those two data points - the people in the middle of that range making above the minimum qualifying salary of $100k. You have to set the salary bar somewhere and considering where a 22 year old college grad is career-wise vs a 37 year old professional, $100k nationally vs average per capita ($35k for this age range is the average) sounds like a reasonable threshold.
I was responding to a poster claiming $100k for millennials is "definitely rich. Without a doubt".
I still wouldn't call someone making $250k truly rich. A lot of people with a professional degree can get close to $100k. And you have to figure how much student debt someone has to accrue to achieve such a job.
Well, what's "rich?" It's kind of hard to apply a numerical value to a pretty subjective definition: "having abundant possessions and especially material wealth." Here in Boston, $100k for an individual is enough to live in relative comfort (no roommates, own a car, etc.), but not what I would define as "rich." On the other hand, there are places 50 miles outside of the city where $100k will get me a nice single family home in a decent neighborhood, a decent newer car, some neat toys, and still give me the ability to enjoy some disposable income on entertainment, etc. That's "rich" to plenty of people. Almost anywhere, it's going to be well above the average per capita income. And that's just using $100k as the bare minimum for qualifying and not accounting for presumed income growth considering that even the oldest millennials are still not quit in their peak earning years.
TL/DR, I don't disagree with you on $100k not being "rich," but I think it's a fairly reasonable standard for this discussion.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think I saw anyone say that $100k makes someone rich.
Correct. I know exactly no one who makes 100k in Boston which is probablly because I am black and was actually born and raised in Boston which is very limiting. Still, my friends and I are college educated and I dont know any of them making more than 75k. The median HOUSEHOLD income in Boston is 62k. Menaing half of all HOUSEHOLDS make less than 62k.
Nearly Half of all Bostonians made less than 35k as of March 2016.
Even the median income for a WHITE Boston household was 91k in 2017. For black and Hispanic household it was about 45k.
Given all this information and my own anecdotal evidence, I cant imagine many millenials (nearly half of whom are of color) make 100k+ especially not nationwide.
Correct. I know exactly no one who makes 100k in Boston which is probablly because I am black and was actually born and raised in Boston which is very limiting. Still, my friends and I are college educated and I dont know any of them making more than 75k. The median HOUSEHOLD income in Boston is 62k. Menaing half of all HOUSEHOLDS make less than 62k.
Nearly Half of all Bostonians made less than 35k as of March 2016.
Even the median income for a WHITE Boston household was 91k in 2017. For black and Hispanic household it was about 45k.
Given all this information and my own anecdotal evidence, I cant imagine many millenials (nearly half of whom are of color) make 100k+ especially not nationwide.
My boss and my boss's boss are both black women. Both make well over $100k and live in Boston (Rozzi and JP). Neither would call themselves rich, and neither would I.
That said, they have both described themselves as "outliers" on multiple occasions as most of their friends and family in the area do not make that much money (and not for lack of education/effort). In fact, they both speak of their own privilege/advantages. My Boss's mother has been a prominent member of the community here for a long time and had some connections who got her into a well-to-do private school which helped with the college track and professional network. Her boss is originally from out of state and comes from a family with money. So both had advantages that most people of color in Boston do not. On the flip side, I'm a white guy, younger than both of them, and just about everyone I know is making $100k or more. Many of the people I know making $100k or more are under 25, and most of them are white. There are definitely drastic income disparities along the racial divide (thanks for the source, btw - I'm going to share it).
So I'm looking at it from a different angle, but your point isn't all that different from mine - "Rich" is a matter of perspective. And there are disparities along racial lines as well as geographical lines in this country.
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.
