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.
Just looking at Irvine as a base, not even OC which is has lower median incomes than Irvine, the average median incomes are around 120-130,000 USD a year in Irvine, Ca. That figure puts Irvine in the top 10 wealthiest cities in the US. So if your making double the median in one of the wealthiest cities in America, it's a bit outlandish to not consider yourself wealthy. You are well above the national, state and county averages. You are not middle class, even by Irvine living standards. You are certainly wealthy.
Just looking at Irvine as a base, not even OC which is has lower median incomes than Irvine, the average median incomes are around 120-130,000 USD a year in Irvine, Ca. That figure puts Irvine in the top 10 wealthiest cities in the US. So if your making double the median in one of the wealthiest cities in America, it's a bit outlandish to not consider yourself wealthy. You are well above the national, state and county averages. You are not middle class, even by Irvine living standards. You are certainly wealthy.
That's a good thing, isn't it?
I wouldn't consider Irvine one of the wealthiest cities in America and never at the top 10. Just from the first page of Google, I found more than a dozen lists of 100 and/or 250 wealthiest cities in the US, and Irvine is not in any of the important lists, but is placed pretty low in two very insignificant lists. In OC alone, Irvine is placed 9 out of 39, which does not make it a very wealthy city IMO.
In addition, the same high income to live in CA does not make the income earner rich when s/he has to pay high rent, high car insurance, and as I mentioned in a couple pages back, high student loans.
Most of my daughter's classmates who chose to stay and work in NYC after graduation make double her salary, which is $250K per person, not per household, and they are not what I call rich either. They're very comfortable, but they still have to pay at least $3000 for the rent on a tiny flat, $4000 on student loan (yes, that's monthly payment if they owe the same amount on student loans as my daughter does), and cannot skimp on the wardrobe since their positions in large firms in a large city demand them to spend money on their appearances. In addition, when they have to put on 80 - 100 hrs each week at the office, guess how much their food bill would be?
There are many factors involved, so a glance at a large income is not enough to determine the wealth, not at all.
I once figured out a way for my daughter and her husband to stay afloat: they should not eat or spend any money whatsoever, not paying the rent or any other bills except their student loans. If they could keep that up for 12 years, they would be debt-free. That is to assume that they could be at the same jobs at the same pay, which is hardly a possibility since they both are employed at will. Their $250K household income can be gone literally overnight and without warning, as it had several times before.
Last edited by Ol' Wanderer; 10-13-2011 at 09:14 PM..
[quote=Charles in PGI;21277719]I wouldn't consider Irvine one of the wealthiest cities in America and never at the top 10. Just from the first page of Google, I found more than a dozen lists of 100 and/or 250 wealthiest cities in the US, and Irvine is not in any of the important lists, but is placed pretty low in two very insignificant lists. In OC alone, Irvine is placed 9 out of 39, which does not make it a very wealthy city IMO.
Here is my data reference so you don't think I'm talking out my behind:
According to 2007 Census Bureau estimates, the median income for a household in the city is $98,923, and the median income for a family is $111,455; these numbers make Irvine the seventh richest city in the USA, among cities with population 65,000 or higher.[9]
That's pretty straight forward and if you extrapolate the above results forward 4 years, it still works in my favor either way. If the median has gone up, which I'm saying it has, it's still a reasonable result. If it's gone down, the fact that someone is making even more than median income that enhances my argument that
The original question was, "How would you classify 250,000/yr family income?" based on some general factors. It wasn't, "My daughter's so and so or so and so has some student payments so they don't have any money" I mean, the poster of the original message doesn't mention any of this and I assume the person isn't an idiot so he / she has a basic concept of managing their wealth.
I understand you, personally, know a situation where people making 250K are overextended and even in debt. I get that. There are tons of examples of people making much more who are overextending themselves or making poor career choices and decisions, it's everywhere. However, the original poster brings out a few reasonable conditions that don't seem to appear like they are over extending themselves.
Based on that information and the fact that they make at least double the average median income in Orange County, I think it's fair to consider them wealthy.
I wouldn't consider Irvine one of the wealthiest cities in America and never at the top 10. Just from the first page of Google, I found more than a dozen lists of 100 and/or 250 wealthiest cities in the US, and Irvine is not in any of the important lists, but is placed pretty low in two very insignificant lists. In OC alone, Irvine is placed 9 out of 39, which does not make it a very wealthy city IMO.
In addition, the same high income to live in CA does not make the income earner rich when s/he has to pay high rent, high car insurance, and as I mentioned in a couple pages back, high student loans.
Most of my daughter's classmates who chose to stay and work in NYC after graduation make double her salary, which is $250K per person, not per household, and they are not what I call rich either. They're very comfortable, but they still have to pay at least $3000 for the rent on a tiny flat, $4000 on student loan (yes, that's monthly payment if they owe the same amount on student loans as my daughter does), and cannot skimp on the wardrobe since their positions in large firms in a large city demand them to spend money on their appearances. In addition, when they have to put on 80 - 100 hrs each week at the office, guess how much their food bill would be?
There are many factors involved, so a glance at a large income is not enough to determine the wealth, not at all.
I once figured out a way for my daughter and her husband to stay afloat: they should not eat or spend any money whatsoever, not paying the rent or any other bills except their student loans. If they could keep that up for 12 years, they would be debt-free. That is to assume that they could be at the same jobs at the same pay, which is hardly a possibility since they both are employed at will. Their $250K household income can be gone literally overnight and without warning, as it had several times before.
if it takes a $4000 monthly student loan payment and 80-100 hour work weeks to make $250k/year, i'm glad i don't make that kind of money. i don't mind working hard, but i also like to eat at home (not at the office) as well as spend time with my wife and family.
Here is my data reference so you don't think I'm talking out my behind:
According to 2007 Census Bureau estimates, the median income for a household in the city is $98,923, and the median income for a family is $111,455; these numbers make Irvine the seventh richest city in the USA, among cities with population 65,000 or higher.
Oh, I've never thought that you made things up. I'm sure you and I both relied on data and lists before we voiced our opinions.
However, since that Census list is for cities with pop. 65000 (or more, but essentially, not a whole lot more), it would be easy for Irvine to be placed very high. Within a small population, the discrepancy of income is not significant enough to drive the average and the ranking down, and the small population of Irvine doesn't even place it in the top 100 most populous in the state, let alone the country. I could find many cities with smaller population than Irvine where the median family income is 200K+, but to compare orange with orange, Greenwich (CT) houses 3000 people fewer than Irvine, and their median family income for 2007 was higher, at $168K. The Census list did not even mention Greenwich.
IMO, 111K for a family definitely does not carry with it a rich label. How many people are in a "median" family? Parents and two or three children? $111K before tax wouldn't make a family of five rich, not in CA.
if it takes a $4000 monthly student loan payment and 80-100 hour work weeks to make $250k/year, i'm glad i don't make that kind of money. i don't mind working hard, but i also like to eat at home (not at the office) as well as spend time with my wife and family.
I'm with you on this. We live on a retirement of $24K/year (gross) and I consider ourselves much richer than our children.
It would be difficult to determine the median family income in OC
No its not. The US census bureau puts out estimates every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles in PGI
since there are very wealthy cities as well as sub par ones,
This is chow meow. Literally it means nothing as far as what we are discussing. While there is merit to arguing that a family making $250K in BFE, KS is filthy rich while merely being upper class in OC, there is absolutely no merit to the notion that a family making $250K in Santa Ana is richer than one in Newport Beach. And the standard of living argument is largely subjective(nicer home vs nicer neighborhood). Or maybe you would want to argue why Bartolo Colon making $6 million a year bought a 400K home in Santa Ana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles in PGI
but according to Wiki, the median family income as of 2007 is $81,260.
Its a matter of choices and $250K is not at all upper middle class, but upper class. I believe it puts one in the top 2% of wage earners or very close to that.
Trust me, I grew up in an east coast household (think Boston, DC, Philly) that routinely had a $250k+ income and it's definitely not upper class (it's more like upper middle/lower upper). I grew up in a nice area, lived in a nice house, attended top schools, and never really had to worry about money, but my upbringing/lifestyle didn't consist of multi-million dollar homes, yachts, maids/butlers, receiving $10k a month from a trust fund to have as spending money, and driving around in a $50k car as a high school junior.
Members of the true upper class make a lot more than $250k a year and they don't have to work a full-time job to get it. I attended prep school and college with kids from households worth 8-9 figures and their lifestyles were very, very different from mine and similiar to what I described above. They, in my opinion, represent the true upper class; not someone working 60+ hours a week at a job paying $250k that they could lose at any moment, or a two income household with each making $125k.
Last edited by bicoastal10; 10-14-2011 at 06:42 AM..
Trust me, I grew up in an east coast household (think Boston, DC, Philly) that routinely had a $250k+ income and it's definitely not upper class (it's more like upper middle/lower upper). I grew up in a nice area, lived in a nice house, attended top schools, and never really had to worry about money, but my upbringing/lifestyle didn't consist of multi-million dollar homes, yachts, maids/butlers, receiving $10k a month from a trust fund to have as spending money, and driving around in a $50k car as a high school junior.
Members of the true upper class make a lot more than $250k a year and they don't have to work a full-time job to get it. I attended prep school and college with kids from households worth 8-9 figures and their lifestyles were very, very different from mine and similiar to what I described above. They, in my opinion, represent the true upper class; not someone working 60+ hours a week at a job paying $250k that they could lose at any moment, or a two income household with each making $125k.
For simplicity, we’ll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures.
And while not entirely on point, I did find this excerpt to be quite telling...interesting that those making double the $250K figure we are discussing also cry poverty:
Quote:
Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.
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.
