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 guys keep re-defining the boundaries of the discussion... if you live in Manhattan or SF then the budgets laid out in the article are indeed correct. A $350k family of 4 salary affords you by definition a middle class lifestyle in those areas. Yes some may say living in Manhattan is a privileged or that a middle class lifestyle is indeed a "good" lifestyle. If you look at the budget and consider those standards as upper middle class then so be it. I bet if you look at a $1.5M flat in either market you wouldn't want to trade your $500k burb home for their lifestyle that it affords. A family of 4 making say $150k in Knoxville TN can afford a far better lifestyle than $350k in either of the markets I have defined.
If $1.5 million gets you a small, 3-bedroom condo in Manhattan but that same $1.5 million gets you an 8000 square-foot house in a suburb 30 miles away that is still in the tri-state area, then would you go from middle class to rich just by making that transition?
If $1.5 million gets you a small, 3-bedroom condo in Manhattan but that same $1.5 million gets you an 8000 square-foot house in a suburb 30 miles away that is still in the tri-state area, then would you go from middle class to rich just by making that transition?
I guess that is a fair question.
Bingo. You could definitely go 30ish miles outside of Manhattan and find 5k sq ft McMansions for 1.25-1.5 million. This has been my point. Why not choose the most elite building in Manhattan as your needed living location and then let’s say you need $750k to live a middle class lifestyle? There are homes in the downtown of my area that are 1.25 million+, but I live 12 miles away and my home is just under $300k, so if I bought a home in downtown, could I say I need a $350k income to live a middle class lifestyle here?
Last edited by mizzourah2006; 09-29-2019 at 07:01 AM..
It all depends on what we call "rich", and in general, even "rich" people don't consider themselves REALLY "rich".
I totally get that 350K in NYC or the SF Bay Area is not anywhere near the princely level of 350K in, say, Tulsa, Oklahoma or Milwaukee or (insert smaller non-coastal city here). Yes, there are cities where 350K means you have to make tradeoffs (such as living in New Jersey rather than in Manhattan, or not living in The City or Palo Alto if you have two kids)
That said, 350K is still pretty darn well off even in those areas, although maybe at the upper bounds of "upper-middle-class" rather than "rich", but at that point we're kind of having a semantic issue. Even within the greater Bay Area (SF and San Jose MSAs), only about 20% of all households have incomes in excess of $200K, so $350K is...well, some percentage less than that. What is the cut-off for "rich"? Upper 10% in income in a metro area? Upper 5%? Either way, it's a sizable way about “middleâ€.
This is reasonable - I agree, especially as defined by individual earned income. An annual salary of $350k would place one in the top 2% of earners nationally. I was considering $350k relative to a family bringing in $350k combined. The distinction between middle-class vs. upper-middle-class as well as individual income vs. total family income changes the landscape.
It all depends on what we call "rich", and in general, even "rich" people don't consider themselves REALLY "rich".
I totally get that 350K in NYC or the SF Bay Area is not anywhere near the princely level of 350K in, say, Tulsa, Oklahoma or Milwaukee or (insert smaller non-coastal city here). Yes, there are cities where 350K means you have to make tradeoffs (such as living in New Jersey rather than in Manhattan, or not living in The City or Palo Alto if you have two kids)
That said, 350K is still pretty darn well off even in those areas, although maybe at the upper bounds of "upper-middle-class" rather than "rich", but at that point we're kind of having a semantic issue. Even within the greater Bay Area (SF and San Jose MSAs), only about 20% of all households have incomes in excess of $200K, so $350K is...well, some percentage less than that. What is the cut-off for "rich"? Upper 10% in income in a metro area? Upper 5%? Either way, it's a sizable way about "middle".
This doesn't make any sense. Are you actually saying that 350K ANNUAL INCOME will "barely buy" a residence in some parts of AL or OK, or are you trying to say that houses cost substantially more than 350K in some parts of those states.
If the former, that's just flat out wrong. If the latter...the areas in those states you're talking about are not "middle class", they are at a minimum "upper middle class" if not "upper class". I live in the DFW area, which is more expensive than metros in AL and OK, and the only suburbs here where all houses start above 350K are...well, they're quite affluent. Maybe not "rich", but sure as heck a lot better than "middle class"
Also, the fact that "New Jersey has no attraction for us" is irrelevant. There are people who feel like they can't live anywhere but the Hamptons, or in the trendiest parts of Manhattan...does this mean they're "middle class" if they live there and their income are "average" for those areas? Of course not. In fact, being able to live in one of those select few areas pretty much defines them as "upper class" by definition. In the metro area I live in there are certain suburbs that fit that description as well - if you can afford to live in them, you're very well off. There are countless other suburbs where actual "middle class" people live (as well as some "rich" people and some not-so-rich).
Last - I already expressed my feelings on the article in question and its list of expenses much earlier in this thread. They're a joke, a way to justify someone making 350K as "not really getting by", completely ignoring that they are choosing to take on expenses that, again, by definition pretty much peg them as "quite well off". Yes, some of the expenses in a vacuum aren't that bad, but taken as a whole, they're FAR from "middle class.
I don't disagree with the tenor of your post, but I do think the way you worded it gives NJ a bad rap. And this is from someone who owns homes in both NJ and The Hamptons. NJ has the highest per capita income of any state, or at least it vacillates with Connecticut for that position, depending on the year. Myself, and many other former Manhattan residents, choose NJ, not because it is cheaper, but because we don't want raise children in the city. In my neighborhood, as well as many other NJ neighborhoods, it would be difficult to buy a house on $350,000 a year, unless you had money from other sources.
There is truth to what you say about parts of NJ, as it would be for parts of Westchester, parts of Connecticut, or parts of Long Island. I just think you should have worded it that way.
I don't disagree with the tenor of your post, but I do think the way you worded it gives NJ a bad rap. And this is from someone who owns homes in both NJ and The Hamptons. NJ has the highest per capita income of any state, or at least it vacillates with Connecticut for that position, depending on the year. Myself, and many other former Manhattan residents, choose NJ, not because it is cheaper, but because we don't want raise children in the city. In my neighborhood, as well as many other NJ neighborhoods, it would be difficult to buy a house on $350,000 a year, unless you had money from other sources.
There is truth to what you say about parts of NJ, as it would be for parts of Westchester, parts of Connecticut, or parts of Long Island. I just think you should have worded it that way.
Sorry if a tone was implied, as that was not my intent. Just to be clear, I think considerable parts of New Jersey are quite nice (I once lived in Fort Lee, although that was 40 years ago so I know it's changed a lot). I also lived briefly in Long Island (not far from Belmont race track) about 25 years ago and there are lots of areas there that I like as well. I also have relatives who live on the Upper East Side, so I'm well aware of the costs of living in Manhattan. New Jersey was singled out since it had been mentioned several times previously by other posters.
As should be clear, I completely agree that someone in the NY or SF metros earning 350K who feels they're financially strapped is making choices to put themselves there. In both metros there are plenty of great areas to live that may not be the absolute trendiest, or will require a longer commute, or some other tradeoff. So I guess if the definition of "rich" is "be able to afford exactly everything one wants", then fine, but that's kind of like someone saying they're not rich because they can afford a Mercedes but not a Lamborghini.
Having said that, I do get that 350K in those places is not the same as in most of the rest of the country, where that level of income means you can live almost anywhere you want. But again, picking nits.
(As for the budget...I've lived in multiple cities with differing COLs. I've been relatively poor and relatively affluent at various times in my life. The "budget" listed for the hypothetical 350K couple reflects people spending far more than they need to and is in no way an indication that they're not very well off. Yes, it can justify people "feeling strapped" even at that income level, but again, anyone can overspend at pretty much any income level. It's easier in NYC than in Nashville, but the concept remains the same).
Income without assets is fraught and unstable. What happens if the income ceases? Assets without income are sterile. If you have a billion dollars, but it's "invested" at 0% interest in a savings-account, what's the point?
It is more important to grow one's money, that at any instant to have a lot - whether in income, or in assets. What's the point of having even enormous wealth, if we lack the skill, fortitude or opportunity to grow it further?
Uhhhh... If you have $1 billion invested at 0% interest you could still draw down $15 million dollars every year tax free as income for 65 years. I wouldn't call that "sterile" (whatever that even means).
I don't disagree with the tenor of your post, but I do think the way you worded it gives NJ a bad rap. And this is from someone who owns homes in both NJ and The Hamptons. NJ has the highest per capita income of any state, or at least it vacillates with Connecticut for that position, depending on the year. Myself, and many other former Manhattan residents, choose NJ, not because it is cheaper, but because we don't want raise children in the city. In my neighborhood, as well as many other NJ neighborhoods, it would be difficult to buy a house on $350,000 a year, unless you had money from other sources.
There is truth to what you say about parts of NJ, as it would be for parts of Westchester, parts of Connecticut, or parts of Long Island. I just think you should have worded it that way.
What are the nice parts of NJ? I've only been to visit friends in Hoboken while I was staying in Manhattan for work. Very dense, but convenient to NYC for work and entertainment. Based on my perusal of google maps it looks like the area around Englewood is pretty nice. How does that compare to Greenwich, CT?
What are the nice parts of NJ? I've only been to visit friends in Hoboken while I was staying in Manhattan for work. Very dense, but convenient to NYC for work and entertainment. Based on my perusal of google maps it looks like the area around Englewood is pretty nice. How does that compare to Greenwich, CT?
Yes, areas of Englewood are very nice, but Englewood also has some areas that are not so nice. Bergen County has a lot of beautiful areas, like Alpine, Tenafly, Saddle River, Englewood Cliffs.
In Essex County, you have Short Hills and Essex Fells, also Livingston and North Caldwell are mostly more upper middle than upper, but they do have certain areas within the towns where the homes are all $2M and up.
If you are looking for more of a country estate a little farther out, there is Morris and Somerset Counties with towns like Mendham, Peapack Gladstone, Far Hills, and parts of Bernardsville.
Greenwich CT is beautiful. If you are looking for something comparable to Greenwich, I would stick with either Alpine or Short Hills.
He is actually living a meager lifestyle for a family with two young children. I know many families such as his, with high income but living paycheck to paycheck.
He pays $92K in tax that alone brings his income down to $258K.
Property tax here is 2.2% he is low in comparison.
Property Insurance is low, I pay more on a far less expensive house.
Prop. Maintenance low compared to what I pay.
Utilities about the same.
Umbrella policy about the same.
Vacation about the same.
His Car insurance & maintenance is low.
His Charity is 60% lower.
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.
