From NPR: What Living on $100K A Year Looks Like

[pierogigirl]

They don't really give enough information. I also wouldn't call $30,000 "crippling" student loan debt. Lots of people graduate with SL debt upwards of $100,000 in comparatively low paying fields.

[wambam]

I know that this isn't the point of the article, but I'm surprised they didn't include someone who lives in a very low cost of living (maybe the Kansas woman falls into that category). I am sort of in this salary ballpark and live in a VLCOL area. I did find the Kansas woman's statement about wanting her kids to have more very interesting. A trend I am seeing among people I grew up with (a wealthy suburb in Ohio), is that most of us are not as well off as our parents. We are still incredibly privileged, but our parents seem to be doing a lot better even with less education. They are mostly retiring comfortably, and even though my H and I save a lot for retirement, I don't ever see that actually coming to fruition. And that's sort of a big factor in us being child free by choice.

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 5, 2017 8:45:41 GMT -5 susquehanna said:

Same of this stuff is pretty much common sense. For instance, of course your paycheck is not going to go as far if you need to use it to support a stay-at-home spouse and 3 kids. But on the other hand, you don't have to pay for childcare, and you have a stay at home spouse to manage your household. 

I look at the long-term consequences of the decision. If people are effectively forced to have a SAHP because of daycare, what does that do for these families long-term? Yes, not paying for childcare and management of the household is all well and good, but at what cost? Will that SAHP be able to ease back into the workforce once the kids are older? Will those years off hurt their financial goals in the long run? Are they forgoing important fringe benefits to make ends meet? It's not an easy decision for many, many families and it sucks to be forced into a big decision like that when the SAHP would actually prefer to work outside of the house.

[Velar Fricative]

I do feel for these people. $100k is a lot of money to a lot of people, and I won't sit here and call them poor by any stretch, but it doesn't mean it's objectively easy. It is hugely problematic in this country that now you have to make way more than our parents ever needed to make to live a similar lifestyle, even with adjusting for inflation.

[bex]

I think this is interesting. I know on here people get up in arms over "middle class" and "do you feel rich" but I do think the 100k threshold is an interesting one, because I think for many people growing up they assumed that when/if they hit 100k salary-wise they would be fine and economically/financially secure. And for many that's not true - some of it based on spending habits, but some of it based on things like housing costs, no retirement (so you have to save your own money for retirement), expensive health insurance, etc. So that 100k is going to cover things that it may not have had to cover for our parents.

That doesn't make someone earning 100k "poor" though but it doesn't mean its this magic number that it used to be (or at least was perceived to be.)

And ditto that I don't consider 30k to be significant for SL debt but I have a warped perspective there, ha.

[rupertpenny]

Add me to the list of people who thinks $30k in student loans doesn’t sound too bad :’(

I don’t think this article made these people sound terribly sympathetic, but I do sympathize with them. I think life in the US in general is extremely expensive these days.

[jeaniebueller]

Re: the Kansas family, if you are only working PT and just picking up other sources of income for fun money so your high school aged kid can have additonal 'educational activities,' than you are doing pretty well. These pieces always have me torn. On one hand, I totally get how crippling student loan debt, medical debt, being able to afford child care are, especially in HCOL and VHCOL areas of the country are and how little 100K would go. On the other hand, through my profession, I am primarily in contact with people who live at or below the poverty line, so acting like 100K won't provide the basic necessities and makes living difficult seems strange.

[bowies]

Dec 5, 2017 9:04:02 GMT -5 bex said:

I think this is interesting. I know on here people get up in arms over "middle class" and "do you feel rich" but I do think the 100k threshold is an interesting one, because I think for many people growing up they assumed that when/if they hit 100k salary-wise they would be fine and economically/financially secure. And for many that's not true - some of it based on spending habits, but some of it based on things like housing costs, no retirement (so you have to save your own money for retirement), expensive health insurance, etc. So that 100k is going to cover things that it may not have had to cover for our parents.

That doesn't make someone earning 100k "poor" though but it doesn't mean its this magic number that it used to be (or at least was perceived to be.)

And ditto that I don't consider 30k to be significant for SL debt but I have a warped perspective there, ha.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. We bought our house from a family with one working parent and three (soon to be four) kids with a fair amount of disposable income. We are a dual income household with two kids and a budget. The difference between our situations seemed to boil down to the fact that the seller had a pension and insurance for his family taken care of, whereas my H and I pay for both.

[msmerymac]

$100k in Manhattan is still a hell of a lot more than many people make. Plenty of people have a HHI of less than the poverty line, even in VHCOL areas. So while I understand the fact that $100k goes further in Kansas than in San Francisco, similarly, $13k goes further in Montana than Boston.

That said, maybe because 6 figures was always seen as having "made it" and definitely being better than middle class when I was a kid, the fact that people still have to make tough decisions is a bit contrary to our assumptions. There are still plenty of people in the comments section who just think people at $100k aren't "making good decisions," but there are also plenty of things people at higher income levels pay for that those who are actually middle class - around $50-$60k - wouldn't ever consider "needing" to pay for, likely including things like life insurance, retirement savings, more reliable cars. I feel bad using the more money more problems excuse, but there's this ideal that once you cross a certain threshold, everything will be easy, and I think that threshold is a lot further away than most would realize. Which says more about the wealth inequality and lack of support in this country than it does about what's "actually" middle class.

I can't even imagine what kind of money I'd be pumping into the economy if I didn't have to worry about spending thousands on health insurance, childcare, or college savings. You know, things other countries subsidize for the good of their population. I'd certainly have a larger house, therefore paying more in property taxes. I'd probably take more vacations. I might even start my own business if I didn't have to worry about a steady income or work-related benefits as much. Of course, I'd still be maxing out my car insurance so I can qualify for an umbrella policy, lol.

[isabel]

$30k of student loan debt is nothing. That's what I had and I am on track to pay it off over the standard 10 year repayment period. That monthly payment certainly contributes to our lack of ability to save, but I would never call that amount crippling to someone who makes $100k HHI (which is about what we make).

This article makes me wonder about my Trumper dad and his bootstraps opinion. I don't know if I've had a frank conversation with him about how much we make. He has a very high opinion of me and constantly tells me that I am doing all the right things and how that contributes to my successes, but he has no idea how far behind we are on retirement or that we struggle with credit card debt. From his perspective, we seem to be doing just fine. And we are. But his version of doing fine includes large contributions to retirement and living debt-free, which we don't do. I'm curious if it would change his attitude at all to know that we make six figures and don't expect to be able to retire at the typical age, if at all. Meanwhile, he worked for a unionized UPS making well under $100k and was still able to pay my mom child support and is now retired at 60 and owns 3 (nice) homes.

The amount of wage stagnation and inflation is really staggering when you get down and look at all the dirty details. People who make $100k seem like they are doing well on the outside, but they often struggle with all the things that are hidden and that people assume they are achieving.

Oh, one more anecdote - I recently had a "discussion" with my boss about what a $10k raise would mean to me. He was surprised that I was willing to leave for $10k. I was shocked that he was surprised. This same man told me last year that he and his wife paid about $1k a month for their two children to be in the best preschool in the county when his kids were small. And then I looked at him like he has three heads because we pay $1,200 a month for 3 DAYS(/week) for DS1 only! And then you have the nerve to tell me that $10k "isn't that big of a deal." Fucking boomers, man.

[pixy0stix]

Without reading the article, this is going to turn into "I'm not really middle class" isn't it?

[bex]

Dec 5, 2017 10:02:22 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Without reading the article, this is going to turn into "I'm not really middle class" isn't it?

I hope not. The article does a good job of mentioning upfront the median income in this country and I actually think it does an okay-ish job of not making it seem like these people are whining about how poor they are at 100k. 

[CheeringCharm]

Dec 5, 2017 9:41:24 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Re: the Kansas family, if you are only working PT and just picking up other sources of income for fun money so your high school aged kid can have additonal 'educational activities,' than you are doing pretty well. These pieces always have me torn. On one hand, I totally get how crippling student loan debt, medical debt, being able to afford child care are, especially in HCOL and VHCOL areas of the country are and how little 100K would go. On the other hand, through my profession, I am primarily in contact with people who live at or below the poverty line, so acting like 100K won't provide the basic necessities and makes living difficult seems strange.

Same.

I think this piece could have been more interesting had they included more information about the various families' financial choices, such as a monthly breakdown of expenses. Like what exactly are these "educational activities" that this women took on a second job to pay for? I'm not saying I'm not sympathetic, just curious as to what they could be.

$100k for a single person is pretty good imho. Two people making about that much with two or even three children would be doing pretty well. It's when you try to carry a family of 5 on 100k in a MCOL-HCOL area that you might run into trouble. The choice or ability to give up your job is a huge luxury in this economy. You should only do it if you have a lot of security for whatever reason.

[emoflamingo]

100K in Olathe is not bad but Olathe is one of the suburbs of Kansas City that is actually pretty varied on HHI and housing costs, just dependent on which part of the city limits you’re in.

I think working part time in sales is where she went wrong, but the job market is not great so if she stepped back for her kid and now can’t go full time because of that decision, I can understand the frustration. I would love to be there for my kids more but that’s the thing that scares me most. The job market where I am is slim and one of the larger employers just laid off a bunch of people so I’ll never cut my hours just because I won’t get them back later.

[Aquatica]

I agree that there isn't enough information given which makes me feel no sympathy.

What I found in common with a most of the couples highlighted was mentions of credit card debt, no savings, and as said in the article "People whose upper-class salaries are not keeping pace with their upper-class standards of living". So are these people living outside of their means?

It seems like these families could benefit from debt management and finance classes, and cut back on lifestyle expectations. I understand wanting the best for your kids especially growing up poor but scale it back.

[bugandbibs]

I see this attitude in my social circle and I find it annoying. This amount of money affords a lot of choices and if you choose to have all of them it's a stretch. It's a false sense of living paycheck to paycheck.

Trips to Hawaii, private school, new clothes, expensive cars, and keeping up with the Jones' houses do not mean you have it hard. A lot of people seem to struggle with the idea of a budget.

[laurack]

I think more info/breakdown would be helpful.

I'm torn on this as well because on the one hand H and I sometimes lament that we make good money yet we live in a small 2 bed home and can't afford to move, and drive relatively inexpensive used cars and don't buy designer goods and yada yada yet we don't have a lot of actual money. However realistically speaking we do live a luxurious life. We HAVE two working vehicles, health insurance, and a house to live in. We can stop at starbucks for a coffee or buy an $8 sandwich for lunch, or take the kids to a restaurant for dinner sometimes. We can buy clothing and shoes for our children when they need them. Just because the lifestyle we live was once accessible to those making much less than us, doesn't mean we don't now live a life that is much more luxurious than most people.

I also feel lucky that I made enough money to cover daycare (though barely at one point) so I was never forced out of the workforce because that financial hit can last much past school age children.

The income gap has definitely grown so those at 100k aren't particularly wealthy, unless they live in a VLCOL or have family help or something along those lines. But there are plenty of people living at or below the poverty line that would be overjoyed to experience living with a salary of 100k. So I try to think about how lucky we are that in this economy we both work just one job and have a house, vehicles, heat, food, clothing. The median household income seems so low but I know many many people live on it, and below in a COL just as high as what we are living in. So I suppose it's all about perspective really. It can be annoying for sure though when boomers are all "I worked hard for much less than you make and still managed XYZ on my paltry salary just saying .. it's all about working with what you have" or whatever nonsense.

[bex]

Can we stop with the, "they made poor financial choices"? We don't really know that and that gets as tiresome as the "250k is not rich" argument.

I also don't see any of these people whining about being poor, just that they don't have the money they thought they would. And I think that's natural if you long expected a certain income threshold to mean certain things (maybe more vacations, etc) and that's not happening. Like the 3M guy said, people in his circle who stayed two income (and presumably are making more than 100k)have more money for renovations, etc and they don't.

[bex]

Dec 5, 2017 10:26:02 GMT -5 laurack said:

I think more info/breakdown would be helpful.

I'm torn on this as well because on the one hand H and I sometimes lament that we make good money yet we live in a small 2 bed home and can't afford to move, and drive relatively inexpensive used cars and don't buy designer goods and yada yada yet we don't have a lot of actual money. However realistically speaking we do live a luxurious life. We HAVE two working vehicles, health insurance, and a house to live in. We can stop at starbucks for a coffee or buy an $8 sandwich for lunch, or take the kids to a restaurant for dinner sometimes. We can buy clothing and shoes for our children when they need them. Just because the lifestyle we live was once accessible to those making much less than us, doesn't mean we don't now live a life that is much more luxurious than most people.

I also feel lucky that I made enough money to cover daycare (though barely at one point) so I was never forced out of the workforce because that financial hit can last much past school age children.

The income gap has definitely grown so those at 100k aren't particularly wealthy, unless they live in a VLCOL or have family help or something along those lines. But there are plenty of people living at or below the poverty line that would be overjoyed to experience living with a salary of 100k. So I try to think about how lucky we are that in this economy we both work just one job and have a house, vehicles, heat, food, clothing. The median household income seems so low but I know many many people live on it, and below in a COL just as high as what we are living in. So I suppose it's all about perspective really. It can be annoying for sure though when boomers are all "I worked hard for much less than you make and still managed XYZ on my paltry salary just saying .. it's all about working with what you have" or whatever nonsense.

This is how we are. I don't feel we have a particularly lavish lifestyle, but I recognize that we make good money and are really lucky in some regards and I try to maintain perspective.

[tres3]

I disagree that $30k is "nothing" in student loans. $30k is a car payment every month for 10 years.

[laurack]

I do know people who make probably similar to what we do and really feel slighted by what the world hasn't given them. Feeling that you deserve XYZ because you "work hard" when you just work a job like anybody else, just seems silly to me. Not realizing that having your own home and basic necessities and luxuries like buying a coffee or a shirt you just liked the look of, is privileged in itself and still pretty common I think to not even realize that this is a life of luxury not a basic life of scarcity you are picturing it as in your head.

I actually find the sentiment of "I work hard so I deserve stuff" mentality to be pretty annoying especially since the people who say that to me usually work a desk job. I work a desk job and it's really pretty luxurious to sit at a desk and make enough money to pay your bills? I think about my dad who did manual labor his whole life to feed us, and now his body is all screwed up and I just feel thankful I was able to go to college and now I just get to sit all day for more money than he ever made. Very lucky really.

[bex]

Dec 5, 2017 10:30:33 GMT -5 tres3 said:

I disagree that $30k is "nothing" in student loans. $30k is a car payment every month for 10 years.

Like I said, it was just my perspective, which is skewed, lol, since we have ten times that.

Also, I did go back and read and the "crippling student loan debt" comment was not in regards to 30k but I think it got presented in this thread like it was, which I was responding to.

[laurack]

Dec 5, 2017 10:30:33 GMT -5 tres3 said:

I disagree that $30k is "nothing" in student loans. $30k is a car payment every month for 10 years.

well of course its not nothing ... but some are far worse off. My H had about that much debt and he paid it off in his 30s. We know plenty of people who are our age but not close to paying it off. It's basically a forever payment.

now I had zero debt because where I am from college is free so of course to me 30k sounds enormous. But it's all relative really. I suppose these days graduating with "only" 30k in debt isn't bad really, which in itself is terrible. 

[tres3]

Dec 5, 2017 10:33:15 GMT -5 bex said:

Dec 5, 2017 10:30:33 GMT -5 tres3 said:

I disagree that $30k is "nothing" in student loans. $30k is a car payment every month for 10 years.

Like I said, it was just my perspective, which is skewed, lol, since we have ten times that.

Also, I did go back and read and the "crippling student loan debt" comment was not in regards to 30k but I think it got presented in this thread like it was, which I was responding to.

When DH and I first married we were paying over $2k/mo in SL... we've taken some fabulous vacations since we paid off most of DH's loans. Mine are just a payment we will probably make forever (Or so it seems-- I'm 18 years into repayment and only now feel like I'm making a dent in the principle). We had good incomes though to pay our SLs.

I think for the average kid coming out of college with $30k in debt that means they aren't buying a new car, etc.. it is a big hit to the budget to have to pay $300/mo. 

[msmerymac]

Dec 5, 2017 10:17:01 GMT -5 bugandbibs said:

I see this attitude in my social circle and I find it annoying. This amount of money affords a lot of choices and if you choose to have all of them it's a stretch. It's a false sense of living paycheck to paycheck.

Trips to Hawaii, private school, new clothes, expensive cars, and keeping up with the Jones' houses do not mean you have it hard. A lot of people seem to struggle with the idea of a budget.

And I think that's completely false. Someone with high health insurance costs is certainly not going to Hawaii at $100k/year. Someone with student loans themselves is not sending their kids to private school, either. The point of the article is that even almost TWICE the average American income does not buy the American dream - because these people can't afford what they would imagine they could afford at $100k.

[msmerymac]

Dec 5, 2017 10:36:29 GMT -5 tres3 said:

Dec 5, 2017 10:33:15 GMT -5 bex said:

Like I said, it was just my perspective, which is skewed, lol, since we have ten times that.

Also, I did go back and read and the "crippling student loan debt" comment was not in regards to 30k but I think it got presented in this thread like it was, which I was responding to.

When DH and I first married we were paying over $2k/mo in SL... we've taken some fabulous vacations since we paid off most of DH's loans. Mine are just a payment we will probably make forever (Or so it seems-- I'm 18 years into repayment and only now feel like I'm making a dent in the principle). We had good incomes though to pay our SLs.

I think for the average kid coming out of college with $30k in debt that means they aren't buying a new car, etc.. it is a big hit to the budget to have to pay $300/mo. 

Exactly. We do not have prohibitive student loans at our income (my brother and SIL pay more than their mortgage in SLs each month), but its the equivalent of a car payment. Which means I might not be driving an 11 year old Saturn if I didn't have them, although they aren't the biggest expense in my budget. It's just one of many moderate expenses that eat away at savings, retirement, disposable income...

[bugandbibs]

Dec 5, 2017 10:37:02 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Dec 5, 2017 10:17:01 GMT -5 bugandbibs said:

I see this attitude in my social circle and I find it annoying. This amount of money affords a lot of choices and if you choose to have all of them it's a stretch. It's a false sense of living paycheck to paycheck.

Trips to Hawaii, private school, new clothes, expensive cars, and keeping up with the Jones' houses do not mean you have it hard. A lot of people seem to struggle with the idea of a budget.

And I think that's completely false. Someone with high health insurance costs is certainly not going to Hawaii at $100k/year. Someone with student loans themselves is not sending their kids to private school, either. The point of the article is that even almost TWICE the average American income does not buy the American dream - because these people can't afford what they would imagine they could afford at $100k.

I think you are taking what I wrote personally. This is what I see in my social circle. We have high medical debt and don't go on trips to Hawaii and have no credit card debt and a "starter" home we plan to stay in with our family of five. We did/do send our kids to private school while paying if our student loan debt. My point is that you you still need to choose at $100k and that not being able to spend freely doesn't mean you aren't actually living the American dream.

[bex]

Dec 5, 2017 10:36:29 GMT -5 tres3 said:

Dec 5, 2017 10:33:15 GMT -5 bex said:

Like I said, it was just my perspective, which is skewed, lol, since we have ten times that.

Also, I did go back and read and the "crippling student loan debt" comment was not in regards to 30k but I think it got presented in this thread like it was, which I was responding to.

When DH and I first married we were paying over $2k/mo in SL... we've taken some fabulous vacations since we paid off most of DH's loans. Mine are just a payment we will probably make forever (Or so it seems-- I'm 18 years into repayment and only now feel like I'm making a dent in the principle). We had good incomes though to pay our SLs.

I think for the average kid coming out of college with $30k in debt that means they aren't buying a new car, etc.. it is a big hit to the budget to have to pay $300/mo. 

Yeah, I came out of college with about 35k in SLs and no job and it was a stressor. 

I am counting down until our loans are gone (or almost gone).  I cant' wait!

[emoflamingo]

Dec 5, 2017 10:30:33 GMT -5 tres3 said:

I disagree that $30k is "nothing" in student loans. $30k is a car payment every month for 10 years.

I have 30k in loan debt and haven’t cracked $40k a year so to me, it is a big deal. (My H has slightly less but he’s in IT so he makes twice what I do so his feels like less of a big deal in relation to income.)

[bex]

Dec 5, 2017 10:43:00 GMT -5 bugandbibs said:

Dec 5, 2017 10:37:02 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

And I think that's completely false. Someone with high health insurance costs is certainly not going to Hawaii at $100k/year. Someone with student loans themselves is not sending their kids to private school, either. The point of the article is that even almost TWICE the average American income does not buy the American dream - because these people can't afford what they would imagine they could afford at $100k.

I think you are taking what I wrote personally. This is what I see in my social circle. We have high medical debt and don't go on trips to Hawaii and have no credit card debt and a "starter" home we plan to stay in with our family of five. We did/do send our kids to private school while paying if our student loan debt. My point is that you you still need to choose at $100k and that not being able to spend freely doesn't mean you aren't actually living the American dream.

The whole point of the article is that you still need to choose at 100k.  The 3M family chose to have the wife stay home and the husband says now, with hindsight being 20/20, he wishes they had chosen differently. etc.   But often 100k is pushed as this magical number and the reality is, you can make 100k and you still have to make tough financial choices, and its not just about going to Hawaii or not.