Current Events > people on ce literally think 100k is rich?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Leading economists are saying you need AT LEAST $500,000 in liquid cash saved up by 30 if you want to retire comfortably.
---

COVxy posted...

chrono625 posted...

For the argument of NYC...No, they don't.

Strange how suburbs naturally sprout around cities.

Like, you rent an apartment in the city if you want to stay in the city. If you work in NYC and decide you want property, you go to NJ or Long Island.

Property taxes can be almost triple outside the city. Most people own and work in NYC because the other 4 boroughs are considered the "suburbs" of Manhattan. People pour into "the city" from the other 4, and the workforce of the other 4 is primarily comprised of people owning and working there.
---

being able to own a home and take a vacation doesn't make you rich wtf
---

No, but 100k in some places makes you incredibly rich, and in others it is barely scraping by.

1 million net worth doesn't even make you rich

Some homeless guy by my job has laminated signs asking for unlimited metrocards, donations through basically any payment method, hot food (preferably something healthy) and other stuff so if homeless people in NY demand those things then I'm basically just above homeless.
---

Its really not much especially for a family of four, thats paycheck to paycheck where I live. You have to make $75k a person to be middle class in my area
---

DoctorVader posted...

COVxy posted...

chrono625 posted...

For the argument of NYC...No, they don't.

Strange how suburbs naturally sprout around cities.

Like, you rent an apartment in the city if you want to stay in the city. If you work in NYC and decide you want property, you go to NJ or Long Island.

Property taxes can be almost triple outside the city. Most people own and work in NYC because the other 4 boroughs are considered the "suburbs" of Manhattan. People pour into "the city" from the other 4, and the workforce of the other 4 is primarily comprised of people owning and working there.

I mean, this is likely true but it doesn't change the underlying point.
---

I mean, you can qualify these things until the end of time to suit any agenda.

A million dollars/euro whatever won't set you up for life in 2018 but it is still a substantial lump sum for the vast majority of people.

Similarly, I think a single person earning 100k would be in a very advantageous position in most circumstances.
---

andel posted...

Antifar posted...

Is this individual, or family?

either. a single adult in san fran making 100k can live with some luxury but is far from rich or wealthy

Yeah, but I'd rather not live in some hipster-infested place anyway...
---

COVxy posted...

DoctorVader posted...

COVxy posted...

chrono625 posted...

For the argument of NYC...No, they don't.

Strange how suburbs naturally sprout around cities.

Like, you rent an apartment in the city if you want to stay in the city. If you work in NYC and decide you want property, you go to NJ or Long Island.

Property taxes can be almost triple outside the city. Most people own and work in NYC because the other 4 boroughs are considered the "suburbs" of Manhattan. People pour into "the city" from the other 4, and the workforce of the other 4 is primarily comprised of people owning and working there.

I mean, this is likely true but it doesn't change the underlying point.

It doesn't. I was just clearing up that your ignorant view of NYC was wrong.
---

i literally cannot mooch off my sister and she makes 160k in nyc. it's not rich.
---

DoctorVader posted...

It doesn't. I was just clearing up that your ignorant view of NYC was wrong.

Meh, not ignorant, neglectful really. There's a reason there's been an extremely large growth of communities and housing on Long Island and along the outskirts of NJ. There's a reason suburbs naturally grow along the outer limits of metropolitan areas.

This doesn't discount the fact that many people decide to go into Queens or the Bronx, but again, it's besides the point. I was really just trying to make the point most clearly without getting into all the minutia that doesn't matter too much.
---

Antifar posted...

COVxy posted...

Antifar posted...

median household income is 103k

Median is much lower, that's the mean.

No, that's median for SF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_locations_by_income#Counties

SF is a consolidated city-county, so the county median is the same as the city median. It is $78,378 by this measure
---

i live in nj and 100k is like an average salary here. my wife & i make a little over that with our combined income and we are unable to afford a house lol
---

1.6 million people commute to Manhattan from another county, and the other boroughs account for about 1 million of that. New Jersey is another 400k.
---

COVxy posted...

DoctorVader posted...

It doesn't. I was just clearing up that your ignorant view of NYC was wrong.

Meh, not ignorant, neglectful really. There's a reason there's been an extremely large growth of communities and housing on Long Island and along the outskirts of NJ. There's a reason suburbs naturally grow along the outer limits of metropolitan areas.

This doesn't discount the fact that many people decide to go into Queens or the Bronx, but again, it's besides the point. I was really just trying to make the point most clearly without getting into all the minutia that doesn't matter too much.

The reason for the huge growth was the the post-WW2 bills that allowed population to skyrocket basically to house the returning WW2 vets and their family. It didn't naturally spring up because it was suburb of Manhattan. Again, that was exactly what the other 4 boroughs were. It was artificially changed from farms and shipyards for that purpose.

You were saying most people don't live in NYC and commute from NJ or LI. That's simply not true because those areas have their own jobs and shit. NYC is huge, and as I said, the other 4 boroughs are too large and too suburban to need extra suburbs. Only 800k or so commuters even come into the city every day, and the day time population is like 9 million.
---

Given home ownership, and employment in Manhattan, what is the probability of your home being in Manhattan?

My guess is pretty low, and that's the only point I was trying to make. It's the reason why "median salary within this city is high, therefore this salary is actually low" isn't a reasonable argument, because there's been a selection. People don't just end up living in a city. They decide to. And the only one's who can are those who have a high salary.

The whole discussion of boroughs and shit kinda just muddies the water. Yes, it was inaccurate to frame in the way that I did. But that's besides the point, really.
---

DoctorVader posted...

Only 800k or so commuters even come into the city every day, and the day time population is like 9 million.

twice that many people commute to Manhattan alone dude
---

anyone who thinks 100k makes you rich is an underage user

NYC is the boroughs, not just manhattan. You can't just not use the other boroughs because it doesn't fit your point.

That's the point many were making. I don't think anyone here realistically thinks they should be able to buy a place in manhattan.

But the other boroughs are getting absurd.

You're also forgetting that first responders like cops and firemen HAVE to live within the 5 boroughs. They have no choice to move out to the suburbs.
---

chrono625 posted...

NYC is the boroughs, not just manhattan. You can't just not use the other boroughs because it doesn't fit your point.

I mean, the municipal level here is pretty irrelevant to the point he is making, though. If we had the time and inclination we could get this down to the census block or at least zipcode level.
---

COVxy posted...

Given home ownership and employment in Manhattan, what is the probability of your home being in Manhattan?

My guess is very low, and that's the only point I was trying to make. It's the reason why "median salary within this city is high, therefore this salary is actually low" isn't a reasonable argument, because there's been a selection. People don't just end up living in a city. They decide to. And the only one's who can are those who have a high salary.

The whole discussion of boroughs and shit kinda just muddies the water. Yes, it was inaccurate to frame in the way that I did. But that's besides the point, really.

Understandable. My point was just that NYC is a lot more than just Manhattan. Heck, iirc Brooklyn and Queens alone are considered the 4th and 5th largest cities in the US.

Balrog0 posted...

DoctorVader posted...

Only 800k or so commuters even come into the city every day, and the day time population is like 9 million.

twice that many people commute to Manhattan alone dude

From outside NYC, which doesn't include the other 4 boroughs and the number was from 2011, so it might be slightly different now.
---

Some people have this dumb view of "barely scraping by" meaning owning a house, maxing out your retirement contributions, paying all of your utilities/car payments/etc., putting away a certain amount of savings, and "only" having a few thousand left each month after you're done.
---

DoctorVader posted...

From outside NYC, which doesn't include the other 4 boroughs and the number was from 2011, so it might be slightly different now.

oh, yeah, that number is closer to 600k as of ~2013/2014 I think
---

my take on this is that people consider 100k rich to the extent that people making 100k consider themselves poor or lower middle class

neither thing is true
---

If I made 100k a year I wouldn't consider myself rich, but I wouldn't know what to do with all the money I was making.

Including saving for retirement
---

Anteaterking posted...

Some people have this dumb view of "barely scraping by" meaning owning a house, maxing out your retirement contributions, paying all of your utilities/car payments/etc., putting away a certain amount of savings, and "only" having a few thousand left each month after you're done.

>"100k is barely above poverty!"
>Makes 100k, lives in a good sized apartment in a good part of the city, eats out whenever he wants, has good car, has money to spend on hobbies, defers compensation to 401k and still has savings left over
---

REMercsChamp posted...

>Makes 100k, lives in a good sized apartment in a good part of the city, eats out whenever he wants, has good car, has money to spend on hobbies, defers compensation to 401k and still has savings left over

I mean even in the tenderloin average rents for a 1br are over $2000/month

that is 1/4 of your gross pay if you make 100k.
---

btw that isnt considered a good part of SF
---

Balrog0 posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

>Makes 100k, lives in a good sized apartment in a good part of the city, eats out whenever he wants, has good car, has money to spend on hobbies, defers compensation to 401k and still has savings left over

I mean even in the tenderloin average rents for a 1br are over $2000/month

that is 1/4 of your gross pay if you make 100k.

Well, when you put it that way!

It's 1/4 of a big salary though. So there's $75k of gross left over after rent. That's significant.
---

You are good if you spend less than 30% of your income on rent.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

You are good if you spend less than 30% of your income on rent.

Depends on what your income is.

Say you spend 50% on rent.

Make $500 a month? You've only got $250 left over.

Make $6000 a month? Then you've got $3000 left over. That's a good amount of disposable income after rent.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Well, when you put it that way!

It's 1/4 of a big salary though. So there's $75k of gross left over after rent. That's significant.

but if you wanted to live in a good part of the city it would be more like 3.5k a month, or like 45k a year

yeah I agree that these people aren't poor but also it is true that they face big cost burdens

even if you move then you just replace housing costs with transit costs. and you gotta deal with traffic on 101 for like 3 hours a day.
---

Far from rich but certainly wealthy depending on where you live (individual income).
---

100k goes far as fuck, here in Cleveland. You'd be very well off with that kind of salary. Hell, people raise families with half of that, or less.
---

Balrog0 posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Well, when you put it that way!

It's 1/4 of a big salary though. So there's $75k of gross left over after rent. That's significant.

but if you wanted to live in a good part of the city it would be more like 3.5k a month, or like 45k a year

yeah I agree that these people aren't poor but also it is true that they face big cost burdens

even if you move then you just replace housing costs with transit costs. and you gotta deal with traffic on 101 for like 3 hours a day.

Maybe I can't really relate to this. Are you talking about California? Where I live (Toronto) $2000 a month gets you a good apartment, above average. You can live pretty comfortably as a single person making $60,000-$70,000 a year, maybe even less. I'd assume if the housing costs were higher in your area the salaries would also be higher.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Are you talking about California?

San Francisco specifically, yeah.

The salaries are higher, but not necessarily to the extent people think that they are. I make roughly 50k in central arkansas and I would argue that I am more affluent than someone making 100k in the NYC/SF metro areas due to the additional costs in those places, for instance.
---

Balrog0 posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Are you talking about California?

San Francisco specifically, yeah.

The salaries are higher, but not necessarily to the extent people think that they are. I make roughly 50k in central arkansas and I would argue that I am more affluent than someone making 100k in the NYC/SF metro areas due to the additional costs in those places, for instance.

Yeah I agree. But the salaries should be higher too. I took engineering, and a lot of people wanted to go to silicon valley. The offers they got for jobs there were like 30-40k higher than the equivalent job in Toronto.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Some people have this dumb view of "barely scraping by" meaning owning a house, maxing out your retirement contributions, paying all of your utilities/car payments/etc., putting away a certain amount of savings, and "only" having a few thousand left each month after you're done.

>"100k is barely above poverty!"
>Makes 100k, lives in a good sized apartment in a good part of the city, eats out whenever he wants, has good car, has money to spend on hobbies, defers compensation to 401k and still has savings left over

that is decidedly middle class. middle class means you can afford expenses and some luxury but continue having to work to make ends meet.

i made 6800 last week and i live in mississippi, the poorest state in the country. that is a 'good' week for me where a bad week is 2k-2500. i am not rich, though if i can keep up this income level for years i could be one day. having disposable income does not make you rich
---

Most people are financially illiterate.

andel posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Some people have this dumb view of "barely scraping by" meaning owning a house, maxing out your retirement contributions, paying all of your utilities/car payments/etc., putting away a certain amount of savings, and "only" having a few thousand left each month after you're done.

>"100k is barely above poverty!"
>Makes 100k, lives in a good sized apartment in a good part of the city, eats out whenever he wants, has good car, has money to spend on hobbies, defers compensation to 401k and still has savings left over

that is decidedly middle class. middle class means you can afford expenses and some luxury but continue having to work to make ends meet.

i made 6800 last week and i live in mississippi, the poorest state in the country. that is a 'good' week for me where a bad week is 2k-2500. i am not rich, though if i can keep up this income level for years i could be one day. having disposable income does not make you rich

You mean literally rich like buying mansions and luxury cars? Of course a 100k salary alone won't do that. Did anyone think otherwise?
---

REMercsChamp posted...

andel posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Some people have this dumb view of "barely scraping by" meaning owning a house, maxing out your retirement contributions, paying all of your utilities/car payments/etc., putting away a certain amount of savings, and "only" having a few thousand left each month after you're done.

>"100k is barely above poverty!"
>Makes 100k, lives in a good sized apartment in a good part of the city, eats out whenever he wants, has good car, has money to spend on hobbies, defers compensation to 401k and still has savings left over

that is decidedly middle class. middle class means you can afford expenses and some luxury but continue having to work to make ends meet.

i made 6800 last week and i live in mississippi, the poorest state in the country. that is a 'good' week for me where a bad week is 2k-2500. i am not rich, though if i can keep up this income level for years i could be one day. having disposable income does not make you rich

You mean literally rich like buying mansions and luxury cars? Of course a 100k salary alone won't do that. Did anyone think otherwise?

rich to me doesn't mean that, it means you can live comfortably the rest of your life without working. 100k can be lower to upper middle class but it isn't rich by any definition in america (it would be rich in some countries)
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Balrog0 posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

>Makes 100k, lives in a good sized apartment in a good part of the city, eats out whenever he wants, has good car, has money to spend on hobbies, defers compensation to 401k and still has savings left over

I mean even in the tenderloin average rents for a 1br are over $2000/month

that is 1/4 of your gross pay if you make 100k.

Well, when you put it that way!

It's 1/4 of a big salary though. So there's $75k of gross left over after rent. That's significant.

say you make 100k in nyc, your take home salary is like $6k~ a month

if you want to live somewhere desirable in nyc you're going to be paying like $3k a month for rent, so right off the bat you just lost half your paycheck.

you're still left with 3k a month, which is a lot of money, but then there are other things you'll be spending money on like your family, a car/garage (if you want one), etc.

then there are the little cultural aspects of living in NYC, like eating out (which people in new york do a lot because food shopping is a hassle in a dense city), going out drinking with coworkers (especially if you're young, you work long hours and going to happy hours and shit is part of the work culture in nyc), etc. obviously this is not mandatory but it's part of the lifestyle of living in the city.

my point is that making 100k in nyc will enable you to be happy & comfortable but it is by no means rich. when i think rich i think of some dude with a mansion and sports cars, not someone who is able to be comfortable and save a little each month. sounds like normal to me
---

andel posted...

it means you can live comfortably the rest of your life without working.

Okay, that's a very small percentage of the population. Most of us need to keep working, assuming you want to keep your current lifestyle intact. I'm sure on 100k you could save enough eventually to live in a tent and eat beans in the middle of nowhere for the rest of your life.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

andel posted...

it means you can live comfortably the rest of your life without working.

Okay, that's a very small percentage of the population. Most of us need to keep working, assuming you want to keep your current lifestyle intact. I'm sure on 100k you could save enough eventually to live in a tent and eat beans in the middle of nowhere for the rest of your life.

hence the comfortably aspect of my post. and that is the point, very few people are actually rich.
---

I'm over $100k here in the Baltimore/D.C. metro.

I don't feel wealthy by any means, but have more than enough to save, invest, and plan for my future. I can just afford to spend a little more, however I do have loans and bills like everybody else.
---

Romulox28 posted...

when i think rich i think of some dude with a mansion and sports cars,

Obviously a 100k salary alone will not get you this. No one thinks that. My parents have a net worth of around a couple million and even we don't live like that.
---

Even 100 million isnt that rich by todays standards

you need at least twice that amount if you want to live comfortably by yourself in a burnt out shack in Detroit
---

Romulox28 posted...

if you want to live somewhere desirable in nyc you're going to be paying like $3k a month for rent, so right off the bat you just lost half your paycheck.

Depends what you mean by desirable you can live in Astoria for like $2K for a 1 bedroom and that's a nice area.
---