Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Living on $100k a Year

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 195 posts

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#71

Post by ams6110 »

flatline wrote: post #43
ivraatiems wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My father raised a family of 6 making ~$30k/yr at his peak. When your father was working and you were growing up, $30k was worth more (perhaps much more, depending on how old you are) than it is now. His job probably had benefits and protections modern jobs don't have. What used to work for people increasingly doesn't work, in large part because benefits are disappearing, government programs and subsidies are being…

Crap cars are also expensive as hell to keep running nowadays. Buying new or nearly new, if you need the transportation for your job, can be more economical. That wasn’t the case 40 years ago. That labor that his mom presumably put in is also not without monetary value - two working parents cost a fortune in childcare, and many people need both salaries to make the equivalent of what just one used to.

Really, any "mainstream" car made in the last 15 years is going to be quite good. I'm talking about Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, etc. My newest car is a 2004 Honda with 230,000 miles. I bought it used when it had about 80,000 miles. It's been very reliable. I've likewise had a good experience with a 2002 Ford.

40 years ago, 100,000 miles was considered the practical life of a car. If it hadn't rusted out by then it had probably had a major failure such as a transmission or engine. The only advantage they had was being mechanically simple and easier to repair, but they needed more repairs and more maintenance than a car made in this century.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#72

Post by xor1 »

mberning wrote: post #11
xor1 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My father raised a family of 6 making ~$30k/yr at his peak If you're in the US, how are your parents faring for retirement? Are you and your siblings helping out?

My dad retired and had a modest 401k. He also gets social security now. My mom works part time in the kitchen for the local school district. They are doing ok! I imagine they will come live with my wife and I when they are ready. I won’t put them in a home.

What about the rest of your siblings? Are they going to help?

I ask because my parents are retired, and they are nearing the age where they will need assistance. It's just going to be my sister and I when it comes time to deal with figuring out what we are going to do. My mother has been financially dependent on my father throughout their entire relationship.

I currently live near them and visit once a week, but I don't see how I can afford to stay in the area if I want to start a family of my own, unless I find a partner that earns around as much as I do so that we can clear $300k+ a year. Modest starter homes in a neighborhood with both decent schools and a commute time under an hour to where the jobs start at $700k.

My sister and I also have to figure out how we are going to deal with my mom's relatives, who currently barely want anything to do with her, but will be ready to take advantage of her once my dad passes (assuming he passes away first -- I'm quite sure he will), and she's the main holder of everything. I already saw it happen with both of my grandmothers, so this isn't just unfounded pessimism. Both sides of my family are full of shitty people.

I absolutely do not mind every single cent in their networth being used to care for my mother in old age. I do mind that money being mismanaged and wasted, especially if that results in her needing more than what was originally set aside by my father.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#73

Post by emerged »

pageald wrote: post #34

This is ridiculous. It's one thing to claim that 100k is "not enough" if you live in a high cost of living (which is still dubious, considering the median income in NYC is half of that.) If that's not enough for you in Kansas, the fact is that you're living far beyond your means. I think it's telling that one family cited credit card debt like it's an act of nature instead of a conscious choice. And just because you…

There's an irritatingly prevalent attitude that once you've moved to a high cost of living area (or were born there), you're forever entitled to stay there. That if you can't afford it, it's the fault of society and needs to be corrected.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#74

Post by abalashov »

emerged wrote: post #73
pageald wrote: post #34

This is ridiculous. It's one thing to claim that 100k is "not enough" if you live in a high cost of living (which is still dubious, considering the median income in NYC is half of that.) If that's not enough for you in Kansas, the fact is that you're living far beyond your means. I think it's telling that one family cited credit card debt like it's an act of nature instead of a conscious choice. And just because you…

There's an irritatingly prevalent attitude that once you've moved to a high cost of living area (or were born there), you're forever entitled to stay there. That if you can't afford it, it's the fault of society and needs to be corrected.

I don't know if it's the fault of society, but it's fairly natural. Humans get attached to familiar places in which they grew up, in which they have lived in a long time, etc. They plant social roots.

I'm not saying that means people who can't afford to live in places like NYC or SF shouldn't move, just that there's a complex tension between economic theory and "messy" human reality.

The ideal rationally self-interested agent described in economics texts would just move from place to place in search of profit-maximising opportunities, but that's not what actually existing humans do much of the time. They have relatives, friends, aesthetic preferences, social obligations, religious beliefs, and other things that "do not compute" in mathematical models.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#75

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

jimhefferon wrote: post #22
d4mi3n wrote: post #3

> "And now I'm one of those coastal elites, a term, you know, that people in Middle America use. And it feels like betrayal," he says. "But what I've learned in moving to the coast is there's real inequality. And the biggest driver of that inequality is the tax code. The biggest social welfare has been to the rich and powerful, giving them loopholes and abilities to keep money from the government and keep money from…

> Nobody seems to be interested in improving the situation Plnty of us are interested. But people with enough money to pay for their own media, and their own politicans and party, they are really not interested.

I think it takes less than most of us imagine -- but more than most of us are capable of organizing.

If you wanted to build complexes to stimulate the economy, you'd probably need on the order of... $100M in buildings, and another $100M in endowments for operating expenses/grants/risky loans.

So 200M is a lot, but it's also only the retirement wealth of 100-200 upper-middle class families, of which there will be thousands per major metro (and perhaps a million or so across the US).

I think it's mostly a logistics problem -- in those million families, there are probably 10,000 that are interested in resettling to the middle of the country and would be willing to move half of their wealth into local investments on a generational scale (while keeping the other half in say, the market).

That means we could do 250-500 self-sustaining mixed-use complexes backed by endowments for operations costs, which is probably enough to target 50-100 towns.

The question becomes the organizational aspects of those people finding each other, building trust (between each other and with the involved communities), and finding the appropriate legal instrument to manage the money on that scale.

These are all much harder problems than finding money or media attention.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#76

Post by pishpash »

emerged wrote: post #73
pageald wrote: post #34

This is ridiculous. It's one thing to claim that 100k is "not enough" if you live in a high cost of living (which is still dubious, considering the median income in NYC is half of that.) If that's not enough for you in Kansas, the fact is that you're living far beyond your means. I think it's telling that one family cited credit card debt like it's an act of nature instead of a conscious choice. And just because you…

There's an irritatingly prevalent attitude that once you've moved to a high cost of living area (or were born there), you're forever entitled to stay there. That if you can't afford it, it's the fault of society and needs to be corrected.

Would you say the same for indigenous people around the world? That when they're "priced out" they should just get the hell out?

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#77

Post by Spooky23 »

tedivm wrote: post #67
Spooky23 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually temporary assistance, which is when you get cash is considered welfare. Most people who understand this stuff don’t consider safety net programs like food stamps or WIC that way. The difference is that the Food stamps/WIC allow you to work, and most people on them do. “Welfare” requires you to not work in order to get a benefit. The most vociferous disgust regarding people on welfare usually comes from people…

That is a pretty ridiculous definition, and isn't even self consistent. With the exception of disability insurance and unemployment the majority of welfare programs (including where people just get direct cash) are income based (meaning people are allowed to work, but if their income rises above certain levels they lose some of the benefits). Food stamps are exactly the same, as is the reduced price lunches mentioned…

Perception is reality.

When the average redneck is barking about “welfare queens”, he’s not talking about food stamps, WIC, Medicaid or SSDI. Half his family is enrolled in one or more.

The difference with something like food stamps is that a “normal” working class two parent household can get some benefit. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, but that is what many if not most people believe when you actually ask them.

When well to do people hide their assets in trusts so they can collect Medicaid when they get old, they don’t consider that welfare either.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#78

Post by gizmo »

cperciva wrote: post #58
jorblumesea wrote: post #15

The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. Tax breaks are at best a very short term proposition, and if the numbers are to be believed, the current tax plan only serves to widen the gap over time. Unfortunately, many Americans have been convinced to vote against their best interests since in many places, D means Devil. H…

The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. That's not really supported by the data. A more accurate summary would be "the poor, unable to, the rich, not numerous enough to". Raising taxes on the top 1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.01% has very little impact on total revenues simply because you need to raise taxes 50x, 50…

Confiscatory taxes on the wealthiest would bring in hundreds of billions. That's not "very little impact", the money could be used to massively improve the lives of millions.

Yes, there are few people, numerically, in the top 0.01%, but that doesn't mean their taxes are inconsequential. Otherwise you might as well argue that they should pay no taxes at all. Absurd.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#79

Post by Consultant32452 »

abalashov wrote: post #65
Consultant32452 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you are not budgeting appropriately for the amount and variability of your income. I just recently left the consulting game, but did so for nearly a decade. If you're truly interested in making a change I recommend reading The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.

I'd like to think I budget appropriately, though I'll admit I didn't always when I was younger; it's an acquired skill. But you try budgeting appropriately through a divorce and absurdly expensive custody battle. But in a way, you're making my point for me; because $100k in SE income is not the same as $100k in W-2 income, it requires special budgeting considerations, to the degree that I'd benefit from reading a who…

>But you try budgeting appropriately through a divorce and absurdly expensive custody battle

I did.

>But in a way, you're making my point for me; $100k in SE income is not the same as $100k in W-2 income.

Actually, I'm making the exact opposite point. The budget is the exact same. The budget is what forces you to not over-spend when times are good, so that you have plenty of money around when times are lean.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#80

Post by rayiner »

heurist wrote: post #50
rayiner wrote: post #40

Recently, the news media seems to have developed a weird fetish for the petit bourgeoisie. The U.S. is highly atypical in how we treat the upper middle class. In Germany, for example, a two-income couple making 84,000 Euro ($100,000) in Bavaria nets 57% of their income: https://www.icalculator.info/germany.html . In Maryland, a relatively high-tax state, they net 76% of their income. And that doesn't adjust for the a…

Where are you seeing those US numbers? Effective rates for the wealthy in the US are often much lower than the expected rate due to deductions and loopholes.

Paycheck city. What deductions and loopholes? For the most part, you're just talking about the favorable treatment for capital gains, which exists in Germany too. Indeed, Maryland's combined state+federal capital gains right is a touch higher than Germany's.
Post reply on HN