Breakdown of income required to be considered "Rich" in 10 areas

[bozack]

So with all of the talk of "wealth" and "wealthy" someone finally put together a list of cities and what it really means to be considered "rich" in those areas based on whatever criteria they used, personally I think it is a good start and while I would love to see something that quantifies middle to upper middle class differences in said areas I think it really speaks to those who tired of hearing the drone of 250K + over and over again...

Here is the link:

http://articles.moneycentral.m...heres-how-to-tell.aspx

And here is another link with more data:

http://articles.moneycentral.m...rich-in-your-city.aspx

 

[First]

Look, you're rich if you make 250K+ in about 95% of the real estate markets in this country. If you have two children and a dog and can't live upper middle class with a household income of $250K a year, then you either just started earning that dollar figure last week or you're dumb as hell. You could quite easily put down enough money for a very nice house in a good neighborhood within just two years of earning that cumulative dollar figure.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Evan
Look, you're rich if you make 250K+ in about 95% of the real estate markets in this country. If you have two children and a dog and can't live upper middle class with a household income of $250K a year, then you either just started earning that dollar figure last week or you're dumb as hell. You could quite easily put down enough money for a very nice house in a good neighborhood within just two years of earning that cumulative dollar figure.

Pretty much. That's still a shitload of $.

 

[OCGuy]

Our household (Me + SO) will reach 200 this year, but we sure dont feel rich in our area. Everything is relative.

 

[Eeezee]

In other words, Sarah Palin is rich (the cost of living in her town is puny)

 

[dullard]

I've posted in multiple threads that you need a $100k minimum income to have a chance of becoming rich. Someone even quoted me in their signature regarding that statement. I've gotten more flames for that post than from any other post. Below $100k you'll never become rich unless you win the lottery or some similar lucky event occurs.

Of course, if you have a $100k income and CHOOSE to live in an expensive area, CHOOSE to buy luxury vehicles, CHOOSE to have a half dozen kids in private schools, etc, then you will never become rich. But with $100k income you can become rich if you choose to spend wisely, invest carefully, and live cheaply. Of course, it is far easier to become rich on $500k than $100k. But if you scrimp and save with $100k income, you can eventually become rich. Especially since your saving will compound over time and soon you'll be earning far more than $100k through interest alone.

$100k is double the median household income and nearly quadruple the median income. $100k is where you can afford access to people of power IF you choose to dedicate a lot of your money to that purpose. $100k is where you really need to every have a chance at what the wealthy get IF you choose to get it.

Most of the cities on that 40-city list are in the lower $100k range. It is nice that someone else agrees with me.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Our household (Me + SO) will reach 200 this year, but we sure dont feel rich in our area. Everything is relative.

That's because you're probably not even in the top 20% of earners in your locale.

Orange county ain't cheap.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: dullard
I've posted in multiple threads that you need a $100k minimum income to have a chance of becoming rich. Someone even quoted me in their signature regarding that statement. I've gotten more flames for that post than from any other post. Below $100k you'll never become rich unless you win the lottery or some similar lucky event occurs.

Of course, if you have a $100k income and CHOOSE to live in an expensive area, CHOOSE to buy luxury vehicles, CHOOSE to have a half dozen kids in private schools, etc, then you will never become rich. But with $100k income you can become rich if you choose to spend wisely and invest carefully. Of course, it is far easier to become rich on $500k than $100k. But if you scrimp and save with $100k income, you can eventually become rich. Especially since your saving will compound over time and soon you'll be earning far more than $100k through interest alone.

$100k is double the median household income and nearly quadruple the median income. $100k is where you can afford access to people of power IF you choose to dedicate a lot of your money to that purpose. $100k is where you really need to every have a chance at what the wealthy get IF you choose to get it.

Most of the cities on that 40-city list are in the lower $100k range. It is nice that someone else agrees with me.

100% agree.

 

[First]

^ Orange is a great area to live, but yeah, it's part of that 5% of the country that is obscenely expensive (but I'd still love to live there, or especially near the coast).

Manhattan is probably the only exception; wouldn't live there even if I were making 500K-1M. Not worth it.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Our household (Me + SO) will reach 200 this year, but we sure dont feel rich in our area. Everything is relative.

same here.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Our household (Me + SO) will reach 200 this year, but we sure dont feel rich in our area. Everything is relative.

same here.

Fvck, the wife and me will near a half mill and we dont feel rich at all, then again, we're heading to the 3rd most expensive metro on that list. We'd need over 700K to feel rich.

 

[alchemize]

Bummer, not rich anywhere Get rid of the kids and I would be! Hmm...

Oh well, this article is bogus anyhow. Everyone knows that Dave is the final arbitrar of who is rich.

 

[fskimospy]

'Middle class' is one of those things with a fairly nebulous definition. The funny thing about it is that it has a very positive connotation, so nearly everyone thinks and tries to claim they are middle class even when they aren't.

According to this Pew poll fully 91% of Americans think they are 'middle class' of some kind. (including upper middle and lower middle). Think about that. 91% of people think they are in the 'middle'. Only 2% think they are upper class. What you really have is a situation in which people have lost any concept of what the average person actually has in this country, and so they filter it through their own experience. Since people tend to live with and near others of similar socioeconomic backgrounds, everyone seems to think they are just about average.

Doesn't make it true.

 

[mizzou]

wow, average household income for upper 20 % groups is pretty damn high.

*feels poor*

my household income is around $75, and even with that my wife and I can live comfortably in a 150k house, 1 small car loan, pay wife's college w/ some tuition reimbursement w/out loan, and go on vacations every now and then, and buy nice things every now and then like a big screen TV, a gun, clothes.

I can't imagine what we would do with twice that income, it would be freaking ridiculous.

I guess then I would still be "average" top 20%

lol

some people need to go cry me a river on their way to the country club

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: mizzou
wow, average household income for upper 20 % groups is pretty damn high.

*feels poor*

my household income is around $75, and even with that my wife and I can live comfortably in a 150k house, 1 small car loan, pay wife's college w/ some tuition reimbursement w/out loan, and go on vacations every now and then, and buy nice things every now and then like a big screen TV, a gun, clothes.

I can't imagine what we would do with twice that income, it would be freaking ridiculous.

I guess then I would still be "average" top 20%

lol

some people need to go cry me a river on their way to the country club

The difference is that you can live comfortably in a 150K house, most people in the expensive areas of the country, a comfortable home is 700K plus.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bummer, not rich anywhere Get rid of the kids and I would be! Hmm...

Oh well, this article is bogus anyhow. Everyone knows that Dave is the final arbitrar of who is rich.

lolz

Anyone who makes more than the poverty level is rich in his book I think

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bummer, not rich anywhere Get rid of the kids and I would be! Hmm...

Oh well, this article is bogus anyhow. Everyone knows that Dave is the final arbitrar of who is rich.

:laugh:

Well played.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dullard
I've posted in multiple threads that you need a $100k minimum income to have a chance of becoming rich. Someone even quoted me in their signature regarding that statement. I've gotten more flames for that post than from any other post. Below $100k you'll never become rich unless you win the lottery or some similar lucky event occurs.

Of course, if you have a $100k income and CHOOSE to live in an expensive area, CHOOSE to buy luxury vehicles, CHOOSE to have a half dozen kids in private schools, etc, then you will never become rich. But with $100k income you can become rich if you choose to spend wisely, invest carefully, and live cheaply. Of course, it is far easier to become rich on $500k than $100k. But if you scrimp and save with $100k income, you can eventually become rich. Especially since your saving will compound over time and soon you'll be earning far more than $100k through interest alone.

$100k is double the median household income and nearly quadruple the median income. $100k is where you can afford access to people of power IF you choose to dedicate a lot of your money to that purpose. $100k is where you really need to every have a chance at what the wealthy get IF you choose to get it.

Most of the cities on that 40-city list are in the lower $100k range. It is nice that someone else agrees with me.

There's a guy who is a member at a very swanky private golf club in town who drives a Ferrari around town. He was a postal worker his whole life on a ~$60k salary. He saved and only spent on what he had to. He retired when he could buy a house outright, buy the Ferrari he wanted, buy the membership at the golf club he wanted, and retire and live off the interest.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dullard
I've posted in multiple threads that you need a $100k minimum income to have a chance of becoming rich. Someone even quoted me in their signature regarding that statement. I've gotten more flames for that post than from any other post. Below $100k you'll never become rich unless you win the lottery or some similar lucky event occurs.

Of course, if you have a $100k income and CHOOSE to live in an expensive area, CHOOSE to buy luxury vehicles, CHOOSE to have a half dozen kids in private schools, etc, then you will never become rich. But with $100k income you can become rich if you choose to spend wisely, invest carefully, and live cheaply. Of course, it is far easier to become rich on $500k than $100k. But if you scrimp and save with $100k income, you can eventually become rich. Especially since your saving will compound over time and soon you'll be earning far more than $100k through interest alone.

$100k is double the median household income and nearly quadruple the median income. $100k is where you can afford access to people of power IF you choose to dedicate a lot of your money to that purpose. $100k is where you really need to every have a chance at what the wealthy get IF you choose to get it.

Most of the cities on that 40-city list are in the lower $100k range. It is nice that someone else agrees with me.

There's a guy who is a member at a very swanky private golf club in town who drives a Ferrari around town. He was a postal worker his whole life on a ~$60k salary. He saved and only spent on what he had to. He retired when he could buy a house outright, buy the Ferrari he wanted, buy the membership at the golf club he wanted, and retire and live off the interest.

Something does not add up there. 60k a year = 40-45 after taxes. Even if he was a postman for 50 years thats 2.25 million total. So unless he managed to live on 20 grand a year, meaning single and in a shed eating ramen every day then I don't understand.


Then again I guess he's getting some ridiculous pension.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dullard
I've posted in multiple threads that you need a $100k minimum income to have a chance of becoming rich. Someone even quoted me in their signature regarding that statement. I've gotten more flames for that post than from any other post. Below $100k you'll never become rich unless you win the lottery or some similar lucky event occurs.

Of course, if you have a $100k income and CHOOSE to live in an expensive area, CHOOSE to buy luxury vehicles, CHOOSE to have a half dozen kids in private schools, etc, then you will never become rich. But with $100k income you can become rich if you choose to spend wisely, invest carefully, and live cheaply. Of course, it is far easier to become rich on $500k than $100k. But if you scrimp and save with $100k income, you can eventually become rich. Especially since your saving will compound over time and soon you'll be earning far more than $100k through interest alone.

$100k is double the median household income and nearly quadruple the median income. $100k is where you can afford access to people of power IF you choose to dedicate a lot of your money to that purpose. $100k is where you really need to every have a chance at what the wealthy get IF you choose to get it.

Most of the cities on that 40-city list are in the lower $100k range. It is nice that someone else agrees with me.

There's a guy who is a member at a very swanky private golf club in town who drives a Ferrari around town. He was a postal worker his whole life on a ~$60k salary. He saved and only spent on what he had to. He retired when he could buy a house outright, buy the Ferrari he wanted, buy the membership at the golf club he wanted, and retire and live off the interest.

Something does not add up there. 60k a year = 40-45 after taxes. Even if he was a postman for 50 years thats 2.25 million total. So unless he managed to live on 20 grand a year, meaning single and in a shed eating ramen every day then I don't understand.


Then again I guess he's getting some ridiculous pension.

I assume you're fairly young, or that if you are older your company does not have a 401k plan? That man could have well over 5 million with just average stock market gains over 50 years, assuming he started when he was young. That plus a government pension plan is win. I know 401k's weren't around back then, but my grandparents were lower/middle class and were investing in stocks since the 50's so it certaintly isn't outside the realm of possibility.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dullard
Someone even quoted me in their signature regarding that statement. I've gotten more flames for that post than from any other post.

I quoted you, because that was an incredibly stupid statement. $100,000/yr does not buy you any political influence.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
So unless he managed to live on 20 grand a year, meaning single and in a shed eating ramen every day then I don't understand.

I'm taking that home on my grad student stipend and I'm far from living in a shed and eating ramen.

 

[TallBill]

Hopefully my net worth never becomes available to the public for them to judge me. Not that I'm afraid of sharing that information, but that's just nobody's business. I am used to having a publicly known salary though from the Army. Do you really care if someone else considers you rich?

 

[bozack]

Personally I put this up because I feel the broad use of the 250K/year is a bit bogus and leaves alot of the table in terms of factors...it seems in many of the well to do areas 250K doesn't even come close for the family yet the DINK couples are all set at that level, for the most part.

And as to those who say people "choose" to live in certain areas, well I would argue that the likelyhood of them getting the same salary elsewhere or having access to job opportunities is a less expensive area is pretty slim.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Something does not add up there. 60k a year = 40-45 after taxes.

Not with prudent financial planning.