is $100,000 / year still a good salary?

[PricklyPete]

Huh? I pay $240 a month to get my grass cut and trimmed. That doesn't include extras like trimming the bushes and trees which are extra. My yard is 1/2 acres. I actually pay less than my neighbors who pay around $320-400 a month. I would say about 1/3 of the neighbors pay for yardcare.

I'm with PrinceOfWands on this...I just can't imagine paying that much for yard service. I have read spidey's note on how much time he is saving, but I've never spent more than an hour a week doing it. I can give up an hour a week to save $200 a month.

Both of you have to realize how this is a completely non-necessary expense...but rather a luxury you have gotten used to based on your income range. Just because you pay $200 or more a month for lawn service doesn't suddenly make 100K "just getting by". In spidey's breakdown of "$800" in "utilities", he is paying $180 for phones, $190 for Cable, and $200 for lawn service. You could easily cut $400 out of that and be living just fine and better than most Americans. What I'm doing a poor job at getting at is that your high salaries have given you an unrealistic perspective on what is "getting by".

 

[DAGTA]

Then you need to do some serious digging around your house to find the culprit(s). Check attic insulation. Buy a Kill-a-Watt and see what your electrical appliances/toys are pulling. Turn off the lights when you aren't there. Check windows for leaks. Maybe it's time to buy a high-efficiency AC. That's one large expense I put in that's paying off quite a bit. I keep my house at 72 all day and don't stop myself from doing anything for the sake of saving a little electricity, and my electricity bill isn't eye-popping.

I live in Phoenix. My electric bill is lower than avg in my area. My appliances are 2 years old and the house is 12 years old.

 

[Jeff7]

If we were talking about a serious time investment I might agree, but that's just not the case (except in the 1% of situations where people have a few acres of manicured lawn). We're talking about maybe 90 minutes a week. Far less when you average it over the entire year.

Then there's the other components: it's healthy for you, it leads to bonding with place, it's 'family time', it teaches lessons (about work ethic, jobs, caring for life, etc), it's relaxing, etc.

Home maintenance isn't a chore, it's a perk of home ownership and a vital part of what forms the core of the yeoman farmer concept that is America. It IS the 'living' you speak of.

Also, if people would put less into 'work', they'd have more of that precious 'living' time you talk about.

Does not compute. Does not compute. Error.
Abort, fail, retry?


Home maintenance is the result of undesirable processes that cannot be properly prevented, or which are a byproduct of everyday life.
- Lawn cutting: Done because our culture values cut grass, and we don't have grass that'll manicure itself.
- Vacuum and clean dust: We constantly shed skin cells, which add to dust, and, well, face it, the planet is generally a fairly dirty place, and there's not much that can be done about it except clean up after it.
- Wash dishes, either by hand or with a dishwaher: We tend to prefer eating out of dishes, and it's also preferable that they not have old decaying food residue on them. Possible solution: Eradicate bacteria and fungi from Earth, eliminating a major cause of food spoilage, including old food on dishes. This of course brings up other small problems.
- Pest control: Similar to the problem of bacteria everywhere. Gamma radiation cleansing isn't an option for homes at the moment, so pests must sometimes be dealt with.
- General repairs of wooden structures: We build our houses out of a lot of biodegradable materials, which goes back to the bacteria/insect problem.
- Repairs due to corrosion of steel components: Stainless is expensive, so we use materials that will oxidize. (Corrosion in general saps away something like 2-3% of the world's GDP.)



Home maintenance is bailing out a ship to maintain its floating status. It's an activity that's simply required if you don't want the ship to sink, but what you end up with is zero progress. The ship is still filling with water, and you're stuck bailing it out indefinitely, with no way to prevent the water from getting in. It's a problem with no good means of prevention, only the tools with which to treat the symptoms, which amounts to a drain on resources.

I guess what it amounts to is a sort of powerless feeling - you're stuck cleaning up things and fixing things because you don't have the ability to effect change upon the causes of the problems, but you do still have to expend your own time and resources to deal with the consequences.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Does not compute. Does not compute. Error.
Abort, fail, retry?


Home maintenance is the result of undesirable processes that cannot be properly prevented, or which are a byproduct of everyday life.
- Lawn cutting: Done because our culture values cut grass, and we don't have grass that'll manicure itself.
- Vacuum and clean dust: We constantly shed skin cells, which add to dust, and, well, face it, the planet is generally a fairly dirty place, and there's not much that can be done about it except clean up after it.
- Wash dishes, either by hand or with a dishwaher: We tend to prefer eating out of dishes, and it's also preferable that they not have old decaying food residue on them. Possible solution: Eradicate bacteria and fungi from Earth, eliminating a major cause of food spoilage, including old food on dishes. This of course brings up other small problems.
- Pest control: Similar to the problem of bacteria everywhere. Gamma radiation cleansing isn't an option for homes at the moment, so pests must sometimes be dealt with.
- General repairs of wooden structures: We build our houses out of a lot of biodegradable materials, which goes back to the bacteria/insect problem.
- Repairs due to corrosion of steel components: Stainless is expensive, so we use materials that will oxidize. (Corrosion in general saps away something like 2-3% of the world's GDP.)



Home maintenance is bailing out a ship to maintain its floating status. It's an activity that's simply required if you don't want the ship to sink, but what you end up with is zero progress. The ship is still filling with water, and you're stuck bailing it out indefinitely, with no way to prevent the water from getting in. It's a problem with no good means of prevention, only the tools with which to treat the symptoms, which amounts to a drain on resources.

I guess what it amounts to is a sort of powerless feeling - you're stuck cleaning up things and fixing things because you don't have the ability to effect change upon the causes of the problems, but you do still have to expend your own time and resources to deal with the consequences.

To refute your conundrum, merely highlight the paragraph before the one you chose in my post. It doesn't matter what causes the need for maintenance; all that matters is what we take from it.

 

[thegimp03]

Great looking salary on paper. But after federal, state, income, property, and sales taxes...and probably a couple other taxes, $100k doesn't turn out to be much.

 

[Jeff7]

To refute your conundrum, merely highlight the paragraph before the one you chose in my post. It doesn't matter what causes the need for maintenance; all that matters is what we take from it.

I saw that too...for me, that would also be a "does not compute" error.


Healthy - ok, so it's exercise. Lots of ways to get that.

Bonding with the place: Tedious grunt work doesn't make me like something more.

Family time: I live alone.

Lessons: I guess I'm past that age for that kind of stuff anymore. Evidence would indicate that my work ethic is reasonably ok.

Relaxing: It just doesn't do anything for me. Tedious, repetitive, rinse-and-repeat. Oh well.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I saw that too...for me, that would also be a "does not compute" error.

Healthy - ok, so it's exercise. Lots of ways to get that.

Many of which require payments to obtain, or result in the 'tedious grunt work' or equivalent you claim as a negative. In other words, if you're going to sweat anyway, why not save money doing it instead of spend?

Bonding with the place: Tedious grunt work doesn't make me like something more.

Really? You don't feel more accomplishment when things take work? In my experience easy things gain us nothing. It's only when we work hard, and spend time doing something, that we gain any love/appreciation/respect for it.

Family time: I live alone.

Lessons: I guess I'm past that age for that kind of stuff anymore. Evidence would indicate that my work ethic is reasonably ok.

Not just about you though, though it would have been in your younger years. Now it's about training the next generation. Just because YOU don't have a next generation is no reason to discredit it in general.

Relaxing: It just doesn't do anything for me. Tedious, repetitive, rinse-and-repeat. Oh well.

This one I can understand. It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea, and that's cool. However, it's certainly not a 'given' to just throw in costs for it when it's completely reasonable to do it yourself. It's nothing but a luxury to have others care for your place, and in my opinion carries a LOT of negatives with it. Then again, many people value things differently from me, and so it might not be a negative to them. *shrug*

 

[IndyColtsFan]

When it comes to home/lawn care I make a value decision - Is my time worth it to do it myself? Time=money.

If not, then I pay somebody else. My weekends are precious time for living.

It depends on a lot of factors, I think. If you have a new lawn that you're trying to get established, I think it is probably worth having professionals treat it for a summer or two. I tried treating the lawn at my old house and while it generally looked pretty good, I would lose the battle around mid summer. I hired a company to do it for a year or two and it looked awesome. I hired them to do my new house as well and just recently canceled service, as I can do it myself and save a ton of money now that I feel the lawn is in good shape. I probably will hire someone to overseed and aerate it in the fall, but that's about it.

As for mowing it, it depends on the size of the lawn. I have about 1/2 acre and push it and it takes me about 90 minutes total to push it, do the trim, blow the sidewalks, and typically I also weed the main flower bed in front. I try to do it through the week and after work so I don't have to mess with it on the weekends. I generally get every other Friday off in the summer as well, so sometimes I'll just get up on those Friday mornings and knock it out pretty quickly.

I'll occasionally pay the neighborhood kids to mow it if I'm too busy, don't feel well, or if it is too hot (15 year olds handle heat better than this 40 year old), and I've thought about paying to have it done all the time, but I have a hard time swallowing $150+ a month for something that doesn't take me that much time and gives me some exercise.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Really? You don't feel more accomplishment when things take work? In my experience easy things gain us nothing. It's only when we work hard, and spend time doing something, that we gain any love/appreciation/respect for it.

I tell you what, I often hate mowing my lawn, but when I'm done and see the end result, it makes me feel pretty good. :thumbsup:

I enjoy working on smaller projects around the house. I don't have the time (or the patience, in general) to do the larger projects, but the small projects make me feel pretty good when I'm done.

 

[lokiju]

I'm right at that sweet spot that if my wife works to much overtime being hourly in a year it'll push us to the 28% family income bracket.

It's actually better to keep it slight under usable income wise.

 

[HopJokey]

I'm right at that sweet spot that if my wife works to much overtime being hourly in a year it'll push us to the 28% family income bracket.

It's actually better to keep it slight under usable income wise.

False, it's a bracketed income tax, it is never more advantageous to make less money.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I.e. the first $8,500 a single person makes in a year is taxed at the lowest rate no matter what their final AGI is.

 

[ShawnD1]

Where do you live (roughly)? I've lived all over the pacific nw, sherman oaks, orlando, meridian ms, all over in virginia, dc, marlton nj, etc, etc. I've almost never seen people paying for it. It's just a ridiculous expense, given how cheap, fast and easy it is to do it all yourself.

It's not unusual for people to pay kids to do it.
When I was a youngin, I raked leaves, I shoveled snow, I broke ice. Some people also mowed lawns but it was less common because kids often don't own their own lawn mower.

I charged $3 per house

 

[Nebor]

False, it's a bracketed income tax, it is never more advantageous to make less money.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I.e. the first $8,500 a single person makes in a year is taxed at the lowest rate no matter what their final AGI is.

Uh, if they feel that their work in that bracket is worth more than 72% of their pay, then it would in fact be advantageous not to work and not make more money.

 

[Jeff7]

Many of which require payments to obtain, or result in the 'tedious grunt work' or equivalent you claim as a negative. In other words, if you're going to sweat anyway, why not save money doing it instead of spend?

I'd prefer to do something that's at least somewhat interesting, and leave the other work to a machine.
Someone posted an interesting video awhile ago wherein the presenter was speaking about washing machines, and how they eliminate a very labor-intensive, repetitive task.
Do you do your laundry by hand? It sounds like it's good exercise.
I'll opt to throw some money at the unpleasant tasks, and allow a machine to do it. Then I have more time available with which to do something more interesting, or at the very least, something that's less tedious.

Really? You don't feel more accomplishment when things take work? In my experience easy things gain us nothing. It's only when we work hard, and spend time doing something, that we gain any love/appreciation/respect for it.

Sure. But if it's still something I don't like doing, then the "sense of accomplishment" is a feeling of more like, "Wow, that project turned out ok. Now let us never speak or think of it again."

Not just about you though, though it would have been in your younger years. Now it's about training the next generation. Just because YOU don't have a next generation is no reason to discredit it in general.

Ok; yes, it's good to build a work ethic in kids, no doubt there. Life invariably does bring unpleasantries which must be dealt with.
But it's the desire to avoid these unpleasant things that eventually can lead to new inventions, and technological progress.

This one I can understand. It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea, and that's cool. However, it's certainly not a 'given' to just throw in costs for it when it's completely reasonable to do it yourself. It's nothing but a luxury to have others care for your place, and in my opinion carries a LOT of negatives with it. Then again, many people value things differently from me, and so it might not be a negative to them. *shrug*

Always a cost/benefit analysis. If you've got money to throw around, go ahead and buy a machine that'll save you 20 minutes a month on something. But maybe it's some kind of amazing anti-hemorrhoid machine that'll save you 20 minutes of serious pain per month. Then the "benefits" category just gained a significant, though intangible, boost.

Paying others to do house maintenance - I'm neutral on that. If you want to do it, fine. If not, fine. My own preference would be to have as much of it done by machinery as possible. Based on available evidence, more automation does a good job of improving the overall standard of living. Theoretically, it frees up more people to do things that are more productive, things that machines currently can't do. (Reaching the singularity will make that really fun. )

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'd prefer to do something that's at least somewhat interesting, and leave the other work to a machine.
Someone posted an interesting video awhile ago wherein the presenter was speaking about washing machines, and how they eliminate a very labor-intensive, repetitive task.
Do you do your laundry by hand? It sounds like it's good exercise.
I'll opt to throw some money at the unpleasant tasks, and allow a machine to do it. Then I have more time available with which to do something more interesting, or at the very least, something that's less tedious.

Sure. But if it's still something I don't like doing, then the "sense of accomplishment" is a feeling of more like, "Wow, that project turned out ok. Now let us never speak or think of it again."

Ok; yes, it's good to build a work ethic in kids, no doubt there. Life invariably does bring unpleasantries which must be dealt with.
But it's the desire to avoid these unpleasant things that eventually can lead to new inventions, and technological progress.

Always a cost/benefit analysis. If you've got money to throw around, go ahead and buy a machine that'll save you 20 minutes a month on something. But maybe it's some kind of amazing anti-hemorrhoid machine that'll save you 20 minutes of serious pain per month. Then the "benefits" category just gained a significant, though intangible, boost.

Paying others to do house maintenance - I'm neutral on that. If you want to do it, fine. If not, fine. My own preference would be to have as much of it done by machinery as possible. Based on available evidence, more automation does a good job of improving the overall standard of living. Theoretically, it frees up more people to do things that are more productive, things that machines currently can't do. (Reaching the singularity will make that really fun. )

Like I said, it's cool, I just don't personally grok it. And we're not talking about buying a machine that pays for itself, we're talking about spending more money than it costs 99% of people to have someone else do it the same way you could have yourself. If we were talking about lawn mower costs compared to cutting the grass with hand sheers, then you'd have an accurate comparison. Or you could talk about hiring a maid to do your laundry versus doing yourself, which would also be an accurate analogy.

 

[silverpig]

Uh, if they feel that their work in that bracket is worth more than 72% of their pay, then it would in fact be advantageous not to work and not make more money.

72% of o/t pay which is likely 1.5x or 2.0x normal pay.

 

[DAGTA]

Uh, if they feel that their work in that bracket is worth more than 72% of their pay, then it would in fact be advantageous not to work and not make more money.

The tax rate only applies to money earned in that bracket. The rate is not applied to all money earned.

 

[Nebor]

The tax rate only applies to money earned in that bracket. The rate is not applied to all money earned.

I know that. But if I made $50 an hour, and after taxes take home $40 an hour up until the point where I make a total of $500, and after that my tax rate rate increases on any further money I earn, I only take home $30 an hour, I might decide that my time is worth more than $30 an hour and choose not to work more.

 

[goog40]

I know that. But if I made $50 an hour, and after taxes take home $40 an hour up until the point where I make a total of $500, and after that my tax rate rate increases on any further money I earn, I only take home $30 an hour, I might decide that my time is worth more than $30 an hour and choose not to work more.

But in the scenario for lokiju's situation (assuming dual income with relatively equal pay), the numbers are probably closer to $30 an hour pretax, or 22.50 versus 21.60 an hour post-tax. And that's also assuming she doesn't get extra pay for overtime. I really doubt the marginal dollar drop in hourly take-home pay should be the deciding factor here.

 

[Nebor]

But in the scenario for lokiju's situation (assuming dual income with relatively equal pay), the numbers are probably closer to $30 an hour pretax, or 22.50 versus 21.60 an hour post-tax. And that's also assuming she doesn't get extra pay for overtime. I really doubt the marginal dollar drop in hourly take-home pay should be the deciding factor here.

But then for some people it's the principle of the thing. I've met attorneys and medical doctors that had the same attitude (though many of them did NOT understand that income tax is bracketed.)