<p>
I know people in New York City who live on FAR less than 200k/year while remaining firmly middle class in lifestyle. Not to mention the working class. $250k is rich by world standards and borderline rich by US standards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>I live in the Hamptons. I won’t reveal my exact income, but my kids are eligible for a portion of the Pell Grant…</p>
<p>And I think we are comfortable.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Eddie Vedder - Society - Into the Wild Soundtrack](<a href=“Eddie Vedder - Society - Into the Wild Soundtrack - YouTube”>Eddie Vedder - Society - Into the Wild Soundtrack - YouTube)</p>
<p>I would not be so quick to count other people’s funds and lifestyle. Things are not always as they seem. Perhaps they are comfortable in NYC on far less than 200k per year because of inherited funds that you know nothing about. Perhaps they took over a rent control apt. from a relative. Perhaps they hit the lottery or hit it out of the ballpark on a couple of stock purchases. They might not share this information with the world.</p>
<p>
Because these are the only explanations for how someone making over $100,000 or $150,000 a year could survive in New York City.</p>
<p>BillyMc I strongly recommend you read the NYT article I posted earlier today. The Times is highly progressive and even they admit that 250k isn’t rich in most coastal cities. This isn’t a subjective analysis where how one feels has much meaning, the facts are the facts and they are in the article.</p>
<p>Even if it is not rich, it is upper-middle class. It is far from lower-middle or simply middle. Of course, if you choose to live in certain very expensive areas (mid-town Manhattan), your living expenses will be much higher, but living in a wealthy area doesn’t change your socioeconomic class, it just changes how you spend your money.</p>
<p>OH, please. The Times is not highly progressive. It is corporate owned and makes its money from advertising.</p>
<p>We live comfortably in the NJ suburbs of New York on less than 100k. Quite comfortably-definitely middle class. We are not living in a rent=controlled apartment or on inherited money. Someone making 2-3 times what we do has a hell of a lot of discretionary income.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why don’t those who are fortunate enough to be at the tippy top few percent acknowledge/enjoy their good fortune and economic strength, rather than indulge in a wallow of grievance.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think I’m rich, and lucky, and blessed, at a fraction of what others seem to feel is an excuse for a pity party. Hey, if peevish fretting makes you happy, well then, go for it.</p>
<p>But honestly, it sure doesn’t seem to. I kinda feel sorry for the poor, beleagured well-off folk–when is enough enough?</p>
<p>
There are people with $25 million who complain about money and claim they don’t have enough. I recommend watching some documentaries by Jamie Johnson (heir to Johnson & Johnson), he really cracks the world of the rich open. I recommend The One Percent first, then Born Rich.</p>
<p>If I hadn’t posted the YouTube link already, I would have done so now.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between living in NYC and outside NYC. Again, that is a choice, but many people do not live in NYC because of high costs of living.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen. From another under 100K NY region poster, who also is not living in rent controlled housing on inherited money.</p>
<p>BillyMc you cant seriously be arguing that with the same income it makes no difference whether you live in Peoria or SF. The reason people live in expensive areas is because that’s where the jobs are, it’s not really a choice. As for Garland if you don’t think the NYT is highly progressive then I think you have exposed your ideology. Paul Krugman or Charles Blow are not highly progessive? The NYT is corporate owned but with super-voting shares held by one family and it’s losing money and readership every year.</p>
<p>It does make a difference. As I said, “if you choose to live in certain very expensive areas (mid-town Manhattan), your living expenses will be much higher, but living in a wealthy area doesn’t change your socioeconomic class, it just changes how you spend your money.”</p>
<p>So while you have less disposable income (from a whole lot to a regular lot), you’re still in an upper class.</p>
<p>There is no question that these amounts are high income. When you look at the percentage of Americans making that kind of money, it is truly upper echelon. What is truly frightening to me is that college costs have risen at a pace that even those who are in these income categories, who want the best and most college options for their kids and who are responsibly balancing the spending and savings are finding it difficult to meet these costs. Never have the top colleges had so many contenders vying for seats at these prices. Truly, to get a student into these selective schools has become a priority item, a hot thing, very desirable. And yet, it is so difficult to get the amounts saved to accomplish this goal and still spend money responsibly buying the lifestyle to most optimally getting the kids to become viable candidates. </p>
<p>The way college prices have accelerated in the past 30 or so years is not in line with how other things have risen. Furthermore, a few years ago when investments were way down, the economy in a depression, jobs scarce, don’t mention raises, colleges were still raising their prices 3-6%.</p>
<p>When you look at standard pay scales over time, you can clearly see that the same education that was affordable for someone at a certain grade/position level is now much more difficult these days. The scholarships and other aid, have remained at dollar amounts that address tuition levels from my days while the actual costs are 10X the amount.</p>
<p>As a National Merit Scholar in the early '70s, the $2500 award pretty much covered my tuition. My father, a civil servant, at his pay level was eligible for his kids to get financial aid. Yet the cost of college , with room and board was about $5K. We’re more than 10X that level these days, close to 12X, whereas the pay for that same level has not kept up proportionally. Yet someone at that pay level isn’t going to be eligible for PELL (I got BEOG grants from the government) and the Stafford subsidized levels remain at 1970 dollar amounts but with inflated interest for the loans for both sub and unsub loans even in today’s climate where the prime rate is low and savings are not earning much more than 1.%. I remember getting 5% easily on pass book savings accounts. It is clear that the difficulty is far higher to save for college given the low interest on safe investments to the point that they earn virtually nothing, and the volatility of the stock market for those attempting to make money through investments. </p>
<p>Wanna sell that house so you can afford college as your kids approach that time. Well, umm, many homes are “underwater”. Not gonna get much money there and then you have to get another mortgage which is not easy these days. Ironically, it is easier to get an unsecured loan for college than it is to get a secured loan for a house. They put you through the danged wringer for mortgage funds when you can get PLUS approved in a matter of minutes on line. Yeah, it not easy for anyone at any bracket.</p>
<p>We saved for emergencies, retirement, and college for the kids. But we have to responsibly allocate such savings as we have to responsibly spend our money in terms of quality of life as we go along. What is happening is that the amount of colleges has out paced what even well to do families have been able to save. </p>
<p>So although I am not shedding tears for those who are making high incomes, there is a big gap between those who have to work, save and budget in life and those who are so wealthy they do not have to do so. Do recognize that it is getting difficult to come up with these crazy amounts. Be particularly aware, if you are a student, as many of you are aspiring to join the ranks of the high income families who will be able to provide the educations you are getting/wanting for yourselves for your kids. If things continue at this pace and the loans become subject to the same scrutiny as the rest lending markets, YOUR kids may well not have the options you have. Your parents,struggling to pay for your college costs, may not have the funds to be donating grandparents that are on the scene now to some degree. You might have to be paying for their retirement lives at the same time as you are addressing your kids college costs, especially if those who did not save for retirement, do not have much of a pension, whose Soc Sec benefits are not rising in line with costs and who had a lot of PLUS loans they took for their kids colleges, not to mention a large chunk of whatever they should have paid. Look into this affordability of college for the high income families that are not the wealthy, and that crystal ball will turn right into a mirror.</p>
<p>BillyMc it of course does make a difference. Ask anyone who lives in AK. All the incomes are higher but all the costs are higher so that 100k in AK is like 60K in Peoria with absolutely the identical lifestyle. Ctofthehouse I agree with your post but my original statements was that people making 250k with mulitple children already have been priced out of the private school market unless they get additional money from elsewhere. Yet the tuition keeps rising 4-5% every year and most of the posters keep ignoring the crisis that is upon us because they are benefitting from FA themselves. Free money is wonderful until it ends. When this higher education bubble bursts it is going to be a tsunami. </p>
<p>[Peter</a> Thiel: We’re in a Bubble and It’s Not the Internet. It’s Higher Education.](<a href=“http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/10/peter-thiel-were-in-a-bubble-and-its-not-the-internet-its-higher-education/]Peter”>Peter Thiel: We're in a Bubble and It's Not the Internet. It's Higher Education. | TechCrunch)</p>
<p>calling the new york times “progressive” is like saying the wall street journal is part of the ‘liberal media’.</p>
<p>
I have trouble feeling bad for the upper-middle class people who can’t afford Harvard; I’m usually too busy feeling bad for [children</a> like this.](<a href=“http://blog.lib.umn.edu/skogl068/architecture/images/darfur_child_starving-1.JPG]children”>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/skogl068/architecture/images/darfur_child_starving-1.JPG)</p>
![http://blog.lib.umn.edu/skogl068/architecture/images/darfur_child_starving-1.JPG]children](http://blog.lib.umn.edu/skogl068/architecture/images/darfur_child_starving-1.JPG%5Dchildren){kind=link}
<p>Okay, enough about us defining upper middle class and rich. Better sources can do that with more authority.
You’ve all missed the studies and focused on media, personal experiences or those of people you know or know of. The former is out to sell copies and the latter is unscientific (!)</p>
<p>Fact: per the Census, median income for a family of four is highest in CT, MA, NJ and DC- at roughly $100,000. The family living on $300,000 has $200,000 more. Defend your spending as you wish.</p>
<p>It is still a $200,000 gap, from the get-go. </p>
<p>Fact: academic definitions of upper middle class include income, level of education and job autonomy. (Neither of the latter is well-defined.) When there is a tri-part definition, one can trump the others- at will. The highly educated fellow earning less may self-identify as UMC. Likewise, the top earner may place himself there w/o the education. Sociologists and economists have been arguing these points for at least 100 years.</p>
<p>Likewise, the 250 or 300k guy can always find someone richer to compare himself against.</p>
<p>I agree that the NYT is right there with USNWR burning through everyone’s paranoia.
Whether or not you live lifestyle X is not a sufficient intellectual defense that a family earning 100k and one earning 150 or 250 or 300 should have identical college costs. Or obtain similar financial aid for college.</p>
<p>We’ve been through how expensive it is to buy a home in LA or OC or to live in NYC or North Jersey or or or. Aren’t these excuses? </p>
<p>If a high level of education for your kids is a priority, make it happen. That’s what the median families are sweating to figure out. Time and time again, senior posters admit they had to steer their kids to State U’s or take loans or whatever.</p>
<p>Billy has a great point about the real tragedies of inequities. </p>
<p>And, cpt, so sorry for the health issues you and your son have endured.</p>
<p>ps. Cpt: when colleges continued to increase tuition after the downturn, many also upped finaid pools. At the two top schools I am associated with, the finaid pool increased by a greater percentage amount than the tuition hike. Did this by dipping greater into the endowment and upping fundraising goals. At the LAC my kids attend, there have not been tuition increases annually, but fundraising has become aggressive (but polite.) And, it’s in the league with Carleton.</p>
<p>200k extra. That is nonsense with all the local/state/federal taxes. Do you remember the Medicare tax or that all other federal deductions are phased out above 180k. Do you remember the AMT. Rich means you have enough assests that you don’t need to work full time or have any worries about the costs of life. Calling 250k rich is a joke, affluent yes but never, ever remotely rich.</p>