<p>no it's not. It depends on many people that income is supporting doesn't it? 6 people on 100k is different from 3 people on 100k</p>
<p>Four people living off six figures = upper-middle class, unless we're talking Manhattan.</p>
<p>yea i live in nyc so maybe then 100k for 4 ppl is just middle class</p>
<p>well 100k supports 6 people (my family). I don't think we're upper middle class.</p>
<p>Right, it really depends on the location in order for the "class" definition to have meaning. 100k here in Northern VA is probably worse off than 50k in many places.</p>
<p>I stand corrected-- median household income in '03 was indeed 42K, not 52K.</p>
<p>So those making three times the median may not 'feel' rich, and no doubt have lots of expenses. And there will always be those who make more. But facts is facts.</p>
<p>i live in orange county and i said that my parents make OVER $100,000 (i wasn't exactly sure at the time but now i know it's about $120,000 per year)</p>
<p>yeah i agree w/ flavian. my parents make 130k, and i'm an only child so that's supporting 3 people, but i feel much less than middle class here in central nj. </p>
<p>but, it's not just the salary that counts, there's also the real estate.</p>
<p>80k, but that's not that much for Chicago--the cost of living here is very high</p>
<p>I agree taht the cost of living widely varies- however for finaid purposes the differences in a state are not taken into consideration, and income is weighted more heavily than living expenses.</p>
<p>Where I live anything 6 figure is without a doubt RICH. I really think that differences of expenses in cities don't change it all that much because you are making the choice to live in that expensive city. And also, though you standard of living may be the same as someone making less elsewhere, you in the long run have more money than them if you move out of the city.</p>
<p>Well it's not like we could just move somewhere less expensive if we wanted to dummerdude. My parents aren't 20 year olds with very limited expenses and no kids and the ability to do something spontaneous like that.</p>
<p>I think they also look at your assets to determine how rich you actually are to eliminate the discrepencies(sp) between states</p>
<p>I mean, if somebody with a low income owns two houses, this says something</p>
<p>well i think they also look at how much money you have saved, because someone very wealthy could just stop working and have zero income.</p>
<p>when i applied for financial aid at my private hs, they asked about our expenses, our real estate, our savings, just about everything.</p>
<p>I guess it depends on what you mean by 'middle class'. The original poster was talking in terms of family income-- and I'd guess that median family income is a good starting point for defining 'middle class'.</p>
<p>Or maybe it could be defined this way:</p>
<p>Does your family have more vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles, ATV's) than drivers?</p>
<p>If yes, you're probably doing better than the average family.</p>
<p>Hmmm I don't think I like that idea, sblake. My family has about twice as many vehicles than drivers (do to motorcycles and snowmobiles, and o my do you count tractors?), but that REALLY doesn't make us rich. My mom is a coupon nazi and we squeeze every dollar for what it is worth. We never go to expensive restaurants and we hardly ever take vacations. None of us wears brand-name clothing. We make sacrifices to have those fun vehicles. We probably should avoid single issue areas like how many vacations you have, how many vehicles you have, how much of _____ you own, etc. I just don't think it holds up.</p>
<p>Well celebrian that is why I said "in the long term". When your parents RETIRE, or when you children move away, they can move to a rural, less expensive area, and they will be better off financially than a couple who has been living in the rural area all their lives with a lower income and the same standard of living. You see, say both couples contribute ten percent of their incomes to a retirement account. The city couple makes $100,000 a year, and spends $90,000 to maintain an equal standard of living as the rural couple, who makes, say, $50,000 and saves (10%) $5,000. Then, say they both retire after, o, 40 years of working. The city couple has $400,000 in their retirement account, while the rural couple has $200,000, despite the fact that during the previous 40 years, they have maintained equal standards of living. The city couple can move to the rural area, and be much better off. This is why it is irrelevant (to me) where you live, because standard of living is relative to where you (or more accurately, your parents) have made the CHOICE to live. It is interesting that we see this city/rural wage effect, and corporations are noticing it. I actually saw on the news the other night that companies are moving office buildings and headquarters to rural areas so they do not have to pay their workers as much (and likewise the worker does not have to pay as much for housing, food, etc.). Since the city couple is in all cases better off (due to the higher income) than the rural couple, it is only fair that in college admissions, the fin aid office treat all cities and towns equal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My family has about twice as many vehicles than drivers (do to motorcycles and snowmobiles, and o my do you count tractors?), but that REALLY doesn't make us rich. My mom is a coupon nazi and we squeeze every dollar for what it is worth. We never go to expensive restaurants and we hardly ever take vacations. None of us wears brand-name clothing. We make sacrifices to have those fun vehicles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Frankly, colleges don't care. To put it simply, there's no reason you can't sell an unnecessary snowmobile in order to finance your own college education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is why it is irrelevant (to me) where you live, because standard of living is relative to where you (or more accurately, your parents) have made the CHOICE to live.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your family also chose to spend money on snowmobiles rather than put it in a savings account for your college education. Again, you're not going to get any sympathy from colleges on that.</p>
<p>Also, people don't always choose where to live -- they live where they can afford to live. That's why towns aren't treated equally. You choose to live in Greenwich, but you don't usually choose to live in Newark.</p>
<p>I agree with Beginning's point: our situation is the result (in many cases) of choices-- those of the student and those of the parents. Often, we choose to live a lifestyle with lots of expenses, and little available in reserve.</p>
<p>But, follow the example of spending on the snowmobile (probably a luxury item) vs. putting money in a college account. Colleges DO care-- and they WILL treat these two situations differently. They'll give more financial aid to the family that bought the snowmobile, than the family that put the money into a college savings account. (Their assumption being that the money in the college account is available to pay for college, whereas the money spent on the snowmobile is gone).</p>
<p>All I was talking about on the vehicles was that it is not a great measure of whether you are wealthy. I wasn't expecting it to translate into any effect on a fin. aid package as opposed to spending in other ways. I was just refuting the suggestion that you could determine how rich someone is by how many vehicles they have.</p>
<p>Also, beginning, are you saying that colleges DO treat different towns differently? That would be news to me. On all the fin aid forms, they ask about taxes, property, income, expenses, etc., but do they ask and take into account where you live? That would be news to me.</p>