While we don't have kids, I do often feel that we struggle, and don't understand why based on what we make, and then I see things like this that remind me just how violently wages have not kept pace with inflation
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The federal minimum wage is $7.90 / hr and was last raised in 2009 based on legislation passed in 2007. The lifers in Congress and the Senate need to go. My congressman is “studying” price gouging. People need to make $30/ hr minimum.
Ahaha when you live in one of the purple states and your "household" doesn't make as much as one of the light purple states despite having 4 working adults...
It is so expensive to have children. To take care of them either one adult leaves the work force, or $$ goes to care fees. Public schools don't cover a worker's hours, and the incidental fees there add up too. Housing & kids just devour income. (I love my kids, no regrets.)
People laugh when I say my household is only able to afford to live where we do because we have THREE adults with full-time, white collar professional incomes. But I’m entirely serious. We make good money! And yet
Wages/inflation/disproportionate worker to management pay/need for unionization, etc-yes!
So this isn't about that but
This chart seems absurd. What does "comfortable" mean, I wonder? We're a family of 3 and don't make 1/3rd of our states # number. We *feel* comfortable-maybe I'm misunderstanding?
it's hard to read but in the lower left it defines 'comfortable' as having enough for the average family of 4 to 'allocate 50% to necessities, 30% to discretionary spending, and 20% to savings'. Also statewide numbers lack detail since even individual cities have varied housing costs by area.
Looking at these numbers hurts my born-in-1956 brain. Yeah, I know numbers don't mean what they did in the 60s or 70s, but apparently it was just after that when my brain stopped stretching to be able to receive new information.
I don't understand these numbers even taking this into account. What do they mean by living comfortably? Because I don't know many people making close to that much but I also don't know if their livings would be counted as comfortable.
It shows Colorado as being very expensive, and yet less expensive than New York. We live in New York now, and I don't expect I will ever be able to afford to live in Colorado again.
When you break it down by state it's inevitably going to be misleading. Urban/suburban coastal CA is very different from rural inland CA too. Even in my tiny _county_ the difference between my town & the inland mountains is huge. But they're making a single big point: living costs too damn much.
Is in the fine, grey print, but “Comfortable was defined as the annual Income required to cover a 60/30/20 budget, allocating 50% of earnings to necessities. 30% to
discretionary spending. and 20% to savings.”
That seems like it's based on math that doesn't scale well--if my rent doubles from $12,000 a year to $24,000 a year that's a disaster, obviously, but it doesn't mean that my other expenses also doubled, and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm also going to spend twice as much on lifestyle.
I was just reviewing my memories of 5 day or more vacations with travel. In the 90s I had two such vacations in 97 and 98, one was my honeymoon. In the 2000-2010s I had 2 I think, one was a greyhound bus to Bend OR and camping.
Looking at the Indiana number, I think this is certainly mostly due to skyrocketing housing prices. If you have a household of 4 here that is earning >$200K, you are in a HIGH bracket.
I wonder where they get the necessity numbers. $280K outside NY metro is probably actually wealthy?Even if it is an absurdly high middle class in Manhattan.
"Comfortable" seems to mean what people mean when they say: "We're not rich, but we're comfortable."
That is, it means what "rich" means to most people. People who are comfortable aren't rich compared to the insanely rich, but they're still rich compared to most of the country and world.
I'm still laughing at myself because my 1st reaction was "I make less than 10% of that & I'm comfortable" completely ignoring 3 crucial things: old, so no kids: mortgage is paid so total housing is low: & I'm on medicaid (& just applied for food stamps). So I'm completely irrelevant to graphic.
Housing is a huge cost, for sure. I know people with $4-5k a month mortgages. And those are considered "middle class" houses in some of the larger cities
People pay that in rent for _modest_ apartments in my town, which is also noted for being a town of low incomes & prominent homelessness. There's historical reasons why the problem is exaggerated here, but it's only exaggerated-not wildly disconnected from other places.
yeah,,,, I keep feeling like I'm doing something wrong, to need a second job at my income. but then I see these and it's like, oh. yeah. we're just fucked.
You don't need a second job, Greg. You just need to stop wanting unaffordable things. Like a nice, safe, stable home and future for your child. It's basic economics. 🤷♀️
Comments
So this isn't about that but
This chart seems absurd. What does "comfortable" mean, I wonder? We're a family of 3 and don't make 1/3rd of our states # number. We *feel* comfortable-maybe I'm misunderstanding?
discretionary spending. and 20% to savings.”
I can’t recall anyone ever telling me that we needed 20% savings. Or at least not anyone I’d respect.
That is, it means what "rich" means to most people. People who are comfortable aren't rich compared to the insanely rich, but they're still rich compared to most of the country and world.
Well there you go, they're spending $80k a year on child care