
Living on $100k a Year - santaclaus
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/03/567602293/what-living-on-100-000-a-year-looks-like
======
rayiner
Recently, the news media seems to have developed a weird fetish for the petit
bourgeoisie. The U.S. is highly atypical in how we treat the upper middle
class.

In Germany, for example, a two-income couple making 84,000 Euro ($100,000) in
Bavaria nets 57% of their income:
[https://www.icalculator.info/germany.html](https://www.icalculator.info/germany.html).
In Maryland, a relatively high-tax state, they net 76% of their income. And
that doesn't adjust for the additional upper middle class tax benefits like
the mortgage interest deduction, which don't exist in Germany, which would
take the net income over 80% on a typical house.

A couple earning 840,000 Euro ($1 million), in contrast, net 55% of their
income, barely different from the previous example. In Maryland, they net 54%,
less than in Germany! In contrast, actual corporate tax rates in Germany are
about 15.5%, versus 18.5% in the U.S. (and Germany is quite high compared to
say Canada, at 8.5% or France, at 11.2%).

I live on the east coast, but about an hour east of D.C. Around here, you can
live very comfortably on $100,000/year. Certainly, more comfortably (at least,
materially) than you typical middle class German family. The only reason the
situation gets worse as you get closer to D.C. is expensive housing and worse
schools, which are problems that are entirely inflicted by the middle class on
itself (through anti-development and pro-segregation policies).

~~~
killercup
Just a heads up: The numbers for Germany on that page include all social
security contributions, including health insurance (4.7k€) and pension
contributions (6k€). (Not sure if you accounted for these in your number for
Maryland.)

~~~
azinman2
Not to mention high quality education through university.

~~~
killercup
Yeah, that's something I always forget about when talking to people from the
US: I don't have any student loans. A semester at a university in Germany
costs around 250€ (plus housing and food), so it's hard to get to a point
where you need 10 years to pack back loans. I had a part time job all through
university and even saved up a reasonable amount of money.

~~~
scarface74
There is really no reason for an American to have a unaffordable student loan.
They could easily go to a state school instead of a private college and save
thousands.

~~~
abalashov
I don't know that it's quite that simple; for one, tuition dominates college
cost discussions while actual costs consist in large part of living expenses,
i.e. room, board, food, misc. Second, there are some impressively expensive
state schools out there, and not all have especially affordable in-state
tuition, particularly not to those of working class background.

Still, I agree with the general idea you're reaching for. The ostensible
premium of elite private schools isn't worth going into crippling debt for in
most cases I can envisage.

~~~
scarface74
How many college students _have_ to stay on campus? How many could go to two
year college, stay at home and then transfer two years later?

I went to a small state college with a horrible computer science department.
Four years out of college I was making just as much as people who had way more
debt than I had (I.e. none)

~~~
abalashov
I dropped out of UGA 2.5 years in and moved to Atlanta to pursue a burgeoning
tech career. :-)

I can tell you that UGA requires freshmen to live on campus, though in my case
I was able to get a waiver because my parents were local. And I get the
impression that their housing costs are actually fairly competitive compared
to local commercial rent.

~~~
scarface74
If someone's ultimate goal is to graduate from UGA and they are not local,
they still could probably find a two year college where their core credits
would transfer (English, math, etc.)

~~~
abalashov
I think that's probably true.

------
d4mi3n
> "And now I'm one of those coastal elites, a term, you know, that people in
> Middle America use. And it feels like betrayal," he says. "But what I've
> learned in moving to the coast is there's real inequality. And the biggest
> driver of that inequality is the tax code. The biggest social welfare has
> been to the rich and powerful, giving them loopholes and abilities to keep
> money from the government and keep money from the rest of us."

It saddened me to read that snippet. Growing up on the west coast, I was aware
of some ideological/cultural differences between urban metros and the Middle
America, but I was not aware of that sense of classism.

A take-away I had from Trump's election was that there still is a lot of
economic struggle in the interior of the US. Nobody seems to be interested in
improving the situation, and very few of these communities have the means
and/or the willingness to move towards greener pastures. Is there anything
that can be done to improve the situation?

~~~
notyourday
> A take-away I had from Trump's election was that there still is a lot of
> economic struggle in the interior of the US. Nobody seems to be interested
> in improving the situation, and very few of these communities have the means
> and/or the willingness to move towards greener pastures. Is there anything
> that can be done to improve the situation?

I work in a typical liberal as hell company in a very expensive city. The
level of hate/class superiority towards the unwashed masses from my co-workers
is absolutely mind blowing. It is casual hate that shows up everywhere, every
day in a unrelated conversations. If one was to do s/<who they talk
about>/gay|minority/g they would be terminated on the spot. It goes all the
way up the corporate latter. All of them are card carrying progressives.

~~~
scarface74
I didn't realize how outright prejudice I was when it came to the
stereotypical Trump true believer until after this election. It just never
crossed my mind. I'm African American grew up middle class but I saw and
interacted with plenty of poorer minorities but never poorer Whites - I went
to a predominantly white private school, but by definition if they were at
private school, they weren't poor.

Went into tech and only interacted with other white collar workers.

Of course I don't agree with Trumps demonization of "other" but I do see how
he easily tapped into their resentment. People don't seem to realize how many
Trump voters in middle America voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

~~~
Y7ZCQtNo39
Hillary Clinton had Donald Trump beat by millions in the popular vote. I
suspected it was more or less the same conservative base, with Democratic
voters less enthusiastic in rural/suburban America.

~~~
notyourday
In the rules of the NFL team that has the ball longest is not the team that
wins the game - team that scores does. Those are the rules.

~~~
scarface74
I'm not sure that it's a bad thing that the electoral college is used for
deciding the presidential election and that the senate isn't representational
of the population. Even considering that "my side" loss twice because of it.

The needs of the least populous states - trump country -have been ignored in
the national conversation for too long by both parties. Trump was just paying
lip service to their needs and is actively selling them out. But no one else
was even paying lip service.

I'm not part of Trump's core demographics - both a minority and part of the
"liberal tech elite" but a lot of his policies will help me a lot more than
they will help people who voted for him.

Yeah I'm ignoring the so called "moral majority", there is no hope for them.
Hopefully changing demographics will continue to make them even less relevant.

~~~
notyourday
It is _irrelevant_ if rules are bad or rules are good. It is only relevant
what the rules are at the time of the competition.

Rules can always be changed but it must be done before the beginning of the
game.

------
Y7ZCQtNo39
I'm one of those coastal elites. Early career, so ballpark around this salary.
I have some student loan debt, but my portion of the rent is only $1,000 a
month plus utilities (I split a place). I spend about $2,500 a month. And I
sock away the rest (about $60k annually) into investments.

$100k still goes far in a high cost of living, coastal area. However, I drive
a used car. I'm a renter, and probably will be for awhile. If I wanted to be a
homeowner, a good portion of my retirement savings / investments would be
going towards that.

If I decided to have kids, which would mean at least a place with additional
bedrooms, plus additional health care coverage costs, etc., I could see it
getting tight. I might have to compromise my retirement savings goals.

I don't have a lot, but I'm also a minimalist. And I realize that, income
wise, probably 80% of society has it worse than me. I don't know how
households earning around $50k would feel any semblance of having a future
financially. Growing my savings/investments is the only way I feel like I'm
getting ahead. Having any sort of typical American dream goal (house, kids,
etc) would basically nullify my ability to get ahead, with the exception of
building some home equity.

~~~
Spooky23
The difference between you and the 1987 version of you is that you are
kneecapped from an earning power perspective.

Barring equity compensation that appreciates, you’re likely to grow your
income until around 35. Then you plateau.

You’re also unlikely to retain companies or career skill set through to
retirement. So you’re facing a crisis where you need to transition and
maintain salary around age 40, where 1987 you would be entering peak earning
years.

It’s a particularly vicious cycle as professionals marry late and have kids
late, so when you’re scrambling to maintain your 401k to retire, you get hit
with a big college bill in your late 40s/early 50s. If you invest unwisely and
don’t have a home, you’re choosing to either retire comfortably or not pay for
college.

~~~
Y7ZCQtNo39
Your children can always borrow for college. You can't borrow for retirement,
so it makes sense to prioritize retirement savings.

I agree, though, that the purchasing power is nowhere near 1987 and that the
plateau comes earlier. I suppose it's what makes saving earlier and saving
more ever pertinent for the younger generation. If I can get to 200k before I
plateau, I'd be happy. If I have a working spouse that makes at least 100k,
I'd say we could probably keep the American dream alive for us.

At least via my 401k, there are few poor options to choose, thankfully. The
worst you could probably do is pick a fixed income class (and get no growth)
or go too risky with international funds (if you for some reason went 100%
international). But the target-date funds and index funds provided (SP500,
etc) are diversified and generally considered good investments.

~~~
pm90
If you're making that good already and working in tech, I doubt it will be
hard for you to reach that target income. Keeping up with the latest
technology, learning skills and delivering on projects has got me very far in
my professional career, and I've worked with Senior Engineers who continue to
do engineering and switch jobs (although perhaps less frequently since it
means changing a lot of things).

I guess what I'm trying to say is: financially, you are likely to be OK, if
you manage to have a spouse that will be a good partner and you both stay
together while bringing up the kids (and that is a BIG IF). It get VERY dicey
if you do split, in which case you have to pay for spousal and child support
(I've seen this happen wayy too many times).

Which brings me to what has been my most important realization perhaps: be
VERY VERY careful when you choose your spouse and how you combine your
finances. I'm not saying that you spouse will be bad; but statistically it
seems like there is a 50% chance that it won't work out, for whatever reason.
This can ruin your finances. So spend some significant time and effort to try
to make the right decision there. This is kinda hard when society emphasizes
getting married and having kids ASAP.

------
mberning
I really cannot sympathize. My father raised a family of 6 making ~$30k/yr at
his peak. Yes we struggled at times. Public school. Knock off sneakers. Cheap
cost cutter food and small simple meals. Crap car. Etc.

When I started working in software I made way more money right out of school
than my family ever made. And I developed a lot of bad spending habits as a
result. After a few years I got my head on straight. Paid off all my debt, got
disciplined about saving, and cut out unnecessary expenses.

It’s not that hard to live very comfortably on 100k. But you aren’t going to
be eating out all the time, driving new cars, living in a gigantic mcmansion,
etc.

Edit: My youngest sibling was born in 93. 30k in 93 is like 50k today. HALF of
what the people in this article are living on. Give me a break! These people
don’t need a raise or a hand out, they need a realistic budget.

~~~
ivraatiems
> My father raised a family of 6 making ~$30k/yr at his peak.

When your father was working and you were growing up, $30k was worth more
(perhaps much more, depending on how old you are) than it is now. His job
probably had benefits and protections modern jobs don't have. What used to
work for people increasingly doesn't work, in large part because benefits are
disappearing, government programs and subsidies are being cut, and what's
considered a "fair wage" hasn't tracked at all with how much things actually
cost, especially on the coast.

~~~
flatline
Crap cars are also expensive as hell to keep running nowadays. Buying new or
nearly new, if you need the transportation for your job, can be more
economical. That wasn’t the case 40 years ago. That labor that his mom
presumably put in is also not without monetary value - two working parents
cost a fortune in childcare, and many people need both salaries to make the
equivalent of what just one used to.

~~~
rayiner
That's a falsehood people tell themselves to justify buying a new car. One of
my parents' cars is a 2003 Acura. It's never needed anything but oil changes
since we got it. Cars these days are much cheaper to operate than they used to
be.

~~~
RickJWag
Totally true. Just about every reputable financial advisor says to drive used
cars and run them 'till the wheels fall off.

Today's used cars are fantastically reliable, historically. (At least if you
stick with 'Best Buy' recommendations.)

------
abalashov
As someone with a six-figure self-employment income, I can also say that cash
flow is a very important part of the equation. If you take an appropriate
discount for bad/unsteady cash flow (and few of us do), one is led to the
conclusion that $100k+ in SE income can often afford one a ~$40k lifestyle at
best, in terms of recurring expenses one can reasonably commit to and
consistently afford.

That's something a lot of people on salary don't get. Back when I was on W-2
and had much lower compensation than I nominally have now, I had my ducks in a
row, taxes paid, a positive savings rate, and good credit. That hasn't been
the case since I went self-employed about ten years ago.

If someone were to divide my annual revenue (less expenses) by 12 and
distribute it to me on the 1st of every month, a lot of problems would be
solved. But because that's not how reality works, I take a bath in late fees,
interest, overdraft fees, no access to credit due to bad rating, etc.

Some of those things are more avoidable than others depending on the choices
one makes, but that's not the point. The point is that W-2 and SE income are
not equivalent. Unless you've devised some compensation scheme that is
substantially similar to salary as a contractor, you can't afford anywhere
near a $100k lifestyle as a consultant earning $100k+. There are many days I'd
happily trade places with folks who get a lower, but steady paycheck every two
weeks for doing more or less one job.

~~~
Consultant32452
It sounds like you are not budgeting appropriately for the amount and
variability of your income. I just recently left the consulting game, but did
so for nearly a decade. If you're truly interested in making a change I
recommend reading The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.

~~~
abalashov
I'd like to think I budget appropriately, though I'll admit I didn't always
when I was younger; it's an acquired skill. But you try budgeting
appropriately through a divorce and absurdly expensive custody battle.

But in a way, you're making my point for me; because $100k in SE income is not
the same as $100k in W-2 income, it requires special budgeting considerations,
to the degree that I'd benefit from reading a whole book about it. :-)

~~~
Consultant32452
>But you try budgeting appropriately through a divorce and absurdly expensive
custody battle

I did.

>But in a way, you're making my point for me; $100k in SE income is not the
same as $100k in W-2 income.

Actually, I'm making the exact opposite point. The budget is the exact same.
The budget is what forces you to not over-spend when times are good, so that
you have plenty of money around when times are lean.

~~~
abalashov
Well, indeed; what that adds up to is that it's safer (if perhaps unwise,
that's debatable) to get closer to the line with a stable income than an
unstable one.

Otherwise, it seems your advice is "live within your means", "spend less than
you make" and "save for rainy days". Thanks, dad.

~~~
Consultant32452
>it's safer to get closer to the line with a stable income than an unstable
one.

No, it means you've failed to accurately assess what the "line" even is.

>Otherwise, it seems your advice is "live within your means", "spend less than
you make" and "save for rainy days". Thanks, dad.

No, my advice was a specific set of principles and practices laid out within
Ramsey's book which could help you to overcome the problems in your life that
you were discussing. I was not promoting useless platitudes.

~~~
abalashov
My point was that with greater volatility, a smaller portion of income remains
sufficiently consistent, and thus the line will be lower and the budget will
be smaller.

~~~
Consultant32452
I don't think you would feel that way if you actually read the book and
followed a real written budget. I know this because I've lived it myself. The
only difference between variable income and static income is gauging the size
of your emergency fund. Otherwise, your budget is identical.

~~~
abalashov
Yes, but maintaining a bigger emergency fund implies spending less in other
categories. :-)

~~~
Consultant32452
Nope. Building an emergency fund implies spending less in other categories,
namely retirement savings. But once you've made those initial, temporary
sacrifices, maintaining the emergency fund doesn't cost any more just because
you have variable income.

------
stanmancan
The article even touches on how everyone is trying to keep up with the Joneses
instead of living within their means.

Everyone is in a different financial position but instead of recognizing that
and living a life you can afford, people get jealous of what their neighbours
have or their friends are doing and pursue the same lifestyle regardless of if
they can afford it or not.

I do not sympathize with someone struggling to make ends meet on $100K a year.
That is a ton of money and if you have debt and bills you can’t handle then
unless it’s just a result of horrible life circumstances, it’s most likely
your own bad decisions.

------
incadenza
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but it would be nice to hear what is
eating into their income so much.

My thought pattern here is that if you can't manage on $100,000 a year then
you'll have the same problem at $200,000 a year, so on and so forth.

~~~
Y7ZCQtNo39
I'm a bit sympathetic to the idea that the American dream, when compared to
the average paycheck, just doesn't add up for most people. I don't empathize
with the poor financial choices folks make to place their expectations above
their reality.

~~~
incadenza
I guess I feel the same.

I'm very sympathetic to people who, when making decent financial decisions,
are unable to meet their basic needs. Poverty / under-earning like that just
creates a constant stress that is completely debilitating and unproductive. It
has a real psychic toll.

It's just difficult for me to imagine not being able to make $100,000 work,
save for a bunch of kids. But after all, those are somewhat of a choice as
well.

------
jandrewrogers
I read the article and I still don't know why these people can't live
comfortably on $100k. It is never explained, and I have lived reasonably
comfortably with a household income of <$100k in some of the mentioned
locales. You don't have to be frugal, just not wasteful. It leads me to
believe that it has more to do with life and lifestyle choices than income per
se.

It is also hard to be sympathetic given that $100k is substantially higher
than the median income in many of these areas, and while not wealthy by any
means, many people living a little closer to the median have a pretty decent
standard of living simply by managing their finances wisely.

I have many friends in this situation. Too many people refuse to live a
lifestyle afforded by their income even though it would be pretty comfortable
if they did. My lifestyle, which is far from austere and in Seattle, easily
fits into $100k income (though I'd probably have to cut back on the luxury a
bit if I had kids).

------
paulddraper
> "People feel like they haven't been getting ahead for a long time," says Jim
> Tankersley, who covers taxes and the economy for The New York Times.

I won't say this can't be true, but by experience casts doubt on trusting what
people "feel".

For example, lots of people feel they struggle to attain homeownership. But
homeownership rates are within 1% of what they were in 1980. Meanwhile, median
house sizes have increased 50% since then (or 100%!, relative to household
size).

Lots of people feel they aren't being paid enough. But median household income
has increased ~25% over the past 40 years (50%, relative to household size).
(Looking at household, not individual, child care has transitioned from one
stay-at-home parent to one working parent + contracted child care and only the
latter adds to "household wages".)

Lots of people feel that education is too expensive, but total scholarship
money has exploded. In my home state of Florida, a 970 (Math + Reading) SAT
and 3.0 GPA gets you a 75% scholarship to any state school. That is well
within reach for most university-bound students. Or achieve a 1270 SAT + 3.5
GPA + 75hrs community service for 100% scholarship.

Lots of people feel cost of living is rising. And yet, there are 10% _more_
people living in urban areas since 1980, which tend to be far more expensive
than rural ones.

Sometimes I think all some people ask is to own a home and a couple cars in a
good neighborhood with good schools in a big city, travel abroad, and go to
private or out-of-state school for a few months salary of a hobby job (and
obviously without ROTC) after buying the new $700 smartphone every year and
continue that lifestyle into government-sponsored retirement. You know...do
what their parents did, but without any of the drawbacks.

\---

In reality, I suspect these feelings are grounded much more with keeping up
with the Jones' (+ Facebook), rather than the objective quality of living.

------
kuschku
There is a very relevant set of articles right now on reddit on this topic.

It started when an Austrian software engineer published his entire spending,
and where every cent of his taxes goes, in this post:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7h2idb/wha...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7h2idb/what_my_gross_income_of_60000year_is_actually/)

Other users, employed in all industries, quickly responded, some from Japan
[https://redd.it/7h99vj](https://redd.it/7h99vj) , Seattle
[https://redd.it/7h6bsr](https://redd.it/7h6bsr) , Brisbane, Australia
[https://redd.it/7h9gpe](https://redd.it/7h9gpe) , New York City
[https://redd.it/7has76](https://redd.it/7has76) , rural TN
[https://redd.it/7hbhe9](https://redd.it/7hbhe9) , London, UK
[https://redd.it/7h9tjf](https://redd.it/7h9tjf) , a Major in the US Air Force
[https://redd.it/7ha2q0](https://redd.it/7ha2q0) , and another one from
Switzerland [https://redd.it/7hbehc](https://redd.it/7hbehc)

There’s dozens more posts, I can’t link them all, you can find the rest at
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/)
– but many of them show how people can live very successfully on low wages,
and others yet struggle with much more money.

------
neom
The article isn't great, but the audio snippets are a lot better.

I've posted this book a zillion times on HN, but "$2.00 a Day: Living on
Almost Nothing in America" really changed a lot of my thoughts and feelings
about what is going on in America today. Highly recommend reading it:

[https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-
America/dp/05...](https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-
America/dp/054481195X)

------
njarboe
The article would become useful with the addition of the budgets of each of
the people/families. Without that it is hard to understand the individual
problems, besides some generic platitudes. That is if one would want to find a
way to succeed on 100k/yr and not just voice one's current issues.

------
ben_jones
I'm kind of disappointed by this article. As someone who makes a little over
six figures (before combined comp.) in the Bay Area I expected to relate a lot
to the individuals described in this article. Instead is just had 4
testimonials from individuals who weren't happy on a six-figure income, it
failed to list any of the root causes either then a small jab at the tax code.

~~~
Retra
Yeah, it's a lot of "100K seems good until the debt piles up", and I'm
wondering where the debt came from and why they're letting it pile up. And why
people making half that wouldn't have the same debt with even less ability to
manage it.

~~~
CamelCaseName
Student loans to earn that 100K a year.

Housing to live near a job that pays 100K a year.

------
cypherpunks01
FYI I think $100,000 of income puts your household in the top 20% of earners
in the US.

~~~
pishpash
That doesn't mean anything, it depends on what the distribution looks like.

------
larrykwg
Oh so terrible, how can they even survive, really heartbreaking. Meanwhile the
UN is investigating the extreme poverty in the US, you know the people that
don't even have their basic human rights guaranteed by their hyper capitalist
government.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-
pov...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-poverty-
america-special-rapporteur)

------
pjc50
Without any kind of breakdown, this is really uninformative.

Is this due to housing cost? Student debt? Medical debt? Bad decisions? Good
decisions that were invalidated by events? Who knows?

------
nprisntthebest
It would have been nice if they included anything about family size and
details besides “kids”, budget, lifestyle, etc.

~~~
taurath
It’s kind of inconceivable that a family in Kansas City making 100k a year
can’t afford more than one car. The article is super light on details. Do they
have a super expensive house? Student loan payments?

------
fady
A lot our missing the point. 100k/year is good but it takes just one major
expense for that to set you back, put you in the hole, and usually leads to
more interest, fees and spirals out of control.

"The report, put out by Pew Charitable Trust, includes the results of surveys
conducted in 2014 and 2015 to see how Americans were coping with what are
referred to as financial shocks—those one-off expenses that crop up from time
to time. Pew found that in large part, Americans’ ability to weather financial
shocks is partially dependent on something that Americans still struggle to
accumulate: savings."
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/savings...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/savings-
money-emergency/522036/)

~~~
Consultant32452
>A lot our missing the point. 100k/year is good but it takes just one major
expense for that to set you back, put you in the hole, and usually leads to
more interest, fees and spirals out of control.

It really should not, if you've budgeted conservatively in the way that our
grandparents generation did. For example, if you don't have 3-6 months of
expenses in a savings account, short term disability insurance, long term
disability insurance, and a term life insurance policy of 10x your annual
salary, you're living a fairly high risk financial lifestyle. Again, if you
budgeted the way your grandparents did you wouldn't have any debt except MAYBE
your house, so a financial setback would almost certainly not result in more
interest or fees, since you wouldn't be paying any interest to begin with.

You've accepted this false narrative that the banks have sold you on that
being perpetually indebted to them is normal. It's not, from a historical
standpoint. And you don't have to live that way.

------
pishpash
I would just like to point out that using median income to define the middle
class is part of the problem. That's really poverty today. In the middle ages
when nearly everybody was a serf, would you use median income to define the
middle class? Of course not.

------
nunez
We live in Dallas on about $185k/year cumulative. Despite $1200/mo in rent,
>$1500/mo student loan repayments, $500/mo car payments and $1350/mo credit
card debt (i’m aware of how dumb that was), we are living comfortably. My plan
is to earn a $200k/year income in less than four years so that my fiancee can
go back to school without sacrificng our current lifestyle.

However, we live in an apartment and don’t have kids.

There is absolutely no way we could do kids and a mortgage with this debt
burden without life going to hell. Once that debt goes away, though? Not a
problem at all...for one kid and a cheap house. ($250k house, which is what we
wanted anyway, as we aren’t fans of big houses)

------
jorblumesea
The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of
the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to.

Tax breaks are at best a very short term proposition, and if the numbers are
to be believed, the current tax plan only serves to widen the gap over time.

Unfortunately, many Americans have been convinced to vote against their best
interests since in many places, D means Devil. Having a strong stance on hot
button issues like abortion is more important than whether you will gut a
union or make a fair tax code.

If it's an indication about how bad things are, a probable child molester has
an actual shot of being reelected, simply because of the R next to his name.
We are not selecting for the best candidates.

~~~
cperciva
_The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of
the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to._

That's not really supported by the data. A more accurate summary would be "the
poor, unable to, the rich, _not numerous enough_ to". Raising taxes on the top
1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.01% has very little impact on total revenues
simply because you need to raise taxes 50x, 500x, or 5000x as much in order to
extract as much revenue as you would get by raising taxes on the top 50%.

~~~
gizmo
Confiscatory taxes on the wealthiest would bring in hundreds of billions.
That's not "very little impact", the money could be used to massively improve
the lives of millions.

Yes, there are few people, numerically, in the top 0.01%, but that doesn't
mean their taxes are inconsequential. Otherwise you might as well argue that
they should pay no taxes at all. Absurd.

~~~
cperciva
Confiscatory taxes could bring in hundreds of billions of dollars... once. But
you can only expropriate someone's property once.

~~~
gizmo
Every dollar in the economy is spent and taxed many times. Taxation doesn't
make money disappear.

~~~
harryh
Sure, but if you confiscate the wealth of the 0.01% then it's not in their
hands anymore and you can't take it from them again.

~~~
gizmo
The money would end up in the hands of _somebody_ and subsequently it can get
taxed again. You tax wherever the money is.

~~~
harryh
But then we're talking about raising taxes on people other than the 0.1% to
fund whatever initiatives we're talking about which was cperciva's point. You
can only get so far taxing the ultra rich.

------
feralmoan
Someone making $100k should easily be able to save $1k a month _wherever_ they
are living in the world and put it into a fund making at least 15% a year.

Here's some mind blowing advice - stop buying useless ornaments that do
nothing to elevate you or enhance your life in meaningful ways. People have
been hoodwinked into buying junk and stand there teary eyed wondering how it
all happened and why they're so empty inside. How they went so far but did so
little.

This years black friday/cyber monday sales were extraordinary - because people
are idiots.

It's not a mystery. Make conscious choices in your life and you won't be a
victim. Someone making 6 figures is the last person anyone should feel sad
for.

------
ErikVandeWater
What do people think about federal taxes (mostly) not being adjusted for cost
of living? It serves as a disincentive for moving to the cities, but is that a
good thing or a bad thing?

~~~
harryh
It's a good thing. Living is a high COL city is a luxury. One shouldn't get a
tax break because of their particular luxury purchases.

~~~
abalashov
Without taking a position on the original COL-adjusted tax question:

Living in a high-cost city isn't necessarily a luxury. Many people who do
would prefer not to, but cities concentrate economic opportunities and that is
why people migrate to them. This is why urbanisation is a byproduct of
economic development pretty much everywhere.

Case in point: I lived in Atlanta for ten years and recently moved back to
Athens, a small university town about an hour and some change east. There's no
question that it's much cheaper to live here. But if I wanted an actual job in
my field, I'd pretty much have to live in Atlanta - that's why I moved there
in the first place.

I'm fortunate enough to be self-employed and to no longer care, as the vast
majority of my customers are out of state. But make no mistake, there are
vanishingly few tech job opportunities here - and this is a fairly educated
college town.

And as we know, IT is fairly democratic in the degree to which it can be done
remotely. But if you specialise in finance, entertainment, fashion, big law,
aerospace, or a variety of other areas, there are certain places you more or
less have to be. The American economy is eminently decentralised compared to
that of most countries, but still - the cities have the lion's share of white
collar, professional middle-income jobs.

------
apple4ever
Its definitely not a enough, even in a medium cost of living area. The biggest
problem? Taxes. Of that 100k, 30-40K are taxes.

This is why lowering taxes is great.

------
rboyd
I've only ever heard the term "coastal elites" from people the live near the
coast and wish they were elites.

------
ThrowProgrammer
ThrowAway I live in Baltimore, MD. My salary is $100k flat (80k base + 20k
bonuses). I would not say that I am king of the hill, but I am in much better
position than majority of my friends, though. To be honest, I don't feel like
it such a high salary.

------
jerrycabbage
This is an awful article. How is it at the top of ycombinator. There is no
breakdown of any costs or what their living standard ACTUALLY is. These people
could very well (and likely do) have spending issues. Eat out too much, buy
too many gadgets, replace their car far too often, etc. Thats the problem far
too often. Boo Hoo

------
Overtonwindow
I lived very well on $100k in the DC area. It's all about budgeting.

------
pageald
This is ridiculous. It's one thing to claim that 100k is "not enough" if you
live in a high cost of living (which is still dubious, considering the median
income in NYC is half of that.) If that's not enough for you in Kansas, the
fact is that you're living far beyond your means.

I think it's telling that one family cited credit card debt like it's an act
of nature instead of a conscious choice. And just because you qualify for a
million dollar mortgage doesn't mean you should get one. Spend that big salary
on a home near your workplace and sell the $40,000 SUV.

The sooner we wake up from the "dream" of being deep underwater in debt to
fund an ecologically and economically unsustainable lifestyle, all the while
just a paycheck or two away from complete ruin, the better off we'll be.

~~~
emerged
There's an irritatingly prevalent attitude that once you've moved to a high
cost of living area (or were born there), you're forever entitled to stay
there. That if you can't afford it, it's the fault of society and needs to be
corrected.

~~~
abalashov
I don't know if it's the fault of society, but it's fairly natural. Humans get
attached to familiar places in which they grew up, in which they have lived in
a long time, etc. They plant social roots.

I'm not saying that means people who can't afford to live in places like NYC
or SF shouldn't move, just that there's a complex tension between economic
theory and "messy" human reality.

The ideal rationally self-interested agent described in economics texts would
just move from place to place in search of profit-maximising opportunities,
but that's not what actually existing humans do much of the time. They have
relatives, friends, aesthetic preferences, social obligations, religious
beliefs, and other things that "do not compute" in mathematical models.

~~~
rpmcmurphy
This ^^^^. I have lived in San Francisco for 25 years now. While I could
reduce my cost of living dramatically by moving, I have spent my entire post-
college life here. Nearly all of my friends and professional network are here,
so I have approximately zero interest in moving, even if it would be cheaper,
it would not be worth it.

~~~
abalashov
And arguably wouldn't make financial sense. There's a benefit to being within
driving distance of 900 of the world's top 1000 tech companies, or whatever it
is.

You might be able to afford a better lifestyle on a modest paycheck in Sioux
City, Iowa, but what happens when that company, the approximately ~1 serious
tech employer in town, lays you off? In the Bay Area, you just go across the
street.

Lest anyone think I'm a cheerleader, I live in northeast Georgia and have no
intention of moving to the Bay Area. :-)

~~~
scarface74
Well if you live in northeast GA (as do I) you know that a software developer
with 5-10 years of experience can easily make $110-140K and that easily
affords you to live in some of the nicest part of Atlanta.

True. We aren't around "900 of the world's top 1000" companies, but in the 20
years I've lived here, I've never found there to be a lack of development
jobs.

As a single person, you could easily live comfortably in parts of metro
Atlanta making 70K.

~~~
abalashov
My impression of the top end of typical developer salaries in Atlanta doesn't
quite go that high, but it's possible they're crept up since I last took a
look.

I agree that metro Atlanta is not an especially high-cost area, though parts
of it certainly are; ITP in general is getting overheated. I lived in Midtown
for the better part of ten years and by the end of that, rents seemed on par
with Brooklyn and Chicago, though I did have to upgrade from single-person
housing on account of a short-lived marriage.

Nowadays, I've moved back to Athens. Where are you?

~~~
scarface74
Forsyth County. I've lived in Marietta,Decatur, And Johns Creek before. And
yes the salaries are accurate. This is from both my own experience as both a
job seeker and a hiring manager (not really a "manager" more like a team lead
who has hired contractors)

Salary.com is seems pretty much in line with my experience.

