how many of you just want the upper middle class lifestyle

[Sol Rosenberg]

---

Members do not see this ad.

According to the New York Times' Class Matters series, and census data from 2000 and 2003, the lower class makes under 25K, the middle class makes between 25K and 70K, and the upper class makes over 70K. So yes, please rethink this, people. Certainly, living in a large urban center could skew your lifestyle, but I once made 40K/year in NYC and considered myself middle-class.

I just don't think you can say that 150K is middle class. My SO's sister makes a bit less than that and lives an upper-class lifestyle in Manhattan, debt-free. Again, people are confounding "upper-class" with "incredibly wealthy". Try to compare yourself to the vast majority of workers out there, you'll feel better.

I think it's more a matter of what you consider "upper class."

It is basically impossible to live comfortably in manhattan for < 100K. First off, approx. 20% of the will go to Federal Taxes. I don't know the State/City Tax in NY, but they have one. Of course, that depends upon your definition of comfortably. You're probably down to $75K take-home a year. Rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in Manhattan can exceed $2k/month. Don't think that includes utilities. That leaves about $50K to live off of, which isn't much. Forget about savings. It's probably near impossible to buy a house, certainly in Manhattan, but probably in most of the area on that salary. I don't consider living in a plain 1-bedroom apartment an upper-class lifestyle, but others might. If you are married and your spouse makes ~100K, then you can probably have a good, but not upper-class lifestyle in Manhattan.

Here in TX, on the other hand, $100K will go a long way. If your spouse also makes $100K, you can DEFINITELY live an upper-class lifestyle and save A LOT of money to boot.

If you don't believe me, fine. Please don't move here 🙂

 

[vmc303]

Funny, I thought the subject line would continue "... rather than get filthy rich?"

Of course people go into medicine to make money. It's not a "calling" -- it's a highly paid, highly demanding profession that requires certain skills that are somewhat rare. In that sense, it's really no different from other professions like law or banking. Now, becoming a priest is a "calling."

 

[trustwomen]

I think it's more a matter of what you consider "upper class."

It is basically impossible to live comfortably in manhattan for < 100K. First off, approx. 20% of the will go to Federal Taxes. I don't know the State/City Tax in NY, but they have one. Of course, that depends upon your definition of comfortably. You're probably down to $75K take-home a year. Rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in Manhattan can exceed $2k/month. Don't think that includes utilities. That leaves about $50K to live off of, which isn't much. Forget about savings. It's probably near impossible to buy a house, certainly in Manhattan, but probably in most of the area on that salary. I don't consider living in a plain 1-bedroom apartment an upper-class lifestyle, but others might. If you are married and your spouse makes ~100K, then you can probably have a good, but not upper-class lifestyle in Manhattan.

Here in TX, on the other hand, $100K will go a long way. If your spouse also makes $100K, you can DEFINITELY live an upper-class lifestyle and save A LOT of money to boot.

If you don't believe me, fine. Please don't move here 🙂

Don't worry, I'd rather take a bullet to the head than move to Texas, no offense. 🙂 (you'd probably feel the same way about Canada)

As a former New Yorker I can attest that the whole "rich" paradigm does get shifted - first of all, the nicer neighbourhoods of Manhattan (with the rents you describe) are accessible only to the upper class to begin with - that's why most people live in the outer boroughs. Having a one-bedroom Manhattan apartment to yourself is a luxury in New York, and is regarded as such. Buying a house is possible in the outer boroughs, but home ownership is not a New York status symbol anyway - renting is so common, people even pass their cheap leases on to their kids when they die! My sister-in-law owns a (crazy expensive) one-bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side - it's gorgeous. She buys designer clothes/shoes, has the latest gadgets, travels several times a year, etc... all the while supporting her extended family in Ecuador. If she wants something, she can just go and buy it - unless it costs several thousand dollars, in which case she budgets a bit. She is comfortable and happy as a clam, and has little to no consumer debt. She makes between 100-150K. I consider her lifestyle to be upper-class, for sure.

When I was making 40K, I lived in Brooklyn (renting, had a good deal on a one-bedroom), ate out regularly, and was able to travel about once a year. I didn't manage to save much - I could have, with some discipline - but I didn't stress about paying my bills either. That, to me, is middle-class.

And how is 50K not a lot of money to live on, after taxes and rent? Damn, that's over 4K a month! What are you driving/eating?

 

[Law2Doc]

people even pass their cheap leases on to their kids when they die!

Rent control is precisely the reason that you have to be rich to live modestly in NYC. If you aren't related to someone with such a cheap lease (as MOST non-New Yorkers aren't), you end up paying $2500+/mo for pretty meager trappings. So your sister in law lives well, but someone moving to the city and trying to duplicate her housing without the connections can go broke on the same income. Trust me -- $100k does not go far in Manhattan. You will do okay but not be upper middle class.

 

[etf]

I have to say that dentistry is looking very good right now. Does your wife really work around 30 hours a week and is she making around 400k? My mother is a dental hygenist and she tells me things like that. I just have trouble believing it.

my mom's a nurse, and has told me about this one opthalmologist she works with that makes 100k a week...obviously not the norm, but the potential is there if you really want that. you're going to be sacrificing a lot, though, and I don't think it's worth it. my goal is to basically have enough where i can pay for my kids entire education without any type of loans. oh, and a 1999 ferrari f355 spider, with a tubi exhaust

 

[Ross434]

I would consider anyone making in the top 10% to be upper class, based purely on the percentile rank. And the top 10% is somewhere around 80-90k, for an individual. Just how big do you people think the middle class is anyway!!?

 

[Law2Doc]

I would consider anyone making in the top 10% to be upper class, based purely on the percentile rank. And the top 10% is somewhere around 80-90k, for an individual.

Are we talking nationally or regionally? Because the top 10% in Manhattan is going to be drastically different than the top 10% in Dayton. There are places in the US where you are quite wealthy on $90K, and places in the US where that barely makes your mortgage payments.

 

[Rafa]

my goal is to basically have enough where i can pay for my kids entire education without any type of loans.

👍

 

[Law2Doc]

my mom's a nurse, and has told me about this one opthalmologist she works with that makes 100k a week...obviously not the norm, but the potential is there if you really want that. you're going to be sacrificing a lot, though, and I don't think it's worth it. my goal is to basically have enough where i can pay for my kids entire education without any type of loans. oh, and a 1999 ferrari f355 spider, with a tubi exhaust

It is unrealistic to believe you will make $5 mill from salary. And you are assuming that is $100k per week "profit" (net) -- his costs per week could be most of that.

 

[vmc303]

I would consider anyone making in the top 10% to be upper class, based purely on the percentile rank. And the top 10% is somewhere around 80-90k, for an individual. Just how big do you people think the middle class is anyway!!?

Semantics. Substitute a different word if you'd like. When most people talk about "upper class," they're talking about old money sorts from places like Greenwich, or corporate executives, or tech boom millionaires, or celebrities. $150k might be top 10%, but it's really nowhere near the sort of "upper class" that the word usually connotes.

 

[vmc303]

Originally Posted by etf
my goal is to basically have enough where i can pay for my kids entire education without any type of loans.

👍

Noble but rather sad life goal. Do you even have kids yet?

 

[Ross434]

Semantics. Substitute a different word if you'd like. When most people talk about "upper class," they're talking about old money sorts from places like Greenwich, or corporate executives, or tech boom millionaires, or celebrities. $150k might be top 10%, but it's really nowhere near the sort of "upper class" that the word usually connotes.

Different people have different definitions. I see what you mean - a lot of people probably think that. The people i grew up with though probably see upper class as being somebody who drives a lexus, lives in a nice subdivision, sends their kids to private schools, and goes on international vacations, which is easily achieved in the top 10% (as an individual or family).

Also, as far as law 2 doc was concerned - yeah, the number would vary by region, but the people who are in the top 10-15% of their region are living the high life in that region. Or if compared nationally, the things they are enjoying in life are more than say, 90% of people in the rest of the nation would enjoy. (ie: living in manhattan and eating out at nice downtown new york restaurants (possible on a 'middle income' in nyc) is already a sign of being upper class, as seen by people living elsewhere in the US.

 

[Hoberto]

I would consider anyone making in the top 10% to be upper class, based purely on the percentile rank. And the top 10% is somewhere around 80-90k, for an individual. Just how big do you people think the middle class is anyway!!?

I agree, if you are in the top 10% of earners in the entire nation, how can you possibly not be upper class.

For households the top 20% make $88,030 or more. This is typically a 2 income earner household. The top 5% of households need only make $157,176.

So, many of our households will be in the top 5% based on a single income. Yet, many of you would claim we would not be upper class.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

 

[trustwomen]

Rent control is precisely the reason that you have to be rich to live modestly in NYC. If you aren't related to someone with such a cheap lease (as MOST non-New Yorkers aren't), you end up paying $2500+/mo for pretty meager trappings. So your sister in law lives well, but someone moving to the city and trying to duplicate her housing without the connections can go broke on the same income. Trust me -- $100k does not go far in Manhattan. You will do okay but not be upper middle class.

She doesn't have connections - she owns the apartment, she bought it at market value. (It was indeed expensive - mortgage plus maintenance is about the $2500 mentioned above). Still, if you have 5-6k/month CLEAR... That still leaves you a lot of play money.

And the point is, you are living in Manhattan. Everything is at your fingertips, you get the cheapest airfares in the country to everywhere except Asia, and some people love that lifestyle and consider it quite privileged. For those who are used to living elsewhere, it does seem quite cramped - among the reasons why I left - but for a New Yorker she has it MADE.

If we only consider people "upper-class" when they are in the top 1 percent of earners, we are severely skewing our vision IMO. Maybe we are trying to maintain the "middle-class moral high ground" and justify to ourselves that we "deserve" to make SO much more than SO many people? Eesh.

 

[Hoberto]

Also, people do live with little money in New York City. Consider that 61% of New Yorker households make less than $50,000/year. More than one-third made less than $25,000. Unfortunately, I can't find what the top 20% earners in New York make but I suspect it isn't it millions.


Source: NYC.gov Vital Statistics

 

[trustwomen]

Also, people do live with little money in New York City. Consider that 61% of New Yorker households make less than $50,000/year. More than one-third made less than $25,000. Unfortunately, I can't find what the top 20% earners in New York make but I suspect it isn't it millions.


Source: NYC.gov Vital Statistics

That's a really good link - interesting! Basically, one must remember that New York City is huge, and the lower half of Manhattan is basically the "wealthy neighbourhood" - it's just a very large "neighbourhood" (which happens to be more populated than many cities). Of course, so many people mix up Manhattan (the borough) with New York (the city). Saying you need a high salary to live there is like saying you need a high salary to live in a 6000 sq. foot house with marble floors - of course you do. Just because being upper class is a prerequisite for certain things, doesn't mean that the people who have them are not upper class. "But X is a minimum to be able to live there comfortably" - well, that's because it's a really expensive area. You're still rich, you just blend in more. (I think that's why celebrities like NYC.)
Your small apartment is compensated for by the fact that it's in Manhattan; you can't claim to be middle-class. Your "marble floors" come via having the world at your doorstep, and a home that many envy.

 

[Law2Doc]

Also, people do live with little money in New York City. Consider that 61% of New Yorker households make less than $50,000/year. More than one-third made less than $25,000. Unfortunately, I can't find what the top 20% earners in New York make but I suspect it isn't it millions.


Source: NYC.gov Vital Statistics

Of course most people live with no money in NYC. But they sure aren't upper middle class. They are middle, lower middle class or poor. And they usually don't live in nice one bedroom apartments by themselves in nice neighborhoods in Manhattan proper. $50k and a roommate works. But it doesn't make you upper middle class.

 

[Law2Doc]

That's a really good link - interesting! Basically, one must remember that New York City is huge, and the lower half of Manhattan is basically the "wealthy neighbourhood" - it's just a very large "neighbourhood" (which happens to be more populated than many cities). Of course, so many people mix up Manhattan (the borough) with New York (the city). Saying you need a high salary to live there is like saying you need a high salary to live in a 6000 sq. foot house with marble floors - of course you do. Just because being upper class is a prerequisite for certain things, doesn't mean that the people who have them are not upper class. "But X is a minimum to be able to live there comfortably" - well, that's because it's a really expensive area. You're still rich, you just blend in more. (I think that's why celebrities like NYC.)
Your small apartment is compensated for by the fact that it's in Manhattan; you can't claim to be middle-class.

While I agree with you conceptually, when you come home after a long day at work to a small dingy one bedroom apartment you can barely afford, it's little solace to think that in Texas you'd be considered rich. 🙄

 

[trustwomen]

Of course most people live with no money in NYC. But they sure aren't upper middle class. They are middle, lower middle class or poor. And they usually don't live in nice one bedroom apartments by themselves in nice neighborhoods in Manhattan proper. $50k and a roommate works. But it doesn't make you upper middle class.

Why not just say "upper class"? "Upper middle class" seems meaningless to me. 50K and a roommate works for Manhattan. Works beautifully for the outer boroughs.

I'll say it; if you make six figures or more, you don't get to call yourself middle class, "upper" or otherwise. (The Times caps it at 70K, but I'll add a little wiggle room for regional differences.) You don't get to claim that you are only middle class, when you are easily in the top 10% of earners. If you want to be "house-poor" in order to live in the wealthy neighbourhoods (i.e. lower half of Manhattan), that's your choice, but you can't then use your diminished lifestyle to claim that you aren't really that well-off. You are. It's insulting to those who bust their humps every day for their 30K to say otherwise.

 

[etf]

Originally Posted by etf
my goal is to basically have enough where i can pay for my kids entire education without any type of loans.



Noble but rather sad life goal. Do you even have kids yet?

lol, no kids yet, but it seems like a more reasonable goal to me than trying to pull in $5M a year, as law2doc has stated...besides, with where tuition levels are and where they'll be heading, if you can afford to send your kids to college, you can probably afford a lot more

 

[GWmdwannabe]

So, the only safe, and perhaps true statement is, "I want to be a doctor for my own reasons, which you cannot fully understand because you are not me."

Of course, someone will have a problem with that statement.

If only ADCOMs saw that as being a good answer . . .

 

[trustwomen]

While I agree with you conceptually, when you come home after a long day at work to a small dingy one bedroom apartment you can barely afford, it's little solace to think that in Texas you'd be considered rich. 🙄

I've lived in New York. I know what you are talking about. I grew up in less crowded pastures, so I did leave for a different city with a different lifestyle when I got sick of it (I was making far under 6 figs, keep in mind). My SO is a lifelong New Yorker who would be perfectly happy living in a one-bedroom his whole life (I don't get it). His sister comes back to her gorgeously decorated, comfortable one-bedroom (it's small, I'll give you that) and loves it. Loves living right next to NYC restaurants and the subway and Lincoln Center, she feels like she is in the center of the world.

It's not for everyone. New Yorkers are strange people with very interesting psychological traits. (I love them, even though I can't live there anymore). Quality of life is so subjective, how can we measure "class" based on perceived quality of life? Some people value location more than space. For some, it's the reverse. Class means money, more specifically worries about money (or lack thereof). Once you don't have to worry about whether your bills will get paid (bills for necessities, that is), you've made it into the middle class (25K according to the Times, which sounds about right for most places, but I'd say 35K for NYC). Then, you start looking at how much of your living is spent on necessities as opposed to luxuries (and a Manhattan apt. IS a luxury when you could be living in Brooklyn for half the price). I can't imagine anyone having necessities totalling 4K/month, after rent is paid. I just can't. At that point, I'm sorry, you're upper-class.

 

[vmc303]

I've lived in New York. I know what you are talking about. I grew up in less crowded pastures, so I did leave for a different city with a different lifestyle when I got sick of it (I was making far under 6 figs, keep in mind). My SO is a lifelong New Yorker who would be perfectly happy living in a one-bedroom his whole life (I don't get it). His sister comes back to her gorgeously decorated, comfortable one-bedroom (it's small, I'll give you that) and loves it. Loves living right next to NYC restaurants and the subway and Lincoln Center, she feels like she is in the center of the world.

It's not for everyone. New Yorkers are strange people with very interesting psychological traits. (I love them, even though I can't live there anymore). Quality of life is so subjective, how can we measure "class" based on perceived quality of life? Some people value location more than space. For some, it's the reverse. Class means money, more specifically worries about money (or lack thereof). Once you don't have to worry about whether your bills will get paid (bills for necessities, that is), you've made it into the middle class (25K according to the Times, which sounds about right for most places, but I'd say 35K for NYC). Then, you start looking at how much of your living is spent on necessities as opposed to luxuries (and a Manhattan apt. IS a luxury when you could be living in Brooklyn for half the price). I can't imagine anyone having necessities totalling 4K/month, after rent is paid. I just can't. At that point, I'm sorry, you're upper-class.

A surprisingly high number of people with merely "normal" jobs in Manhattan (i.e., not an i-banker or law firm associate), especially young people, are either wracking up considerable credit card debts just to make ends meet, or are still being supported by their families in one way or another. From what I've seen, it's fairly rare to find someone with a $50k/year job living comfortably in Manhattan who doesn't fit either description.

 

[trustwomen]

A surprisingly high number of people with merely "normal" jobs in Manhattan (i.e., not an i-banker or law firm associate), especially young people, are either wracking up considerable credit card debts just to make ends meet, or are still being supported by their families in one way or another. From what I've seen, it's fairly rare to find someone with a $50k/year job living comfortably in Manhattan who doesn't fit either description.

People who make 50K a year, if they are smart, are living in either north Manhattan (Washington Heights, Harlem, Inwood) or in the outer boroughs. And they can live just fine there (well, north Manhattan is starting to gentrify too I guess). If they are living in the lower half of Manhattan (i.e. under 110th st.), they should have a roommate if they want a good quality of life - just like if they were trying to live in any other wealthy neighbourhood (like Westmount in Montreal - I don't know the names of other cities' rich districts offhand). The problem is that people don't spend their money wisely and have overly high expectations/feelings of entitlement, like feeling entitled to live in Manhattan (instead of the outer boroughs or Jersey, like everyone else). I made 32K, later 40K, lived in Brooklyn, did not get any financial support from anyone, and did not go into debt. Started paying off debt once my SO moved in & shared expenses, actually.

Law2Doc did specify 50K with roommate.

 

[Law2Doc]

People who make 50K a year, if they are smart, are living in either north Manhattan (Washington Heights, Harlem, Inwood) or in the outer boroughs. And they can live just fine there (well, north Manhattan is starting to gentrify too I guess). If they are living in the lower half of Manhattan (i.e. under 110th st.), they should have a roommate if they want a good quality of life - just like if they were trying to live in any other wealthy neighbourhood (like Westmount in Montreal - I don't know the names of other cities' rich districts offhand). The problem is that people don't spend their money wisely and have overly high expectations/feelings of entitlement, like feeling entitled to live in Manhattan (instead of the outer boroughs or Jersey, like everyone else). I made 32K, later 40K, lived in Brooklyn, did not get any financial support from anyone, and did not go into debt. Started paying off debt once my SO moved in & shared expenses, actually.

Law2Doc did specify 50K with roommate.

I stand by that -- at 50k you really need a roommate to realistically live on the island proper. Picture the TV show Friends if the apartments were about half that size, and somewhat further from the park, and if the characters had somewhat better jobs than waitress or actor. (Come to think of it, in reality Joey would probably need to do both.) While I agree that 50k goes much further in Jersey, Brooklyn etc, if you work long or odd hours sometimes the last thing you want is the commute.

 

[trustwomen]

I stand by that -- at 50k you really need a roommate to realistically live on the island proper. Picture the TV show Friends if the apartments were about half that size, and somewhat further from the park, and if the characters had somewhat better jobs than waitress or actor. (Come to think of it, in reality Joey would probably need to do both.) While I agree that 50k goes much further in Jersey, Brooklyn etc, if you work long or odd hours sometimes the last thing you want is the commute.

I was agreeing with you about the roommate, Law2Doc!! 🙂 "Friends" is beyond ridiculous, and so are all the other movies and TV shows out there (half of which seem to be set in New York these days). Joey would probably have to sell his sweet @ss to the highest bidder. Though there are some neighbourhoods in north Manhattan (or should I say "barrios") where rent is still relatively affordable. For a reason.

The commute can and does suck, but that is common for all large cities I think. Most people who work in Manhattan (or go to dinner there, movies, etc.) do not live in Manhattan. Part of the New York lifestyle is that it takes an hour to go anywhere. It's just so huge and crowded. Among the reasons I left...

 

[Ross434]

A surprisingly high number of people with merely "normal" jobs in Manhattan (i.e., not an i-banker or law firm associate), especially young people, are either wracking up considerable credit card debts just to make ends meet, or are still being supported by their families in one way or another. From what I've seen, it's fairly rare to find someone with a $50k/year job living comfortably in Manhattan who doesn't fit either description.

Um, the reason they're wracking up the credit card debt is because they probably have their priorities out of line and are thinking that a lavish lifestyle is a necessity instead of something to save up for.

 

[Rafa]

If you want to live in Manhattan without spending much cash, just go to school there. Cornell, Columbia, and NYU come to mind. 🙂

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

Picture the TV show Friends if the apartments were about half that size, and somewhat further from the park, and if the characters had somewhat better jobs than waitress or actor. (Come to think of it, in reality Joey would probably need to do both.) While I agree that 50k goes much further in Jersey, Brooklyn etc, if you work long or odd hours sometimes the last thing you want is the commute.

Joey did both for a couple episodes. The thread that runs through the seasons is that Chandler apparently makes enough money to help out Joey inbetween work.

But I agree with you on the apartment thing. Those apartments are huge no matter where you live.