I'm really tearing up the road in my 2004 Scion (that I got used in 2010) and my 2014 Honda.
I also have exorbitant childcare costs that are leading my wife and I to question the value of my wife or I continuing to work and live in this place.
I'm not rich. I don't live in Ladera Ranch. I don't own a Tesla and a Range Rover. But fuck me for thinking it'd be fun to take my kids to Disneyland or a Zoo.
His point stands. The average family income in America less then $64k. I'm going to assume you make more then that, probably alot. Yes, we know you have a high cost of living.
Plenty of people would love to live in CA, and make enough to stay there. I'm also going to bet you are fully funding your retirement, it's a lower percentage of your income to max out your 401k.
I understand you don't feel rich, but be grateful for what you have and enjoy life. If your not having sleep for dinner or worrying about the electricity being turned off; you have it good.
What point are they making, exactly? If you look at what they actually said, they're mischaracterizing what I've said to rant about (my apparent / perceived lack of) class consciousness.
If you can follow a plot line, you'd intuit that I came to this state poor. I'm very well aware of what the lesser fortunate and folks in poverty are dealing with; I've been there myself. Thankfully without children, but I can certainly imagine what it's like to be homeless with children, having been homeless for a brief period myself and now having children of my own.
And that was the entire point of my comment. If I'm sitting here today, given my current economic status, without the ability to direct my discretionary income in a way that would benefit the local economy (Disney and the SD Zoo are just two relatable examples, they're being cherry-picked to support that persons rant) then what hope do those in the lower-middle class or below have?
I've watched my economic output get sucked into a vortex by landlords and banks and government and now I can add on the insane costs of childcare. This was true when I was poor and it's still true today when I am not.
Where in anything that the other commentor has said are they making a point about what I am saying?
This is such a dismissive comment and misses the main point.
The main point is that these are presumably upper-middle class families. You would expect that with their higher-than-average incomes they would have greater amounts of discretionary income that they would be spending and that their expenses would be spread out across more of the economy, supporting many other businesses and services. Instead the high salaries are being captured by housing costs. Sure they're not hurting, but it is surprising that dual-income, high-earning families are basically breaking even.
The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and they outright own multiple vehicles in perhaps the highest cost of living area in the United States. Not to mention, the higher proportion of income going toward housing is likely the consequence of protectionist measures to keep the riff raff out and maintain as much status for their children as their income possibly allows. Move to a worse school district and you’re likely to see your housing cost go down by a factor of 50%. Not to mention, the grandparent freely admits to putting money away for the kids, I assume this means college savings of some sort.
I’m making a great deal of assumptions but not being able to go to Disney land at the drop of a hat seems awfully trite.
I think you really are missing the point, though. You may have found the comment entitled, but I don’t think there was anything fundamentally offensive about it, and your reaction reflects more about your discomfort with the existence of the upper middle class than it does about the actual topic under consideration. No one is asking you to feel sorry for them — they’re just illustrating a point about where money gets spent in the US economy.
Dual income families are — and for decades have been — spending their extra second income on housing rather than the rest of the economy. The comment you’re referring to is therefore very relevant because it shows that trend in action. Housing — and other opportunities in life it enables, like access to schools, (real life) social networks, safety, etc. — supersedes everything else in importance for many families, so second incomes are just spent on what is ultimately a bidding war over housing.
And I would like to emphasize your point and add that the dismissive observation really isn't helpful because the main point is especially true for those who really do struggle.
If the highest-earners of the middle-class have their discretionary income locked up in housing costs, how much more difficult is it for those who don't have the same level of income. Housing then eats into non-discretionary expenses.
I don’t care about that. My point is that when I hear about someone who can only afford living, I think they mean they have to choose whether they can afford heating this month, or whether they can afford proper meals, or new school clothes for their kids. Not whether they can afford to go to fucking Disneyland multiple times a year. This commenter is feeling very sorry for themselves over a standard of living that, to a non-American, DOES sound affluent and what a high earner might have.
The topic was where does the increased dual-income money go. The poster provided very strong (anecdotal) evidence that it's captured by housing.
And as a non-American, from an ex-Communist state, where salaries are still a fraction of those in the US, that standard of living sounds anything but affluent. Here, families with two upper-middle-class incomes and 1-3 children are more likely to own multiple houses, than barely be keeping up with their mortgage. It's just another story for the growing pile of reasons to never move to the US. Being in the top 5-10% of earners and in debt just from housing is not normal.
