If you make over 75,000 a year, are you rich?

[Wandered Off]

Stop whining North Americans: You can easily move to India and live a better life.

Just like your job did...

 

[Reverend Rick]

Getting out of a bad situation takes hard work and planning for the future. Anyone want to argue with that? If you don't pay yourself first and save, you are doomed.

 

[Mister_T]

Getting out of a bad situation takes hard work and planning for the future. Anyone want to argue with that? If you don't pay yourself first and save, you are doomed.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, Rick. What people are arguing is that your proposed suggestion is as flawless and fail-proof as you're making it out to be.

 

[nutshell]

Getting out of a bad situation takes hard work and planning for the future.

Yes. But even the hardest workers and best planners may not be able to get out of a bad situation.

Anyone want to argue with that?

I'm not arguing with you're statement, but I'm arguing that your statement is not an absolute.

If you don't pay yourself first and save, you are doomed.

Problem: Even the best planners and hardest workers may not have anything left over to save.

 

[whereismynotecard]

If you spent it all, you still wouldn't be rich...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since you're in the mood of playing semantics, living in North America could be considered a "luxory." Following your logic, no one in North America can complain about living conditions because they can legally move to a cheaper place like India, where they can live off there investments and live the good life by supporting themselves with a job that is crappy by North American standards (like customer service). Stop whining North Americans: You can easily move to India and live a better life.

No... here's an example of what I'm getting at: living within the limits of the City of Toronto is crazy expensive. I choose not to; I live out in the suburbs, and spend less on housing than people in the city because of it.

However, I could end up even further ahead if I got a job in Thunder Bay, Ontario. My income might be a bit less, but I could buy a home there for a fraction of what it costs here; at the end of the day, I'd have more disposable income and lower cost-of-living. I don't, because I like Toronto and I like being near my family and friends... but I recognize that I don't need to live here.

If a person's living in L.A. or New York, but they'd have the ability to move to Bismarck, ND or Tulsa, OK, get a job there and live at much lower cost, then they are spending money on a luxury item that, strictly speaking, they don't need to: the place where they live.

I know this doesn't apply to everyone. I know there are a number of professions that only exist in certain places: a specialized oilfield worker is going to have very limited options when housing prices in Fort McMurray, Alberta get as high as they have been. Other people and professions are more flexible, though, and for them, choosing to live in an expensive area is a choice, not a requirement.

I happen to live in a country that allows people to move freely. I could come up with enough money for a moving van and either a mortgage deposit or first and last month's rent at a new place to live. My profession is portable enough that I'm free to work pretty much where I please (within Ontario, anyway - I'd have to go through some minor licensing hassles if I wanted to work in another province). I live in one of the more expensive areas of the country because I choose to, not because I need to.

 

[nutshell]

I encourage people to find and watch "30 Days: Minimum Wage"

30 Days: Minimum Wage - TV.com

Here's another description:

Minimum Wage: Working Poor for 30 Days

 

[Wandered Off]

Totally off-topic but this indexing... When I view the thread, the title carries an indexed word and ends up looking this way:

If you make over 75,000 a year, are you rich? (hell)

From what I can tell, the only mentions of hell so far are here...

Seeing as 2.7 billion people live on less than $730 (adjusted for PPP) a year, earning $75,000 a year makes you a hell of a lot richer than a hell of a lot of people.

Oh and part of nutshell's name...

That's hellishly funny to me for some reason. Never mind and carry on.

 

[Mister_T]

No... here's an example of what I'm getting at: living within the limits of the City of Toronto is crazy expensive. I choose not to; I live out in the suburbs, and spend less on housing than people in the city because of it.
However, I could end up even further ahead if I got a job in Thunder Bay, Ontario. My income might be a bit less, but I could buy a home there for a fraction of what it costs here; at the end of the day, I'd have more disposable income and lower cost-of-living. I don't, because I like Toronto and I like being near my family and friends... but I recognize that I don't need to live here

Everyone in L.A. is not trying to live in Beverly Hills.:sarcastic This is not an isolated section of L.A. we're talking about, this is all of it: Suburbs, ghettos, everything. Nor is this a standard that has been inplemented for eons, rather it is an occurance that has developed in the past 6-8 years due to greedy real estate. Sorry, but this is no "luxory:" 16 million people living the Los Angeles and The Greater L.A. Area should not need a rock star income just to own a frickin' house.

Once again, with your philosphy of "moving freely," The entire North American continent can "move freely" instead of dwelling in their ungratefulness and spewing their shallow, empty unjustifiable complaints which would be so easily solved if they packed up and moved to cheaper living areas. "You don't like it? Move to India."

If a person's living in L.A. or New York, but they'd have the ability to move to Bismarck, ND or Tulsa, OK, get a job there and live at much lower cost, then they are spending money on a luxury item that, strictly speaking, they don't need to: the place where they live.

They don't need to? No I guess not. I mean every one of Los Angeles' 16 million citizens within the 4850 square miles of boundry can just pack up and move to some podunk city in the mid-west if they're struggling instead of living in the "luxory" that is the Los Angeles suburbs. Gimme a break.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everyone in L.A. is not trying to live in Beverly Hills.:sarcastic This is not an isolated section of L.A. we're talking about, this is all of it: Suburbs, ghettos, everything. Nor is this a standard that has been inplemented for eons, rather it is an occurance that has developed in the past 6-8 years due to greedy real estate. Sorry, but this is no "luxory:" 16 million people living the Los Angeles and The Greater L.A. Area should not need a rock star income just to own a frickin' house.

I wasn't talking about Beverly Hills. When I mentioned housing prices in Toronto, I wasn't trying to imply Rosedale or Lawrence Park. A small fixer-upper bungalow in a crappy part of town is out of reach for the vast majority of people living around here.

And I do think the situation is bad, but it's not fundamentally different than other problems. If "sell your car" is valid advice in a place with poor or no transit, why isn't "move somewhere cheaper" just as valid?

Once again, with your philosphy of "moving freely," The entire North American continent can "move freely" instead of dwelling in their ungratefulness and spewing their shallow, empty unjustifiable complaints which would be so easily solved if they packed up and moved to cheaper living areas. "You don't like it? Move to India."

India again. For the majority of people, if they were to move to India, even though their cost of living would go down dramatically, so would their income. Would the net effect be positive? Judging by the very few American emigrants going to India, I'd say probably not. They'd be no further ahead than they would be back home.

And I didn't say that their complaints were shallow, empty or unjustifiable. It's just a matter of pragmatic realism to recognize that the option is there for many people to reduce their housing costs by moving, even if the reason for the high housing costs in the first place is unfair.

They don't need to? No I guess not. I mean every one of Los Angeles' 16 million citizens within the 4850 square miles of boundry can just pack up and move to some podunk city in the mid-west if they're struggling instead of living in the "luxory" that is the Los Angeles suburbs. Gimme a break.

I never said every single person in L.A. could move away. In fact, I tried to emphasize that point in my last post:

I know this doesn't apply to everyone. I know there are a number of professions that only exist in certain places: a specialized oilfield worker is going to have very limited options when housing prices in Fort McMurray, Alberta get as high as they have been. Other people and professions are more flexible, though, and for them, choosing to live in an expensive area is a choice, not a requirement.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm stunned at the statement that you would not consider 75k a year rich.

Not even close.

$100k a month is rich.

$75k/yr is middle class for sure.

 

[Mister_T]

I wasn't talking about Beverly Hills. When I mentioned housing prices in Toronto, I wasn't trying to imply Rosedale or Lawrence Park. A small fixer-upper bungalow in a crappy part of town is out of reach for the vast majority of people living around here.

You were talking about luxory and implying that living in L.A. is a luxory: Living in Beverly Hills is a luxory, living in Compton is not a luxory. Thus, living in Los Angeles is not the luxory you're trying to make it out to be.

And I do think the situation is bad, but it's not fundamentally different than other problems. If "sell your car" is valid advice in a place with poor or no transit, why isn't "move somewhere cheaper" just as valid?

For the same reason moving to India or Mexico isn't valid if you're struggling to live here.

India again. For the majority of people, if they were to move to India, even though their cost of living would go down dramatically, so would their income.

Yes India. The same problem you presented here with moving to India, is the same problem the majority of people moving out of Los Angeles would face moving out of state.

And I didn't say that their complaints were shallow, empty or unjustifiable. It's just a matter of pragmatic realism to recognize that the option is there for many people to reduce their housing costs by moving, even if the reason for the high housing costs in the first place is unfair.

The underlying message you're giving is that because they have an alternative option, that they shouldn't whine about their living situation and should instead, move. Again, see my theory regarding into giving into "pragmatic realisim" by moving to India as oppose to whining about where you live. It is, after all, an option.

I never said every single person in L.A. could move away. In fact, I tried to emphasize that point in my last post:

The point you seem to be missing is that this is not an isolated few. This is a problem for everyone in Los Angeles faces: Business owners, blue collar workers, white collar workers, city employees, you name it. Which is why we are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) forclosure capitals in the U.S. right now.

 

[Magic Man]

Not even close.

$100k a month is rich.

$75k/yr is middle class for sure.

Right on, and very concise. :yes:

 

[Draka]

If I worked for 7.25 an hour, I would not own a car. I would walk to work. One crappy job is as good as another and I would live where I worked. If I had a job that only worked me 36 hours, I would have two jobs. Two part time jobs equal a full time one. If I had trouble with my rent, I would have a room mate.

I'm sorry, your living on one paycheck. Get a second job and put all that money in the bank. If you save and invest, 5 years from now, I'm willing to bet you could afford to buy a home or at least afford to move somewhere else or go to college and get a better job. It's not about right now, it's about your whole life ahead of you.

I'll tell you how I do math, 7.25 x 60 is 435 a week times 4 is 1,740.00 times two people working towards the same goal is 3,480 a month or 45,240 dollars a year.

Ok, you go ahead and walk the 5 to 6 miles to and from work at odd and varying times of day and night. A lot of minimum wage jobs have odd hours where you work day shift for a day or two and the night shift the next day and then afternoon and so on and so forth. It's called working fast food and for some people, with their options, it is the only resort for them. Being that the hours vary so much it can be really hard to find a second job that would be able to work around those particular changing hours and days. So, while having a second job can be an option, it just depends on the main job you have and how flexible it is with hours.

Also, if you have trouble swinging the rent on an economy or one bedroom apartment, then how much better is it going to be if you have to get a roommate? You would have to get a larger place just to fit both of you and then you are paying more rent. Not to mention twice the groceries and the bills go up. So while a roommate may help, it still doesn't make you well set and you still have troubles.

And again, you obviously have not bothered to pay attention to anything I have said. I am not in that situation now, but I have been before. I have lost my daughters, my house, my job, my insurance, everything...and had to start all over from scratch. I did not lose all of that due to my being bad with money or "living beyond my means", but due to a horrible dramatic experience in my life. My point is is that things happen that are beyond our control and we may well find ourselves at rock bottom and starting over with nothing. I have done that. I have built myself back up. I have gone to college. The thing is...is that you have made comments along the lines that anyone who doesn't have money or is "poor" is that way because of their own inability to manage money. That is simply not true. You seem to have this attitude about people who struggle to make ends meet. As if they are simply not as good as you. You look down your nose at people who have trouble paying their bills so that they can buy food. That is exactly how you come off to me. And THAT is what I find so incredibly offensive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You were talking about luxory and implying that living in L.A. is a luxory: Living in Beverly Hills is a luxory, living in Compton is not a luxory. Thus, living in Los Angeles is not the luxory you're trying to make it out to be.

I didn't claim that people in Compton spend their days drinking margaritas and sunning themselves by the pool. It stands to reason that the people who choose Compton over other less expensive options get something that they value for their extra expense. What that extra value is I really don't know, but people pay good money for it, apparently.

For the same reason moving to India or Mexico isn't valid if you're struggling to live here.

Wages in the midwestern US are not on par with India or Mexico.

Yes India. The same problem you presented here with moving to India, is the same problem the majority of people moving out of Los Angeles would face moving out of state.

How so?

In the non-urban parts of Canada and the US, a person can buy a house on one low-to-mid income. In Toronto, my wife (a department manager for a large firm) and I (an engineer) can't afford a house with both of our incomes together - from what you describe, L.A. is similar. It would take take a very large decrease in income as you get further from L.A. to offset the benefit of lower cost of living.

The underlying message you're giving is that because they have an alternative option, that they shouldn't whine about their living situation and should instead, move. Again, see my theory regarding into giving into "pragmatic realisim" by moving to India as oppose to whining about where you live. It is, after all, an option.

It's a poor option for the reasons I've already given.

I never said that people can't complain about their lot in life. My point is that if a person can't pay for both food and rent in L.A., but could do okay some place else, then maybe they should consider going there. That's all.

The point you seem to be missing is that this is not an isolated few. This is a problem for everyone in Los Angeles faces: Business owners, blue collar workers, white collar workers, city employees, you name it. Which is why we are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) forclosure capitals in the U.S. right now.

Again, I never claimed to be describing everyone. I recognize that many people don't have the financial means to pick up and leave. However, just about every single job in the Greater Los Angeles area from longshoreman to bank manager to ballerina can be found some place else.

 

[DallasApple]

Its not rich where I live..I live in a city where its nothing to be sitting at a red light next to poeple driving cars that cost that much or more..(Vipers,Hummers)

And for us..its especially not rich becasue after expenses..We arent putting that whole amount in our pockets.

Having said that..I am grateful and feel blessed we have a home..nice food to eat..2 cars that are decent and dependable..can afford to do fun things for ourselves and our children..and help others when we can..

Many people dont have things like that.And I realize that..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, Rick. What people are arguing is that your proposed suggestion is as flawless and fail-proof as you're making it out to be.

Nothing is fool proof. Donald Trump has gone bankrupt for Pete's sake.

 

[Zephyr]

Where I live, 75k is plenty rich. My family of four has been able to survive on just 20k around here. Sure it wasn't easy or comfortable, but it can be done, and thanks to some smart saving, now we've reached 30k and it's astoundingly better.

Then again, if I were making this sort of money in California, I'd be boned.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The thing is...is that you have made comments along the lines that anyone who doesn't have money or is "poor" is that way because of their own inability to manage money. That is simply not true. You seem to have this attitude about people who struggle to make ends meet. As if they are simply not as good as you. You look down your nose at people who have trouble paying their bills so that they can buy food. That is exactly how you come off to me. And THAT is what I find so incredibly offensive.

I'm not better than anyone Draka. There was times in my life that I though Peanut butter was a luxuary. I have lived on fried egg sandwiches and miracle whip and was glad to have that. There was a time in my life that I was laid off for over a year. I worked for minimum wage and detailed cars before as a grown man. I was a bartender in a rough azz bar and had to throw drunks outside at closing time. I never got a tip and sometimes I took a beating for my troubles for very little pay.

Then there is my life long battle with cancer. I have had seven operations, chemotherapy and radiation. I am uninsurable so medical bills where always a part of my finances. Just about the time I get the bills paid off, another operation was necessary. I know all about missing work and having little money.

None of this stopped me from being sucessful and I still work 80 hours a week and do not waste money. I've looked death in the face every since I went to Vietnam in 1969.

I was not one of the rich kids that got around going. I was drafted. I was bossed around by rich college kids who where officers who had no clue. I learned that getting an education and paying attention how rich folks made their money was going to help me later on in life. The system screwed me, but I learned how the system worked and made money instead of trying to change the system.

Many times in my life, I traveled alone away from my family doing high risk contracting for the military. It paid well and that is how I got the money to start my business.

Instead of crying about being drafted, I went to college on the GI bill when I came home. I found out how I could go to the front of the line as a veteran bidding on overseas contracts.

These opportunities exist for minorities as well. The government awards minorities contracts every year. It is very lucrative.

If I was a black woman, I could be rich beyond your wildest dreams. I have helped two women qualify for bidding on these contracts. They are former employees of mine who knew nothing about the trade. They started off with me for 8 bucks an hour and now they make 6 figure incomes.

If life gives you lemons, sell lemonade. If people say they can't afford to save, I say you can't afford not to. There is always a way out of a bad situation. If you can't afford to move, start saving for a bus ticket.

 

[Mister_T]

I didn't claim that people in Compton spend their days drinking margaritas and sunning themselves by the pool. It stands to reason that the people who choose Compton over other less expensive options get something that they value for their extra expense. What that extra value is I really don't know, but people pay good money for it, apparently.

No, but you did claim that people that are stuggling to afford housing in L.A. are choosing "luxory" over "pragmatic realism." Choosing Compton over the less expensive option? Extra Value? Um, Compton is about as cheap as it gets. I'm sure citizens of Compton are enjoying the extra value of one of the highest crime rates in the city. Yes, why would anybody want to leave. :areyoucra

Wages in the midwestern US are not on par with India or Mexico.

Just as wages in SoCal are not on par with wages in the mid-west. Substituting mid-west wages for SoCal wages would be a considerable pay-cut....just like moving to India would.

How so?

In the non-urban parts of Canada and the US, a person can buy a house on one low-to-mid income. In Toronto, my wife (a department manager for a large firm) and I (an engineer) can't afford a house with both of our incomes together - from what you describe, L.A. is similar. It would take take a very large decrease in income as you get further from L.A. to offset the benefit of lower cost of living.

I'm not sure if you're trying to dodge what I've been saying, but L.A. is not similiar: It doesn't matter if you live in downtown Los Angeles, it's suburbs, or in Santa Monica by the beach. Generally speaking, nobody in L.A. can afford to own a house regardless of where you live. It's all the same.

Maybe you haven't heard, but the housing market in the U.S. is tanking. The reason being is that a good portion of the population can't afford to own a house: This includes low income, mid-income and even high income. Moving to a different state, for many, would be redundant due to the same housing crisis being nationwide.

It's a poor option for the reasons I've already given.

I know it's a poor option. What you fail to realize is that what the idea of "pragmatic realism," is just as poor.

I never said that people can't complain about their lot in life. My point is that if a person can't pay for both food and rent in L.A., but could do okay some place else, then maybe they should consider going there. That's all.

No, you said they should be practical and move. And once again you seem to be dodging this: It's not just "a person" who stuggles with living in Los Angeles, it's everybody. With a tanking housing market, tanking job market and failing economy there is "no where to hide" so to speak.

Again, I never claimed to be describing everyone. I recognize that many people don't have the financial means to pick up and leave. However, just about every single job in the Greater Los Angeles area from longshoreman to bank manager to ballerina can be found some place else.

I know you're not describing everyone...that's the problem: Everyone is having this problem. If everyone who was struggling followed what you call "pragmatic realism" because they were have a hard time trying to live here in Los Angeles, you wouldn't have a city left.