1 members (Wes),
199
guests, and
35
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
120K a year puts you in about the top 10-15% of American households, IIRC. Many people who travel primarily in upper-middle class circles fail to realize this.
It's not the 1%, but it's wealthier than most.
You can buy a modest, decent 3/2 house (older housing stock) in a safe neighborhood for 100K in my city. (You couldn't have in 2008--but you can now.) $120k is top 15% http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
As far as materialism...I know this isn't what was meant but would like to point out that: 1 - science is fundamentally materialist When scientists say the universe is made of "stuff", they don't mean "stuff" you buy at the mall.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
I agree that you need substantially more money for a similar standard of living somewhere like the SF Bay, but the US is very big. Most places are not SF. And let's not forget that there are still poor people in the Bay Area--a lot of them.
We lived in Berkeley for a bit, and it's a great place! Boy, we were broke, though, and not very able to enjoy many of the nice things about it. So we moved somewhere else. (To be fair, we were young, childless, and highly mobile, so this was easy.)
I think a lot of people who are well educated, ambitious, and smart get a little stuck in the mindset of "But I HAVE to live in this pricey, high-status, UMC area (of the country, or of my region) because..." I mean, I get it to some degree, but it's also a little bit fear-based, and sort of a kind of provincialism.
Also, it's only fair to acknowledge that you (general "you"!) are probably living there in part because you really want the advantages that you perceive as coming along with that area. So do a lot of people--so you're paying for them. There are other choices, but you don't want to make them. Which is okay. But they do exist.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Yes, you're right. In our case, we're here for the jobs and the weather. DH and I are from the snow, and we'd had enough of it. We made a choice and we don't complain about the costs here on a personal level.
Yes, we do have a lot of poor people around here, and a lot of them are working at jobs that wouldn't put them there if they were living in Kokomo, IN or Laconia, NH. That's really awful. But the thing is that a lot of these people are FROM here, and moving to New Hampshire would mean severing ties with family and friends.
I agree that spending choices can be unwise, though. I DEFINITEY agree with that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
Wow! I really appreciate all the thought-provoking posts and the varied opinions. For once, it isn't even feasible for me to respond to each one.
Clearly, personal values and priorities play a pivotal role for this issue. I would also venture to say that the characteristic as well as the age of the child also make a major difference. I would not worry about puting my two DS among peers who are far more advantaged but it is a real concern for my DD (at least at a young age as oppose to college age) due to her personality and her attitude towards "stuff".
I do understand that many private school parents struggle to pay tuition and that there are some public schools with extremely high income demographics. However, we are not in one of those public schools and the private school is a high-end school with tuition close to $30,000 per child per year.
I have lived all over the country and have found the cost of living differences astounding. $120,000 in Des Moines, Iowa or Baton Rouge, Lousiana is far different from $120,000 in New York City or Washington, D.C. There is also the factor of one-income versus two-income as well as the number and ages of children. In my area even a decade ago, childcare costs for two babies and before/aftercare for one elementary student total around $700 per week. I am not talking nanny here but good quality center-based care. $100,000 around here would buy an old house in the equivalent of a "ghetto."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309 |
We moved out of the silicon valley partly because our income would not allow us a comfortable life there, but it would when we moved to a region where cost of living is much lower, but we still get what we care most (educational opportunities, academic center, great cultural events, much less materialistic, etc). Some of my friends though would never want to move away from the bay area. Personal choice is definitely an important part. Even in a very expensive area, one can choose to not keep up with the neighbors on certain things.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
My understanding is that materialism means defining success / superiority / identity in terms of material possessions. But it can cut two ways... Some people cultivate a sense of superiority based on the things they have and some people feel superior for the things they do NOT have. Both types of materialistic thinking can be found at all income levels. I recall my grandmother, way back when, being very proud of her piano. This possession signified "making it" in her mind. But she would never, ever be caught owning a dishwasher... Only a lazy, disorganized, self-indulgent sort of person would purchase that sort of a thing. So, that is an example of a very materialistic person, who also happened to be financially constrained. Speaking of dishwashers, I don't know anyone, including myself, that feels grateful for their dishwasher. Maybe the problem is that we have a tendency to appreciate what we have RELATIVE to the people directly around us. And we take for granted all the luxuries that seem standard in our area. Anyway, I'm not sure it "works" to tell our kids to be grateful for their presents because other kids don't have as much. Doesn't this just reinforce the idea that being "fortunate" is signified by having more material possessions than some other person? OH, I don't know about that. Anyone that has been without one for any length of time appreciates a dishwasher. Particularly anyone who has lived with children and without one. It doesn't take long, either-- a few days is all. I also VERY much appreciate my refrigerator.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
As far as materialism...I know this isn't what was meant but would like to point out that: 1 - science is fundamentally materialist When scientists say the universe is made of "stuff", they don't mean "stuff" you buy at the mall. Science is concerned with the material world, not the spiritual. So if you buy spiritual stuff at the mall, you're not being materialistic?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Only if it's at the metaphysical mall.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
Only if it's at the metaphysical mall. Oh, snap to Milhouse when he buys Bart's soul!
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|