Distribution of Wealth in SD County

[UCGal]

[quote=Scarlett][quote=AN]But it’s possible if one strive to achieve it. Having kids is only expensive if you want it to be. They don’t need brand new clothes, hand me down would do just fine.[/quote]
Hah! For 15 years one would dress his kids in hand-me downs, when they have 150K HH, you think? maybe only when they are little…Never mind clothes, diapers, toys, books, activities, after-hours care. Daycare, now that costs on average $1000 per month, for the first 5 years. And college funds – a few hundred month per kid.
[/quote]
I think I already got beat up by fashion mavens like flu for not buying Childrens Place, Gymbo, etc clothes for my kids. LOL.

And I would put college fund savings in the overall savings catagory. I fund my kids 529’s and in my book it is still savings, even if it is designated.

I would agree that it’s hard to save a lot when the kids are in preschool… daycare expenses in San Diego are outragious. It was like getting a raise when my youngest went to kindergarten.

[jimmyle]

A lot of people buy with their credit cards. My 25 yr old cousin has LV and channel bags even though she makes only $13/hr. It doesn’t even make sense to buy these luxury items that were designed for folks with incomes over $100K. When I ask her about it, she told me she could die tomorrow so she is enjoying life now.

[quote=nla][quote=UCGal]
Household income breakdown:
<15k = 11%
15k-<30k = 16%
30k-<45k = 16%
45k-<60k = 14%
60k-<75k = 12%
75k-<100k = 12%
100k-<125k = 7%
125k-<150k = 4%
150k-<200k = 3%
200k and up = 4%.
[/quote]

Interesting stat. We're at the mid 150k-<200k range. So that makes us at the top 7%? That's hard to imagine because if we go to the mall, we feel that everybody is making way more than us. I often ask my wife where are this people getting their money to buy expensive bags and clothes.[/quote]

[jimmyle]

A lot of people buy with their credit cards. My 25 yr old cousin has LV and channel bags even though she makes only $13/hr. It doesn’t even make sense to buy these luxury items that were designed for folks with incomes over $100K. When I ask her about it, she told me she could die tomorrow so she is enjoying life now.

[quote=nla][quote=UCGal]
Household income breakdown:
<15k = 11%
15k-<30k = 16%
30k-<45k = 16%
45k-<60k = 14%
60k-<75k = 12%
75k-<100k = 12%
100k-<125k = 7%
125k-<150k = 4%
150k-<200k = 3%
200k and up = 4%.
[/quote]

Interesting stat. We're at the mid 150k-<200k range. So that makes us at the top 7%? That's hard to imagine because if we go to the mall, we feel that everybody is making way more than us. I often ask my wife where are this people getting their money to buy expensive bags and clothes.[/quote]

[jimmyle]

A lot of people buy with their credit cards. My 25 yr old cousin has LV and channel bags even though she makes only $13/hr. It doesn’t even make sense to buy these luxury items that were designed for folks with incomes over $100K. When I ask her about it, she told me she could die tomorrow so she is enjoying life now.

[quote=nla][quote=UCGal]
Household income breakdown:
<15k = 11%
15k-<30k = 16%
30k-<45k = 16%
45k-<60k = 14%
60k-<75k = 12%
75k-<100k = 12%
100k-<125k = 7%
125k-<150k = 4%
150k-<200k = 3%
200k and up = 4%.
[/quote]

Interesting stat. We're at the mid 150k-<200k range. So that makes us at the top 7%? That's hard to imagine because if we go to the mall, we feel that everybody is making way more than us. I often ask my wife where are this people getting their money to buy expensive bags and clothes.[/quote]

[jimmyle]

A lot of people buy with their credit cards. My 25 yr old cousin has LV and channel bags even though she makes only $13/hr. It doesn’t even make sense to buy these luxury items that were designed for folks with incomes over $100K. When I ask her about it, she told me she could die tomorrow so she is enjoying life now.

[quote=nla][quote=UCGal]
Household income breakdown:
<15k = 11%
15k-<30k = 16%
30k-<45k = 16%
45k-<60k = 14%
60k-<75k = 12%
75k-<100k = 12%
100k-<125k = 7%
125k-<150k = 4%
150k-<200k = 3%
200k and up = 4%.
[/quote]

Interesting stat. We're at the mid 150k-<200k range. So that makes us at the top 7%? That's hard to imagine because if we go to the mall, we feel that everybody is making way more than us. I often ask my wife where are this people getting their money to buy expensive bags and clothes.[/quote]

[jimmyle]

A lot of people buy with their credit cards. My 25 yr old cousin has LV and channel bags even though she makes only $13/hr. It doesn’t even make sense to buy these luxury items that were designed for folks with incomes over $100K. When I ask her about it, she told me she could die tomorrow so she is enjoying life now.

[quote=nla][quote=UCGal]
Household income breakdown:
<15k = 11%
15k-<30k = 16%
30k-<45k = 16%
45k-<60k = 14%
60k-<75k = 12%
75k-<100k = 12%
100k-<125k = 7%
125k-<150k = 4%
150k-<200k = 3%
200k and up = 4%.
[/quote]

Interesting stat. We're at the mid 150k-<200k range. So that makes us at the top 7%? That's hard to imagine because if we go to the mall, we feel that everybody is making way more than us. I often ask my wife where are this people getting their money to buy expensive bags and clothes.[/quote]

[all]

[quote=Scarlett]
Anyway, it is instructive to hear these discussions. My spouse and I, with PhDs and postdocs under our belt, we haven’t gotten to the 150K HH until after we were 40 with kids…So no chance of getting to 1 M before we retire. To think that with RN degrees we would have had a much better life…Makes one wonder about the value of higher education… But I digress.[/quote]

The value of higher education is not in the income alone. Dealing with sick and dying, poking, probing and cleaning is no fun. There are all kinds of high-risk/high-discomfort jobs that pay better than tenure, but they usually mean shorter, not better life.

[all]

[quote=Scarlett]
Anyway, it is instructive to hear these discussions. My spouse and I, with PhDs and postdocs under our belt, we haven’t gotten to the 150K HH until after we were 40 with kids…So no chance of getting to 1 M before we retire. To think that with RN degrees we would have had a much better life…Makes one wonder about the value of higher education… But I digress.[/quote]

The value of higher education is not in the income alone. Dealing with sick and dying, poking, probing and cleaning is no fun. There are all kinds of high-risk/high-discomfort jobs that pay better than tenure, but they usually mean shorter, not better life.

[all]

[quote=Scarlett]
Anyway, it is instructive to hear these discussions. My spouse and I, with PhDs and postdocs under our belt, we haven’t gotten to the 150K HH until after we were 40 with kids…So no chance of getting to 1 M before we retire. To think that with RN degrees we would have had a much better life…Makes one wonder about the value of higher education… But I digress.[/quote]

The value of higher education is not in the income alone. Dealing with sick and dying, poking, probing and cleaning is no fun. There are all kinds of high-risk/high-discomfort jobs that pay better than tenure, but they usually mean shorter, not better life.

[all]

[quote=Scarlett]
Anyway, it is instructive to hear these discussions. My spouse and I, with PhDs and postdocs under our belt, we haven’t gotten to the 150K HH until after we were 40 with kids…So no chance of getting to 1 M before we retire. To think that with RN degrees we would have had a much better life…Makes one wonder about the value of higher education… But I digress.[/quote]

The value of higher education is not in the income alone. Dealing with sick and dying, poking, probing and cleaning is no fun. There are all kinds of high-risk/high-discomfort jobs that pay better than tenure, but they usually mean shorter, not better life.

[all]

[quote=Scarlett]
Anyway, it is instructive to hear these discussions. My spouse and I, with PhDs and postdocs under our belt, we haven’t gotten to the 150K HH until after we were 40 with kids…So no chance of getting to 1 M before we retire. To think that with RN degrees we would have had a much better life…Makes one wonder about the value of higher education… But I digress.[/quote]

The value of higher education is not in the income alone. Dealing with sick and dying, poking, probing and cleaning is no fun. There are all kinds of high-risk/high-discomfort jobs that pay better than tenure, but they usually mean shorter, not better life.

[sdcellar]

AN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.

We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.

Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.

And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.

[sdcellar]

AN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.

We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.

Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.

And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.

[sdcellar]

AN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.

We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.

Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.

And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.

[sdcellar]

AN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.

We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.

Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.

And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.

[Author]

Posts