You don't have to work in those industries. Surely some of the skills that make you valuable to a company in NYC will also make you valuable to a company in Omaha, even if they're different industries. Working in NYC is not a need. It's a want. And something rich people want to do, and that only rich people are able to do well.

The whole "there are high-paying jobs in NYC" argument is completely contrary to the arguments of the "$250k is not rich" crowd. If $250k in NYC isn't rich, then people would rationally flock to Omaha, Utica, Spokane, Scranton, and Des Moines and take $50k/year jobs and be just as "not rich" as that "not rich" $250k-earner in NYC.

My budget is tight, I can't afford to pay higher taxes. "Cut back"

My budget is tight, I can't afford health insurance. "Not to worry, we'll make these people cover you"

Dude, you were doing fine. This post, however, is almost completely and totally wrong. I can't tell if you actually believe the things you are typing here.

Ohh boy...thats a lot of fail in one post.

Funny considering your screen name.

Out of curiosity, how do you propose couple should pay off 300k college loans on 50k even living in Omaha, Utica etc...? And thats just a first question...ohh i remember...college education is also a choice and a need.

Seems strange to classify people as rich or not based on their income and not net worth. My gf and I each make about 120k but each have 100k in student loans (104k for me, 190+k for her). Are we richer than my parents who have a combined income of 80k but own a 300k house, 80 acres of hunting land, and a cabin outright?

Do you mean to suggest there might be shades of grey in this discussion?!

No I meant to say it seems strange to classify people as rich or not based on their income and not net worth.

Oh okay. Then you're all rich, obv. So it's a null point.

wat

Assuming, as the "250k in NYC is barely scraping by" crowd says, that the disposable income is equal, due to the ridiculous cost of living difference, then they can struggle to pay it off in the exact same way that they would in NY.

The college education isn't the choice in this matter (it is almost a neccessity these days), living in Manhattan, or driving a Lexus because you need to keep up with the Joneses instead of living within your means, is the choice that "rich, but still poor" people can't seem to understand they didn't need to make.

What's wrong with being rich again?

The vast majority of people that are successful are people that have made correct decisions in their lives and are benefiting from those decisions.

You can just take the words successful, correct, and benefiting out of the sentence above and put the words unsuccessful, incorrect, and paying to describe people that are not rich.

You can be rich and not have a lot of money btw........

Who is saying there is anything wrong with being rich again? Or is this just another unprovoked defense of rich people from an imagined threat or insult?

C'mon guys. Maybe I took it too far, but if people want to argue that $250k in NYC isn't rich, but that some lower level of income, wherever you want to draw that lower line, is rich in Omaha, then why do people still flock to NYC? Are you trying to tell me that it's impossible to make an income in Omaha that will land you a quality of life that's comparable or better to the car and condo that $250k in NYC would buy you? Are you going to try to argue that someone skilled enough to be a high powered NYC lawyer isn't good enough to be a rich lawyer in Omaha? They need lawyers all over the US.

My 50k number was of course low. You don't think someone who's worth $250k in NYC is only going to be worth $50k in any other city, do you? Buffalo needs lawyers, too, and while they may not get paid quite as much as they do in NYC, they still might make enough to be "rich" by your definition by Buffalo's standards. It's not like there's no work for them outside of NYC.

Of course net worth matters.

Nobody is saying that "250k in NYC is barely scraping by" , what we are saying that it doesn't leave a lot for savings and its basically paycheck for paycheck. Huge difference from "barely scraping by".
At 50k your take home after taxes is about 2700 a month? 300k loans are about 2200 a month...that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

Student loans haven't been discussed until just now. If you want to say that a $250k earner who's $300k in debt isn't rich, fine.

But even still, "living paycheck to paycheck" isn't going to garner a lot of sympathy for such a person who is still making the choice to live in a vibrant, exciting, but expensive area over another cheaper area.

Just saw this thread now... scares the crap out of me how we're fighting over defining what "rich" is... only because I imagine we're planning on following it with something like, "they've produced lots of wealth, ergo they shouldn't compalin when we go to take it"... sigh

Fun fact... to have lots of money is to have consumed far less then what you've given to society... at least as valued by the combined thoughts of millions of other men! Those who don't have much money are those who consume most of all of what they produce. I'm not placing moral judgements, just saying it's something to think about. I think people are less likely to feel nothing wrong plundering from the wealthy if we visualize a man who has saved up 10 years worth of canned food, goes into his basement and begins building and selling tables for 20 hrs a day, then comes out of his house after 10 years with $10,000,000. I find it bizarre to think that such man "owes society" anything after that... he's already given them the tables! Your cash balance is essentially what is still OWED TO YOU!

Lastly, I hate lumping all the rich in the same category as if they're all earning their money through the same means. It disgusts me that some would wish to plunder from even the rich who have produced vast amounts of wealth through engaging in voluntary exchanges with others. Why am I not surprised to see such morality as par for the course in America these days Imo, the easiest way to eat away at the moral fibre of a society is to debauch the currency... it's hard to guage which end is up when you see some men in society being legally allowed to take actions that an ordinary man wouldn't be allowed to take.

New York laywers provide higher order services than Buffalo lawyers and Omaha lawyers do. For instance, I doubt the market for patent lawyers is extremely robust in Buffalo NY. If you happen to specialize in one of those higher order fields, you would be taking a potentially large hit to practice a lower order area of law in a small city.

But yes, people generally try to maximze their well being when choosing what to do and where to do it, which is probably a big part of the reason that cities like NYC and Boston have grown much more slowly than cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. As these lower cost cities grow demand for higher and higher order goods and services, the trend will undoubtedly continue.

This is, of course, all totally irrelevant to whether $250k can be considered rich in location x. If a person chooses location x, they are almost definitely doing so because they feel it will offer them the best quality of life at the income level they can acheive there. The notion that people "choose" their city as a pure lifestyle/preference decision and thus characterizing someone as "rich" should be totally independent of location is obviously absurd.

Taxes shmaxes. If anyone likes anyone being taxed more with no stipulation that something constructive or needful must be done with the increase, then they are morons.

It's not the paying of the taxes that bothers me, but seeing it all pissed away and then asking for more just makes me sick. So now people on welfare need cell phones with 200 free minutes? For ****s sake man!

Okay, the "barely scraping by" part was unneccessary hyperbole that exagerrated what was said, sorry about that. My point is that if the cost of living is really so high in NY that a $250k salary leaves you, after all the neccessities, with, say $800 a month to work with for other stuff, and 50K in Omaha leaves you with $800 to work with after all the other stuff, these are essentially equal situations.

I know plenty of patent lawyers upstate. UBuffalo, URochester, Cornell, UAlbany all have significant amounts of research going on at them, much of which gets patented and sold to companies who take the ideas to market.

Someone isn't "rich" simply because they live in NYC. But people don't get disqualified from being rich simply because they chose NYC over other potentially cheaper options.

That's exactly what's coming up next. People are going to be punished for making correct decisions in their lives while others are going to be rewarded for making incorrect decisions.

This is ridiculous. Tons of people would rather live in NYC over Omaha because they think NYC is a cooler city than Omaha is, so $800/month in expendables in NYC is a better situation for many than $800/month in expendables in Omaha. Also, "necessities" is a completely imprecise term.

What i am trying to tell you that there are added expenses (college loans, higher property prices, live-in babysitters etc) in NYC or in any other high price market for people in professional careers and those are not luxuries but pure necessities and cost of those would be significantly lower in cheap or depressed market. Professional couple in Omaha will also have added expenses just not as high as in NYC but they will also significantly less growth opportunities. I am not sure what the number equivalent to 250k for Omaha would be, my guess it is probably around 170k i just don't know enough about it but if higher tax bracket starts at 250k countrywide it is unfair to people in high price market since their 250k=/ to 250k in Omaha.

The reason people flock to NYC is a huge opportunity for upward mobility. Same people who make 250k and bitching about it will tell you that they see those 250k as a stepping stone for something a lot better.