How about you factor in amount that is taken out for taxes first. Someone making 300k a year is not taking home 25k a month. It is closer to 12-15k after you take taxes/health care and 401k out of it.

There are two angles to the "cost of living" argument. It's not cut and dried.

One is that you're paying for the amenities that NYC, San Fransisco etc have to offer. I agree with this principle - it would be silly to call someone "not rich" because they chose to buy an expensive house next to the beach, so it's also silly to call someone "not rich" because they chose to live in an expensive metropolis within walking distance to all sorts of cool things.

The second is that your higher wages may be partially internalised in prices (especially rents) beyond that of any improvement in quality. This is a more valid argument, because if you're in a sense "paying for a job" then it's not as valuable to you as your income would imply. Imagine two cities that are otherwise identical, but in one everything costs 10% more compensated for by 10% higher wages. If you move to there from the cheaper city, your income increases but you aren't any better off.

How much weighting do we put on each? I don't know. It's hard to quantify how much of the rental premium in Manhattan is because of the income premium and how much is because of non-income amenities.

I can't stand when people use this form of bull**** metric about salaries. healthcare is an expense, yes, but it's also a benefit or an asset. The same way a 401k is an asset. When you need to say it has to be taken away is so lolworthy. what's next, you then need to claim that food you eat or entertainment expenses have to be considered BEFORE you can establish your take home pay.

As an aside for someone from Connecticut:

$1600+ for a non rathole is standard for a 2BR in Fairfield County (adjacent to NYC)

the listing in Waterbury, CT for 965 is an emormous joke. Waterbury is an armpit and it's close to NY like San Diego is close to LA.

ikes accusing others of being more butthurt than he clearly is is like the best form of lolikes on the planet

Grunch: Everyone not on food stamps.

I really don't understand how the definition of rich has anything to do with the location you live in and the rent/mortgage you pay. To me it is just a measure of your income. If you make more than 4 times the median income of the country you live in then you are rich person in that country. What you then do with that money is a choice. If you choose to live in one of the most desirable locations near your work then you can do that because you are rich and can afford it. That as a result you don't have much money left to spend on other things is irrelevant. Most people with incomes like that have the mobility to move anyway if they want a different lifestyle.

But this does not apply to the state, the city, etc?

Of course not, then it's harder for federal politicians to capitalise on it.

Really? If someone lives in NYC and makes 100k a year they are scrapping by. If that same individual making 100k lives in Mansfield or Lima, Ohio (2 random towns picked in the middle of no where)they are living high on the hog.

No most people don't have the mobility to move away, they are living in or near their place of employment.

Why is $100k scraping by in NYC? Who works at the shops, who works as cleaners, who sweeps the streets? Do all these people make $100k?

Well first part isn't true. 100k is fine to live on, even here.

Second part is definitely true, though.

You would be better off for dollars you don't spend in the city (vacations and online purchases) and your contribution + company match to your 401k would be 10% higher.

I'm sure all the guys at GS et al are thrilled that people will continue focusing their rage at shmucks making $250k and ignore the fact that they're backing the truck up to the treasury and looting the place.

I know it's semantics, blah blah blah but I've known quite a few people that make 250K or more in the northeast and I don't know one person that would say any of those people were "rich" by any means. Well off, sure. Comfortable, of course. But "rich"? No.

That's because rich people in the Northeast have an insular understanding of what being rich consists of. They're still rich though.

so your able to save for retirement, put money in savings for a rainy day fund and save for your children's college fund?

I just noticed this thread for the first time. I click on the first and last pages and it appears that people are having the same debate: what is rich?

Is there an interesting issue hidden in the middle? Anything else I should know about this thread?

x2.

and the guy making $30K is rich compared to the side of the road can collector.

This thread is aids. It's a containment thread.

Are the inmates let out of their cage to exercise?

So you think people living in middle America in counties where the median income is $50K wouldn't classify those people as rich? I grew up in a Wisconsin county with a median income of roughly 50K and people making 250K are absolutely rich even with the cost of living adjustment. Imagine the difference in disposable income for each family even considering the cost of living. Saving for college is a joke for families making 50K a year. Private schools are a joke. Anything more than a basic vacation is a joke. Sending kids to any type of camp is a big decision. Having one night of takeout a week is a sacrifice.

The day to day experience isn't anywhere close to the same. If you make 250K as a family and live anywhere in the US and think you don't have it great you need to remove your head from your ass. You deserve a kick in the damn balls if you think otherwise. Wake the **** up.

Have we come up with a consensus number yet? I'm ready to start pillaging and I don't wanna accidentally steal from the wrong people.

People who make > me