This is Insane! - Page 4

[Amys1st]

Originally Posted by grniys

That is so true. That's how I feel about Chicago. I love everything about it. Sadly, we'll never move back. But it's still my favorite city.

I noticed you live in San diego. The grass is always greener....

We live near Chicago and havent lived in the city for several years (will move back after high school is done for the youngest) and we LOVE San Diego.

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by lolar2

This has been a problem in Los Angeles because firefighters typically have been living far from the city. There are obvious safety concerns with that when there is a big emergency and they need to call for backup.

There are a LOT of places in the City of Los Angeles (that aren't even South LA) where you can live just fine on $48,609 a year and up (top of the range is $67,275). The reason they're living so far out is because, yeah, you can't get a four-bedroom house with a giant yard and a two-car garage at that salary unless you live in the Inland Empire or Palmdale or whatever.

This is what I mean about inflation of the standard of living. I don't think it's that it takes an upper-class salary to afford a middle-class lifestyle in New York or LA... but that the definition of "middle class lifestyle" has crept up over the years, to include more than one bedroom per family member, multiple toilets, lawns that require riding mowers, and the full cable TV package. My father grew up in a two-bedroom, two-bath house, that during the 1930's housed him, his parents, his grandparents, his aunt, uncle, and two cousins. My FIL and his two siblings grew up in a 2-bed 1-bath house in a really nice part of town (which was bought for $700k and then immediately torn down to build a "family-sized" house during the height of the real estate bubble). Expectations of living space and amenities have changed. Is that a terrible thing? No... but it's a very different scenario than what is posed in the article mentioned in the OP.

[lolar2]

Originally Posted by Ironica

There are a LOT of places in the City of Los Angeles (that aren't even South LA) where you can live just fine on $48,609 a year and up (top of the range is $67,275). The reason they're living so far out is because, yeah, you can't get a four-bedroom house with a giant yard and a two-car garage at that salary unless you live in the Inland Empire or Palmdale or whatever.

This is what I mean about inflation of the standard of living. I don't think it's that it takes an upper-class salary to afford a middle-class lifestyle in New York or LA... but that the definition of "middle class lifestyle" has crept up over the years, to include more than one bedroom per family member, multiple toilets, lawns that require riding mowers, and the full cable TV package. My father grew up in a two-bedroom, two-bath house, that during the 1930's housed him, his parents, his grandparents, his aunt, uncle, and two cousins. My FIL and his two siblings grew up in a 2-bed 1-bath house in a really nice part of town (which was bought for $700k and then immediately torn down to build a "family-sized" house during the height of the real estate bubble). Expectations of living space and amenities have changed. Is that a terrible thing? No... but it's a very different scenario than what is posed in the article mentioned in the OP.

I sort of agree with you; but in fact, a family that size living in a house that size, today, would be in violation of zoning/ rental requirements. The landlord or the city could kick them out. So if you have someone with a $50,000 income and a large family (or other relatives who need to live with you), they need more space than a family that size in the 1930s for legal reasons.

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by lolar2

I sort of agree with you; but in fact, a family that size living in a house that size, today, would be in violation of zoning/ rental requirements.

I doubt that. It's the state law that regulates the number of permissible occupants (that I found somewhere in the Los Angeles Municipal Code, but apparently I closed the tab by mistake... I searched on it here), and last I knew, they only specified a minimum number of square feet per individual. Back in the late 80s, my mom was hoping to evict her tenants because they were letting a friend stay with them, but she found out that the tiny studio apartment below her house could legally house SEVEN people. I tried to find the current regulations, but nothing useful came up.

Usually the only limitation is from the lease agreement, and IIRC you can only restrict based on the number of ADULTS, and cannot consider their minor children as "occupants" for the sake of denying rental. IOW, if you'd let a couple with no children rent the unit, you have to let a couple with two children rent the unit.

One place where this *does* come up is Section 8. For Section 8 vouchers, opposite-gender children over a certain (pretty young) age cannot share a bedroom, nor can a child over a certain age (probably 1 or 2) share a room with the parents... so a family with a boy and a girl ages 8 and 6 would need a three-bedroom rental that will take their voucher. (Sorry I don't recall the exact ages involved.)

And then if it's your own house, there's no restrictions at all on how many bedrooms per person you need. There are restrictions on total occupants for various uses, but that's all about being able to evacuate easily in the event of a fire, so the limits are actually pretty high.

If you can find any regulations that confirm the assertion, I'd love to see them.

[Citymomx3]

Originally Posted by misswerewolf

Yes.

A million things to do, people to meet, diversity, variety, yummy food, cultural experiences, etc etc etc. Yup. I'd say it's worth every single penny.

OMG. I could add about 100 more things to that list - and they're all within 15-20 minutes away from my house.

If I may offer some personal experience and opinion ...

I have lived in Queens my whole life. I will never leave. I cannot imagine living anywhere else. I can't stay anywhere suburban or rural for more than 2 days without wanting to run away screaming. We have an unbelievable life here. I never really thought about COL (although I know ours is high), it has always been normal for me. My dh couldn't make the money he makes anywhere else doing what he does. On just dh's salary we can afford rent in a safe area, take care of the kids, and have money left over to save. I work at a very cushy 20hr/week job (that I easily got after 12 years as a SAHM). The COL seems pretty proportional in our situation.

And raising 3 kids (and homeschooling 2 of them) here is an amazing experience. NYC has it all and more. They can easily pursue any dream they have. (e.g. a top performing arts high school for dd2 and a journalism high school for dd1, rock-and-roll gigs all over lower Manhattan for dh, Broadway and Rockette children's workshops, dd's performances at Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, Arthur Ashe Stadium, and Izod Stadium, etc)

So, I guess a city has to be worth it for someone to want to pay more to live there. NYC is definitely worth it to me - and for 8 million others, too.

[dancebaraka]

Originally Posted by vm9799

:

it has always been my dream to live in manhattan (a designer's dream!) and once the kids are gone off to college, dh and i are planning to do just that. i'm more than happy to chuck the house, the cars and the stuff and live someplace that moves me. i plan to enroll back into school for my masters degree at either parsons or fit and live my dream! and we'll be roughly 44 when we do it!

ETA: of course, plans could change a tad between now and then (that's roughly 9 years away), but for now that's the plan!

Ok I know this thread has traveled far since you left this post, but I just want to say...
You are Amazing! and are my Inspiration today!!
:

[Just My Opinion]

I find it odd that it is being passively suggested that one can't find cultural opportunities, diversity and such outside of a huge metropolis such as NYC. We live smack dab in the middle of smallish-mid-sized suburbia and in within 10 minutes we have our choice of Chinese, Indian, Jamaican, Thai, Italian, Mexican food -- (authentic, with owners and chefs from the actual countries). Within a half an hour there is a major University, about 10 museums, about 5 performing arts academies (one of which is nationally acclaimed), independent book stores, a co-op, about 5 farmers markets, walking trails, state parks -- there is a Jewish temple, Christian churches, a UU church, a Mosque, and a Sikh Society, Korean church, Buddhist temple all within 10 minutes...

I mean, I could go on.

I am not trying to start a debate, I am just mentioning that one does not have to live smack dab in the East Village to experience culture, people, experiences, or variety.

[grniys]

Originally Posted by Amys1st

I noticed you live in San diego. The grass is always greener....

We live near Chicago and havent lived in the city for several years (will move back after high school is done for the youngest) and we LOVE San Diego.

Oh, I admit the grass is pretty green here, too! I love San Diego very much. It's a great place to have a family. And you can't beat the weather! We hope to stay here for many years. If dh gets out of the military in 2012 he wants us to stay here. If not, then the Marine Corp will decide where we live. Chicago just holds a special place in my heart and always will. In part due to it being such an awesome city with my favorite baseball team (Go Cubbies!) and in part due to a lifetime of great memories.

Originally Posted by Just My Opinion

I find it odd that it is being passively suggested that one can't find cultural opportunities, diversity and such outside of a huge metropolis such as NYC. We live smack dab in the middle of smallish-mid-sized suburbia and in within 10 minutes we have our choice of Chinese, Indian, Jamaican, Thai, Italian, Mexican food -- (authentic, with owners and chefs from the actual countries). Within a half an hour there is a major University, about 10 museums, about 5 performing arts academies (one of which is nationally acclaimed), independent book stores, a co-op, about 5 farmers markets, walking trails, state parks -- there is a Jewish temple, Christian churches, a UU church, a Mosque, and a Sikh Society, Korean church, Buddhist temple all within 10 minutes...

I mean, I could go on.

I am not trying to start a debate, I am just mentioning that one does not have to live smack dab in the East Village to experience culture, people, experiences, or variety.

It's true that you don't have to be in a huge city to have culture and diversity and such, but there's so much MORE in the big city.

[vm9799]

Originally Posted by dancebaraka

Ok I know this thread has traveled far since you left this post, but I just want to say...
You are Amazing! and are my Inspiration today!!
:

aww, thank you! wow! that really made my day!

[vm9799]

Originally Posted by Just My Opinion

I find it odd that it is being passively suggested that one can't find cultural opportunities, diversity and such outside of a huge metropolis such as NYC. We live smack dab in the middle of smallish-mid-sized suburbia and in within 10 minutes we have our choice of Chinese, Indian, Jamaican, Thai, Italian, Mexican food -- (authentic, with owners and chefs from the actual countries). Within a half an hour there is a major University, about 10 museums, about 5 performing arts academies (one of which is nationally acclaimed), independent book stores, a co-op, about 5 farmers markets, walking trails, state parks -- there is a Jewish temple, Christian churches, a UU church, a Mosque, and a Sikh Society, Korean church, Buddhist temple all within 10 minutes...

I mean, I could go on.

I am not trying to start a debate, I am just mentioning that one does not have to live smack dab in the East Village to experience culture, people, experiences, or variety.

i will not debate this either, but i have been to many many other cities both large and small, and none of them even came close to comparing to the diversity and cultural landscape as nyc. the big apple is a living thing in itself that can not be experienced unless you're there. it's definitely something unique....which is why it's considered our country's cultural epicenter.

[Just My Opinion]

Yeah, it is a really swell place to be. No one is debating that...but, cultural epicenter?

Hm...strongly disagree

[vm9799]

Originally Posted by Just My Opinion

Yeah, it is a really swell place to be. No one is debating that...but, cultural epicenter?

Hm...strongly disagree

um, yeah. it houses the united nations headquarters and there are over 170 languages spoken there. not to mention that over 30% of the population there was born outside of the united states......30% of over 8 million residents. there's not another city in our country that is as diverse in culture as nyc. it doesn't matter whether you AGREE or not, those are facts.

ETA: i'm not debating that there aren't other large metro cities that are filled with culture and diversity, i'm just stating the facts on nyc......which you clearly don't care for, which is totally fine, but that doesn't change the facts.

i live not far from chicago, which is the center of finance and business in the midwest. it's a hugely diverse metro area that has an incredible art scene. but in comparison, nyc is a WORLD center of commerce and finance and a global influence in media, entertainment and fashion. and with that comes a much much larger cultural diversity. that was all i was saying.

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by Just My Opinion

I find it odd that it is being passively suggested that one can't find cultural opportunities, diversity and such outside of a huge metropolis such as NYC.

Sure, there's culture outside New York (or Los Angeles) too.

But there's a reason why tourism is a HUGE industry in these places. There definitely are things you can get in the really big cities that you can't find just anywhere.

Art museums? Sure. Van Gogh's Irises? It's 30 minutes from my house (depending on traffic).

Theatre? Sure. Broadway? There's only one Broadway.

Chinese, Indian, Jamaican, Thai, Italian, Mexican food? Sure. Brazilian-Italian food delivered to your door at 3 a.m.? Well, not in our current place, but before we moved we were in their delivery area.

People do travel from all over the WORLD to see the sights in these cities. You'd have a hard time arguing that it's nothing special. I've been to New York a couple of times, and it has blown me away, even being an Angeleno my whole life. Griffith Park is astonishing, but Central Park is a whole other sort of astonishing.

I mean, for some folks (me included), there's just no reason to spend the money on a BMW instead of a Honda... but I won't deny there's a difference in how they drive, you know? Honda's fine for me, but for some, there's no substitute for that German Engineering. That's how I feel about LA... I could never live anywhere else. I feel claustrophobia creeping in after too long in a smaller place.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Ironica

fThat's how I feel about LA... I could never live anywhere else. I feel claustrophobia creeping in after too long in a smaller place.

It's funny how different people are. I feel claustrophobic in crowds. DH really wants to take the family to NYC sometime, and I'll probably go along with it, but I can't think of very many places that I have less interest in visiting. I have no interest in visiting LA, either. Vancouver, where I live, is my home, and I love it...but it's getting way too big. Now that I don't work there, I avoid downtown like the plague.

[JTA Mom]

Originally Posted by misswerewolf

Uh. Snarkiness? Name-calling? I wasn't being snarky or calling anyone names at all. AT ALL.

Take what I said at face value, 'cause that's really what I meant. I really mean it when I stated previously that I ALWAYS THOUGHT "an upper middle class salary was greater than 250k. $123k/year seems average (i.e., middle) to me." And if it's not, then I really MUST be delusional. (That is, I'm really not getting the clear picture of what "average" middle-class Americans earn.)

But then again, I am basing my views on the people I know. For the record, I am approximately 30 minutes north of you on the Peninsula.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post as being sarcastic.:

And living in this area can be really distortive, since, like you said, a lot of people make 6 figures. The hidden part though is that the majority of the people in the Bay Area aren't really making enough to live a middle class lifestyle here. Public school teachers, police, etc, all are struggling, and that shouldn't be the case. It's not as bad as in NY (aka only need one or two roommates not 5) to rent here, but it still needs to be addressed.

It's just disheartening to hear people being dismissive about this topic, since it's close to my heart. I want my police officers, my firefighters, my teachers to be able to afford a middle class lifestyle. To buy new cars every year, buy McMansions, etc--no. But to be able to afford rent or a home on one income? Yes.
I want the majority of Americans to be able to afford to live middle class lifestyles. I'm not saying everyone should or would, but I feel that there's something wrong if basic professions needed for society are not paying enough to live comfortably on. I know it might seem privileged to say that most people should have a certain standard of living that is, for the most part, hugely better than the majority of the world's population. But I don't think it should be discounted because of that. Just because the majority of the world's population has no steady access to clean water or good healthcare doesn't mean that we shouldn't make sure the majority or all of our citizens have that, kwim?

And the above is the point I was getting from that article. Not that there's no reason for a high COL in NY, because there is, as pps have stated. The thing is though, that making 6 figures is out of reach for the majority of Americans. It shouldn't take 6 figures to be middle class in NY, because that means that the majority of the people there fall below that line. And it's not good if the majority of a population, anywhere, is below the middle class line.

Ami

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by JTA Mom

I know it might seem privileged to say that most people should have a certain standard of living that is, for the most part, hugely better than the majority of the world's population. But I don't think it should be discounted because of that.

It is privileged. I'm not criticizing, because I live a middle-class lifestyle, too, but...it's not sustainable. I'm not the best at living sustainably, but I'm not terrible. We only own one vehicle (second hand) and don't drive that much. I try to buy local food. I'm not big on a bunch of disposable stuff. We own one tv, and I can't imagine owning more. We walk and cycle quite a lot.

But, I took a test recently that said if everyone in the world lived like me, we'd require 2.2 earths to provide sufficient resources for everyone. That's better than the North American average, but it's obviously a privileged lifestyle - even though it's very modest compared to many, many people in North America (other than Mexico).

So...most people absolutely should not have the standard of living that I have, as it's not possible. That means I need to work on not having this standard, either. An American/Canadian "middle-class" lifestyle is insanely privileged, and it cannot last.

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by JTA Mom

It's just disheartening to hear people being dismissive about this topic, since it's close to my heart. I want my police officers, my firefighters, my teachers to be able to afford a middle class lifestyle. To buy new cars every year, buy McMansions, etc--no. But to be able to afford rent or a home on one income? Yes.

Well, let's think about that, though....

Time was, families lived on one income... dad's. Single women occasionally had jobs, especially after WWII, but many of them continued to live with and be supported by their parents until marriage. Many men, also, lived with their parents until marriage.

Now, most women expect to work at least *some* of their lives. Many have careers that have been lifelong dreams for them; some are still working toward their dream careers, and a lot have jobs that are nightmares. Few women expect their parents to support them until the day their husband takes over, though.

What does that mean? That means our workforce has increased HUGELY at a rate disproportionate to the increase in our overall population. There are more people seeking work. Our unemployment rate, however, hasn't risen significantly, so that means...

We're splitting the jobs among more people.

We have a world, now, where women can work if they want to... but the price we pay is that in many cases, they HAVE to. It *does* take two incomes to run a household at the same standard of living we used to maintain with one, because the employment is simply spread more thinly. In the 1930s, there weren't huge banks of people just waiting for your CS call; there were no personal shoppers, desktop publishers, wedding planners, and a lot fewer interior decorators. But there also weren't several million women actively seeking positions in the workforce. There's a reason service jobs have been nicknamed "pink collar;" they're overwhelmingly held by women.

Truth is, being/having a SAHP is not a middle-class assumption anymore; it's a luxury. And yes, this messes with single parents, too... but I'm *more* interested in finding ways for adults to be successful co-parents (whether they happen to be in love with each other) than in working around the problem of people doing a job single-handedly that really requires a village.

[Azuralea]

Originally Posted by Ironica

Time was, families lived on one income... dad's. Single women occasionally had jobs, especially after WWII, but many of them continued to live with and be supported by their parents until marriage. Many men, also, lived with their parents until marriage.

I liked your post, but wanted to clarify this: this was only ever true of a privileged section of the population. The idea that all families had a SAHP and lived securely on one income after WWII is widespread, but inaccurate.

Single American women frequently (not occasionally) had jobs when you look at a population sample that includes all single American women. It's just that in the white, upper-middle-class and above population, it was less common. However, across the population as a whole, definitely not unusual. In fact, the opposite is true, especially for certain population groups. For instance, African-American woman who didn't work were much more unusual than women who worked during the post-WWII years.

[Minerva]

Originally Posted by Azuralea

I liked your post, but wanted to clarify this: this was only ever true of a privileged section of the population. The idea that all families had a SAHP and lived securely on one income after WWII is widespread, but inaccurate.

Single American women frequently (not occasionally) had jobs when you look at a population sample that includes all single American women. It's just that in the white, upper-middle-class and above population, it was less common. However, across the population as a whole, definitely not unusual. In fact, the opposite is true, especially for certain population groups. For instance, African-American woman who didn't work were much more unusual than women who worked during the post-WWII years.

I agree. I can speak from my own family's experience in which it was the exception (not the rule) that the women of the family didn't work. For their race and class in that time (and even into the post-war years), it was expected that they would work. The stay at home parent is a myth restricted to certain classes (mainly white and upper-class).

One of my immediate female relatives ran the plantation after her husband died, and she was the largest landowner in that area plus having some property 'in town'. I'd imagine that was quite a job.

In another family branch, virtually all the women worked alongside their husbands in the family business. Very few had occupations in the census data as "keeping house". One lot ran a busy shoe store. Another group ran a tailor's shop. My great-great-grandmother was the exception in that group, but from what I can see in the records, her paramour settled some property on her to provide for their children, and she earned cash letting out the lots for their resources. The rest of her family worked. I guess you could say that she earned her money another way, but that's not a very nice thing to say about one's ancestors.

By the time it got down to my grandfather's generation, almost everyone was working in the family restaurant, including near cousins. Even the children went forth the gather seafood from the river and make deliveries.

[meowee]

$500,000 would go a long way on Staten Island (though not as much as it used to).

Tell those execs to move here.