Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

10 acres and a lake? Well gak we have a half acre and a lake view (in winter, if you crane your neck to see over the house behind mine) XD

No, my parents are definitely two of the most fiscally responsible people I've met, annoyingly so as other people I know whose families make less "enjoy life" a lot more, the difference is that we live within our means and only buy/do things we can safely afford and others dont.

 Blokus wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I wouldnt consider it super expensive, this is average for New Jersey (which is super expensive compared to most simply due to our ridiculously high property taxes), regardless though you are out of touch and embarrassing yourself, as you seem to not have any concept of money beyond your own little slice of America, either that or the entire East Coast seems to be rolling in money and fiscally irresponsible people.

Howard, my condolences, but I find that the comparison is difficult to make across national boundaries. My family in the Dominican Republic makes about as much as my parents and have a much much higher standard of living more comparable to that of a millionaire.

My parents combined earn 100k a year and that was just recently, after years of promotions. They still managed to buy a house with 10 acres and a lake, and raise a family of four. They live in Illinois about 50 mins from St. Louis. But it just sounds like your family is doing it wrong.

Now... that sounds about right in the Mid-West. 100k in New Jersey? definately ain't mid-class.

EDIT: what IS the definition of Middle class though? It seems we're arguing over different meanings here...

From what I am reading the lesson is this:

Being "middle class" has absolutely nothing to do with your income. As long as you are spending more than you are making, you are not middle class and not rich.

If you are making $250,000 a year then you are well off. Just because you managed to rake up a mountain of debt doesn't change that fact.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, private school indeed. I suppose I could gone to county college if any of them offered a degree in engineering, but id be making half as much as I am now (if I could find a job at all).

You also seem to be missing the fact that the 250k is before taxes, so really it works out more like 160k per year, and thats not all disposable, in fact very little of it is. How old are you and what is your household income if I may ask?

I'm in my mid-twenties, I'm a graduate student. My household income is around 10k a year.

10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.

d-usa, so if you're spending more than you're making you're lower class? So the guy making 1 mil a year that spends 1.5 is lower class? What about the people that aren't spending more than they are making? Are they upper class? What is middle class then?

I have no doubt that 250k per year is well off, but its hard to make it to that point without accruing debt, college tuition for both my parents plus law school for my dad, and we've only reached this point sometime in the couple years when my mom was able to start working again and after my dads most recent promotion/bonus. Are you saying that people shouldnt strive for more? They deserved to be taxed higher because they went to college and accrued debt to make it to the standard of living that every american has been raised to strive for since birth ? Dangerous proposition, almost akin to saying people shouldnt go to college at all unless they can afford it.

Well, you said that $250,000 isn't well-off because of student loans, paying for food, and putting kids through college. So it seems like spending is the determining factor of being "well off".

If $250,000 puts you "in the solid middle of middle class" I guess middle class starts with everybody that makes more than 97% of the country. Making more than 98% of the country makes you "solid middle class", making more than 99% of the country makes you upper middle class and/or rich.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Dangerous proposition, almost akin to saying people shouldnt go to college at all unless they can afford it.

Well, we are a country that still believes that the only people that should get an education are those than can afford it and the only people that should be healthy are those that can afford it.

That's what happens when the country embraces capitalism at all cost, survival of the fittest, and demonizes socialism.

chaos0xomega wrote:
10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.

That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.


I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.

I didnt say solid middle of middle class, only that it was solidly middle class, as in there should be no question as to what class its in. To me middle is 100k to round about 350k. Less is lower more is upper.

Nor did I say that we weren't well off only that we're not rich, etc.

Spending isnt the determinant, nor is income, its standard of living (when living within your means). We have an average house, 2 cars (plus my own junker that I'm paying for myself), a cat and a dog. Both parents work full time, if we can hack it we go on vacation once a year, usually a road trip to another east coast state, generally north carolina or florida. Thats what we manage at 250k per year, and thats the "average" standard that the media portrays middle class life to be, and what the concept of the American Dream i and has been. Ergo, middle class.

chaos:

How much are your monthly household expenses (only asking since you are bringing up "we make $250,000 and it's not that well off")? How much do you guys pay in student loan payments, car payments, mortgage, credit cards, utilities, etc...

 Hordini wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.

That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.


I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.

It is a lot of money when you have nine and are single and have a minimum of your own expenses. I used to think 15k was a lot, it isnt. You'll find that the saying "you have to spend money to make money" is very true, and the amount you spend is generally proportional to what you make.

D, i cant give an exact number since it is my parents, but I figure we manage about 40k disposable income.

In my own case I bring 2400 in each month after taxes of which 400-600 is disposable.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.

That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.


I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.

It is a lot of money when you have nine and are single and have a minimum of your own expenses. I used to think 15k was a lot, it isnt. You'll find that the saying "you have to spend money to make money" is very true, and the amount you spend is generally proportional to what you make.

D, i cant give an exact number since it is my parents, but I figure we manage about 40k disposable income.

In my own case I bring 2400 in each month after taxes of which 400-600 is disposable.

"You gotta spend money to make money" is the reason we are in a credit crisis and are in the economic trouble we are in. Are you living at home? What bills are you paying that you are making $2400 minus taxes that you have $400-600 disposable income. Are you paying for school?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.

That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.


I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.

It is a lot of money when you have nine and are single and have a minimum of your own expenses. I used to think 15k was a lot, it isnt. You'll find that the saying "you have to spend money to make money" is very true, and the amount you spend is generally proportional to what you make.

I don't think 15k is a lot. I think 250k is a lot. My family brought in less than 30k a year when I was growing up. That wasn't a lot for a family with four kids, but somehow we didn't starve and weren't homeless. I can't even imagine what life would have been like if my family's household income was 250k a year.

I am single and have little money, that's true, but it sounds like you and I have some pretty similar sorts of expenses. Rent, utilities, food, student loans, insurance, school expenses, I have all those things. It sounds like we're both able to get by somehow, yet you make four times my yearly income. Where do you think the difference lies?

1000 dollars a month for student loans, about 600 to commute (gas, commuter bus, and subway), 150/month for car and auto insurance, 50 for my phone/data plan and and that pretty much covers my major expenditures, so I should be looking at another 600 dollars in my pocket but fate screws me at every turn (for example, 800 dollar repair bill for my car, problem was an acorn wedged near the timing belt, if it had been noticed sooner than the bill would have been a lot less or even nonexistant). My parents are kind enough to supply me with room, board, and dinner (living at home), I keep my weekly lunch bill at 30 dollars or less, no breakfast.

How in the heck do you have $1000 for student loans? What is your total balance there and what kind of degree did you get?

 d-usa wrote:
How in the heck do you have $1000 for student loans? What is your total balance there and what kind of degree did you get?

Total debt is 60k, studied Industrial Engineering (originally aerospace but it wasnt to my liking), owe 30k to the govt,and the other 30 to private lenders. My monthly bill is 300 to federal loan (post consolidation, cannot lower rate), 350 to Sallie Mae (wont lower rate), and another 350 split across 3 loans from chase and citi.

Plus side is that Sallie mae will be paid off in another 4.5 years.

So here is the question then:

Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?

 d-usa wrote:
So here is the question then:

Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?

I think it's a fair question. Would going to a state-funded public school for the same degree been worse in the long run? Do you really think you couldn't have gotten the same engineering job with the same degree but from a public school?

And I honestly don't mean it in a mean way. I was in a similar situation and I quit at $25,000 in student loans. I still don't have a higher degree, but I realized that when it was all done I would be spending $500 a month more in student loans for a degree that would only result in $500 more in pay a month. So I was going into huge levels of debt for no benefit at all, except I would be more screwed if I was out of a job. So I figured I would rather "pay the extra student loan payment to myself" and safe up the money to go to school. Of course I was also going to private online schools because it is easier, but thankfully I got smart.

Spending money to make money does not work.

The job I have now is a temporary solution (I hope). My alma mater says my starting should be about 60k, and thats what I could get if any of the companies that I wanted to work at were at all hiring, so im inclined to say yes,aa state school would have been cheaper and netted me the same result as my present circumstances (though I did get my present job because of my school so even that is questionable), but I picked RPI for its Air Force ROTC unit more than anything else (long story).

Also I was offered one hell of a scholarship to go there, which while it looked great on paper didnt live up to it in reality.

Would any of the companies that you wanted to work for have hired you (if they were hiring) even if you have the same degree from a public school?

 whembly wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
It's the two party system.

Imagine a beach, with two hot dog stands on far ends from the beach--away from each other;

X____________________________X

Since the far left hot dog stand doesn't concern itself with losing customers to its left (As it will always be closer to those customers than the far right)--the sensible approach would be to migrate the hot dog stand closer to the right hot dog stand and attempt to grab customers in the middle. The far right stand will come to understand the same concept and start migrating as well.

Eventually, you end up with two central hot dog stands a few feet apart;

___________________X___X_________________________

If a party becomes so moderate that its difficult to discern it from the opposing party, it will 'go back to its roots' and attempt to energize all of the customers/voters to the far left/right of their particular stand. Or those customers/voters will self mobilize and begin dictating where their particular hot dog stand should be (Or how it should operate). I'm not a poli-sci major--but this is how I broadly view American politics and I believe this waxing/waning is inherent to a two party system. I think we are still suffering the after effects of the Tea Party waxing in this particular scenario.

Of course, the modern American political scale looks something like this....
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
Tea Party.........R____________D_______________________

The miracle is that the Republicans retain any relavance at all, considering how extremist they've become the past twenty years. Back in the Eighties, the political scale looked like this:
....................Far right....................center...................far left
....................._____________R______D_________________

Yep, the 80's Republicans have FAR more in common with modern Democrats than they do with modern Republicans.

I refuse to believe that the likes of Ried, Pelosi et. al and other (D) are "Center".

It's more like:
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
.....................Tea Party.........R____________D___Durbin/Boxer/Reid/Pelosi____
....................................................................Obama
edited to fix Obama

That's because you have the typical America skewed vision of the political scale.

The far left is a true communism. The strong left is full-bore socialism. Obama has never tried to nationalize ALL industry, I and find it highly unlikely he ever will.

The center is... well, your typical European model. The excesses of full-bore capitolism are moderated by law and EFFECTIVE government action. Socialist institutions are used in places where capitolist institutions deliver poor service for extravagant cost... like heath care and infrastructure. England, France, Germany, and Canada all tend along these lines.

The moderate right is like we were in the 1950s-1980s. The strong right is like we are now.

The far right is best represented by countries like Zaire, Mexico, and other undeveloped nations. The rich have unlimited (or only slightly limited) political, social, and economic power, and the masses are there strictly to be exploited.

Now tell me which one you prefer.

 d-usa wrote:
And I honestly don't mean it in a mean way. I was in a similar situation and I quit at $25,000 in student loans. I still don't have a higher degree, but I realized that when it was all done I would be spending $500 a month more in student loans for a degree that would only result in $500 more in pay a month. So I was going into huge levels of debt for no benefit at all, except I would be more screwed if I was out of a job. So I figured I would rather "pay the extra student loan payment to myself" and safe up the money to go to school. Of course I was also going to private online schools because it is easier, but thankfully I got smart.

Spending money to make money does not work.

Hey D... I can easily see having a 600 month school loan for 4 yr degree. When I was married, my ex and I refinanced all of our loans and now the montly pmt would be roughly 1,000.
This was at a state school w/o any scholarships/grants and my parents made too much money, but not enough to significantly help me out.

I think there's some serious over-generalizations going on here.

To Thread... Obama, and the (D) were re-elected. Let 'em having the higher tax rate. In 4 yrs, if you don't like where it's going, elect the other party.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

That's because you have the typical America skewed vision of the political scale.

The far left is a true communism. The strong left is full-bore socialism. Obama has never tried to nationalize ALL industry, I and find it highly unlikely he ever will.

The center is... well, your typical European model. The excesses of full-bore capitolism are moderated by law and EFFECTIVE government action. Socialist institutions are used in places where capitolist institutions deliver poor service for extravagant cost... like heath care and infrastructure. England, France, Germany, and Canada all tend along these lines.

The moderate right is like we were in the 1950s-1980s. The strong right is like we are now.

The far right is best represented by countries like Zaire, Mexico, and other undeveloped nations. The rich have unlimited (or only slightly limited) political, social, and economic power, and the masses are there strictly to be exploited.

Now tell me which one you prefer.

 d-usa wrote:
Would any of the companies that you wanted to work for have hired you (if they were hiring) even if you have the same degree from a public school?

They might have, hard to say. Given the present economic situation/job market i'm inclined to say no, I would not be as competitive a candidate as I am had I gone to a state school ( I had a Lockheed Martin exec tell me and a friend that a 2.5 from my alma mater was as good as a 4.0 at most other schools).

And once you are past your first job, hardly anyone looks at your school and grades anymore.

So lets take a state school, if the industries were hiring, how much do you think you would be making a year. If $60,000 a year is the high end of the spectrum fresh out of school working for Lockheed Martin (as an example), how much would you be locking at coming fresh out of a public school with the same degree that you have now?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Total debt is 60k, studied Industrial Engineering (originally aerospace but it wasnt to my liking), owe 30k to the govt,and the other 30 to private lenders. My monthly bill is 300 to federal loan (post consolidation, cannot lower rate), 350 to Sallie Mae (wont lower rate), and another 350 split across 3 loans from chase and citi.

When did you start undergrad? I only ask because I finished with a total of 110k in debt, and my minimum payments totaled ~1200 USD on a 10 year repayment plan, but I graduated just before the GFC.

One thing you might consider is renegotiating your repayment schedule, you'll pay more in the long run, but your overall quality of life will likely increase due to a greater amount of disposable income. And, perhaps more importantly, it will let you save some money for relocation should a better job come up elsewhere.

chaos0xomega wrote:

They might have, hard to say. Given the present economic situation/job market i'm inclined to say no, I would not be as competitive a candidate as I am had I gone to a state school ( I had a Lockheed Martin exec tell me and a friend that a 2.5 from my alma mater was as good as a 4.0 at most other schools).

That's true, but there are ways around that, the most popular one being internships. Hell, even paying through the nose as I did, my degree would be so much paper absent the internships I took on.

 d-usa wrote:

Spending money to make money does not work.

It can work, but you have to be very careful in how you approach the idea. Regarding spending money on college tuition, if you're going to shell out the extra cash for a private education you absolutely have to take advantage of all the perks of doing so. This means networking, using alumni connections to land prestigious internships, and so on.

Generally speaking, if you just want to go to school and get a job without putting in the extra effort, public school is the best option. Of course, some public schools cost nearly as much as many private schools, so even that bears consideration. I actually ended up paying less by attending a private school than I would have at University of Illinois.

 d-usa wrote:
And once you are past your first job, hardly anyone looks at your school and grades anymore.

So lets take a state school, if the industries were hiring, how much do you think you would be making a year. If $60,000 a year is the high end of the spectrum fresh out of school working for Lockheed Martin (as an example), how much would you be locking at coming fresh out of a public school with the same degree that you have now?

Thats dependent on which division of the company, if i was working on a gov't contract as i understand it it would be thr same as they would be using general pay scale. If I was working at one of the finance firms I applied to though (they love industrial engineers) it might be about 10k less. As for second job, I have been lead to believe thatthe pay at your first job will generally determine the pay forthe rest of your career but meh.

Dogma, im locked in as it is w my federal and sallie mae loans, and the rest are already 20 year terms so not sure how wise it would be. I also nvr had the opportunity to intern as I was a cadet until my senior year (again long story).

You went to a private school, right dogma? Do you think the extra cost was worth it? Would going to a state school with similar internships have given you similar job opportunities?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And once you are past your first job, hardly anyone looks at your school and grades anymore.

So lets take a state school, if the industries were hiring, how much do you think you would be making a year. If $60,000 a year is the high end of the spectrum fresh out of school working for Lockheed Martin (as an example), how much would you be locking at coming fresh out of a public school with the same degree that you have now?

Thats dependent on which division of the company, if i was working on a gov't contract as i understand it it would be thr same as they would be using general pay scale. If I was working at one of the finance firms I applied to though (they love industrial engineers) it might be about 10k less.

And your student loan payments are $12,000 a year. So even if you would have gotten your dream job you would have had $2000 less a year in disposable income than you would have with a lower paying school after getting a degree from a public school without the mountain of student loans.

Without the student loans, and with a degree from a public school, you would have had a lower paying job and you would have had $2000 more a year to spend.

Borrowing $60,000 to make more money, only to end up paying $1000 a month (for how many years?) and to end up making $175 less a month even though you got a higher paying job is not a good idea. Our grandparents might have been right with the statement "you gotta spend money to make money", but they would have never "borrowed money to make money".

As for second job, I have been lead to believe thatthe pay at your first job will generally determine the pay forthe rest of your career but meh.

It really doesn't.

 Hordini wrote:
You went to a private school, right dogma? Do you think the extra cost was worth it? Would going to a state school with similar internships have given you similar job opportunities?

I think in my case, being as I studied two social sciences and philosophy, yes the extra cost was worth it. Going to a school with a large number of alumni working in government and politics meant that I not only had a really solid network to build on, but I also got to meet a number of significant political officials (Kofi Annan, Richard Holbrooke, and a couple others) in a context that actually involved conversation, rather than just shaking hands. Additionally, I was able to take on multiple majors, which is often not possible at public schools as individual departments grant degrees independently. As an example, in order the equivalent of my 4 year degree at Macalester (political science, philosophy, and economics) would have taken me 5-6 years to complete at University of Illinois, and cost 40-50% more.

So, between the connections, and the greater diversity in educational background, I think spending more money definitely opened up a larger number of quality job opportunities. That being said, my first job out of college was as a personal trainer, and it wasn't until I moved on to my doctorate that I really started to see companies look my way. Of course, I also graduated right as the GFC hit, so finding work was hard all around. However, I can confidently say that, with GPA (2.9 in undergrad) the only reason I was considered as a doctoral candidate was a combination of an excellent GRE score, and the reputation of my alma mater.

All that said, I think that if you're intention is to enter a technical field, public school is the way forward unless you can gain admission to a top-tier research university, or for whatever reason private school is more cost effective. The other thing to consider the availability of academic programs, as cheaper state schools often lack a full assortment of departments.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So here is the question then:

Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?

I think it's a fair question. Would going to a state-funded public school for the same degree been worse in the long run? Do you really think you couldn't have gotten the same engineering job with the same degree but from a public school?

You will find that the school you go to to get a degree makes a huge difference.

An Electrical Engineer who went to some no-name community college for his degree will be much less employable than an Electrical Engineer who went to a well known and expensive university that has a internationally known EE program. Same degree, different schools, the difference in their employability will reflect that.