That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs).
Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much. But that's also why a large chunk of Americans think that "city-folk" are disconnected from reality. $100k is a lot for many people.
My sister lives in an area (in USA) where a 2-bedroom apartment is just $500/month, low crime good living conditions.
Over 80% of Americans live in an urban area[1] so it's pretty absurd to claim "city-folk" represents some elite minority. Median household income in NYC is $57,782 [2]. The idea that America is split into some wealth urban minority vs a near majority of lower income rural population that understands "reality" is complete fantasy.
It doesn't change the fact that $100k is still a lot of money, but the people for whom that a lot a money aren't on some farm in the middle of the country, they're driving your uber, greeting you at the entrance to your apartment and delivering your instacart.
The US definition of "urban" is basically anything that is not rural. Includes suburbs and small towns. People who don't consider themselves city folk and have never used Uber or heard of instacart.
The US census counts the suburbs as urban. I don't believe most people referring to "city-folk" are referring to people in the suburbs.
"To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters."
> That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs).
This isn't accurate. That's everyone in the household collectively working to bring home 59,039 on average. 27% of "households" are individuals. 34% of households are couples (that is to say, two people with no dependents. If they're mothers or fathers, they're empty nesters.) So only about a third of households have more than two people (presumably parents + children.)
Not sure what the median income for households with two working parents + children is.
The main thing I wanted to point out was that 59k / year "households" are typically more than one person. Maybe 2 or 3 people (if you have 2-working roommates in your house, that's 3-incomes in a single household).
IIRC, the 59k / year per house is roughly 2-working people per house (2x income streams per housing unit).
She's the only medical doctor for miles. Good luck replacing her. (Hypothetically anyway. Its an option, but my Sister is more realistically looking to live closer to friends / family and is probably going to turn down such offers)
Overall, small town doctor is a pretty good position to be in. There's lot of other ways of living rather than FANG-style tech. High-quality doctors and/or nurse practitioners make big money in small-towns.
If you're the only doctor (or one of ~5ish nurse practitioners trained for emergency care) in a 10-mile area, you're going to be a highly-valued member of that town. Period. Its not even to "cure" all diseases, but you need a highly-trained medical professional to know if the ~2-hour journey to the big city hospital 100 miles away is worthwhile.
Ex: You may have to travel 100+ miles to get to the nearest MRI or CAT-scan machine. The local doctor will provide medical advice for whether or not the trip is worthwhile based on the diagnosis of less-sophisticated tools.
--------
The main problem with becoming "THE Doctor" of a small town is that you have to move away from your social networks. IE: My sister would have to live very far away from the rest of her brothers / sisters / parents, and that's a tough sell from a social standpoint.
> Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much
You mean he doesn't live out in the sticks or a run-down city like Detroit (MI), Gary (IN), or Paterson (NJ). You don't need to live in a rich area for $100k to not be that much.
So even in San Francisco, the most expensive city I'm aware of, the average HOUSE brings in $96k. A single man (or woman) bringing $100k working in San Francisco is decidedly well-above average.
Bring in $100k in San Francisco, and your wife (or husband) doesn't even need to work to live like the median.
Other cities, a $100k job (with a stay-at-home wife / hosband) will be 30% to 100% higher than the median. $100k is a lot.
Households != mother + father + children, where income is presumably higher. Households include all living situations which includes households with 1 person, households with 1 person working, etc.
Great observation, but the analysis here seems wrong to me.
If you took the median income of people between 45 and 60, I bet people here would STILL be shocked at how low it is. The reason isn't a lack of taking life stage into consideration (the link has no analysis of the numbers there). It's mostly about rich folks refusing to admit they're rich relative to most people.
The census data [1] seems to indicate it was $79,781 in 2017 (in 2017 dollars, so $83,569.23 today). Not a large amount, but still 25% higher than the 66.7k number
Thank you for that correction. I had taken what Google spits out in that top box and didn't bother to look at the date of the article they were scraping from.
Instead of looking down on rural folk, consider the possibility that what people like you and me who earn 100k spend might be very different from what we need to spend.
After all, people in big cities by and large don't earn $100k either, and yet they manage to live somehow!
I don't look down at them, I grew up in a small town and spend a lot of time in rural America. Most will not get that 100k is not a lot of money in an urban area, especially if you have dependents, since that's more money than anyone they know makes.
It averages upwards. Many households have 2 working families so that they can afford the house.
I'd presume that most "single family homes" owned by a single-person would have 1-or-2 rooms rented out, providing 3+ income streams for the household.
I would have said a lot of people want, rather than a lot of people "feel entitled to". It's debatable what people are "entitled to", but we live in an age where it would be well within our technological reach to build comfortable homes for everyone. It would however be politically impractical to reallocate land and resources to make that happen, because the people who currently own most of the resources feel entitled to keeping them.
100k is about $5900 a month after taxes and modest 401k contribution.
Let's subtract some typical expenses (erring on the more expensive side)
$200 - water + electricity
$100 - high speed internet
$160 - decent wireless plan
$250 - employer subsidized health insurance
$150 - car insurance
$50 - netflix, spotify, hulu
$700 - groceries
$800 - go out to dinner twice a week (or some other activity)
$350 - car payment + gas
$1000 - savings
$1500 - median monthly mortgage payment in the USA.
$200 - home insurance.
That still leaves 400 a month while also managing to save and invest in 401k. Seems like a decent salary and way of life. Not rich by any means, but certainly comfortable.
The median mortgage payment in the USA is about 1500, but let's call it 1800
home ownership, two kids, college education, and regular travel, all while being financially comfortable and saving for retirement are what the hallmarks of the american middle class dream used to be.
A 100k household income doesn't afford you that anymore.
If you are forfeiting a large amount of equity from leaving your current job and are joining as a senior/staff engineer it's possible to negotiate a signing bonus that high
