[a8da6b0c91d]

At many levels the national discussions are distorted by failure to understand regional costs of living and taxes and the matter of finding acceptable schools. People talk about the 1% without realizing that two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents in markets like NYC and SF. My grandfathers with skilled tradesman wages were able to support stay at home wives and send six kids down the street to a totally safe and high quality school, and at the same time take a month off every summer on nice quiet rental beach front property (not some hyper crowded vegas style resort bullshit, we're talking single family home on a large lot on a barrier island).

People just don't seem to understand how little money $150K is relative to what a skilled and competent worker could get out of a remotely comparable sum 50 years ago. OK, you make $150K, can your four or five kids walk down the street to a quite good school? Is it essentially optional whether your wife works or not?

[jordanb]

I was reading a biography about a couple who built a boat in LA in the late 60s and set off on a tip around the world in 1969. It took them three years to build the boat and save up some money to fund their trip.

The husband was a carpenter and the wife was a bookkeeper.

They had a boat probably worth $10,000 in 1969 dollars and a further $5,000 in cash saved up. I looked that up in the inflation calculator and found out that $5,000 in 1969 dollars is about $30,000 today.

Can you imagine a carpenter and a bookkeeper building up assets of $90k dollars in LA today through a few years fastidiousness and hard work?

[waterlesscloud]

"two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents"

No. This is a gross exaggeration and extremely out of touch with economic reality.

[mjn]

That was my reaction; I'm not sure how someone could have any historical knowledge and think that. My grandparents were, I think, fairly typical middle-class Americans. They raised 2 kids in a ~1200-sq-ft house in the Los Angeles suburbs, which was considered pretty big. Ate out only on special occasions, maybe 8-9 times a year, never just because they didn't feel like cooking. Did not have "help" to mow their lawns, clean their house, or watch their kids. Bought new devices rarely: it was a big deal to get a TV, and a big deal to get a washing machine. Owned one car, bought used. They sure as hell didn't take extended beach vacations.

I would wager the couple making $300k in SF are not living like that. Hell, I used to live a lifestyle much better than my grandparents did back when I lived in the Bay Area, on a lot less than a six-figure salary. I didn't have kids, but I also didn't even make $50k, and yet I still ate out multiple times per week, not per year.

I know nobody making over $80k in the SF Bay Area who I would not be comfortable calling at least upper-middle-class. The people who think otherwise mostly live in an insane bubble in which they only know people in the top 10% of the income distribution, and have absolutely no idea what a middle-class American lives like.

[a8da6b0c91d]

> I didn't have kids

> sq-ft

Well this sort of thing is the crux of the matter. If you give a shit about restaurants and ipads, well yes now is better. If the idea of having a handful of grandkids appeals to you, well now is worse.

[mjn]

I acknowledged that I didn't have kids, but I also made <$50k. I could've paid for kids, and lived quite well doing so, if I had an extra $250k/yr!

[eli_gottlieb]

There has been a large divergence in purchasing power between consumer goods, permanent assets, and lifestyle/durable goods. Everything that is a mere consumer good or lifestyle good (computers, meals out, washing machines, some cars) has gotten much cheaper. Everything that is at least partially an asset or lifestyle/status good (some cars, almost all real-estate, vacation time, health insurance, possibly a boat) has gotten much more expensive.

The result is a society in which people find it quite easy to obtain what their parents would have called frivolous luxuries (sushi), but quite difficult to obtain what their parents would have called basics (an affordable house in a good neighborhood).

[a8da6b0c91d]

No it's not an exaggeration. Find me a market today where four weeks off and a sub one hour drive to a truly nice rental beachfront single family home is a realistic expectation. Also, the home neighborhood is totally safe and good schools are in walking distance. This is the stuff that really drives the cost of living, not square footage and eggs and ipads per dollar.

[mjn]

Find me a market today where four weeks off and a sub one hour drive to a truly nice rental beachfront single family home is a realistic expectation. Also, the home neighborhood is totally safe and good schools are in walking distance.

How about Silicon Valley? Cupertino is safe and has good schools. And it's <1 hr drive to Santa Cruz or Half Moon Bay if you want beaches. Or you could do the other direction, and live in SC and commute to Cupertino (or wherever). Google even runs shuttles if that's your thing. I lived in Santa Cruz for years on a 5-figure salary, and felt quite comfortably well off. Actually I sort of wish it were further from Silicon Valley, because the only bad thing about living in SC was that the rich techies with 6-figure salaries were driving up prices...

[ericd]

Can you buy a house easily? Take off work and rent a beachfront place in Santa Cruz for a month?