Price tag for the American dream: $130K a year

[n2doc]

No idea is more central to Americans’ outlook than the American dream — the belief that with hard work and the freedom to pursue your destiny you can achieve success and provide better opportunities for your children.

Historian John Truslow Adams, who coined the term, called it “the greatest contribution we have made to the thought and welfare of the world.” It has inspired millions of people from every corner of the globe to come here in search of liberty and opportunity.But the financial crisis, housing bust and Great Recession have caused more of us to worry that the American dream is out of reach.

For the vast majority of Americans, there is a sense that achieving the American dream is becoming more difficult,” wrote Mark Robert Rank, Thomas A. Hirschl and Kirk A. Foster in a new book, “Chasing the American Dream.”

…

They’re right to worry. An analysis by USA TODAY shows that living the American dream would cost the average family of four about $130,000 a year. Only 16 million U.S. households — around 1 in 8 — earned that much in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

more

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014307040034

[yeoman6987]

1. It depends on what American Dream means to people

I have known some folks who make 20K a year and seem much happier than my friends that make 1 million a year. I made $158 last year on my tax return, but my neighbor who makes around 90K is just as happy as I am. It all depends on what you want out of life.

[Tommymac]

46. That's Great - but the issue is the Oppurtunity is being taken away

The Dream means a something different to everyone and rightly so - but the current economic trend in the US is making the ability to even try for you dream harder and harder everyday.

I for one refuse to justify and accept lowered expectations as the norm. IMHO that is flat out surrender and is what the 1% want - sheeple.

Our children and grandchildren have a right to expect a realistic opportunity to excel and better themselves if they choose, no matter what segment of the population they were born into. This realistic chance can not be limited to only children in upper class families.

[JDPriestly]

89. At tip for future reference: read the article, the full article at the link before you answer.

The article explains what it means by the American dream. It's itemized. Of course, the American dream differs from person to person, and the American dream described in the article is different from my American dream. Eating out is of no importance to me. I cook for our needs. But for example health care, being able to afford medicine and health care is a part of the American dream. So is education. You cannot aford much on $158 per year. Are you sure that was your income last year?

[yeoman6987]

91. I meant 158K....Sorry

[JDPriestly]

94. Makes sense. The article is pretty accurate about estimating the costs of life.

Your income is above the amount it says is necessary to achieve the American Dream. Do you feel you live it?


Not many do regardless of their income. But there is an objective measure of a lifestyle that allows a person to meet the standard described in the article.

Note. This is not about being happy. Millionaires can be miserable. It's about being able to pay for a house or a livable apartment, put your children in decent day care where they at least learn to talk if they are very young, replace your car when you have to, send your children to college if they want to go and eat healthy food, etc. That's what a person needs to live in dignity. Health care is a big item, and Obamacare is great but it still leaves many uninsured.

People live well in Sweden, Germany and Austria. We no longer have the highest living standard in the world although so many Americans think we do.

I could tell you lots of stories of people who earned good money and enjoyed a high living standard pre-2008. And now they have it really tough. The recovery has picked its winners and losers. A lot of the losers fell out of the middle class in that recession. Many of them are in their 50s and 60s and 70s and will never live a middle-class lifestyle again.

We are doing something wrong.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Rec

And it's worth going to the link to read the breakdown of expenses.

[antiquie]

3. Extremely modest estimate of expenses.

In California, many of those cost 50-100% more.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Ditto in Central NJ

INJIS live in the 6th wealthiest county in America - the housing price is a joke as it doesn't include property taxes. Though the author does give a nod to showing higher cost of living by region. It's important for people who have never lived in a pace like CA or NJ or NY to understand - $15 an hour is not enough.

[Gormy Cuss]

63. Remember that they were trying to estimate an national average value.

If someone used the same methodology and created state and metropolitan level estimates the dollar amount would be all over the map, with substantially lower income required in low cost areas and substantially more in high cost ones. For example, I'd guess that the SF Bay area equivalent income need would be 200-250K based on the much higher median housing costs.

[hfojvt]

44. is the median price of a home really $250,000?

Who can afford that?

Going by the 2.5 rule, you need $100,000 in income just for that.

Of course, when I was house hunting, my realtor tried to tell me I could afford a $70,000 house on my $23,000 income. But I refused to look at anything over $60,000.

I finally found one for $35,000.

But if the median home price IS $250,000 then 50% of the population must be paying that much, or more for their homes.

Is that just a reflection of the fact that those in the top 10% are a much larger share of home buyers than those in the bottom 40%? And it is their home purchases that push up the median price.

Anyway, a quick search finds houses for sale in my town for less than $40,000. So to say that the American dream is out of reach because a home costs $250,000 - to me that is just untrue.

And then $11,000 a year to own an SUV? Is most of that gas expense? Or comprehensive insurance? I am quite sure it is easily possible to spend less on a car, and further that most people do spend less than that.

And really, who saves $45,000 per child for college? ($2,500 a year for 18 years). And they save $17,500 a year for retirement?

I think all of those listed expenses are pretty unrealistic.

[oldhippie]

50. Median home price here in my area is about $100K ...

My son bought a pretty nice 1700 sqft house bordering the city park for $98K just about 18 months ago. And we are in one of the fastest growing regions in the country.

I dunno, I feel like I have lived (and am still living in retirement) the American Dream, and I never made even close to $130K. But then, I have never lived in NY or San Fran or any other expensive city.

[hfojvt]

62. so have I

and so have my siblings.

Well, I have, except for being unable to marry or have children, and my siblings don't talk about retirement (we are 54 to 44 and I plan to semi-retire (again) this year and retire fully in 2019).

And most Americans don't live in those high cost areas, although the combined population of the 30 largest MSA's in the country is 142.7 million - almost half of the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

That includes my county though, in the KC metro area. So not everyone in that MSA is living in a high cost area.

[JustAnotherGen]

68. I wish

We looked at homes for fun in Rochester NY when we were looking last year. My husband was blown away - our arts and crafts Tudor back home - fully restored - would be half what we paid.

And think of this - our property taxes on three properties in Italy this year were just over 2K euros.

[F4lconF16]

77. I disagree about saving for college.

From my own experience, $45,000 per child often isn't enough. My parents saved enough for me to make it through all 4 years at an in-state college. That's $80,000 for a state university (after a $5,000 a year scholarship, to boot). I, however, am going to an out of state college, where $45,000 would last one year.

A single year.

Ignoring the fact that tuition prices are far too high and need to be changed, I would say that saving that much per child is perfectly reasonable, if not enough. College is too expensive now (4 year university, that is) for too many people for it to be said that that's an unrealistic number. You can say that people might need to go to a different school, but that's not always an option. I'm studying aerospace engineering, and the only school that offers a degree in that in the Pac. NW is an out of state schcool that costs twice as much. This list discusses what is needed for the American Dream, and I'd say that being able to make it through college with minimal debt is part of that. For all the people like me out there (and there are many), $45,000 is nowhere near enough.

[hfojvt]

100. well there are other options

my own major of astrophysics was fairly rare. However, there are a couple of options besides paying ridiculous out of state tuition.

One, most of your courses for the first two years can be taken anywhere, even at an in-state school which does not offer your degree. You still need the first year of calculus, and probably an introductory physics course. Engineering courses like statics and dynamics (if they are still offering those kind of courses) are probably available at some in-state schools as well.

So there you've saved two years of out of state tuition. I played the same game even in college. For some reason, tuition was lower for people in the college of liberal arts than it was for students in the institute of technology. Yet, as a CLA student I could take the same classes for my astrophysics major. So I was officially a CLAer for my first two years.

Or, secondly, move to the other state, get a residence and a job. Live there for a year and establish residence so you can pay instate tuition. It will not kill you to graduate at age 23 instead of 22.

You've made the American Dream impossible or difficult to attain by greatly inflating the cost, and I don't think that is reaonable.

[F4lconF16]

104. I find your response to be dismissive at best and possibly insulting.

Please don't tell me that I can change all of my financial worries with a snap of my fingers, like it's that easy.

First, my introductory courses can't be taken elsewhere. To gain a degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering at the University of Washington, I need to have a certain number of my credits taken at the UW. That makes it challenging to get all those pesky intro calc and physics courses out of the way at another school. While it is possible that I could take those credits in-state at Oregon State University, the UW credit need still applies and at best I might be able to get a single year in state. Second, those intro courses that are taught at the UW are taught very differently at other schools. They are specifically designed to mesh with later courses in the Engineering Department. While it's great that you think that I can take them elsewhere, it's much more challenging to get in to the department as well as understand the material presented later on. I've seen the course material presented at OSU, and while the basics are the same, the emphasis is not. Add in a number of students in the department who have talked to me about their somewhat difficult experiences as transfer students, and you realize that it's not so easy to take basic (and theoretically the "same&quot courses elsewhere. Another possibility that might be raised is that I could attend a community college (and I wish I could) in order to save some money, but I'll tell you what: I tried that. The course levels offered (and at a pretty good sized community college) didn't come close to what I would have needed to apply to the aero department. While I'm happy for you that you managed to find a way to get around large tuition expenses, I don't have the same options.

Your next idea sounds nice: "Move to the other state, get a residence and a job. Live there for a year and establish residence so you can pay instate tuition." Sounds nice, that is, until you take a look at residency requirements (and please read them, they're important):

To establish domicile in the state of Washington, students must provide documentation showing they meet the following guidelines:

1) Students must prove conclusively that they have not come to Washington State primarily for educational purposes. Current guidelines require students who are enrolled for 7 credits or more a quarter must be employed at least 30 hours per week at a non-student job to overcome the presumption of educational purposes.

Okay, well that's easy enough. Right. There is no way I could work that much and still have time for classes, engineering projects, and you know, a life. But still, let's assume that I take a year off. We'll take a look through the rest of the requirements.

2) Live in the state for at least 12 consecutive months as legal residents. A legal resident is an individual who has relinquished all valid legal ties (e.g., driver's license, voter registration, etc.) with their former state of residence and established such ties in Washington in accordance with state and local legislation.

So re-obtain all of my legal ties with Washington instead of Oregon and live there for a year. I could do that, sure. That part is reasonable. I expect that.

3) Establish legal ties:
*Employment (if taking more than 6 credits a quarter during the first year of being present in Washington State).
*Driver's license/state ID. Students must obtain a Washington State Driver's License within 30 days of arrival if they have a current out-of-state driver's license. Students who do not possess a driver's license from any state, must obtain a Washington State Identification Card.
*Vehicle registration. Students who own or drive a vehicle in Washington must be registered in Washington within 30 days of arrival.
*Voter registration. Students who have a current out-of-state voter's registration must register to vote in Washington within 30 days of arrival. If an individual has previously registered to vote in another state, they must register to vote in Washington. If the student does not register to vote in Washington, this means that s/he may still vote absentee in the prior state of residency
*Establish a bank account in Washington.

Again, expected and noted. The next part is the fun part.

4) Be financially independent for the current and prior calendar years.

There is no way I could do that. It's not happening. This means I need to take a year off first of all, somehow find a job in Washington and an apartment I can afford on my own (hint: there aren't any), and then work there with no financial support from my parents. I guess that's possible. I could find a place, have my parents rent it until I could afford it, and then sever financial ties. However, now we've added on some time and I'm going to have to wait another extra year to start school because the undergraduate classes I need aren't offered every quarter. Then we get to the next year. I start school, and then I realize I can't receive help from my parents on my tuition. I hate to tell you, but there's no way I could afford to pay for college on my own even if I was working full time (which I couldn't) and receiving in-state tuition. Add on housing and food costs, and all of a sudden things aren't looking too good. Now my only options are to take out loans, saddling me with debt instead. Oh, and did I mention that tuition costs have increased for in-state students by 62% over the last five years? Yeah, that happened.


Now, I'm sure that you're someone who supports lowering the insane tuition costs that are still rising across the country right now, and I'm sure that you support students and education in general. I'm confident of that, actually, because normally I like reading your posts. But your response to me was demeaning and dismissive, as if I hadn't really thought about what I was doing. As if there aren't thousands of other students in the same boat as I am, getting screwed by the system we're stuck with. And it angers me. It's no longer an easy thing to attend any college, let alone an out of state one. I'm lucky enough that my parents were able to save some money and that I have a relative who's helping out, but some people don't even have that. Some of us don't have options. So please don't tell me we can fix everything just by thinking it through just a little bit more, and ignore the problem by pretending as if it's that easy for us to solve.

[SheilaT]

106. If you're a slightly older adult

the residency requirements wind up being somewhat moot.

At age 33 I moved to Minneapolis, and six months later took a summer class at the University of Minnesota there. They considered me in state.

If you're closer to traditional age they may look at you more closely.

And if you only need one year in residence at a specific school -- a typical requirement , although some require two years' worth -- to get their degree, you can still get all those pesky math and physics classes at the local junior college.

[PowerToThePeople]

108. Not to appear rude

But, with the problem solving skills that you exhibit in your above posts, you will not have great success as an engineer.

I am a degreed Mech E. who went in state JC, out of state for upper class work, after moving and establishing residency

It can be done. Maybe you have chosen the wrong major (something to possibly consider). NASA no longer has the shuttle program, Boeing has recently laid of many engineers, on and on. Maybe there are other industries up and coming which will need other engineering backgrounds. I think it is worth it to research.

You can take the pre-reqs at JC, and it may be best to. At larger universities, those course are often used as weed-out courses, stuffing 100+ into one physics or diff-eq class. At the JC, class size will be smaller and you will have a lot more access to the instructor, therefore a better support system. Now, you still want to be sure that the JC you are taking the courses at has a good reputation in those areas. This is also something you can research.

Out of state is tougher. Not sure where you are located, but Vancouver is basically a suburb of Portland metro, and you "could" find a place there to live for establishing residency. Heck, if you bend the rules a little bit, you could probably kick out all your JC in Portland while living in Vancouver working part time to pay for JC, and transfer to UW without even a taking a break from coursework.

I am not discounting how expensive education has become, it is much more that it was for me even 10 years ago. But as an engineer you will be expected, it is your primary job duty, to solve problems which appear insurmountable. Think of this as your first class.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. The "American dream" is a pernicious falsehood.

The idea is supposed to be that it doesn't matter who you are, where you come from, who your parents are; with hard work and determination, you can make it, because America is the fabled Land of Opportunity™. Well, guess what? That's not true at all:

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The USA has less economic mobility than most comparable developed countries.

[Tetris_Iguana]

5. I found their prices to be way too high.

$275k house? $11k/year car? Fully funded retirement?

People can have half of that and live pretty happily.

Also if someone's paying 30% in income taxes, they need a new financial advisor/Turbotax.

Not even Mitt pays that much...

[hobbit709]

7. some places the housing prices are easily $250K+

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. True, but as an average that seems high to me.

Still, I suppose it's possible given that prices are highest where people are most concentrated. Those of us who live in 'flyover' areas with lower population densities certainly get off a lot more cheaply. The 1700 sqft house next door to me just went for 80k.

[ballyhoo]

54. As an average it is high. Find a realtor and have them run average prices on their MLS service. You

will find yourself right about your average in most places with skewing coming in more exclusive areas.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. $275 is reasonable

Where I live. It's on the low end. What's not accounted for is the property taxes. That adds another $850 to my mortage each month.

[NutmegYankee]

23. Ouch!

My principal and interest is less than that for my mortgage. My local taxes add about $350/mo.

[Frustratedlady]

58. I agree, that is high!

I pay just under $290/mo for RE taxes and insurance on a house under $200K.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. My house was a cheap fixer upper too!

Not a foreclosure but the elderly woman who lived here was put in a nursing home - her kids did a good job on upkeep - but we still offered 70k less and closed at 50k less than offering. We've overhauled the kitchen, powder room, third floor bath and are in the midst of a major overhaul of the second floor bathroom. Still 1/3 of the way through and Republicans in NYC keep trying to trow money at us. Not budging though. This house will be worth four times what we spent on it by this time next year.

We had the cash to buy outright but saw the tax benefits of a mortage. It's not a huge benefit - but it helps overall.

Now you see - $10.10 or $15 an hour is not enough where I live.

My one bedroom I rented as a single woman was 1400 a month - 10 miles down the road. I noticed we had a lot of young teachers doubling up in those one bedrooms. Thats shameful to me. In 1996 I had a base salary of $25 K a year and could easily afford a one bedroom on my own in Rochester NY.

[ballyhoo]

56. You're paying $10,200 a year in property taxes?

Where is that?

[JustAnotherGen]

60. Hunterdon County NJ

Thats low compared to a place like Basking Ridge or Mendham NJ. The good thing is we are not as subject to the whims of Christies House of Horrors. I don't pay separate money for garbage or recycling removal. We have a solid police force and fire department - and our schools in our borough are excellent.

[ballyhoo]

61. That's the highest I've ever heard

of. My relatives used to live in Lyndhurst and Passaic. My uncle owned a Cadillac dealership in Hackensack (sp). He lived in a mansion and I don't think he was paying that much, but he could have been. My sentiments.

[JustAnotherGen]

65. That was Chris Christies whine

13K in Mendham last I heard.

I've only lived in NJ since 2006 - moved from Rochester NY as it was a dying city - not good for single educated black folks - my friends and I all left for the tri-state area, Bay Area, and Atlanta. Unless you moved to Atlanta you had to demand twice what you were making in Rochester. Major sticker shock.

I mean no disrespect to DUers who live in Passaic - because they know what I'm talking about - Horse Country NJ is a world away. The historic district of my borough has a lot of real wealth - it shows in the restored homes.

[ballyhoo]

66. We'll I wish you luck. I wonder if there are

property taxes in New Zealand. That is where we are looking now. Closest I've been to Atlanta was Tucker. I liked the place but that was 45 years ago.

[JustAnotherGen]

70. We are okay

My husband owns a business and he now employs 27 people. And his lowest pad employee makes $19.83 per hour.

Know why? Her business owner is from Italy and in that culture you are a failure if you cheat the people who work for you.

And they are on a one week paid break right now - not because they have no work - but it's because it's the right thing to do.

Ive heard the cost of living in New Zealand and Australia is high. Reach out to Number23 - she is an expat in Australia. She might be able to give resources to you.

[ballyhoo]

71. Number23? Okay. Thanks.

[abelenkpe]

11. Then you don't live in Los Angeles

Where 275k will buy you a garage in the hood. Actually no, it wouldnt even buy you that.

[SunSeeker]

20. Living in a cramped condo with your kids is not the American Dream. nt

[ballyhoo]

25. If 1200 square feet is cramped to you,

then you'd better try another dream. The houses on my street are between 1300 and 1700 square feet. Most of the occupants are moderately wealthy. They could buy bigger houses, but why?

[SunSeeker]

55. Yes it is, especially if you have no yard.

You can live in a 1200 sq. foot house with 2 kids as long as they share a room and there is a yard for them to play in. More kids than that or no yard and it IS cramped. Condos with no yards are not any parent's idea of a dream. Yes, it will do, but it is not the American Dream.

[ballyhoo]

59. Your reference was to a 1200 square foot

house. As long as they share a room? What exactly is wrong with sharing a room? When people are starting out they don't go for a 3200 square foot ranch-style house. They buy what they can afford and work their way up. Many condos I've sold have nice yards or common areas covered by Melo Roos taxes or not. But that wasn't the original discussion. Yes, LA is expensive compared to the rest of the country but that is now changing with the influx of new people from different countries. It peaked again recently but not to the level it was at, and now is going down again.

[Gormy Cuss]

72. A 2BR unit for a family of four is considered cramped unless the children are very young

or of the same gender. Now if the 1200 SF place were configured to have 3 or 4 BRs, not so much.

[ballyhoo]

86. Depends how big the second bedroom is. But as they age it will be more

difficult. I no longer know anyone that's having children.

[Gormy Cuss]

88. Depends nothing. Housing two older,opposite gender children in the same room is substandard

and the link in the OP is about the "American Dream" standard of living, not just getting by.

[ballyhoo]

92. Well, I understand your position. But based on what I'm seeing that

will be part of the new reality. I was in Murrieta the day the buses came. It's only an hour from my house. I saw a glimpse of the new the reality and promptly left.

[SunSeeker]

79. As a girl growing up with a brother with whom I had to share a room, it sucked.

There was no privacy, something he and I dearly needed as we entered our teens. We ended up hanging a blanket in the middle of our room. It was embarrassing. Our house was a tiny 2-bedroom, 1 bath, but it had a decent front and back yard. I spent a lot of time in the back yard. If we were in a condo, it would have sucked even more.

Most condos have greenbelts, but kids generally must stay on sidewalks or in designated playgrounds. That is a far cry from having your own yard, where you can leave your toys, pitch a tent, or just hang with friends and be left alone from annoying homeowner association assholes who report you for every little thing. That is why I bought a house with our own yard when I had a kid. Our old homeowner association would fine people $25 if their kids were found playing on the grass--HOA rules required everyone to stay on the sidewalks. Kids in condos is NOT the American Dream. It is that nice house in the suburbs with a white picket fence...where the kids can play.

And you can't get that in L.A. for under $500,000.

[SunSeeker]

95. There are no houses for under $500K in L.A. that fit the American Dream ideal.

Yes, you can buy tiny shacks in decent areas or large but decrepit houses in marginal or outright scarey neighborhoods for under $500K.

But if you want a HOUSE with green lawns, a safe neighboorhood where your kids can play, plus enough room for a family of 4 (i.e. the American Dream), you're not going to find that for under $500K in L.A. If there were such listings, you'd provide a link instead of calling me a liar and running off.

I wish you were right. I've got friends looking for such a house right now and having no luck. They're crammed in a 1 - bedroom apartment paying $1,395/mo. in West L.A., but that's the only thing they can afford in a safe neighboorhood.

[ballyhoo]

97. Here. Long Beach is in LA County

http://www.sackinteamhomes.com/results/?status=A&custom=54252%2C54233&maxprice=400000&minbeds=3&minbaths=2

[SunSeeker]

98. Long Beach is not Los Angeles.

The north/east end of Long Beach is no place to raise kids, even if you could squeeze them into those houses listed that go for $400-$500K. That is North Longo gang territory, the schools are horrid and whatever you buy in that price range will be 60 years old or more and require about $100k in repiping, electrical and kitchen renovation. We shopped that area. Plus, your commute into L.A. will be about 45 minutes each way. Not exactly conducive to a great family life.

Los Angeles County is a huge county that covers some unlivable shit holes, and goes far inland. It is not synonymous with the City of Los Angeles.

Do you really think the OP is wrong?

[HangOnKids]

103. PLease keep going

I see you have 4 hides......

[Gormy Cuss]

87. Teen years are definitely the deal breaker.

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

It's one thing to share with a same gender sibling--I did that for years-- but yet another to share with the combo of opposite gender sibling and teen years. Teens with body changes crave privacy. I know some families where kids slept in the basement or living room rather than share all the time. And yeah, it's not the "American Dream" which was the point of the USA Today calculation.

[Liberal_in_LA]

101. true. folks in my condo complex tend to move out as babies get older

I assume they are moving to houses

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. welcome to DU3

enjoy your stay.

[abelenkpe]

42. Condo in lake forest?

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 02:17 PM - Edit history (2)

Is not a house in LA. Fail!

Lake forest is not even in LA county. It is a lie to claim otherwise. It is nowhere. And a crappy condo with fees is no place to raise a family with children. Your post is delusional. No one is going to live in Lake Forest and commute to LA for work. It's 50 miles away and more than an hour commute on a good day. And LA is where the jobs are. You can fool yourself into thinking you have bought something of value but to compare a condo in nowhere'sville orange county to a home where one can raise a family in Los Angeles is ridiculous.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. 30% is the total of federal state and local taxes.

That is a fairly conservative estimate.

[NutmegYankee]

22. That's not that conservative an estimate.

I'm single and pay roughly 14% in federal tax, 4.5% in state income and 4.3% in property tax. The sales tax would close up the rest of the gap towards 30%. The tax brackets are harder on single people, especially the state income tax which collects an extra $700 because I'm single.

[hfojvt]

48. do you include FICA in the 14%?

But the 30% is kinda circular.

They need a high income for this American Dream, but at that high income, they pay a higher rate of taxes, making them need an even higher income.

[NutmegYankee]

53. No, I hadn't.

That would drive it a little above 30%, though I still pay a higher rate as a single person. I also pay fairly high state and local taxes because I live in Connecticut. But I don't consider the taxes to be that onerous given that the higher income more than makes up for a higher tax.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. And it includes property taxes on that 275K house

as well as sales tax estimates. See graphic at original story
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/07/04/american-dream/11122015/

[etherealtruth]

15. NY, DC, LA, San Francisco ... either of the coasts

The house I have in metro Detroit is approximately worth 0.25% of what it would be in northern Virginia (metro DC).

Folk in the heartland can live (fairly well) on significantly less ... but, if we take the country as a whole, it rings very true

[SheilaT]

17. Point two five percent?

one quarter of one percent? Wow. So a hundred thousand dollar home in northern VA would be $2,500 in Detroit?

Or do you really mean 25%?

[etherealtruth]

19. Oh shoot , yes... I meant 25%

(embarrassed)

A $150,000 house in Macomb County, MI would sell for approximately $500,000 in northern VA (my former sister in-law and I live in very similar houses ... but I am in Macomb Co MI and she is in northern VA ... and the value of the houses are $150,000 and $500,000 respectively

Though not the intention of my post, houses within the actual city of Detroit (with the exception of the areas becoming gentrified) may be 0.25%.

[llmart]

30. Hi from Macomb County also!

So I can vouch for what you are saying. Still, even with having no mortgage, being semi-retired I don't have a whole lot left over after paying just my basic living expenses, especially taxes, which run about $225 per month just for property taxes.

I can see both sides of this issue though, because I still think that the majority of people in this country equate happiness and a comfortable life with having lots of stuff. I'm saying this today because I just watched an excellent documentary called Earth Day about all the crap we buy that is totally unnecessary. I think it was an American Experience/PBS documentary, but I got it from my public library and it was very well done and reminded me of how everything began to change with Reagan.

[etherealtruth]

47. Good to know there are more of us (Macomb Co)

We lived on the east coast throughout the 1990s (suburban DC and Delaware) .... the cost of living shock was HUGE. So was the population density.

I have been back for 15 years (I grew up here) ... now I find it unbearably crowded and expensive here.

[SunSeeker]

24. Mitt pays less than almost all middle class people.

You see, our fucked up tax laws tax earned income at about twice the rate of capital gains. And the accountants for the rich have so many loopholes and tricks to avoid even the little taxes they pay on capital gains, that a lot of times it is close to zero. Many people suspected Mitt paid zero in prior years, which is why he only released one year of tax returns. And even that one showed only 14% was paid in taxes.

I pay about 30% in state and federal taxes. I am middle class. My income is from work. So I get screwed.

[stillwaiting]

27. "Only the little people pay taxes."

Sometimes the elite fuck up and tell the truth.

I have no idea why more people don't have a problem with how the rich have rigged the tax laws in their favor.

Way too many people want to continue to vacuum up dollars from the poor, working, and middle classes and empty those dollars in the offshore bank accounts of greedy assholes that don't care if they live or die. It's bewildering.

[PasadenaTrudy]

32. Want a good laugh?

Look at this little house for sale in my town. I live in a one bedroom apt, by the way...

https://www.redfin.com/CA/South-Pasadena/519-Grand-Ave-91030/home/7006205

[Tetris_Iguana]

36. That is insane.

Hence why I will never move there.

Hype just ain't for me.

[PasadenaTrudy]

40. It is insane

All I can do is laugh! I've been here all 50 yrs of my life and no way in hell could I buy a home here. I can't even rent a home here! Something is really wrong in this country, I'm sorry to say. Luckily, I'm happy in my little apt.

[cyberswede]

45. 3100 sq. ft. isn't very small...but that price is astounding!

Love the house, though.

[PasadenaTrudy]

49. True..

It just looks small from the outside. I drive by it all the time and didn't realize it was so big. I'd be happy with 1/3 of that space! It is very cute. The price is just outrageous. And I bet it will go pending very soon. I don't know where all the money is coming from, but these $1M+ homes get snapped up quickly. I think more film industry people and Chinese are moving into them, from what I see around me.

[TransitJohn]

67. Other than the housing price being a little low, nails Denver

You can have half that and live out in the sticks where there's no work, I guess. 30% income tax is about what my wife and I pay. We're at about $110k together.

[DFW]

115. Depends on where you hang out.

I pay 50%. So does my younger daughter. We both live in Germany now. She is employed by a German outfit, so she gets the full benefits package including health insurance. I work for an American outfit, so I get zero benefits, just the 50% taxes. That level kicks in around $125,000 income, by the way.

[tridim]

9. It would be nice if saving for retirement was affordable.

My parents were very lucky to have that luxury.

[etherealtruth]

18. Tell me about it

My father was able to retire (fairly comfortable) at the age of 51.

At 52, retirement is a distant dream for me (and not a super comfortable dream)

[Amonester]

13. "It's a Big Club, and you ain't in it." - George Carlin

"It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it."

[awoke_in_2003]

73. Exactly what I was going to post. nt

[SheilaT]

16. It really does depend a lot on where you live and

what you consider to be necessities.

I'm one who buys a second hand car and drives it for as long as possible. Oh, and I pay cash in the first place. Not a four wheel drive sport utility vehicle either. My current car is ten years old and I hope to be driving it another ten years.

Housing prices are the biggest issue. Depending on where you live, the median home price is not always the best bench mark to use. Here in Santa Fe than number is skewed upwards because of the very rich people who have million dollar homes. I bought a place that is maybe half of the median price here and it is perfectly fine for someone living alone. If I had a spouse and a couple of kids, I'd need a very different place, but I could still stay below the median price.

The cost of college is another somewhat misleading item. Unfortunately, almost everyone in this country has been bamboozled into thinking that a four year degree is utterly necessary. Just last night I was having a conversation with a woman whose oldest child doesn't really know what he wants to do in life and is struggling to remain in the public University where they live. Because of the prestige attached to being admitted to this school, which I won't name but I had never thought was a particularly good one, the child in question apparently won't even consider a community college as a sensible alternative, despite the fact he's all over the map as to what he might want to wind up doing.

I do agree that saving for retirement needs to be an absolute.

[PasadenaTrudy]

37. It's amazing

the amount of vacation/second homes there in Santa Fe! I was looking into renting a place for about 2-3 months for an extended getaway from L.A. and can barely find anything under $1,600 a month. Most vacation home owners will not even rent by the month. Abq is not cheap either for a longer term rental. If you have any inside knowledge, please PM me, lol! I'll be staying in Tesuque for a week this Fall for a short getaway

[jeff47]

76. Where you live can have a major effect on that.

I recently moved from upstate NY. They use so much road salt dealing with lake-effect snow that cars do not last 10 years. At about 6 years old you start having expensive problems due to all the rust.

Now I live in a southern climate, so a 10+ year old vehicle is possible.

Housing prices are the biggest issue. Depending on where you live, the median home price is not always the best bench mark to use. Here in Santa Fe than number is skewed upwards because of the very rich people who have million dollar homes. I bought a place that is maybe half of the median price here and it is perfectly fine for someone living alone. If I had a spouse and a couple of kids, I'd need a very different place, but I could still stay below the median price.

Are you confusing mean and median here? The mean of 1M, 10k, 10k and 10k is about 258k. The median is 10k. Median does give you a good measure of the "average" house, because it doesn't matter if the rich folks are living in $500k houses or $50M houses.

[SheilaT]

80. I did not think I was confusing the two

As I know perfectly well the difference between the two.

So I guess I should correct my statement to say average home price can still be very misleading.

Here in Santa Fe, I bought a place significantly less than the average sales price here, which is currently above $600,000. When we bought in Overland Park, Kansas, some years back, we bought a place that was about 50% more than the then average price.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes the figures on average or median housing prices (even understanding that they can still be very different measures) is still misleading. Many people who live here in Santa Fe consider it incredibly expensive. It's not. These are people who haven't a clue what housing costs are like in the LA area or NYC, just to name two. For them, the only point of comparison is Albuquerque, which does tend to be less expensive. I'm quite amazed at the many people who live in ABQ and commute here to Santa Fe. Several years ago I overheard a man telling someone that he was paying something like $500 a month for gas in his car to commute. Maybe it was even more money, I can't recall exactly. All I could think was how much he'd save by living closer.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

78. My advice to any new parents at this point

would be to start working on figuring out what your kids want to do while they're still in early grade school and working with them to start developing skillsets and knowledge bases early, outside of school. Kid wants to be in healthcare? Start them on nutrition, anatomy and physiology in the grade school years, so they know it six ways to Sunday before they ever hit high school, get em into microbiology, pathology, and pharmaceuticals during the high school years. Have them ready to ace any pre-med testing, intro classes before they ever get there.

But for any student, realize that the point of college is not to be in college, but first to learn the things available to learn, and second to get out with that degree. Find out in advance what intro level text-books are used in classes in the areas they want to go into, and buy those texts early and start working on learning. Do that, and the classes that come along will essentially be formalities, and fill in some gaps if they didn't quite study what's being taught in all cases. If you simply wait until you get to college and pick a degree by tossing a dart at something 'interesting', you'll always be at a disadvantage to those who've been learning the field they want to go into from a young age.

I'd even say that for adult learners switching fields. Start on your own, in advance, before you ever take a class.

[SheilaT]

81. That's a nice idea in practice, but kids in early

grade school have absolutely not a clue what they really want to be eventually.

I was talking last night to a woman whose 19 year old son is struggling in college, and on the very edge of flunking out, because he always thought he was supposed to be an engineer like his dad. But he has no aptitude in that direction, terrible at math, and so on.

What is useful is to take aptitude testing things, and pay attention to what you're really interested in and like doing. And make sure that there are jobs out there in that field, which is one thing a lot of kids in college pay no attention to.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

84. None of the aptitude tests I ever took came anywhere near to

identifying any of the fields I've wound up in. I'd be a forest ranger if I followed that advice.

My advice is geared towards being ahead of the pack in whatever field you go into. If you're the best, you're going to find jobs, even when times are tight. If you don't know where you're going, chances are you'll be just another mediocre applicant in a sea full of resumes.

[SheilaT]

107. Those tests aren't perfect, but I certainly found them very helpful.

There is also a real limit to how early it is realistic to start on your career. A young child rarely is focused on the same thing they'll be doing as an adult, with dance being one of the major exceptions.

It's why most kids change majors at least once in college. I think it is helpful that some high schools have started various career focus things for the kids. Even with that, I keep on meeting people who got all the way through college quite successfully and then when they started working in their field discovered the simply did not like it that much.

You are absolutely right that you need to know where you are going, and too many college kids do just drift. I spent all four years that my younger son was in college telling him to please go to their Career Center and discuss job prospects and internships with them, but could never get him to do it. And the career centers all say that their biggest problem is that so few students ever come to them. Which means, as you've correctly pointed out, the person who is ahead of the game should do much better.

It's just that I don't think most people at a very young age can actually make a sensible decision about what they're going to be doing fifteen or more years down the road. Heck, most of us how are at least that far into our working lives are doing something quite different from anything we ever thought we'd do.

[Hugin]

21. I knew my family had been passed.

Must've been pretty recently, too. Now, we're down by approximately a yearly income.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. and I bet they want it to be made by the man so the woman can stay home and

raise the children.

I could be wrong but, I doubt it.

[riderinthestorm]

29. The article isn't like that. It just quotes where it got the figures and how its calculated

Its pretty straightforward and accurate (in my opinion).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. ok then. did not click on the link so then - they are saying it takes two people

to make a total of 130,000 in one household to live the American Dream ...

so that pretty much leaves out all single people unless that one person makes the sum total alone.

[riderinthestorm]

33. Agreed. Which is why they're saying the "American dream" is dead for most people

If it ever was...

[NutmegYankee]

34. No. A single person will have lower expenses.

With no children several of the expenses listed drop off. Also, a single homeowner will usually have a smaller and cheaper home.

[riderinthestorm]

35. Agreed. I was simply dealing with figures in the article which is for a family of four

They actually don't indicate whether its a single parent household. They simply say for a family of four.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. and I think that is why I went where I did with this ... the Model of the the

FAMILY of FOUR. So, last century .... so even, 1950's really.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. because you qualified with the word usaully, I will refrain from comment.

but, honestly .... LOL.

no single parents in your world ... ?

really ... ?

[NutmegYankee]

41. You didn't state single parents.

You stated "so that pretty much leaves out all single people unless that one person makes the sum total alone". So I addressed the status for a single person, since I live like that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. well, all I am driving at here ... is that it is a very narrow subset of Americans that fit

this scenario and I don't understand how to extrapolate the numbers to make it meaningful for the HUGE amount of the population that is not a FAMILY OF FOUR.

that terminology is trying to say that it is part of the American Dream to be a FAMILY of FOUR.

I just find that laughable. I think we as a society have moved way past that definition and we did it a Long Time ago.

That TPTB are still using the phrase tells me they are still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Good luck with that to TPTB.

[NutmegYankee]

51. Agree. The "nuclear family" is an idealism.

Millions of the younger generation remain single.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

57. Honestly, I don't even think it is an idealism at this point.

Why on earth is it Ideal to be family of four?

It is certainly not my Ideal now, if it ever was.

Is it yours now or ever in the past?

[NutmegYankee]

93. I know a lot of people who want it.

I think our culture drives people to think that is what is right. People who choose to live alone are often regarded poorly by our society.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. single earner families were the norm in the 50s and 60s. Starting in the 70s family income

kept pace with inflation and the decline in real wage growth by adding another income. Now families are struggling to keep above water with two earners and outside of child labor, which of course the Republican Party has come out in favor of, there are no more earners to draw from.

As far as the article goes "they" don't "want" anything, "they" are just reporting what it costs to maintain a "middle class" family in 2014. It costs way more than the median income. That's the point. The iconic american middle class lifestyle is out of reach for most of the alleged middle class. People are maintaining the illusion through home refis, by not saving for retirement, by ruinous debt levels, etc.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

75. yes. the end.

[ClarkeVII]

82. I'm sorry but...

The American dream is not spending "$11,039 a year to own one four-wheel-drive sport-utility vehicle" nor it is purchasing a "median" $275,000 home. There is way more to life than this. People who think this is the life need to get off the hyper-consumption bandwagon.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

90. +1

This article is ridiculous.

My wife and I have a very nice home for less than $275K (in fact a lot more home than we really need). With loan payments, insurance, gas and maintenance, we are probably close to $11K for 2 decent vehicles (again nicer than we need). I will admit to being a little materialistic. We have friends who make a fraction of what we do and are just as happy. It's not about the size of your house or how nice your car is. If you can provide a good home for your family and can support them with the food, health care and education they need, and spend time together, that it what matters.

While we do need to be aware of growing wealth disparity and the billionaire owners of this country fucking the working class and fight them on it, we also need to realize excessive materialism doesn't guarantee happiness.

[n2doc]

83. Unfortunately, these sorts of studies always cause DU to desend into "4 yorkshiremen" mode...

[Barack_America]

110. "Financial security" is dead for most Americans.

That's the point. But let's ignore that and attack one another about whether a $275k house is extravagant. Gee, do you think that sort of infighting is how we got here in the first place?

So yeah, you and I are on the same page. I'm kicking your OP because I was about to post tis myself.

[cali]

96. I'm not remotely interested in whatever version of the American Dream is being sold

I like simple. I prefer it.

[defacto7]

102. Just some added perspective....

I bought a house in the Portland OR area in 1990... 6800 sq ft. on 5.5 acres. What did I pay? $260K

[Quantess]

105. They left out the costs of vacations, hobbies, higher education, etc.

So this is actually a modest calculation.

[maced666]

109. Then that should be the minimum wage.

Or subsidized federally for the 10s of millions disabled from making a living or 'dream'wage. richest nation in the world where does the money go?

[B Calm]

111. The American Dream now days is having enough money to retire.

[n2doc]

112. Ain't that the truth

401k's blow.

[cbdo2007]

113. This is way off....You can easily be living the "American Dream" in the Kansas City area for

$60,000/year or less.

I like how 100 years ago, if there weren't opportunities in your area you picked up and moved to where the jobs/housing/opportunities were.

Nowadays everyone just complains about why the jobs/housing/opportunities don't come to them. Americans are jaded and will never be happy until they realize what causes happiness....and no, it isn't a cell phone to check your Facebook and an SUV.

[Xithras]

114. Yes, but then you're living in Kansas City.

The point is to "Dream", not to "Exist". One CAN exist on smaller sums in many parts of the nation, but what about all of the things that make the Dream worth pursuing? Nightlife? A variety of educational options? Nearby entertainment and vacation venues?

I live in California. In under five hours of driving, I can be hiking in Yosemite, or strolling across the Golden Gate, or walking around Disneyland or Hollywood Blvd., or hanging out on the beach, or windsurfing in Tahoe, or exploring massive cave systems in the foothills, or poking around the old mining towns, or drinking my way through some of the worlds best and most diverse wine growing locales, or climbing some of the highest peaks in North America, and on, and on, and on. That's why my current crappy little piece of California suburbia in the California Central Valley (not even the NICE part of the state) is worth about $320,000 right now. Sure, I could probably buy a bigger house for the same money, or the same house for less, in the midwest, but then I wouldn't be HERE...and I couldn't do any of the things that make me happy.

Having a cheap house wouldn't make me happy. Living in a place where I can enjoy my life to its fullest makes me happy. If that costs more, so be it!

[cbdo2007]

116. LOL, The "American Dream" is not your personal dream...

and has nothing to do with proximity to fun vacation locales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_dream

[Xithras]

117. From the second line of your own link:

In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.

The "American Dream" isn't about owning a building. It's the notion that all people, irrespective of the social class or poverty of their birth, can rise above that starting point to live a rich and full life. We tend to include home ownership as one aspect of a good life, but it's only one piece to the puzzle. Educational opportunities, employment opportunities, and yes...even opportunities for personal enrichment or enjoyment, are all a part of it.

Kansas City may provide a lower cost of living, but those cheaper houses are accompanied by fewer educational opportunities, more limited employment options, and vastly fewer opportunities for personal enrichment or enjoyment. Houses may be more expensive here, but I certainly believe that the American Dream is more attainable in a place like California than in somewhere like Missouri.

But then again, as a born and bred California native, I may be a bit biased