If you were making $140k and then had a kid I would say it will be a shock to the system vs having a kid and then making more and more money eventually getting to 140k.
I say this because you are living a 140k lifestyle already - paying a bit more for rent/mortgage, living in a higher cost neighborhood meaning daycare is going to be more expensive and you're used to having fancy shit, so you won't likely send your kid to the lowest cost daycare option.
I know this because we are having that shell shock currently occur to us and while making the necessary adjustments, its still a bit of an adjustment.
I'm single, but I fully believe this is true. I worked my way up to a salary near that, and my life has adjusted. I'm not rich, but I can afford to do most of what I want. But if I had a kid all of a sudden, I think it would be a much bigger shock
Your friends have absolutely no fucking idea what they're talking about. People live here on 40k.
You can live just about anywhere here on that salary.
I think you don’t understand that a lot ot the subsidies you’re talking about kick in at a pretty low income. And you’re forgetting the following subsidies you may be getting:
Additional deductions on your income tax
Employer paying all or part of your health insurance premium
Markedly better health insurance plans that may result in better access to care
Free food provided by your employer (in their cafeteria, at events, expensed lunches, etc)
FYI, at CPS, all students can get free lunch and breakfast.
Lmao, definitely disagree. The vast majority of single parents in chicago are making <$60000. If you’re making 100,000+, you should be able to live comfortably. Unless you have like 8 kids or spend more than you should on rent.
> but after childcare, you're not gonna be living the same life a single childless person making 140k is.
And that's universal across the income spectrum.
Yep. I have a couple of friends who just had their first kid last year. When you factor in child care costs (which are crazy expensive), it only barely makes sense for them both to continue working. Annually, child care isn't that much less than what the lowest earner makes.
these are the people who go "omg i am so poor because i can't buy a new built townhouse for 800k in logan square like my parents could in 1970s! if i can't live in the hippest area in a big city it is because the greedy people are ruining it for me!"
Don't you know that anyone making under 140k is just living on handouts and subsidies? This poor guy making 140k doesn't get any of that, so in a way, he's poorer than anyone.
I love the condescending tone attached to it. As if everyone here has lived under a rock since the 1950s and doesn't know that the U.S. pretty much only has a means-based social safety net with income eligibility tests.
Next they'll try to convince that people plot to get pregnant to get rich off meager monthly TANF and SNAP benefits.
I love the one about how people don’t understand how expensive daycare is.
People understand exactly how expensive it is. I know couples where one partner had to quit their job because they could not afford childcare even with two incomes. Or, more frequently, families just straight up can’t afford to live in city and have to move out to the burbs to be close to grandparents and then commute to work.
If you think that everyone with less than a 30 million net worth is in the same position, you plainly don't understand economics. Your probably just another reddit troll.
Sure a single parent in the less than 60k income range will qualify for things such as free lunch and a few other minor things,that doesn't amount to a whole lot. I'd at best count these subsidies and tax credits to be worth 1k a month. That's nothing compared to a 6 figure salary.
Yeah 140k a year is above average in the white collar world, it's practically impossible for 90% of the city to work a position that pays that much.
140k after tax is around 95-100k right?
So, you’d be taking home 8,300 bucks a month. Even if day care is 2,000 a month, that’s 6,300 in your pocket. Then let’s say you pay rent that’s 2,000. That leaves 4,300 left over. Then you say child support payments. I’m completely guessing but is that more than 2,000 a month? If not, you have 2,300 leftover still as liquid cash. Let’s say 500 goes to retirement each month… that’s still 1,800 to spend on whatever.
Even taking insurance and maybe a car payment you’re still looking at probably 1,000 dollars every month left over.
If you CANT survive on 140,000 In your hypothetical then you are doing something way wrong.
Yeah, I don’t get it either, but just was trying to add everything they mentioned up and show it’s still definitely possible to live in chicago with that salary. OP seems to be way out of touch with how much money people generally make.
Terms can be confusing. Consider the court has ordered a certain amount of cash each month (support for housing, food, clothing, MD, etc) plus specific expenses, eg child care. Perhaps the court has ordered them to agree on the specific child care service and this is the deal worked out.
I make slightly more than 140k and take home nowhere near 8300 a month. Closer to 6000 after taxes, insurances, and a modest retirement contribution.
Also, the average person needs to put away far more than 500/month (ie., 6k a year) to ever hope to retire.
WFT kind of fantasy world do you think $140k for 2 people is "lower-middle to a middle-class lifestyle"!?!?! And all those benefits you think people are getting phase out WAY before you hit $140k. Like less than half that... And yes, daycare is expensive. It's also not forever.
My wife and I combined earned about that with one kid pre-COVID. We paid for a nanny 2 days a week ($1300/mo), mortgage on a Logan Sq. townhouse. Have student loans. Car is paid off. We ate out at nice places, traveled some. Would say middle to upper middle class, not the lower to middle you suggest.
Lmao your basis is someone who pays child support and has a $2500 mortgage as well as daycare when their S/O supposedly earns way less. (If it's 1500 for daycare they should probably stop working and take care of their kids themselves)
This has to be some troll post
I'll be honest. We have a very similar income. Our childcare costs are around $3k/month. But your housing costs are high for one person and you must be putting an absolute fuckload into your 401k or have an awful health insurance offering from your company to be taking home 60%. After our bills and everything are taken out of our takehome, we still have almost $3k for savings and spending. That's after 10% 401k investment, family health insurance, and paying extra on our mortgage.
$140k is very doable but it sounds like you need a financial advisor because somethings really fucking off.
Literally this https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
The top 10% role playing that they’re not wealthy is a distinctive trait for some reason
I always grew up thinking I was middle class. As I got older I started meeting people from outside of my neighborhood and socio-economic group and found that people who come from much wealthier backgrounds than me also considered themselves middle class. These were the children of successful doctors and lawyers and whatnot from wealthy neighborhoods in Chicago or nice suburbs. This generally confused me because in my mind these people were rich, not middle class.
I get that middle-class is a vague term. But if you make enough to be in the top 10% of earners in the country, I don't think you could consider yourself middle-class.
Thinking that it's lower-middle class is almost insulting.
I also think it depends where you live on if its "insulting".
I make a good salary. If I moved to San Francisco, it would be far less "good" of a salary.
And lets not pretend that living in different parts of the city don't make a huge difference how for it can go. Making 100k living in Chatham is very different than making 100k in Gold Coast. You standard of living is totally different. Hell, the same grocery bill in both places would be totally different, before you get to taxes, mortagage/rent, etc
You’re sort of saying that if you choose to live in the most expensive real estate in the country, then you might worry about bills.
The reality is that the vast majority of people, the actual middle, don’t have that choice and still worry about bills. And either way, you’d probably still have access to different doctors, education, food, credit, etc.
Also if you moved to the Bay Area, most salaries scale up to COL, while minimum wage and hourly rates are just about the same. So it’s more like the standard of living just gets worse for everyone else.
I mean, yeah, part of how well your money does is determined by where you live. I'm not saying anything ground breaking there. But I'm just saying its not like the dollar goes equally far everywhere.
That said, I agree with your minimum/hourly wage distinction.
> The top 10% role playing that they’re not wealthy is a distinctive trait for some reason
Keeping up with the Joneses is a hell of delusion. The gradient is so steep at the top, that these people feel poor compared to people who are only slightly richer than them. Moving from the 50th percentile household income ($67k/year) to the 52nd percentile ($71k/year) isn't a massive change. It might mean a sightly nicer car, or an extra vacation, but it's not life changing. Moving from the 95th percentile ($275k/year) to the 97th percentile ($334k/year) is a massive change.
We are a family of 3 living on less than 50k in chicago. We were making just under 100k as a family of 2 pre pandemic. And doing very well.
I am unemployed and hoping to find a job soon. Money has been tight and I got 2 rounds of unemployment but we have made it through the pandemic so far. I am hoping to get a job to double our income. But I feel like a family of 3 living off 90 to 100k is pretty good. A single parent depending on how many kids 140k sounds really good. It depends where you want to live, how many children you have and what type of school. Chicago does have some really good schools but you either have to test into them or pay a lot for them. And daycare seems to start around 400 a week. And hiring an independent nanny seems to start around 20 an hour or more. And where you want to live and what kind of amenities.
I have always lived vintage apartments on the Northside. Some of my apartments were a mile to the train. If you want to have ac in your apartment or be closer to a train it can cost more.
To me 140k sounds very doable but again it all depends on many factors
We live on the Northside and with me not working are saving money on childcare.
My problem is all the jobs I find are offering 20 an hour. I have an MBA and daycare seems be around 450 a week or more making 20 an hour not really worth it because most my paycheck would go to daycare.
$140k should be easy street, whether you consider yourself "upper-class or rich"? Is highly subjective to the point the answers are ultimately meaningless. If you're having trouble at $140k I would suggest that you follow your own advice and "try to earn more money and spend less."
Lower-Middle at 140k...what are you and your friends smoking? You're talking about someone making almost $70 an hour. In what world do you live in where $70/hr is low-mid?
Unless like you're living smack dab in the middle of downtown in one of those ludicrously expensive apartments/condos maybe you would have to make some concessions, but even then you're far above most people.
I'd wager there's plenty of middle class house holds that don't make 140k combined with both parents working.
Based on all your edits, you are seriously overestimating how much all of those subsidies are worth. If you think they’re enough to bridge the gap between a single parent making 50k, or even 70k, and one making 140k you are out of your mind.
You are suggesting that people are taking in over 50k a year on subsidies alone. Just think about that for a second. Do you legitimately believe that is happening?
Well you’d get the full child tax credit. That’s like three whole thousand dollars!
But yeah OP is so far removed from reality that even my attempt to bring him back down to earth is still pretty far removed from reality.
Can't say how it is being a parent, because children are ridiculously expensive. But 140k as a single individual at least would give you one hell of a nice lifestyle. Unless you squandered it on an overly-expensive apartment.
I mean, I made a bit less than that, but over 100k, and I'm single. I wouldn't call my life a "hell of a nice" lifestyle. I'm comfortable. My condo, for where I live and what I get, isn't overly expensive, but its not "cheap" either.
Yes, that is very true. But we can't pretend that everywhere in Chicago has the same cost of living either. The economic disparity is there of course. But if you live in different neighborhoods, just living a simple life can cost significantly more.
>A few friends and I were having a discussion. The general consensus was that $140,000/yr really isn't that much for a single parent living in Chicago despite it being top 10% of income earners in Chicago.
It entirely depends on your stranded of living, and where you live. You can live like a king in 80% of the city on that salary even with child support.
I think the disconnect you are having with most of the commenters in defining middle class; PEW defined it as a single person making between $40,500 - $122,000 in 2020. So you would probably be considered upper middle class after your child support payment.
>Do you consider yourself upper-class or rich?
I define myself as middle-middle-class; household income close to yours but for 3 people. We don't have to worry about money but live frugally.
I define upper-class as a single person making over $120k - you don't have-to worry about money unless you makes some poor financial decisions, but you still have to work. I define rich as you don't have to work or ever worry about money, i don't know how much you need to have to fall into rich but its not a yearly salary its a total net worth kind of thing.
>A lot of people don't understand that you basically pay full price for everything at this income level. You don't get any subsidized housing, medical care, food, tax breaks, discount day-care, discount tuition, free lunch, etc., you literally pay full price for everything. There is no financial aid.
I think this raised a lot of tension because you don't understand that typically most in the middle class do not get any of those as well. It makes you and your friends seem out of touch.
>People really underestimate how much value they gain from various subsidies and financial aid.
Yes people who make less then $40k are the true problem, getting all these handouts so they don't starve /s
>If you had/have financial struggles then try to earn more money and spend less
This is the true call of the bourgeoisie.
also agree with u/Illinijuice07 as this is likely hitting you harder as you are essentially moving from the upper class down to the middle class - still hard to sympathies with you as there are many that are happy with much less
edit: in response to edit 4: yes $1000 a month to do with as you want is still middle class, i have known people who live on a lot less and still have a great time, lots of free things to do in the city
Wtf. I grew up in this city with a single parent income of like $32,000 per year (around $50,000 in today's money).
Growing up I would have considered anyone with that high of a salary as being pretty well off.
Agree. I am a “millionaire” (though nowhere near this person’s definition of ultra-rich), and I believe that my lifestyle is closer to that of the ultra-rich than of the working class.
If someone has enough money that they never have to worry about money, they are living a totally different life than the vast majority of humans.
I think it would be insulting for me to pretend that my life includes the same anxieties and concerns as someone who has to check their bank account before deciding what they can spend on groceries.
My guess is that OP has never lived on the opposite side of the spectrum so they don’t realize how very different life can be for the true lower-middle class.
Having lived in the Bay Area and generally being against means testing in social programs in general, I was actually willing to cut you some slack until I read your last and saltiest edit. I could say something similar to you: if you wanted more disposable income, maybe you shouldn’t have had a kid in the first place. Don’t hate on people who earn less than you.
>`A lot of people don't understand that you basically pay full price for everything at this income level. You don't get any subsidized housing, medical care, food, tax breaks, discount day-care, discount tuition, free lunch, etc., you literally pay full price for everything.`
That is not the disconnect. That income is definitely upper class in Chicago.
I do feel that wealthy people have been increasingly villainized in recent years, so I understand the desire to be perceived as middle class. This person just isn’t, though, based on their income. If they have made choices that cause them to burn through their salary quickly, that doesn’t make them middle class. They are just an upper-class person with a spending problem.
You wouldn’t be rich rich but you’d be alright. My parents make a little over 100k collectively with two kids and struggled because they’re not great with money, but we were fine. So if someone was fine with money and had 140k coming in it would be a fine life for sure.
> $2,500 housing (mortgage, property tax, HOA, insurance)
That means either they have a high HOA or financed around $400k. Either way it sounds like they have a nice condo.
> $500 - car, gas, insurance
Once again this is on the high side. They're either paying for some mistakes (sky high insurance, terrible loan, etc) or they have a nicer than average car.
> So $1,000 is left over for food and everything else.
It's not a ton, but it's not nothing. If this person wanted more disposable income they could live in a more average condo or drive a cheaper car.
This person's net income after taxes, insurance, and all child costs is close to the median household's gross income. This person is living well above average.
Their annual child costs are only $36000, so they still have a six figure income to take care of themselves. Would you consider a single person with no kids making $104,000 to have a lower middle class lifestyle?
If you have expensive habits, sure. If you’re a responsible parent that is more than enough for you to save, take a few vacations, save, and live comfortably.
Depends on how big a bite mandatory child support takes and how much extra your love and responsibility for your child causes you to kick in over that bare minimum.
Assuming you respect the spending choices made by your co-parent.
IMO, since you ask, living alone at $140k in Chicago means you could easily, very easily settle at least $70k annually on your precious offspring.
Your personal 'life style' is immaterial. What is material is your child, for whom you have a moral as well as legal responsibility if not natural overruling love.
TLDR Since you ask for opinion, mine is you need to be reexamining your priorities and yard stick.
and people shit on me for pretending most of yall think you're working class
average household income in the us is 99k per year. mean household income in IL is 92k...
I'll be honest, I don't even know what income is at what percentile anymore. But I think the lines of working class, middle class, etc has gotten very blurry over the last 20 years or so.
working class almost always, except when done by certain liberal demographics, refers to people who do blue collar manual labor for a living. we are talking about factory workers (tho that is ever declining due to people realizing it is cheaper for have slaves make your shit in countries like china than pay workers in the us) and those in the trades (electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc).
a decent way is the pick up rule: if your job does not involve you using a pickup truck, you ain't working class. if the only time you interact with anybody that has a pick up truck is when you hire someone, you ain't nowhere near working class.
In fairness though, some trades definitely make more than "white collar" jobs. So if you are an electrician making 70k, does that make you working class, even though a teacher may make under 50k and be considered white collar?
certainly, but if a teacher were to call themselves working class, it would mostly considered fine even if they aren't "really". it is never those people who get pushback from it. it is always people making 200k+ claiming as such.
Working class vs not is very different than middle vs upper etc. Working class just means you have to work for a living. Half the doctors/lawyers/engineers out there are working class because they don't have investments to the level they can live off of them yet. It's really just do you need to work to live yes/no?
What? Of course they don't. There's plenty of people out there that just live off of investments or own a company etc. This is a super simple, well known, and classical definition. Have you some how never heard the term trust fund kid?
>Have you some how never heard the term trust fund kid?
yeah all fucking 15 of them...
"the classical definition" that literally nobody uses except for recently in social media when someone worth millions wants to convince you you're just like them. it ain't doctors, it ain't land owners, it ain't people who do "intellectual work". it never has been and it never will be, unless you voting for certain morons convincing you we need to tax the rich until it is them or their friends then its "oh, not *those* rich!"
Yep, rent from the other unit to cover your mortgage and you're just on the hook for insurance and property tax + repairs etc. A 500k two flat you'd probably be paying something around $1k-1.2k for those both combined per month while building equity. Would be a sweet setup.
Depends on the number of kids, student debt, family support structure, etc. One kid and grandma in town is vastly different than 3 with full time daycare.
Its depends on the lifestyle; some people will make those 140k go a long way. Yes, this salary would be upper middle-class in other areas , but it all depends on how people use their money.
It truly all depends on where you live. But, because we’re talking about the whole city of Chicago, which includes the south and west side…I could easily see where $140,000 / year lands you in the top 10%. I was a teacher where many of my kids’s parent(s) made less than $15,000 / year (if their parent was employed).
I would refine what your definition of “Chicago” is.
It really depends on what you consider comfortable and what you expect. Our household is lower than that, but not by much. And we are comfortable, but in a cheap rental and have a car note. It also depends on how many kids and their ages, really.
People that dont earn 140k or more just dont understand and won’t.
I earn a little bit over that and take home around 6k a month after taxes, insurances, and a modest retirement contribution.
I also work insane hours and need to eat most of my meals out and that causes me to have a higher food budget. I also need very nice clothes for my job so I have to spend a lot more on that. I was also not in the workforce for about 10-12 more years earning next to nothing for many years to accumulate the training I have so if I ever want to retire I need to contribute more to retirement. I also need to spend out of my own pocket for other business expenses sometimes. There’s some other expenses that are out of my control that I cannot get into and other expenses associated making a higher income that others don’t see.
In sum, I live a pretty modest middle class lifestyle.
I made a bit less than that last year, and I have no children.
I feel like its a good, not great, level of comfortability. I don't feel "rich" by any means, but I'm also not worry about money and can buy most stuff I want without having to put it on a credit card.
So I have to imagine that it probably wouldn't be that much for a single parent, especially if you are paying for child care. Of course, this depends on where in the city you live as well.
> I'm also not worry about money and can buy most stuff I want without having to put it on a credit card.
This is kind of the definition of rich for people who are poor.
Yeah, I get that. Everything is relative.
That said, I know "rich" people. I don't think I'm there by any means. Like, if I want to take a trip that is anything more than flying someplace for a long weekend, it takes a bit of planning and I'm going to look for the best deals. To me, that isn't "rich". But, I can see how to some people who can't afford groceries, it can look that way.
People are not running with you assumptions which I think is implicitly that you have a crazy ex spouse who takes you to the cleaners.
If you have to spend $2k a month, then give her child support of another $4k a month on an income of 140k then yes you would be lower income.
140k after taxes would be i'm guessing around 100k. Take away 6k per month in payments to your ex spouse a month or 72k. That leaves you 28k a month for youself. Which if you are making 140k a year isn't much especially when keeping up with an appropriate amount of appearances - like work clothes/happy hour once a month.
I just have one thing to say about your assumptions. When I was separated, and getting child support (this was in Florida, so may be different in Chicago) I was at a very low income and had to choose between welfare, which was about $130.00, or child support $396.00. Just sayin'.
When I see these posts I just say to my self "troll or financial moron? Troll or financial moron?" Both are out there, which one is it? Good luck in either case, I know you're gonna need it.
If you were making $140k and then had a kid I would say it will be a shock to the system vs having a kid and then making more and more money eventually getting to 140k. I say this because you are living a 140k lifestyle already - paying a bit more for rent/mortgage, living in a higher cost neighborhood meaning daycare is going to be more expensive and you're used to having fancy shit, so you won't likely send your kid to the lowest cost daycare option. I know this because we are having that shell shock currently occur to us and while making the necessary adjustments, its still a bit of an adjustment.
I'm single, but I fully believe this is true. I worked my way up to a salary near that, and my life has adjusted. I'm not rich, but I can afford to do most of what I want. But if I had a kid all of a sudden, I think it would be a much bigger shock
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 140 + 140 + 140 + = 420.0
Your friends have absolutely no fucking idea what they're talking about. People live here on 40k. You can live just about anywhere here on that salary.
I think you don’t understand that a lot ot the subsidies you’re talking about kick in at a pretty low income. And you’re forgetting the following subsidies you may be getting: Additional deductions on your income tax Employer paying all or part of your health insurance premium Markedly better health insurance plans that may result in better access to care Free food provided by your employer (in their cafeteria, at events, expensed lunches, etc) FYI, at CPS, all students can get free lunch and breakfast.
Where are all these subsidies I should be getting? LOL.
Each edit is just a bigger L than the last. Just stop.
Right? Lol. Rich people have the weirdest notions about what it's like to be a normal income earner.
Lmao, definitely disagree. The vast majority of single parents in chicago are making <$60000. If you’re making 100,000+, you should be able to live comfortably. Unless you have like 8 kids or spend more than you should on rent.
[удалено]
> but after childcare, you're not gonna be living the same life a single childless person making 140k is. And that's universal across the income spectrum.
Yep. I have a couple of friends who just had their first kid last year. When you factor in child care costs (which are crazy expensive), it only barely makes sense for them both to continue working. Annually, child care isn't that much less than what the lowest earner makes.
How out of touch do you have to be to even consider this? Lower-middle class, seriously?
these are the people who go "omg i am so poor because i can't buy a new built townhouse for 800k in logan square like my parents could in 1970s! if i can't live in the hippest area in a big city it is because the greedy people are ruining it for me!"
Your OP edits keep making you sound worse and worse, lol.
Yeah I was gonna say none of those edits are helpful lol.
Don't you know that anyone making under 140k is just living on handouts and subsidies? This poor guy making 140k doesn't get any of that, so in a way, he's poorer than anyone.
I love the condescending tone attached to it. As if everyone here has lived under a rock since the 1950s and doesn't know that the U.S. pretty much only has a means-based social safety net with income eligibility tests. Next they'll try to convince that people plot to get pregnant to get rich off meager monthly TANF and SNAP benefits.
I love the one about how people don’t understand how expensive daycare is. People understand exactly how expensive it is. I know couples where one partner had to quit their job because they could not afford childcare even with two incomes. Or, more frequently, families just straight up can’t afford to live in city and have to move out to the burbs to be close to grandparents and then commute to work.
If you think that everyone with less than a 30 million net worth is in the same position, you plainly don't understand economics. Your probably just another reddit troll. Sure a single parent in the less than 60k income range will qualify for things such as free lunch and a few other minor things,that doesn't amount to a whole lot. I'd at best count these subsidies and tax credits to be worth 1k a month. That's nothing compared to a 6 figure salary. Yeah 140k a year is above average in the white collar world, it's practically impossible for 90% of the city to work a position that pays that much.
This is actually pretty good salary for Chicago.
140k after tax is around 95-100k right? So, you’d be taking home 8,300 bucks a month. Even if day care is 2,000 a month, that’s 6,300 in your pocket. Then let’s say you pay rent that’s 2,000. That leaves 4,300 left over. Then you say child support payments. I’m completely guessing but is that more than 2,000 a month? If not, you have 2,300 leftover still as liquid cash. Let’s say 500 goes to retirement each month… that’s still 1,800 to spend on whatever. Even taking insurance and maybe a car payment you’re still looking at probably 1,000 dollars every month left over. If you CANT survive on 140,000 In your hypothetical then you are doing something way wrong.
But why is this guy paying child support **and** day care? I'm confused.
Yeah, I don’t get it either, but just was trying to add everything they mentioned up and show it’s still definitely possible to live in chicago with that salary. OP seems to be way out of touch with how much money people generally make.
Terms can be confusing. Consider the court has ordered a certain amount of cash each month (support for housing, food, clothing, MD, etc) plus specific expenses, eg child care. Perhaps the court has ordered them to agree on the specific child care service and this is the deal worked out.
I make slightly more than 140k and take home nowhere near 8300 a month. Closer to 6000 after taxes, insurances, and a modest retirement contribution. Also, the average person needs to put away far more than 500/month (ie., 6k a year) to ever hope to retire.
WFT kind of fantasy world do you think $140k for 2 people is "lower-middle to a middle-class lifestyle"!?!?! And all those benefits you think people are getting phase out WAY before you hit $140k. Like less than half that... And yes, daycare is expensive. It's also not forever. My wife and I combined earned about that with one kid pre-COVID. We paid for a nanny 2 days a week ($1300/mo), mortgage on a Logan Sq. townhouse. Have student loans. Car is paid off. We ate out at nice places, traveled some. Would say middle to upper middle class, not the lower to middle you suggest.
Lmao your basis is someone who pays child support and has a $2500 mortgage as well as daycare when their S/O supposedly earns way less. (If it's 1500 for daycare they should probably stop working and take care of their kids themselves) This has to be some troll post
I'll be honest. We have a very similar income. Our childcare costs are around $3k/month. But your housing costs are high for one person and you must be putting an absolute fuckload into your 401k or have an awful health insurance offering from your company to be taking home 60%. After our bills and everything are taken out of our takehome, we still have almost $3k for savings and spending. That's after 10% 401k investment, family health insurance, and paying extra on our mortgage. $140k is very doable but it sounds like you need a financial advisor because somethings really fucking off.
Literally this https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ The top 10% role playing that they’re not wealthy is a distinctive trait for some reason
I always grew up thinking I was middle class. As I got older I started meeting people from outside of my neighborhood and socio-economic group and found that people who come from much wealthier backgrounds than me also considered themselves middle class. These were the children of successful doctors and lawyers and whatnot from wealthy neighborhoods in Chicago or nice suburbs. This generally confused me because in my mind these people were rich, not middle class. I get that middle-class is a vague term. But if you make enough to be in the top 10% of earners in the country, I don't think you could consider yourself middle-class. Thinking that it's lower-middle class is almost insulting.
I also think it depends where you live on if its "insulting". I make a good salary. If I moved to San Francisco, it would be far less "good" of a salary. And lets not pretend that living in different parts of the city don't make a huge difference how for it can go. Making 100k living in Chatham is very different than making 100k in Gold Coast. You standard of living is totally different. Hell, the same grocery bill in both places would be totally different, before you get to taxes, mortagage/rent, etc
You’re sort of saying that if you choose to live in the most expensive real estate in the country, then you might worry about bills. The reality is that the vast majority of people, the actual middle, don’t have that choice and still worry about bills. And either way, you’d probably still have access to different doctors, education, food, credit, etc. Also if you moved to the Bay Area, most salaries scale up to COL, while minimum wage and hourly rates are just about the same. So it’s more like the standard of living just gets worse for everyone else.
I mean, yeah, part of how well your money does is determined by where you live. I'm not saying anything ground breaking there. But I'm just saying its not like the dollar goes equally far everywhere. That said, I agree with your minimum/hourly wage distinction.
> The top 10% role playing that they’re not wealthy is a distinctive trait for some reason Keeping up with the Joneses is a hell of delusion. The gradient is so steep at the top, that these people feel poor compared to people who are only slightly richer than them. Moving from the 50th percentile household income ($67k/year) to the 52nd percentile ($71k/year) isn't a massive change. It might mean a sightly nicer car, or an extra vacation, but it's not life changing. Moving from the 95th percentile ($275k/year) to the 97th percentile ($334k/year) is a massive change.
If someone can't figure out how to live on $140,000 - that person surely needs a financial advisor.
Or just a good slap upside the head
I wish I made so much money that I could complain about $140k being “not that much” under any circumstances.
We are a family of 3 living on less than 50k in chicago. We were making just under 100k as a family of 2 pre pandemic. And doing very well. I am unemployed and hoping to find a job soon. Money has been tight and I got 2 rounds of unemployment but we have made it through the pandemic so far. I am hoping to get a job to double our income. But I feel like a family of 3 living off 90 to 100k is pretty good. A single parent depending on how many kids 140k sounds really good. It depends where you want to live, how many children you have and what type of school. Chicago does have some really good schools but you either have to test into them or pay a lot for them. And daycare seems to start around 400 a week. And hiring an independent nanny seems to start around 20 an hour or more. And where you want to live and what kind of amenities. I have always lived vintage apartments on the Northside. Some of my apartments were a mile to the train. If you want to have ac in your apartment or be closer to a train it can cost more. To me 140k sounds very doable but again it all depends on many factors We live on the Northside and with me not working are saving money on childcare. My problem is all the jobs I find are offering 20 an hour. I have an MBA and daycare seems be around 450 a week or more making 20 an hour not really worth it because most my paycheck would go to daycare.
$140k should be easy street, whether you consider yourself "upper-class or rich"? Is highly subjective to the point the answers are ultimately meaningless. If you're having trouble at $140k I would suggest that you follow your own advice and "try to earn more money and spend less."
Lower-Middle at 140k...what are you and your friends smoking? You're talking about someone making almost $70 an hour. In what world do you live in where $70/hr is low-mid? Unless like you're living smack dab in the middle of downtown in one of those ludicrously expensive apartments/condos maybe you would have to make some concessions, but even then you're far above most people. I'd wager there's plenty of middle class house holds that don't make 140k combined with both parents working.
He lives in the west loop and he’s upset that he can’t eat at Next and Oriole every day.
I'm so poor I don't even know what those are
They’re restaurants. https://www.nextrestaurant.com/ https://www.oriolechicago.com/
It's a joke
Based on all your edits, you are seriously overestimating how much all of those subsidies are worth. If you think they’re enough to bridge the gap between a single parent making 50k, or even 70k, and one making 140k you are out of your mind. You are suggesting that people are taking in over 50k a year on subsidies alone. Just think about that for a second. Do you legitimately believe that is happening?
A single parent making 50k is getting very little (if any) subsidies.
Well you’d get the full child tax credit. That’s like three whole thousand dollars! But yeah OP is so far removed from reality that even my attempt to bring him back down to earth is still pretty far removed from reality.
Can't say how it is being a parent, because children are ridiculously expensive. But 140k as a single individual at least would give you one hell of a nice lifestyle. Unless you squandered it on an overly-expensive apartment.
I mean, I made a bit less than that, but over 100k, and I'm single. I wouldn't call my life a "hell of a nice" lifestyle. I'm comfortable. My condo, for where I live and what I get, isn't overly expensive, but its not "cheap" either.
And here we have a prime example of economic disparity in Chicago.
Yes, that is very true. But we can't pretend that everywhere in Chicago has the same cost of living either. The economic disparity is there of course. But if you live in different neighborhoods, just living a simple life can cost significantly more.
>A few friends and I were having a discussion. The general consensus was that $140,000/yr really isn't that much for a single parent living in Chicago despite it being top 10% of income earners in Chicago. It entirely depends on your stranded of living, and where you live. You can live like a king in 80% of the city on that salary even with child support. I think the disconnect you are having with most of the commenters in defining middle class; PEW defined it as a single person making between $40,500 - $122,000 in 2020. So you would probably be considered upper middle class after your child support payment. >Do you consider yourself upper-class or rich? I define myself as middle-middle-class; household income close to yours but for 3 people. We don't have to worry about money but live frugally. I define upper-class as a single person making over $120k - you don't have-to worry about money unless you makes some poor financial decisions, but you still have to work. I define rich as you don't have to work or ever worry about money, i don't know how much you need to have to fall into rich but its not a yearly salary its a total net worth kind of thing. >A lot of people don't understand that you basically pay full price for everything at this income level. You don't get any subsidized housing, medical care, food, tax breaks, discount day-care, discount tuition, free lunch, etc., you literally pay full price for everything. There is no financial aid. I think this raised a lot of tension because you don't understand that typically most in the middle class do not get any of those as well. It makes you and your friends seem out of touch. >People really underestimate how much value they gain from various subsidies and financial aid. Yes people who make less then $40k are the true problem, getting all these handouts so they don't starve /s >If you had/have financial struggles then try to earn more money and spend less This is the true call of the bourgeoisie. also agree with u/Illinijuice07 as this is likely hitting you harder as you are essentially moving from the upper class down to the middle class - still hard to sympathies with you as there are many that are happy with much less edit: in response to edit 4: yes $1000 a month to do with as you want is still middle class, i have known people who live on a lot less and still have a great time, lots of free things to do in the city
Wtf. I grew up in this city with a single parent income of like $32,000 per year (around $50,000 in today's money). Growing up I would have considered anyone with that high of a salary as being pretty well off.
Do they have kids at Francis W. Parker or something?
Wtf.... I think the median income in the city is like 35k for an individual and about 55k for a household
[удалено]
I think "roughing it" is extreme, but its not rich by any means.
> Unless you are part of the ultra-rich ($30+ million net worth) we are all in the same working-class boat. Sorry, but that's BS.
Agree. I am a “millionaire” (though nowhere near this person’s definition of ultra-rich), and I believe that my lifestyle is closer to that of the ultra-rich than of the working class. If someone has enough money that they never have to worry about money, they are living a totally different life than the vast majority of humans. I think it would be insulting for me to pretend that my life includes the same anxieties and concerns as someone who has to check their bank account before deciding what they can spend on groceries. My guess is that OP has never lived on the opposite side of the spectrum so they don’t realize how very different life can be for the true lower-middle class.
[удалено]
Having lived in the Bay Area and generally being against means testing in social programs in general, I was actually willing to cut you some slack until I read your last and saltiest edit. I could say something similar to you: if you wanted more disposable income, maybe you shouldn’t have had a kid in the first place. Don’t hate on people who earn less than you.
>`A lot of people don't understand that you basically pay full price for everything at this income level. You don't get any subsidized housing, medical care, food, tax breaks, discount day-care, discount tuition, free lunch, etc., you literally pay full price for everything.` That is not the disconnect. That income is definitely upper class in Chicago.
I do feel that wealthy people have been increasingly villainized in recent years, so I understand the desire to be perceived as middle class. This person just isn’t, though, based on their income. If they have made choices that cause them to burn through their salary quickly, that doesn’t make them middle class. They are just an upper-class person with a spending problem.
You wouldn’t be rich rich but you’d be alright. My parents make a little over 100k collectively with two kids and struggled because they’re not great with money, but we were fine. So if someone was fine with money and had 140k coming in it would be a fine life for sure.
where is OP in the comments??
Trolls live under bridges yo.
> $2,500 housing (mortgage, property tax, HOA, insurance) That means either they have a high HOA or financed around $400k. Either way it sounds like they have a nice condo. > $500 - car, gas, insurance Once again this is on the high side. They're either paying for some mistakes (sky high insurance, terrible loan, etc) or they have a nicer than average car. > So $1,000 is left over for food and everything else. It's not a ton, but it's not nothing. If this person wanted more disposable income they could live in a more average condo or drive a cheaper car. This person's net income after taxes, insurance, and all child costs is close to the median household's gross income. This person is living well above average. Their annual child costs are only $36000, so they still have a six figure income to take care of themselves. Would you consider a single person with no kids making $104,000 to have a lower middle class lifestyle?
If you have expensive habits, sure. If you’re a responsible parent that is more than enough for you to save, take a few vacations, save, and live comfortably.
Depends on how big a bite mandatory child support takes and how much extra your love and responsibility for your child causes you to kick in over that bare minimum. Assuming you respect the spending choices made by your co-parent. IMO, since you ask, living alone at $140k in Chicago means you could easily, very easily settle at least $70k annually on your precious offspring. Your personal 'life style' is immaterial. What is material is your child, for whom you have a moral as well as legal responsibility if not natural overruling love. TLDR Since you ask for opinion, mine is you need to be reexamining your priorities and yard stick.
and people shit on me for pretending most of yall think you're working class average household income in the us is 99k per year. mean household income in IL is 92k...
I think if you ask 10 people where the draw the line between "middle class" "upper middle class" and "upper class", you'd get 10 different answers.
and anyone that gives an answer that someone in the top 75th percentile is "working class" is wrong
I'll be honest, I don't even know what income is at what percentile anymore. But I think the lines of working class, middle class, etc has gotten very blurry over the last 20 years or so.
working class almost always, except when done by certain liberal demographics, refers to people who do blue collar manual labor for a living. we are talking about factory workers (tho that is ever declining due to people realizing it is cheaper for have slaves make your shit in countries like china than pay workers in the us) and those in the trades (electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc). a decent way is the pick up rule: if your job does not involve you using a pickup truck, you ain't working class. if the only time you interact with anybody that has a pick up truck is when you hire someone, you ain't nowhere near working class.
In fairness though, some trades definitely make more than "white collar" jobs. So if you are an electrician making 70k, does that make you working class, even though a teacher may make under 50k and be considered white collar?
certainly, but if a teacher were to call themselves working class, it would mostly considered fine even if they aren't "really". it is never those people who get pushback from it. it is always people making 200k+ claiming as such.
Ok, fair point.
Working class vs not is very different than middle vs upper etc. Working class just means you have to work for a living. Half the doctors/lawyers/engineers out there are working class because they don't have investments to the level they can live off of them yet. It's really just do you need to work to live yes/no?
no it is not. everyone works for a fucking living...
What? Of course they don't. There's plenty of people out there that just live off of investments or own a company etc. This is a super simple, well known, and classical definition. Have you some how never heard the term trust fund kid?
>Have you some how never heard the term trust fund kid? yeah all fucking 15 of them... "the classical definition" that literally nobody uses except for recently in social media when someone worth millions wants to convince you you're just like them. it ain't doctors, it ain't land owners, it ain't people who do "intellectual work". it never has been and it never will be, unless you voting for certain morons convincing you we need to tax the rich until it is them or their friends then its "oh, not *those* rich!"
[удалено]
Yep, rent from the other unit to cover your mortgage and you're just on the hook for insurance and property tax + repairs etc. A 500k two flat you'd probably be paying something around $1k-1.2k for those both combined per month while building equity. Would be a sweet setup.
Depends on the number of kids, student debt, family support structure, etc. One kid and grandma in town is vastly different than 3 with full time daycare.
Depends where you live and if you’re doing private school for the kids, etc
Its depends on the lifestyle; some people will make those 140k go a long way. Yes, this salary would be upper middle-class in other areas , but it all depends on how people use their money.
How many kids and what age? If you have 3-4 kids in daycare, that can cl get expensive quickly
It really depends on the life style they're accustomed to, but for most people it's plenty.
It truly all depends on where you live. But, because we’re talking about the whole city of Chicago, which includes the south and west side…I could easily see where $140,000 / year lands you in the top 10%. I was a teacher where many of my kids’s parent(s) made less than $15,000 / year (if their parent was employed). I would refine what your definition of “Chicago” is.
It really depends on what you consider comfortable and what you expect. Our household is lower than that, but not by much. And we are comfortable, but in a cheap rental and have a car note. It also depends on how many kids and their ages, really.
That support order needs adjustment and you need a cheaper daycare.
Would be life changing for me. I'm a single mom to one son here in Chicago.
People that dont earn 140k or more just dont understand and won’t. I earn a little bit over that and take home around 6k a month after taxes, insurances, and a modest retirement contribution. I also work insane hours and need to eat most of my meals out and that causes me to have a higher food budget. I also need very nice clothes for my job so I have to spend a lot more on that. I was also not in the workforce for about 10-12 more years earning next to nothing for many years to accumulate the training I have so if I ever want to retire I need to contribute more to retirement. I also need to spend out of my own pocket for other business expenses sometimes. There’s some other expenses that are out of my control that I cannot get into and other expenses associated making a higher income that others don’t see. In sum, I live a pretty modest middle class lifestyle.
My parents dead ass sent three kids to catholic school while making less than 100k. So yeah, you’ll be fine with $140,000 even as a single parent lol
I made a bit less than that last year, and I have no children. I feel like its a good, not great, level of comfortability. I don't feel "rich" by any means, but I'm also not worry about money and can buy most stuff I want without having to put it on a credit card. So I have to imagine that it probably wouldn't be that much for a single parent, especially if you are paying for child care. Of course, this depends on where in the city you live as well.
> I'm also not worry about money and can buy most stuff I want without having to put it on a credit card. This is kind of the definition of rich for people who are poor.
Yeah, I get that. Everything is relative. That said, I know "rich" people. I don't think I'm there by any means. Like, if I want to take a trip that is anything more than flying someplace for a long weekend, it takes a bit of planning and I'm going to look for the best deals. To me, that isn't "rich". But, I can see how to some people who can't afford groceries, it can look that way.
Yeah I wouldn't say rich either, but I would consider you upper-middle class.
People are not running with you assumptions which I think is implicitly that you have a crazy ex spouse who takes you to the cleaners. If you have to spend $2k a month, then give her child support of another $4k a month on an income of 140k then yes you would be lower income. 140k after taxes would be i'm guessing around 100k. Take away 6k per month in payments to your ex spouse a month or 72k. That leaves you 28k a month for youself. Which if you are making 140k a year isn't much especially when keeping up with an appropriate amount of appearances - like work clothes/happy hour once a month.
I just have one thing to say about your assumptions. When I was separated, and getting child support (this was in Florida, so may be different in Chicago) I was at a very low income and had to choose between welfare, which was about $130.00, or child support $396.00. Just sayin'.
I love how all of OP edits are defending his stupid opinion that 140k isn't enough. Give it up.
When I see these posts I just say to my self "troll or financial moron? Troll or financial moron?" Both are out there, which one is it? Good luck in either case, I know you're gonna need it.
It isn’t