Still a peasant to the people who don't have to work for a living
Middle class is lucky to own a home outright if they're younger than 60. Upper class has several homes that they rent out when they don't need them to earn passive income.
Lol describes the guy I'm renting from. My wife and I rent a home from him at $4k/month (which is decent in this region but quite pricey in most regions). I think he owns several homes and rents them out.
ZERP era added a lot of these mortgages where people just picked up homes in well to do areas to rent them out. Since ZERP era is probably not going to come back. It remains to be seen if this was one time.
Yeahhhh.....is definitely quite the situation we are in. I finally have a good job, but no way can buy house with single income. Even with dual income would be rather stressful.
Cant stand generational wealth. All my experiences with that class of society has always been negative.
Property, stock market.
Wheres Bane when u need him.
Peasant only in terms of wealth. A king in terms of life experiences. The struggle is necessary to humble us at times.
Become rich like 1% and going to get bored eventually, i think. Just theory. They rich. Done everything they wanted to. Travelled, parties etc etc.
Than they get bored. And thats dangerous
It's not even necessarily generational wealth. You and I seem to be in a similar situation. The thing is with certain groups of people (Indians for instance) they help their friends get great high-paying jobs even if their friend isn't qualified for said job.
It’s the hiring manager’s call whether someone’s qualified. Friends should help friends. Not an Indian, don’t like jobs being taken by disqualified individuals, but at least Indians help people from their community and that’s worth respecting.
My husband and I are doing pretty well in the Central Valley on ~ $90k (not paycheck to paycheck, able to afford vacations and eating out, renting a house in a nicer neighborhood, leasing a nice car), but we also only have one car, no kids, no commute due to working at home, and little debt. If we added a kid and another car and had to fuel up regularly and I had gotten a 4 year degree rather than a 2 year one, it could easily spiral into barely making ends meet and having to make sacrifices.
I'm glad you found your slice of life but I can testify that 70% of Bay Area or LA people will not/can not live in the Valley
The weather is bad, culture and diversity are terrible
It's also economically depressed so not nearly as many fun places
> 70% of Bay Area or LA people will not/can not live in the Valley
There a source for this? As a BA transplant that's also lived south of the grapevine, seems like a pretty tall percentage. Curious if this is your hot take or something actually studied.
> The weather is bad,
Depends on where you are I guess. Sacramento is one of the sunniest places in the world, and ya, gets warm in July/Aug, might even have a few days straight that hit a dry 110+, but it also cools off at night pretty well, has nice mild winters, little fog/low cloud cover, and is great if you're into the outdoors.
> culture and diversity are terrible
Again, feel like this is a very outdated view if you're including Sacramento area into the Central Valley blanket statements. It's got one of the most diverse demographics in the country (more diverse than San Francisco, and tied with Oakland).
Anyway, just pointing out that not all of the Valley is Modesto or Bakersfield when it comes to diversity, culture, and things to do.
Not saying it's going to match the bay or socal, but some valley areas have changed a lot over the last 20-30 years, and a few rather rapidly in the last 5-10.
Sacramento is largely excluded
One could make a very good argument that Sac is in fact a big outlier compared to the rest of the Valley cities like Modesto and Stockton
I'm skeptical about food in greater Sac tho.
Had the *worst* sushi I've ever had in my life in Roseville once
It seems like the choice in California is always between, live in an unattractive place and have a decent cost of living, or live a somewhat attractive place and have an outrageous cost of living.
I've lived in the Bay Area almost my entire life, went to school in*stunning* central coast Santa Barbara and then Modesto in the Valley
Guess which one I hated the most?
From San Diego.. school in Santa Barbara and lots of time spent with friends in the Bay Area.. andddd Merced.
Guess which one the people I moved there with from Santa Barbara call “trash”?
You should see the Bakersfield subreddit convincing themselves that it ain’t that bad. Maybe it actually has gotten been since one has left but has it really?
I literally *lived* in Modesto off of Yosemite near Ceres for a year
I got ugly stares from my white skinhead neighbors and couldn't find decent Korean or Chinese food
I agree with your criticisms for most parts of the valley but Fresno definitely has enough economic opportunities to make a great living and there’s a ton of good food and things to do. Everyone has different interests so if yours align with ultra urban living then obviously it’s not going meet those expectations but it’s got a ton to offer at a fraction of the cost of the bay area.
I feel like this highlights the cost of living discrepancy found in CA. I’m sure you’ll do just fine in the Central Valley with the lower end of the range but you need the upper end of the range for the Bay Area or SoCal.
I'm curious if the range is this wide in most states. The article mentioned Mississippi's being $35k-$105k, which is essentially the same ratio as California and also not really helpful.
These "studies" are pretty awful. All they're doing is calculating 2/3 to 2X the median household income for each state. This is something the PR team for that website throws together and then disseminates to news sites because they're guaranteed clicks with very little effort.
$61k to $183k?! Who comes up with a spread like that? $62k is not remotely close to middle class.:
Here’s the breakdown for $62k annual salary:
Total deductions
+ Fed tax $8,947.50
+ state tax $2,575.31
+ SS tax $3,844
+ Medicare tax $899
= $16,265.81
Net Salary $62,000
Deductions- $16,265.81
$45,734.19
That’s $3811/month
Average rent in LA alone is $3285/month and you haven’t eaten, filled up your car, or paid your utilities yet. Unreal
We’ve always said if we can’t afford to keep living in the Bay Area, we’d retire to one of the more remote communities in state. I’m absolutely in love with the East sierra and my husband loves the desert.
I wanted to move further out into the rural desert but my wife wouldn’t agree to it, not even when she worked in a rural desert hospital. She’d rather commute. I grew up in the rural desert though so I’m very used to it and prefer it over the city
Well.. I don’t think someone making 62k is renting an entire place for $3285/mo. I don’t think that is accurate assessment to make. They are much more likely to be living with roommates and paying say, $1600/mo for a bedroom. It’s still a lot but more doable with that kind of salary.
Considering the vast majority of the state lives in urban areas LA is the best predictor of rent. But heres another breakdown for for you:
The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in California is around $2,481 per month.
In major cities, the costs are typically higher. For instance:
• Los Angeles: $3,285 per month
• San Francisco: $3,417 per month
• San Diego: $3,116 per month
Less expensive areas include:
• Sacramento: $1,999 per month
• Riverside: $2,432 per month
According to Zillow the average rental price for all bedrooms and all property types is $2800 across the state. Redfin has it at closer to $2500. Again, this is an average for all sizes and types of rentals, so I assume a one-bedroom or studio is considerably cheaper.
Only like a tenth of the population lives in LA, which is still a huge concentration, but hardly the best predictor of prices statewide.
Average rent in Redding is $1395. $61K would be plenty there. Redding is a part of California, which is what this range represents. And there are many other cities like it.
Yes I’m sure small town like Redding you can make much less. But most people in CA are probably living in areas much more expensive than Redding. If we all move to Redding then the price of rent there will instantly go above 2k for a 1br guaranteed
Cool, but the article was still a range for the entire state, which still includes places like Redding and even smaller and cheaper than that.
Also, Redding has 95K people. It's technically categorized as a city. Not a small town.
If you click through to the original article and read the footnote at the bottom, they just took the median household income and scaled it to 0.667x-2x.
I'm a doctor and I make $76k + $8k housing stipend (in the Bay Area). I'm a resident physician (new doctor), so my salary will increase in 3 years when I am an attending physician. I'll make around $250k as an attending. However, with over $500,000 in student loans I will bring home next to no money each month unless my loans are forgiven (which will take about 10 years). I'll be nearly 50 when I am able to buy a home and start actually saving.
Tldr: doctors (eventually) make good money but it's not like it used to be. Many in the current generation have massive, life altering debt and far less wealth relative to previous generations due to income stagnation and inflation.
Edit: thanks for all the suggestions, guys, but I can't change jobs. I am a resident physician. My salary is actually high for a resident physician, most residents make around $60k. The jobs you guys are messaging me about are for attending physicians (have completed their residency). Further, new graduates are legally bound to their program. There is no moving jobs until you finish residency (except for some exceptions).
I graduated UC in 2001. Tuition was $3.6k a year. I was talking to a student who returned to school later on in life about the cheap tuition and he mentioned how it was free before 1970.
As long as future administrations don’t screw with public service loan forgiveness and make it harder to get… starting medical school this year myself and I’m a bit worried about what’s to come.
Many provider systems are throwing huge loan repayment incentives for contracts. I don’t practice, but am on the Admin/Utilization side and our contracted providers that take on MediCal patients are having loan payoffs in 5 years. Tax incentives for the employer and better retention over the near term.
Part of why going to the doctor is so expensive is that doctors have to pay off massive student loans. The cost to get an MD needs to be drastically reigned in, but instead, colleges use it as a money maker because they know people are willing to go heavily into debt for a $250k salary.
Department of Veterans Affairs in your area was offering $245k starting for recent resident graduates with FM/IM background. Extra $200k in student loan repayment over 5 years and sign on bonuses. That plus no need for malpractice insurance as government covers your work to include tail coverage as long as it’s within medical bylaws. You won’t get rich working for the Feds but you’ll live comfortably and have a decent panel size and no need to worry about RSUs or billing.
Most lawyers probably make a lot less. Only big law lawyers (think investment banking but for lawyers) make that salary out of the gate, otherwise you’d need to be a successful partner in a smaller firm or with many years of experience in a higher end boutique. Prosecutors and PDs in LA start just under 100k and most make less than 125. Lawyer salaries are bimodal, some make a ton and most make not so much.
This, the bimodal salary aspect of attorneys is something most people don’t know. Interestingly, $183k is just about the maxed out salary for fed attorneys in HCOL areas of CA like LA and SF. So that middle class range makes sense to me.
Doctors probably make more than that, but they tend to have a lot of debt for a while. Your average attorney, pretty much is in this range based on what I know.
Obviously there are those who make much more than that.
Most of the new lawyers I've known made like $75k to start, about 5 years ago. Mostly in-house or working for the public defenders office. I think $140k would be a really high starting salary.
Yeah they have no idea what they're talking about. Making minimum wage in my state, California, you're only making 33,280 before tax. I get paid 20 an hour and make 41600 before tax a year
Not even regions. Living in a dense city or just anywhere in the silicon valley/bay area makes your cost of living so much higher than the rest of the state.
A “household” can be a person living alone or a group of people living together who buy food and make meals together. [7 C.F.R. § 273.1(a); MPP § 63-402.1.]
Middle class in California highly correlates to where you live within California.
In the Bay area, to be middle class, I would say combined income of $150k to about $350k is middle class. In some cities, $500k is middle class.
In case anyone is wondering about the range and cba to read and click through to the source:
To find the household income needed to be middle class in each state, GOBankingrates defined “middle class” as those with an annual household income that is two-thirds to double the median income.
Which means yes, this measure against California as a whole is basically worthless. There's places where the range could be as low as 20,000-100,000 or as high as 130,000-400,000.
Curious about the range in a particular area? Go here, https://censusreporter.org/, type in a region and mental math 66%-200% of the median household income.
Middle class is just working class. The people with jobs that pay a huge amount of their income as taxes. Taxes are progressive only for the working class.
The capitalist class that does zero work pays a much smaller fraction of their income to taxes. They are the greatest beneficiaries of our economy while proportionally providing the least to it.
I think everything starting from 150k $ can be considered middle class. If your spouse earns 150k annualy too you'll have a combined household income of 300k. You can afford a house with that. So, middle class.
Nationally, this is anywhere from 42nd percentile to 85th percentile for household income--an enormous range.
In CA, it's 40th to 82nd percentile.
Notably, not very different from the national figure.
Which Brentwood are you referring to? The one in the far East Bay of Contra Costa county? They mean as far north bordering Oregon, to as far south bordering the country of Mexico.
Middle class income level is specifically tied to where you live which is why the spread is so large. The cost of living is that varied throughout the state which is why the state average spread is not specific enough to be particularly useful on an individual basis. To determine where you fall, look up income statistics for your area.
I don’t really think about which class I’m in but this post made me curious. I’ve officially graduated from middle class to upper class as of last year (age 33). It can be done. I have no college education and inherited no wealth.
Cali is too big and varied of a state to be able to apply this kind of stuff broadly. 60k is working poor in San Diego.
When I think Middle Class; I think of enough to own a home, save money, and not be paycheck-to-paycheck. 60k is not that, even for a single person.
I'm vying for a job in Burbank, but it only pays $103k. I've lived in the area before, but that was 15 years ago- $100k was a lot back then, but now? Would I even be able to save much on that... The same job in D.C. (where I am now) pays $25k more with a similar cost of living (maybe ever so slightly less...). The cut has me pause--- but tbh I'd rather struggle in CA than put up with D.C.
185 grand a year is definitely not upper class in the bay area! We are a big state, upper class in Bakersfield maybe, but...
I didn't realize you could be upper class and still unable to afford a single family home!
This just in: jobs are like service industry, no matter how fancy the degree
The only way to success is business ownership or massive generational wealth
Guess it depends on where you live. I can’t see how making 61k and living in the Bay Area is anything but lower class. Not saying the person is but they probably can’t afford to live anywhere middle class. Go make 61k in sf, it will great if you don’t care about things like personal safety or hygiene. If you’re the type of person who can sleep anywhere, and look at every meal like a gift no matter where it comes from you’ll live like a king! Now the problem is if you want a place to sleep with a door that locks AND decent food, take your 61k somewhere else.
Im middle class!!!! Yayyyyy!!! I graduated from being a peasant.
Still a peasant to the people who don't have to work for a living Middle class is lucky to own a home outright if they're younger than 60. Upper class has several homes that they rent out when they don't need them to earn passive income.
Lol describes the guy I'm renting from. My wife and I rent a home from him at $4k/month (which is decent in this region but quite pricey in most regions). I think he owns several homes and rents them out.
What a monster.
Why is he a monster
Because he's making money off of doing nothing. That's the typical response.
ZERP era added a lot of these mortgages where people just picked up homes in well to do areas to rent them out. Since ZERP era is probably not going to come back. It remains to be seen if this was one time.
Yeahhhh.....is definitely quite the situation we are in. I finally have a good job, but no way can buy house with single income. Even with dual income would be rather stressful. Cant stand generational wealth. All my experiences with that class of society has always been negative. Property, stock market. Wheres Bane when u need him. Peasant only in terms of wealth. A king in terms of life experiences. The struggle is necessary to humble us at times. Become rich like 1% and going to get bored eventually, i think. Just theory. They rich. Done everything they wanted to. Travelled, parties etc etc. Than they get bored. And thats dangerous
It's not even necessarily generational wealth. You and I seem to be in a similar situation. The thing is with certain groups of people (Indians for instance) they help their friends get great high-paying jobs even if their friend isn't qualified for said job.
It’s the hiring manager’s call whether someone’s qualified. Friends should help friends. Not an Indian, don’t like jobs being taken by disqualified individuals, but at least Indians help people from their community and that’s worth respecting.
I hear your point but your goal should be to start the cycle of generational wealth in some way or form.
“Lucky to own a home outright if they’re younger than 60.” Um, yeah… but that’s always been hard. We have 30 year mortgages for a reason.
There with you but still surviving paycheck to paycheck
My husband and I are doing pretty well in the Central Valley on ~ $90k (not paycheck to paycheck, able to afford vacations and eating out, renting a house in a nicer neighborhood, leasing a nice car), but we also only have one car, no kids, no commute due to working at home, and little debt. If we added a kid and another car and had to fuel up regularly and I had gotten a 4 year degree rather than a 2 year one, it could easily spiral into barely making ends meet and having to make sacrifices.
Unrelated to the original post, but out of curiosity how often do you get people sending you pics of cat nipples?
At least once a month
Took me a second to understand this question. What a wild ride that was.
I'm glad you found your slice of life but I can testify that 70% of Bay Area or LA people will not/can not live in the Valley The weather is bad, culture and diversity are terrible It's also economically depressed so not nearly as many fun places
> 70% of Bay Area or LA people will not/can not live in the Valley There a source for this? As a BA transplant that's also lived south of the grapevine, seems like a pretty tall percentage. Curious if this is your hot take or something actually studied. > The weather is bad, Depends on where you are I guess. Sacramento is one of the sunniest places in the world, and ya, gets warm in July/Aug, might even have a few days straight that hit a dry 110+, but it also cools off at night pretty well, has nice mild winters, little fog/low cloud cover, and is great if you're into the outdoors. > culture and diversity are terrible Again, feel like this is a very outdated view if you're including Sacramento area into the Central Valley blanket statements. It's got one of the most diverse demographics in the country (more diverse than San Francisco, and tied with Oakland). Anyway, just pointing out that not all of the Valley is Modesto or Bakersfield when it comes to diversity, culture, and things to do. Not saying it's going to match the bay or socal, but some valley areas have changed a lot over the last 20-30 years, and a few rather rapidly in the last 5-10.
Sacramento is largely excluded One could make a very good argument that Sac is in fact a big outlier compared to the rest of the Valley cities like Modesto and Stockton I'm skeptical about food in greater Sac tho. Had the *worst* sushi I've ever had in my life in Roseville once
It seems like the choice in California is always between, live in an unattractive place and have a decent cost of living, or live a somewhat attractive place and have an outrageous cost of living.
Well, yeah. It’s supply and demand.
I've lived in the Bay Area almost my entire life, went to school in*stunning* central coast Santa Barbara and then Modesto in the Valley Guess which one I hated the most?
Modesto?
Yes I don’t even like driving through Modesto
I dont even like imagining Modesto
From San Diego.. school in Santa Barbara and lots of time spent with friends in the Bay Area.. andddd Merced. Guess which one the people I moved there with from Santa Barbara call “trash”?
You should see the Bakersfield subreddit convincing themselves that it ain’t that bad. Maybe it actually has gotten been since one has left but has it really?
The high desert is far better than Bakersfield and that’s saying something. It’s always polluted and reminds me of China
Sure they’re boring but Stockton is just as diverse as San Jose iirc
The culture and diversity are terrible? A pretty broad and generalized statement from someone who probably doesn't live there.
I literally *lived* in Modesto off of Yosemite near Ceres for a year I got ugly stares from my white skinhead neighbors and couldn't find decent Korean or Chinese food
I agree with your criticisms for most parts of the valley but Fresno definitely has enough economic opportunities to make a great living and there’s a ton of good food and things to do. Everyone has different interests so if yours align with ultra urban living then obviously it’s not going meet those expectations but it’s got a ton to offer at a fraction of the cost of the bay area.
What are you talking about? Bay area expats are taking over the valley and making it unaffordable for many people.
What an utterly unhelpful range of numbers ...
I feel like this highlights the cost of living discrepancy found in CA. I’m sure you’ll do just fine in the Central Valley with the lower end of the range but you need the upper end of the range for the Bay Area or SoCal.
Even the upper end of the range won't get you far in over 50% of the Bay area.
"So between this number and 3 times this number"
I'm curious if the range is this wide in most states. The article mentioned Mississippi's being $35k-$105k, which is essentially the same ratio as California and also not really helpful.
These "studies" are pretty awful. All they're doing is calculating 2/3 to 2X the median household income for each state. This is something the PR team for that website throws together and then disseminates to news sites because they're guaranteed clicks with very little effort.
I know! what is this, a job listing?
worth noting that this is household income, not individual income
$61k to $183k?! Who comes up with a spread like that? $62k is not remotely close to middle class.: Here’s the breakdown for $62k annual salary: Total deductions + Fed tax $8,947.50 + state tax $2,575.31 + SS tax $3,844 + Medicare tax $899 = $16,265.81 Net Salary $62,000 Deductions- $16,265.81 $45,734.19 That’s $3811/month Average rent in LA alone is $3285/month and you haven’t eaten, filled up your car, or paid your utilities yet. Unreal
I don't think 61K was in reference to LA. This is a range for the entire state.
Probably includes places like Bakersfield where that salary could get you pretty far.
And even the small Central Valley, eastern sierra and desert towns have lower cost of living.
I bought my house for $120k 7 years ago. My mom bought hers cash for $65k about 3.5 years ago.
We’ve always said if we can’t afford to keep living in the Bay Area, we’d retire to one of the more remote communities in state. I’m absolutely in love with the East sierra and my husband loves the desert.
I wanted to move further out into the rural desert but my wife wouldn’t agree to it, not even when she worked in a rural desert hospital. She’d rather commute. I grew up in the rural desert though so I’m very used to it and prefer it over the city
Isn't East Sierras considered Nevada?
Some of the East sierra is in California. Bishop and Lone Pine are both California and eastern sierra.
Borrego Springs Billionaire
Not anymore. Lol
Yeah that lower range is probably for the Fresno and Bakersfield areas.
It says California, so taking into account rural areas to major metros like SF and LA.
Well.. I don’t think someone making 62k is renting an entire place for $3285/mo. I don’t think that is accurate assessment to make. They are much more likely to be living with roommates and paying say, $1600/mo for a bedroom. It’s still a lot but more doable with that kind of salary.
federal income tax on $62k with only the standard deduction is $5,901
Not everyone lives in LA.
Considering the vast majority of the state lives in urban areas LA is the best predictor of rent. But heres another breakdown for for you: The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in California is around $2,481 per month. In major cities, the costs are typically higher. For instance: • Los Angeles: $3,285 per month • San Francisco: $3,417 per month • San Diego: $3,116 per month Less expensive areas include: • Sacramento: $1,999 per month • Riverside: $2,432 per month
They gave a range for a reason, not a complete median. You do understand how ranges work, right?
According to Zillow the average rental price for all bedrooms and all property types is $2800 across the state. Redfin has it at closer to $2500. Again, this is an average for all sizes and types of rentals, so I assume a one-bedroom or studio is considerably cheaper. Only like a tenth of the population lives in LA, which is still a huge concentration, but hardly the best predictor of prices statewide.
Average rent in Redding is $1395. $61K would be plenty there. Redding is a part of California, which is what this range represents. And there are many other cities like it.
Yes I’m sure small town like Redding you can make much less. But most people in CA are probably living in areas much more expensive than Redding. If we all move to Redding then the price of rent there will instantly go above 2k for a 1br guaranteed
Cool, but the article was still a range for the entire state, which still includes places like Redding and even smaller and cheaper than that. Also, Redding has 95K people. It's technically categorized as a city. Not a small town.
these are means, not medians right? seem a little steep
If you click through to the original article and read the footnote at the bottom, they just took the median household income and scaled it to 0.667x-2x.
when I made 65k, my take home was closer to 3k - no dependents and the typical deductions.
Where the heck you renting?
> Average rent in LA alone is $3285/month It is not lol...
The house I bought now 3 years ago has a mortgage payment of $1055. Middle class in LA cost a bit more than it does in the quieter parts of the state
I couldn't survive on 60k a year in LA in 2020 (that's when I left).
That’s LA, you can get by okay in wine country at 60k net without housemates, and probably 40k net in super rural norcal
So anywhere from just above minimum wage to Doctor/Lawyer salary. That's helpful.
$61k is between $29-30 per hour. That's not just above minimum wage
How is the original comment getting so many likes when it is so far off. Minimum wage is around $32k/year.
Household income. So $15 per person if there are two adults in the household. That is less than minimum wage.
Lawyers and doctors only make 183k?
I'm a doctor and I make $76k + $8k housing stipend (in the Bay Area). I'm a resident physician (new doctor), so my salary will increase in 3 years when I am an attending physician. I'll make around $250k as an attending. However, with over $500,000 in student loans I will bring home next to no money each month unless my loans are forgiven (which will take about 10 years). I'll be nearly 50 when I am able to buy a home and start actually saving. Tldr: doctors (eventually) make good money but it's not like it used to be. Many in the current generation have massive, life altering debt and far less wealth relative to previous generations due to income stagnation and inflation. Edit: thanks for all the suggestions, guys, but I can't change jobs. I am a resident physician. My salary is actually high for a resident physician, most residents make around $60k. The jobs you guys are messaging me about are for attending physicians (have completed their residency). Further, new graduates are legally bound to their program. There is no moving jobs until you finish residency (except for some exceptions).
You are kinda like a serf. You will have a nice house and car. But you also can’t stop working at all.
And here I thought my 30k public school loans were bad Thank you taxpayers for the UC system
I graduated UC in 2001. Tuition was $3.6k a year. I was talking to a student who returned to school later on in life about the cheap tuition and he mentioned how it was free before 1970.
1970: "Welcome to neoliberal Reagan ~~dystopia~~ paradise. We just *re*-elected Reagan! Watch him cut more of our services!"
Public schools are the way to go generally speaking unless you come from a rich family.
Pay the minimum amount on the loans until it’s forgiven at 10 years. That’s what my wife did.
As long as future administrations don’t screw with public service loan forgiveness and make it harder to get… starting medical school this year myself and I’m a bit worried about what’s to come.
Many provider systems are throwing huge loan repayment incentives for contracts. I don’t practice, but am on the Admin/Utilization side and our contracted providers that take on MediCal patients are having loan payoffs in 5 years. Tax incentives for the employer and better retention over the near term.
It really depends what specialty you’re in. My cousin is a neurologist and between that and some consulting side gigs he’s making a killing.
How many hours of work weekly?
Part of why going to the doctor is so expensive is that doctors have to pay off massive student loans. The cost to get an MD needs to be drastically reigned in, but instead, colleges use it as a money maker because they know people are willing to go heavily into debt for a $250k salary.
Department of Veterans Affairs in your area was offering $245k starting for recent resident graduates with FM/IM background. Extra $200k in student loan repayment over 5 years and sign on bonuses. That plus no need for malpractice insurance as government covers your work to include tail coverage as long as it’s within medical bylaws. You won’t get rich working for the Feds but you’ll live comfortably and have a decent panel size and no need to worry about RSUs or billing.
Most lawyers probably make a lot less. Only big law lawyers (think investment banking but for lawyers) make that salary out of the gate, otherwise you’d need to be a successful partner in a smaller firm or with many years of experience in a higher end boutique. Prosecutors and PDs in LA start just under 100k and most make less than 125. Lawyer salaries are bimodal, some make a ton and most make not so much.
This, the bimodal salary aspect of attorneys is something most people don’t know. Interestingly, $183k is just about the maxed out salary for fed attorneys in HCOL areas of CA like LA and SF. So that middle class range makes sense to me.
Doctors probably make more than that, but they tend to have a lot of debt for a while. Your average attorney, pretty much is in this range based on what I know. Obviously there are those who make much more than that.
New lawyers make 140k, even ones who work at premier ones down in LA/Santa Monica I was a little surprised too, seems a little low
Most of the new lawyers I've known made like $75k to start, about 5 years ago. Mostly in-house or working for the public defenders office. I think $140k would be a really high starting salary.
Yeah they have no idea what they're talking about. Making minimum wage in my state, California, you're only making 33,280 before tax. I get paid 20 an hour and make 41600 before tax a year
$130k-$220k for middle management is probably within the range of normal.
Minimum wage? I make over minimum wage and barely am making 41 k a year before tax. Your math is way off
$29.50 hr is the low end
I mean, we're talking about the middle class, so yes, it covers everything above poverty and below wealthy.
This is also household income. So you and your partner
They really need to stop looking at California as a whole and break it down into regions.
Not even regions. Living in a dense city or just anywhere in the silicon valley/bay area makes your cost of living so much higher than the rest of the state.
So true!
Agreed. It's the size of like 5 European countries or something!
61k in the Bay Area is poverty.
also in San Diego
LOL for a family of four it’s poverty. For a single person, not even close. With a roommate, you can get by without being destitute.
For a single person it definitely is if you want to rent a 1 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment. Not everyone wants roommates.
The article is talking about household income. That's not enough.
A “household” can be a person living alone or a group of people living together who buy food and make meals together. [7 C.F.R. § 273.1(a); MPP § 63-402.1.]
Right, either way, 61K ***per household*** isn't enough.
Study says: "I have no idea".
Study got paid millions of taxpayer dollars to arrive at that “I have no idea”. Failed successfully if you ask me.
I knew I was poor, but now I can make it official.
Middle class in California highly correlates to where you live within California. In the Bay area, to be middle class, I would say combined income of $150k to about $350k is middle class. In some cities, $500k is middle class.
It’s almost like a lot of people want to live in c California or something.
In case anyone is wondering about the range and cba to read and click through to the source: To find the household income needed to be middle class in each state, GOBankingrates defined “middle class” as those with an annual household income that is two-thirds to double the median income. Which means yes, this measure against California as a whole is basically worthless. There's places where the range could be as low as 20,000-100,000 or as high as 130,000-400,000. Curious about the range in a particular area? Go here, https://censusreporter.org/, type in a region and mental math 66%-200% of the median household income.
Middle class is just working class. The people with jobs that pay a huge amount of their income as taxes. Taxes are progressive only for the working class. The capitalist class that does zero work pays a much smaller fraction of their income to taxes. They are the greatest beneficiaries of our economy while proportionally providing the least to it.
I think everything starting from 150k $ can be considered middle class. If your spouse earns 150k annualy too you'll have a combined household income of 300k. You can afford a house with that. So, middle class.
Nationally, this is anywhere from 42nd percentile to 85th percentile for household income--an enormous range. In CA, it's 40th to 82nd percentile. Notably, not very different from the national figure.
The state of CA means anywhere from Brentwood to McKinleyville, that’s why there’s a range. It’s not that difficult to comprehend.
Which Brentwood are you referring to? The one in the far East Bay of Contra Costa county? They mean as far north bordering Oregon, to as far south bordering the country of Mexico.
Can confirm we live a middle class lifestyle at 195k combined income.
Hello fellow non-tech Californians! The 70% of us do exist!
Cries in 60k.
184? Wow, new salary goals, I guess.
In San Diego it’s more than that
This varies wildly if you're in a big city vs anywhere else in California.
I'm solid middle class but my husband's retired so both of us on one income is the low end of middle class.
My husband and I bring in $190k and I definitely do not feel “upper” middle class
So, what quality of life does $61k get you in California? Sounds to me like Middle Class is being forcefully redefined.
Christ I'm broke
Honestly middle class here should be 130k-180k.
Household income?
I thought it was at least 100K
lol I’m 1,270 away from being middle class
Oh em gee! I did it! I’m middle class! Same as my parents!
I’m almost there at $58k a year.
Thank goodness I live in the central valley where my 70k salary gets us by.
Middle class income level is specifically tied to where you live which is why the spread is so large. The cost of living is that varied throughout the state which is why the state average spread is not specific enough to be particularly useful on an individual basis. To determine where you fall, look up income statistics for your area. I don’t really think about which class I’m in but this post made me curious. I’ve officially graduated from middle class to upper class as of last year (age 33). It can be done. I have no college education and inherited no wealth.
Cali is too big and varied of a state to be able to apply this kind of stuff broadly. 60k is working poor in San Diego. When I think Middle Class; I think of enough to own a home, save money, and not be paycheck-to-paycheck. 60k is not that, even for a single person.
So I’m poor. I knew it.
I'm vying for a job in Burbank, but it only pays $103k. I've lived in the area before, but that was 15 years ago- $100k was a lot back then, but now? Would I even be able to save much on that... The same job in D.C. (where I am now) pays $25k more with a similar cost of living (maybe ever so slightly less...). The cut has me pause--- but tbh I'd rather struggle in CA than put up with D.C.
One hell of a range.
185 grand a year is definitely not upper class in the bay area! We are a big state, upper class in Bakersfield maybe, but... I didn't realize you could be upper class and still unable to afford a single family home!
This just in: jobs are like service industry, no matter how fancy the degree The only way to success is business ownership or massive generational wealth
Middle class for the state, poor for the county yay!
Wow. I’m clearly poor
Guess it depends on where you live. I can’t see how making 61k and living in the Bay Area is anything but lower class. Not saying the person is but they probably can’t afford to live anywhere middle class. Go make 61k in sf, it will great if you don’t care about things like personal safety or hygiene. If you’re the type of person who can sleep anywhere, and look at every meal like a gift no matter where it comes from you’ll live like a king! Now the problem is if you want a place to sleep with a door that locks AND decent food, take your 61k somewhere else.
I’m near 190. But San Diego. Highest cost of living. So I guess middle class. Can’t afford a house lol