• Copernican@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think people underestimate lifetime earnings. Let’s assume 35 years of salary work to retire at 65 (it takes a while to get a career going an maybe a layoff and parental leave…) That would be about 125k a year. Make that a dual income family and that’s 2 people making 63k a year. It’s a bit hard to understand pre and post tax though because some of the calculations like retirement are pretax. And then factor in gains from investment…

    So isn’t this calculation saying a 2 family income making median salaries can live the dream? That’s not great for 50% of Americans and probably means a lesser proportion of Americans can attain the dream than before. But that number 4.4 million actually is not crazy high. In a more just work though, dual income families making above the lowest 25 to 30% salaries should be able to afford the American Dream with some caveats around used cars instead of new, and maybe more frugal wedding and college expense due to financial aid and what not.

    • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      Add the expense of having kids.
      Add the expense of looking after parents.
      Add the expense of healthcare costs.

      • Copernican@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        American dream implies nuclear family life. Retirement, home ownership, and owning new cars are factored in that math. It includes the cost of having 2 kids.

        If you read the article…

        Here’s the breakdown. We’ll explain the math below.

        Retirement: $1.6 million

        Homeownership: $930,000

        Raising two kids: $832,000

        Owning new cars: $811,000

        Annual vacations: $179,000

        Wedding: $44,000

        Pets: $37,000

        Funeral: $8,000

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      While that’s more than reasonable to expect for techies, for example, in todays world, that’s CEO pay 35 years ago.

      While I’m too lazy to do the math, I’d like to see

      • what does median pay look like for 35 years?
      • what would that need for an inflation adjusted constant pay?
      • how about a typical career progression for a field where that could be done?
      • Copernican@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I disagree. Workers in trades like electricians will make that much. I think entry level electricians make like 55k. So after 5 years in that work, you will likely be earning above median salary. But for professions like teachers in school districts that don’t pay well… It sucks. Not ideal, but not as dire as some might think. And when you throw in the number of people these days choosing not to have kids, that shaves 1 million dollars off the cost of the American Dream life (but hard to say how much of that decision is based on expected income vs lifestyle values).

        Tech workers I assume are making starting around 75k and getting into 100k fairly easily depending on geographic location. And depending on company and trajectory you could be getting into 200 to 300k territory in tech.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Tech workers I assume are making starting around 75k and getting into 100k fairly easily

          Now. But not 35 years ago. The article doesn’t cover inflation but since they want to end at a specific dollar amount, that matters. Since they’re not talking about savings or investing, it’s not like you can just disregard it.

          • Copernican@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The inflation piece is confusing to me to, but I think it does talk about investment. It says retirement is 1.6 million based on expected annual withdraw rate. So I’m guessing that is not the contribution amount but final amount including return on investment. So does that 4.4 million number actually somehow translate into a sub 4 million dollar contribution value? Same with college. If you start investing in college funds at child birth that have 18 years of growth, is that child cost the cost basis, or accrued value at time of spend? On the other hand the home cost includes mortgage interest, but the value of the house will hopefully exceed the cost you put into it.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    They’re forgetting shoes.

    But seriously, somehow I finally have a little leftover to save for retirement and build my emergency fund, now that I’m fully supporting my kids and paying a crap load of child support. I have no idea where all that money went when I was married, except possibly her shopping habits

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    I miss Dream On. Brian Benben is very likeable and so is Wendy Malik. And the kid was in that Star Trek episode where he was Riker’s fake son but was actually an alien in a giant holodeck…

    Sorry, I was trying to distract myself from living in the broken, impoverished supposedly light of the Western world.