Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to graph of the income distribution in 78704. I bet it would look like an inverted bell curve. 78746 would look like a ski-jump. 78732 would too, but shallower slope.
I'd like to graph of the income distribution in 78704. I bet it would look like an inverted bell curve. 78746 would look like a ski-jump. 78732 would too, but shallower slope.
One thing I wonder about new money is how potent it truly is when accounting for inflation. New Money salaries at $100k + look tasty on paper and there are a lot more jobs that are offering those salaries (especially in tech) … but is $100k truly the mile marker it once was? Today I don’t think it really is. When accounting for inflation, todays $100k salary translates to about $60k in year 2000. Someone who made that wage in Y2K and maybe moved up to $120k - $130k will still eat a 21% - 27% loss
One thing I wonder about new money is how potent it truly is when accounting for inflation. New Money salaries at $100k + look tasty on paper and there are a lot more jobs that are offering those salaries (especially in tech) … but is $100k truly the mile marker it once was? Today I don’t think it really is. When accounting for inflation, todays $100k salary translates to about $60k in year 2000. Someone who made that wage in Y2K and maybe moved up to $120k - $130k will still eat a 21% - 27% loss
This is true, but $100k+ has such a strong psychological effect, likely due to the media exposure throughout the decades promoting such a salary as the gold standard. Same can be said about having a million dollars. Don't get me wrong, a million is still a lot of money, but when factoring in inflation, one would likely need around $1.7million in today’s dollars to have the same purchasing power.
To the OP point this isn't surprising. I recall seeing a similar list for the DFW metroplex and the wealthiest zips were in suburban communities (Southlake, Frisco, Sunnyvale). I don't even think Highland Park/University made the list and anyone living there would know those cities along with certain areas of Dallas proper have far more wealth. As others have alluded to, these studies utilize median incomes. A dual income couple with upper professional jobs and/or working in the tech industry will skew the numbers in favor of such communities. Many folks in old money affluent areas have their wealth in assets. Many tend to be retired. I also suspect some under report for tax purposes. I wouldn't read to much into it, besides proof that communities such as Steiner are a strong draw for the upper middle class.
I still think 100k is a good salary, and even less than that, you're doing ok. Mile marker, well it depends. There are MANY fields where you don't make that or near it.
I think it’s a case by case basis and largely depends on your goals and overhead. 5 years ago or if you bought before the real estate crunch $100k is pretty good but if you bought or trying to buy during or after the pandemic, $100k may expose some limitations and in some cases may be impractical to purchase in more areas in/around Austin than used to be the case. Especially if you came in without much savings and tried to contend with bidding wars during the pandemic. I was right at $100k when I purchased. If I were to go back to $100k and purchase my house at its current value without a significant down payment, it would have been on the upper end of my buying power and I might have reconsidered.
But I do think the $100k marker is alittle over glorified today. With the cost of everything going up, it’s not the salary one could be careless about their spending anymore.
If you’re already settled with a decent or better yet, no Mortgage then $100k is plenty.
Also certainly there are many fields that don’t offer $100k, but I believe there are more that do offer it than is given credit for. Doctors / Lawyers / Scientists / Biologists / Engineers / Horticulture (on the high end) / Professors, ect… make well over $100k. Certain logistics jobs that require a CDL can pay all the way up to $350k on the extreme end. Upper level law enforcement, investigators, judges, ect are also in that ball park and higher… then there is real estate and personally owned businesses that pretty much have no salary caps.
I agree that many people are not making $100k, but I do think it is a more common salary than it used to be or is given credit for today.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 08-25-2022 at 05:33 PM..
I think it’s a case by case basis and largely depends on your goals and overhead. 5 years ago or if you bought before the real estate crunch $100k is pretty good but if you bought or trying to buy during or after the pandemic, $100k may expose some limitations and in some cases may be impractical to purchase in more areas in/around Austin than used to be the case. Especially if you came in without much savings and tried to contend with bidding wars during the pandemic. I was right at $100k when I purchased. If I were to go back to $100k and purchase my house at its current value without a significant down payment, it would have been on the upper end of my buying power and I might have reconsidered.
But I do think the $100k marker is alittle over glorified today. With the cost of everything going up, it’s not the salary one could be careless about their spending anymore.
If you’re already settled with a decent or better yet, no Mortgage then $100k is plenty.
Also certainly there are many fields that don’t offer $100k, but I believe there are more that do offer it than is given credit for. Doctors / Lawyers / Scientists / Biologists / Engineers / Horticulture (on the high end) / Professors, ect… make well over $100k. Certain logistics jobs that require a CDL can pay all the way up to $350k on the extreme end. Upper level law enforcement, investigators, judges, ect are also in that ball park and higher… then there is real estate and personally owned businesses that pretty much have no salary caps.
I agree that many people are not making $100k, but I do think it is a more common salary than it used to be or is given credit for today.
tbh, it's cost prohibitive for many folks today trying to buy a SFH on one income. When you have modest homes in the burbs averaging low 400s, trying to swing 2500-2700 per month on one salary can be tight unless you carry little debt and more people have debt than not.
doctors, lawyers, and the like - those are all advanced fields that require advanced, specialized training and degrees. The starting salaries should be starting at over 100k. The starting salary at our firm for first years is in the mid 100s, for example. Scientists can really go either way, depending on if you're in the private or public sector. My friend was a forensics scientist and she wasn't making anywhere near 100k. Real estate is based heavily on commissions, feast and famine.
but there are so many others who are not doing those jobs for a living and 100k may be at the high end, if not ceiling, of their careers. And they don't really complain about that, either.
I agree that 100k isn't really the gold standard any longer and there are many people hitting that, but it is still not your common, willy nilly salary for a good many workers. And here in Austin, many companies I feel don't pay top dollar for talent even given the rise in housing prices. It's like they still want to pay 2010 salaries.
I think the 2 biggest factors here are spouses who don't work (that may have been accounted for already) so, it's two incomes adding to $170,000 versus more one income households, that are $160,000. I know a place that get's "shot in the foot" income wise is Southwest Conneticut which has a high rate of spouses who don't work, while San Francisco which is now seen as wealthier, has a high rate of spouses who do work so median family income there has shot up a lot but in reality it's much closer in wealth than it seems.
The other factor as other's have pointed out is retirement, but also pre-retirement. Someone who's been making $100,000 a year over the last 30-40 years roughly (obviously they probably got paid more later but just using that as a staple) is going to be materially wealthier especially adjusting for inflation. Than someone who made 120,000 in the last 10-20 years. More years to build up your wealth in other ways. Far cheaper goods, less expensive college to pay down if you have no scholarships, all of that will play a role that makes the younger working cohort less wealthier even though they have a bigger income.
tbh, it's cost prohibitive for many folks today trying to buy a SFH on one income. When you have modest homes in the burbs averaging low 400s, trying to swing 2500-2700 per month on one salary can be tight unless you carry little debt and more people have debt than not.
doctors, lawyers, and the like - those are all advanced fields that require advanced, specialized training and degrees. The starting salaries should be starting at over 100k. The starting salary at our firm for first years is in the mid 100s, for example. Scientists can really go either way, depending on if you're in the private or public sector. My friend was a forensics scientist and she wasn't making anywhere near 100k. Real estate is based heavily on commissions, feast and famine.
but there are so many others who are not doing those jobs for a living and 100k may be at the high end, if not ceiling, of their careers. And they don't really complain about that, either.
I agree that 100k isn't really the gold standard any longer and there are many people hitting that, but it is still not your common, willy nilly salary for a good many workers. And here in Austin, many companies I feel don't pay top dollar for talent even given the rise in housing prices. It's like they still want to pay 2010 salaries.
Regarding the bolded, I feel where you're coming from and used to feel the same way as you do, but salaries were never supposed to meet housing costs... in fact doing so would actually cause more problems than it would solve. Housing costs are determined by many variables with supply and demand being the largest factor with resource and material being the next biggest factor. Increasing salaries to posture every employee into home buying capability would actually hurt housing prices as it would put many more people in the housing market at any given time while housing supply remains relatively stagnate thus decrease housing availability (as we see in tech-heavy cities across the U.S.)...
Salaries are supposed to meet the inflation rates of currency as well as general career progression, longevity and experience (although they're failing to do that too.) If suddenly however everyone were to be given a raise potent enough to compete with the housing market on a salary basis just purely on the premises of making it so every employee could afford to be a home buyer, the cost of housing would just get that much higher because too many buyers and too much competition for housing with limited housing supply. We technically got a taste of that during the pandemic when interest rates lowered but housing supply did not increase. The real way to fix buying power for housing is to increase housing supply so there is not so much competition for the same housing, that would make it so that presumably people at lower income levels would be able to purchase. This is ironically the thing that none of the tech-centric cities are doing despite loathing high housing prices.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 08-26-2022 at 08:54 AM..
Regarding the bolded, I feel where you're coming from and used to feel the same way as you do, but salaries were never supposed to meet housing costs... in fact doing so would actually cause more problems than it would solve. Housing costs are determined by many variables with supply and demand being the largest factor with resource and material being the next biggest factor. Increasing salaries to posture every employee into home buying capability would actually hurt housing prices as it would put many more people in the housing market at any given time while housing supply remains relatively stagnate thus decrease housing availability (as we see in tech-heavy cities across the U.S.)...
Salaries are supposed to meet the inflation rates of currency as well as general career progression, longevity and experience (although they're failing to do that too.) If suddenly however everyone were to be given a raise potent enough to compete with the housing market on a salary basis just purely on the premises of making it so every employee could afford to be a home buyer, the cost of housing would just get that much higher because too many buyers and too much competition for housing with limited housing supply. We technically got a taste of that during the pandemic when interest rates lowered but housing supply did not increase. The real way to fix buying power for housing is to increase housing supply so there is not so much competition for the same housing, that would make it so that presumably people at lower income levels would be able to purchase. This is ironically the thing that none of the tech-centric cities are doing despite loathing high housing prices.
Exactly. This is why Houston maintained low appreciation historically despite often strong increases in high-paying oil industry jobs - supply was allowed to keep pace. This was true until 2011-2012, when the fracking boom sent high-income job growth from 0 to 60 in a very short period of time while housing industry was trying to get off the floor from the Great Recession (even in TX, the housing development industry came to a standstill in 2009-10). Because demand from high-income earners so greatly outpaced supply, Houston home prices (in desirable areas at least) experienced appreciation like they never had before. Then in 2015, appreciation slowed dramatically, expressly because of the Thanksgiving 2014 oil crash - even though lower-paying industry sectors continued to expand. (Notably, at that time, home builders also made a big shift toward lower-priced new homes, even replatting to smaller lots.) It was a case study in the impact of high-wage industries.
Regarding the bolded, I feel where you're coming from and used to feel the same way as you do, but salaries were never supposed to meet housing costs... in fact doing so would actually cause more problems than it would solve. Housing costs are determined by many variables with supply and demand being the largest factor with resource and material being the next biggest factor. Increasing salaries to posture every employee into home buying capability would actually hurt housing prices as it would put many more people in the housing market at any given time while housing supply remains relatively stagnate thus decrease housing availability (as we see in tech-heavy cities across the U.S.)...
Salaries are supposed to meet the inflation rates of currency as well as general career progression, longevity and experience (although they're failing to do that too.) If suddenly however everyone were to be given a raise potent enough to compete with the housing market on a salary basis just purely on the premises of making it so every employee could afford to be a home buyer, the cost of housing would just get that much higher because too many buyers and too much competition for housing with limited housing supply. We technically got a taste of that during the pandemic when interest rates lowered but housing supply did not increase. The real way to fix buying power for housing is to increase housing supply so there is not so much competition for the same housing, that would make it so that presumably people at lower income levels would be able to purchase. This is ironically the thing that none of the tech-centric cities are doing despite loathing high housing prices.
Housing came to mind because it's the lowest hanging fruit, but I also meant keeping pace with inflation and being commensurate with expertise.
New York is a perfect example of salaries not being realistically able to keep pace with housing.
At the same time, in Austin many employers continue to ignore the increased COL. There's a reason why we keep losing talent to Dallas and Houston.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
