The journey from there to here

(Note to Gene Nash: I actually had this blog in mind well before your comment on LW's thread).

One of the things that irks me in this country is the number of people who seem entirely incapable of living within their means. On Little_Whip's thread about minimum wage, for instance, one reader makes the comment that you are in trouble if you make $45K a year because a house costs $240K and a car costs at least $20K. Of course, it was pointed out repeatedly how wrong he was, but I'm sure he didn't pay much attention.

For one thing, the median cost of housing across the USA is $206K. Some places cost more, others cost much less. Sure, you can't always take your job with you, but if you have a job that pays $45,000 a year or better and you can't make ends meet, it's probably in your best interests to move elsewhere.

$45,000 a year, for those keeping score at home, is between $3500-4000 a month. Even in some of the most expensive cities, you can find an apartment for less than $1200 a month. It's not the same as owning your own home, but 1) there's no constitutional right to own your own home and 2) it's a living. It may not be an extravagant living, but you can and should be able to make it on far less. Most families, in fact, do just that.

So how does one make it on a paltry salary? Simply by following Gideon's rule: NEVER pay retail. Thrift stores aren't always your best bet for secondhand clothing, as they've been "picked" by resellers, but you can still find a few values there, added to the values you find at garage sales. Buying closeouts at the end of the season and buying "factory seconds" are other ways to stretch your clothing dollar further. Always look for clearance merchandise and shop at Dollar Stores (a corollary to Gideon's Rule: WalMart's too expensive!).

Food works the same way. Look for bargains at dollar stores that don't specialize primarily in foods and "shop the ads". As a rule, don't use coupons, as  they're usually for overpriced items in the first place (the exceptions to this are for foods where you are "brand loyal" and would buy the brand anyway, and anything free). Bigger cities have "surplus" stores (dented cans, etc), and you can usually (though not always) save if you buy in bulk. It doesn't pay, however, to buy 50 pounds of kumquats if you're not gonna USE 50 pounds of kumquats. And I never buy less than 24 rolls of toilet paper at a time.

Electronics, DVD's? Two words: PAWN SHOP. They are full of practically new merchandise from people who bought items they couldn't afford, and you can usually negotiate an extra 10-15% off the purchase price (I have always been able to; no exceptions).

Books are the gold in many thrift stores. Put simply, books just don't sell, especially bestsellers. So you can usually get them at a bargain price. Add to that "friends of the library" book sales held at most libraries from time to time, the aforementioned rummage sale and estate sales and auctions.

There is absolutely no reason in this day and age that you have to pay retail for ANYTHING. With a little creativity and a good deal of research, you can ALWAYS find a better price and make your "paltry" $45,000 salary go a little further.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 03, 2005

Sharing can also come in handy with your kumquat example. If you and 9 of your best friends decide to go together on 50 pounds of kumquats, then you only pay for 5 pounds of kumquats, and it's probably a lot cheaper than buying 10 5 pound bags.

Yes, and it's possible sometimes, but I must say that in America, we are pretty handicapped when it comes to cooperative buying concepts. Co-ops DO exist, but they're often hard to find and are sometimes rather exclusive.

on Jun 03, 2005
I disagree with the "anywhere" bit. Like I said, a studio apartment is pricy in these parts and even with roommmates, I'm paying quite a chuck of my salary to my landlord each month.


Well, in my search, I found several three bedroom places in the under $2000 category. Assuming three roommates, that's $667 a month...and that's FAR from the cheapest housing. Even an $8 an hour job in this case could pay the bills. Yeah, it'd be tight, but doable (in this scenario, it would be necessary to take public transit or ride a bike, but hey...when living cheaply, you do what you have to do).

The fact is, though, that wages usually adjust to the cost of living of an area. While apartments cost more in DC, the wages are definitely higher. One perk that immediately comes to mind is that there are a billion things to do in DC for free, so a lot of entertainment costs are mitigated.
on Jun 03, 2005

As it is, my commute is 45 minutes each way and I only live 3.5 miles from my office--I don't think I could handle living any further out--the roadrage would be the end of me!

I dont blame you.  I have been caught in the mixing bowl enough times to know that DC is not for me!

on Jun 03, 2005
Well, in my search, I found several three bedroom places in the under $2000 category


I'd be interested in seeing where they are--we live in a very safe neighborhood (I actually live next to the Pentagon and work in DC), but I am sure that Southwest DC has some cheaper stuff but the neighborhood is very dangerous (remember we are talking about a city that is world reknown for its high murder rate). Also, I've found that rent increases are as frequent as the changing seasons in this area. I've lived here almost two years now and our rent has gone up more than $400 in that time.

While apartments cost more in DC, the wages are definitely higher.


After a while yes, but plenty of Hill staffers still start out at $21,000/year. In fact, when I first lived in DC (straight out of college)and worked on the Hill, I brought home less than $1400/month. It was quite the juggling act to pay rent and college loans at the same time.

Man, you couldnt pay me enough to live in DC.


The city has grown on me. I lived here six years ago and wasn't a huge fan. I moved back less than two years ago, and I'm enjoying it. Certain neighborhoods have won me over.
on Jun 04, 2005

shades,

I can't speak to DC, but I've found that the apartments listed in the rentals section are usually higher than you have to pay if you really look. When I lived in Chicago in 93 (another expensive city), we found a retired lady who rented out the top two floors of her three story house to us for about $600/month. There were five of us, so even the paltry $7 an hour plus tips I made at the car wash paid my rent plus a fair amount of entertainment expenses. I didn't have a car at the time; didn't NEED one in Chicago.

DC is one of those anomalies as far as cost of living is concerned. Put simply, if you want to live in DC, you have to pay the cost. But one of the reasons for this article was the assertion by the blogger who inferred that you were in trouble if you make $45K a year. My point held, that it can be done. Even using your wage scale for staffers, a two income family with both working as staffers would bring home $42,000 a year...not a king's ransom in DC, to be sure, but more than adequate to ensure a reasonable, though not extravagant standard of living in one of the more expensive places in the country.

 

on Jun 06, 2005
Gideon--

I don't disagree with you. I was simply disagreeing for argument's sake--it was a slow Friday afternoon.
on Jun 06, 2005

(I actually live next to the Pentagon and work in DC),

Just watch out for low flying planes!

The city has grown on me. I lived here six years ago and wasn't a huge fan. I moved back less than two years ago, and I'm enjoying it. Certain neighborhoods have won me over.

I think DC is one of the nicest (outside the bad areas) to visit and live, if you did not have to drive!  That is what I hate about it.  You do live in some primo areas as that is the most expensive part of DC.  The MD Suburbs are a lot cheaper (but then the taxes are a lot nastier).

When I said DC was not for me, I hate traffic!  It is bad enough down here in Richmond, and that is nothing compared to what I have been stuck in up there.

on Jun 06, 2005
I don't disagree with you. I was simply disagreeing for argument's sake--it was a slow Friday afternoon.


Oh, I understand, shades. Frankly, I appreciated the chance to do a little research. Sometimes the research that results from preparing a response is more fulfilling than the article itself; such was the case here.
2 Pages1 2