One reason people with higher incomes choose to live in Calif is that then you
can deal with educated people who live their lives based on observed reality, as
opposed to Bronze-aged legends. I miss it.
What would be interesting is to look at average income by population size. Wherever I've lived I've found things I love and things I
disliked. UT--pros: mountains, relative safety/lower crimeCons:
weather, winter inversions, uniformity--"Stepfordish" CA
pros: beaches, weather, diversity in every respect--race, religion, political,
landscape (mountains, forests, beaches etc) open-mindednessCons: traffic,
higher crime (urban areas) I think it is a disservcie to Utahns to
frequently post articles on UT's "greatness" (I've never seen
a newspaper in other states which does this). it perpetuates the existing
problem of pride among residents
The standard of living in Utah is pretty high, maybe not like San Francisco, San
Diego, Seattle or NY but it's still pretty high. We're not Council
Bluff, Iowa where you can get a big home for 100K. Another area where real
estate is out of control is Colorado, especially the front range. So wages are
low in Utah compared to the actual cost of things.
"One hundred thousand is rich?"Folks - its not that 100,000
is rich... but the percentage of people making at least that much. When you
have a town like Samammish out side of Seattle where over 77% of the people make
at least that much... that is a well off community. Are there communities where
people make more. Yep. But in the aggregate, that is a high concentration of
high earners.Your fixating on the 100,000 - not the percentage that
reach the bar. Just like getting an A grade. Every class has kids that get
A's. But not many have 77% getting A's. Why bash other
locations..... I don't get it. The reality is if you live in Utah you
earn less because you are trading off for something else. It is a choice.
Nothing right or wrong about it. It is just what you choose.
Most studies show that people think that "rich" is about 20% more than
what they have -- no matter what they have. A $100,000 income won't buy
you anything but a cracker-box of a house and a long commute in Silicon Valley
and not much better in Redmond. I worked for one of the largest software
companies in the world at one time, based in one of their Asian offices. I
worked 60 hours a week. I paid US$85,000 for a Mitsubishi Gallant (300% tax) and
$5000 a month for a pretty decent little apartment. Meat was $7 a pound and gas
was $7 a gallon (in the 1990's!). My lifestyle was equivalent to a $45K
income in Utah and the US taxed me on $200K plus including what it cost the
company to send my kids to the American school. Rich is definitely relative.
One hundred thousand is rich?
Why does the DN spend so much time reporting on the rich and famous?
It would have been a good idea to tie the list into cost of living, too. Cost
of living is high in California and the west coast, therefore wages offered are
higher than say, Kentucky. (This is based on a recent job search for the same
job in the same company).
It's like those hedge fund and account managers back in 2008 complaining
that their $20M yearly bonuses don't go that far. I just don't
Because California has the best jobs and weather in the country.
My question is, if you are making that much money why are you choosing to live
Unfortunately I don't agree that $100K is 'rich', especially for
the communities listed in California, especially those listed in the famed
Silicon Valley... for those communities, $100K is bare living, probably slaving
to their mortgage.Even $10-20M doesn't go all that far in these
modern times...If we are talking about 'rich'.