# Moving to Washington DC, advice required



## mm71 (Jan 24, 2014)

Hello all. I'm hoping that someone on here may be able to help us answer a few questions.

I could be offered a job working in Washington DC and have ben told that the salary would be circa $70000 pa with schooling for my kids paid for and cheap healthcare (roughly $50 per month).

Given that there would be me, my wife ad my 2 kids, I wanted to know if this would be a realistic amount to live on and put some money away.

It looks like a great opportunity and I'd love to take the job but I'd like to know how realistic this would be

Thanks in advance


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

You may want to have a close look at the health insurance package; particularly non-covered items, copayments, available physicians/facilities, ... It sounds just a bit too cheap.

70k for a family of four might get tight in DC.


----------



## mm71 (Jan 24, 2014)

twostep said:


> You may want to have a close look at the health insurance package; particularly non-covered items, copayments, available physicians/facilities, ... It sounds just a bit too cheap.
> 
> 70k for a family of four might get tight in DC.


Thanks for the reply. By tight, do you mean just covering the basics or being able to put some money to one side too?

My worry is that we'd go over there and then have to scrimp and save to get by, which would stop us from exploring the US more


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

Run a budget. 70k minus taxes. HR should be able to give you numbers on taxes or IRS.gov.
Car insurance, rent, utilities, TV/cell phones/internet, various insurances, school activities, bus/subway (if you can commute that way). Groceries, clothes, family activities, miscellaneous such as presents, holiday décor, house items, gym/clubs.
One or two vehicles, deposits for apartment/house, utilities, school registrations/shots/uniforms/supplies, furniture/lamps/small appliances, restocking basic household items from salt to bug spray.


----------



## gra80 (Nov 11, 2011)

Hey MM71
I recently moved to the DC area (actually in Arlington, VA) from Europe and can tell you it is not cheap here. Cell phone plus line rental alone is approx. $80 for one contract. If you add on cable / internet etc you are probably looking at another 100-150 per month. a meal in a standard restaurant is probably around 40-50 bucks per person.

Rent varies obviously depending on where you stay, however from everything I have been told most areas of DC are not the greatest or safest (I say this without any experience of actually having gone to them). My wife and I decided to live across the potomac in VA which is supposedly safer. Here rent can be anything from 1500 + per month. Supposedly the best area of DC is the Northwest - DuPont circle, Adams Morgan and others. 

Also the health insurance you mention seems too cheap to be true. As Twostep mentioned make sure it covers everything and the whole family. To give you an idea, we are paying over $500 a month for two people but this includes everything even dental and eye care.

A car is not necessarily a must but again it depends on where you end up living. Close to a metro and you should be able to get around ok.

Not trying to put you off, I actually really enjoy it here and the summers are amazing compared to back in the UK. Twostep is correct in listing numerous things to consider. 

PS: Not sure how your pension would work but the 401k here allows you to save 17.5% per pay check pre tax. Also if you want to bring money over from the UK there may be charges / taxes to pay.


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

Here is the 2014 IRS announcement http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Announces-2014-Pension-Plan-Limitations;-Taxpayers-May-Contribute-up-to-$17,500-to-their-401%28k%29-plans-in-2014

You may want to speak with HR or your benefits representative to clarify the 17.5% per paycheck.


----------



## mm71 (Jan 24, 2014)

Thanks a lot for the reply; you've definitely given some things to think about. The healthcare mentioned was subsidised, so maybe that is why it's so cheap? I'll have to do a bit more digging and see what we can come up with


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

gra80 said:


> Cell phone plus line rental alone is approx. $80 for one contract.


And then you're seriously overpaying. Prepaid service with unlimited voice, text messaging, and a bit of data is now starting at about $30/month.



> If you add on cable / internet etc you are probably looking at another 100-150 per month.


Ditto. You can easily pay half that. Sure, if you get every or nearly every premium channel you can pay as much as you want, but why?



> a meal in a standard restaurant is probably around 40-50 bucks per person.


"Standard" restaurant? In the U.S. that means something like Applebees. I suppose you could spend $40 to $50 per person there, but you'd have to try very hard.

Of course then there's Waffle House and Taco Bell....

By the way, many employers offer a Roth 401(k) option which is generally a better deal if you can afford to save at or near the current annual maximum of $17,500. In addition you can contribute up to $5,500 (current limit) to a Roth IRA for a total of up to $23,000 per year. Roth contributions are post-tax. Qualified withdrawals, including all gains, are U.S. tax free.


----------



## gra80 (Nov 11, 2011)

Apologies I meant 17.5k not % - my bad.

Cable / Internet - All the plans I saw were starting from $70+ per month and most were 2 year basic plans. I don't really care about care TV so in the end I only have internet at 36p/m with Comcast.

By standard restaurant I didn't mean the chains like applebees etc or the Mcdonalds / taco bells.

Guess I need to be clearer on my posts


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

Gray80 - we lived smack outside the beltway in VA for several years. A beer on tap in Old Town runs 5-10$, sandwich or bar food 10-15$. Let's not go into real restaurants:>) Even Taco Bell for four will run 25-35$. 

BBCWatcher - give me unlimited US wide voice for $30 and I will sign up. If you want more then commercials you have to get a decent TV package, especially if you need kid friendly entertainment.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

$30/month is getting downright common for unlimited prepaid voice and SMS, typically including some international minutes, texting, and domestic data. Check this list. Examples include Black Wireless and Red Pocket.


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

mm71 said:


> Thanks a lot for the reply; you've definitely given some things to think about. The healthcare mentioned was subsidised, so maybe that is why it's so cheap? I'll have to do a bit more digging and see what we can come up with


If it is - great for you! Just do not buy the cat in the bag especially with kids. Annual physicals and shots are required for school.

Let me ask you some questions. 
Who pays for airfare to and from the US, who ships your household to and from the US, has vacation/sick time/holidays/overtime/expected work hours/reporting structure/termination by either party/ temporary housing and transportation been addressed? Does schooling for your kids mean tuition only or supplies/uniforms/transportation/extra activities from sports to band? 
Will your job be in DC or in one of the surrounding communities and which visa will you be on?


----------



## sharbuck (Dec 10, 2013)

Seems like it would be difficult to live on 70k gross. The others posed some serious questions worth consideration.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

sharbuck said:


> Seems like it would be difficult to live on 70k gross.


Yet substantially more than half of Americans do it. $70K is about 40% above U.S. median _household_ income.

$70K in the U.S. is rather good! Most people -- most Americans -- aren't so fortunate.


----------



## sharbuck (Dec 10, 2013)

Depends on where you live. Just like anywhere in the world, housing costs vary. 70k is a nice wage in Montana, Dallas or perhaps North Carolina. But not in NYC, Philly or Wash DC. With some states having anywhere from 0 to 10+ state tax in addition to federal deductions, that 70 k can disappear quockly


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

sharbuck said:


> 70k is a nice wage in Montana, Dallas or perhaps North Carolina. But not in NYC, Philly or Wash DC.


I thought someone might advance that argument.

OK, let's look at the facts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's most recent statistics, the median household income -- that's total income, for the whole household -- in the District of Columbia is $64,267. With a $70,000 salary, even assuming zero additional household income, you'd still have about a 9% higher income than the typical (median) Washingtonian household. Said another way, more than half the households in the District of Columbia would have lower incomes than you.

I'm continually amazed how much participants in this forum overestimate incomes and standards of living in the U.S. and elsewhere. I suspect this forum's participants are _seriously_ atypical.

If the argument is that $70K does not provide enough for a life of luxury in the District of Columbia, agreed. It does, however, provide for a better lifestyle than more than half of DC's households enjoy. That's just how the numbers work. It's objectively a solidly middle class income level both within the United States and in the District of Columbia specifically. And no, you probably cannot afford a super abundance of possessions and indulgences on a middle class income. You probably shouldn't be paying $80/month for mobile phone service (fortunately you don't have to), nor should you be subscribing to every (or even any) premium TV channel(s), nor dine at $50 per head restaurants too often.

Welcome to the way most people actually live. I really wish more people would understand and appreciate their fellow humans a bit more.


----------



## sharbuck (Dec 10, 2013)

Am not debating you, just trying to answer a fellow poster's question of is 70k possible to live on in Washington DC. In my opinion, it could be tight. Do your research, take that amount? Back out taxes, healthcare costs. Estimate food, utility and other basic costs. Get auto insurance quotes. Add this ll up and then you can decide if it will work for you. Please excuse the attempt to politicize your question. 

Best of luck to you


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

By the way, I'd have to dig a bit deeper into the U.S. Census data, but it's quite possible the Census's median household income figure includes the value of medical insurance, employer matches on 401(k) plans, etc. If the employer is providing (or subsidizing) medical insurance and retirement savings on top of the $70K figure, that _could_ mean that $70K is rather more than 9% above DC household median. But it's at least 9%.

Who said anything about an automobile being a requirement? It's rather common for DC residents not to have private automobiles. According to the 2000 Census about 37% of District of Columbia households did not have any private automobiles. That figure has likely increased a fair bit given national trends and given the expansion of public transit service since 2000 in DC.


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

BBCWatcher said:


> Yet substantially more than half of Americans do it. $70K is about 40% above U.S. median _household_ income.
> 
> $70K in the U.S. is rather good! Most people -- most Americans -- aren't so fortunate.


The question is not what is median US income according to a US government side but can OP live comfortably in DC on 70k gross with a family of four and save and vacation to explore the US? 

My answer is - the family can live on 70k but there will be very little room for anything else especially as he needs to consider start up costs and no potential for second income.

Have you ever lived there or is your input based on Internet info?

Sure - you can live without car. Have you ever taken a sick child to a doctor while haven the sibling with you and done that by bus and subway?


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

BBCWatcher said:


> $30/month is getting downright common for unlimited prepaid voice and SMS, typically including some international minutes, texting, and domestic data. Check this list. Examples include Black Wireless and Red Pocket.


Nice list but it does not answer my question.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

twostep said:


> Nice list but it does not answer my question.


Twostep, it did if you spent even a few seconds clicking on either of the two carriers' Web sites that I mentioned as examples from the list. Both Black Wireless and Red Pocket offer unlimited U.S. national mobile phone service for $30/month, and that service includes other features, too. Spend a couple seconds following my suggestions if you're interested. I provided the full list so you can shop around, really, really easily.

Yes of course I'm familiar with DC, income levels, and how most of America lives...because that's how I've lived for a substantial fraction of my life. Who's out of touch here, if that's what you're insinuating? That's among other reasons why I would never pay $80/month for mobile phone service, as an example, and why I might actually thank the person who helped me save $50/month. The vast majority of Americans are not purchasing all the things they'd like or even that they need. What, do you think greater than 37% of Washingtonians don't have kids? They get by. Maybe they call a taxi, or maybe they ride the Metro with kids (the horrors). That's how the "other half" -- well, more than that -- live.

By the way, having a car in DC is a viable option on $70K/year, but it means not spending that money on something else, like bigger housing. Or saving less. But the assumption that one must have a car to survive or to be a good parent in DC is rubbish. No, it's a choice, as about 40% of DC households prove every day.

It's absurd to automatically assume that a 90th percentile or greater lifestyle is what everybody coming to this forum demands as their minimum requirement to survive. It's out of touch, in my view. Let's state the facts and let people decide. The fact is that $70K in DC is solidly middle class. It means you have to watch your budget and not buy everything you might want. There is nothing wrong with that, and we shouldn't make negative judgments about that. We ought to respect and admire those who work hard, play by the rules, make some sacrifices, and try to do the best they can for their families. And $70K is doing better than most, so congratulations.

So, to summarize, if you are comfortable living with a bit higher standard of living than the median Washingtonian, you'll be satisfied with $70K. If being solidly middle class is not enough for you, look elsewhere.


----------



## mm71 (Jan 24, 2014)

Firstly, thanks for trying to answer my questions; I can see that both of you have very strong ideas and that you both have contributed some important points to the discussion. However, it seems to have become a but of an argument which saddens me.

If I can bring it back on track a bit...

As someone who has never lived in the US but did own a rental property in Orlando, I did have some experience of how things are done in the US but I know that trying to extrapolate from one city to another another is impossible. My concern is that if I give up our life in the UK and move everyone over to the US, I want it to be the best possible experience for us all; I have no desire to be upper-middle class or anything similar, I just want us to have an experience that we will remember. After all, what is the point of moving country if we can't see our new country, experience the lifestyle and have some money put away either for a rainy day or if we have to (or want to) return to the UK.

My original post was to gauge whether or not $70k in Washington is realistic. I ask this because in the teaching profession in the UK, we have extra salary allowances for London due to the high cost of living, housing etc and seeing as Washington is also a capital city, I expected cost of living to be higher too. I'm aware that $70k to most Americans is an excellent salary, but given the variance in cost of living across any country, I was hoping for some feedback related specifically to that.

As I stated at the start, you've both made some valuable points and I appreciate the time that you've put in to posting


----------



## Bellthorpe (Jun 23, 2013)

Don't be sad. That's the way of forums. People get bent out of shape when all they're doing really is offering differing opinions.

I'm planning a move to France, but circumstances might have changed, and we might move to DC for some time. I would not do it if our household income was $75k. There are other parts of the US where I would.

Others might well disagree with me, but they won't get a rise. That's my view.


----------



## mm71 (Jan 24, 2014)

Bellthorpe said:


> Don't be sad. That's the way of forums. People get bent out of shape when all they're doing really is offering differing opinions.
> 
> I'm planning a move to France, but circumstances might have changed, and we might move to DC for some time. I would not do it if our household income was $75k. There are other parts of the US where I would.
> 
> Others might well disagree with me, but they won't get a rise. That's my view.


Thanks for your reply


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

If the contract does not contain cost of living adjustments, bonus options, ... then the contract salary applies.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

Where are those data from, Whole Foods on K Street (if there is a Whole Foods on K Street)?


----------



## MarylandNed (May 11, 2010)

BBCWatcher said:


> Yet substantially more than half of Americans do it. $70K is about 40% above U.S. median _household_ income.
> 
> $70K in the U.S. is rather good! Most people -- most Americans -- aren't so fortunate.


Yeah but we're talking about the Washington DC area (where I live). It's expensive here. Sure you could rent a cheap place in Anacostia and stay up all night listening for gunfire but I don't think that's what the OP has in mind for his family!


----------



## MarylandNed (May 11, 2010)

mm71 said:


> Hello all. I'm hoping that someone on here may be able to help us answer a few questions.
> 
> I could be offered a job working in Washington DC and have ben told that the salary would be circa $70000 pa with schooling for my kids paid for and cheap healthcare (roughly $50 per month).
> 
> ...


I think 70k is very tight for a family of 4 in this area if you want to have a decent life, save for retirement and have money left over for exploring the US. The subsidized healthcare might help but I'd really want to know exactly what that covers in terms of co-pays for healthcare, prescriptions, dental and eye care. What visa will you be getting? Can your wife work?

Sure, other people can live on $70k in DC but what sort of life are they having? Are they saving enough for retirement? Do they have enough money to explore the US as you said you want to do? Do they have kids? What sort of life are the kids having? Are they saving enough to send their kids to college? Are they in debt and living paycheck to paycheck? Simply being able to live on 70k isn't enough. You have to ask yourself if 70k will let you live the life that you and your family want to lead.

I live in DC's Maryland suburbs. I don't see how a family of 4 could feasibly get away without having a car in this area unless they live right on the Metro line and have every amenity reasonably available by public transportation. You can certainly get away without a car if you don't have kids but, with kids, there will be endless transportation issues involving medical appointments, after school activities, visiting friends, other events, etc. You could spend many hours and lots of money on public transportation. You also want to explore. So, practically speaking, a car is probably a must unless you live right in DC (e.g. anywhere along the Metro's red line in NW should be fine but won't be cheap) and can live with public transportation and/or renting a car the odd time for trips.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

MarylandNed said:


> Yeah but we're talking about the Washington DC area (where I live). It's expensive here.


That point was addressed already upthread. $70K is still above DC household median.


----------



## sharbuck (Dec 10, 2013)

BBC Watcher, know you are trying to be helpful, this last poster actually lives in the DC area and so the information and insight he can give is quite valuable.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

I lived in DC for a period of time.

We get so many questions like this one on this forum, and really it's impossible for any of us to answer without knowing the exact standard of living expectations. "I wouldn't live there on less than $X" really is not a helpful answer at all. That's you, and your standard of living expectations. Who on earth knows whether your standard of living expectations are anything like the questioner's.

In my estimation the participants on this forum skew heavily toward well above median standards of living. I count myself among that fortunate cohort, so I'm by no means excluding myself. Quite the opposite. So if you ask a random sample of forum participants here "Would you live in place X on Y income?" you're going to get upper income/high standard of living results.

Good for us, I guess, but that's not really helpful. I'm fortunate, I have a comparatively high standard of living, and, most importantly, _I'm aware of all that_. Partly because I didn't always live as I do now -- far from it -- and partly because I know how to read U.S. Census income data and interpret it.

Anyway, I think we get the idea by now. $70K/year in DC is solidly middle class. It's not upper middle class, and it's not lower middle class or below the poverty line either. If a solidly middle class U.S. lifestyle is acceptable, go for it. If not, look elsewhere.


----------



## Simey (Dec 4, 2012)

BBCWatcher said:


> That point was addressed already upthread. $70K is still above DC household median.


I'm from the DC area. Focussing on the median is misplaced. There are areas of the DC area that are very, very poor. Like generations living on welfare poor. That pulls the median income down substantially. There are other areas such as PG County that aren't quite so desperate but which are still quite low income/high crime. 

The nicer middle class type areas are very different and are some of the wealthiest in the country. That translates into a high cost of living with particularly some of the most expensive housing in the country. $70K for a family of 4 is quite a bit below median for an income earner for those areas. For this area that's a salary that is more commensurate with a single person with a graduate degree. They live in one bedroom condos. 

Unfortunately, there is less that is somewhere in the middle. To find that middle slice you have to move very far from the city.  If you work in the city you will deal with a horrible commute. Large numbers of people ride in from Baltimore or Manassas daily. 

To give the OP an idea that is grounded in reality: I am currently renting out my primary home - a mid century 3 bedroom in a middle class neighborhood in Fairfax County. It's outside the beltway and not close to metro (so a car is a necessity). The rent is $36,000 a year, which is about average for that area. It would be more if it were closer to the city or nearer to public transportation or in a more prestigious school district.

So there goes 50% of gross income. But of course before that will come taxes, and after that comes all the other expenses such as a car.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

Simey said:


> I'm from the DC area. Focussing on the median is misplaced. There are areas of the DC area that are very, very poor. Like generations living on welfare poor. That pulls the median income down substantially.


Substantially, no. The median is well above everyone you just described, because the majority of DC households are not living in poverty. You may be thinking of _mean_ income.

Median inherently means "typical." That is, at the median income, half the households have less, and half have more. $70K in DC is about 9% above median, probably in the 55th to 60th percentile. That is, 55 to 60 percent of households in DC earn less, and 40 to 45 percent earn more. Solidly middle class, no question about it. By definition.

Yes, Loudoun County, Virginia, to pick an example, has a median household income of $122,068 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's latest available statistics. Yes, it would probably be very tough to experience a middle class (or better) standard of living if you choose Loudoun County as your place of residence when working in the District of Columbia. Stipulated. Don't do that!

Bluntly, many/most participants on this forum are, frankly, mostly out of touch with middle class lifestyles because that's not how they/we live. Perhaps that's impolite, but it happens to be true. The statistics back me up on this, quite obviously.

If the proposition is that a solidly middle class standard of living is always unacceptable, well....


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

By the way, to give even more color to these numbers, the median household size in DC is 2.17, and that's smaller than the overall U.S. median. So with a household size of 4, and an income 9% above median, the net effect is probably a lifestyle slightly below median. Still solidly middle class, but a bit less solidly, let's say. Children are not free.

Again, who am I to judge whether you, the questioner, find that standard of living acceptable? I don't think I would (if I had a choice), but I could very, very easily see how many other people would feel differently.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this topic to death.


----------



## Simey (Dec 4, 2012)

BBCWatcher said:


> Substantially, no. The median is well above everyone you just described, because the majority of DC households are not living in poverty. You may be thinking of _mean_ income.
> 
> Median inherently means "typical." That is, at the median income, half the households have less, and half have more. $70K in DC is about 9% above median, probably in the 55th to 60th percentile. That is, 55 to 60 percent of households in DC earn less, and 40 to 45 percent earn more. Solidly middle class, no question about it. By definition.
> 
> ...


Oh my gosh, do you have any idea where Loudoun County is in relation to DC? That's outer suburbs! Close to the West Virginia border!! Up to 2 hours each way in rush hour!!! 

Yes people do it. It's a measure of just how expensive housing is in the DC area. 

Loudoun has much cheaper housing as it was quite overbuilt during the bubble. It's also much poorer than closer counties. Yes, a family of 4 can live there with an income of $122K per year. And of course if you have a job out there as well that's all well and good. Closer to the city though it becomes much more expensive. Basically, Fairfax County (especially parts inside the Beltway), Arlington County and Montgomery County as well as NW DC (which is even more expensive). The problem is the OP's income for a family of 4 is just over half that. It means that a suitable house such as mine (45 minute commute on a good day from downtown DC) is out of reach. Sorry. 

But of course, I have only lived in the area for the last 26 years, what would I know about it?


----------



## Simey (Dec 4, 2012)

By the way, if the OP does (against advice) decide to do this, one possibility that might be worth looking at is Brookland, which is a neighborhood in Northeast DC around Catholic University of America. It's not a fashionable area and it is lower middle class at best but its an area that is relatively affordable without being scary - as long as you are quite careful about exactly which street you live on. Just don't go over the train tracks or stray too far towards Trinidad. 

I lived there for 5 years in a very affordable 3 bedroom apartment in a complex on Michigan Avenue opposite Trinity College. Most of my neighbors were hospital employees, students and a number of young families. Metro was about a 20 minute walk and it's the red line.

It would still be tight though. My rent was about $2,500 a month, and that was ten years ago.


----------



## sharbuck (Dec 10, 2013)

The other issue I would think about is what area is the school in that he would be teaching in. If it is in a bad area, the challenges from inner city kids and culture could be quite overwhelming. With many American teachers being laid off, why are they recruiting overseas teachers ? Usually it's due to specialization or inner city schools


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

Simey said:


> Oh my gosh, do you have any idea where Loudoun County is in relation to DC? That's outer suburbs! Close to the West Virginia border!! Up to 2 hours each way in rush hour!!!


Loudoun County has the highest median household income in the region on a county basis. That's exactly why I picked it, to try to give as much deference to opposing views (such as yours) about income levels. I thought Loudoun's #1 ranking was common knowledge among longtime expert residents of the region such as yourself.

For the record, according to the U.S. Census Bureau here are the median household income figures for the other counties you named:

Fairfax: $109,383
Arlington: $102,459
Montgomery: $96,985

Let's add in a couple you didn't name, also for the record:

Prince George's: $73,568
Prince William: $96,160
Charles: $93,063



> But of course, I have only lived in the area for the last 26 years, what would I know about it?


Not as much about your fellow regional residents and their incomes, apparently. Isn't it wonderful you're learning new facts about your neighbors? And from someone who...well, you really don't know anything about my background and experiences, do you?

Unfortunately, in the United States (and probably elsewhere), there are millions of people who rarely if ever interact with one another in any meaningful ways across the income spectrum. And don't get me wrong. I don't either. But I can at least try to relate to how my regional neighbors live outside my similarly income/lifestyle-situated world. And I try to keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions without some evidence.


----------



## Simey (Dec 4, 2012)

BBCWatcher said:


> Loudoun County has the highest median household income in the region on a county basis. That's exactly why I picked it, to try to give as much deference to opposing views (such as yours) about income levels. I thought Loudoun's #1 ranking was common knowledge among longtime expert residents of the region such as yourself.
> 
> For the record, according to the U.S. Census Bureau here are the median household income figures for the other counties you named:
> 
> ...


And this is an example on why reliance on statistics will lead to incorrect conclusions. I (and others) am talking about cost of living and practical considerations such as commuting times. You are talking about income and painting with county-wide brushes. Two different things. And since we know the income in question is $70K, the cost of living and particularly the cost and location of housing are the relevant issues. 

I do know Loudoun County but I even considered living there. It has some very wealthy bits and a lot that decidedly isn't. The high census figure has always baffled me and if you drive around you will see what I mean. Much of it is pretty bad - high crime, significant MS13 activity, lots of people underwater in their mortgages. Maybe it's just a matter of fewer retirees with paid-for or almost paid-for pre-boom houses that the older suburbs nearer DC have. I don't know. 

But in any case, its main attraction is lower housing costs - especially since the bust. The downside is the distance from DC. Driving is a real issue and the train from Manassas isn't much better. There are some highly paid jobs there which would not have this problem but the OP is a school teacher and the way I read the post, the position is in the District.

If you want to make it obnoxiously personal, I have lived in the area since the late 80s. I was very much in the bottom quintile at the time. My first job paid $15,000 a year. My first apartment was in Prince George's county - on Riggs Road next to Langley Park. A couple of times I was woken in the night by automatic gunfire (no joke!). So I don't really need lecturing on diversity of neighborhoods. I've lived in them. 

As well as the sketchy place in PG - although that area is now part of Montgomery Co. and helps push the stats down on that otherwise wealthy county, I've also lived in Falls Church, VA (nice, but pricey), Burke VA (likewise, but more boring and with a nasty commute), Alexandria, VA (less pricey, at least in the apartment complex I was in), Brookland, NE DC, and the Mt. Vernon area of Fairfax County. I have friends all over the area of course. 

My own income didn't exceed $70K until the last of those homes in that list. So I know where I could afford to live. 

I agree that there are places that the OP could afford and I pointed out one to consider (Brookland, NE DC). You are correct that PG is cheaper and there are parts of PG that are quite OK. For example, Fort Washington isn't bad off the main roads and depending on where the OP works, the commute might be OK. Of course, if the OP has kids then the quality of the schools will be a problem and a helluva lot of PG is urban blight or close to it. Or there are various lower income neighborhoods along 395 around Edsall Road that might be a possibility. 

My overall view is that $70K for a family of 4 is scraping the bottom of affordability in the DC area. It will be very much paycheck to paycheck and you will have to be very careful which place to pick as it would be very easy to be in a place that could be quite scary. Somewhere close to the median of the suburbs (or NW which is similar) is probably needed to live comfortably. So call it $120K.

Of forget DC and move somewhere more affordable where $70K is actually decent money.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

Simey said:


> My overall view is that $70K for a family of 4 is scraping the bottom of affordability in the DC area. It will be very much paycheck to paycheck and you will have to be very careful which place to pick as it would be very easy to be in a place that could be quite scary.


There I think we agree. That's called being part of the great American middle class. Not uncommon!


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

Statistics are nothing but patient numbers unless you are the analyst making a living by shuffling them:>)

The small town in Texas I call home for now (about 3000 residents) has zero unemployment, one of the highest per capita incomes and zero minority or immigrants per official US Census. Just take a drive:>)

It is very easy to use data provided by others and personal information but does it translate to someone else's needs and wants?


----------



## MarylandNed (May 11, 2010)

BBCWatcher said:


> That point was addressed already upthread. $70K is still above DC household median.


So you keep saying but that's not necessarily the absolute determining factor. Many Americans are not saving enough for retirement, not saving enough for college fees, are living paycheck to paycheck and have high levels of personal debt. So simply being above the median may or may not be enough for the OP and his family. He needs to determine if $70k will allow him to live the life he wants to live with his family. Does he want to save for retirement? Does he want to save to send the kids to college? He already said they want to explore the US. That costs more than just putting food on the table, having a roof over his head and living paycheck to paycheck. I live in the Washington DC area and 70k for a family of 4 is very tight IMO.


----------



## MarylandNed (May 11, 2010)

BBCWatcher said:


> Substantially, no. The median is well above everyone you just described, because the majority of DC households are not living in poverty. You may be thinking of _mean_ income.
> 
> Median inherently means "typical." That is, at the median income, half the households have less, and half have more. $70K in DC is about 9% above median, probably in the 55th to 60th percentile. That is, 55 to 60 percent of households in DC earn less, and 40 to 45 percent earn more. Solidly middle class, no question about it. By definition.
> 
> ...


Median does not necessarily mean typical at all. Median, along with mean and mode, is simply one of the measures of central tendency. Which one is the best measure of central tendency depends on the population - as anyone who has taken an elementary statistics course can tell you.

Besides, statistics are not the full story - they rarely ever are. You have to understand that Washington DC is a very segregated city in geographical terms. For example, most of the desirable neighborhoods can be found in one segment - North West DC. People who live there typically don't venture to the poorer parts of the city - in particular they avoid South East. It's just not a part of their life. Also, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow here perhaps more so than any city in the US. So I would be very wary of using a median income at all as an indicator. 

You say statistics back you up? Using numbers to come up with a median for DC is misleading. I'll bet you the median income is a lot higher than $70k in North West. Now I could probably live in North West on a gross income of $70k with a wife and 4 kids but I'd be giving up a lot of my current lifestyle to do so. I would have serious problems trying to save enough for retirement or college costs for my kids. I suspect I'd be living paycheck to paycheck and struggling with credit card debt. If you want to talk about "typical" then these are issues that the "typical" American is dealing with. The statistics back me up in this regard.


----------



## sharbuck (Dec 10, 2013)

Not saying anything bad but BBC Watcher loves to debate issues and feel like he is right. Have run into him several times, you will never out argue him and many of the discussions get lost . 70 k in many places in the US is a decent salary bit not in DC. Take your time and explore teaching in the Midwest, in smaller areas that are near central hubs that would allow you to accomplish your goals. Living in America can be a great experience for a family, just not, in many of my fellow posters, in DC.


----------



## MarylandNed (May 11, 2010)

sharbuck said:


> Not saying anything bad but BBC Watcher loves to debate issues and feel like he is right. Have run into him several times, you will never out argue him and many of the discussions get lost . *70 k in many places in the US is a decent salary bit not in DC.* Take your time and explore teaching in the Midwest, in smaller areas that are near central hubs that would allow you to accomplish your goals. Living in America can be a great experience for a family, just not, in many of my fellow posters, in DC.


Being on 70k in DC is one thing if you're single. It's completely different if you are also trying to support a wife. It's completely different again if you are trying to support a wife and two kids.


----------



## EVHB (Feb 11, 2008)

I know a couple of people who live in the DC area, but they all have a much higher income than $70,000. Yes, they live in a nice house (but not a castle!), they drive cars that are almost 10 years old (one family only owns 1 car and luckily they live walking distance to metro station and the wife works downtown DC). They don't live the 'big life', but just average. They don't go out a lot. I know for sure that I don't want to live in that area with only $70,000.


----------

