Though 2010 is around the corner I wanted to share. If you are a single person and in 2009 and you are making $44,800, you my friend, according to HUD are low income. Funny thing, I know a guy who makes a smidge, as in I rounded up, above low income. I’m sure he considers himself middle class. Middle class by $200. If you’re single making $35,950 you are “very low income,” and if you are single making $21,550 you are obviously working at a non-profit for chicken feed (USPRIG?).
A GS-5 step 1 position, which is what I started off as in DC, and the starting salary of a UDC staff asssitant is less than very low income.
6 thoughts on “Low Income”
Comments are closed.
And this is precisely why neighborhoods like Shaw and its neighboring 'hoods cannot survive as exclusive enclaves of high income individuals and DINK homo/hetero couples.
There are many, many more people in and around the city than there are jobs paying $50K – $999K, and most people have kids at some point in their lives.
So pick a scenario: Shaw/Bloomingdale/LeDroit/Eckington are either going to be completely overrun by wealthy individuals and DINKS, or housing values are going to flatten over the long-haul (thus supporting economic diversity, thus meaning not exclusively DINKs).
But then in the latter case…. DC will need to fix the schools.
Yikes, entry level legal positions (which require a J.D.) are low income!!
This does go a very long way towards explaining how come I felt so very poor my entire time in DC.
I didn't really escape being low income till I left for Chicago. And rent here is 1/2 what it is in DC
stoma, see my post a few days back. The people you're calling wealthy are just middle class anywhere else in the region. And stop by the BFM tons of local babies.
As those entry level legal people gain valuable skills and get older, or the USPRIG kids get burned out and find something more monetarily rewarding, they'll move from very low, to low to average to maybe even 10-20% above AMI. Hopefully as those residents move up their career ladders they will stick around donating their expertise, funds and connections to the betterment of the neighborhood.
Does owning a home very near BFM and earning $124,500 per year (not including my wife's salary) qualify me to form an opinion on the subject? You've probably seen my toddler at BFM at least once, too.
The public schools are currently toast. The viable charter options cannot accommodate all the babies you see at BFM. So what gives? Or what is going to give?
A whole lot of middle-income people living in $500,000+ 1400 square foot rowhouses who send their kids to private schools? Its not going to happen. Housing values need to moderate, and the schools need to be fixed in order for this part of the city to be the mixed-income community you'd like to see.
But then if census data doesn't reveal a whole lot of disposable income, businesses we'd like to see may not open in the neighborhood. I think we're stuck in a series of catch-22's.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't entitle affirmation.
I'm just going to say we have differing view points. My little street doesn't contain the $500K houses, from 2002 to last month the average price was around $350-$375K and we hover around 1000 sq ft, maybe 200 extra feet in the slightly bigger houses. The ones popping out the babies on my block didn't buy at the height and bought the fixer uppers. Yup, every single homeowning parent I know had to fix up their houses and breathe in dust. Those babies are cared for by work/stay @ home/pt moms/dads, nanny-shares, college student babysitters, grandma, etc. When they get old enough they amazingly get into what seem to be decent charters (I'll have to take their parent's word for it). These are the families on my block, maybe the ones on yours pay full price, send their kids to expensive private schools, have a full time nanny from an exclusive nanny service, and look for ways to waste money. My neighbors are a bit more frugal when it comes to major expenses.