E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jim Seida / msnbc.com
Jordan Kohler of Cameron Park, Calif., says he's doing "just fine," living on an income level just below the national houseold median of $50,000 a year.
For Jordan Kohler, 29, living on an income that is slightly lower than the nation’s household median of $50,000 is fine so far.
“I’ve just been doing it for a couple of months, and it’s working out,” he said.
The experience is new because Kohler recently split up from his wife, and they are now in the process of divorcing, he said. That will leave him supporting himself on just one income.
On Tuesday, Kohler was at a legal aid clinic in Placerville, Calif., trying to figure out how to complete the divorce amicably without running up a high legal tab, he said.
We met Kohler while traveling through California for our series of stories on what it’s like to live on the nation’s household median income of about $50,000 a year.
Kohler said he likes his job as a technical consultant with a major electronics retailer, especially since it offers great health benefits for himself and his kids, who are 7 and 2.
He recently moved into a two-bedroom apartment in Cameron Park, near Placerville. Although the divorce has been difficult, he said he’s grateful to have a steady income that is enough to live on.
“That helps out a lot,” he said.
Click here to see previous stories in our "We are the median" series. We’re also sharing our thoughts — and yours — on Twitter (hashtag #median), Facebook and Google Plus. We invite you to comment on our posts — but keep it civil and on topic, please!
Finally, please share your story of what it’s like to be living on about $50,000 a year by clicking here to send me e-mail. We’ll feature some of your stories in future Life Inc. posts.
Leave a Comment:
Nothing destroys wealth like choosing the wrong mate.
They say, now-a-days, you have to run a credit check to find a capably mate.
That's why pump and dump is the only way to live.
I think this guy and his wife just got married way too young. He is 29, and has a 7 year old. When you are in your early 20s, people should be focusing on having fun, learning more about how the real world functions, and most importantly, travel, especially to other parts of the country. Get that all out of their systems, before they settle down too young, and feel like they made a mistake later on. Rushing to get married, before experiencing real life, only leads to hurting themselves, and their children, when divorce happens.
Good luck to this young man, and his children. He seems to have his head screwed on straight. While in a difficult situation (divorce) he's trying to keep the costs of splitting up under control (out of the hands of lawyers!) and stay focused on a job that provides important benefits to his family, and offers a reasonable future. Many in his situation try to blame others for their plight and fail to take charge of their lives and future (think OWS). Hats Off to this guy....others would do well to emulate him. We need to hear more stories of folks like this...he's a winner....the OWS crowd get more "air time" but in the end are just losers....
What does the OWS have to do with this guy. Just wanting to vent your hate a little?
He's going to find himself poorer and supporting two households if has to pay child support. But he'll do it because most men find a way.
$46,000.00 a year is what we live on and compared to my friends we have it made. My wife had a kidney/pancreas transplant 6 years ago and the meds are not cheap, I am lucky enough to have good health care plan and pull $43,000.00 a year. She gets disability of $224.00 a month so together we have around $46,000.00 a year before taxes. We are going on a cruise in May and we have everything we need and some of what we want. The key is LIVE IN SIDE YOUR MEENS PEOPLE! Get a cheaper car you don’t need a Benz a little less house no hot tub and guest bedrooms. No keeping up with the Jones’s.
I like the idea of pump and dump but somehow it always gets complicated...sigh.
In a typical divorce, with the wife having custody, the ex-husband's standard of living actually goes up. It is the wife/custodial parent and the children whose standard of living goes down, very often, quite drastically. That's a primary reason why 1 in 5 children live in poverty in this country today. This story means nothing without participation by the other half of the divorce!
True, the non-custodial parent's standard of living goes up, particularly if that individual cheated and left to live with the other person, as what happened in my situation (my wife left me and the kids to live with someone else). I became the custodial parent and even though I got child support (foor one year until she decided not to pay anymore), living was tough. Life got a whole lot better once kids were out of the picture.
His ex will get child support and stud fees (alimony) for a long time. He will need to get a second job to make ends meet. Hopefully, they didn't own any real estate and won't have to go into foreclosure. Financially, only the rich can afford divorce in today's economy. I'm surprised to hear of such a young and financially insecure person agreeing to a divorce. It will take him years to recover.
Alimony is only awarded if the spouse has no work history or made substancially less than the other. It appears his wife worked, as do most these days. Alimony goes both ways, at least in California-he could just as easilly be the recipient of alimony as the wife. As for child support, all non-custodial parents should pay it-they are his kids too.
I make a LOT of money. I have found the best way to keep it, is by not paying my child support to the two seperate women I have children with.
Excess: you must be very proud of yourself for no one else is. you made your bed so lie on it. just who provided for you when you were new to the world? get real, everyone in life is standing on some else's shoulders, you included. of course now your demented belief is, I have mine, you better get yours. and everyone asks. what's wrong with America? start with excess. no one is an island to themself.
Why should I pay child support? Women are just as able to make a living as men are.
Because it takes two to tango-that's why. Didn't want 'em? Should have worn a raincoat.
Just, wow. I could never look my family in the eyes again if I pulled that kind of self centered crap.
Excess is really just a single, childless, 59 year-old mailman who lives in his mother's basement.
Excess is winning!
Excess doesn't drive I take it.
Awesome troll Excess. 4chan poster?
Excess, is your name Steve Sandusky?
Why would he pay child support? The government will support them.
Why would he pay child support? Because, as a parent he has a responsibility to his offspring.
Normally when you divide something by two you end up with less. This is hardly news. 50% of Californians know this pretty well by now.
And the children lose. @!$%# you.
Has anyone seen the movie the HANGOVER....
This guy's cheesy smile, speaks of so many anticipating nights of FREEDOM...$50,000 for a newly free man, Under 30....Shhhhhheeeeeiiiittt! This guy is about to be on top of the world.
Bachelor Pad!!
Excess u r a COMPLETE DEADBEAT SCUMBAG. Hope for u we never come face 2 face.
Some that have seen my post on other subject matters perceive me as a bagger, racist, republitard, treasonous, Fauxed up, and every other hateful, spiteful and bitter metaphor, but no one REALLY knows me, where I come from and what I'm all about.
I was divorced 10 years ago after 13 years of marriage. We had 3 children which are 2 daughters now 22 and 19 respectfully and a son 15 years of age.
Alcoholism and drug abuse on the part of my former spouse was the primary reason for the divorce. As much as I enjoyed being a Husband and a Father, she detested it. Upon finding out she was pregnant with our son, her words were verbatim "God Dammit, God Dammit, God Dammit." I will not elaborate on the other details concerning her and I.
I will however elaborate on the collateral damage with the children. I was awarded full custody w/o a hearing. After filing chapter 7 in 2001, we were living on 28$/day after bills were paid. I worked side jobs to for other things that were needed. No child support, no food stamps, no medicaid.
I made a decent wage and after some years, after paying off debt and salary increases, it afforded us a manageable and in some ways a comfortable existence. Despite my efforts, I felt helpless for my children's difficult childhood.
Being from a small town, there was a stigma attached to children not being raised by their mom. Never did my daughters have their friends over for slumber parties and birthday parties. They were also excluded form other activities of domestic and social natures.
I was blessed to have parents who raised 4 children and stuck together through some very difficult times. They were not formally educated and struggled to raise us. However, they were committed to our well being. And because of that, I could never place myself in my childrens shoes to fully understand the difficulties and frustration in their lives.
Despite my "best efforts" they have persevered. Both daughters attend Auburn University and are doing well. I am most proud because they are the first generation of my family to attend college. I pay their tuition and housing. I would say it's a sacrifice, however it's a commitment I willingly make. For they are committed to better themselves and they show it by their GPA. Because of their commitment and WILLINGNESS to ACHIEVE, I gladly support them.
I never have insisted or imposed my will on what they choose, believe or even behave. I also never tried to live my life through my children. I have always encouraged them to be themselves. I have only 1 simple rule. I will always show trust until I'm given reason not to trust.
I have made more my share of mistakes trying to raise these kids. My hopes for my children are that they can one be their own person and be responsible for their own lives.
As for myself, despite any criticism on my parenting skills, by the time I ever figure it out, it will not matter anymore. And at the end of the day, I'm the one who has to look at myself in the mirror and ask myself "Am I at peace with myself".
Well YellaHammer,
Regardless of differences in political and religious beliefs, I believe the proof is in the pudding: how well one's children turn out. (With exceptions, of course).
I think the best name to call you is Dad.
Well done.
Sadly, the term "Dad" is perceived as politically incorrect. "Parent" or "Guardian"
seems to be the directed term.
He should remain near the marital home and seek 50/50 physical custody. This way, childrearing doesn't fall on one particular parent, children maintain the same set of friends and school district, children can be positively influenced by both parents equally, no one parent can undermine the other due to primary custody, each parent is responsible for supporting the child's needs while in their residence which eliminates the need for child support.
A woman's standard of living only goes down with primary custody when they are dealing with an ex who makes little to no income. But when you are dealing with 2 career oriented parents with both earning great incomes, the wife's standard of living improves because the financial impact of children at that level is neglible above her own costs. Plus she gets child support. 17% of a 6 figure salary is a substancial addition to anyone's budget, especially when you don't have to pay income tax on that additional income. The husband however will have to seek out less expensive living arrangements due to the child support obligations, which come out of his after tax income, and are not tax deductable.
Salaries being equal, an ex wife will maintain a higher standard of living than her ex husband, due to tax free childsupport, assuming both parents earn upper-middle incomes.
The system is biased towards women. Period.
How surprising, an almost single man can live comfortably on $50,000. Good thing we have this "news" article to tell us that. What would be interesting is how his budget breaks down compared to his soon to be ex-wife after the divorce.
I love the concept of "splurge" this article puts forth.
"Splurge" is entirely relative.
For these poor (literally and figuratively) folks living on $50,000 a year (i.e., the median American income...half of Americans make less), eating out every once in a while is "splurging". A vacation is unthinkable. And, they could never pay for their children's college if need be. No savings. They have $4,000 in credit card debt from previous "splurges" that they're having trouble paying off because there's not much left to cut out of their budget. Just think about it. Half of America lives on even less.
Now, consider someone making $600,000 a year (i.e., the very poorest of the top 1%). Eating out a nice restaurants almost every meal is natural, not a "splurge" at all. A "splurge" might be a monthly $1000 dinner. A nanny is the norm, not a splurge. Maid too. Couple vacations a year (first class) isn't a splurge. Second house. Not a splurge.
Consider the purchase of an automobile. Both the $50,000 earner and the $600,000 earner must buy one. If the $50,000 earner wants to buy a basic Honda Civic for $20,000, that purchase represents 40% of their annual income...just for a Honda Civic. Think about the person making $600,000 a year. 40% of their income is $240,000. So, their equivalent to the Honda Civic is a decent Lamborghini. Of course, instead of buying that rich man's Civic, the $600,000 earner will likely be "conservative" and just buy a nicely appointed 3-series for $50,000...probably putting the remaining $190,000 (which the $50,000 earner had to spend the equivalent of just to buy the Civic) into savings.
Ranting aside, it's ridiculous to me that we've let the lifestyle of the average American be chipped away at over the years by Republicans to the point where eating out every once in a while is a "splurge", a vacation is unthinkable and $4,000 in debt is a sum that lingers indefinitely.
You Republicans really think a flat tax is "fair"? It's ridiculous to me.