what is the income level of your household?

(128 posts)(35 voices)
  1. On what basis are you sure of that? I think the poll speaks for itself.

  2. On the basis of common sense. You really think over 60% of IVFC members make over $100K a year? There are a lot more members than there are people who answered the poll. I'm not interested in arguing with you in any case. I was just stating my opinion.

  3. I think it's entirely possible. I don't think IVFC is representative of the general population. And I think the poll really does speak for itself.

  4. Why do you continue to beat this point NYC? No one ever said that this was supposed to be representative of the entire general population. This is an infertility website, and the poll is geared to the population HERE. Beyond that, as Angela said, many people do NOT respond to these polls. At this point, only about 66 IVFCers have even voted. Even if the women on IVFC are especially lucky or affluent, why does it matter? I don't see what your point is by continuing to bring this up - we already know that only a small group of the general population is reflected here, but it's still interesting for people to discuss it and talk about it.

  5. The NYT article said :

    "...While IVF multiples are typically the children of affluent women..."

    ...and I think mairead started this poll because she doesn't agree with that, but I think the article is probably correct on this point. I think this poll does demonstrate, in its small way, that women who undergo IVF treatment do in fact have the resources to do so, whether that means they have the savings or they have insurance or they are relatively speaking well off.

    In other words, the general population is not affluent, but women who undergo IVF treatment, by and large, are. If they were not, they would not have access to expensive treatment like this.

  6. I guess I disagree then that the response of 66 IVFCers represents the "general public". Of the 66 who have responded, almost half of them have chosen the "up to 100K" mark. Due to the ranges being so large, it's not realistic to assume that those women are "affluent", nor can it be said that a household that makes even $120K is "affluent" as it depends on a number of factors. So, to say this poll speaks for itself and support what the NYT is saying is a bit of a stretch...IMHO.
    Also, income figures do not recognize standard of living, number of earners or family size. Beyond that, depending on the "class model" that is used up to 65% of households could be considered "middle class", which means that most of us, even those who voted in the "up to 250K" range, would still not be considered "affluent".

  7. 60% of responders here (so far) earn over $100k. What I am saying is that this is NOT representative of the general population but it IS representative of women who undergo IVF.

  8. Quote:
    This may the case for you but I reeeeallly hope you recognize that this is not the "norm" and that you are incredibly fortunate.
    I never said I wasn't fortunate-I also never said we didn't work our a$$es off for what we have.....I actually don't consider myself fortunate-fortunate would have been inheriting the money from grandma rather than working my butt off and getting a great education (which I paid for myself) along with working LONG hours and not taking vacations and living WELL below my means-That dear is not FORTUNATE-it's SMART! And the rest of the country might learn a thing or two about that if they lived and worked the way DH and I do. FWIW-in MANY places in this country a home will put you over that Million $$ threashold pretty darn quick.

    Lotus- Thanks,I deleted the post based on the lack of header and don't really want to get into a financial war with anyone anyway. Thanks for pointing out that I missed that-didn't even notice this wasn't the POT board-OOPS!

  9. What is the definition of "affluent"?? I hear affluent and I think wealthy. I don't consider myself wealthy. But I'm certainly not "poor" either. I would say that a more accurate statement is that poor people are not doing IVF. Poor people simply don't have the insurance coverage or the savings or the credit to undergo something so costly. But there sure are a lot of middle class families stretching themselves to the limits to do it!! So if affluent means "not poor" then I think the NYT is right on.

  10. rekabi1956, many very smart, very hardworking people do not make the kind of money you make.

  11. Spartali-I am very aware of that-but I hate it when people who don't make the money we make say it's because we are "fortunate" it would be the same as if I said someone who is not as financially secure is "lazy" I am not "fortunate"-I am hard working and smart and have made some very calculated ans smart financial moves. That is all I'm saying-the predjudice goes both ways people and I'm constantly going to bat with my dh about those who struggle financially when he says things like they are lazy or need to work harder-I don't see them as a separate issue....some people work hard as all get out and barely get by others do the same and do really well-it doesn't diminish the work-so don't presume to tell me that I'm "fortunate" when I've worked my butt of for every last thing I have.

  12. What is the definition of "affluent"?? I hear affluent and I think wealthy. I don't consider myself wealthy. But I'm certainly not "poor" either. I would say that a more accurate statement is that poor people are not doing IVF. Poor people simply don't have the insurance coverage or the savings or the credit to undergo something so costly. But there sure are a lot of middle class families stretching themselves to the limits to do it!! So if affluent means "not poor" then I think the NYT is right on.
    Agreed! Totally!
    Though I got the impression NYT was suggesting that most of us who voted in the first two ranges would be considered "affluent", which is the part I disagree with. My guess is if we re-did those ranges, we'd see many more of us below the 200K mark than above, but you can't see that reflected here.

  13. Just because you work hard does not mean you are not fortunate. Many people work very hard but are not as fortunate as you are.

  14. But based solely on the terms of who is doing IVF-I would definately say that those "fortunate" enough to afford the treatments will swing slightly more to the affluent side of the spectrum.

    On that point we (and the NY Times) completely agree.

  15. And here's where I break out my devil's advocate.....some of the poorest friends of mine are also the most fortunate in their supportive families, their ease of concieving children their belief in god and the happines they have in their homes, hearts and minds.....you have no way to presume how "fortunate or unfortunate" I am as you don't know my story-and believe me all the money in my bank account isn't worth the **** I have endured....so be careful what you wish for in fortune.....sometimes it bites you in the a$$.

    But based solely on the terms of who is doing IVF-I would definately say that those "fortunate" enough to afford the treatments will swing slightly more to the affluent side of the spectrum.

    And that's all I have to say about that.

  16. I agree somewhat...but I think it will be really difficult to define "affluent" in terms of $$ made youngihm year since the quality of life in different parts of the country are so different.

    $100k made in NYC (where I live) doesn't get you very far (not affluent) but $100k where my father's family lives will deem you the "rich folk".

    Studio (think 400 sf) rents in NYC go for around $2,000 a month (minimum) just to give you youngihmspective. That's why salaries in NYC tend to be higher, to compensate for the more expensive cost of living.

    Just my "economic" opinion

  17. 23% earn over $250k. Nice.

  18. QUOTE=luciabogoni]i just did some research on google. the median household income in the US is $52k, AKM - i think the $27k is youngihm individual, and probably for men as they still out earn women on average.
    census.gov

    Median means middle number and average is total sum divided by the number of people polled. I promise you the average household income is not $52k. a large % of our population still live under the proverty line. Here in Texas where cost of living is low, the average salary is $35,000.

  19. This is directly from the Census Bureau: "The official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 youngihmcent, up from 12.5 youngihmcent in 2007".

    Interestingly, this is the most recent stat from the CDC on infertility: youngihmcent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 11.8%

    Looks like those living in poverty slightly edge out those of us with fertility problems, for what it's worth.

  20. I'd be interested in seeing a further breakdown of all these people who are making anywhere between $0 - $250K. That is just a HUGE range. A two income family could easily be pulling in over $100K, but be nowhere NEAR the $250K mark. A family could be making $110K a year and would be lumped into the second grouping, which I think is very misleading. Especially when the majority of Americans will fall into the range between $0 and $150K.

    I'd also be interested in seeing how many of these incomes are single or double. It's just not enough detail to be making some of the assumptions that are being made here.

  21. I completely do not know how families do it....we are well above median-and I still find myself wondering where all our joint money went in terms of food, clothes, gas, utilities, etc. And to reiterate-we ARE NOT the kind to spend lavishly-we live well below our means-and save more than we really can-we give up lavish things in exchange for our retirement. I just really feel bad for all of those families who have little or nothing-and I worry about the kids and if they are getting enough food, health care, warm clothes. And the distinct discrepancy between the number of women under the poverty line and those getting fertility treatments....well on one hand it makes me sad that all those women can't have the kids they want-then the practical side wonders-if they could-how would they support them? But to me that is just a sterotypical economic class barrier-double edged sword IMO. There is no youngihmfect awnser-just like just about anything else we could debate.

  22. Morrison---consider it done. It is under the "Polls Only" board. Jeni

  23. I agree! bakar, if you can afford to live on one income then you are doing better that most. Plus, KALLIOPI is exactly right. Your cost of living, in conjunction with the costs for whatever treatments you are doing (we've spent WELL over 100K in the last 4 years) and whether you have insurance coverage and how good that insurance coverage is makes a HUGE difference in how "comfortably" you can live - regardless of your income. We are under the 200K mark, but are financially strapped due to the costs associated with IF. And, we have good coverage, too. Unfortunately, the coverage does not extend to donor eggs, and that's the route we have gone to try to build our family. Had IVF worked for us, it may have been a different story, but it's not. There is also the aspect of whether people are caring for other loved ones - sick parents, grandparents or other family. People may have to pay out of pocket for insurance, which is no small feat. It's sort of silly to make a grand generalization about how people "should" be able to live based soley on their income.

    Sorry if my post wasn't clear - we can't afford to live on one income, but have to right now because I can't work since being put on bedrest.
    My dh only makes $24 thousand a year so no where near even $100 k.

  24. DH and I don't make that much combined (a little over 100K), and we live in Orange County, CA (bad combo), but we're making it work. We don't have IF coverage, so we had to pay for it all out of pocket. Ouch!

    As for education, we're both highly educated and work very hard. We just didn't go into business or law which through good networking can easily get a youngihmson into the 500K+ realm without all that much extra work. We just decided we'd rather have less risk and more time off to enjoy ourselves and our families than make a great deal of money. It's all about priorities.

    I am VERY fortunate for many reasons. I don't think that is ever a negative connotation. I just realize I got lucky in comparison to so many others. I work my booty off, but I have been able to taste its fruits in many ways while others who work just as hard, may not. I truly believe that wealth is normally preceded by hard work and luck just as fortune is usually preceded by these two factors in all other areas of life. You need a certain degree of both to be successful.

  25. Who cares.

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.