US: Median income is $80k?!?

[FIREin2018]

https://lite.cnn.com/2025/06/23/business/financial-security-how-much-income-survey

Based on the latest Census data, median US household income in 2023 was $80,610. That’s the mid-point on incomes, meaning half of US households made less.

But that median is across all households regardless of size.
In family households specifically — where two or more people live — the median was $102,800. Within that group, the highest median ($119,400) reported was among married couples.
In terms of individual incomes in 2023, the median income of a full-time worker with earnings working year round was $60,070.


I like median better than avg because it doesn't offset a handful of billionaires with those thousands on welfare. (A billionaire just counts as 1 person.)

I am surprised at the results.
$60k (if single) is squarely middle class and $100k (if 2+ people in the household) is upper middle class.
Poverty is $15k if single so the median single person in America is making 4x poverty.

I would have figured $45k (3x poverty) if single as median, which is working poor.
Struggling to make ends meet but make too much for gov't aid. (Obamacare cost sharing drops significantly over 2x poverty)

At $60k, a single person who knows how to budget shouldn't be struggling.
And if you don't know how to budget, you could be struggling if even making 7figures

[twinstudy]

It's a lot of money. For the most part, people who struggle with money don't have an earning problem. They have a spending problem.

[wageslave23]

We're onr of the most prosperous countries in the history of the world. The median person is and should be doing well.

[RWD]

If the individual full-time median is $60k and married household $119k does that basically mean that the median married couple has both spouses working full-time?

[AMandM]

If the individual full-time median is $60k and married household $119k does that basically mean that the median married couple has both spouses working full-time?

Or it has one high-earning spouse and one at home making little to no money.

[RWD]

If the individual full-time median is $60k and married household $119k does that basically mean that the median married couple has both spouses working full-time?

Or it has one high-earning spouse and one at home making little to no money.

But that would imply that being married increases your income. Maybe married people are statistically older than individual earners and hence have worked their way up to higher pay?

[seattlecyclone]

If the individual full-time median is $60k and married household $119k does that basically mean that the median married couple has both spouses working full-time?

Or it has one high-earning spouse and one at home making little to no money.

But that would imply that being married increases your income.

...or that increasing your income causes you to be seen as a more appealing partner and therefore more likely to get married.

Maybe married people are statistically older than individual earners and hence have worked their way up to higher pay?

Exactly this. The single population skews younger than the married population. People earlier in their careers are more likely to be single, and people who have more work experience are more likely to be married.

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm not sure what's surprising about these statistics. Here in California the median household makes about $105k. In Mississippi it's about $55k.

It's worth noting that most FIRE types, after adjusting for housing, are shooting for median income levels of consumption. For example, imputed rent on my house is about $40k, where my actual cost is less than $10k. So to provide a median level of consumption my investments need to return only $70k or so.

[Log]

If the individual full-time median is $60k and married household $119k does that basically mean that the median married couple has both spouses working full-time?

Or it has one high-earning spouse and one at home making little to no money.

But that would imply that being married increases your income.

...or that increasing your income causes you to be seen as a more appealing partner and therefore more likely to get married.

It is absolutely the case that marriage rates are declining amongst the less-educated and lower income, while marriage rates among the college educated and affluent are stable and high.

The kinds of people who earn higher incomes are more likely to get married. Then the woman (obligatory discalimer: typically, not all cases ofc ofc) starts to work and earn less if/when the couple has kids, whether that's down-shifting, switching to a different (more flexible) career, or staying at home entirely.

---

Re: the OP (just being pedantic), I would quibble with the statement that people who make $60k are "squarely middle class" if the median income is $80k. To my mind, "middle class" definitionally means "around median income," so $60k would be on the lower edge of middle class. I think it literally is around the lower edge of the median income quintile, so it's definitely middle class, just maybe not squarely.

It is distressing to feel below average, so even though $60k is enough to live comfortably on, I can understand why people earning $60k would feel displeased about their income.

And further pedantry about these labels: there's this euphemistic thing about American class where everyone above middle class calls themself "upper middle class" straight up to the top 1%. No one will acknowledge they are straight up upper-class income.

The fourth quintile of household income, which is what I'd call "upper-middle class" is from ~$94k to $153k (slightly dated numbers, from 2022). So households above ~$153k are in the very top income quintile, and as far I'm concerned, should not be calling themselves "upper middle class" anymore.

I guess part of the fuzzy line here is that lots of people earning these kinds of incomes are in the richest cities, where they might still be in the fourth quintile locally, even though they're in the top quintile nationally. One could be nationally rich but only NYC "upper middle class," but still, living in one of these high opportunity cities is a consumption choice that is an affordance of that high income.

[deborah]

But the median PERSON isn’t earning $80k, it’s the median HOUSEHOLD. This includes the kids who might be earning $2k from baby sitting or other casual jobs, as well as both the parents, so it’s likely that the median PERSON is earning roughly $60k, just like the median single person household.

[RedmondStash]

If the individual full-time median is $60k and married household $119k does that basically mean that the median married couple has both spouses working full-time?

Or it has one high-earning spouse and one at home making little to no money.

But that would imply that being married increases your income. Maybe married people are statistically older than individual earners and hence have worked their way up to higher pay?

It may also be that a high earner needs a "staff" (spouse) at home to support them so they are freed from the responsibilities that would get in the way of their higher earning. That's certainly the 1950s dream of America.

A friend of mine whose ex-husband is a very high earner told me that his higher-ups really wanted their employees (ideally men) to be married, so their spouses could take care of everything at home. Funnily enough, her ex remarried.

[AMandM]

I too was surprised at how high the median incomes are.  I told my husband this one

Within that group, the highest median ($119,400) reported was among married couples.

and he got depressed, because we're ~60yo with four advanced degrees between us and we're below the median.  But he cheered up when I told him that our net worth is about triple the median for our age, despite having raised 7 kids. Frugality ftw!

[lifeisshort123]

Whenever I look at these numbers I am reminded you can't out-earn your spending desires if you are a spendy person.

I know so many people who out-earn the median income by a staggering amount, yet are unable to get ahead, prepare for tomorrow, etc.  Forget FIRE, these folks will be lucky to retire ever.

So much of it is recognizing value doesn't come from material possessions and prioritizing your life accordingly...

[41_swish]

Median household income of 80k seems right for the entire country. However, when you look at the other median numbers, this 80k barely or doesn't even cut it. I think this is a big reason why most of people's wealth is tied up in their home's equity. Normal people don't save and invest for the future, let alone go on an early retirement forum for fun. The home is a forced savings method that just so happens to be a use asset as well. I think this is why so many people end up biting off insane mortgages and then neglecting everything else. You can't live in the S&P 500, but you can live in your suburban McMansion.

[Radagast]

Re: the OP (just being pedantic), I would quibble with the statement that people who make $60k are "squarely middle class" if the median income is $80k. To my mind, "middle class" definitionally means "around median income," so $60k would be on the lower edge of middle class. I think it literally is around the lower edge of the median income quintile, so it's definitely middle class, just maybe not squarely.

It is distressing to feel below average, so even though $60k is enough to live comfortably on, I can understand why people earning $60k would feel displeased about their income.

And further pedantry about these labels: there's this euphemistic thing about American class where everyone above middle class calls themself "upper middle class" straight up to the top 1%. No one will acknowledge they are straight up upper-class income.

The fourth quintile of household income, which is what I'd call "upper-middle class" is from ~$94k to $153k (slightly dated numbers, from 2022). So households above ~$153k are in the very top income quintile, and as far I'm concerned, should not be calling themselves "upper middle class" anymore.

I guess part of the fuzzy line here is that lots of people earning these kinds of incomes are in the richest cities, where they might still be in the fourth quintile locally, even though they're in the top quintile nationally. One could be nationally rich but only NYC "upper middle class," but still, living in one of these high opportunity cities is a consumption choice that is an affordance of that high income.

I'll argue with this. It's a graph with an X and a Y axis. Income percentile is the horizontal axis. It's good if you want to study the people. But wealth approximately follows a Pareto distribution, meaning 80% of people own 20% of the wealth. And it applies all the way up: 20% of the remaining 20% (so 4%) own 80% of 80% (so 64%) of the wealth. 0.2x.2x.2 own .8x.8x.8 (0.8% own 51.2%, or basically the top 1% own 50%), and so own. Class measures the vertical axis.

Take all income and unrealized income (in other words take net worth and add lets say 3% of it to actual income for a 3% SWR) and add it up until you have an amount equal to 20% of all income for the lowest income population. That means the bottom ~80% of the population are in fact lower class by today's standards. The next ~80-96%iles are lower middle class, including many multimillionaires. And me, I'm a multimillionaire but trust me I have the behaviours of the lower middle class not the middle much less the upper class. Middle class the is ~96%-99.2% percentile and includes wealthy doctors. Upper middle class is ~99.2%-99.84%iles, and upper class is only the top 0.16% (to the extent it follows an actual Pareto distribution, but the concept applies). The farther up the ladder you climb the more you realize just how much wealth is still above you, so you have truly wealthy people calling themselves middle class because they are aware of the god-like wealth still above them, which is actually quite a reasonable assertion.

You wouldn't try to learn about earthquakes based on the median earthquake would you? Who cares about those dinky magnitude 1 quakes? Nobody notices those drips. You want the median magnitude, which is 5 or 6 depending on your scale. Or the quake for which half of all strain energy released by the earth's crust is released by that magnitude or larger. Or the top quintile. Basically by dividing earthquakes or populations into quintiles you fail to notice all hazards or all the money. Which most people (but probably not politicians, anyway with respect to money) do. To get it figured out you need to pay attention to the vertical axis.

To summarize middle income is the 40-60% people, while middle class is roughly the 96-99.2% people.

Edit: my math is off on all that, it's more extreme than that. Middle class is more like richer than 98.5-99.5% to own the middle 20% of all wealth/income. And so on.

[mistymoney]

AI Overview
In the United States, a middle-class income typically ranges from two-thirds to double the national median household income. Based on the 2023 median income of $80,610, this would mean that a middle-class income falls between $53,740 and $161,220 annually. However, this range can vary significantly based on location and household size, according to financial websites.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
National Median Income:
The U.S. Census Bureau reported the median household income in 2023 as $80,610.
Middle Class Range (National):
This translates to a middle-class range of roughly $53,740 to $161,220.
Location Matters:
The specific income needed for the middle class can vary greatly by state and even city, due to cost of living differences. For example, in California, the middle-class range is $63,674 to $191,042. In San Jose, California, a middle-class income could range from $90,819 to $272,458, due to high cost of living.
Household Size Matters:
The number of people in a household also influences what's considered middle class. A single person might be considered middle class at a lower income level than a family of four.

[GuitarStv]

I too was surprised at how high the median incomes are.  I told my husband this one

Within that group, the highest median ($119,400) reported was among married couples.

and he got depressed, because we're ~60yo with four advanced degrees between us and we're below the median.  But he cheered up when I told him that our net worth is about triple the median for our age, despite having raised 7 kids. Frugality ftw!

The four advanced degrees is probably a good chunk of the problem.  It takes time and usually a fair amount of money to educate yourself.  Once you get past a single degree, returns tend to drop off precipitously (and sometimes go negative).  If your goal is purely to optimize for earning potential alone, the time spent pursuing that extra degree is also likely to eat into your lifetime earnings.

* And I just saw the 7 kids thing too.  That might have played into your results!

[GilesMM]

$80k sounds about right but I'm shocked that Asian American household median income was nearly 50% higher in 2023! Holy cow!

[Psychstache]

For the data curious, looks like the data referenced in the article is here:

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2024/demo/income-poverty/p60-282.html

[twinstudy]

You wouldn't try to learn about earthquakes based on the median earthquake would you? Who cares about those dinky magnitude 1 quakes? Nobody notices those drips. You want the median magnitude, which is 5 or 6 depending on your scale. Or the quake for which half of all strain energy released by the earth's crust is released by that magnitude or larger. Or the top quintile. Basically by dividing earthquakes or populations into quintiles you fail to notice all hazards or all the money. Which most people (but probably not politicians, anyway with respect to money) do. To get it figured out you need to pay attention to the vertical axis.

To summarize middle income is the 40-60% people, while middle class is roughly the 96-99.2% people.

Edit: my math is off on all that, it's more extreme than that. Middle class is more like richer than 98.5-99.5% to own the middle 20% of all wealth/income. And so on.

Yeah, I agree with this take. Due to the way the income distribution works, calling someone at 75th percentile income 'upper middle class' doesn't seem accurate to me when the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile earners all would be earning under the 'average' wage let alone 2x the average wage. And in a system where every dollar counts, it's the average wage that determines buying power - not the median wage. For example, house prices are set by the average, not the median wage. No one cares if the first 7 deciles of people can't afford a house if the other 3 deciles can afford all the houses.

[classicrando]

$80k sounds about right but I'm shocked that Asian American household median income was nearly 50% higher in 2023! Holy cow!

That doesn't surprise me at all.   According to this AI overview of data taken from the NSF something like 43% of all doctorate-level STEM graduates are foreign-born; rising to around 58% (estimated) when considering only computer science, mathematics, and engineering.

[Log]

I would agree that separating out income and wealth is an important factor in determining "class." But then does it really make sense that a high earner at age 30 transmutes into a different class at age 60 by sheer virtue of time spent accumulating? I'd say they were already swimming in the scene of the upper class by virtue of their high income/high status career, and were obviously on the trajectory to building that wealth all along.

I think in one of Piketty's earlier books on inequality for popular audiences, he pointed out that most wealth inequality is actually generated by income inequality - which is really just another way of stating the FIRE perspective that building a "leisure class"-sized fortune in a single lifetime is eminently attainable.

I'll concede it's overly reductive to classify class entirely by income quintiles. Our conception of "upper class" obviously has a lot to do with generational wealth and parentage rather than just income. But I'll maintain that the euphemism of calling people/households making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year "upper-middle class" is not a helpful or accurate way of describing things, and we should really say something like "upper income" at least.

Richard Reeves points out in his book "Dream Hoarders" that huge numbers of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators had very high incomes. All the "we are the 99%" rhetoric was really abused by top quintile earners to feel like they were on the side of the little guy when they (acknowledging I'm on the cusp of having to say "we" pretty soon here) were actively complicit in advocating for a lot of regressive policies to preserve their position in the class hierarchy for their children. Exclusionary zoning in suburbs with "good schools," tax benefits for retirement accounts and 529 plans, legacy admissions, unpaid internships in desirable career fields... As he put it,

You may have noticed that I am often using the term 'we' to describe the upper middle class rather than 'they.' ...I am, after all, writing about my own class. This is not one of those books about inequality that is about other people—either the super-rich or the struggling poor. This is a book about me and, likely, you, too.

[VanillaGorilla]

Richard Reeves points out in his book "Dream Hoarders" that huge numbers of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators had very high incomes. All the "we are the 99%" rhetoric was really abused by top quintile earners to feel like they were on the side of the little guy when they (acknowledging I'm on the cusp of having to say "we" pretty soon here) were actively complicit in advocating for a lot of regressive policies to preserve their position in the class hierarchy for their children. Exclusionary zoning in suburbs with "good schools," tax benefits for retirement accounts and 529 plans, legacy admissions, unpaid internships in desirable career fields... As he put it,

You may have noticed that I am often using the term 'we' to describe the upper middle class rather than 'they.' ...I am, after all, writing about my own class. This is not one of those books about inequality that is about other people—either the super-rich or the struggling poor. This is a book about me and, likely, you, too.

I argue this all the time. The physical ramifications of wealth inequality (like the price of housing, childcare, education) are driven by a large group of people at the the top of our society, not a handful of outliers. The 90th to 99.9th pecentile are resource guarding to a degree that a small number of outliers (ie, billionaires) never could.

Jeff Bezos isn't buying millions of houses. Elon Musk isn't driving up the price of childcare or college. It's the top 10% that is - it's me, my friends, my colleagues. None of us want to admit it, it's just a lot easier to blame society's ills on people whose status we are highly unlikely to ever attain.

That's one of the problem with the FIRE ideas - they quickly become a blueprint for amassing economic clout in a way that didn't used to happen. Well compensated white collar workers leveraging geographic arbitrage can negatively impact small communities in a way that couldn't happen before, by sheer scale.

[vand]

I don't know why OP is surprised by this in The Year Of Our Lord 2025. 

The nominal progression of incomes has been steady and ongoing.

You should see the price of a house.

[simonsez]

Richard Reeves points out in his book "Dream Hoarders" that huge numbers of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators had very high incomes. All the "we are the 99%" rhetoric was really abused by top quintile earners to feel like they were on the side of the little guy when they (acknowledging I'm on the cusp of having to say "we" pretty soon here) were actively complicit in advocating for a lot of regressive policies to preserve their position in the class hierarchy for their children. Exclusionary zoning in suburbs with "good schools," tax benefits for retirement accounts and 529 plans, legacy admissions, unpaid internships in desirable career fields... As he put it,

You may have noticed that I am often using the term 'we' to describe the upper middle class rather than 'they.' ...I am, after all, writing about my own class. This is not one of those books about inequality that is about other people—either the super-rich or the struggling poor. This is a book about me and, likely, you, too.

I argue this all the time. The physical ramifications of wealth inequality (like the price of housing, childcare, education) are driven by a large group of people at the the top of our society, not a handful of outliers. The 90th to 99.9th pecentile are resource guarding to a degree that a small number of outliers (ie, billionaires) never could.

Jeff Bezos isn't buying millions of houses. Elon Musk isn't driving up the price of childcare or college. It's the top 10% that is - it's me, my friends, my colleagues. None of us want to admit it, it's just a lot easier to blame society's ills on people whose status we are highly unlikely to ever attain.

That's one of the problem with the FIRE ideas - they quickly become a blueprint for amassing economic clout in a way that didn't used to happen. Well compensated white collar workers leveraging geographic arbitrage can negatively impact small communities in a way that couldn't happen before, by sheer scale.

Can you expand upon the bolded?  I'm not sure I am following the claim about FIRE impacting small communities in ways that those that do not FIRE avoid. 

The person who wants to retire in their 40s and focus more time on gardening, exercising, travel, free time with family/friends, etc. - what are they doing to impact small communities?  And how is that different from someone 100-150+ years ago leaving the small town or farm behind to go to a university to learn how to run a business or otherwise be one of the decently compensated white collar individuals - no matter if they retired earlier than normal or worked until they dropped dead in their 60s?  What is unique about FIRE doing damage to small communities that those that do not pursue FIRE do not?  People will always be seeking out economic opportunities in new locales (especially since this has ramped up with the Industrial Revolution) where the pros outweigh the cons no matter at what age they plan to retire or become financially comfortable.

From my vantage - the individual who largely drops out (if not altogether) of the earning wages game a decade or two earlier than normal not only creates a job spot to fill (perhaps by someone in the accumulation phase) but has more time for volunteer work, civic duties, and other activities that might strengthen the fabric of small communities - not hurt them.  And if you just mean people generally move away from small communities to seek out better compensation, I don't disagree (even if in retirement they move away from the money-making HCOL area and back to a M/LCOL area) but what does that have to do with FIRE?  I think I'm missing something.

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm thinking of geographic arbitrage.

FIRE philosophy says to earn as much as you can and spend as little as possible. If you are able to work remotely, it makes perfect sense to move to a cheaper locale. When done at scale, particularly desirable areas get flooded with remote money, and the local community has no way to compete. The outsiders outcompete the locals.

It is understandable? Sure. Is it moral? I'm less sure.

FIRE is inherently an economic force multiplier. If you have the personality, knowledge, and resources to save half your income and invest the rest, those who haven't figured out how to do that are going to be at a significant disadvantage. Instead of quitting your job, you can just keep your job and outcompete your peers. As these strategies become widespread, it makes our society increasingly competitive.

[jrhampt]

I'm thinking of geographic arbitrage.

FIRE philosophy says to earn as much as you can and spend as little as possible. If you are able to work remotely, it makes perfect sense to move to a cheaper locale. When done at scale, particularly desirable areas get flooded with remote money, and the local community has no way to compete. The outsiders outcompete the locals.

It is understandable? Sure. Is it moral? I'm less sure.

FIRE is inherently an economic force multiplier. If you have the personality, knowledge, and resources to save half your income and invest the rest, those who haven't figured out how to do that are going to be at a significant disadvantage. Instead of quitting your job, you can just keep your job and outcompete your peers. As these strategies become widespread, it makes our society increasingly competitive.

Idk...particularly desirable areas were not usually all that LCOL to begin with....and also, with all the RTO, the remote worker pop has shrunk significantly since its COVID heyday.

[twinstudy]

Richard Reeves points out in his book "Dream Hoarders" that huge numbers of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators had very high incomes. All the "we are the 99%" rhetoric was really abused by top quintile earners to feel like they were on the side of the little guy when they (acknowledging I'm on the cusp of having to say "we" pretty soon here) were actively complicit in advocating for a lot of regressive policies to preserve their position in the class hierarchy for their children. Exclusionary zoning in suburbs with "good schools," tax benefits for retirement accounts and 529 plans, legacy admissions, unpaid internships in desirable career fields... As he put it,

You may have noticed that I am often using the term 'we' to describe the upper middle class rather than 'they.' ...I am, after all, writing about my own class. This is not one of those books about inequality that is about other people—either the super-rich or the struggling poor. This is a book about me and, likely, you, too.

I argue this all the time. The physical ramifications of wealth inequality (like the price of housing, childcare, education) are driven by a large group of people at the the top of our society, not a handful of outliers. The 90th to 99.9th pecentile are resource guarding to a degree that a small number of outliers (ie, billionaires) never could.

Jeff Bezos isn't buying millions of houses. Elon Musk isn't driving up the price of childcare or college. It's the top 10% that is - it's me, my friends, my colleagues. None of us want to admit it, it's just a lot easier to blame society's ills on people whose status we are highly unlikely to ever attain.

That's one of the problem with the FIRE ideas - they quickly become a blueprint for amassing economic clout in a way that didn't used to happen. Well compensated white collar workers leveraging geographic arbitrage can negatively impact small communities in a way that couldn't happen before, by sheer scale.

I don't accept that what is happening is 'resource guarding'. Just because there has been a drop in social mobility doesn't mean that the system has become less fair or that there are extra barriers in place. It could just correlate with fairness-neutral things like assortative mating and meritocratic policies. (It doesn't necessarily do so, but nor can you rule it out.)

To be clear, I do think some resource-guarding happens, with things like nepotism and wealth gating. However, these things have always been going on. Arguably they were worse in previous generations when race, gender or birthright were more important and when there were fewer anti-discrimination protections. White men have been 'resource gating' for centuries.

There are myriad opportunities for poor but intelligent children to succeed, so long as their parents are not a massive hindrance - and if the parents make really bad choices, that's not resource-gating; that's poor parenting.

[Fomerly known as something]

Richard Reeves points out in his book "Dream Hoarders" that huge numbers of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators had very high incomes. All the "we are the 99%" rhetoric was really abused by top quintile earners to feel like they were on the side of the little guy when they (acknowledging I'm on the cusp of having to say "we" pretty soon here) were actively complicit in advocating for a lot of regressive policies to preserve their position in the class hierarchy for their children. Exclusionary zoning in suburbs with "good schools," tax benefits for retirement accounts and 529 plans, legacy admissions, unpaid internships in desirable career fields... As he put it,

You may have noticed that I am often using the term 'we' to describe the upper middle class rather than 'they.' ...I am, after all, writing about my own class. This is not one of those books about inequality that is about other people—either the super-rich or the struggling poor. This is a book about me and, likely, you, too.

I argue this all the time. The physical ramifications of wealth inequality (like the price of housing, childcare, education) are driven by a large group of people at the the top of our society, not a handful of outliers. The 90th to 99.9th pecentile are resource guarding to a degree that a small number of outliers (ie, billionaires) never could.

Jeff Bezos isn't buying millions of houses. Elon Musk isn't driving up the price of childcare or college. It's the top 10% that is - it's me, my friends, my colleagues. None of us want to admit it, it's just a lot easier to blame society's ills on people whose status we are highly unlikely to ever attain.

That's one of the problem with the FIRE ideas - they quickly become a blueprint for amassing economic clout in a way that didn't used to happen. Well compensated white collar workers leveraging geographic arbitrage can negatively impact small communities in a way that couldn't happen before, by sheer scale.

It makes me think of conversations with my very much a NIMBY father.  He is a retired school teacher who got a lot of joy from helping his lower income kids into college and on to a better life.  (As the first person in his family to go to college himself he was a form believe in education.). But he’s very quick to talk about how that development will cause traffic and how well this is a single family neighborhood. 

[41_swish]

Geographic arbitrage is the move if you can do it. I definitely think part of my fire plan is going to be leaving the expensive part of Colorado that I live in and move somewhere else.