11–20 of 101 posts
It sure as hell does mean you're rich. Median household income in the US is about $50k/yr. The average global income is about $10k/yr.
I want to think about it of as how many months/years I can live the life I'm living right now If out of a sudden I loose a job.
So being rich should be more about balance between earning and savings. And looking at those places like SF, how one can claim himself rich if 100k a year can barely cover cost of living there ( if can at all)
It sure as hell does mean you're rich. Median household income in the US is about $50k/yr. The average global income is about $10k/yr.
Using salaries is an especially terrible choice though. Disposable income is a much better match for what we think of as rich.
You're poor because one day you will lose everything and everyone you've ever deeply cared for. That's a shame.
Enjoy the few moments you have left. You will have a better chance at this if you stop comparing yourself to others in terms of the milliliters of 'comfort' you can or cannot afford within an OCEAN, a absolute carnival of delight available to all.
It sure as hell does mean you're rich. Median household income in the US is about $50k/yr. The average global income is about $10k/yr.
It sure as hell does mean you're rich. Median household income in the US is about $50k/yr. The average global income is about $10k/yr.
I'm not sure why the article is so obsessed with this "six-figure salary" thing (which seems to mean exactly $100,000). $100k 30 years ago after inflation is $288k now. Anyone earning $288k now is definitely rich enough to "live the american dream" (in the article they price that at $130k). It would have been a much more interesting article if it had just focused on cost of living increasing faster than inflation
Because inflation?
Median and average price of a home nationally is up about 50% (even worse in hot markets)
US Dollar is down about 50% against the Swiss Franc
US Dollar is down about 40% against the Canadian Dollar
US Dollar is down about 30% vs. the Euro
Gasoline is up over 200%
Oil is up ~350%
Gold is up 300%
Silver is up 300%
Cotton is up between 60% and 100%
Corn is up 100%
Average cost of a new car is up 40% to 50%
And so on
A $30k salary in 1990, is now roughly equivalent to $60k to $75k today. Six figures just doesn't buy anywhere near what it used to.
As dual-income households have become more the norm, it's really the household income, rather than an individual's income, that's a better measure of (material) richness. For instance, you might have a family with a sole breadwinner who has a low six-figure salary, but that has to cover all the family's expenses. Meanwhile, even if his neighbors, a dual-income household, both earn less than him, their household incom…
That's a red herring.
When people talk about inequality as a serious economic problem, they're not talking about any discrepancy between households living off a salary or two. They're not even talking about the discrepancy between the ninety-nine and the one percent -- they're talking about the point-one percent and everyone else.
As dual-income households have become more the norm, it's really the household income, rather than an individual's income, that's a better measure of (material) richness. For instance, you might have a family with a sole breadwinner who has a low six-figure salary, but that has to cover all the family's expenses. Meanwhile, even if his neighbors, a dual-income household, both earn less than him, their household incom…
Before, one partner could sustain the household and the other could stay at home and raise kids.
Now, if both partners are expected to earn and have careers, who looks after the home life? Who looks after the kids? Surely this is really really damaging?
And doesn't that mean that in real terms we're earning half as much?