Is everyone on here a communist? Christ. The article is simple. The government uses it's hidden tax of inflation to steal the wealth of everyone and the media continues to (apparently successfully) fool people into thinking hard working wage slaves that make slightly over 100,000 are "rich". They are not. To make the equivalent of a 100k salary from 1980, you have to make 288k today. The government continues to print more money and this trend will continue until creating value instead of consuming it becomes what most americans strive to do. We have not reached utopia where everything is automated and work is an outdated concept. Yet, the "ism" of jealousy and envy, and perhaps more than a dash of laziness, prevents people from seeing the truth. Hating and taxing everyone that makes a living wage will not lead to prosperity. Yes I am talking about socialism. Although, most of the people on this site seem to lean more toward wanting full blown communism. Let the down votes commence.
Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
31–40 of 101 posts
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#32I'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
There's some justification for them using the 100k number. They bring up that child tax credits and health care subsidies are phased out around that point, as are IRA contributions.
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#33Consumerism. It convinces people that once they make $100k/year, they require a vehicle that befits someone who makes that much money. It convinces people that they require a place to live that compares to their other 6-figure earning peers. More, bigger, better -- the importance of those three things outweighs most everything else.
I grew up (and now live) in rural Appalachia. The "American dream" is defined much differently here. The American dream is owning a trailer and not having to live off of food stamps.
Let's ignore the absurdity of comparing a 1980 $100k/year salary to a 2014 $100k/year salary. In most areas of the United States, six figures is enough to qualify as well-off. Compared against the backdrop of abject poverty, six figures is certainly rich.
My wife's cousin was talking to her about a new job he landed. He was giddy with excitement, as he told her he was going to be "making bank." The salary was $22k/year.
My point is that "rich" is relative to your geography and your upbringing. In most areas of the U.S., a six-figure household income is enough to have a warm place to live and healthy food to eat, with enough left over to provide security during times of famine
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same thing with millionaires. A million dollar net worth is not the same thing it once was.
You're still not poor though. In fact, if you have a million dollar net worth with expenses covered by your current income, you're definitely in the "rich" category compared to 99% of the US.
[deleted]
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#35As 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…
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 richness. That depends on how the income is spent. If people spend their extra income on leisure activities, luxury goods, etc then it'll absolutely mean that a high household income will be a good measure of richness. That's obvious. However, if dual income households…
This has already happened in almost every major city in the United States. My anecdotal observation is that townhomes in major cities are affordable to single folks with one (low six figure) income and single family homes require two such incomes. And that actually does make a bit of sense, as a married couple has a higher probability of making good use of a SFH than a single person does.
I don't predict a crash (at least not based on this phenomenon alone) precisely due to the abundance of townhomes that are being built in the US. In Houston, for instance, even though the townhomes are sort of hated since they're replacing old, historic bungalows in many cases, they are the one thing keeping the city somewhat affordable. Cities which have extreme zoning laws preventing this sort of development might be more susceptible to a crash.
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#36I'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
> "I'm not sure why the article is so obsessed with this "six-figure salary" thing"
Because people ascribe meaning to "large numbers" that are unmoored from the actual objective context and meaning of those numbers.
See also: people's penchant for using totals, sometimes even lifetime totals, to argue that certain projects (public or private) are too expensive/boondoggles/etc. They ought to be looking at ROI, rates, per-capita-rates even -- but they don't. Because they know the audience has attached emotional meaning to "millions" and "billions".
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 richness. That depends on how the income is spent. If people spend their extra income on leisure activities, luxury goods, etc then it'll absolutely mean that a high household income will be a good measure of richness. That's obvious. However, if dual income households…
Housing supply isn't fixed. When house prices go up, people build more houses.
Zoning laws can pose a lot of restrictions on where those houses can be built, so it depends heavily on the city. Basic physical obstructions and topology also play a role. Adding more homes onto far out suburbs isn't going to do much to massage the problem of unaffordable housing near downtown office districts if it means that homeowners have to commute an untenable distance.
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#38A major cause of the increased cost of living in NYC, SF, Boston, SV is the "rent seeking" activity increasing cost of renting or purchasing a house through restricting housing density through zoning and through overuse of historic buildings designations.
Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser speaks of this. In these cities, the cost of housing is far higher than the cost of construction because politics is used to make wealthy landowners even wealthier at the cost to others.
Rent seeking is a sign of market inefficiency.
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#39It 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.
What if your job is in Manhattan where that means you are making negative income vs. your rent? And a good meal is ten times more than a beef soup shop in Taiwan? Or spending 2 hours every morning commuting into the city and back out on a bus to somewhere you can afford on $50k/yr? Is that still rich?
Living in Manhattan (or SF or whatever) is a "luxury" -- move to Atlanta where you can buy a 1 bedroom condo in the city w/ loan at $750 a month.
Re: Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You’re Rich
#40It 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.
What if your job is in Manhattan where that means you are making negative income vs. your rent? And a good meal is ten times more than a beef soup shop in Taiwan? Or spending 2 hours every morning commuting into the city and back out on a bus to somewhere you can afford on $50k/yr? Is that still rich?
I've lived / worked in midtown Manhattan on both $35k/year and $90k/year (and between) within the past 3 years, and they are both doable. At 30k, I wasn't rich for sure, but I wasn't poor either. Still going out to eat mostly, and not missing out much with friends.
As it got closer to 90k, things got easier for sure. I'm not married, so no dual income, but my total monthly expenses come out around 2k (rent, good food (never eating at home), utilities, misc stuff) which leaves about 3k/mo left over. I would consider this materially wealthy, at least.