-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Majority of Americans Consider Someone Making 100k/yr Rich. What The F***?
- Thread starter Gaf Zombie
- Start date
I feel like I'm having a stroke seeing people argue that "$100,000 isn't rich especially if you have children and student loans"
like... how do y'all think the rest of the country lives??? do y'all think everyone who has student loans and kids make $100,000/year???
like... how do y'all think the rest of the country lives??? do y'all think everyone who has student loans and kids make $100,000/year???
You make 100k in my area, you're an average earner... Possibly slightly below.
But then, 12k in property taxes and a 400k mortgage skews things quite a bit.
It's all relative. Being able to do that is extravagant for a lot of people, so yes, they consider it rich.
Like I don't understand. Feel how you want about the word "rich" and how its defined. But its pretty clear "rich" isn't what you think it is to most people. Y'all 100k'ers need to get your heads out your asses and stop defending your idea of what rich is just because its more expensive to live where you do. It makes you look like assholes. 100k is still 100k. Its not a different currency. It just makes you look like total dicks and super out of touch to how people feel.
It's all extremely relative at those amounts. To me personally you may be "well off" at 100K...but I would never call that rich.
Rich to me would be say 250K+ where (in my head at least) you really wouldn't have to budget a whole lot or ever really worry about anything financially.
Rich to me would be say 250K+ where (in my head at least) you really wouldn't have to budget a whole lot or ever really worry about anything financially.
a 2 bedroom house in NYC is 500-600k....if you're lucky
a studio apartment is 150k in shit areas though
No what's ridiculous is that you think you can be rich when you can't even afford a 1BR apartment
Yes the problem with how people approach this (which you're providing an example of) is that you see this in relative terms instead of absolute terms. The tippy top of the .1% is invisible to you.
Can people stop equating "That's not rich" with "That's not a lot of money". Everyone recognizes 100k is a good amount of money to live comfortably, no one isn't saying they aren't privileged or better off than a good amount of people.
This is classic lower vs middle class warfare that the GOP loves to abuse so much.
This is it exactly. I make well over $100k/year, but I live in an expensive metropolitan area. When I go home to the Midwest to visit friends and family, it's a pretty interesting comparison - they have nicer houses that are cheaper (mine is expensive and old), and half of them also have (small) cabins on lakes outside of town!
While I have a larger number in my bank account, their living expenses are quite a bit lower than mine. I know that I'm fortunate compared to a large portion of the country, but it's not like my standard of living is much (if at all) higher than my friends who make < $100k.
100k a year doesn't seem like that much when you are paying a mortgage and consider things like saving for retirement and kids college.
Figure you have to save like 2 million for retirement, you could live for 30 years with no income...
College in 15-20 years for 2-3 kids... hundreds of thousands of dollars..
Figure you have to save like 2 million for retirement, you could live for 30 years with no income...
College in 15-20 years for 2-3 kids... hundreds of thousands of dollars..
To be considered "rich" on an annual income basis requires a heck of a lot more than $100k. Your $100k income is inconsequential if you're disabled and lose that income within a year.
Indeed the same could be said for pretty much any income level, depending on how many paychecks you're able to actually acquire before losing said income.
The point is, using income to determine whether someone is "rich" is short sighted. The only metric that makes sense to measure to determine whether someone is rich, is wealth.
Indeed the same could be said for pretty much any income level, depending on how many paychecks you're able to actually acquire before losing said income.
The point is, using income to determine whether someone is "rich" is short sighted. The only metric that makes sense to measure to determine whether someone is rich, is wealth.
Well, of course, it's relative. They aren't invisible. They are even more rich.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I am gonna have to assume that OP lives in the Bay Area. If you live around here, the bar for being "rich" gets pushed to its absolute limit.
I wouldn't call it rich but it's a fuckton of money
I make a little over 60k (euros) and 100k would allow me to retire much earlier than I planned to.
I make a little over 60k (euros) and 100k would allow me to retire much earlier than I planned to.
Living in Florida, paying less than $600 for my studio apartment, if my salary were to become $100,000 a year, I still wouldn't move for another year.
I feel like some of you are thinking $100,000 salary means $100,000 is sitting in your checking account right now.
No one is arguing that it isn't a lot, but rich definitely has a definition and it's not "well it's more than what I make so fuck em".
I say this as someone with relatives who make that much. They live nicer than me, but definitely not far off from my current problems.
I feel like some of you are thinking $100,000 salary means $100,000 is sitting in your checking account right now.
No one is arguing that it isn't a lot, but rich definitely has a definition and it's not "well it's more than what I make so fuck em".
I say this as someone with relatives who make that much. They live nicer than me, but definitely not far off from my current problems.
The thing with the poll in the OP is that it measures perception. There is no qualitative measurement of "rich", and it seems a large amount of Americans view $100k/year as "rich", which says more about the current state of the lower to middle class than whether or not you should be struggling as a college grad with a good job out of school.
It is tautologically the case that with a subjective descriptor like "rich", it literally only derives definition from common usage, not whatever arbitrary metric you can come up with.
It is tautologically the case that with a subjective descriptor like "rich", it literally only derives definition from common usage, not whatever arbitrary metric you can come up with.
yes but if you live in (one of the two most expensive places to live in the entire world) it's actually not a lot of money!!
Yep. My brother lives in Jackson, MS and was able to buy a nice new-build house for $180k. Nicer, larger, and glitizer than my 1980s-era townhouse, for 60% less money.
I'm not bitter. :/
Considering how much wealth normal Americans have, i think its insane to actually think that's crazy
My mom and dad combined when i was growing up only made about 60 to 65k a year, and they were at "normal" career jobs and considered better off than a lot of other people we knew.
People should count themselves as lucky in this broken system of ours, those who live behind gated communities or upper crust parts of town away from the black folk who arent as lucky.
My mom and dad combined when i was growing up only made about 60 to 65k a year, and they were at "normal" career jobs and considered better off than a lot of other people we knew.
People should count themselves as lucky in this broken system of ours, those who live behind gated communities or upper crust parts of town away from the black folk who arent as lucky.
As someone who does something around 40K (CAD), yeah, I consider 100K rich! I'd love to hit that salary!
This reads like one of those fake "PC Gaming is too expensive" memes where the majority of the cost is the $3,000 gaming chair or whatever. 2 million for retirement? Most people will be lucky to retire at all, let alone save 2 million. What the fuck lol.
100k a year is incredibly luxurious for the majority of America.
Most people will not ever be interacting with people at those income levels on a regular basis because they're not going to be living remotely close to them.
Yeah that's wild up there. Here in the South with expenses I can find a 3 bedroom with a good front and back yard for 750 and with utilities, food, cable, just everything that's needed 1500 a month is sufficient and that's in a good suburban ara. If you have 100k a year?
Bruh, that's amazing!!
It really depends on the place.
or Renting in los angeles where you're at $2000/mo for a 2bd 1ba.
124k out here is nothing. im still looking at moving to Georgia.
I make about $110K and it puts me in top 10% of single income earners in Canada. I net about $68K-$70K after taxes, benefit contributions, and pension contributions. So I have about $5600 to $5800 to spend on whatever else, a month.
I would say this means I can buy anything I want, just not everything I want.
I would say this means I can buy anything I want, just not everything I want.
Uh... this varies tremendously by location.
$100K in some rural town in central US? Yes, that can be rich.
$100K in Los Angeles? You're barely middle class! Source: Me! I had to get 4 promotions, and 8 raises to afford a basic house (priced below LA median).
$100K in some rural town in central US? Yes, that can be rich.
$100K in Los Angeles? You're barely middle class! Source: Me! I had to get 4 promotions, and 8 raises to afford a basic house (priced below LA median).
No one is saying $100k isn't a lot of money. They're saying that amount gets you further in some places rather than others.
You can't buy a single family house on a $100k salary if you live in the Bay Area, CA.
You are able to buy a single family house on a $50k salary in other parts of the country.
So what is "rich" in this example? Everything is relative. If the person in the Bay Area packs up and moves inland, then they have a 2 hour plus commute one way. Rich lifestyle, right? If they pack up and move to the midwest, maybe they take a paycut. Now they can afford a house.
You can't buy a single family house on a $100k salary if you live in the Bay Area, CA.
You are able to buy a single family house on a $50k salary in other parts of the country.
So what is "rich" in this example? Everything is relative. If the person in the Bay Area packs up and moves inland, then they have a 2 hour plus commute one way. Rich lifestyle, right? If they pack up and move to the midwest, maybe they take a paycut. Now they can afford a house.
I don't know about buying, but you can definitely comfortably afford a 1BR apartment in NYC under
Exactly. The people answering this survey aren't working on some strict definition of the word, but rather how they define it relative to themselves.
Keep in mind a decent chunk of the 800K federal employees people were justifiably outraged at being unable to get pay for a month are rich (or right on the cusp!) based on these views.
And in the Bay Area, that studio apartment would be $1500/month (that's the cheapest I've seen to have an actual studio by yourself...most people rent bedrooms).
There's alot of households that make close to 100k a year and probably don't consider themselves rich. You can't just look at a salary and make sweeping determinations.
Here is a calculator to determine what class you are considered to be in depending on your location and number of people in your household
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
in my area Phoenix Arizona $100,000 for one person is upper class and $100,000 for a couple (+ up to 2 kids) is middle class
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
in my area Phoenix Arizona $100,000 for one person is upper class and $100,000 for a couple (+ up to 2 kids) is middle class
Well it's different in a huge country with shitty public transit. You often have to move to expensive big cities to get the jobs, and you generally aren't rich out of college/grad school unless you come from money. So it's a matter of struggling to get buy in some crappy apartment in a dicey area (as affordable places tend to have crime and other issues with how most cities are segregated) to scrape by for a few years to even think about being able to live in a middle class area (much less an affluent one).
That or live out in the far suburbs/exurbs (as the near suburbs tend to be very expensive due to white flight and that being where the best schools etc are) and have a 90+ minute commute each way with few if any public transit options.
It's easier to get buy on less in some European countries as crime (especially gun violence) isn't as bad and public transit is vastly better so its easier to be further from work without losing hours a day commuting. Also not dealing with private health care premiums most places and so on. Again, it's all relative. Anyone not thinking $100k is very privileged is being pretty obtuse, but it's also true that it's not "rich" in many cities in the US as you're going to have to either live in a crappy area and deal with crime and other issues (what we do), live far away with a terrible commute, or live with roommates as an adult. I don't think any would consider that rich, but it's still incredibly privileged relative to all the people scrapping by in that same metro area on far less income.
Oh of course. But where I grew up, you wouldn't interact with people who make 100k+ unless you went to the doctor.
"Because there's people poorer than you" isn't a real argument. Nobody's saying 100k is on the poverty line or that it's impossible to live comfortably with it. But "100k = rich" is an extreme oversimplification of what wealth is in the US.
Also yeah good luck passing taxes for welfare when people in the top 10% still think they're struggling. I think there's a very real cultural problem in the US where everyone thinks they're more wealthy than they really are (temporarily embarrassed billionaires) and that they also struggle more than they really are (100k not that much if you live in one of the most expensive places in the world). Our society isn't very honest with itself.
I wouldn't necessarily use the label "rich," but I would absolutely call anyone making close to six figures "affluent," at the very least.
also, when you say "afford," I would hope you're referring to rent at least
