-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Majority of Americans Consider Someone Making 100k/yr Rich. What The F***?
- Thread starter Gaf Zombie
- Start date
It's not 8k a month. It's more like 4-5k depending on where you live and what taxes are.
Given that most places where salaries that high also have higher costs of living, it doesn't go as far as one might imagine.
As someone who lives in Orange County, I very much beg to differ.
One the one hand, yeah, 100k is a great salary that a ton of people would do anything for. And one could argue that making ends meet in an area with a high cost of living in the first place is a marker of being rich, relatively speaking. On the other hand:
https://m.sfgate.com/expensive-san-...ilies-sf-bay-area-hud-statistics-13024580.php
https://m.sfgate.com/expensive-san-...ilies-sf-bay-area-hud-statistics-13024580.php
How the fuck did you grow up not getting that 100K per year is wealth? what the fuck? If you aren't ashamed of yourself take a step back and consider your position.
If it is simply a matter of relativity, then the people making 30k a year seem rich to those who are unable to work and are dependent on social services or worse, homeless.
I think you guys are mostly arguing semantics at this point. Wealth is relative. Anyone posting here who lives in NA is wealthy to some living in the slums of India. Anyone who earns 100K in Palo Alto is wealthy to someone living in Podunk, Mississippi.
That being said, I personally don't think 100k/year is wealthy, but I think it is very well to-do, puts you in the top percentile, and you gotta be very flippant with it to not have a decent retirement.
That being said, I personally don't think 100k/year is wealthy, but I think it is very well to-do, puts you in the top percentile, and you gotta be very flippant with it to not have a decent retirement.
You're right about the taxes, but it's still massively more than I am making, so from my point of view, that's rich
I agree this thread is hopeless. The same argument is being recycled over and over, and it's useless to respond to drive by posters who chime in based on the title and don't read or respond again. It's a loop at this point.
I'm pretty much in the same position, 4 person family with another on they way. I earn just over 100k. My wife will be giving up work this time. There is no way I'm going to feel rich this time next year when we're down to just my salary.
This thread is one of the most frustrating I've ever seen. I wish it would get locked so I could stop seeing it pop up. Yeah, $100k isn't uber-doober-ultra-mega rich and how far it takes you will vary in different parts of the country but if you can't see how the majority of people in your country will view that income as rich you're seriously lacking perspective. The median household income was apparently $58,000 so an individual income of $100k is almost twice or more of what half the households in America bring in. It's at the 70th percentile of household incomes. And a personal income of $100k doesn't preclude you from having a partner that also further raises your household income. And if you're living in one of the expensive coastal cities just "getting by" on $100k, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people living in that same city earning less than half of that, and $100,000 probably seems like a lot to them. I'm not American but I grew up poor as shit. I considered other families rich if they could afford holidays abroad, new cars, or had a house big enough that the kids didn't have to share a bedroom. To anyone living that sort of life an income of $100,000 sounds like next best thing to winning the lottery.
income is not necessarily the same as being rich. someone that is really rich could make 50k a year but if its all from passive income (for example interest, rent or dividends) thats much richer than someone making 100k that works 80 hours a week for that money. someone who is rich has assets that generate passive income for them. active income helps you to build that assets but it in itself is not enough for being rich unless you make half a million a year or something.
why? because passive income means you dont work shit for it and can enjoy your life (or work on passion projects) thats being rich not grinding to get income. also taxation tends to suck for active income while its great for passive income (see how much more you are taxated for wages in comparison to dividends)
so 100k income is not rich but a good foundation to become rich. good income is never enough to become rich if your spending habits suck. however if you are smart you can build assets and begin to generate a second stream of income and then you may quit your job down the line.
why? because passive income means you dont work shit for it and can enjoy your life (or work on passion projects) thats being rich not grinding to get income. also taxation tends to suck for active income while its great for passive income (see how much more you are taxated for wages in comparison to dividends)
so 100k income is not rich but a good foundation to become rich. good income is never enough to become rich if your spending habits suck. however if you are smart you can build assets and begin to generate a second stream of income and then you may quit your job down the line.
User warned: Historical reference implying violence
Everyone who is saying 100k isn't rich should be French revolutioned outta here. Normalising right wing talking points is bad whether it's normalising hate speech or normalising anti poor messaging. Which is exactly what is happening. Saying you can't survive on 100k makes a mockery of people who are actually struggling, and also makes ok upper class tax and welfare breaks.
This isn't about how much money you need to survive, this is about the term "rich." Someone having more money than you isn't necessarily a sign that they're rich, and there are numerous issues with context relating to how far money goes in more expensive areas as this thread has gone into. An opinion which disagrees with you on this subject isn't automatically anti-poor or right wing.
I will say starting off by your post by using language about guillotining the rich because they have $X isn't showing your looking at this objectively.
I recently got promoted to a position making 100k a year. I grew up blue collar, and I don't feel rich. I haven't had time to build wealth with it yet, and I'm supporting my wife and kids. We live a comfortable middle class lifestyle, and I'm saving money monthly. But, we drive old used cars, shop at Aldi, don't take vacations, watch our spending, etc. After taxes, health insurance, and 10% to a retirement account, I take home about 5k a month. I have no debt other than my mortgage, and our basics total around 4k per month.
I think of "rich" as having wealth - meaning, a chunk of money (or a passive income stream like a rental house) that you could rely on to keep living your current lifestyle without needing a job. In that context, how long would you need to be able to live without relying on income from a job to be considered "rich"? If you can only make it one month, I don't think that justifies the label "rich".
I would think at least 1 year at minimum before that label could be reasonably applied. If I had 2 years of living expenses saved, I would probably agree if someone said I was rich. At 5 years of living expenses, I think I would actually feel rich.
Note: I'm almost 40 and I've been working consistently since my 16th birthday.
I think of "rich" as having wealth - meaning, a chunk of money (or a passive income stream like a rental house) that you could rely on to keep living your current lifestyle without needing a job. In that context, how long would you need to be able to live without relying on income from a job to be considered "rich"? If you can only make it one month, I don't think that justifies the label "rich".
I would think at least 1 year at minimum before that label could be reasonably applied. If I had 2 years of living expenses saved, I would probably agree if someone said I was rich. At 5 years of living expenses, I think I would actually feel rich.
Note: I'm almost 40 and I've been working consistently since my 16th birthday.
Pay off debt, save, invest.
How is this a thing people keep repeating here as a reason to call 100K rich. "I don't know what I'd do with it", that says more about you than the amount of money.
No one said that tho. "100K isn't rich" doesn't equal "I can't survive on 100K", I know there's a lot bias and frustration about the topic, but that doesn't excuse poor reading comprehension making it ten times worse.
When I was in my 20's I thought a hundred grand a year was alot of money. Rich? Nah, but a good chunk of change. In my 50's with two kids approaching college age 100,000 doesn't seem like much at all. I mean, we live in a very good school district, one of the best in the country apparently and my daughter is struggling in school. We have tutors for her and give her all the help we can but the school is failing her. Her anxiety is through the roof along with some other mental health issues. We're considering private schools but are looking at tuition between 25-40,000/year. The money can really fly out the window.
BTW my wife and I are aware of how fortunate we are to have what we do have.
BTW my wife and I are aware of how fortunate we are to have what we do have.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're paying for, but this is a general point too where I think there is sometimes a disconnect. And some might not apply to you specifically.
Private tutors, private school, affording a home in a neighborhood with an exceptional school district, paying for your kids to go to a more prestigious university, these are all rich people things. They always have been. While it's a good way to spend your wealth, it's still a sign of exceptional wealth. Forgoing a more luxurious life to give your kids specialized help that the majority of the nation has no financial access to is still wealthy. It just doesn't feel like if you're a more selfless parent (or in some cases obssesed with your kids being "better" than your peers).
It's defenitely understandable to not feel rich, but I think it's often a case of people taking their privlidged life for granted.
Not denying that that poster has privilege, but what he's describing is definitely not affordable on a 100K salary. Which does help the argument that it's not rich.
HENRY'S are so goddamn insufferable.
"I have little to no money leftover after my mortgage in a good neighborhood, daycare for 3 kids, school loans, insurance, vacations, candles, groceries, college savings for the kids, and retirement!"
I don't understand how you can even count savings against your income and say your broke when you STILL have access to that money. That isn't an expense like food or gas where you can't recoup the money. The price of a whopper doesn't jump to $30 because you make 100k either. It's like telling a starving person that you're sick from overeating...a total lack of perspective.
I live in one of the most expensive states in the country and 100k combined will get you into a good neighborhood with decent schools. 125k will get you into an excellent town with excellent schools. 150k will get you into the best towns with the best schools. 200k will give you the ability to live anywhere and put your kids into the elite private schools.
"I have little to no money leftover after my mortgage in a good neighborhood, daycare for 3 kids, school loans, insurance, vacations, candles, groceries, college savings for the kids, and retirement!"
I don't understand how you can even count savings against your income and say your broke when you STILL have access to that money. That isn't an expense like food or gas where you can't recoup the money. The price of a whopper doesn't jump to $30 because you make 100k either. It's like telling a starving person that you're sick from overeating...a total lack of perspective.
I live in one of the most expensive states in the country and 100k combined will get you into a good neighborhood with decent schools. 125k will get you into an excellent town with excellent schools. 150k will get you into the best towns with the best schools. 200k will give you the ability to live anywhere and put your kids into the elite private schools.
No one denied that people who make 100K are privileged.
Who called themselves broke despite making 100K a year?
Who said they have it harder than a starving person?
When someone goes I can't even imagine what I'd do with 100K and other people go, well here's what it's like and what I did to get here and have to deal with, the response shouldn't be, Oh do you expect me to feel sorry for you now while I make less than 30, because that was never the purpose of this thread.
Dude, full time at the federal minimum wage is $15k. What the hell do you do?
On topic, no salary will make you rich imo. No amount of money is idiot proof, but over 100k a year for a single earner is definitely in "you're an idiot if you screw this up" territory.
People making 100k are probably comparing themselves up to everyone making more thinking "I'm not rich" while the majority of us are making less than half of that... the problem is perspective. Sure you don't think youre "rich" with the lifestyle you live, but imagine making 35k instead. Imagine the lifestyle downgrade you'd have to make. Even if you made the US median of 58k you'd have to change your lifestyle. That's how the majority of people live, which is probably a downgrade for you.
Rich or not, you're on a totally different tier from how most people are living.
Rich or not, you're on a totally different tier from how most people are living.
That 58k median is household too. The median individual income in the US is around 30k
People in this thread are saying that the material comfort of making 100k is no different from making 60, 50, or even 40k and how it doesn't "feel" rich because they're "living paycheck to paycheck" after saving a good percentage of their money. Savings are not an expense.
I don't "feel" rich either because I don't live in a town with an excellent school system, drive luxury cars, or live in a 800k house, but I sure as hell could if I wanted. The ability to have a choice is the disconnect.
I've made 62. I make what I make now. Lifestyle change if I reverted back would be less cheap weekend trips in the continental US and saving a good deal less for retirement.
A downgrade, for sure. But not a downgrade from rich to not rich.
People are arguing over the definition of rich, which isn't the point. People are saying " I make 100k and I don't feel rich". To me that sounds like forgetting that the people calling you rich are only saying that because they have 1/3 of what you have. That's all I'm saying, and I'm just throwing my 2 cents in because I haven't made a post here yet. This is a forum after all.
Personally, I know what it's like to live on 40k a year HHI. My wife and I were there in 2009. I know what it's like to live on 55k, 65k, 80k, and now 100k. Yes, there were lifestyle upgrades along the way, but at no point have I felt like I've "made it". I still have to be disciplined with my finances.
Yeah and I never called it rich. People by nature always compare up. They make more so they spend more then they look at the person making more than them And say "I still haven't quite made it."
No they're not. This entire thread is people saying "100k isn't rich because you still have to think about expenses and budgeting" and people are projecting their own frustrations at their situations and twisting words around.
The people making 100k are trying to convey the idea that rich shouldn't simply be what was middle class for the previous generation. Being able to own a home shouldn't be something reserved for the rich, it should be an alarm that the working/middle class has been depressed so much that not only is that just a pipe dream for most people, but that they've been conditioned to think it's something only for rich people.
These people are still driving affordable cars, still flying economy, still trying to find savings when grocery shopping. Largely what this income bracket gives you is piece of mind and a safety net. As someone who makes $110k, but obviously didn't always (started from a working class immigrant family, was in grad school making $24k and then got into tech), you don't suddenly make way more and then increase your expenses to use it all. What mostly changes is that you save a lot more than before and your spending habits marginally increase. That's basically it.
When I think "rich" I think someone who makes enough that their spending habits drastically changes and the start indulging in actual luxury expenses, not just going from Ross/Target/Kohls -> H&M -> Express, or Giant -> Trader Joes -> Whole Foods. So when people say they can't imagine what they'd do with the money, I say, they probably can. It largely would just alleviate whatever day to day monetary burdens they have by allowing them to not have to as strictly budget out the rest of a paycheck, or live by paycheck, and finally be able to start saving. In terms of what they spend money on it'd mostly be nicer versions of things they already spend money on
Last edited:
rich
adjective
\ ˈrich \
Definition of rich
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth
The way people apply this word is going to change, that's obvious. There are certain comforts the average middle class person has today that even the richest person in the history of the world, Rockefeller never had. Baby boomers had more buying power than the average person today, this is also true, it doesn't mean that the word rich shouldn't adapt to the current situation we are in.
You know there are people who have made 100 million dollars in their careers that have filed for bankruptcy? You could make the argument that unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars, you have to budget to some degree.
People who make 100 million and file for bankruptcy are almost never poor after. They file for bankruptcy so they don't have to pay all of their money out.
I do think there's something to the bracket of "having enough in assets to make a median salary or above in passive income" that really cements the rich definition. That definition can flex depending on where you live. But at 2mil+ you are making $60,000 a year in interest alone. I doubt anyone is arguing they aren't rich at that point. Maybe not where they want to be, but it's still rich.
I'm not arguing that below that isn't rich, but I disagree that "no one thinks they're rich" and using examples of super wealthy people to show that. I work with a number of rich people in a lot of philanthropic work. Most of them know they are wealthy.
Again I like the passive income definition or asset definition better than just salary for rich because it's more realized. If we had been scraping by as a couple and then finally get a good job, it's not like a single year of salary over $100,000 is going to pull us out of the debts we accrued. Nor is it going to make us wealthy if we got sick or injured and couldn't work (we'd be broke and have massive debts). It's potential rich until the salary has been realized in actual assets.
So anyone that makes more than you is considered rich. That 33k salary sure looks good to the guy making 10k, which looks good to the guy making 3k. Of course it's about perspective, but I haven't seen anyone who says "100k is rich, I don't know what I'd do with that money" admit that they themselves are rich as well, given the proper perspective.
Well, except for that one guy who basically said anyone who can put food on the table is rich, which is also true on a global perspective.
You're conflating completely different things. As for the first bolded, that's thanks to technology. We don't say a person now who owns a fridge is rich because way back being able to safely store food long term was a luxury. Of course it's relative to the times, but I think we can establish a common sense baseline for what should be a normal middle class expectation. Let's say being able to own a home not too far (1-1.5hr+) from where you work and a 1-2 cars for a household.
People making 100 million who go bankrupt do so because they spend a ton more money and make significantly riskier gambles with said money. It has nothing to do with their lifestyle. A person making that much could literally invest in index funds and make MILLIONS off the interest. They literally don't have to work or accumulate any more money and will passively make millions. A person making 100k still needs to work. Like I said, their safety net means they aren't living paycheck to paycheck and can afford not to work for an extended period, but they can't live off of that indefinitely
My family would literally be making twice what we make now. For a family of 3 to suddenly have an extra 100% income... I'd consider myself rich even though I'd still have to budget.
Any particular reason why it's ridiculous?
I currently make 45k per year. I have the ability to afford everything I need, and most of what I want; and I can slowly, but surely, put a tiny bit of money into the bank every month.
If I was making 100k a year, I'd live the same style of life I currently have, except I'd be able to pay everything off pretty much immediately, and I'd never have any more financial concerns, especially since my SO also works.
If you're the kind of person who wants seven cars, two beach houses, and a yacht, 100k isn't even remotely rich. I don't want any of that stuff, though. For me, 100k is enough to do anything I could possibly want. As such, it's comparatively pretty darn rich.
Okay, calm down a bit. The OP is more from an American perspective and if you're working full-time you're making about $15,000 a year at minimum. I've had to live at times below that working part time while going to school full time and fully supporting myself and I've had to work full time making less than 20k, I didn't have health insurance through most of my 20s (before the ACA) and it's pretty terrible. I make a lot more no, feel pretty fortunate and it's easy for me to keep that in perspective because I have a brother that will always be in that lowest tax bracket.
We can say it's all relative but relative to most Americans, 100k is rich as the poll says in the OP and relative to the median wages in this country, it's not surprising to hear that. I just wish people making 100k as a single earner would realize that is quite rare in this country.
I understand the cost of living differences, but 100k would make me rich. I could do pretty much anything I wanted.