• homes@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    It should be, but it isn’t. As I’ve said in another comment, I know several people who make around $100,000 a year, and they are struggling to make mortgage payments, pay for groceries to feed their families, etc…

    $100,000 a year used to be more than enough to sustain a family, but, today? It’s not.

    • Pieisawesome@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just using a number is a bad metric since CoL can make such a huge difference.

      100k in rural low CoL areas would set you up pretty well.

      In SF or NYC, 100k is consider to be “poor”

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree with the person responding to you and would just add that “rich” shouldn’t be defined as “this is how much everyone should have”. Rich is more like “could afford to not work for decades if not forever” or something along those lines.

    • Aniki@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      $100k, damn, in central europe the median income is more like $30k and that’s already a juicy salary. CoL does a lot.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        A social safety net (like free/cheap healthcare) does a lot too. 100k USD is great until something catastrophic (e.g. cancer, car accident) happens. And don’t get me started on unemployment support.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s going to largely depend on where you’re living. With that salary you can do just fine in most places in the US.