Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it is a good salary , but just try raising a family on it in many areas .
The topic is about individual salary, not household income. And the majority of households are dual income.
Also, if a family can't afford to live in an area, they'll move. That's why you don't see many $100k HH families in places like the $5 million home neighborhoods of Beverly Hills.
What you're talking about is a minority ($100k income) of a minority (expensive areas) of a minority (single earner households). I wouldn't call that many.
The topic is about individual salary, not household income. And the majority of households are dual income.
Also, if a family can't afford to live in an area, they'll move. That's why you don't see many $100k HH families in places like the $5 million home neighborhoods of Beverly Hills.
What you're talking about is a minority ($100k income) of a minority (expensive areas) of a minority (single earner households). I wouldn't call that many.
I don't know about that man. There was a poster named Eric on here (I'll have to find his post) and they were in a high cost of living area. He listed out all of his expenses and they were running VERY THIN, to where if one lost their job (meaning either him or his woman) they would be in some financial issues.
Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck because they are not strategically positioned in living areas where their purchasing power goes very FAR, allowing them a great amount left over for various types of recreation or savings/investments.
Remember those debates I had with MathJak and his friend with very low expectations? I pointed out that we can argue about "rate of return" all day long, if the guy isn't putting away ENOUGH for savings/investments in the first place, "rate of return" becomes irrelevant. The "rate of savings" needs to be firstly established and you aren't going to be able to do that unless you are properly managing cost of living indexes.
I don't know about that man. There was a poster named Eric on here (I'll have to find his post) and they were in a high cost of living area. He listed out all of his expenses and they were running VERY THIN, to where if one lost their job (meaning either him or his woman) they would be in some financial issues.
Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck because they are not strategically positioned in living areas where their purchasing power goes very FAR, allowing them a great amount left over for various types of recreation or savings/investments.
Remember those debates I had with MathJak and his friend with very low expectations? I pointed out that we can argue about "rate of return" all day long, if the guy isn't putting away ENOUGH for savings/investments in the first place, "rate of return" becomes irrelevant. The "rate of savings" needs to be firstly established and you aren't going to be able to do that unless you are properly managing cost of living indexes.
You can live paycheck to paycheck at any income level, right? It looks like you're saying you think a large percentage of $100k workers are under severe financial strain. Did I get your position right? If so, what sorts of studies have you seen that back that up?
in the 90s it was a dream to make 100k. nowadays with costs of goods and services going up due to inflation, does 100k/year sound as enticing as it did back then? personally i would guess that 150k/year is the new 100k. thoughts?
Real inflation-adjusted incomes for working class people have not gone up very much since the 90's, but many things have on the expense side since then. It's still a good salary and a real milestone for most people but it's not quite as good as it used to be. There, how's that for a wishy-washy answer?
Real inflation-adjusted incomes for working class people have not gone up very much since the 90's, but many things have on the expense side since then. It's still a good salary and a real milestone for most people but it's not quite as good as it used to be. There, how's that for a wishy-washy answer?
They're actually down a bit.
To repeat a point I made a bajillion pages back in this thread: 6% of W-2 workers max out their Social Security contribution. That's $118,500. Other than the very high COL areas in the country, $100K is indeed a good salary. That's top-10%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
