- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Just ask for a one figure raise.
100k just isn’t what it used to be. I guess $200k is the new $100k.
Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank, calculates that a worker would have to earn $170,000 in 2025 to wield the same purchasing power that a $100,000 salary delivered in 2005
OK, who here has seen a 70% increase in your salary over the last 20 years? None of you? Then you are actually worse off than you were back then.
I mean, I did, but only because I was still in grade school in 2005.
I was in high school making $0, so it was an infinite percentage increase.
One in three six-figure earners described themselves in the poll as financially distressed.
I know two different six-figure earning households that are also supporting their unemployed/underemployed adult children. I’m not calling the kids lazy either. Unemployment/underemployment is hitting GenZ really hard and that means many are not able finance their own households so they live with parents.
One of those two was also supporting an aging parent until she passed recently. So, sure, they earn six-figures, but they support 3 generations on that income.
Two in three said six-figure pay is not a sign of wealth.
Not a sign of wealth, but is still a sign of privilege. Lots of folks are suffering worse with far less than $100k annual household income.
The top 10% of earners drive more than 49% of all consumer spending
This is insane, this is like apartheid South Africa, an upper class minority owns and gets and decides everything, while the rest are slaves to a system that only supports the upper class while oppressing the poor and working class, to maintain the status quo.
It’s time we hit the reset button
Its even worse than that 10% number suggest. Widen the picture a bit more.
“And that gap is widening to a historic extent, Moody’s Analytics data shows. As of June 30, the top 20% of earners accounted for more than 63% of all spending, and the top 10% accounted for more than 49% — both the highest on record, according to data that goes back to 1989. In 2019, during the comparable period, those shares were 59.2% and 44.6%, respectively.”
If the bottom 80% of earners stopped spending entirely, only
47%37% of spending would disappear.I learned this statistic last week and it explained something that had been bother me for a long time. Don’t the mega-wealthy understand that if the bottom earners have no money they won’t be able to buy anything the mega-wealthy are selling? This statistic tells the tale. They don’t really need that bottom 80% of earners to spend. They aren’t really customers anymore. The mega-wealthy will sell to each other as it looks like they are doing so much of already.
Edit:fixed typo
I suppose this is the reason Republicans are no longer peddling freedom for the masses, but has switched to fascism.
Fascism is better to control the masses for a while longer, while the rich continue to bleed the country.Only 37%*
We’re all so fucked if nothing changes. We’re currently fucked but will be in the future too.
Yep I fat fingered that. Thanks for the catch. Corrected.
THIRTY-SEVEN??!?!
In a row?
Six-figure earners “are concentrated in the largest and most expensive metropolitan areas in the United States, where the living costs are higher,” Adams said.
That and student loans are a big part of it.
To make 100k you likely have a bunch of student loans and need to live in an expensive area.
There’s way too much variation in America to act like numbers mean the same anywhere.
The more people unite against billionaires, the more we’re going to see rage bait where the goal is to draw the line anywhere else.
America is fucked, and it’s fucked for some people even tho they make over 100k, they’re nowhere close to the problem.
Do they know what they are saying here?
“Two in three said six-figure pay is not a sign of wealth.”
“A $100,000 income should put you firmly in the middle class, given that the median annual pay of America’s full-time workers is around $62,000.”
“Firmly middle class” is not “wealth”. So I guess the article authors are part of that 2 in 3? 🤔
Though to someone making $30,000 a year, $100,000+ is sure going to SEEM like wealth comparatively speaking.
It’s about perspective. People making 30k don’t own homes and don’t have car payments most likely. People making 100k are paying mortgages which cuts their pay by about 1/3 and then a car payments takes another chunk. Not to mention healthcare or car insurance.
People making 30k have cars and rent and healthcare expenses. Fuck off.
“Six figures” covers far too wide a gamut. It’s easy to see how a family could struggle today on a $100k salary - imagine multiple children and a high-CoL area - but $999k is a far cry from that.
Yeah, these numbers don’t really convey much without a family size and location, so they kind of just become engagement bait.
In Honolulu, a family of 4 is considered “low-income” (80% of adjusted median income) at $129k. $76k and they can qualify for housing assistance.
Just wait until more and more start to feel it.
Student loans and a pickup truck will do that.
If you make 6 figures, you should be able to buy a pickup truck without taking a loan.
If you mean an old Ford Ranger or more recent Maverick then yeah. But we both know they’re talking about the big F-250 Super Duty pickuhp truhck.
With current prices? You’re out of your mind.
In theory, sure. Also, stay within your affordability range, and a pickup should be for working, not leather seats and sunroofs.
But that’s not what they’re doing, let’s be honest, and automakers sure make it easy to get a loan.
You are right, I somehow confused six digit and six zeroes.
I was thinking of someone making a million.Still keeping within your means, you should be able to buy a car without taking a loan.
