As dual-income households have become more the norm, it's really the household income, rather than an individual's income, that's a better measure of (material) richness.<p>For instance, you might have a family with a sole breadwinner who has a low six-figure salary, but that has to cover all the family's expenses. Meanwhile, even if his neighbors, a dual-income household, both earn less than him, their household income could be considerably more.<p>By the way, the rising percentage of dual-income households has been suggested as an exacerbating factor in the growing income inequality in the U.S.<p>If you figure that people tend to marry others of the same educational level (more so now than in generations past), and if educational level is roughly correlated with income, then you can see how the gulf widens.<p>Whereas 50 years ago, when single-income households were the norm, a lower-educated fellow might bring in SALARY and a higher-educated fellow might bring in SALARY * 2. But now, with dual-income households, a lower-educated couple might bring in (SALARY * 2) and a higher-educated couple might bring in (SALARY * 2) * 2.<p>So, 50 years ago, there was one SALARY worth of difference between the lower-educated household and the higher-educated household. Nowadays, there is (SALARY * 2) worth of difference.
Consumerism. It convinces people that once they make $100k/year, they require a vehicle that befits someone who makes that much money. It convinces people that they require a place to live that compares to their other 6-figure earning peers. More, bigger, better -- the importance of those three things outweighs most everything else.<p>I grew up (and now live) in rural Appalachia. The "American dream" is defined much differently here. The American dream is owning a trailer and not having to live off of food stamps.<p>Let's ignore the absurdity of comparing a 1980 $100k/year salary to a 2014 $100k/year salary. In most areas of the United States, six figures is enough to qualify as well-off. Compared against the backdrop of abject poverty, six figures is certainly rich.<p>My wife's cousin was talking to her about a new job he landed. He was giddy with excitement, as he told her he was going to be "making bank." The salary was $22k/year.<p>My point is that "rich" is relative to your geography and your upbringing. In most areas of the U.S., a six-figure household income is enough to have a warm place to live and healthy food to eat, with enough left over to provide security during times of famine
I'm not sure why the article is so obsessed with this "six-figure salary" thing (which seems to mean exactly $100,000).<p>$100k 30 years ago after inflation is $288k now. Anyone earning $288k now is definitely rich enough to "live the american dream" (in the article they price that at $130k).<p>It would have been a much more interesting article if it had just focused on cost of living increasing faster than inflation
It sure as hell does mean you're rich.<p>Median household income in the US is about $50k/yr. The average global income is about $10k/yr.
As the article mentions at the end, a big part of living within your means is reducing your spending -- and a lot of that has to do with recognizing what things are actually necessities. The chart of price increases mentions things like movie tickets, new cars, and private college tuition, which are certainly not necessities. Even high gas prices can be mitigated if you recognize the hidden costs of driving a fuel-inefficient vehicle long distances to and from work every day -- and that in many cases you're not forced to live so far away.<p>I recommend the Mr Money Mustache blog as a source of some decent advice about how to think more frugally and focus on early retirement: <a href="http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/</a>
Investing more is certainly not a way to "stretch a six-figure salary." Not sure why they included that part. Investing in your own retirement (vs. a pension) is probably a big reason why salary money doesn't go as far.
Because we have to start with definition of what IS rich.<p>I want to think about it of as how many months/years I can live the life I'm living right now If out of a sudden I loose a job.<p>So being rich should be more about balance between earning and savings. And looking at those places like SF, how one can claim himself rich if 100k a year can barely cover cost of living there ( if can at all)
A major cause of the increased cost of living in NYC, SF, Boston, SV is the "rent seeking" activity increasing cost of renting or purchasing a house through restricting housing density through zoning and through overuse of historic buildings designations.<p>Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser speaks of this. In these cities, the cost of housing is far higher than the cost of construction because politics is used to make wealthy landowners even wealthier at the cost to others.<p>Rent seeking is a sign of market inefficiency.
How much of this is just personal perspective? What exactly defines being rich? $100k a year? $1m a year? More? Why go after being rich when you can go after being wealthy? If you have enough money generating assets that cover all your expenses, you're pretty much set. It's all about the cashflow.
You're rich because existence itself is shockingly improbable. Beyond that, you even got to be human, with a human mind, which as far as we know is the most expensive thing the universe has ever produced. Lucky you!<p>You're poor because one day you will lose everything and everyone you've ever deeply cared for. That's a shame.<p>Enjoy the few moments you have left. You will have a better chance at this if you stop comparing yourself to others in terms of the milliliters of 'comfort' you can or cannot afford within an OCEAN, a absolute carnival of delight available to all.
When has this EVER meant that you're rich? It doesn't, never has, and never will. Even a 7-figure salary doesn't by itself make you rich. You are only rich when you've learned how to make money work for you and when you have the freedom to do with your time as you please. This automatically excludes any kind of salary making you rich. Salary and riches do not mix. It's the wrong mindset altogether. A high salary CAN be a good initial catalyst on your way to riches, but by itself will never get you there.
Is everyone on here a communist? Christ. The article is simple. The government uses it's hidden tax of inflation to steal the wealth of everyone and the media continues to (apparently successfully) fool people into thinking hard working wage slaves that make slightly over 100,000 are "rich". They are not. To make the equivalent of a 100k salary from 1980, you have to make 288k today. The government continues to print more money and this trend will continue until creating value instead of consuming it becomes what most americans strive to do. We have not reached utopia where everything is automated and work is an outdated concept. Yet, the "ism" of jealousy and envy, and perhaps more than a dash of laziness, prevents people from seeing the truth. Hating and taxing everyone that makes a living wage will not lead to prosperity. Yes I am talking about socialism. Although, most of the people on this site seem to lean more toward wanting full blown communism. Let the down votes commence.