this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
803 points (98.5% liked)

me_irl

7703 readers
2951 users here now

All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homes@piefed.world 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 23 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure, but $100k/year isn't even close. That's you can finally afford a humble home money. That should be the standard for just a decent life.

[–] homes@piefed.world 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (4 children)

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 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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”

[–] homes@piefed.world 2 points 17 hours ago

$100k - now - is considered "poor" in a lot of places :(

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know. By that definition people who have saved and barely afford retirement are "rich".

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I thought it was clear that this loose definition would not include retirement age people.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

I don't think you intended it to, but it does. Defining things can be hard.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

$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 5 points 14 hours 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 0 points 10 hours 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.

[–] greenbit@lemmy.zip 3 points 15 hours ago

Rich don't work for living. Probably have wealth for multiple lifetimes

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Rich is when you don’t have to obey laws and you can buy politicians.