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

me_irl

7697 readers
2251 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
[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 hours ago (5 children)

The "no worries line" is sitting somewhere around 100k salary right now. Before the pandemic I'd have said 70k, but I see this as the point where you have enough money to pay somebody else to think about it for you be that an investor, fiduciary, advisor w.e.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 20 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

I wouldn't say that's anywhere even close to rich.

[–] homes@piefed.world 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 17 points 9 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 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 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.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] Pieisawesome@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 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 1 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours 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.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 hours ago

Me and my partner got close to that amount in a low cost area and it wasn't even close to no worries. We lived pretty modestly too. Driving paid off shitboxes, rarely eating out, lived in a relatively small home etc. We still had to really think about things and it didn't take a lot to throw off our balance. An er visit here or an unplanned vet visit was all it took.

Maybe if we made that amount several years in a row it would have been different. Definitely not close to that amount anymore.

That being said we did get to do fun stuff and were certainly comfortable, but it wasn't remotely close to not having to think about it.

I'd say 150 to 200k gets you to the no worries and no thoughts range. That's the range where you can enjoy life, save to retire, and still handle the emergencies while maintaining a modest lifestyle.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 7 points 9 hours ago

There's different kinds of "no worries lines". My family is above 100k, and we're not in the "If we miss a paycheck we won't be able to eat this week" range, but we're certainly in the "An unexpected medical bill or necessary home repair could wipe us out" range.

The true no worries line - where unexpected expenses aren't an issue and you expect to be able to comfortably retire some day - is considerably higher, at least where I live.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I believe that really depends on where you live. Also did you mean net or gross?

Some napkin math I did now, if your gross is 100k....

After tax 75k

  • housing 4500
  • food: 250
  • Internet 100
  • phone: 40
  • health: 200
  • transit: 100
  • utilities: 200

Edit: I fucked up and did 4500 for housing not 2500. Cheaper housing gives a lot more room!

~~That leaves you with like $860/mo for fun or any other thing.~~

Of course that's a lot of assumptions that can change it. But I'd say 200k gross is the start of "don't have to think too hard about money"

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

4500 a month for housing is insane, is rent actually that bad in the US? I could rent a villa for that.

You are also missing private retirement funds though (and if car dependent 100/month seems very low for transit costs)

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

that's a cheap mortgage where i live. it would pay for a 100 year old falling apart shack.

the average mortgage here is like 6K a month now.

the average studio in my city rents for 3.2K a month... you want a 2bed? that will be over 4K

it costs that much because people are willing to pay it and they have the money to pay it. it's that simple.

USA has lots and lots of very rich people, who are willing to pay lots of money for these things.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 1 points 6 hours ago

$4500 was in my head because that was the projected mortgage+taxes+fees for a 2BR apartment in brooklyn I saw the other day.

There are some apartments in NYC that are that expensive to rent. Average here is $3,650, but that's skewed by a lot of stupid expensive places. Median is a little lower.

Other parts of the country can be much cheaper, but sometimes you get what you pay for.

You are also missing private retirement funds

Good call.

(and if car dependent 100/month seems very low for transit costs)

That's a good point. I rely on mass transit, which is much cheaper.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

No. I am above the 100K line, so is everyone I know.

They are worried all the time, and telling me how stupid I am for not being as upset as they are. all the time

The worries they have are different, and rich people I meet with argue with me that their worries are MORE important than the worries of poor people.