this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
557 points (98.6% liked)
me_irl
7697 readers
2255 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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”
$100k - now - is considered "poor" in a lot of places :(
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.
I don't know. By that definition people who have saved and barely afford retirement are "rich".
I thought it was clear that this loose definition would not include retirement age people.
I don't think you intended it to, but it does. Defining things can be hard.
$100k, damn, in central europe the median income is more like $30k and that's already a juicy salary. CoL does a lot.
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.