• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      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.”

      source

      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

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

  • dan1101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days ago

    Either they live in a very high cost of living area or they’re not good at budgeting money.

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 days ago

    “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.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          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.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.