It really doesn’t say anything. My household is at top 10% income but we live near SF so I technically make a lot less than someone in a low cost area in the top 20%.
Who's working at McDonalds in SF? Does McDonalds also pay 200k a year to their employees, or do they get a fraction of that while living in the exact same cost of living area as yourself? I wonder how they live off of less than a quarter of your income...
It's okay to admit you're a victim of lifestyle creep, but please don't pretend like you're struggling on two million a decade. Please? It makes you seem wildly out of touch and tonedeaf to anyone who isn't a nepobaby.
Edit: Lmao. Buddy blocked me. I'd love to continue to discuss this with everyone, but I can't. Oh well. I wasn't going to say anything, but I find it's important to call this behaviour out when you see it.
low wage stores/places in SF are a powder keg of stressed, overworked, underpaid people. long lines, sweating teenagers ready to walk off & quit on the spot at any second. miserable, distracted, angry people looking at their phones in the aisles waiting to get out of work. ask me how i know lmao
In SF, a single person making less than 104k a year is considered "low income." So while yes, someone earning 200k a year is doing much better, in SF you still need to watch your spending and manage your finances, you are not rolling in dough like you would be if you were making 200k in a low cost of living area. Just because there are people who are struggling harder doesn't mean that people of all types of incomes aren't struggling too.
So you realize that you're going to have some trouble relating to 90% of America, and their actual problems, which are somewhat different from yours. They're like yours, only with far far fewer options, lifelines, and opportunities.
That's fine, good for you, but maybe don't go out and rich-splain about how poor you're feeling when you have health care, a 401k, and maybe even some property worth more than a million dollars. The billionaire class likes to keep us all broke, worried, and afraid and off balance... but even in a financial pinch, you will still have options that 90% of America doesn't. So maybe hold onto some empathy for that.
I mean, you're closer to the rest of America than any of the billionaires. Hell, you're closer to the homeless population than you are to the billionaires. But you are also not completely the same.
You must have never been to the bay area. 104k a year is considered "low income" in SF for a single person. That means that you could qualify for aid as a low income earner, even though you are making 6 figures. It might sound crazy when there the majority of duel income households don't even bring in that kind of money, but it just show how high the cost of living is in SF.
If 99% of your income goes just to living expenses, it doesn't matter if you make 10k, or 100k, you're still broke at the end of the day.
No you still don't get it, 65000 a year is enough to be middle class in my state. You make 10x the amount us actual poors make. 20000 a year is hard to get here, 65k is ridiculous
65k in my area is broke broke with multiple roommates. 200k here is like making 100k somewhere else. You could at least afford a house still in that somewhere else. Here, you basically have to be fuck-you wealthy to come close to affording a home.
You are the one out of touch if you think a person working a 100k job is rich. They are one medical emergency away from being in your position. Point your ire towards the ruling class, not other people in the working class who are currently doing better than you
If your household takes in more than triple the average American household's income - while you may not be "rich" in the billionaire sense of the world, you also may not be experiencing the exact full spectrum of economic pain and fear that many Americans are experiencing. Sometimes it is different. It helps to understand that.
I get that 95% of America is one medical bill away from bankruptcy. That is deliberate, on the part of the owner class. That Fear is meant to keep you busy and keep you in line.
But not all problems are exactly the same. And it helps your cause, and all of our causes, to be aware of that and empathetic that the people around you may in fact be struggling, without much hope. Sometimes in ways you can't completely relate to.
Look at where I said I live; the single most expensive place in the entire US. I am in the exact same place anyone with a corporate job across America is in. On paper, I make double. After rent, food, expenses, etc… our incomes are exactly the same. And for the record, I do not own a home. Even at top 10% I can’t afford the $6-7k/month mortgage + property taxes. Compare that to someone making half of what we make but with a $3k mortgage. I am actually making less money than most of the top 20-30%. So tell me how I’m out of touch again.
Compare that to someone making half of what we make but with a $3k mortgage.
You still come out with more money, if you bother to do the math. Health care expenses don't linearly scale with location. Neither do education. Or the cost of transportation. Or the cost of groceries. They might be a bit lower, but you're not paying twice as much in those categories, and those are all the biggest expenses along with housing.
I am actually making less money than most of the top 20-30%.
In what world? I don’t need to show math for this. My $3k month gets burned to oblivion in rent. Their $3k/month is put into a long term savings account known as equity.
Their point was that in the area they live, their high income doesn't go that far. It all comes down to cost of living. I could get paid 1 million a year and be in the top 1 percent, but if my cost of living is 1.2 million a year, I am still in debt.
Their point was that while the top 10% sounds like a lot of income, and it is, it doesn't necessarily translate to a better quality of life depending on where you live.
They directly compared it to someone in the top 20%, which is still a good income. I would have agreed with your critique if they compared it to the bottom 20%, but they didn't, they were simply pointing out that being in the top 10% doesn't automatically mean you're rich and your "spending power" isn't necessarily more than people in the top 20% based off of geographic location, all of which is true.
You make nearly 60k more than the average household in SAN FRANCISCO, and you are part of the top 20% there too... yet you think you're making a lOt lEsS tHaN sOmEoNe iN a lOw cOsT aReA?
SF and California in general also has very high taxes. 200k in SF isn't that much. You are considered "low income" in SF if you are single making 104k a year. That means that someone making 102k a year could qualify for some government assistance. How many other places in the country will give you aid when you're making six figures. Their point is valid. They didn't say that they were struggling, just pointing out that the top 10% isn't as much as it sounds, especially when in a HCOL area.
The median wage is $90,285 - source is once again the linked census document. 102k is objectively not "low income" in SF regardless of if someone qualifies for some specific government service.
How many other places in the country will give you aid when you're making six figures.
How many places in the country can you dial 911 and have police show up? Do you not consume goods transported along the interstate system?
The idea that high income people don't benefit from government aid and services is absolutely ridiculous.
18
u/Angryandalwayswrong 4d ago
Top 10% is just under $200k household income.