Letters: Readers respond to an article about quitting the rat race, with some saying their generation was handed an untenable position and others saying the struggle is nothing new
$150k a year now is the equivalent of $80k ish a year in 2000.
The point is the change in buying power. $80k per year now is equivalent to $45k per year in 2000.
To make what would have been $80k per year in 2000, you would need to make $150k per year now.
But in 2000, it is also very likely you could have bought a house on that salary of $80k per year. The equivalent $150k per year now may not even do that, depending on your state. In some sense, to be “well-off” (which is poorly defined, but let’s say: enough to comfortably afford a home) is likely more around $200k per year now. The baseline has changed, so even though $100k may sound like a lot, it isn’t what “six figures” used to mean in the context of salary. It is the equivalent baseline of about $50k per year in 2000.
80k a year is like double what I make, how is that low?
The point is the change in buying power. $80k per year now is equivalent to $45k per year in 2000.
To make what would have been $80k per year in 2000, you would need to make $150k per year now.
But in 2000, it is also very likely you could have bought a house on that salary of $80k per year. The equivalent $150k per year now may not even do that, depending on your state. In some sense, to be “well-off” (which is poorly defined, but let’s say: enough to comfortably afford a home) is likely more around $200k per year now. The baseline has changed, so even though $100k may sound like a lot, it isn’t what “six figures” used to mean in the context of salary. It is the equivalent baseline of about $50k per year in 2000.