Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k.
What's your point?
Sounds like you're basically saying, I'm lucky to be making this much. Of course, I know that. Yes, I'm extremely fortunate, compared to someone making $25K or less.
I'm also lucky compared to a paraplegic or a quadriplegic person, or someone dying of cancer. So what?
My point is, $100K doesn't go as far as one would think, when supporting a family and living in a big city on the East Coast. It barely meets expenses, and designating this level of income as "wealthy" or "rich" is a ridiculously dated notion.
Then cut your expenses; don't live beyond your means. Isn't that the advice that's always being given to poor people? $100k puts you in the top quintile of the US population. It's definitely wealthy.
When you're a little older, and raising a family, you'll learn that $100K is just the average amount that reasonably affluent households are earning, typically based on two incomes, and it doesn't go very far. Sure, it's better than trying to raise 3 children on one $20K income with an absentee deadbeat dad not in the picture, but that's really comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about the definition of "rich" and "wealthy" here, which is really a different thing from affluent-versus-working-poor. If 90% of American households were earning $100K, that would be fantastic. But it's not the same thing as being rich.
> reasonably affluent households
> it's not the same thing as being rich.
Now you're just playing with semantics. "Wealthy", "affluent", and "rich" are all synonyms with subtly different connotations.
Statistically, if your family is making $100k/year, you have access to more money than the vast majority of American families.
> but that's really comparing apples and oranges
Yes, exactly! It's comparing wealthy people to not-wealthy people.
I get that the money doesn't buy as much as you might hope it would; it doesn't feel "rich" because you imagine "rich" to include luxurious vacations and a huge house or what-have-you. And it doesn't seem "rich" because you measure yourself against even-wealthier people in your social and professional orbit--and you discount not-rich families as "oranges" that are not comparable to your own "apples".
But in terms of raw numbers--not feelings--you're pretty well-off.
Now imagine the household isn't one 20-something person, but two adults, closer to middle-aged, with a kid or two. 2.3 people per household in 2011 in SF.
You just proved my point.