>Article seems to completely disregard the high cost of living of many high income earners
There's no high cost of living in their case, except a self-imposed one. More like "high cost of luxury living", because they can have all necessities, plus all kinds of middle class luxuries, with a much lower cost.
High cost of living is something you self-impose when you're loaded, and only a pragmatic barrier when you're poor: then "high cost" means "difficult to afford healthcare, rent, or even food".
They don't have to live in the expensive areas of the SF Bay Area or NYC, they don't have to have a McMansion (or more than one), and in many cases, they could even stop working entirely ($5 million in the bank is more than enough retirement money for money at 30, whether it's a family or 2, 4, or 6).
I’m talking about the part of the article which was discussing a survey of high income earners, not people with $1M/$5M/$10M in the bank. It claimed someone making $160k/yr was rich, full stop, and had no basis for claiming “they’re “just getting by.”
People working in exactly the same places (like the Bay Area) working in retail, service industries, and so, the one's preparing those $160/k year makers' lattes for $40/k year or so, would like to discuss their definition of "just getting by".
We're talking about people working in the same areas, this isn't some Somalia vs US cost of living comparison trick.
"But those $160/k makers aren't living in cheap housing like the $40/k people in the same area!"
That's on them, and it's fine, but then they don't get to complain about "just getting by".
"I make barely enough for my intended lifestyle and for how much I want to spend to maintain my status" is something that anyone could say and it be true, regardless of their income level.
"I'm just getting by", without qualification, isn't that kind of statement.
Why are we supposed to multiply the $40k income times the family members, but not the $160/y income (of some software engineer or middle manager or whatever)? Is your objection covering only $160k/y earning-persons supporting a family of four by themselves alone?
Even then, a $160k/y person supporting a family of four as a single-income-earner, is not a family "just getting by".
It's a family doing much much better than most.
The median household income is $74k/year, which includes tons of "2 kids" families. In California the family of 4 median income is $96k/year.
Also, a "family of 4" doesn't mean 4 wage earners, it just means the two parents working (so $80k), not their babies or 12 year olds kids. Two $40/yr earners with a family of four, would make $80k/y total, not $160/y, so it's hardly comparable: it's half.
And there are more than should be families of 4 living on $40k total. Or single-parent families of 3 doing the same. Now that's "just getting by". Especially since low end $40k/y jobs also involve a lot unemployment time, temp gigs, or uncertain income for one or two of the parents - much more than when you're in a cushier job, and with less (or no) safety deposits in the bank.
So any way one can slice it and dice it, 160k/y is not "just getting by". Not without many qualifiers for "intended lifestyle" and ignoring people making by, while working in the same city, with 1/2 to 1/4 the amount.
Yes, it is possible to make $160k/yr while supporting a family of 4, and feel like you’re “just getting by” in the SF Bay Area or NYC.