[Siddarth1977]

I'm curious how old you are and where you grew up.

In the 90s I would have considered $56,000 per year as rich. In the 2000s it would have been upper-middle class, or "senior white collar professional". In the 2010s probably down to "office job" or "good blue-collar job".

There's something funny about seeing people point to a salary that I grew up thinking was a best-case scenario dream as being insufficient. Maybe if our policies focused more on quality of life rather than nominal wages, we could help people instead of just having decades of inflation.

[dragonwriter]

> In the 90s I would have considered $56,000 per year as rich.

If you look at historical income, $56k in 1995 is roughly where $100k is now, in terms of where it put you in the income distribution.

> In the 2000s it would have been upper-middle class, or "senior white collar professional"

In 2005, it's like a little under $85k today, again, by where it puts you on the income distribution, not buying power.

I think that the farther back you go, the more you are overstating what $56k was.

[lkxijlewlf]

I'm in my 50s.

Stop blaming the working class when the rich keep taking a larger portion of the pie. Just stop.

[Siddarth1977]

I'm not sure why you're attacking me with this random, unrelated statement. I didn't "blame the working class" in any way, and re-reading my comment I can't come up with any interpretation of my statement that could be read as such.

Are you trying to suggest that the working class is the root cause of inflation, and that by me pointing out inflation it was an attack on that group? I genuinely can't figure out why you're angry here. Is this trolling? I'm confused.

[lkxijlewlf]

I guess I misunderstood your comment. I apologize for that.