To most people on disability or any sort of welfare $100,000 per year is literally rich, even some employed people feel that way. I don't know any 6 figure earners getting bailouts. When discussing poor and rich it's worth either defining what you believe each is, or including an extra class (eg: "super rich"), because for the lay person (depending on audience of course) when you say "rich" they think of people like us, people making average engineer salaries.
I'd venture that most employed people would feel that an income of $100,000/year is rich. While the definition of rich isn't exactly set in stone, $100,000 is nearly twice the national median household income. If you're making $100,000 a year, you're almost certainly rich.
Edit: And while those of us earning "average engineer salaries" might not be getting bailouts, I'd reckon we're at least more likely to feel the effects of them than a poor, or even "average" person. The financial services sector got bailouts -- they also buy a lot of software. Maybe we keep our jobs because of those bailouts.
Anyone who doesn't think $100k/yr is rich has never been poor… or even middle income. Sure, $100k/yr will only get you a small studio in Manhattan, but you're still rich. You live a life that someone who's making $30k can only imagine, you just decided to live in a relatively small place square footage wise. The closest most middle income people will ever get to the experience of being able to just walk down to the Guggenheim, or go out drinking fancy cocktails is watching someone else do it on TV. If they are lucky, they'll maybe get to experience that once in their life.
It's perplexing to me that people who are rich don't think they are just because they live in a small apartment. How you can be obtuse with respect to how he majority of people live? I see it all the time in New York and San Francisco. Single people making $100k pretending like they are somehow "middle class" because they live in a small apartment.
I think the person making $xx and living in a farmhouse on 10 acres in Idaho is richer than the person making $xxx and living in a 400 sq ft studio in Midtown.
I didn't always think that. Possibly my perspective has changed because I'm starting a family, and spending time with relatives and friends at home is vastly more important to me than going out on the town. You spend that time at your house, and if your house is a tiny apartment it sucks. Then you realize that you can't afford a house in the city on your $100k salary and it feels bad.
Some middle-income joe in Nebraska might make 1/2 of my income, but I bet he can afford a sweet house with lots of bedrooms for all his kids - something I can't afford. Who's the rich one?
I don't earn huge amounts, but I live in a really nice little cottage in a small rural village surrounded by amazing countryside, I eat well, own a car and a good computer, I have all the amenities of modern life, disposable leisure income, and don't really want for anything.
How do I do this? I live in rural Yorkshire, near Barnsley, in a very cheap area. I would say that in real terms, I'm 'richer' than someone earning twice as much as me, but living in a similar village 30 miles outside London. There are jobs in the capital with salaries far higher than mine, that I could likely have a shot at getting if I applied, but I don't apply because I don't want to live in crowded, expensive London.
I much prefer it this way, even if my bank account doesn't have as big a number next to it as someone else's. I'm happy!
$100k is rich, provided you're purchasing something with little dependence on land prices. $100k is middle-class if you're purchasing something with a land-price component.
(The fact that the FIRE sector, also known as the owners of land and large pools of money, can extract huge rents from the rest of the economy is probably America's chief economic problem today.)
