These are just the fattest cows in the herd. Being able to afford "luxury" versions of mass-manufactured crap isn't wealth. Wealth requires means a measure of financial independence and security. Dual-income professional couples who manage to get into the $100-250k range don't really have these, although they're in a better position than the rest of the middle class. Between student loans, school expenses, childcare expenses, saving for college, saving for retirement, etc, they can afford some toys but that's about it. Comparing them to the wealthy and saying they wield power in the economy is utterly ridiculous.
Also, does anyone understand the chart? Does it mean that 76% of 60 year olds will make > $100k at some point?
The typical student loans for people graduating today is only 30k USD. Now that will be much higher for some people, particularly lots of people on the higher end of the income scale (doctors, surgeons, etc), but if we are talking about the 30-60+ age bracket then their school debt straight out of school will likely be lower than you could expect for the same school/program today.
What I am getting at is that I doubt student loans are a significant consideration for most people in the age ranges the article is talking about (from what I understand they are for doctors).
Also, most young people in the SF/tech scene sort of deal are likely looking at the typical school debt (~30k), but are looking at the low range of these salaries (100k+) starting at a much younger age. I know people that are obliterating their student loans with the starting bonuses from their first jobs out of college. (That's what I did, albeit several years ago, and only 5 years worth of tuition.)
These sort of scenarios won't get you "country-club rich", but will certainly get you into the elusive "traditional middle-class security" range. The kind of wealthy where you can tell your kid they can go to any college accepts them, can take your whole family on 1-2 week long holidays every year as a tradition, buy your kids a shitty car when they turn 16, etc. It is this sort of wealth that can prove troublesome politically. People in this range are relatively isolated from true hardship; they don't have to worry about making rent or worry about how to feed their family. They are much more susceptible to pseudo-concerns like "is my corporate chain coffee fair trade" and "what if I become properly rich, then get taxed a lot?".
Remember that HN is an echo chamber. While we can talk about 250k and pretend like it is normal, the median household income is in the general neighborhood of 50k. Most Americans will never see this sort of income. For most Americans, 250k is wealth.
I think we have the tendency to define "wealth" as "something that is beyond our grasp". The more money you have, the more money it takes to become "wealthy".
Who says they have to have kids? Earn a combined $250k a year, live frugally and invest the money early. Build a huge retirement nest egg in a decade! Then go travel the world and enjoy life.
What gets expensive is if you get caught up in the keeping up with the Joneses mentality. Why do people want to live in a suburban sprawl nursery and spend all their life raising kids?
The question isn't whether you can live comfortably on $250k/year. Obviously you can. But that doesn't make you wealthy.
Trading off having kids to be able to afford travel and luxury goods is prole. People who are actually wealthy don't have to make compromises like that.
I am sure somebody who has kids and can afford to travel would tell you that what they have is not truly wealth because the truly wealthy don't have to make reservations, they can all schedule last minute and fly first class to another hemisphere on a moments notice. Planning and budgeting for your travelling retirement is for peasants!
Some of those people may even have the audacity to tell you they even they are not wealthy, because the those who are actually wealthy don't need to fly in the same planes as the poors.
Having to compromise a biological imperative in order to be able to afford a particular sort of lifestyle, and not being able to book first class tickets at the last moment is difference in kind, not a difference in degree.
People with less money than you who have kids will still be able to travel. They will just travel less frequently (sometimes much less frequently), they will travel to less exotic locations, they will book further in advanced, and they will travel and stay in less luxury. A week in Duluth, instead of a summer in France.
This is a difference in degree. It is a difference in degree until you reach the real difference in kind, far closer to the median household income / poverty line. The people who have no hope for a retirement, who plan on working until their aging bodies force them to stop.
I am sure those who travel whenever they please would assert that a retirement consisting of planning out the next trip months in advance is a difference in kind. It is a different sort of lifestyle if you are honest, but it is best described as difference in degree.
Everyone thinks that the difference between what they want and what they have is the important difference. If you had it, the bar would move; you wouldn't be satisfied.
I agree that traveling more or less is a difference in degree not kind. But 'chongli suggested forgoing having kids so you can save money and travel. That's a difference in kind, and it's a prole sort of thing to do. At least assuming you'd otherwise have kids if you had more money.
Well, yeah. chongli's suggestion is a difference in kind, not degree, but I think his suggestion is a bit extreme. I don't think many people decide to not have kids just so that they can travel more. Plenty of people probably claim that, but I don't think many people who actually want kids would decide not to have kids just because of their retirement plans. There is probably a deeper fundamental lack of a desire for kids hidden in there somewhere.
Anyway, I think it is also worth considering how the price of having kids changes as you go up and down the income scale. Most parents will naturally be inclined to provide the best childhood for their kid that they can. For most people, this probably means making sure their kids have good nutrition, do well in school, etc. Parents with more money available to them might start considering additional expenses though, like private tutors, private schools, larger college funds, trust funds, etc. People with more money will probably spend more money on their kids, so that 50k extra (after taxes) income every year doesn't necessarily mean 50k more money for yourself. If your income increases, you'll probably spend more on your kids. (of course this won't make more income a wash, since certainly some of that extra income will be spent on yourself).
Also, does anyone understand the chart? Does it mean that 76% of 60 year olds will make > $100k at some point?