> You'd have to earn between $350k and $700k/year for your dollars to have the same asset buying power as $130k/year in 1996. This is absurd. There has certain

> You'd have to earn between $350k and $700k/year for your dollars to have the same asset buying power as $130k/year in 1996. This is absurd. There has certainly been inflation, but the value of the stock market (and dollar supply) are not directly relevant to a person's buying power. The residential real estate price rise is a real factor, but even that is offset by the fact that most people buy homes with mortgages and mortgage rates are so much lower today (7.8% in 1996 vs ~3% now). I can't find the numbers now, but as I understand it the median home is more affordable now for the median income than it was in 1996 (again mostly due to cheap mortgages). To come at this from another angle: in 1996, $130k was not in the top quintile of earners. Today, the top quintile starts at ~$250k[1]. People earning $350k-$700k are well into the top quintile of earners and likely into the top 10% or beyond; they are much richer than someone earning $130k in 1996. Summary: $130k is still a relatively solid income (top 25% of earners), but $350k-$700k today is not the equivalent of $130k in 1996. 1 - https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf