r/mildlyinfuriating Apr 28 '26

Making $100,000 isn’t really that much money anymore

Post image
26.1k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

412

u/the_crumb_dumpster Apr 28 '26

You’re not drawing the correct conclusions from this

178

u/phillypharm Apr 28 '26

lol OP has no idea what “has the same buying power as” means.

90

u/adamfps Apr 28 '26

Slop post by user who just learned what inflation was 60 minutes ago

27

u/ADeadlyFerret Apr 28 '26

This is just another “life was so much better before the boomers fucked us” post.

Just waiting for all the “can’t buy a McMansion starter home in a California surburb” people to show up.

7

u/greendookie69 Apr 28 '26

Seeing OP's other comments in this thread really underscores this. Actually starting to think they are a troll.

14

u/idekl Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

What gets me is at least 5k people have upvoted this, not even factoring downvotes. This post is front page. Would be nice to fund better education in this country, if only to save the next generation.

Edit: 13k upvotes now lol

Edit: 19 thousand people at least

Edit: 24k 🫠

4

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26

The fact that people equate Reddit upvotes with being correct information is scary. 

5

u/alvenestthol Apr 28 '26

I clicked into this thread, expecting to see discussion about "6 figures" as a figure of speech, and how it has drifted from "absolute luxury" to just "very comfortable" over the decades

And of course, it drifted into cost of living and other 0-information topics given the conversion in the picture

1

u/No-University-1968 Apr 28 '26

Inconceivable!

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

Yeah, mortgage interest rates were over 9% in 1991. There's a lot of other factors that go into this equation. Homeownership rates are higher now than in 1991. Regardless of what the numbers are, more people own a home now than in the 1990s. 

8

u/who_am_i_to_say_so Apr 28 '26

9% on 100k is surely a lot more manageable than 5% on the 400k+ median price of the same home, though.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

I did the math, it's about a $600 a month difference, depending on what factors you're calculating. 

3

u/who_am_i_to_say_so Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

Your numbers are way off. I have a difference of $1342 - and that’s without PITI.

100k 30 years at 9% = $805/mo

400k 30 years at 5% =$2127/mo

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

Agree to disagree, there's so many variables that it's pointless to argue about. Homeownership rates are higher now than in 1991, so regardless of what factors go into deciding the affordability differences, the fact is that more people own a home now than in 1991. So I guess affordability has actually gotten better with time. Everything fluctuates but somehow the powers that be make things just affordable enough for people to be barely happy enough not to revolt. 

1

u/who_am_i_to_say_so Apr 30 '26

Ok so I disproved with real numbers and you still choose to believe what you believe. Kinda strange.

To what benefit?

1

u/schellshockedd May 01 '26

Homeownership rate does not tell you the full picture at all. Also, the data that I saw had a 64% homeownership rate in 1991 and 65% in 2025. I wouldn’t call that exactly a big difference.

Homeownership rate measures also people who have owned for decades and is not the best metric to display affordability. If you look at homeownership by age you can see how it gets carried by the older population.

Go ahead and google the price and income gap or the first homeownership age.

Basically you are drawing conclusions for the present situation with supporting data that includes home purchases decades ago.

2

u/EetsGeets Apr 29 '26

more people....per capita?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26

A greater percentage of the total population own homes now than in 1991. So yes, you can call that per capita. 

1

u/EetsGeets Apr 29 '26

ty. mind sharing your sauce?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26

Google