If 200k is poor then I’m destitute.
No.
compared to the ruling elites, yes.
compared to most people that’s global 1% amounts of money.
If you have a family of eight, you’re officially “low income” in San Francisco.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2025.pdf
Depends on the currency. In America, no
No?
This question makes no sense.
In an absolute sense, no. In a behavioral sense anyone who cannot define what is enough will never have enough. In this sense we have a lot of high income poor in the us including billionaires.
Absolutely not and anyone who says otherwise needs to get a clue.
Depends on cost of living, I guess, but that’s an extremely comfortable living, in my area.
Come on man, there is no where in the US where a person who makes 200k is poor.
I certainly don’t think so. Someone else probably does.
It depends in what context.
On the day to day, is someone making $200k struggling? No.
Is someone making $200k in the bottom 99% of Americans? Yes.
Okay, but that’s not what poor means.
depends on how much debt they’re servicing
Depends on the individual’s live goals. When you aim to surpass Musk in wealth, yes. With other ambitions Musk can be considered poor and you’d be running in the wrong direction if you chase after what he got.
In some parts of america with a larger family, yes.
I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.
I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.
You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.
You can find elsewhere in the thread where the guy shared the chart about San Francisco. So, what I said is true.
I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.
First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.
Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.
By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).
This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.
You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.
OP didn’t really ask for your definition of the word. OP asked broadly and in quotes. And, yes with a large enough amount of mouths to feed and house, 300k could not be enough to support that and you could be poor. Granted, its unlikely.
All of that aside, I think you’re just biased because you don’t live in an area like SF. To you 200k seems like a lot of money, so you can’t fathom being poor with that income. Poverty line in parts of the bay area is $150k.
What you don’t seem to understand is the cost of housing. A 3 bedroom apartment or house (normal boring house) will cost between $5000-$20000/month. That is barely affordable on $200,000 after taxes.
Looking at you, San Francisco. .
$200k is not poor in San Francisco.
It’s still significantly above average, even in San Francisco.
Licensed childcare runs between $2500 and $4000 per month per child here in the Bay Area; $200k salary is about $150k after tax. Doesn’t take a terribly big family to totally exhaust that amount if both parents need to work to bring it in.
I’m not saying that you can’t run out of money if you make $200k. I’m saying that it’s not poor.
If earning well above average in an area with a high concentration of high earners can be poor, the word means nothing.
