Labour movements frequently fall victim to attacking people just a little higher on the ladder than they are instead of focusing on the ultra wealthy that are actually the problem. Effectively behaving like crabs in a bucket, anyone who manages to somewhat improve their personal situation becomes an enemy.
It's the same way of thinking that causes people to attack minimum wage because EMTs only make $14/h instead of seeing the big picture where we have individuals making millions per hour we reframe the problem around our current wages. Falsely painting current wages as a reasonable baseline, instead of the product of decades of suppression and stagnation.
I'm raising this because there is a post on this sub from earlier today trying to frame someone pointing out that $100k/year is not the height of opulence as being massively out of touch. The post is currently one of the top posts on the sub for today.
The post shows a comment with a hypothetical household with a net income of $8k being out of money at the end of the month after considering retirement savings and an education fund for their 2 kids.
Is this better than a lot of people current have it? Absolutely, it's massively better, but it is important we realize we're talking about a couple making $35/h each, and all they've really done is cover the bills and have some basic savings.
Saving for retirement is basic, it should be the expectation that everyone can do so.
Saving for your kids education is basic, it should be the expectation that everyone can do so. (Ideally it wouldn't be required, but for now it is)
It is not unreasonable to expect that after covering these basic expectations that there is a bit left over for some luxuries, in whatever form people want to spend their money on.
The idea that 6 figures was the be-all and end-all dates back to the 80s, there has been 241% inflation since then, and the income level being talked about then is equivalent to over $340k now
There is an entire other discussion on how 6 figure incomes can be poverty wages in HCOL areas, and how people massively underestimate how many people live in HCOL areas (New York city alone has a higher population than the 9 lowest population states combined. If LA were a state it'd be the 28th largest by population)