60 and 61 are referring to the annual wage amount. As in $60,000 versus $61,000. The ages given were at age 45 for $60K and age 65 for $61K. There is no objective measure based on these factors and the known variables over the prior 20 years that would indicate an increase of only $1,000 in wages in a 20 year time span would mean you are currently better off. Cost of goods alone from 2000 to 2020 would bear this out.
I think it’s better, but I don’t see it as any better than during the Obama years, for me personally. It’s a wash for me, but everyone’s situation is different.
Too many factors play into that to make a value judgement. Was a car or mortgage payed off? Did a new cheaper medication introduced that was required daily? Too many variables out there to judge the individual. It’s better to look at the aggregate.
But yes I am. Not because of anything Trump* has done. Rather, due to my own diligence and effort. As I am also “better off” now than I was 20 years ago, considering I was able to increase my annual income levels by substantially more than $1,000 during that two-decade span.
Meh…on a shorter timescale perhaps. But over a 2 decade span, then it is quite easy to assess an increase of only $1,000 during this prior 20 years not being enough to offset a multitude of known variables. Even if the unknown variables assisted in making it more equitable. Especially given what the purchasing power of $60K was in 2000 versus the purchasing power of $61K in 2020. We can easily establish mortgage costs at this income level from 20 years ago. Car payments as well. Etc…
The Lord doesn’t pick and choose financial winners and losers. Good luck and smart choices. He had the good luck and smart sense to marry me. If he had kept up his prior trajectory, he’d be living in a van down by the river.
You thought my compounding returns over three years example was ■■■■■■■■■ and then used an example over the course of 45 years and thought that was somehow a good retort.