I’m similar, but probably a bit younger. I make a good salary now (I’m in a leadership position), but the people on my team are a bit more “average.” Software engineering will have a higher than average salary, but I’m talking $80-120k for the people who work for me in an area where the median income is $70-80k ($80-120k), and most are single or single-income.

There’s a pretty stark difference between those who are financially stable and those who… aren’t. I don’t have everyone’s salary, but here’s what I see:

• financially stable - drive older car, own house, wardrobe is simple, hobbies are inexpensive, no extravagent trips
• financially unstable - drive late model car, rent, nicer clothes, more expensive hobbies, yearly international trips

Notice I didn’t say anything about income. Some of the financially unstable people have a much higher income (probably double the range above), and some of the financially stable people have a much lower income (e.g. one of my employees is single and just bought a house in a pricier area, while being at the bottom of the income range).

I obviously don’t know your income or situation, but I think most people can do much better than they are without changing their income. And the more financially stable you can be, the more “quiet” confidence you get (i.e. you’re not distracted by when payday is), and the more likely you are to get that promotion or better paying job. Success tends to breed success.

Check out The Millionaire Next Door, which gives lots of examples about how wealthy people tend to be frugal and careful with money. There’s not really any secret sauce here, just delayed gratification and discipline. Obviously a $100k salary will go a bit further than a $50k salary, but even a median income can rocket you to an upper-middle class/lower-upper class retirement if you manage it carefully. I’m happy to walk through a scenario if you like, but that’s a bit off-topic for this community and is probably better for one of the PF communities.

sugar summed it up nicely.

We make a decent amount, but we’re priced out of buying a home right now. We have a solid amount of savings and stocks, and our only debt is my partner’s student loans which aren’t a ton. We just don’t think about money day to day.

If we want something, we just get it. But we don’t really want things, so we mainly just spend money on food and booze. And Steam games, but only if they’re 50% off or more.

We’re probably lower-middle to middle-class. Lower now, maybe mid-mid when we finally can buy a house.

“Class” is determined by income, “enough” is determined by spending habits. You could make $50k and have positive cash flow, or you could make $400k and always be strapped for cash. The higher your income is, the more options you have, but also the more exposure you have to more ways to waste your money.

This is a great video about this. Basically:

• lower class ($34k median income, $3400 net worth) - ~25% of population - these are those who truly struggle with emergencies, and flirt w/ the federal poverty line; net worth is pretty much nothing (often negative!); main goal is get an emergency fund to break the cycle of poverty
• middle class - three categories (lower, middle, upper)
  • lower ($44k median income, $71k net worth) - ~20% population - identify more with middle-middle class and tend to get into more debt than necessary by keeping up with the Joneses, and could be financially stable w/ some discipline
  • middle ($81k median income, $159k net worth) - ~20% - financially stable, most of assets are in home
  • upper ($117k median income, $307k net worth) - ~20% - passive income and compound interest supplement income; some live paycheck-to-paycheck due to lifestyle inflation, but some can do really well with investments
• upper class - two categories (lower and upper)
  • lower ($189k median income, $747k net worth) - ~10% - specialized professions; most people can get into the lower upper class with discipline (10% savings rate on $65k salary => $787k investments by age 50); little pressure from everyday expenses
  • upper ($378k median income, $2.5M net worth) - ~5% - some college grads working as employees, but a lot of these are business owners

At each level, I see two types of people:

• lower class
  • savers - those who scrimp to be able to cover emergencies that would otherwise screw them over; these can move up to the middle class
  • “normies” - those who get screwed over and over and stay in the lower class
• middle class
  • savers - less scrimping here, but need to budget and avoid “keeping up with the Joneses”; some discipline can establish a solid retirement
  • “normies” - debt payments prevent any kind of progression, and workers are terrified of job loss because the house of cards could come tumbling down
• upper class
  • savers - become really wealthy (upper upper class)
  • “normies” - some upper class folks are “strapped for cash” because they can’t keep their spending in check, but most have enough income to recover from even the worst mistakes

By this metric, not being strapped for cash is possible for pretty much anyone in the lower-middle class and above, and even those in the lower class could get there by stabilizing their finances so they can take some risks to increase their income (i.e. night school, quitting a bad job for a better job, getting CDL and financing a truck, etc). On the flipside, being strapped for cash is also quite possible at pretty much any income level, and I’ve heard plenty of stories about lawyers and doctors having trouble keeping up with debt payments because they got caught trying to keep up with those wealthier than them.

So I don’t think “strapped for cash” is a good metric for economic class, income is, because you can make choices that can cause you to be paycheck-to-paycheck at almost any income level, as well as choices to maintain stability at almost any income level.