I think it heavily depends on where you’re living, I’m in a densely populated area of the Northeast, and I generally agree that dual income earners in excess of $200k income are mostly okay, for now. I can say if I lost my job today, I’m good to cover my bills for about a year with absolutely no income, but it will deplete 6 years worth of saving.

However, I’ve noticed that my personal expenses have increased dramatically and my property taxes are about to go parabolic because the local and state government here needs to offset losses and rising interest rates caused from pandemic measures. In some local areas property taxes have doubled to quadrupled over the last 4 years, only to be exacerbated by the pandemic.

So much so, that many people in my family had to move out of state because their property taxes went from $7,000 a year, to $18,000 in 3 years time, with no signs of stopping any time soon.

This is where I see the most room for significant damage to the $100k earners. Dramatic increases in property taxes, paired with rising consumer goods/gas prices will definitely erode savings long term. It won’t as happen quickly as it will with the economically challenged, as you indicated, who already feel it pretty bad now.

However, I think over the next 5 years we see a lot of middle to upper middle income earners start to feel the squeeze. I also think this recession will be different, in that I believe we’ll see more layoffs in the middle and upper management positions ($100k+ earners) than we will in the lower income positions. Primarily driven by over-hiring and over paying in that job tier, also due to the fact that we actually need more people in the weeds doing the work to help untangle supply and demand issues.

I also think that all the WFH is showing how middle management is less needed than they used to be. Or you can double/triple up the amount of workers per manager in a remote work setting. Not that you should, but that’s what I have been seeing anecdotally speaking.