I know wages are regional but 100k is a relatively low bar to clear. Even here in flyover country. Its not what it used to be.
250k is likely the new 100k.
I know wages are regional but 100k is a relatively low bar to clear. Even here in flyover country. Its not what it used to be.
250k is likely the new 100k.
Me
I would not be 6 feet tall if I could change my height. I wouldn’t make $100k a year either.
Incorrect. Because there is a positive correlation between the two, it's going to be higher. In other words, if you look at the total population of those making 100k, it's not equally represented by people of every height; there will be more taller people (e.g., 6'+) than shorter people.
This post was removed.
Is 6” length something people aspire to? That sounds like dreaming about driving a Ford Focus.
Me. 6'0, used to be 6'1 but slouch too much now. $350k. 6" or so, haven't measured since high school. Can't run a 6 minute mile though or 6 miles in an hour. 6x6 years old.
36 years old (6x6) and already lost an inch of height to 'slouching'? Jesus, dude.
You need to adjust for age, the average American is 5'10
But the average American between age 20-50 is 5'11 (people tend to grow until age 18 then begin to lose height once they reach age 60)
The average American earns 60k, but the average American age 50 earns 75k (people earn more until age 40-50 where wages stagnate until retirement where wage plummets)
So the age cohort with the most 6 foot tall + 6 figure earners is probably in the 35-50 range
Anyways I guess around 10% of Americans meet your criteria
My online search is showing inconsistent results on % of men who make 6 figures ranging between 10%-33%. 33% seems absurd and most numbers are close to 20% so that seems like a good point to go off of. 14% of males are 6ft or taller in America.
So a simple calc would say 14%X20% =2.8% of men. So roughly 1 in 35. I would agree there is a correlation between height and income, mainly for jobs in sales, so probably closer to 1 in 30.
14:00*. Though with super shoes we may need to modify that number too - running's version of inflation!
May need to make a thread about what the new version of the Letsrun criteria (14:00, $200K income, 9/10 wife) is now. Maybe 13:50 and $250K?
I'm 6'3" and have 8 fingers
Out of all the things to read and learn, this is what you choose to focus on?
5'6"
120lbs
poor, single, no friends, and slow.
Ditto. As the man said (sort of), "I ain't cuttin' off two inches for nobody."
I'm 5'11 / 180cm and wouldn't change it. Bikes become ungainly the larger you are. Hell everything becomes ungainly. Sitting in a car, walking through a doorway.
5'11 / 180cm is the perfect height.
As for the income, well I have 23 years as a software engineer, I passed 6 figs a long time ago.
But technically I do not meet the OP's criteria.
I am 6'0 my income is $128,000 however I was just approved for a promotion interview which would put my salary at $180,000. My wife makes $77,000 which puts my household at $205,000 with my possible promotion we are looking at $257,000. My wife however shoud promote to $92,000 next year which would have us sitting at close to $300,000 because if I promote I would get an annual increase.
6’5”
$145,000 yearly
5k pr only 15:07 though
Why not? That's dumb. Pretty much all women would say you should.
About the only sane reason not to be 6ft is it's hard to be a good distance runner. Gotta be a beanpole like Kiprop, Kimetto, Kejelcha, or 0-pullup wejo.