This is not at all "average" in countries outside of the US. Here in India, for example, a $100K job is kinda like winning the lottery.

For reference, going by the exchange rate it equals somewhat close to 7.5M in local currency. Handymen and people in other labour-heavy jobs don't earn this much in their entire life, considering a 30 years of active work life. Only the top 0.01% (yes, we are an extremely populous country) people have that kind of jobs.

Going by the PPP ratio[0] of 21.99, you still need to be earning upwards of 2.2M annual, which is hardly 1% of the population, and majority of them have taken upwards of 8-10 years of work to reach there (which means 1/3rd of work life is gone).

The argument could also be made that buying stuff is cheaper in countries like ours, but that doesn't stand for _good_ quality items. As an example, the laptop you can buy for $1k in the US is far superior to what you can buy for 22k and slightly comparable but still better than what you can buy for 75k. If you are lucky enough with means to import, good luck with ~78% import taxes and duties. You don't make these purchases often, but when you do it breaks you. Things like dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, etc are so much more common in the US and almost considered a basic necessity whereas owing to cheap labour (and traditional lifestyle) we subscribe to househelp, which isn't really "cheap" or scalable and the cost of these items is high too.

All of this, to say that

> they might be better off scaling back to a sustainable 40hr/week job

is neither practical nor helps in a poor country where an "average" person is working more than half their lives just to make ends meet.

[0]: https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p...