Suppose you are told that "Jane makes over six figures". Assuming this to be true, what is the minimum amount of money that Jane can be making? I have always understood this to mean "Jane makes at least seven figures", i. I am aware that there are unambiguous ways to express the same idea, but that is beside the point here. In this case, I interpret over to mean greater than or equal to , even though I would normally assume it to mean greater than in numeric contexts.
This usage also seems to be somewhat common when describing minimum age requirements, as in over 18 vs. With ages, you can make the argument that after the precise passing of your 18th birthday, you're over 18 e. You're not the first to ask yourself the question: It seems this is all about parsing.
The given phrase over six figures can be parsed in two obvious ways:. Neither parsing can be said to be "wrong", but it seems that the most commonly intended parsing is the first one. This is a rather wide range.
Thus, it's often qualified. For example, "low six-figures", "mid six-figures", "high six-figures". Without qualification, it often seems reasonable to presume low six-figures. This does not, however, mean "six-figures" is defined as , It's simply an ambiguous range to which one can apply common-sense assumptions. The term "figure" refers to the number of digits. This is unambiguous, no room for argument.
There's no other prescribed meaning. In my experience, this is also the colloquial usage. I've never heard someone argue for "six figures" to mean exactly , And if I did, I'd likely correct them with as little pedantry as possible.
With this understanding, it's rather clear that "over six-figures" is at least 1,,, with the same understanding that without qualification, it's likely closer to 1,, than 10,, There was a Seinfeld episode--Episode 94 "The Mom and Pop Store"--where Jerry was trying to figure out whether he was invited to a party.
Which word did he emphasize? Did he say, "Why would Jerry bring anything? The scene points out that a large amount of language is actually communicated via tone and emphasis. Jerry reasoned that if emphasis was on his name, then his attendance was in question, but if it was on "bring", then his attendance was assumed but his need to bring something for the party was in question.
Of course, since Tim emphasized "would," there's no way to tell. For a mathematician, "over six figures" means "[an integer] requiring at least seven digits for its full expression", namely, at least one million, and this sense is no different from its meaning in common English. However, given the diverse answers here, it seems that many people do not see it this way; so the expression should be considered suspect and generally avoided.
It means that she passed the line between 5 and 6 figures, and is now "over" the 6 figures line. You would take this to mean that Jane ran at least 10 miles yesterday. But likely not 15 or 20 miles, as in that case the speaker would have used 15 or 20 rather than Similarly, Jane's salary is running a race.
She passed the 6-figure mile marker, and is now going past it. See, for example, this useage -- when searching on the page, search for "six-figure".
I agree with others who have said that "over six figures" is idiomatic. It's not synonymous with "six figures," though—closer to " at least six figures. Both describe roughly the same range of , and up: I don't think there's anything "over six figures " really means if we look at it compositionally. But in use, " under ," clearly suggests "under I think it's obvious by the usage and the context.
If they're making a point that the amount of money is high, they're going to say seven figures for 1,, To my mind, six-figures represents the threshold of six figures , and that alone. To me, the saying "over six-figures" denotes an amount over ,, and that's the only way I feel that it will actually ever come up in conversation. In the banking sector letters of reference are given using "figures" to express the amounts of their clients lines of credit. For example , the following text: Client XYZ has a low six figures line of credit; means that their Client has a line of credit in the k range.
From that statement alone, you cannot possibly know how much she makes even assuming that the person who told you actually knows her salary. We can have a poll what people would assume if they heard "over six figures", but there is no correct answer. Conversely, if you were to say under six figures, I would take this to mean an amount that is not yet six figures but close. You can choose to try and enforce over six figures to mean 1,,, but I imagine the majority of people you speak to will not share your interpretation.
Is this mathematically accurate? Does the English language follow mathematically accurate concepts when creating common phrases? Look up the definition for bi-monthly. We can see the occurrence about 1,, results here; search term, "six figure salary meaning". For prevalence , we can click result pages 10 or 15, to see if the occurrence remains. It is certain the phrase is in wide use, so it should have an established sense.
We view usage in context , turning to linguistically adept resources, as The Washington Post on household subsidies. The New Your Times tells about the price of education. We can refer to a dictionary.
Webster can tell more about American English reality. We can draw conclusions. Here, we might have a difference between British and American. In British, a "six-figure" is strictly about the digits, how many of those we need to note a number.
Cambridge dictionary says "between , and ,". Webster says "totaling , or more but less than one million". Looking to the occurrence and prevalence, we can tell the matter is a bit psychological. Money talk has its own rules. You get to the six figures, when you make thousand.
Anything above, can be "over six figure". If you have more digits in your numeral and want to go flashy on cash, you can always say "7 figures".
Anyone attempting to express any other fact with the statement: Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site the association bonus does not count. Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered. Join them; it only takes a minute: Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Which of these interpretations is more widely understood? Which of these interpretations is prescriptively correct if either? It barely matters which any person means.
Is there any situation that uses a vague expression like "six figures" where distinguishing between [, ] and [, ] is critical? Being a native speaker does not mean they will be experts in the language. While grammatically the phrase is parsable and correct, in common parlance it is a terrible turn of phrase and should not be used.
Prescriptively, it seems wrong to me. In actual usage, it seems ambiguous. May 6 '16 at 1: I don't think the age comparison is accurate.
To make them comparable like that, it would either be "age is greater than 1 digit" or "salary is over ,". Sadly, many if not most people fail to appreciate the significance of the distinction between "greater than" and "greater than or equal to", and simply use the former as shorthand for the latter.
Therefore, when people say things like this, it's really impossible to know for sure what they mean. Law29 1, 1 4 No need to be pedantic about it. In other words, not the bare minimum. JoeBlow and that is the crux of the problem, I'd say "over" a range meaning "over the highest point of the range", "six figures" is the range , - ,, and so both " over six figures" and "over six figures " should logically mean "a million or more", but since it's mostly used to denote the salary in relation to the psychological k threshold a lot of people seem to equate "six figures" to "k" or "k and a little more", which makes "over six figures" mean.More...