I make under $100k. Before getting married and having a kid I setup an LLC for my honey business and worked about 16-20hrs a week at Lowes. The honey business makes a couple hundred a year (plus honey for us), and $750/month from Lowes doesn't help too much. But many side projects don't make that much either.
Outside of a select few excessively expensive areas, $110k a year makes for a great lifestyle. We're talking nearly 2.5-3x the median salary of an American worker here. I don't know if the deviation follows, but how is a 2-3x higher median not lucrative?
Now that can be different if living in a rural area, but the costs in just about any city suburbs will provide a decent lifestyle, but not great.
After all, I was incentivized to work a low paying job for extra income.
> $110k just barely supports a family with a chance at retirement.
This may or may not be true, but I was talking about individual earners here, and median household income averages >1 earner per household. In this example, a 110k household income is less than double the national median household income, so it will definitely feel less lucrative when raising a family.
The conversation was that software development is "too lucrative" to incentivize people to work on side projects. In my experience, that's simply not true.
I feel comfortable saying that most developers don't have side projects and of the small minority that do, an even smaller minority make any money at it.