What’s your definition of being rich?

[NotCranky]

“I think many people in this thread are defining “happiness”, while the original poster’s question was really about monetary wealth.”

My post might have influenced this view. I think I was talking about “rich” in the only way I believe it exists while thinking that people with various sized wallets and collections or stuff could have it.Actually I thought this is what the OP was asking? Darn bias.
If the OP’s question was “what do you think is a really big collection of money and stuff?” I would say “500 million bucks, mansions on both coasts and 13 fine cars of all vintages”.

[surveyor]

riches

In the book “The Millionaire Next Door”, there is a metric for determining how well you are doing financially.

Age x Gross annual income / 10

If your net worth is twice this number, you are a PAW (prodigious accumulator of wealth) and can be considered rich.

If your number is half or less you are an UAW (underaccumulator of wealth).

Those who are PAW’s are generally rich, but do not necessarily look like they are rich. But their financial position is basically what most piggs here are aspiring to be.

The UAWs are the ones we piggs are generally disdainful of, those who look rich, but actually are in a financial hole.

I highly recommend reading the book.

[surveyor]

riches

In the book “The Millionaire Next Door”, there is a metric for determining how well you are doing financially.

Age x Gross annual income / 10

If your net worth is twice this number, you are a PAW (prodigious accumulator of wealth) and can be considered rich.

If your number is half or less you are an UAW (underaccumulator of wealth).

Those who are PAW’s are generally rich, but do not necessarily look like they are rich. But their financial position is basically what most piggs here are aspiring to be.

The UAWs are the ones we piggs are generally disdainful of, those who look rich, but actually are in a financial hole.

I highly recommend reading the book.

[surveyor]

riches

In the book “The Millionaire Next Door”, there is a metric for determining how well you are doing financially.

Age x Gross annual income / 10

If your net worth is twice this number, you are a PAW (prodigious accumulator of wealth) and can be considered rich.

If your number is half or less you are an UAW (underaccumulator of wealth).

Those who are PAW’s are generally rich, but do not necessarily look like they are rich. But their financial position is basically what most piggs here are aspiring to be.

The UAWs are the ones we piggs are generally disdainful of, those who look rich, but actually are in a financial hole.

I highly recommend reading the book.

[surveyor]

riches

In the book “The Millionaire Next Door”, there is a metric for determining how well you are doing financially.

Age x Gross annual income / 10

If your net worth is twice this number, you are a PAW (prodigious accumulator of wealth) and can be considered rich.

If your number is half or less you are an UAW (underaccumulator of wealth).

Those who are PAW’s are generally rich, but do not necessarily look like they are rich. But their financial position is basically what most piggs here are aspiring to be.

The UAWs are the ones we piggs are generally disdainful of, those who look rich, but actually are in a financial hole.

I highly recommend reading the book.

[surveyor]

riches

In the book “The Millionaire Next Door”, there is a metric for determining how well you are doing financially.

Age x Gross annual income / 10

If your net worth is twice this number, you are a PAW (prodigious accumulator of wealth) and can be considered rich.

If your number is half or less you are an UAW (underaccumulator of wealth).

Those who are PAW’s are generally rich, but do not necessarily look like they are rich. But their financial position is basically what most piggs here are aspiring to be.

The UAWs are the ones we piggs are generally disdainful of, those who look rich, but actually are in a financial hole.

I highly recommend reading the book.

[raptorduck]

Love the Rich/Dick response. My favorite is the one about family and children. Financially, I prefer to think of a person who is financially independent and does not need a job to support a comfortable lifestyle.

If you want to limit it to just $$, then here is a cut-and-paste of my response to a previous thread started by somebody else titled “I think this just kind of belongs here.”

_____________________________

My answer is $20M. As I have said before, “rich” to me means complete financial independence to support a societally lavish lifestyle. Rich in the media is the lavish lifestyle. Rich is not “comfortable” or “well off.” Rich has special meaning to me and connotes something far more than making gobs of money. That is simply someone well off.

That is not to say if you make $2M/yr you are not increadibly well off and lucky. You are. But you can also consider yourself lucky to make $30k/yr if you compare your financial life to somebody more poor than you, or less “rich” than you. Everything is a comparison, whether to people with hundreds of millions of dollars or people making 10 cents a day in a third world country. Without comparison, the concept of “rich” or “wealth” or “poverty” would have no meaning. So “rich” is indeed a relative term and, to me, it has a very high water mark to be used properly.

I would say IMHO a U.S. stratification as a rough starting point for an “individual” not a “household” is

billionairs (>$1 billion liquid net worth)

uberrich (>$100M liquid net worth)

rich, (>$20M liquid net worth)

wealthy (AKA “Working Rich”), (>$5M liquid net worth)

upper class, (>$1M liquid net worth)(Millionairs)

well off, (>$500k liquid net worth)(top 1% mark)

upper middle class, (>$100k liquid net worth and >$150k/yr)(top 5% mark)

middle-middle class, ($50k-$150k/yr)

lower middle class, (under $50k/yr)

upper lower class, (under $30k/yr)

lower class, (under $20k/yr)(bottom 20% mark)

poor/impoverished, (under $10k/yr)

third world stratifications.

For a household of 2, multiply levels 3-13 by 1.5, for a household of 4, multiply levels 10-13 by 2.

For the first six, you measure by net worth only. For the next one, a combination of income and net worth. For the rest, by income only. That is because 95% of Americans have a negative liquid net worth. The first 6 classes above represent the top 1%.

Of course, take what I say here with a grain of salt. This is just my particular view today off the top of my head as a point of dialogue. Any apparent precision is an illusion. Note that lots of income in the “lower class” include students working at McDonalds etc, or top 3 B-school students putting themselves through HBS, GSB, or Wharton.

More importantly is that most sought after mongram “financially independent” which can be had IMHO by anyone in levels 1-8, which I have said before, is a different and arguably much better type of “rich.”

[raptorduck]

Love the Rich/Dick response. My favorite is the one about family and children. Financially, I prefer to think of a person who is financially independent and does not need a job to support a comfortable lifestyle.

If you want to limit it to just $$, then here is a cut-and-paste of my response to a previous thread started by somebody else titled “I think this just kind of belongs here.”

_____________________________

My answer is $20M. As I have said before, “rich” to me means complete financial independence to support a societally lavish lifestyle. Rich in the media is the lavish lifestyle. Rich is not “comfortable” or “well off.” Rich has special meaning to me and connotes something far more than making gobs of money. That is simply someone well off.

That is not to say if you make $2M/yr you are not increadibly well off and lucky. You are. But you can also consider yourself lucky to make $30k/yr if you compare your financial life to somebody more poor than you, or less “rich” than you. Everything is a comparison, whether to people with hundreds of millions of dollars or people making 10 cents a day in a third world country. Without comparison, the concept of “rich” or “wealth” or “poverty” would have no meaning. So “rich” is indeed a relative term and, to me, it has a very high water mark to be used properly.

I would say IMHO a U.S. stratification as a rough starting point for an “individual” not a “household” is

billionairs (>$1 billion liquid net worth)

uberrich (>$100M liquid net worth)

rich, (>$20M liquid net worth)

wealthy (AKA “Working Rich”), (>$5M liquid net worth)

upper class, (>$1M liquid net worth)(Millionairs)

well off, (>$500k liquid net worth)(top 1% mark)

upper middle class, (>$100k liquid net worth and >$150k/yr)(top 5% mark)

middle-middle class, ($50k-$150k/yr)

lower middle class, (under $50k/yr)

upper lower class, (under $30k/yr)

lower class, (under $20k/yr)(bottom 20% mark)

poor/impoverished, (under $10k/yr)

third world stratifications.

For a household of 2, multiply levels 3-13 by 1.5, for a household of 4, multiply levels 10-13 by 2.

For the first six, you measure by net worth only. For the next one, a combination of income and net worth. For the rest, by income only. That is because 95% of Americans have a negative liquid net worth. The first 6 classes above represent the top 1%.

Of course, take what I say here with a grain of salt. This is just my particular view today off the top of my head as a point of dialogue. Any apparent precision is an illusion. Note that lots of income in the “lower class” include students working at McDonalds etc, or top 3 B-school students putting themselves through HBS, GSB, or Wharton.

More importantly is that most sought after mongram “financially independent” which can be had IMHO by anyone in levels 1-8, which I have said before, is a different and arguably much better type of “rich.”

[raptorduck]

Love the Rich/Dick response. My favorite is the one about family and children. Financially, I prefer to think of a person who is financially independent and does not need a job to support a comfortable lifestyle.

If you want to limit it to just $$, then here is a cut-and-paste of my response to a previous thread started by somebody else titled “I think this just kind of belongs here.”

_____________________________

My answer is $20M. As I have said before, “rich” to me means complete financial independence to support a societally lavish lifestyle. Rich in the media is the lavish lifestyle. Rich is not “comfortable” or “well off.” Rich has special meaning to me and connotes something far more than making gobs of money. That is simply someone well off.

That is not to say if you make $2M/yr you are not increadibly well off and lucky. You are. But you can also consider yourself lucky to make $30k/yr if you compare your financial life to somebody more poor than you, or less “rich” than you. Everything is a comparison, whether to people with hundreds of millions of dollars or people making 10 cents a day in a third world country. Without comparison, the concept of “rich” or “wealth” or “poverty” would have no meaning. So “rich” is indeed a relative term and, to me, it has a very high water mark to be used properly.

I would say IMHO a U.S. stratification as a rough starting point for an “individual” not a “household” is

billionairs (>$1 billion liquid net worth)

uberrich (>$100M liquid net worth)

rich, (>$20M liquid net worth)

wealthy (AKA “Working Rich”), (>$5M liquid net worth)

upper class, (>$1M liquid net worth)(Millionairs)

well off, (>$500k liquid net worth)(top 1% mark)

upper middle class, (>$100k liquid net worth and >$150k/yr)(top 5% mark)

middle-middle class, ($50k-$150k/yr)

lower middle class, (under $50k/yr)

upper lower class, (under $30k/yr)

lower class, (under $20k/yr)(bottom 20% mark)

poor/impoverished, (under $10k/yr)

third world stratifications.

For a household of 2, multiply levels 3-13 by 1.5, for a household of 4, multiply levels 10-13 by 2.

For the first six, you measure by net worth only. For the next one, a combination of income and net worth. For the rest, by income only. That is because 95% of Americans have a negative liquid net worth. The first 6 classes above represent the top 1%.

Of course, take what I say here with a grain of salt. This is just my particular view today off the top of my head as a point of dialogue. Any apparent precision is an illusion. Note that lots of income in the “lower class” include students working at McDonalds etc, or top 3 B-school students putting themselves through HBS, GSB, or Wharton.

More importantly is that most sought after mongram “financially independent” which can be had IMHO by anyone in levels 1-8, which I have said before, is a different and arguably much better type of “rich.”

[raptorduck]

Love the Rich/Dick response. My favorite is the one about family and children. Financially, I prefer to think of a person who is financially independent and does not need a job to support a comfortable lifestyle.

If you want to limit it to just $$, then here is a cut-and-paste of my response to a previous thread started by somebody else titled “I think this just kind of belongs here.”

_____________________________

My answer is $20M. As I have said before, “rich” to me means complete financial independence to support a societally lavish lifestyle. Rich in the media is the lavish lifestyle. Rich is not “comfortable” or “well off.” Rich has special meaning to me and connotes something far more than making gobs of money. That is simply someone well off.

That is not to say if you make $2M/yr you are not increadibly well off and lucky. You are. But you can also consider yourself lucky to make $30k/yr if you compare your financial life to somebody more poor than you, or less “rich” than you. Everything is a comparison, whether to people with hundreds of millions of dollars or people making 10 cents a day in a third world country. Without comparison, the concept of “rich” or “wealth” or “poverty” would have no meaning. So “rich” is indeed a relative term and, to me, it has a very high water mark to be used properly.

I would say IMHO a U.S. stratification as a rough starting point for an “individual” not a “household” is

billionairs (>$1 billion liquid net worth)

uberrich (>$100M liquid net worth)

rich, (>$20M liquid net worth)

wealthy (AKA “Working Rich”), (>$5M liquid net worth)

upper class, (>$1M liquid net worth)(Millionairs)

well off, (>$500k liquid net worth)(top 1% mark)

upper middle class, (>$100k liquid net worth and >$150k/yr)(top 5% mark)

middle-middle class, ($50k-$150k/yr)

lower middle class, (under $50k/yr)

upper lower class, (under $30k/yr)

lower class, (under $20k/yr)(bottom 20% mark)

poor/impoverished, (under $10k/yr)

third world stratifications.

For a household of 2, multiply levels 3-13 by 1.5, for a household of 4, multiply levels 10-13 by 2.

For the first six, you measure by net worth only. For the next one, a combination of income and net worth. For the rest, by income only. That is because 95% of Americans have a negative liquid net worth. The first 6 classes above represent the top 1%.

Of course, take what I say here with a grain of salt. This is just my particular view today off the top of my head as a point of dialogue. Any apparent precision is an illusion. Note that lots of income in the “lower class” include students working at McDonalds etc, or top 3 B-school students putting themselves through HBS, GSB, or Wharton.

More importantly is that most sought after mongram “financially independent” which can be had IMHO by anyone in levels 1-8, which I have said before, is a different and arguably much better type of “rich.”

[raptorduck]

Love the Rich/Dick response. My favorite is the one about family and children. Financially, I prefer to think of a person who is financially independent and does not need a job to support a comfortable lifestyle.

If you want to limit it to just $$, then here is a cut-and-paste of my response to a previous thread started by somebody else titled “I think this just kind of belongs here.”

_____________________________

My answer is $20M. As I have said before, “rich” to me means complete financial independence to support a societally lavish lifestyle. Rich in the media is the lavish lifestyle. Rich is not “comfortable” or “well off.” Rich has special meaning to me and connotes something far more than making gobs of money. That is simply someone well off.

That is not to say if you make $2M/yr you are not increadibly well off and lucky. You are. But you can also consider yourself lucky to make $30k/yr if you compare your financial life to somebody more poor than you, or less “rich” than you. Everything is a comparison, whether to people with hundreds of millions of dollars or people making 10 cents a day in a third world country. Without comparison, the concept of “rich” or “wealth” or “poverty” would have no meaning. So “rich” is indeed a relative term and, to me, it has a very high water mark to be used properly.

I would say IMHO a U.S. stratification as a rough starting point for an “individual” not a “household” is

billionairs (>$1 billion liquid net worth)

uberrich (>$100M liquid net worth)

rich, (>$20M liquid net worth)

wealthy (AKA “Working Rich”), (>$5M liquid net worth)

upper class, (>$1M liquid net worth)(Millionairs)

well off, (>$500k liquid net worth)(top 1% mark)

upper middle class, (>$100k liquid net worth and >$150k/yr)(top 5% mark)

middle-middle class, ($50k-$150k/yr)

lower middle class, (under $50k/yr)

upper lower class, (under $30k/yr)

lower class, (under $20k/yr)(bottom 20% mark)

poor/impoverished, (under $10k/yr)

third world stratifications.

For a household of 2, multiply levels 3-13 by 1.5, for a household of 4, multiply levels 10-13 by 2.

For the first six, you measure by net worth only. For the next one, a combination of income and net worth. For the rest, by income only. That is because 95% of Americans have a negative liquid net worth. The first 6 classes above represent the top 1%.

Of course, take what I say here with a grain of salt. This is just my particular view today off the top of my head as a point of dialogue. Any apparent precision is an illusion. Note that lots of income in the “lower class” include students working at McDonalds etc, or top 3 B-school students putting themselves through HBS, GSB, or Wharton.

More importantly is that most sought after mongram “financially independent” which can be had IMHO by anyone in levels 1-8, which I have said before, is a different and arguably much better type of “rich.”

[sdrealtor]

I dont believe I am confusing happiness with monetary wealth. I believe where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I grew up in a very upper middle class area back East. It was at least as wealthy as Carmel Valley if not more so. When my wife and I were in grad school we rented a home in a lesser area. One of her friends commented that we lived in a “white trash area”. My response to her friend (besides being appaled she would use such language) was that most of my friends considered her to be white trash based upon where she grew up.

My best friend then married someone from the upper class area. She wouldnt live in his hometown because she considered it a lesser area. Being rich is all relative and depends upon your expectations. If you have enough money to enjoy your life on your own terms, you are rich in my book. The rest is all window dressing.

[sdrealtor]

I dont believe I am confusing happiness with monetary wealth. I believe where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I grew up in a very upper middle class area back East. It was at least as wealthy as Carmel Valley if not more so. When my wife and I were in grad school we rented a home in a lesser area. One of her friends commented that we lived in a “white trash area”. My response to her friend (besides being appaled she would use such language) was that most of my friends considered her to be white trash based upon where she grew up.

My best friend then married someone from the upper class area. She wouldnt live in his hometown because she considered it a lesser area. Being rich is all relative and depends upon your expectations. If you have enough money to enjoy your life on your own terms, you are rich in my book. The rest is all window dressing.

[sdrealtor]

I dont believe I am confusing happiness with monetary wealth. I believe where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I grew up in a very upper middle class area back East. It was at least as wealthy as Carmel Valley if not more so. When my wife and I were in grad school we rented a home in a lesser area. One of her friends commented that we lived in a “white trash area”. My response to her friend (besides being appaled she would use such language) was that most of my friends considered her to be white trash based upon where she grew up.

My best friend then married someone from the upper class area. She wouldnt live in his hometown because she considered it a lesser area. Being rich is all relative and depends upon your expectations. If you have enough money to enjoy your life on your own terms, you are rich in my book. The rest is all window dressing.

[sdrealtor]

I dont believe I am confusing happiness with monetary wealth. I believe where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I grew up in a very upper middle class area back East. It was at least as wealthy as Carmel Valley if not more so. When my wife and I were in grad school we rented a home in a lesser area. One of her friends commented that we lived in a “white trash area”. My response to her friend (besides being appaled she would use such language) was that most of my friends considered her to be white trash based upon where she grew up.

My best friend then married someone from the upper class area. She wouldnt live in his hometown because she considered it a lesser area. Being rich is all relative and depends upon your expectations. If you have enough money to enjoy your life on your own terms, you are rich in my book. The rest is all window dressing.

[Author]

Posts