Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Net worth of 1-3 million is not wealthy in all areas. In NJ for example, a net worth of 1-3 million is middle class depending on how old you are. Obviously if you're 20, with that net worth, you might be wealthy, but if you're in your 40s, not that wealthy.
In comparison to other people in the area you may be right, but in the USA a net worth of 1-3 million makes someone rich, period. Just look at the stats- that would put a peson into the top 10% or so.
It sounds like you are getting your ideas from television or glamour magazines. Middle Class is not synonymous with a "glamorous" lifestyle.
Seriously! Who in their right mind ever thought those things meant "middle class"? I have never known any middle or even upper middle class people who take 10K vacations. Most take maybe 2K vacations, and those are maybe once a year or once every couple of years. You might have two cars, one may be older and paid off, the other newer and still on payments. A house in the suburbs that is mortgaged, at or below the region's median home value. All of this while trying to live within the means that it takes to pay for all of that stuff- hopefully with the ability to save a bit of money after all the bills are paid.
That has been, and always will be what middle class is. Anything more than that, and I'm sorry- that's not middle class, that is getting closer to another higher level.
I'd keep this sort of thing to yourself in the future, you're not adding to anything, what you're saying is silly. "Subjective fact" is an oxymoron used to mean "opinion" by those trying to sound smart, ironically it sounds the opposite. "Objective fact" is just redundant, again, the trying to sound smart thing.
Nothing silly about it. Basic logic. Big difference between opinion, subjective and objective facts. An example will illustrate.
Subjective Fact: Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd is my favorite album. There is nothing quantifiable about this statement, so it is not an objective fact. However, it is a fact, as DSOTM is my favorite album. It is not an opinion.
Objective Fact: Dark Side of the Moon is one of the best selling albums of all time. This is an easily quantifiable fact. It is neither subjective, nor an opinion.
Opinion: Dark Side of the Moon is the best music of all time. Not subjective, as I am applying a personal thought broadly. Not objective as it can't be quantified.
Nothing silly about it. Basic logic. Big difference between opinion, subjective and objective facts. An example will illustrate.
Yes there is a big difference, the word "opinion" is used in the English language where as the phrases "Objective fact" and "Subjective fact" are rather silly phrases with no real meaning.
In terms of your examples, both are just facts, both are statements that are either true or false and could in principle be confirmed to be true or false independently of what comes out of your month.
Anyhow...I don't even know why I'm having this discussion...its objectively lame.
In comparison to other people in the area you may be right, but in the USA a net worth of 1-3 million makes someone rich, period. Just look at the stats- that would put a peson into the top 10% or so.
That's exactly why the top xx% in the entire nation is a useless metric. Being top 10% in earnings, and living in the top 1% most expensive area in the nation, does not mean you're rich.
Rich can only be properly defined with taking into consideration BOTH, cash flow, and cost of living. Not just cashflow. Therefor, a net worth of 1-3 million certainly is not guaranteed rich.
I always bring this up, but another issue with the net-worth topic is the shift to private retirement accounts. If you have a net-worth of $1 million yet the majority of that is in your 401(k) you're hardly "rich", that is money you'll depend on in retirement and you'll likely use every penny. There are similarly issues with housing, the housing bubble has inflated many people's net-worth, but its just on paper as the oldsters liquidate the paper gains will vanish...
Anyhow a much better indicator of wealth is net worth minus primary residence equity and retirement, if someone has $1 million or more outside of their retirement accounts and residence then they are likely rich.
I always bring this up, but another issue with the net-worth topic is the shift to private retirement accounts. If you have a net-worth of $1 million yet the majority of that is in your 401(k) you're hardly "rich", that is money you'll depend on in retirement and you'll likely use every penny. There are similarly issues with housing, the housing bubble has inflated many people's net-worth, but its just on paper as the oldsters liquidate the paper gains will vanish...
Anyhow a much better indicator of wealth is net worth minus primary residence equity and retirement, if someone has $1 million or more outside of their retirement accounts and residence then they are likely rich.
Well, that doesn't take into account cost of living, but even then, I'd say it's fairly accurate. There's nowhere in the US that the cost of living is so high that you'd need $1mm in cash.
90% of my networth are in my houses and retirement savings.
Well, that doesn't take into account cost of living, but even then, I'd say it's fairly accurate. There's nowhere in the US that the cost of living is so high that you'd need $1mm in cash.
But it does, the primary issue in terms of cost of living is housing costs so you control for cost of living differences by removing it from one's net-worth. Of course it doesn't completely capture it as someone that rents with a $1 million in "cash" net-worth, isn't really better off that someone that has $500k in "cash" net-worth but also owns a home worth $1 million.
Anyhow, retirement accounts should really be excluded but nobody does it, I suppose it makes some people feel good that the are a "millionaire" even when most of it is to fund their retirement at a very modest lifestyle.
FYI, I would say upper middle would be buying up new Luxury cars (BMW, Lexus, etc) every 3-5 years.
Upper Class / Rich - Would be buying Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini, etc.
Upper class/rich= Lincoln or maybe a BMW 3 series if they're under 35. The billionaires and other really rich folks I've known would consider it to be way too guache/new money to buy a supercar, and would only consider a paid driver for their car if they've reached that point in their life that they can't drive themselves to church in their Lincoln anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam
To the outside world you look like a poor working class man! Of course with that Net-worth you are Upper middle class but people can't tell unless you show them your investments!
For world to you know you are Upper Middle class you need to SHOW them. You need wear expensive Polo clothes, drive a BMW, and have a $1 million+ house/condo.
And then the real rich people laugh at you behind your back because you clearly don't get it. There was an interesting sociology study last year talking that the very rich and the very poor were the two groups who were the least conscious of clothing logos. If you're part of the club, you know exactly what makes a $300 shirt that price without having to look for a logo- you know cut, fabric quality, the look of a custom fit. And you now that when formality isn't required, the unlabeled $30 dress shirt you picked up in a Muji store on your last trip to Japan is a perfectly acceptable alternative.
And then there is the family cottage, which is on a lake or in a shore town that got fashionable back in the 1960s. If your family ever had to sell the cottage, they'd list it for $2 million. But the furnishings inside are so beat up they look like they were picked from the curb on bulk trash day. In 1962 just before the beach town became fashionable.
Because if you need the $75K BMW, the clothes with giant designer logos on them, and the house that's expensive just to be showy, then you're clearly trying to hard to look rich. The people with the serious money would never want to come across as tacky like that; the real goal is to seem effortless and unconcerned with just how much their family fortunes can buy, and have people really only notice it when it comes out that Junior is spending his year abroad sitting classes at Oxford.
Because if you need the $75K BMW, the clothes with giant designer logos on them, and the house that's expensive just to be showy, then you're clearly trying to hard to look rich. The people with the serious money would never want to come across as tacky like that; the real goal is to seem effortless and unconcerned with just how much their family fortunes can buy, and have people really only notice it when it comes out that Junior is spending his year abroad sitting classes at Oxford.
Yeah...its all rather amusing too! In general the middle-class and the upper middle-class try their hardest to appear wealthy, in their minds the BMW, brand name clothes, etc signal wealth. Ironically they are unlikely to characterize someone as wealthy that doesn't display these signals.
They are really a vapid bunch as well, so much time and energy is spent acquiring their status displays, if they just gave it up they'd be a lot happier. But then who would buy all the antidepressants....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
