[harhar]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

If you put "Los Angeles" in the area designated for Location, I wouldn't have to make assumptions.

Fair enough.

RE: " commute", that's what many people do. That's why it takes an hour to go less than 20 miles on a regular basis. Is it done? Sure, but it's not easy. It creates an awful lifestyle, and a stressed, aggressive population.

Well it's much nicer when you have automatic climate control, a quiet cabin and bluetooth, right? Do the wealthy teleport to work? Are you only wealthy when you have a driver? Do wealthy people not take the subway? In LA it sometimes takes It takes 45 minutes to get from Mid-Wilshire to Los Feliz during rush hour on side streets, that's 7 miles. I'd venture a guess that there are plenty of wealthy people doing that drive.

RE: "rent", Stamford/Norwalk has had the highest rental prices in the entire nation for a few consecutive years now. A nice 1br will run you in the thousands, and a 2 or 3 bedroom (for families) would be much higher. So it's either that or buy a modest home within easy commuting distance for a million bucks.

I've briefly looked at prices in the Stamford area for both houses and rent and they look to be the same as LA. Norwalk seems to be a bit cheaper. Anywhere from 200k to over a million.

Two years ago I paid $1600 for a 450sq. ft. rental. In the city of Los Angeles, in one of the nicest neighborhoods, making less than I was making now. A 2-3 bedroom would have cost 3-4k a month. Buying would be about the same after a down payment. Hardly a dent in $14000.00 after taxes.

RE: "make more money", that's easier said than done for many people.

If you're already making $250,000 a year chances are you have more of an ability, through your own personal ability, connections and investments to make more money.

And - who is complaining? Nobody. I'm simply making a statement that 250k in an area where the average home sells for over a million bucks is not living a "wealthy" lifestyle. Just ain't happenin'.

I see a lot of people pretend that $250k is chump change when in fact there are options while still living in expensive neighborhoods. Not every house is $1,000,000. And if it takes $1,000,000 house to feel wealthy, then I don't know what to say.

If being wealthy is not having to make compromises, then we're all going to be poor, for a very long time.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by harhar

If being wealthy is not having to make compromises, then we're all going to be poor, for a very long time.

There's obviously a middle ground between wealthy and poor. But in a classical sense, you have defined weathly - not having to make compromises, a general sense of freedom. Not having to worry about where the next paycheck will come from... Wealth is different from income, different from being "rich."

Using the cutoff figure from this thread, someone who made $250k this year may have a high income, may even be "rich" at the moment. But wealthy? Is there any guarantee of another 250k next year? For the remainder of their working years?

On the flipside, as some have noted, you don't need to be "rich" to eventually become "wealthy" if you live below your means and accumulate assets over a period of time. The proverbial "millionare next door"... Once you have adequate resources to fund the lifestyle you want to maintain for the forseeable future, you are "wealthy."

[NYisontop]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Some valid points, minus the 1 hr commute from Waterbury to NYC. I'm not even sure that is possible by Helicopter...

It's 86 miles from Waterbury to Harlem Station on the Metro North line, with only about 1/2 mile of city streets to converse. The passing lane typically flows at about 75-80 miles an hour on I-84 and I-684, Cross County Pkwy and Deegan/I-87 before rush hour's onset (7:15-7:30). I confess to driving faster than the limit but it's still not a manic commute. Spent years driving this route, or heading to Mt Kisco/Pleasantville/White Plains and hopping on the train to avoid return traffic - I promise, no helicopter needed

[Wilton2ParkAve]

NY: Selective memory my friend. 86 miles at 75 MPH is still over an hour. Throw even drizzling rain in the mix and speeds come down 15-20mph. Also most jobs/employers tend to be a bit south of Harlem and that will add a good half hour if driving. 3hrs plus daily is THE definition of "mega commuter".

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Philbert

There's obviously a middle ground between wealthy and poor. But in a classical sense, you have defined weathly - not having to make compromises, a general sense of freedom. Not having to worry about where the next paycheck will come from... Wealth is different from income, different from being "rich."

Exactly what I was going to say before I read this. Thanks for saving me typing.

[goldengrain]

Originally Posted by Capital Guy

Accounting for what's been said in this thread with your ignorant comment above, you're saying people have to be rich to have kids. Nobody's saying that 250k a year is poor. They're saying it's not "rich".

The difference is that many who are poor and on welfare continue to pop out kids, and you're comparing decent working people to those who defraud the system. Shame on you!

There are many middle class people who do not put enough aside for their retirement and who have next to nothing saved for their kids education. They complain about this. They make comments like Social Security and Medicare may not be there for them, etc. This is a result of their lifestyle choices when they were younger, including having kids.

[harhar]

Originally Posted by Philbert

Once you have adequate resources to fund the lifestyle you want to maintain for the forseeable future, you are "wealthy."

Yeah, if you maintain that definition, I'm already wealthy, Buddhist monks are wealthy and people with over 250k have the means to be wealthy as well.

[80skeys]

It's simple. Wealthy and rich are the same thing. It means you can live the rest of your life with the money you already have. If you can do that, you're wealthy. If you can't, you're not.

[jasomm]

The answers are HERE... $150,000 = rich, according to average(mean) American

[80skeys]

Originally Posted by jasomm

The answers are HERE... $150,000 = rich, according to average(mean) American

Can you live the rest of your life in the United States with $150,000? No. Therefore $150k != rich