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.
I don't think having twenty million makes you part of the evil rich either. There are good rich people and good poor people, evil rich people and evil poor people.
People who talk about evil rich are usually either bleeding envy through their pores or trying to convince themselves that their lack of success/accomplishment is someone else's fault.
They are talking about anyone who has more money or success than they do. Those minor millionaires are not nobodies when it comes to taxation and how many are salivating to get at most of it.
Sometimes people get rich just by being frugal and making wise investment choices. Even that is demonized, and now wealth is looked upon as something that must be ill gotten, and undeserved.
Anyone with wealth gets swept up in this, as so many people just don't know or care about financial planning or sound practices to secure their own, so they have to go after others. It starts with talk of large corporations and billionaires and ends up in the wallet of those who simply want to earn a decent life and possibly pass that on to their family.
Okay here is why I said those millionaires at the very bottom are nobodies. I also do not consider these people any were near rich.
Lets look at the average engineer, lawyer, corporate marketer. Are these people considered upper class or rich? NO! they are middle class. I guess if you want to be more accurate they are upper middle class.
Now lets look at these professions in the 1950s. These upper middle class earners are probably making eh lets say 7k-20k a year. So that means by retirement they will probably acquire a net worth of 60k-170k. So lets put this in perspective, I believe Ferraris at this time were around 15k-20k. I think in manhattan you could get a 1k sqft condo for about 15k-20k. Now you can see that someone of a net worth of 1 million at this time is at a completely different league then someone who has a net worth of 100k. This is the difference between upper middle class and rich (I am assuming 1 million in the 1950s is considered upper class).
Now lets look at these professionals in the 2016. These upper middle class earners now probably can earn eh lets say 120k - 260k. So by retirement they can probably acquire a net worth of 800k - 2.2 million. Now lets put this to perspective. A Ferrari today is like 330k. I won't mention real-estate because a lot happened in America during that time and the parameters of todays world is different then the parameters of the world in 1950s, but I think real estate in manhattan now is like 1k - 2k per sqft depending on districts. Now these upper middle class professionals are still considered middle class.
So when was being upper middle class means you are rich? Right now it seems like upper middle class earners can occupy the lower end of the millionaire. They were not considered rich in the 1950s so I have no idea why they are considered rich today. Also millionaires have a huge range. Someone who is 1 million is no were near someone who is worth 500 million. This is why I did not include the lower end of millionaires, because they are not the "evil rich" the OP was talking about and they tend to be upper middle class individuals. I do not think anyone looks at the AVERAGE Engineer or lawyer and imagining them flying in private jets to visits their multiple homes and speeding in their brand new Ferrari.
The median net worth in this country is around $100,000 or so, so yeah, having a million makes you unimaginably wealthy to most Americans. You're not in the top 1%, but you're in the top 5%. The fact that there are other people who are unimaginably wealthy compared to you doesn't mean you aren't super-rich, it just means other people are even more absurdly super-richer. You might not be able to retire to the beach yet, but you probably wouldn't go bankrupt if you broke your hand, either. Comparatively, roughly 10% or so of Americans will be in poverty at some point during the next decade.
Okay here is why I said those millionaires at the very bottom are nobodies. I also do not consider these people any were near rich.
Lets look at the average engineer, lawyer, corporate marketer. Are these people considered upper class or rich? NO! they are middle class. I guess if you want to be more accurate they are upper middle class.
Now lets look at these professions in the 1950s. These upper middle class earners are probably making eh lets say 7k-20k a year. So that means by retirement they will probably acquire a net worth of 60k-170k. So lets put this in perspective, I believe Ferraris at this time were around 15k-20k. I think in manhattan you could get a 1k sqft condo for about 15k-20k. Now you can see that someone of a net worth of 1 million at this time is at a completely different league then someone who has a net worth of 100k. This is the difference between upper middle class and rich (I am assuming 1 million in the 1950s is considered upper class).
Now lets look at these professionals in the 2016. These upper middle class earners now probably can earn eh lets say 120k - 260k. So by retirement they can probably acquire a net worth of 800k - 2.2 million. Now lets put this to perspective. A Ferrari today is like 330k. I won't mention real-estate because a lot happened in America during that time and the parameters of todays world is different then the parameters of the world in 1950s, but I think real estate in manhattan now is like 1k - 2k per sqft depending on districts. Now these upper middle class professionals are still considered middle class.
So when was being upper middle class means you are rich? Right now it seems like upper middle class earners can occupy the lower end of the millionaire. They were not considered rich in the 1950s so I have no idea why they are considered rich today. Also millionaires have a huge range. Someone who is 1 million is no were near someone who is worth 500 million. This is why I did not include the lower end of millionaires, because they are not the "evil rich" the OP was talking about and they tend to be upper middle class individuals. I do not think anyone looks at the AVERAGE Engineer or lawyer and imagining them flying in private jets to visits their multiple homes and speeding in their brand new Ferrari.
We'll talk when you have $2 million in investable assets, excluding the value of primary residence.
I laughed at the "owns a coach wallet" part... just.. one.. designer wallet.. which can cost as low as $60 at an outlet mall...? Lol
All jokes aside, there are probably a lot of millionaires in this country and they don't come off as terribly rih. My parents paid off their $800,000 house when I graduated college a while ago and they have a bunch saved up for retirnment. That technically makes them millionaires but they're not "evil" rich people with the same power/influence as mitt romney or whatever
The median net worth in this country is around $100,000 or so, so yeah, having a million makes you unimaginably wealthy to most Americans. You're not in the top 1%, but you're in the top 5%. The fact that there are other people who are unimaginably wealthy compared to you doesn't mean you aren't super-rich, it just means other people are even more absurdly super-richer. You might not be able to retire to the beach yet, but you probably wouldn't go bankrupt if you broke your hand, either. Comparatively, roughly 10% or so of Americans will be in poverty at some point during the next decade.
I'd quibble with the "unimaginably wealthy to most Americans" part. Your percentiles are also a bit off.
Household net worth:
90th percentile - $950K
95th percentile - $1.9 million
99th percentile - $7.9 million
I'd say $10 million is "unimaginably wealthy" to the median person. If you're worth $100K, $1 million looks possible; particularly in high wage / high cost of living areas.
I own a Coach leather wallet. They're great because they last 20+ years. I never thought of it as a status symbol.
Coach is a middle class status symbol that tries to portray itself as luxury. Hermes is more of a status symbol for someone who is well off. Sadly while living and working in NYC I run into too many Patrick Bateman of the world.
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.
