if you have $10 million, you are rich. assuming a 4% return annually, that throws off 400 grand a year. this is not "comfortably off" or whatever the list says it is.

did this come out of "rich dad, poor dad"?

Its only reviled if you aren't rich.

If you are rich, you could care less if you re reviled.

But no one admits to being "rich." Maybe that's the function of the table - it gives validity to those with $4 million in assets and claim to be poor.

Anonymous wrote:I feel rich when I have $20k in my checking account. Doesn't really matter what I have elsewhere.
I think that chart is a weird interpretation of rich, but it seems to be in line with many other what many "rich" DCUM'ers think and feel. I think rich is completely arbitrary. To have enough is best.

It's strange too, in our culture, how "being rich" is at the same time sought after, and reviled. Why is that?

Its only reviled if you aren't rich.

If you are rich, you could care less if you re reviled.

I love how somehow $300m is different from $500m. Really?

I feel rich when I have $20k in my checking account. Doesn't really matter what I have elsewhere.
I think that chart is a weird interpretation of rich, but it seems to be in line with many other what many "rich" DCUM'ers think and feel. I think rich is completely arbitrary. To have enough is best.

It's strange too, in our culture, how "being rich" is at the same time sought after, and reviled. Why is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dimasok wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich is not needing to work. Ever.

And what value would you put on the wealth needed for that?

That depends on your needs, no?

Not really. It can be universally classified.

If you're holding everyone to the same standard of living. I'm sure there are people who could stretch $5M over a lifetime. Others couldn't stretch $50M over a lifetime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich is not needing to work. Ever.

The homeless guy down the street must be rich

Don't be stupid. Pp obviously means not needing to work while still being able to afford the lifestyle he/she wants. To me this is rich as well and what we are on track for. Do what we want to do without worrying about money, stay in our house, continue our travels and entertainment, be able to pay for DS' college, and leave him with a good amount of money to start him off. Neither DH or I have the desire to work and sacrifice our family time in order to have hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm quite content that we will be able to retire early and live a pretty damn good life.

Rich is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty (although, at the extreme ends of either scale, I think just about all beholders would be in agreement). My mom used to say "Must be nice to be rich!" whenever anyone bought a new car, designer jeans, fancy vacation, etc. Then I went off to a fancy school and met folks who felt like the CFO of a major corporation was not really "rich" because he was still working for a living. It's all relative, and I'd say "enough is as good as a feast."

???

Anonymous wrote:if you have 400k in liquid assets, you are comfortably poor. what kind of shit is this?

the chart also is stupid because it doesn't take age into account. is a 23 year old kid working at a hedge fund making 350k "comfortably poor" because he's only banked 100 grand?

HENRYs

if you have 400k in liquid assets, you are comfortably poor. what kind of shit is this?

the chart also is stupid because it doesn't take age into account. is a 23 year old kid working at a hedge fund making 350k "comfortably poor" because he's only banked 100 grand?

The chart is pretty accurate about the rich. I don't think that under $100K are poor, tho.

Anonymous wrote:Rich is not needing to work. Ever.

The homeless guy down the street must be rich

this chart is ridiculous

Anonymous wrote:

dimasok wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich is not needing to work. Ever.

And what value would you put on the wealth needed for that?

That depends on your needs, no?

Not really. It can be universally classified.