I was just working with national data on net worth. Only 8% of Americans have a net worth over $1 million. Including all assets. (excluding home equity and retirement from your "net worth" is ridiculous. Net worth should reflect all assets and liabilities). So, PP who doesn't feel rich with $3M plus home equity and retirement is thoroughly out of touch with reality. Yes, you could in fact live on your current investments if you wanted to. You just want to spend a boatload of money every year for the next 50 years. Which is fine, but own the fact that you are rich far beyond the means of most Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say 7-10 million without considering home equity and retirement. We have about 3 million after those things and I don't feel wealthy. We still have to go to work (HHI is 1.3M) since we couldn't live for the next 50 years on our 3 million in investments. We are cash rich, but not wealthy.

I know how the PP feels. Even at 10M, at least in this area, it's not enough to be materially wealthy.

We recently had vacation with a friend in the midwest. We could see $10M as wealthy there.

Come now. $10M without retirement savings or home equity is not wealthy? What a fascinating point of view.

Exactly. The "without retirement savings or home equity" is the silly part. I can totally get someone who has a several million dollar net worth saying they don't feel wealthy on a day-to-day basis because it is all in retirement and home equity. If you have millions in investments separate from your retirement savings and you don't feel wealthy, spend some of your money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say 7-10 million without considering home equity and retirement. We have about 3 million after those things and I don't feel wealthy. We still have to go to work (HHI is 1.3M) since we couldn't live for the next 50 years on our 3 million in investments. We are cash rich, but not wealthy.

I know how the PP feels. Even at 10M, at least in this area, it's not enough to be materially wealthy.

We recently had vacation with a friend in the midwest. We could see $10M as wealthy there.

Come now. $10M without retirement savings or home equity is not wealthy? What a fascinating point of view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say 7-10 million without considering home equity and retirement. We have about 3 million after those things and I don't feel wealthy. We still have to go to work (HHI is 1.3M) since we couldn't live for the next 50 years on our 3 million in investments. We are cash rich, but not wealthy.

I know how the PP feels. Even at 10M, at least in this area, it's not enough to be materially wealthy.

We recently had vacation with a friend in the midwest. We could see $10M as wealthy there.

Anyone else have a giggle when they used median for income and age, but mean for net worth? Talk about skewing data...

Anonymous wrote:I'd say 7-10 million without considering home equity and retirement. We have about 3 million after those things and I don't feel wealthy. We still have to go to work (HHI is 1.3M) since we couldn't live for the next 50 years on our 3 million in investments. We are cash rich, but not wealthy.

I'd say 7-10 million without considering home equity and retirement. We have about 3 million after those things and I don't feel wealthy. We still have to go to work (HHI is 1.3M) since we couldn't live for the next 50 years on our 3 million in investments. We are cash rich, but not wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are wealthy if the coins in your money pit are more than 12 inches deep.

You are a poor! 12 inches deep? Can't do the backstroke in that!!

See?! That's what I'm saying! Scrooge would have totally injured that cute little beak if he tried to dive in a shallow money pit. Way more than 12 inches of coins in there.

And you have to adjust for body size. Scrooge is a duck right, so at most 12-18 inches high? So an average size person needs at least 3x the coin depth to achieve the same effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are wealthy if the coins in your money pit are more than 12 inches deep.

You are a poor! 12 inches deep? Can't do the backstroke in that!!

See?! That's what I'm saying! Scrooge would have totally injured that cute little beak if he tried to dive in a shallow money pit. Way more than 12 inches of coins in there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are wealthy if the coins in your money pit are more than 12 inches deep.

You are a poor! 12 inches deep? Can't do the backstroke in that!!

Anonymous wrote:You are wealthy if the coins in your money pit are more than 12 inches deep.

You are a poor! 12 inches deep? Can't do the backstroke in that!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This again

Actually this has not been asked before. The three million and one threads are all about income not net worth and the DCUM crowd seems to think that HHI is the only factor relevant in determining sometimes SES.

So what is a normal (poor?) net worth?

LOL it is asked every other week at least.

Ok. Show me a SINGLE thread that is about what categorizing net worth. I read this forum daily and have never seen one. Please post links.

Anonymous wrote:I would say over 5 mil is wealthy, doesn't matter on age (though obv younger is better as it gives you more time to earn).

Anything less is varying degrees of poor, MC, UMC like on a continuum.

agree....thansk for simplifying this idiotic post. $5m is wealthy to me...means you don't need to work for a comfortale lifestyle.

I would say over 5 mil is wealthy, doesn't matter on age (though obv younger is better as it gives you more time to earn).

Anything less is varying degrees of poor, MC, UMC like on a continuum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.realtor.com/local/Fairfax-County_VA/lifestyle?v7=1

Average net worth is 982k and age is 37. I'd rather see median numbers for net worth.

Yeah, maybe its because its a mean net worth, but those numbers don't seem quite right to me. Unless you start with a lot of money, having an average net worth of almost a million on a median salary just over $100,000 by age 37 seems to represent extraordinarily good money management.

For example, if somebody entered the workforce at 22 and had an average income of 90K over the first 15 years of their career, would they even have accumulated $982,000 in lifetime post-tax income, yet alone net worth?

The age and the income are independent statistics. That doesn't mean the avg net worth person is 37.

For example, you could have this population:

age: 20, net worth: 10,000
age: 30, net worth: 10,000
age: 37, net worth: 5,000
age: 50, net worth: 15,000
age: 70, net worth: 2,906,000

With these summary statistics:

Median Age: 37
Avg Net Worth: $982,000
Median Net Worth: $10,000
Avg Age: 41.4