Anonymous wrote:I make about $200k, and I definitely feel very rich. We can pay for any college our kids get accepted to out of cash flow - even if it's $70k a year.

We receive catalogues by mail for some crazy cruises with a price of $95k per person for a 3-week cruise. Who is taking a 3-week cruise paying $200k for a couple? Definitely nobody like us, yet that doesn't prevent me from feeling rich. I'm so far from thinking that if I can't afford that cruise, I must be a middle class.

Anonymous wrote:I make about $200k, and I definitely feel very rich. We can pay for any college our kids get accepted to out of cash flow - even if it's $70k a year.

We receive catalogues by mail for some crazy cruises with a price of $95k per person for a 3-week cruise. Who is taking a 3-week cruise paying $200k for a couple? Definitely nobody like us, yet that doesn't prevent me from feeling rich. I'm so far from thinking that if I can't afford that cruise, I must be a middle class.

Anonymous wrote:I was a poster who used the term "affluent" to describe myself. So yes, I'll bite.

The problem with the word "rich" is that it conjures images of extreme wealth. You don't need to work, you have riding horses, you vacation in Europe every summer without sweating, private school is expected, and so the picture continues. Pick your favorite idyllic picture. There is a very clear difference between those who are in, say, the upper half of one percent and a 15 percenter. It also matters where the money comes from -- assets? or is it all dependent on showing up at the office next week? We do need a word to describe the freedom and power that comes with large amounts of income *and* wealth in the form of assets (acquired or inherited).

However, we also shouldn't be grouping everyone who isn't posh-rich in with "the middle class."

Upper middle class? Affluent? Pick your favorite word. But we need a word.

Anonymous wrote:Oh an employer match. How nice. So, you are worth 10X your gross income? How much do you need to accumulate before you retire?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200k in the DC area is "very affluent"?

LOL, what are you smoking?

Yes it is

Seriously, what is it? It's obviously some good stuff, I want some.

you mean to tell me that an individual earning over $200,000 isn't very affluent? I earn half that and I'm very comfortable.

Yes, I do. And a family making $400k isn't either. Welcome to DC.

Then should I cancel my summer river cruise to Amsterdam? Apparently, that's for affluent people, and I only earn $110,000. I'm beginning to think you are all a bunch of spoiled 30-somethings who never learned what it feels like to "make do."

For example, I grew up in an UMC home. But when I graduated from college, all I could afford was a dumpy apartment. It was quite a let-down from the beautiful house I grew up in, but hey....that's life, and I was only earning $45,000. (All figures translated to today's dollars.) Then I moved up the ladder and started earning $75,000, at which time I bought a teensy condo. Several years later, I got bumped to $100,000, and bought a nice townhouse out in the suburbs. Still had plenty left for international travel, season theater tickets, clubhouse level at Nationals games, a bi-weekly maid, etc. Definitely upper-middle class.

But it's because I started out in the dumpy apartment at $45,000 that I appreciate how upscale one's lifestyle can be on $100,000. I suspect some of you bitching about $400,000 being middle class came out of law school to a $150,000 salary and don't have a clue what TRUE middle class is.

OK, point taken. Congrats on what you've accomplished, it sounds lovely. Season theatre tickets.. gah, just a little jealous.

And there we have it from a DCUM snob. You snobs don't know how good you have it. Maybe you should go to flyover country you belittle and see how the middle class really lives.

I wasn't being sarcastic... I meant it. Geez.

SORRY!! So many people are dumping on $100,000 earners as barely scrapping by that I misread your comment. Thanks for the nice feedback - and again, apologies!

That's okay! I understand totally- it's hard to convey sarcasm online so sometimes when someone actually comes along and means it, it looks like fakeness. I have an earnest way of speaking too so it's not the first time. But I truly think what you've accomplished is great and, from one single lady to another, you're living the dream, single, amazing trips to Europe, going to the sympathy... life goals. I'm in my 20s, so hopefully I will be there one day. Sounds a lot better than changing diapers and putting up with a sex crazed DH who doesn't do jack around the house, I'll tell you that much!

Thanks. I hope you come back to read this. Yup....my 20s were fun, but hard work and not a lot of money. (Those were the dumpy apartment years.)

But by my mid-30s, I was earning close to $80,000, when I bought the little condo and started traveling - Europe, Greek Islands, etc. By my late 30s, I was at $100,000, and bought the nice townhouse, upped the travel (sometimes with a friend, sometimes on my own), went to all sorts of black-tie fundraisers, tickets to the ballet and symphony, and just a generally nice life.

And you will be there one day, too! (And looking back, the time goes really quickly.) have fun on the journey.

How much has your net worth gone up since you started spending like that in your mid 30s?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich is net worth. Income certainly can be conducive to net worth, but it is not the same as net worth. Don't talk to me about incomes and 'rich.' Rich is assets.

That's ridiculous. So someone who makes $1M per year, but spends it all is not rich.

There are several very wealthy athletes and Hollywood celebrities who end up with virtually nothing because they spend it frivolously. That doesn't mean they weren't rich.

Were only rich while the money lasted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^NP. Obnoxious question

Obnoxious but on point. Rich is net worth, not experiences or current spending.

Not necessarily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^NP. Obnoxious question

Obnoxious but on point. Rich is net worth, not experiences or current spending.

Not necessarily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich is net worth. Income certainly can be conducive to net worth, but it is not the same as net worth. Don't talk to me about incomes and 'rich.' Rich is assets.

That's ridiculous. So someone who makes $1M per year, but spends it all is not rich.

There are several very wealthy athletes and Hollywood celebrities who end up with virtually nothing because they spend it frivolously. That doesn't mean they weren't rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^NP. Obnoxious question

Obnoxious but on point. Rich is net worth, not experiences or current spending.

Anonymous wrote:^NP. Obnoxious question

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200k in the DC area is "very affluent"?

LOL, what are you smoking?

Yes it is

Seriously, what is it? It's obviously some good stuff, I want some.

you mean to tell me that an individual earning over $200,000 isn't very affluent? I earn half that and I'm very comfortable.

Yes, I do. And a family making $400k isn't either. Welcome to DC.

Then should I cancel my summer river cruise to Amsterdam? Apparently, that's for affluent people, and I only earn $110,000. I'm beginning to think you are all a bunch of spoiled 30-somethings who never learned what it feels like to "make do."

For example, I grew up in an UMC home. But when I graduated from college, all I could afford was a dumpy apartment. It was quite a let-down from the beautiful house I grew up in, but hey....that's life, and I was only earning $45,000. (All figures translated to today's dollars.) Then I moved up the ladder and started earning $75,000, at which time I bought a teensy condo. Several years later, I got bumped to $100,000, and bought a nice townhouse out in the suburbs. Still had plenty left for international travel, season theater tickets, clubhouse level at Nationals games, a bi-weekly maid, etc. Definitely upper-middle class.

But it's because I started out in the dumpy apartment at $45,000 that I appreciate how upscale one's lifestyle can be on $100,000. I suspect some of you bitching about $400,000 being middle class came out of law school to a $150,000 salary and don't have a clue what TRUE middle class is.

OK, point taken. Congrats on what you've accomplished, it sounds lovely. Season theatre tickets.. gah, just a little jealous.

And there we have it from a DCUM snob. You snobs don't know how good you have it. Maybe you should go to flyover country you belittle and see how the middle class really lives.

I wasn't being sarcastic... I meant it. Geez.

SORRY!! So many people are dumping on $100,000 earners as barely scrapping by that I misread your comment. Thanks for the nice feedback - and again, apologies!

That's okay! I understand totally- it's hard to convey sarcasm online so sometimes when someone actually comes along and means it, it looks like fakeness. I have an earnest way of speaking too so it's not the first time. But I truly think what you've accomplished is great and, from one single lady to another, you're living the dream, single, amazing trips to Europe, going to the sympathy... life goals. I'm in my 20s, so hopefully I will be there one day. Sounds a lot better than changing diapers and putting up with a sex crazed DH who doesn't do jack around the house, I'll tell you that much!

What an oddly specific post. Not every married person is pulling her hair out while dealing with diapers and a lazy, sex crazed DH.

NP -- but you sound defensive. I don't think PP said ALL married people are miserable.

I read that as a reference to the DCUM complaints of married women about their husbands and kids.