Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't feel UC until I had around $10m plus a paid-for primary home in a HCOL area. Just one data point.

Incomplete info for a basic data point. At what age for both and how many kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot just look at asssets unless they are upwards of $10M. Where it matters less and less whether one works or not depending on age. I think a 30 yr old with $10M and no salary is in a precarious position. Whereas a 45+ family not so much and if they are 60, then they are golden.

Would someone with $5M at age 50 and no salary for either DH or DW and two kids be considered wealthy? They believe in FIRE. Have dividend income but that’s it.

What about 50 yr olds with two kids and HHI of $150k (and a SAHM) and NW of $4M.

IMO, it’s a combination of HHI and assets. Also without age information, no point.

Yes, if they have $5 million, they would be considered wealthy. They could safely take $200,000 a year out of that! And they could also go back to work. Your other 50-year-olds, with $4 million and a $150,000 salary, are ALSO WEALTHY. The fact that that's a not uncommon level of wealth and income in this area doesn't make it not wealthy. It means there are a lot of wealthy people in this area.

A 30 year old with $10 million is not in a precarious position. That amount conservatively would yield about $400,000 a year. So long as the person reinvest at least $100,000 or so of that every year they could live just fine almost indefinitely.

Yeah but obviously no one in D.C. can live on a mere $300,000 a year.

Maybe not with a family but you should be able to do it if you are single! Come on.

I agree the COL here is ridiculously high for people with children but it is not so bad for singles.

Anonymous wrote:You guys are also completely ignoring the idea of social capital. Really rich people can pick up the phone and get their child an internship, a job. They know other rich people and they socialize together, etc. They went to the right schools, effortlessly know what clothes to wear, what books and movies to reference, what clubs to join.

All of the frantic questioning that goes on here (Is it tacky to take my kids to Disneyland, etc.) stems from social insecurity, not financial insecurity -- but they're related. I went to the right schools and make a decent amount of money but know that I will never truly be accepted by the wealthy. I frequently seem to find out ex post facto that I wore the wrong clothes, said the wrong thing.

I have to interview for a new job shortly and I'm really nervous because everyone interviewing me is someone who comes from money. Even though I have the skills and credentials, I'm terrified I'm going to do something that belies my working class roots and eliminate myself from consideration. I think we're becoming more like England in this respect.

Anonymous wrote:Can we not with the salary?

We made 236k last year. Live in a 400k house and have 4 kids and are squarely middle class. In fact some people might consider us lower middle class.

There are several variable involved. How much you make. How many kids. Family money. Assets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot just look at asssets unless they are upwards of $10M. Where it matters less and less whether one works or not depending on age. I think a 30 yr old with $10M and no salary is in a precarious position. Whereas a 45+ family not so much and if they are 60, then they are golden.

Would someone with $5M at age 50 and no salary for either DH or DW and two kids be considered wealthy? They believe in FIRE. Have dividend income but that’s it.

What about 50 yr olds with two kids and HHI of $150k (and a SAHM) and NW of $4M.

IMO, it’s a combination of HHI and assets. Also without age information, no point.

I agree, most people look at just HHI or just Net worth. It has to be a combination unless net worth is huge. Btw neither of the two examples you gave would be wealthy/rich in my books due to low or no HHI.

Ok we are 40 with a net worth of over 3 million cash and investments, excluding our house. We make ~ 700k. Where would you put us? I would say firmly UMC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot just look at asssets unless they are upwards of $10M. Where it matters less and less whether one works or not depending on age. I think a 30 yr old with $10M and no salary is in a precarious position. Whereas a 45+ family not so much and if they are 60, then they are golden.

Would someone with $5M at age 50 and no salary for either DH or DW and two kids be considered wealthy? They believe in FIRE. Have dividend income but that’s it.

What about 50 yr olds with two kids and HHI of $150k (and a SAHM) and NW of $4M.

IMO, it’s a combination of HHI and assets. Also without age information, no point.

I agree, most people look at just HHI or just Net worth. It has to be a combination unless net worth is huge. Btw neither of the two examples you gave would be wealthy/rich in my books due to low or no HHI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot just look at asssets unless they are upwards of $10M. Where it matters less and less whether one works or not depending on age. I think a 30 yr old with $10M and no salary is in a precarious position. Whereas a 45+ family not so much and if they are 60, then they are golden.

Would someone with $5M at age 50 and no salary for either DH or DW and two kids be considered wealthy? They believe in FIRE. Have dividend income but that’s it.

What about 50 yr olds with two kids and HHI of $150k (and a SAHM) and NW of $4M.

IMO, it’s a combination of HHI and assets. Also without age information, no point.

Yes, if they have $5 million, they would be considered wealthy. They could safely take $200,000 a year out of that! And they could also go back to work. Your other 50-year-olds, with $4 million and a $150,000 salary, are ALSO WEALTHY. The fact that that's a not uncommon level of wealth and income in this area doesn't make it not wealthy. It means there are a lot of wealthy people in this area.

A 30 year old with $10 million is not in a precarious position. That amount conservatively would yield about $400,000 a year. So long as the person reinvest at least $100,000 or so of that every year they could live just fine almost indefinitely.

Yeah but obviously no one in D.C. can live on a mere $300,000 a year.

Anonymous wrote:You guys are also completely ignoring the idea of social capital. Really rich people can pick up the phone and get their child an internship, a job. They know other rich people and they socialize together, etc. They went to the right schools, effortlessly know what clothes to wear, what books and movies to reference, what clubs to join.

All of the frantic questioning that goes on here (Is it tacky to take my kids to Disneyland, etc.) stems from social insecurity, not financial insecurity -- but they're related. I went to the right schools and make a decent amount of money but know that I will never truly be accepted by the wealthy. I frequently seem to find out ex post facto that I wore the wrong clothes, said the wrong thing.

I have to interview for a new job shortly and I'm really nervous because everyone interviewing me is someone who comes from money. Even though I have the skills and credentials, I'm terrified I'm going to do something that belies my working class roots and eliminate myself from consideration. I think we're becoming more like England in this respect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot just look at asssets unless they are upwards of $10M. Where it matters less and less whether one works or not depending on age. I think a 30 yr old with $10M and no salary is in a precarious position. Whereas a 45+ family not so much and if they are 60, then they are golden.

Would someone with $5M at age 50 and no salary for either DH or DW and two kids be considered wealthy? They believe in FIRE. Have dividend income but that’s it.

What about 50 yr olds with two kids and HHI of $150k (and a SAHM) and NW of $4M.

IMO, it’s a combination of HHI and assets. Also without age information, no point.

Yes, if they have $5 million, they would be considered wealthy. They could safely take $200,000 a year out of that! And they could also go back to work. Your other 50-year-olds, with $4 million and a $150,000 salary, are ALSO WEALTHY. The fact that that's a not uncommon level of wealth and income in this area doesn't make it not wealthy. It means there are a lot of wealthy people in this area.

A 30 year old with $10 million is not in a precarious position. That amount conservatively would yield about $400,000 a year. So long as the person reinvest at least $100,000 or so of that every year they could live just fine almost indefinitely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot just look at asssets unless they are upwards of $10M. Where it matters less and less whether one works or not depending on age. I think a 30 yr old with $10M and no salary is in a precarious position. Whereas a 45+ family not so much and if they are 60, then they are golden.

Would someone with $5M at age 50 and no salary for either DH or DW and two kids be considered wealthy? They believe in FIRE. Have dividend income but that’s it.

What about 50 yr olds with two kids and HHI of $150k (and a SAHM) and NW of $4M.

IMO, it’s a combination of HHI and assets. Also without age information, no point.

Yes, if they have $5 million, they would be considered wealthy. They could safely take $200,000 a year out of that! And they could also go back to work. Your other 50-year-olds, with $4 million and a $150,000 salary, are ALSO WEALTHY. The fact that that's a not uncommon level of wealth and income in this area doesn't make it not wealthy. It means there are a lot of wealthy people in this area.

Anonymous wrote:You cannot just look at asssets unless they are upwards of $10M. Where it matters less and less whether one works or not depending on age. I think a 30 yr old with $10M and no salary is in a precarious position. Whereas a 45+ family not so much and if they are 60, then they are golden.

Would someone with $5M at age 50 and no salary for either DH or DW and two kids be considered wealthy? They believe in FIRE. Have dividend income but that’s it.

What about 50 yr olds with two kids and HHI of $150k (and a SAHM) and NW of $4M.

IMO, it’s a combination of HHI and assets. Also without age information, no point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't feel UC until I had around $10m plus a paid-for primary home in a HCOL area. Just one data point.

Incomplete info for a basic data point. At what age for both and how many kids?

Anonymous wrote:I didn't feel UC until I had around $10m plus a paid-for primary home in a HCOL area. Just one data point.