[monsta666]

Nothing glamorous or righteous about extreme wealth. Also for every billionaire you have there will be a number of tag alongs who will use the earners money for frivolous spending. I have seen it with my own eyes seeing how, what or where those funds goes. Those trust kids can really live it up. Only thing I wonder is what those six figure American Express bills go towards.

When you see such things like this on the regular, I can't help but stop and ponder. Unlike what the social narrative often says about the rich being more virtuous, there are actually a lot of people in the uber rich class who are not exactly hard workers. Heck if they didn't spend so much we would consider them lazy, work-shy individuals. Going from what the front office workers say, it does seem like a good chunk of them don't exactly have sterling personalities either...

[TDoS]

This gets us back to the question of whether having a 7 figure net worth makes you rich in today's wotld.

Sure, my use of 7 figures net worth was semi-arbitrary because once upon a time, being a MILLIONAIRE was a big deal. Most of us being geriatrics, most of us probably understand the frame of reference.

Now, not being in the class of the filthy rich doesn't mean you're poor or even middle class.  That's more an income driven thing than a net worth thing.  These days to qualify for the 1% on Income, it's around $220K/yr I think.

Is that all it takes? Seems like 2 early career professionals could pull that off.

Kdog definitely does not get near that number. 

Of course not. It sounds like for someone with a high net worth, he is cash poor, with his stories of employment and being unhappy with the cost of his coffee and danish compared to his wages. Although, $20G's for a new heat pump? So he can be environmentally friendly? Seems like a bit of disconnect between those two.

You probably surpass it.  Between his SS and suplemental employment earnings, K-dog is middle class.

In terms of cash flow, sure. But I have been specific about using a net worth metric, as opposed to cash income generated from being a working man. Todays working man, as K-Dog has demonstrated, can certainly find themselves in a higher level of net worth, depending on the time and dollars they had to invest and save. Although he has also mentioned preferring low but safer return investments.

I have been a bit more aggressive in my investing since I began, with occasional reversals. Like April/May 2008  ( a win!) and 2011 (a lose) and Valentines Day 2025 (so far a win!).

Monsta is middle class and Knarf and I are poor.  No filthy rich Diners at this time I am aware of.
RE

Your status I am aware of, from your own postings. I have no opinion and recall no Monsta stories related to the topic. At the Spartanburg SUN grand rollout he looked to be a nice young man, he was sitting with David closer to the tent when you and I were talking.

This is an interesting topic as well. Because I have never in my life cared about net worth. Or todays paycheck. Work hard, work smart, invest along the way,maybe you win, maybe you die of cancer at age 30. It's all a crapshoot.

Smoke'im while you got'im.

[RE]

Todays working man, as K-Dog has demonstrated, can certainly find themselves in a higher level of net worth, depending on the time and dollars they had to invest and save. Although he has also mentioned preferring low but safer return investments.

The primary reason some Boomers have 7 figure net worth is because of the vast inflation in the value of the one investment many of them have, which is their McMansion.  It's definitely the case with Kdog.

Thing is, since for most of them it's their primary residence, it's not a very liquid investment.  Given the expenses of taxes, energy use and maintenance the asset can become a liability when they retire and their incomes drop.  They can become "House Poor" and need to sell it, which can be problematic depending on its price and the prevailing interest rates and regulations.  Big problem with this in the Condo market in FL with fire regulations and HOA costs.

Next problem is after selling, they need to find housing they can afford at their reduced income.  The proceeds from the sale don't do them much good if they all need to be spent to buy a small 1 bedroom apartment in a retirement community.  Even worse if they need to go into an assisted living situation, in which case various medical costs will burn through the whole nut in a couple of years in some cases.

For these reasons, I think it's worthwhile to eliminate the McMansion in an analysis of class when it's the primary residence.  Vacation homes which are more easily sold off should be counted though.  Similarly, 1 car should be discounted as a necessity, but multiple cars, RVs and motorcycles count in the net worth calculation.

RE

[TDoS]

Todays working man, as K-Dog has demonstrated, can certainly find themselves in a higher level of net worth, depending on the time and dollars they had to invest and save. Although he has also mentioned preferring low but safer return investments.

The primary reason some Boomers have 7 figure net worth is because of the vast inflation in the value of the one investment many of them have, which is their McMansion.  It's definitely the case with Kdog.

Sure. No different than investing in a 401k or Apple stock or a myriad of other mechanisms. Real estate just happens to be one that usually appreciates with time....as do market tracking funds.

A house is an investment, just like many others. But a more popular one than most. And can lead to Mr and Mrs Dog being high net worth indivudals, based on my arbitrary metric.

Thing is, since for most of them it's their primary residence, it's not a very liquid investment.  Given the expenses of taxes, energy use and maintenance the asset can become a liability when they retire and their incomes drop.

Absolutely. Investments have their advantages and disadvantages, be they tax implications, operating expenses to maintain, and the idea that this particular investment is more affordable during ones working years. Which is why retirees cash out and move into apartments in Florida and retirement communities and whatnot.

My aunt has retired this year. She closes on her house this month, where she lived for 38 years, and is moving into an independent living facility, one of those that as your health deterioriates through time will manage/take your liquid assets and care for you until death.

My grandmother did the same thing. My mother is already in such a facility, slowly depleting her savings until they are gone, and then her retirement $ and social security will cover the costs until she passes.

Such is how our lives spin down. When the final calculations are done...a house is an investment like any other, and the decisions made as to what happens to it aren't much different. Your generational wealth idea then can kick in. Anyone who wants to pass it on can, prior to the state requiring its sale or whatever. Of course, that implies having children that one wants to see prosper in their future, and not all parents have that concern.

For these reasons, I think it's worthwhile to eliminate the McMansion in an analysis of class when it's the primary residence.  Vacation homes which are more easily sold off should be counted though.  Similarly, 1 car should be discounted as a necessity, but multiple cars, RVs and motorcycles count in the net worth calculation.
RE

You might want to eliminate McMansions as an analysis of class, but as an investment the state surely won't when it comes time to fund those end of life costs.

Very few folks have enough extra cars and motorcycles and whatnot of sufficient value to be meaningful in a net worth calculation. A crazy collector (folks like I've purchased off of before) might have $100G of old Indians and exotic whatevers laying around....but the commercial real estate it was contained within was worth orders of magnitude more. Investments, including real estate, can be of sufficient scale to qualify easily though.

[RE]

Sure. No different than investing in a 401k or Apple stock or a myriad of other mechanisms.

Big difference.  Liquidating your 401K doesn't make you homeless.  Also, as an investment a MaMansion doesn't earn money unless you rent it out.  So only 2nd & 3rd homes can be used this way.  401Ks don't have maintenance and repair costs.

Anyhow, basically this all just shows that the 1st $1-2M of net worrth doesn't make you filthy rich, just comfortable.   I already stipulated it takes about $10M to set up a trust fund for each kid, so you need to be comfortably into 8 figures to be filthy rich.  Really 9 figures especially if you're Elon and have 13 kids.

RE

[TDoS]

What happened to my detailed example, including the math, of why selling ones house doesn't mean homelessness ensues? 

[K-Dog]

Net Worth Over Time

    1970s: Initial earnings from Roxy Music and early solo projects, estimated at several hundred thousand dollars.
    1980s: Major financial boost from collaborations with David Bowie and Talking Heads, net worth estimated at $10 million.
    1990s: Peak earnings from work with U2 and solo projects, net worth estimated at $30 million.
    2000s: Continued growth through diverse investments and ventures, net worth estimated at $45 million.
    2010s: Strategic investments in technology and visual arts, net worth estimated at $55 million.
    2020s: Recent financial activities and philanthropy, net worth estimated at $60 million.

Brian Eno is actively involved in various philanthropic efforts, including support for environmental causes, human rights, and social justice. He has donated substantial amounts to organizations working on climate change, environmental conservation, and promoting equality and justice. Eno also participates in benefit concerts and events to raise awareness about important social and political issues.

Some people are rich enough to be nice.  It does happen.  I would be one of them. Such know that there is more to true riches than money.  True riches have in fact nothing to do with money.

[TDoS]

Some people are rich enough to be nice.  It does happen.  I would be one of them.

You are one of them, based on net worth. As am I, and other various 7 figure net worth people Iimagine.

Such know that there is more to true riches than money.  True riches have in fact nothing to do with money.

But of course. And more interestingly, it begs the question why it is verboten to talk about our children. They happen to be related to true riches that have nothing to do with money.

[RE]

Some people are rich enough to be nice.  It does happen.  I would be one of them.

You are one of them, based on net worth. As am I, and other various 7 figure net worth people Iimagine.

We have established that in today's economy in the FSoA, a low 7 figure net worth doesn't make you rich, merely comfortable, since the McMansion you live in by itself can be worth over $1M.

To be a lower end rich person, in addition to the McMansion, you need an annual income that puts you in the 1%, >200K or so.  I would add in addition to that other investments which provide enough annual ROI so that if for some reason you became unable to work, you could continue to live in that house, pay all your bills and live comfortably from the passive income.  A portfolio in the neighborhood of around $5M-10M would be about right.  In other words, you may work, but you don't HAVE to work.

RE

[RE]

And what happened to my well calculated post on why K-Dog's $1,000,000 home, when sold, doesn't in any way make him homeless?

The same thing that just happened to the last post.

RE

[RE]

Fitting into the category of "Rich" in Amerika isn't as simple as a single number like net worth or annual income.  It also depends on where you live, your stage of life, debt load, how the wealth is distributed and used and intangible social factors as well.

This article does a little more in depth look at how much it takes to fit into the "Rich" category.  It's still not complete, but better than a reductive metric like 7 figure net worth.  His final conclusion:

If your net worth is under $2 million and your income is under $600,000, statistically, you're probably not rich—you're upper middle class. And in today's world, that still means you're doing very well.

https://www.benzinga.com/personal-finance/25/05/45483329/are-you-rich-or-just-upper-middle-class-heres-the-net-worth-and-income-it-takes-to-be-considered-wealthy

Are You Rich or Just Upper Middle Class? Here's The Net Worth And Income It Takes To Be Considered Wealthy

[K-Dog]

My only real interest in 'am I rich' is to compare my situation to others with the deluded idea that if I and mine, have enough beans to be at least average, then we have enough beans to eat.  The idea being that when this Titanic goes down, you do not want to be below the top deck.  Not that it will matter if you do not get a lifeboat.

I am not about conspicuous consumption.  I'm only about conspicuous survival.  But I don't want to be too conspicuous about it.

We delude ourselves into thinking we can control events.  Those few who can are ruled by social pressures which make them act badly.

[RE]

My only real interest in 'am I rich' is to compare my situation to others with the deluded idea that if I and mine, have enough beans to be at least average, then we have enough beans to eat.  The idea being that when this Titanic goes down, you do not want to be below the top deck.  Not that it will matter if you do not get a lifeboat.

My main interest is more theoretical.  If you are going to view this as a Class War between 2 classes, Rich vs Poor, where is the line drawn, and on which side of the line does a given person stand?  Who do you fight with or for?  Do you have enough money to employ a Private Security Force to protect your property and life when the public police forces break down or become corrupted?  Will you attempt to maintain your wealth and position, or will you share it and freely give it away?  While others starve, will you hoard or share?  Are you with the crowd storming the Bastille, or are you one of the Royalty inside with their guards  defending the castle on the hill?  Which side are you on, boy, which side are you on?

When Warren Buffet said



Who was included in the Rich class?  Billionaires obviously, but also obviously it doesn't take a billion to be rich.  I think equally obviously $100M puts an individuals into the Rich class, but the line starts getting blurry below that.  At $10M a lot depends on other factors like nature of the assets, stage of life and family connections.

So, it's worthwhile to develop a decent idea of what "rich" actually means in Amerika in 2025?  This thread is examining that question.

[K-Dog]

Are you on the side of the working class and a vision of socialism — or are you siding with capital and its enforcers?

Which Side Are You On" was written in 1931.  Employment was at 25%, massive poverty collapsed faith in the  American Propaganda Dream.  The struggle in Harlan County where the song was written documents class war.  Mine owners had private militias (Pinkerton's), the police, and politicians. The miners had nothing but solidarity. Florence Reece's song captured this stark divide.

The song I post was written in 1949 by Les Rice, a farmer from New York State, USA. It deals with the perverse injustice, exploitation and inequality Rice saw all around him. Pete Seeger wrote about Les Rice and this song:

Like most small farmers, he was getting intolerably squeezed by the big companies which sold him all his fertilizer, insecticide and equipment, and the big companies that dictated to him the prices he would get for his produce. Out of that squeeze came this song.