Reuters: U.S. millionaires say $7 million not enough to be rich

[Predicto]

Amnazing how this conversation keeps turning.

Just because I think that someone with $3.5 million in investible assets (beyond his real estate and retirement) should be defined as "rich," I must be lazy, oppose the Protestant Work Ethic and seek the downfall of America through class warfare.

[LD0506]

Amnazing how this conversation keeps turning.

Just because I think that someone with $3.5 million in investible assets (beyond his real estate and retirement) should be defined as "rich," I must be lazy, oppose the Protestant Work Ethic and seek the downfall of America through class warfare.

Well you ARE in San Francisco.............

[Predicto]

Well you ARE in San Francisco.............

The place with more hard-working self-made wealthy entrepeneurs than just about anywhere else in the world.

I don't mind people getting rich - I mind rich people crying that they are poor.

[Redskins Diehard]

The place with more hard-working self-made wealthy entrepeneurs than just about anywhere else in the world.

I don't mind people getting rich - I mind rich people crying that they are poor.

I didn't really get the impression from the article that anyone was crying that they were poor.

I get the sense that this is one of those threads where people not only didn't read the whole article but probably responded based completely on the information in the thread title.

[oisn1]

I think the larger issue becomes where do they get extra money from that they think they need.

Tax rates being lowered either means more borrowing or cuts to other people or increasing taxes on others to offset the cuts for the wealthy.

Do they charge more for the services they happen to provide

Do they cut the wages and benefits of others to get more for themselves.

I think that is an important idea to consider, and the primary purpose of this delusion. Techboy and others are harping on relativity as if there is some fantasy world where 7 million (or 3.5 million) is just enough to survive. Of course wealth is "relative," but true wealth is not. The queen of England is still rich, no matter which class looks at her. Adding to that, people in the top .01% of the world's wealth are fabulously rich, by any metric.

My problem with articles like these are the fact that the top earners of the entire world do not understand the privilege afforded to them and the amount of wealth that they own (compared to the US or the whole world), and thus we see political action taken to supposedly "help" them out while hurting poorer classes. I am confounded that smart people can be so deluded to not understand the wealth they have and the hardships, that lower classes have, that they will never have to deal with.

Again, when the gap between rich and poor widens, year after year, and the middle class shrinks, it is sad to see that the majority of people with the most wealth are unaware of their wealth.

[techboy]

Techboy and others are harping on relativity as if there is some fantasy world where 7 million (or 3.5 million) is just enough to survive.

While I can certainly construct a fantasy world where 7 million is just enough to survive (enough inflation, and that will be true, not just a fantasy), the only fantasy world I've seen in this thread lately is the one where I believe that 7 million is just enough to survive.

There's a larger point here that's been missed though, I think. The statement is that these people don't feel rich. I'd suspect that if you asked a different question, like "are you upper class?", they'd say yes. It's not a question of what they are, it's a question of how they feel.

I'm not sure how you can tell them that their feeling is wrong.

[Popeman38]

Wanna know when you are rich? It is when you think everyone lives the same lifestyle you live. Like Mike Wilbon. He thinks, and stated, that "everyone" has an iPad. He can't fathom not having enough $$ to drop $500+ to drop on the newest "toy". He also thinks that everyone should "buy the good seats, not the ones way up there" when attending a sporting event. He is rich, but he doesn't know it.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Wanna know when you are rich? It is when you think everyone lives the same lifestyle you live. Like Mike Wilbon. He thinks, and stated, that "everyone" has an iPad. He can't fathom not having enough $$ to drop $500+ to drop on the newest "toy". He also thinks that everyone should "buy the good seats, not the ones way up there" when attending a sporting event. He is rich, but he doesn't know it.

Trust me, Wilbon knows that he's wealthy/rich. He's discussed how blessed he is many times actually. :2cents:

[NavyDave]

Wanna know when you are rich? It is when you think everyone lives the same lifestyle you live. Like Mike Wilbon. He thinks, and stated, that "everyone" has an iPad. He can't fathom not having enough $$ to drop $500+ to drop on the newest "toy". He also thinks that everyone should "buy the good seats, not the ones way up there" when attending a sporting event. He is rich, but he doesn't know it.

Well, looking at the all of youngins in Metro DC I encounter who seemingly do, I would wonder who doesn't have an I Pad, I Phone or an Android?

Even people on welfare apparently seem to have atleast $500 to drop on a HDTV or 2 (living room & bedroom), PS3, etc.

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 10:42 AM ----------

Wanna know when you are rich? It is when you think everyone lives the same lifestyle you live. Like Mike Wilbon. He thinks, and stated, that "everyone" has an iPad. He can't fathom not having enough $$ to drop $500+ to drop on the newest "toy". He also thinks that everyone should "buy the good seats, not the ones way up there" when attending a sporting event. He is rich, but he doesn't know it.

Well, looking at the all of youngins in Metro DC I encounter who seemingly do, I would wonder who doesn't have an I Pad, I Phone or an Android?

Even people on welfare apparently seem to have atleast $500 to drop on a HDTV or 2 (living room & bedroom), PS3, etc.

[The Evil Genius]

If you have an income yearly in excess of 300k, then you will likely be in the top 1% of US household incomes.

Not sure what to call that - but I think calling that top 1% income earners "rich" (compared to the OTHER 99%) is dead on accurate.

[NavyDave]

Does 7 million dollars allow you to be Tiger Woods neighbor?

65 million dollar home includes a golf course in his backyard with sand from the Major tournaments abroad.

Now in Tiger's case I do not think he drinks commoners coffee.

[Thiebear]

People with 7million point to Tigers house and say thats rich.

Then someone with 12million comes on and talks about how his jet is in the shop and that its not "really" rich after divorce.

I mean seriously? No Jet in the specially made driveway.

[oisn1]

While I can certainly construct a fantasy world where 7 million is just enough to survive (enough inflation, and that will be true, not just a fantasy), the only fantasy world I've seen in this thread lately is the one where I believe that 7 million is just enough to survive.

There's a larger point here that's been missed though, I think. The statement is that these people don't feel rich. I'd suspect that if you asked a different question, like "are you upper class?", they'd say yes. It's not a question of what they are, it's a question of how they feel.

I'm not sure how you can tell them that their feeling is wrong.

That "feeling", by any reasonable (or unreasonable) measure, is wrong. They make more than 99.99% of the world's population, and yet they are apparently just upper class. That's the delusion that I'm speaking about; When asked for an honest opinion on their situation in life, the richest people in the world don't feel rich, they don't feel secure in their income. The fantasy world is where you defend them with some idea that "it's all relative... there is no objective measure to determine wealth."

I don't know about others, but that feeling is very troubling to me. In a world where the wealth disparity is widening, to hear the rich state that they aren't rich is delusional. In the midst of a historic recession, the top class of the world is claiming to not feel secure in their wealth. I'll ignore the political implications (taxes and such) and focus on the socio-cultural impact. If your highest class is not aware of their privilege and their standing in the community, their priority remains on "getting theirs" at the cost of others. The others happen to be average people who have been dealing with stagnant wages and unemployment. I can continue on this analysis but suffice it to say, wealth isn't an issue, not understanding one's wealth is. Just because they can't keep up with the 100 million dollar moguls and such doesn't mean they should feel "not rich."

Again, by all measures, those with 3.5 million in any form are the top earners of the world, yet their feeling of not being rich is somehow reasonable. Just like an addict who can't go one day without shooting up saying he doesn't have problem... I mean it's all relative and who can say his feeling is wrong.

[NavyDave]

People talk as though the people with 3.5 million to 7 million should be satisfied and not strive to be more successful. Fear of becoming poor or not remaining in the lifestyle a person has grown accustomed to should be a motivator even at age 50 or 60 to do something about it considering they can live for another 20 to 30 plus years.

Though I would agree with some of the class warfare type from the aspect that the rich other than setting up inheritances for the loved ones should have as close a balance to zero as possible when they die.

Why let the government urinate the earnings you created over your lifetime away in a matter of seconds? These same jealous types would have no problem with Federal sponsored grave robbing err a death tax.

[The Evil Genius]

People talk as though the people with 3.5 million to 7 million should be satisfied and not strive to be more successful.

Few are saying that.

What people are saying is that if you have that much $'s, then saying you don't feel rich is a joke.

You are rich. Nothing wrong with saying it.

[Predicto]

Amnazing how this conversation keeps turning.

Just because I think that someone with $3.5 million in investible assets (beyond his real estate and retirement) should be defined as "rich," I must be lazy, oppose the Protestant Work Ethic and seek the downfall of America through class warfare.

Was I wrong?

People talk as though the people with 3.5 million to 7 million should be satisfied and not strive to be more successful. Fear of becoming poor or not remaining in the lifestyle a person has grown accustomed to should be a motivator even at age 50 or 60 to do something about it considering they can live for another 20 to 30 plus years.

Though I would agree with some of the class warfare type from the aspect that the rich other than setting up inheritances for the loved ones should have as close a balance to zero as possible when they die.

Why let the government urinate the earnings you created over your lifetime away in a matter of seconds? These same jealous types would have no problem with Federal sponsored grave robbing err a death tax.

Nope, I wasn't wrong at all.

[mcsluggo]

i have a wife and three children living on my single income.

I think we are doing all right.... however, it is amazing to me to consider that if i get a raise, and finally get to that $240k/year level... my family will STILL be dragging the average down.

Sheesh.

[techboy]

That "feeling", by any reasonable (or unreasonable) measure, is wrong.

Yeah, okay. Next you'll be telling me that chocolate ice cream is the "correct" choice at Baskin Robbins, and strawberry is "wrong".

If you're going to decide up front that feelings can be wrong, you can then construct any narrative you'd like.

Have fun.

[Burgold]

People talk as though the people with 3.5 million to 7 million should be satisfied and not strive to be more successful. Fear of becoming poor or not remaining in the lifestyle a person has grown accustomed to should be a motivator even at age 50 or 60 to do something about it considering they can live for another 20 to 30 plus years.

Though I would agree with some of the class warfare type from the aspect that the rich other than setting up inheritances for the loved ones should have as close a balance to zero as possible when they die.

Why let the government urinate the earnings you created over your lifetime away in a matter of seconds? These same jealous types would have no problem with Federal sponsored grave robbing err a death tax.

Anyone else getting the feeling that ND is really, really rich. I mean the gentleman really doth protest too much.

[Nerm]

I’m not sure I’m ever going to "feel rich". I am fairly sure that I will typically have a savings account that will have more than the average person in the US. My guess is that if I ever got to 7 mil, I would feel rich. However, I have kids to take care of and a lot of possible financial setbacks to prepare for. I doubt I will ever feel rich enough to take part in a program such as cash for clunkers. I don’t see a justification for buying an asset that depreciates that fast unless you don’t know what to do with your excess cash. For some people, there is a desire to avoid welfare (e.g. medicade) in retirement. For a wife and husband, that can be more than 10k a month for several decades. I have a 3 year old that will also need support for most of her life... 1 million doesn’t come close to the cost.

A lot of people may see me as delusional on this board, but I’m just trying not to be a burden on others. I have a long way to go before reaching that goal.