Forbidden Donut

I think wealth has nothing to do with age whatsoever. And that it's very easily defined in terms of median income and net worth.

Both fluctuate dramatically, for example, median net worth in the us dropped 23% with the housing market this year. And wages are different in every age group and ethnicity.

However. The median net worth for a family making a median income (about $45,000/year). At this income level, median net worth is $35,000. It's hard to actually take net worth into account because there are people like buffet and gates hoarding the vast majority of available wealth. But I'll jump that sucker up to 50k net worth, and say that if you are sitting on 100k net, then you are a wealthy fucker.

You own your house, your car, can send your kids to school, and have an income that can clearly sustain your lifestyle while actually generating more worth.

So.

100k net worth
OR
100k+/year

if you make 100k+/year and manage to not hold onto 100k net, you are a terrible human and still deserve to be lumped into "wealthy" when we finally go eat the rich. They'll probably be a little tougher of course, so make sure those guys marinade long enough before tossing them on the grill.

edit:


Dear God. People really do seem to think that the world is awash in money. Maybe it's definitions? Wealth = top 1% vs top 5% vs top .5%? idk... but continuing to extrapolate your given figures, said 40 year old should be sitting on well over 10 million dollars by the time they retire. So it looks like you qualify "wealthy" as top .5%

Pretty exclusive club if you ask me.

This is why I'm mentioning it. People have radically different interpretations of what constitutes being 'wealthy' which is why I'm asking. To me the definitions of upper/middle classes don't really mean anything, as I have my own interpretations of what wealthy is, what 'just-getting-by' is, and what is mega-rich. Which brings me back to my aforementioned question: what is your definition of someone who is wealthy? And maybe I should add, someone at 22 with 30k in his savings account can do whatever he wants, does that not make him wealthy?

Is it defined by the vacations you can afford to take? The art you can afford to buy? Is there a difference between someone who makes 1mm/yr as opposed to 1.5mm/yr? Is there really anything that one can do that the other cannot?

This topic has a lot of directions it can go, and this forum represents such a wide variety of people that I feel like it will be a decent collection of differing thoughts.

Wealthy:


Not Wealthy:


Oh but they both have boats.

Wealthy:

Super Rich:


A much more interesting topic of discussion that you touch on is this:


If not, then what is the benefit of amassing additional wealth after 1mm/yr?

Most people need. Note. Need. Well into 5 figures/year to keep a family afloat without renting. 60 - 70k, seems like a typical number for homeowners.

Think about this:
The median income in this country is lower than the downpayment required to avoid needing to make HOI payments for the duration of your mortgate if you live in a home that is worth more than 300k. Which is most of them. 'round here anyway.

A) Your sarcasm isn't appreciated in this thread. At least not by me.
/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="B)" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> For the purpose of my question: I don't care about median incomes. I don't care about mortgage rates. I care about what YOU think the definition of 'being wealthy' is. If your stance is $1 above median income, then say it. If not, it's irrelevant to this thread so start one about median incomes, mortgage rejection rates, etc.

A.

I think you're having problems with the definition of Sarcasm. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say, "you'll get over it."

B. ok. So you just want me to pull a number out of my ass. Why didn't you say so.

Wealthy is now and shall be forever defined as "Making more than me."

Sorry I thought you wanted a discussion.
QUOTE This topic has a lot of directions it can go, and this forum represents such a wide variety of people that I feel like it will be a decent collection of differing thoughts.

Can't imagine what gave me that idea.

Don't be an ass, you're twisting this topic in a radically different direction that had little/nothing to do with the original topic...and you did it as the first person to respond. If you want a flame war, or want to change topics just wait until some people actually get into it, then when it dies down feel free to do what you want. Forum etiquette 101 big guy.

You're right. Sorry. I shouldn't have posted a response to your line of inquiry followed by moderately related musing on what the state of the middle class in this country is.

Ignore everything I said *to* you. And read the rest. I answered your question. I can do it boring too.. . Wanna see?

You asked us for out thoughts on wealth, but ask that we specifically frame them in terms of age. My thoughts are that wealth is not coupled to age for a number of reasons, not least of which is the wealth transfer from the wealthy to their progeny. Individuals become wealthy, but at a certain point, a point you hint at yourself, individual wealth becomes superfluous and only useful for donations or maintenance of your family. Families become wealthy, and then that throws the whole measurement out of wack.

So screw age.

Then what is wealthy? Sorry champ, but we're going to have to do a little comparing here, and that means looking at figures. Figures like median income, median net worth, and median CoL. I don't have time today to gather all the data and come up with a formula that I think defines "wealthy", however I believe that it can only be defined in these terms.

Now, remember you're on the internet and suck it up. I'll delete my picture post if it'll really make you happy.

What do you mean by wealth?

Personally, I think if you can afford the basic needs of your home; utilities, mortgage/rent, and so on, and have a savings account with enough in there for most emergencies, then you are doing well. Not poor, but not rich either. Now, if you are able to do all that, and still be able to have all the extras you want (with no debt of course), then you are wealthy.

Being wealthy means you have the love and support of those around you.






...Ok, I'll go a little deeper.

I think you can look at it a few ways, counting my above statement about family. Personally I think its difficult to put an exact number figure on something, especially given the difficulties comparing regions aroudn the country. A 100k salary goes a lot farther in Wichita, Kansas then it does in NYC.

Just to clarify, I'm not really differentiating between wealthy and rich.

I could look at being wealthy as being in a financial situation where if you stop working that day and don't work again in your life to make more money, you can maintain that same standard of living for the rest of your life. Financial independence that doesn't require you to ever lift a finger again.

Alternatively, I would say that being wealthy means that you have the ability to consistently buy or do things that the majority of people can't afford to do without putting any financial hardship on your self. This could be expensive trips, personal aircraft, clothing, etc.

If you had a number on it, $100,000 is way too low. I don't think my salary is even close to approaching what I would deem wealthy. At a minimum I would say maybe $250,000, but even then that is probably dependent on where you live.

yo this thread's gay as shit

IF
(I_n) + (W_n) > [1+ ln(W_cur)]*[C_l^^1.2]
THEN
Wealthy = True

There's a start.

I_n = Net Income
W_n = Net Worth
C_l = Cost of Living
W_cur = Current Working Age (defined below)

*I'm defining Current Working Age as the amount of time between that same starting point your initial career start date and now.

i like your variables

Vaguely homosexual.

I notice all the "It's all subjective" folks are suddenly silent.

Either that, or we have work and/or obligations at night.

What valid assumptions have you used to use natural log and and exponent of 1.2? Did you just wildly assume these? By your equation someone at the age of 23 with expenses of 30,000 needs to have Net Income + Net worth > 975k+

Little much, no?

Subsequently someone at age of 60 with expenses of 100,000 needs to have approximately 5.1mil. Someone at the age of 80 needs to be worth 5.4mil. See the problem here? Your equation should probably look like a bell curve more than a logarithmic function.

But than again, who am I to judge your definition of wealthy? That is, after all, exactly what I wanted to hear on this subject. I just expected you of all people to define wealthy just at the cusp of enjoying luxury once a year.

at 23, you are likely 1 year out of college and into a career.

1+ln(1) * (30,000)^1.2 = 1 + 0 * 235,800

at 60, you likely would have been working for 35 to 40 years. Let's say 38.

1+ln(38) * 100,000^1.2 = 1 + 3.637586159726385769426259553346 * 1,000,000 = 4.6375 * 1,000,000 = 4.6375 million dollars.

You just didn't understand my definition of Wcur.

Why you'd think that wealth would not accumulate in a logarithmic way is confusing. Income increases more or less linearly throughout life, and net worth has a tendency to follow a ... you know ... integration pattern with that. Fairly obvious to me. It's entirely why I structured the equation that way.

lol. Sorry to disappoint. I happen to have a complicated view of income and wealth distribution in this country, and in fact the rest of the world.

The L Curve

highlighted:
Median income is 40k/year. A stack of hundreds 4 cm tall.
Bill Gates once increased his net worth by $50,000,000,000.00 A stack of hundreds THIRTY MILES TALL.

When the primary method of aquiring wealth in the world today is by leveraging current wealth, you can see why I might make a distinction between, "I can buy groceries, afford my house, a car, two pets, and sending two kids to college" and "I can do all that, eat out at restaurants every night, have a maid service in my home twice a week, gardeners, and my home is worth six times as much." And then there's a bigger difference between that and "I'm slightly concerned about what buying another G5 will do to my placement on the 500 wealthiest people in the world lists."

Because ONLY taking (net worth+net income) doesn't necessarily equate to wealth. We most likely need other variables. Those at the age of 45 with 100k cost of living will need more net worth than those at 95 with 100k cost of living in order to be classified as wealthy...at least to me.

ok, 95 is different than 65. 65 you're still working, so you still have income. Things change with both retirees and heirs.

If you've been working your whole life to the age of 65, and have the same numbers as when you were 23 (what I'd consider the bounds of a bell curve based on these variables, since they are related directly to being employed), I don't think you'd be considered wealthy at all. I think increaseing net worth is integral to what defines "wealth".

I would not be opposed to the inclusion of more variables. What do you think they should be?

Fuck all of that. a quick litmus test is how much unnecessary expensive shit can you afford to buy before glancing at your credit and balance. Basically it all boils down to how much ice you have spinning on your sleeves.

when you can afford 2 chicks at the same time anytime you want.

+1 pimpmeter