4 ms·

Heh, I'm not 'poor' but how in the hell is 199k/year not 'wealthy'?

by ZoF 11y ago

st3v3r 11y ago
You live in downtown Manhattan.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  $200k in Manhattan puts you above 84% of people living in Manhattan. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/27/sal-albanese/does-earning-500000-manhattan-make-you-middle-clas/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/...
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    Sure, but "wealthy" doesn't just mean the top quintile. "Wealthy" is a more exclusive club than that. When I think "wealthy", I'm thinking top 1%. But this is one of those words that should probably be set aside for the purposes of debate in favor of something more specific, because arguing over the definition of a term that doesn't actually have a standard definition isn't terribly productive.
  - hirsin 11y ago
    But puts you in the top 1.5% nationwide. So, 10x worse off percentage wise, I'd believe that doesn't feel wealthy or even rich. Bad-stats-wise, between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7 people you meet would earn more, compared to 1 in 65 or so elsewhere.
hyperliner 11y ago
http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2011/10/they-aint-wealthy-they-are-rich.html http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2011/10/they-aint-wealthy-... "Shaq is rich; the white man that signs his check is wealthy. Here you go Shaq, go buy yourself a bouncing car. Bling-Bling . . . . I ain’t talking bout Oprah, I’m talking about Bill Gates. OK!. If Bill Gates woke up tomorrow with Oprah’s money, he would jump out a …window. I’m not talking about rich, I’m talking about wealthy - Chris Rock"
- _yosefk 11y ago
  Google says Oprah's net worth is $3G, and Shaq's is $350M. If neither is "wealthy", then I guess the word is reserved for Bill Gates (but not that "white man signing Shaq's check", in all likelihood.) If he weren't a comedian, I'd say Chris Rock is so full of shit it's not even funny, but I guess they're two separate things (meaning that in this instance he's objectively full of shit, but that has nothing to do with him being subjectively not funny to me; there are other comedians who're just as full of shit, but I still find them funny.)
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Because stocks are not flows.

Heh, I'm not 'poor' but how in the hell is 199k/year not 'wealthy'?

by ZoF 11y ago

Heh, I'm not 'poor' but how in the hell is 199k/year not 'wealthy'?

st3v3r 11y ago

You live in downtown Manhattan.

mmanfrin 11y ago
$200k in Manhattan puts you above 84% of people living in Manhattan. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/27/sal-albanese/does-earning-500000-manhattan-make-you-middle-clas/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/...
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  Sure, but "wealthy" doesn't just mean the top quintile. "Wealthy" is a more exclusive club than that. When I think "wealthy", I'm thinking top 1%. But this is one of those words that should probably be set aside for the purposes of debate in favor of something more specific, because arguing over the definition of a term that doesn't actually have a standard definition isn't terribly productive.
- hirsin 11y ago
  But puts you in the top 1.5% nationwide. So, 10x worse off percentage wise, I'd believe that doesn't feel wealthy or even rich. Bad-stats-wise, between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7 people you meet would earn more, compared to 1 in 65 or so elsewhere.

hyperliner 11y ago

http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2011/10/they-aint-wealthy-they-are-rich.html http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2011/10/they-aint-wealthy-... "Shaq is rich; the white man that signs his check is wealthy. Here you go Shaq, go buy yourself a bouncing car. Bling-Bling . . . . I ain’t talking bout Oprah, I’m talking about Bill Gates. OK!. If Bill Gates woke up tomorrow with Oprah’s money, he would jump out a …window. I’m not talking about rich, I’m talking about wealthy - Chris Rock"

_yosefk 11y ago
Google says Oprah's net worth is $3G, and Shaq's is $350M. If neither is "wealthy", then I guess the word is reserved for Bill Gates (but not that "white man signing Shaq's check", in all likelihood.) If he weren't a comedian, I'd say Chris Rock is so full of shit it's not even funny, but I guess they're two separate things (meaning that in this instance he's objectively full of shit, but that has nothing to do with him being subjectively not funny to me; there are other comedians who're just as full of shit, but I still find them funny.)

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Because stocks are not flows.