4 ms·
No, that's my point, you're just defining 'rich' as the next step up. If you are earning a 99 percentile income you're rich. Gordon Gecko or not, you may not be
by frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
No, that's my point, you're just defining 'rich' as the next step up. If you are earning a 99 percentile income you're rich. Gordon Gecko or not, you may not be uber-wealthy yacht-buying or anything like that but there's no way someone who makes $400,000 can be called middle-class at all.
>Wealthy people live on capital. That is a traditional definition of what it means to be wealthy. If you have to work, at all, then you are not wealthy.
That's not traditional at all. Doctors are traditionally referred to as wealthy and they work. You're saying a CEO (of a smaller company) isn't wealthy? A hedge fund manager isn't wealthy? Of course these people are wealthy and yet they'd all probably still have to work.
It's totally inane to define middle class as everything from 25%-99.5%.
- encoderer 9y agoI think you’re defining middle class differently. To you, it’s by some definition “middle income”. To the grandparent it’s more about social class (having to work for a living). Doctors achieve higher social status despite having to work. So do celebrities, etc. I think you’re both right. Some people can turn 400k a year into real wealth, others will just be working joes with bigger car payments. Also iirc in California you need like 1.5mm in hhi for top 1% so that’s factoring into this too.
- taneq 9y agoDoctors are rich. If they have to work to keep their nice car/house/boat/lifestyle then they aren't wealthy. Of course, there are wealthy doctors, but the definition of wealth is financial independence, not any set income level.
- dragonwriter 9y agoRich and wealthy are usually synonyms, and seem to match pretty well what you call wealthy. I think what you label “rich” would be better labeled “high income”.