5 ms·

Bloomberg: In an era of hyper-wealth, economy-class rich starts at $25M

57 points by colinhb 8y ago

CompelTechnic 8y ago
Sometimes I feel like these sorts of articles are written as a sort of indulgence to the aspirational class of people who will continue striving for more and more money. For those on a high-net-worth track, but under $25m, this article teases them, and motivates them. But for those over $25m it provides a bit of self satisfaction.
- ataturk 8y ago
  I agree. I read a discussion about this article on another forum and found the whole thing quite appalling. While I'm not rich, a 7 figure net worth is definitely above average and 8 is easily to the point where you would never have to work another day in your life if you didn't want to. Where I am is iffy, but at some point I am downshifting my career. I have no idea how people like Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Kissinger, etc. are able to have such long careers because 100% of the people I know who are that age are in terrible health and not all there mentally. Other than providing a legacy to their heirs, what is all that money going to accomplish for them? Nothing. Better to go out and enjoy life.
- csomar 8y ago
  It is not article but the social settings you live in. The article certainly influences but that would be very minimal.
kome 8y ago
I wish I could have $25k per year, or $20k really... $25m would be such a dream. What people do with all this money?
- snarf21 8y ago
  Not being attacking or sarcastic. Once you hit $25K, you likely wish you could get to $40K because you could finally buy a nice.... etc., etc. It is the rare individual that can stop the chase. With a 7 figure salary, you just have a nicer and bigger house. Your vacations are to Europe and first class instead of driving to the beach, etc. The one thing that most studies have shown is that (in today's dollars) once you get above about $80K household income, any more income doesn't make you any happier. If you think about it that makes sense, since at the level and above you can have some financial security and not be paycheck to paycheck (in most areas), have a small house and decent cars which greatly reduces your stress and leaving room for contentment. Of course, each person's goals are different and the amount of Jonesing they can control is too.
  - pc86 8y ago
    Not to be nitpicky but you can do a European vacation with first class airfare when you make much less than a million dollars a year in income. Two people NYC to London 6/18-25 is $10,200 for airfare. Assume that everything else you do costs 2x that much if you're going all out (the few times I've purchased first class tickets, that cost has ended up being 50% or more of the entire trip). You're still at $30k for a vacation, which is an astounding amount of money to spend on a week for sure. But at the same time, if you make $250k a year and this is a special event, 10th/20th/30th anniversary, big birthday event, etc, it's not outside the realm of possibilities to spend 2 months salary on something like that. Obviously you still need to save and plan it, and if you're making $1 million a year you can probably spend $30k without thinking about it. But just wanted to point out that it's doable. As for the $80k study you're mentioning I've seen numbers all over the place, from $70k up to $105k, but I've definitely noticed the satisfaction from each raise has decreased even while the raw dollar amounts have gone up. The last raise I got only served to go toward paying down debts faster, which I can attest makes me very happy.
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      I just want to point out that if you live in NYC, that $30k vacation will cost you about $50k in pre-tax income. And no one I know in NYC who makes $250k is going to spend 20% of their annual income on a vacation. And ironically, those who could are disciplined and frugal enough that they probably never would.
- CameronBanga 8y ago
  They buy things they don’t need that they think will make them happy. Spoiler: It doesn’t make them happy.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The FT has the answer: https://howtospendit.ft.com/ https://howtospendit.ft.com/ Even undramatically, suppose a family want to have a nice house in the centre of a big popular city, have a couple of Teslas, give two children private education debt-free to graduation, go on five-star holidays for a month a year, and have pensions that enable them to maintain this lifestyle, that's probably more than half the $25m right there. And it doesn't even look all that extravagant.
- hendzen 8y ago
  Things rich people like to do with large amounts of money: - Housing. Multiple dwellings around the world. A penthouse in London, a villa on the southern coast of France, etc. - Travel. No more sitting in an Uber or public transit on your way to economy class travel. Helicopter from nearest helipad to small private plane equipped with chef and luxurious sleeping quarters. - Collecting. Buying (expensive) things that you like. Art, cars, horses, stamps, etc. - Entrepreneurship/Investing. Buying up cash-flow generating assets like companies or land w/ natural resources. Investing or starting companies in potentially risky areas like spaceflight or human life extension that most people wouldn't do if their main goal was to get rich to begin with. - Philanthropy. Support your causes of choice. Also a good way to keep the non-extremely-high-earning spouse busy in the event that they don't want to keep working. - Politics. With super PACs unlimited money can go in to the political system. Usually this is done in tasteful amounts of a few million here or there to retain some influence but some people make this their main goal (Mercer family, Tom Steyer, Kochs, etc.) - Legacy. Structuring trusts and other legal structures (potentially offshore) to ensure that the wealth is multigenerational. It can be possible to guarantee that your offspring 1-4 generations out will live comfortable lives.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  By the standards of this article, I'm not wealthy, but I feel like you have to be cursed with a pretty poor imagination to not have any idea what you'd do with $25mm. Or even $100mm. A conservative safe withdrawal rate is about 3-4% per year. So that's $750,000 to $1mm per year of income in perpetuity on $25mm. On the one hand, $1mm per year is a ridiculous amount of money, and it's an order of magnitude above what any normal person would need for their lifestyle. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to ratchet your lifestyle up to that level. Here's an easy way to spend $1mm per year: you live in a really nice place in a HCOL area, have a fancy vacation home elsewhere, employ a few staff (housekeeper, nanny, personal trainer, etc), have 2-3 kids in top private school, do several luxury vacations per year where you stay in 5-star hotels and fly international first class, etc. That doesn't cover the kind of crazy lifestyle where you're chartering super yachts or owning a private jet or renting out Necker Island or having Beyonce perform at your birthday party. That's nine or ten figure wealth territory. It also doesn't leave a huge pile of money left over for the really fun stuff, like philanthropy, buying and selling businesses, doing large real estate investment or development, angel / venture investing, etc. I personally think that I'd have a harder time finding interesting things to do with anything more than $100mm, but I suspect that's due to my inexperience and lack of imagination, more than an actual dearth of opportunities that billionaires have to do interesting things :)
  - kome 8y ago
    I think I would like to open a university department in my city - or a museum of contemporary art. But I have NO IDEA of how much money is needed for that. $25mm seems so astronomically high I googled: $145 million is the MoMA yearly budget. For a little museum in a peripheral town $25mm seems appropriate. If people is willing to invest $25mm please contact me, I have big ideas now :P
    - l1n 8y ago
      Here's a NYT article on some museum budgets from 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/arts/artsspecial/start-up-success-isnt-enough-to-found-a-museum.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/arts/artsspecial/start-up... From the article, it looks like you could do it on ~10mm + ~6mm endowment for a small museum. For a university department, Duke has some good numbers: https://giving.duke.edu/ways-to-give/endowment/endowment-giving/ https://giving.duke.edu/ways-to-give/endowment/endowment-giv... Assuming three full professors and three assistant professors, plus some extra for the chair and one visiting professor, I'd estimate a 16mm endowment would run a department quite nicely for a while.
- falcolas 8y ago
  I've heard it put simply: they do whatever they want to. When money isn't a concern anymore (at those levels of wealth, it effectively makes more money on its own), you view going to a restaurant with a $200 a plate fee as equally fulfilling as a burger joint that's under $10. Want to go on vacation? Do it. Want to take a year to pursue painting? Would you prefer to try Oils or Acrylics? Want a personal tutor to help you become that better painter? No problem. Want to see how hard it is to make another $10M? Go for it. Want to start a business? No? Buy an established business and be its CEO? Go for it. When money doesn't matter, you can do whatever you want. All that stress you face trying to make that $25k a year is completely gone. All that brain- and willpower it takes to be frugal can be applied to whatever you want it to be applied to. [EDIT] This is why I view UBI as a good goal. Get rid of the need to put so much brainpower into merely surviving, and let's see what comes out the other side. I feel that we're at a point in society where the struggle to survive could be put behind us for everyone, not just the ultra wealthy.
matte_black 8y ago
A million dollars was worth the equivalent of $25M today when the term millionaire was first coined so I’m not surprised. I passed a million dollar net worth last year and I hardly consider myself a true millionaire. Just a working class developer.
- pc86 8y ago
  I think first and foremost "working class" and "developer" are mutually exclusive, maybe even diametrically opposed terms. We are not working class, full stop. Nobody here is being crippled by arthritis at the tender age of 40, nobody risks physical injury at their job, nobody is risking a permanent end to their ability to earn a living by someone pressing a button on a machine at the wrong time. Even ignoring the lack of any real danger, don't try to tell me that sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day is even a tenth as physically demanding as welding, plumbing, carpentry, or general contracting is for 10-12. To imply the people here getting paid $180k a year plus RSUs to type is an insult to real working class people who struggle to make rent every month.
  - CompelTechnic 8y ago
    In the US, the term working class is a pretty big misnomer, enough so to cause misunderstandings. To my mind, someone in the working class should be someone who works for a living.
    - pc86 8y ago
      "Working class" means a very specific thing - "the social group consisting of people who are employed for wages, especially in manual or industrial work." > When used non-academically in the United States, however, it often refers to a section of society dependent on physical labor, especially when compensated with an hourly wage.[0] Your definition is much closer to the Marxist definition which is basically "anyone who trades time for money" which describes the vast majority of the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions
tw1010 8y ago
I don't like it, but I don't understand why reading this article makes me feel good.
kolbe 8y ago
>Placing investable assets of at least $25 million with a wealth manager—and clients with that amount or more tend to work with a few firms—can bring access to initial public offerings, and having at least $5 million in investments moves a client past one regulatory hurdle to taking part in private offerings. That's the crux of their argument. It's not about being 'rich' in any social sense, and I think the article was written pretty shamelessly to imply otherwise.
cleansy 8y ago
I am quite honestly sick of articles like this. The original title is: "Here’s How Much Money You Need for Bankers to Think You’re Rich" First of all: who gives a damn what Bankers think about anyone? I entered the labor market around 2007 and since the meltdown not much of the general "Bankers Mindset" has changed. Living in London for 2 years it was quite painful listening to some young bankers on parties or other occasions. Their second question usually starts with something indicating your income. 80/20 principle applies but "character shallowness" was a widely spread phenomenon. SV or the tech scene in general should be more forward thinking and measure a persons stance in society by "how many people does your work effectively help" with "monetary net worth" purely as the result of your actual "value added for society".
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Finance does seem to have some intractable cultural problems, but I don't think it's unreasonable for asset managers to require a certain level of net worth before they can give you personalized attention. Granted, this article is written not for the wealthy or the bankers, but as fantasy material for the huddled masses :)
- pmlnr 8y ago
  We need fundamental changes in the generic message that "value added for society" is better for you, for everyone. Wealth is passing, wealth is relative; once your real, true needs (not the ones you think you need) are covered, we, indeed, should be focusing on moving humanity ahead, and not on personal hoarding. When my wifes replies to questions like what is your dream house like? as a tiny, self-sustaning house, so I don't have to do housework, she regularly meets confused looks, because "but what about space and and large space and...". Focus on what you really need, not on what society tells you to believe.
spking 8y ago
One of the best books I ever read was "Stop Acting Rich" by Thomas Stanley. It was the follow up book to Millionaire Next Door. The main argument is that almost anyone can become a "simple" millionaire through frugality and--most importantly--avoiding trying to emulate the consumption patterns of the "glittering rich" (e.g. decamillionaires and those described in the article). Combine living below your means with an in-demand skill, a healthy stoic outlook (learn to love what you already have), and you'll have a great shot at financial independence.
kevingadd 8y ago
The cost of living a reasonable low-risk life certainly goes up every year. If you want to send a kid to college, be able to pay for any emergency medical expenses (like cancer), and retire - you probably need to have a lot more than a million dollars in the bank (along with good health insurance, etc). And if you're not also earning a lot every year, just the cost to live in a non-rural area will probably eat that money up in the span of a few years by itself.
arbuge 8y ago
Misleading title and article premise. As mentioned in the article itself, $25M is currently an approximate treshold where certain bankers define you as "ultra-high net worth". Which sounds reasonable to me. That is not economy-class anything by any common definition of the term.
aisengard 8y ago
The true measure of wealth should be, are you financially independent? Meaning, could you never do wage work again in your life and never have to worry about money? By my calculations that would be in the area of a few million dollars, invested in some bonds, living purely off the interest forever.
- pmlnr 8y ago
  > The true measure of wealth Are you happy? Do you have goals? Do you have/serve a purpose? You know, the real questions.
throwaway77384 8y ago
I hate this shit. It's kind of unbelievable that this kind of wealth concentrated with such few people is allowed to exist. If it could realistically be capped at, say, $10mil or something, why not? Nobody needs more than that. Yes, you could say the same for one million or a hundred, but you have to start somewhere. It makes me sick that this is the society we live in. This pathetic striving for maximum wealth, in an eternal competition over who has a bigger ficitious number attached to their family emblem, no matter what the societal, ethical and global consequences, is close to the root of all evil in my opinion.
- lend000 8y ago
  What system do you suggest that has a track record of lifting more people out of poverty than capitalism? On average, people tend to efficiently manage their productive capacities in the pursuit of wealth.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    A benevolent dictatorship; there are many individual examples of dictators bettering everyone's lives. The problem is that they can't ever last more than one generation, and it takes only one self-centered dictator (which I would argue is the norm) to undo all the good. I'd also argue that capitalism is on a downward trend when it comes to lifting people out of poverty. One doesn't have to look much further than Wallmart or McDonalds to see the cracks in the "uplifting from poverty" walls (paying salaries that must be supplemented by federal aid or second/third jobs).
  - throwaway77384 8y ago
    Actually, that is an excellent point. I do not suggest another system. I guess there is this strange notion that Capitalism is this "all or nothing" system, where you either get a free market with its invisible hand or nothing. This sort of "Everything else is communism" thinking. We all know that this is not true. Capitalist societies have all sorts of schemes that are "un-capitalistic". Take public healthcare. In some ways that's a very socialist idea. At the same time, you could argue it supports the capitalist system by taking various burdens off the workforce, enabling them to spend more time generating more money than it cost to implement the socialist health care. My theory is that concentration of wealth is incredibly dangerous to society because it gives disproportionate power to very few individuals. The control these people exert over policy, their workers, our entire culture leaves us at their whim. This results in things like Brexit and the insane clusterfuck that's the current US government and the populist right-wing uprising in Europe. I don't care whether someone has tons of money so they can wank themselves to sleep over their financial portfolio. I do care when society as a whole, human progress, everyone's actions are filtered through the lens of a few rich people's actions and desires. I hate this notion that the population-at-large is just a sideshow on this rich-people's playground we call earth. It is sickening. The wealth that these people amass does not trickle down and is not used for more useful things than it would be if this wealth was somehow capped and re-distributed for the benefit of society. (And believe me, I know that on the flipside this would be a breeding ground for bloated institution wasting money with their inefficiency. This would also not be a 'perfect' system by any means, but I do believe it would be better than whatever it is we are currently steering towards.) To quickly touch on people being lifted out of poverty. I am all for it. But under what conditions? Is a Foxconn factory worker someone who was lifted out of poverty? Is a quasi-slave working on the Qatari football stadium lifted out of poverty? In exchange for what? Is the ever-decreasing quality of life people on disability benefits in the UK, being harassed by the DWP 24/7 and stripped of all agency and freedom worth it, because they are not considered "below the red line poor"? Would the reinvigoration of public services by capping wealth (or introducing profit sharing in companies, or 20:1 pay ratios / stock option ratios for companies) be so devastating to all of society that it would indeed be worse than the current destruction of democracy by your Murdochs, Kochs, Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Rothchilds and whomever else super-rich acting in their own interests?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dcosson 8y ago
This is a silly framing. The real story seems to be that below $25 million, it’s not that you aren’t rich, just that you don’t really need customized, private asset management these days. Wonder if that’s due simply to inflation, compared to what absolute values we used to consider rich 50 years ago, or improvement in money management options that are available to everyone, or both. It seems like it could be part of the same trend of etfs growing in popularity over active money managers these days. And I’m completely speculating here but I imagine over that much wealth and you start having some new lucrative (but perhaps ethically dubious) options available that you need a private wealth manager for. Things like being able to exert control on asset prices, getting in on deals that involve some sort of insider info or successful lobbying of the government for special favors, other transactions involving shell corporations and offshore accounts, etc. Or maybe I just watch too many movies.
- pitt1980 8y ago
  Yeah, the better line of inquiry might be, is customized, private asset management a good deal for someone w/ a $25 million net worth? Honestly that article didn't cause me any envy, if anything it caused me imaginary anxiety. Seems like $25 million is when you start to look like a juicy target for people trying to rip you off.

57 points by colinhb 8y ago

Sometimes I feel like these sorts of articles are written as a sort of indulgence to the aspirational class of people who will continue striving for more and more money. For those on a high-net-worth track, but under $25m, this article teases them, and motivates them. But for those over $25m it provides a bit of self satisfaction.

ataturk 8y ago
I agree. I read a discussion about this article on another forum and found the whole thing quite appalling. While I'm not rich, a 7 figure net worth is definitely above average and 8 is easily to the point where you would never have to work another day in your life if you didn't want to. Where I am is iffy, but at some point I am downshifting my career. I have no idea how people like Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Kissinger, etc. are able to have such long careers because 100% of the people I know who are that age are in terrible health and not all there mentally. Other than providing a legacy to their heirs, what is all that money going to accomplish for them? Nothing. Better to go out and enjoy life.
csomar 8y ago
It is not article but the social settings you live in. The article certainly influences but that would be very minimal.

kome 8y ago

I wish I could have $25k per year, or $20k really... $25m would be such a dream. What people do with all this money?

snarf21 8y ago
Not being attacking or sarcastic. Once you hit $25K, you likely wish you could get to $40K because you could finally buy a nice.... etc., etc. It is the rare individual that can stop the chase. With a 7 figure salary, you just have a nicer and bigger house. Your vacations are to Europe and first class instead of driving to the beach, etc. The one thing that most studies have shown is that (in today's dollars) once you get above about $80K household income, any more income doesn't make you any happier. If you think about it that makes sense, since at the level and above you can have some financial security and not be paycheck to paycheck (in most areas), have a small house and decent cars which greatly reduces your stress and leaving room for contentment. Of course, each person's goals are different and the amount of Jonesing they can control is too.
- pc86 8y ago
  Not to be nitpicky but you can do a European vacation with first class airfare when you make much less than a million dollars a year in income. Two people NYC to London 6/18-25 is $10,200 for airfare. Assume that everything else you do costs 2x that much if you're going all out (the few times I've purchased first class tickets, that cost has ended up being 50% or more of the entire trip). You're still at $30k for a vacation, which is an astounding amount of money to spend on a week for sure. But at the same time, if you make $250k a year and this is a special event, 10th/20th/30th anniversary, big birthday event, etc, it's not outside the realm of possibilities to spend 2 months salary on something like that. Obviously you still need to save and plan it, and if you're making $1 million a year you can probably spend $30k without thinking about it. But just wanted to point out that it's doable. As for the $80k study you're mentioning I've seen numbers all over the place, from $70k up to $105k, but I've definitely noticed the satisfaction from each raise has decreased even while the raw dollar amounts have gone up. The last raise I got only served to go toward paying down debts faster, which I can attest makes me very happy.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    I just want to point out that if you live in NYC, that $30k vacation will cost you about $50k in pre-tax income. And no one I know in NYC who makes $250k is going to spend 20% of their annual income on a vacation. And ironically, those who could are disciplined and frugal enough that they probably never would.
CameronBanga 8y ago
They buy things they don’t need that they think will make them happy. Spoiler: It doesn’t make them happy.
pjc50 8y ago
The FT has the answer: https://howtospendit.ft.com/ https://howtospendit.ft.com/ Even undramatically, suppose a family want to have a nice house in the centre of a big popular city, have a couple of Teslas, give two children private education debt-free to graduation, go on five-star holidays for a month a year, and have pensions that enable them to maintain this lifestyle, that's probably more than half the $25m right there. And it doesn't even look all that extravagant.
hendzen 8y ago
Things rich people like to do with large amounts of money: - Housing. Multiple dwellings around the world. A penthouse in London, a villa on the southern coast of France, etc. - Travel. No more sitting in an Uber or public transit on your way to economy class travel. Helicopter from nearest helipad to small private plane equipped with chef and luxurious sleeping quarters. - Collecting. Buying (expensive) things that you like. Art, cars, horses, stamps, etc. - Entrepreneurship/Investing. Buying up cash-flow generating assets like companies or land w/ natural resources. Investing or starting companies in potentially risky areas like spaceflight or human life extension that most people wouldn't do if their main goal was to get rich to begin with. - Philanthropy. Support your causes of choice. Also a good way to keep the non-extremely-high-earning spouse busy in the event that they don't want to keep working. - Politics. With super PACs unlimited money can go in to the political system. Usually this is done in tasteful amounts of a few million here or there to retain some influence but some people make this their main goal (Mercer family, Tom Steyer, Kochs, etc.) - Legacy. Structuring trusts and other legal structures (potentially offshore) to ensure that the wealth is multigenerational. It can be possible to guarantee that your offspring 1-4 generations out will live comfortable lives.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
By the standards of this article, I'm not wealthy, but I feel like you have to be cursed with a pretty poor imagination to not have any idea what you'd do with $25mm. Or even $100mm. A conservative safe withdrawal rate is about 3-4% per year. So that's $750,000 to $1mm per year of income in perpetuity on $25mm. On the one hand, $1mm per year is a ridiculous amount of money, and it's an order of magnitude above what any normal person would need for their lifestyle. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to ratchet your lifestyle up to that level. Here's an easy way to spend $1mm per year: you live in a really nice place in a HCOL area, have a fancy vacation home elsewhere, employ a few staff (housekeeper, nanny, personal trainer, etc), have 2-3 kids in top private school, do several luxury vacations per year where you stay in 5-star hotels and fly international first class, etc. That doesn't cover the kind of crazy lifestyle where you're chartering super yachts or owning a private jet or renting out Necker Island or having Beyonce perform at your birthday party. That's nine or ten figure wealth territory. It also doesn't leave a huge pile of money left over for the really fun stuff, like philanthropy, buying and selling businesses, doing large real estate investment or development, angel / venture investing, etc. I personally think that I'd have a harder time finding interesting things to do with anything more than $100mm, but I suspect that's due to my inexperience and lack of imagination, more than an actual dearth of opportunities that billionaires have to do interesting things :)
- kome 8y ago
  I think I would like to open a university department in my city - or a museum of contemporary art. But I have NO IDEA of how much money is needed for that. $25mm seems so astronomically high I googled: $145 million is the MoMA yearly budget. For a little museum in a peripheral town $25mm seems appropriate. If people is willing to invest $25mm please contact me, I have big ideas now :P
  - l1n 8y ago
    Here's a NYT article on some museum budgets from 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/arts/artsspecial/start-up-success-isnt-enough-to-found-a-museum.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/arts/artsspecial/start-up... From the article, it looks like you could do it on ~10mm + ~6mm endowment for a small museum. For a university department, Duke has some good numbers: https://giving.duke.edu/ways-to-give/endowment/endowment-giving/ https://giving.duke.edu/ways-to-give/endowment/endowment-giv... Assuming three full professors and three assistant professors, plus some extra for the chair and one visiting professor, I'd estimate a 16mm endowment would run a department quite nicely for a while.
falcolas 8y ago
I've heard it put simply: they do whatever they want to. When money isn't a concern anymore (at those levels of wealth, it effectively makes more money on its own), you view going to a restaurant with a $200 a plate fee as equally fulfilling as a burger joint that's under $10. Want to go on vacation? Do it. Want to take a year to pursue painting? Would you prefer to try Oils or Acrylics? Want a personal tutor to help you become that better painter? No problem. Want to see how hard it is to make another $10M? Go for it. Want to start a business? No? Buy an established business and be its CEO? Go for it. When money doesn't matter, you can do whatever you want. All that stress you face trying to make that $25k a year is completely gone. All that brain- and willpower it takes to be frugal can be applied to whatever you want it to be applied to. [EDIT] This is why I view UBI as a good goal. Get rid of the need to put so much brainpower into merely surviving, and let's see what comes out the other side. I feel that we're at a point in society where the struggle to survive could be put behind us for everyone, not just the ultra wealthy.

matte_black 8y ago

A million dollars was worth the equivalent of $25M today when the term millionaire was first coined so I’m not surprised. I passed a million dollar net worth last year and I hardly consider myself a true millionaire. Just a working class developer.

pc86 8y ago
I think first and foremost "working class" and "developer" are mutually exclusive, maybe even diametrically opposed terms. We are not working class, full stop. Nobody here is being crippled by arthritis at the tender age of 40, nobody risks physical injury at their job, nobody is risking a permanent end to their ability to earn a living by someone pressing a button on a machine at the wrong time. Even ignoring the lack of any real danger, don't try to tell me that sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day is even a tenth as physically demanding as welding, plumbing, carpentry, or general contracting is for 10-12. To imply the people here getting paid $180k a year plus RSUs to type is an insult to real working class people who struggle to make rent every month.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  In the US, the term working class is a pretty big misnomer, enough so to cause misunderstandings. To my mind, someone in the working class should be someone who works for a living.
  - pc86 8y ago
    "Working class" means a very specific thing - "the social group consisting of people who are employed for wages, especially in manual or industrial work." > When used non-academically in the United States, however, it often refers to a section of society dependent on physical labor, especially when compensated with an hourly wage.[0] Your definition is much closer to the Marxist definition which is basically "anyone who trades time for money" which describes the vast majority of the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions

tw1010 8y ago

I don't like it, but I don't understand why reading this article makes me feel good.

kolbe 8y ago

>Placing investable assets of at least $25 million with a wealth manager—and clients with that amount or more tend to work with a few firms—can bring access to initial public offerings, and having at least $5 million in investments moves a client past one regulatory hurdle to taking part in private offerings. That's the crux of their argument. It's not about being 'rich' in any social sense, and I think the article was written pretty shamelessly to imply otherwise.

cleansy 8y ago

I am quite honestly sick of articles like this. The original title is: "Here’s How Much Money You Need for Bankers to Think You’re Rich" First of all: who gives a damn what Bankers think about anyone? I entered the labor market around 2007 and since the meltdown not much of the general "Bankers Mindset" has changed. Living in London for 2 years it was quite painful listening to some young bankers on parties or other occasions. Their second question usually starts with something indicating your income. 80/20 principle applies but "character shallowness" was a widely spread phenomenon. SV or the tech scene in general should be more forward thinking and measure a persons stance in society by "how many people does your work effectively help" with "monetary net worth" purely as the result of your actual "value added for society".

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Finance does seem to have some intractable cultural problems, but I don't think it's unreasonable for asset managers to require a certain level of net worth before they can give you personalized attention. Granted, this article is written not for the wealthy or the bankers, but as fantasy material for the huddled masses :)
pmlnr 8y ago
We need fundamental changes in the generic message that "value added for society" is better for you, for everyone. Wealth is passing, wealth is relative; once your real, true needs (not the ones you think you need) are covered, we, indeed, should be focusing on moving humanity ahead, and not on personal hoarding. When my wifes replies to questions like what is your dream house like? as a tiny, self-sustaning house, so I don't have to do housework, she regularly meets confused looks, because "but what about space and and large space and...". Focus on what you really need, not on what society tells you to believe.

spking 8y ago

One of the best books I ever read was "Stop Acting Rich" by Thomas Stanley. It was the follow up book to Millionaire Next Door. The main argument is that almost anyone can become a "simple" millionaire through frugality and--most importantly--avoiding trying to emulate the consumption patterns of the "glittering rich" (e.g. decamillionaires and those described in the article). Combine living below your means with an in-demand skill, a healthy stoic outlook (learn to love what you already have), and you'll have a great shot at financial independence.

kevingadd 8y ago

The cost of living a reasonable low-risk life certainly goes up every year. If you want to send a kid to college, be able to pay for any emergency medical expenses (like cancer), and retire - you probably need to have a lot more than a million dollars in the bank (along with good health insurance, etc). And if you're not also earning a lot every year, just the cost to live in a non-rural area will probably eat that money up in the span of a few years by itself.

arbuge 8y ago

Misleading title and article premise. As mentioned in the article itself, $25M is currently an approximate treshold where certain bankers define you as "ultra-high net worth". Which sounds reasonable to me. That is not economy-class anything by any common definition of the term.

aisengard 8y ago

The true measure of wealth should be, are you financially independent? Meaning, could you never do wage work again in your life and never have to worry about money? By my calculations that would be in the area of a few million dollars, invested in some bonds, living purely off the interest forever.

pmlnr 8y ago
> The true measure of wealth Are you happy? Do you have goals? Do you have/serve a purpose? You know, the real questions.

throwaway77384 8y ago

I hate this shit. It's kind of unbelievable that this kind of wealth concentrated with such few people is allowed to exist. If it could realistically be capped at, say, $10mil or something, why not? Nobody needs more than that. Yes, you could say the same for one million or a hundred, but you have to start somewhere. It makes me sick that this is the society we live in. This pathetic striving for maximum wealth, in an eternal competition over who has a bigger ficitious number attached to their family emblem, no matter what the societal, ethical and global consequences, is close to the root of all evil in my opinion.

lend000 8y ago
What system do you suggest that has a track record of lifting more people out of poverty than capitalism? On average, people tend to efficiently manage their productive capacities in the pursuit of wealth.
- falcolas 8y ago
  A benevolent dictatorship; there are many individual examples of dictators bettering everyone's lives. The problem is that they can't ever last more than one generation, and it takes only one self-centered dictator (which I would argue is the norm) to undo all the good. I'd also argue that capitalism is on a downward trend when it comes to lifting people out of poverty. One doesn't have to look much further than Wallmart or McDonalds to see the cracks in the "uplifting from poverty" walls (paying salaries that must be supplemented by federal aid or second/third jobs).
- throwaway77384 8y ago
  Actually, that is an excellent point. I do not suggest another system. I guess there is this strange notion that Capitalism is this "all or nothing" system, where you either get a free market with its invisible hand or nothing. This sort of "Everything else is communism" thinking. We all know that this is not true. Capitalist societies have all sorts of schemes that are "un-capitalistic". Take public healthcare. In some ways that's a very socialist idea. At the same time, you could argue it supports the capitalist system by taking various burdens off the workforce, enabling them to spend more time generating more money than it cost to implement the socialist health care. My theory is that concentration of wealth is incredibly dangerous to society because it gives disproportionate power to very few individuals. The control these people exert over policy, their workers, our entire culture leaves us at their whim. This results in things like Brexit and the insane clusterfuck that's the current US government and the populist right-wing uprising in Europe. I don't care whether someone has tons of money so they can wank themselves to sleep over their financial portfolio. I do care when society as a whole, human progress, everyone's actions are filtered through the lens of a few rich people's actions and desires. I hate this notion that the population-at-large is just a sideshow on this rich-people's playground we call earth. It is sickening. The wealth that these people amass does not trickle down and is not used for more useful things than it would be if this wealth was somehow capped and re-distributed for the benefit of society. (And believe me, I know that on the flipside this would be a breeding ground for bloated institution wasting money with their inefficiency. This would also not be a 'perfect' system by any means, but I do believe it would be better than whatever it is we are currently steering towards.) To quickly touch on people being lifted out of poverty. I am all for it. But under what conditions? Is a Foxconn factory worker someone who was lifted out of poverty? Is a quasi-slave working on the Qatari football stadium lifted out of poverty? In exchange for what? Is the ever-decreasing quality of life people on disability benefits in the UK, being harassed by the DWP 24/7 and stripped of all agency and freedom worth it, because they are not considered "below the red line poor"? Would the reinvigoration of public services by capping wealth (or introducing profit sharing in companies, or 20:1 pay ratios / stock option ratios for companies) be so devastating to all of society that it would indeed be worse than the current destruction of democracy by your Murdochs, Kochs, Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Rothchilds and whomever else super-rich acting in their own interests?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dcosson 8y ago

This is a silly framing. The real story seems to be that below $25 million, it’s not that you aren’t rich, just that you don’t really need customized, private asset management these days. Wonder if that’s due simply to inflation, compared to what absolute values we used to consider rich 50 years ago, or improvement in money management options that are available to everyone, or both. It seems like it could be part of the same trend of etfs growing in popularity over active money managers these days. And I’m completely speculating here but I imagine over that much wealth and you start having some new lucrative (but perhaps ethically dubious) options available that you need a private wealth manager for. Things like being able to exert control on asset prices, getting in on deals that involve some sort of insider info or successful lobbying of the government for special favors, other transactions involving shell corporations and offshore accounts, etc. Or maybe I just watch too many movies.

pitt1980 8y ago
Yeah, the better line of inquiry might be, is customized, private asset management a good deal for someone w/ a $25 million net worth? Honestly that article didn't cause me any envy, if anything it caused me imaginary anxiety. Seems like $25 million is when you start to look like a juicy target for people trying to rip you off.