> They’re not wealthy by the standard of the Bay Area, which is the point of the comment you’re replying to. Wealth is relative. they end up in possession of a

> They’re not wealthy by the standard of the Bay Area, which is the point of the comment you’re replying to. Wealth is relative. they end up in possession of an asset worth $1MM. ill-liquid sure but still a durable asset. you can borrow against that asset, it appreciates proportionally, you can eventually sell it, etc. what's the difference between it and $1MM and equities holding? i don't understand how you think being in possession of something like doesn't cross the threshold for wealth simply because other people in the neighborhood are also wealthy?