3 ms·
That book was originally written decades ago. Its threshold corresponds to about $1.7 million in savings in today's world. Their median was $1.6 million, or ab
by btilly 5y ago
That book was originally written decades ago. Its threshold corresponds to about $1.7 million in savings in today's world. Their median was $1.6 million, or about $2.7 million in today's dollars.
And given that the people who attained that status on average lived in cheap neighborhoods, the fact that their income wouldn't stretch long in an affluent neighborhood isn't really a concern for them.
- Retric 5y agoEven adjusting for inflation from 1996 half the population had 1.0 - 1.6 million. That translates to ~$1.7M - 2.7M, or an income of ~68k to 108k which is still not that significant.
- btilly 5y agoWhere do you get half the population from? According to the statistics that they gave, an estimated 3.5 million Americans were that wealthy. In 1996 the US population was around 270 million so we're talking about the top 1.3% of Americans by net worth. For more about what this group looked like, read https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/c....
- Retric 5y agoThat’s what a a median of $1.6 million and a minimum of 1.0 million means. Half of their population was 1.0 to 1.6 Million the other half was over 1.6 million.
- boredwithlife 5y agoDon't forget that married filing jointly allows about $106k of long term capital gains per year taxed at 0% federally within the US. If you had a paid off home and $68k of tax-free income per year, would you really find it difficult to live? Seems pretty cushy to me.