I would argue that a high salary individual is statistically more likely to be a high net worth individual (using your language), so I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Could a sustained $60k/year salary individual end up at a higher net worth than the $200k/year individual? Possibly, but that $200k/year person would have to be astoundingly bad with money.
How could I possibly make it more clear? If you have a high net worth (yet to be defined - call it $5 million for fun), then you are rich. Somebody is rich based on their net worth, not their income.
Sure a higher-income guy has more potential to become rich, but it doesn't mean a high-income guy is rich.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
They're both in the top 3% of earners. That's quite a bit in common.
He's saying their lives don't resemble each other's.
There's a point at which there's not much difference between rich and richer, but it's in the hundreds of millions of net worth range. A guy worth 100 million and a guy worth 10 billion have a lot in common in their lives. That's not the case for the guy making 200k a year, whose life is not all that much different from the dude who makes 80k. Those guys both take weekend trips to camp, have 1-2 cars, have a mortgage, worry about their kid's grades at public school, take the occasional vacation and shop at the local co-op. You're not going to meet the Koch brothers in the dairy aisle.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
They're both in the top 3% of earners. That's quite a bit in common.
Hah, depends on the difference between the guy at 97.1% and the guy at 99.9%. I highly doubt you'll post that number, though. Might put a little hole in your argument to the tune of billions of dollars.
Hah, depends on the difference between the guy at 97.1% and the guy at 99.9%. I highly doubt you'll post that number, though. Might put a little hole in your argument to the tune of billions of dollars.
So your argument is that because 200k is closer to the poverty line than 2 million, you can't be considered "rich", even though a 200k single earner is more than double the median family income?
There is such an appalling disconnect here regarding the value of money it's no wonder there is such push back against the growing wealth disparity in North America.
When a 200k earner can point to ~80,000 people and say "I'M SO POOR, LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE THAN ME" and ~2.7 million people can point at the 200k earner and say the same thing...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
He's saying their lives don't resemble each other's.
There's a point at which there's not much difference between rich and richer, but it's in the hundreds of millions of net worth range. A guy worth 100 million and a guy worth 10 billion have a lot in common in their lives. That's not the case for the guy making 200k a year, whose life is not all that much different from the dude who makes 80k. Those guys both take weekend trips to camp, have 1-2 cars, have a mortgage, worry about their kid's grades at public school, take the occasional vacation and shop at the local co-op. You're not going to meet the Koch brothers in the dairy aisle.
Pretty much this. Obviously making $200K isnt middle class, but I sort of get what hes after.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
So your argument is that because 200k is closer to the poverty line than 2 million, you can't be considered "rich", even though a 200k single earner is more than double the median family income?
There is such an appalling disconnect here regarding the value of money it's no wonder there is such push back against the growing wealth disparity in North America.
When a 200k earner can point to ~80,000 people and say "I'M SO POOR, LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE THAN ME" and ~2.7 million people can point at the 200k earner and say the same thing...
You're infuriatingly obtuse.
Do you think someone who makes or is worth 100 million dollars thinks about saving money, ever? Do you think he worries about losing his job? Looks at the price of things and budgets?
Yes, the 200k person can do a hell of a lot more, but they are still driving old cars because they can't afford a new one. They still have a mortgage, worry about losing their home etc....
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Do you think someone who makes or is worth 100 million dollars thinks about saving money, ever? Do you think he worries about losing his job? Looks at the price of things and budgets?
Yes, the 200k person can do a hell of a lot more, but they are still driving old cars because they can't afford a new one. They still have a mortgage, worry about losing their home etc....
It's unbelievable that people think making 200k is such a struggle.
If you can't afford a new car at 200k, you've made some life choices that made it that way. It's not because you're not rich.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
That's not what I said. It's not like they're driving a rust bucket, but they aren't cruising around in a new maybach every year.
This highlights my point. You still have to make choices. The guy worth 100 million doesn't have to make any choices.
I disagree. I think that argument only justifies your own choices.
Every person at every income and wealth level makes choices. The choices are different, and can push you higher or lower on the overall wealth picture.
Someone making 50k a year looking at the 200k a year person making a choice between a new 335i or an E350 is the same as that person looking up to the 1 mil/year person making a choice between an Aventador or a 458. Which then goes to the 100 mil/year guy making a choice between two private jets.
The choices you can make at 200k put you well into the realm of "rich". There's obviously people far more well off, but it's still mind boggling that even at 200k, you suggest that there's worry about losing your home and such, which is why I framed it as "struggle".
I disagree. I think that argument only justifies your own choices.
Every person at every income and wealth level makes choices. The choices are different, and can push you higher or lower on the overall wealth picture.
Someone making 50k a year looking at the 200k a year person making a choice between a new 335i or an E350 is the same as that person looking up to the 1 mil/year person making a choice between an Aventador or a 458. Which then goes to the 100 mil/year guy making a choice between two private jets.
The choices you can make at 200k put you well into the realm of "rich". There's obviously people far more well off, but it's still mind boggling that even at 200k, you suggest that there's worry about losing your home and such, which is why I framed it as "struggle".
Sorry, you don't think that someone who makes 200k worries about losing their home?
Sorry, you don't think that someone who makes 200k worries about losing their home?
Not if they purchased appropriately, don't have kids, didn't have a divorce etc.
If the person made those choices, I totally respect that. But put the blame for not being (or feeling) rich where it belongs - on the individual for their choices, rather than the objectively high salary.
Seems like a bit of a double standard though doesn't it?
You're rich and if you're not, it's your choices.
You're poor, but it's not your fault so here's some social assistance based on wealth distribution.
And whatever you do dont take any risks! Dont get married, dont have kids, dont buy that house, dont get that car, you dont need vegetables half the world lives on Ramen!
Instead give all of the money that you earned and would have spent on those things to the people that havent so they can.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
So your argument is that because 200k is closer to the poverty line than 2 million, you can't be considered "rich", even though a 200k single earner is more than double the median family income?
No, that's not my argument. Are you joking around with me? I've restated my argument in every single post I've made in this thread to the point where I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
How do you not understand what I'm saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
How could I possibly make it more clear? If you have a high net worth (yet to be defined - call it $5 million for fun), then you are rich. Somebody is rich based on their net worth, not their income.
Sure a higher-income guy has more potential to become rich, but it doesn't mean a high-income guy is rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I disagree. You're doing well making $200k, but if you live within your means, are raising a family, socking away for retirement, maxing out RESPs, etc., then you have more in common with the guy making $60k per year than the guy with $10 mil in the bank.
You're far from the point of having your money earn an income of its own making $200k. You have to get up every day and go to work still. You have to budget. You have to plan for retirement. You can't spend willy-nilly if you want to be growing your net worth.
There are lots of guys that make that kind of money and certainly many in Calgary that look rich in that every second car is a BMW or Audi these days and the houses are beautiful. But if you're spending everything you make without actually growing your net worth, then you could hardly be called rich.
You're mistaking a high income with being rich. It's your net worth that should define whether or not you're rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
It's statistically a high income, but a high income doesn't make you rich.
Growing a net worth on $200k per year takes more discipline than a lot of people have. That's why rich should be defined based on net worth. Defining rich based on net worth also takes into account familial money that can dictate a person's level of 'richness' better than their income.
There can be high-income people that are underachievers of wealth and low-income people with high net worths due to their discipline and/or the socio-economic position of their family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Fine, call it upper middle class. It's not necessarily rich, though, as defined by net worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I think I've been too wordy and it's distracted from what I want to actually say.
My point is a high income doesn't necessarily make you rich. A high net worth makes you rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Not financially (based on a net-worth definition).
It's not a bad way to live. But if a person living in such a way suddenly became unable to work, they would basically be instantly poor. A high net worth provides a cushion and insurance, which is what makes somebody financially rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Depends on your stage in life. If you're a 35 year-old guy making $200k, you may very well be middle class as defined by net worth. You're more likely to get wealthier than the guy flipping burgers, but there's no guarantee. And if you're making $200k now, it doesn't mean you always were. And a high income today doesn't mean a high income tomorrow.
A lot of guys in Alberta making $200k two years ago aren't making anything today. Were they rich two years ago, but now they're not?
Somebody isn't rich or not based on their paycheque. It's about the net worth. OMG.
