What does it take in terms of assets, abilities, and/or income for you to consider them wealthy?

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    3 months ago

    Of course, rich is a relative descriptor, like tall or heavy, some people are richer than others.

    I would call anyone who doesn’t need to work in order to live (i.e. who can live off investments and interest) rich.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I would call anyone who doesn’t need to work in order to live (i.e. who can live off investments and interest) rich.

      Some caveats I would add: (1) Excluding receivers of pensions and/or other benefits.
      (2) Without moving to a different country. I could retire today, if I moved to a low cost of living country.

    • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Are old retirees rich, then? I wouldn’t consider that accurate.

      If you’re not pulling in upper 6 figures from those investments, you’re still not rich.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        If I ever manage to earn ~3000 euros (my current net salary) a month from just investments and interest, I will definitely consider myself rich. There may still be richer people than me even in that scenario, which is why I wrote that “rich” is a relative descriptor.

            • bluGill@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              For most of us reading this it is an obtainable retirement income. On the world stage if you can read this you are probably rich. A little bit of savings can get you 3k inflation adjusted once you reach “old age”.

              • ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Of course on the world stage this varies per country but I agree that a big of savings can get you there by retirement, especially if done early.

                In China a common goal is to save 140k USD then invest it and retire by one’s mid 30s living a simple life.

                • bluGill@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  That would be achievable in the US as well - 140k US saved and living a “simple life”. Those some people who try it go back to work in a few years because it turns out they value a more complex life. YMMV.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    When you could stop working and just coast off of what you’ve got till you die. At that point, making more is a luxury.

    • pound_heap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Well, luxury and rich are closely related terms, aren’t they? I think what you described is a financial independence.

      I’d add that if you can support your desired level of luxurity for yourself and your family without working anymore - that’s being rich.

      Edit: I misread the original question, which was asking about wealthy, not rich. Still, I think my answer applies

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is not what I’m describing, no. I am specifying that it’s about having enough wealth that you can stop working.

        Having a job, investments, being a landlord, freelancing etc. Those are all ways to achieve financial independence. But none of those allow you to stop doing any of them.

      • DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Working class people contribute to society.

        The rich are parasites.

        That’s the difference.

        And no, telling people what to do is not real labor. Rent seeking is not real labor.

  • bizarroland@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    For me, being wealthy would mean that if they never intentionally earned another penny for the rest of their life, that would not prevent them from doing anything that they wanted to do within reason.

    For normal people that would mean between two and five million dollars in liquid assets available to them.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    I liked it back when the aristocracy was just called the “leisure” class. At least they didn’t spend their time playing at being an executive and pretending they earned what they have.

  • rbn@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Personally, I’d consider myself rich. I live in Germany which is already among the richer countries in the world giving me access to an insane amount of infrastructure and opportunities. Furthermore, I work for an IT company and make more money than average and more than I need to satisfy my immediate needs (shelter, food, transportation etc.) and pay for my hobbies (mostly outdoor stuff). I might not be a millionaire and I can’t just retire tomorrow but still I’m very aware of what a huge privilege I have compared to a vast part of humanity.

    Personally, I think already my taxes are too low. Not to start about millionaires or billionaires.

  • atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Anybody who doesn’t have to work for the rest of their life because it’s voluntary + they don’t really have to look at the price tags of the things they want.

  • abbadon420@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Bezos is not wealthy. He just has a lot of money. I can’t imagine he’s found any real happiness with it. Sure a brand new Ferrari every week can buy you some happiness, but that’s short lived.

    The man has a serious mental illness that will not be addressed, because he has too much money and power for anyone to be allowed to tell him he’s ill.

    Billionaires are a danger to themselves and others. They should be admitted into a mental hospital against their will and they should be treated until they are cured.

    This isn’t even a “CEO bad” joke. I honestly believe it’s a mentally disorder. Or maybe a specific mix of different disorders and unfortunate environments, circumstances and enablers.

  • Brutticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The tiers for me are: Doesn’t worry about money -> Doesn’t work -> Can afford a US senator to protect money. There are not titles for this kind of thing.

  • SomGye@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Being able to not worry about food, gas, standard bills and actually have something in savings

  • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Which kind of rich do you mean? The ‘this person is truly wealthy but it’s not unreasonable’ or ‘this person is unacceptably rich and should have their money taken away if not worse’?

    The former can be somewhere around…$10,000,000 or so. Lower the older the person is really (cause I consider rich versus remaining expected lifespan), so maybe even as low as $6,000,000 for someone who’s currently 40.

    The latter where it’s simply unacceptable for people to have that much I’d start the cutoff around $400,000,000 or so.

    And slight sidenote on the unacceptable levels: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos both are so unacceptably wealthy that they could make one person a day wealthy by my $10,000,000 standard…every day…for 100 years…before running out (and that’s assuming they stopped accruing money at the beginning of this)…and still be unacceptably wealthy to a crazy degree.

    Oh and all my numbers are assuming no additional income and definitely no interest or investment (but also assuming the money remains the same value it has today).

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    In general I would say you’re rich if you could stop working and live a life where you never want for anything

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Anyone who can forego any form of future income and live off their current wealth for the rest of their life in relative luxury/comfort.

  • Jourei@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Someone who has everything they could possibly need and no bad debt. Does not need to be rich.