On the way to this exalted status, starting a company, growing and finally selling it, I went from a couple of years of no income, a couple of years of middle class income, to several years of upper middle-class income. I never really had the opportunity to acquire lavish tastes. Only on special occasions can I bring myself to spend more than $10 on bottle of wine, even now. I drive a ‘99 Integra. My best suit is Macy’s store brand ($225, on sale).

However, we buy season tickets for the Philharmonic Society and the Pacific Symphony and the Chamber Society and the local playhouse, plus whatever else comes along, and we have excellent seats. We dine out every day (neither of us can cook worth a damn). We have gardeners weekly and housecleaners semiweekly (we’re slobs). I’d say we’re pretty well-to-do, and I don’t think I know anyone much wealthier.

Which probably says more about my reclusiveness than my community. In this wealthy California beach town, displays of wealth are routine. Maseratis are commonplace; Lamborghinis barely draw a second glance; a Mercedes or a Lexus is the sign of a pushy parvenu. We used to fret about people building “monster homes”; now we call them “starter mansions”.

My mother’s house is barely 2000 ft² (the yard is huge, though). My car is nine years old (and still kicks ass). I’m not really rich, am I?

Yes. I live in a nice house in a safe neighborhood of a cool small city, drive a new car, eat out a couple times a week and pretty much buy whatever house/geek stuff I need.

If I could continue to do all that without needing to work for money again, especially if I got there early enough that I still could work, I would consider myself rich.

My parents are about to retire and their lifestyle is pretty similar (bigger house, less fine dining) and won’t take a hit on retirement unless their (low risk) portfolio tanks. I think they are rich.

This is obviously a different sort of rich than many people imagine, even just down the road a piece in Fairfield county (CT US). But my current state of a good paying job, 20% equity in my house and savings on track to retire at my current lifestyle in my 60s would probably be considered rich by a large number of americans and 95% of the world.

I’m aware that there are New Yorkers and Bay people who have ~5M net worth but don’t think that is enough to retire. By most people’s standards, even professionals in the very high cost areas where they live, that’s plenty. It’s not enough to live like a celebrity, but it’s plenty enough to live like a normal, successful professional.

The L-curve author conflates wealth w/ income. Bill Gate’s $50 billion is not his annual income; it’s his wealth. The median income in the US is not the median wealth. That might be negative for the median earner, if debt were taken into account. Nonetheless, the reversed L is probably the accurate shape of the curve.

Who is rich?

Jim is 70, owns outright a 1,200 sq. ft. condo in a duplex appraised at $200,000 that was remodeled 10 years ago, has a 5-year old Toyota Camry, has a pre-tax annual pension and Social Security income of $60,0000. His expenses for home and car maintenance, energy, insurance, food and healthcare total $30,000 a year.

Jane is 35. She owns a 3,000 sq. ft. home appraised at $600,000 with a $400,000 mortgage, has a new leased Mercedes SLK, and has pre-tax annual salary and bonus income of $300,000. Her expenses for home and car maintenance and financing, energy, insurance, food and healthcare total $70,000 a year. She used her savings to buy the house.

Jane’s life-style is clearly more luxurious than Jim’s, and most of us would consider her to be rich, but if she loses her job she’s in deep trouble—she’ll have to sell the house w/ condo-like equity leftover, end the car-lease, and scramble to find a new job.

Fred is 30. His parents’ trust pays him a $100,000 annual stipend. He lives in a 1,200 sq. ft. Manhattan apt. his parents bought him outright. He runs an art gallery that nets him $30,000 annually. Let’s face it—Fred’s rich.

If you have less than X amount of $ you should NOT lie to the kid and say “We’re rich because we have each other” or “We’re rich because Jesus loves”. Leave that crap to the Family Circus. You should be honest with your kid and tell’em “No, we’re Poor, Ugly, and Happy”.

‘ts my plan.

What if you have a high average, high volatility income? Like say you make 20 mil a year but with probability of, I don’t know, 10% per year you can loose it all (and your dog dies).

I don’t know why people want to make this hard. Being rich, in the context that Belle gave us, has nothing to do with whether you like your job, your psychology, or whether you’re full of cream and filling. It means you’ve got lots of money. Specifically it means that either your wealth is more than X amount of $ or possibly (and this is about as far as I’m willing to extend this) that the present discount value of your future income stream is more than X amount of $ (then you’re rich in expectations).

If you pick X relative to say the median amount of wealth (or income etc.) in the economy than you’re “relatively rich”. If you pick some absolute number for X that you like then you’re “absolutely rich” (and fabulous).

Now we can argue about what X should be. But there’s no reason to argue about whether folks who are full of cream and filling, who dislike their jobs but never worry about their finances are rich or not.

If you ever have to think about the flow of money in and out of your personal treasury, you are not rich. Please note carefully that I did not make any statement about whether it is wise to think about your money flow—this is purely a statement that if you are not ever are required to think about the topic by your circumstances, you are rich.

I’d say it beats the heck out of having an unrealistic view of their familie’s financial status as it prevents future disappointment and embarrassment.

He HATES that. Quite compassionate, but, like Slocum’s kid, he expects “rich” to be a threshold number of bills. He’d be slightly disappointed with a relative measure like deciles, but the idea that it’s relative to other, harder-to-measure relative things is utterly unsatisfying. This is probably good. Eventually.

3) actually the few “rich” people I know (annual income of 120k+, but usually negative wealth at this point in their lifetime earnings) do work their asses off. I’m not sure if they’re “degraded” but there’s probably some negative impact on their mental health (no time for friends, no time for family, no time to just kick back and chillax) and physical health (4 to 6 hrs of sleep a night can’t be good for you if sustained over a long period of time). Still, it’d be weird to say that I, who’s chosen the more laid back academic life, am “richer” than them.

Anyway. I think you’re trying to stretch the word “rich” to do more work than it was meant to do. “Rich” is about how much money you got, either in terms of annual flow (income) or the lifetime stock available (wealth). Being “rich” AND satisfied with your job is bonus. I think it’s called “being rich AND satisfied with your job”.