• ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Not sure where you are or what that amounts to but In the US I would consider double the median income middle class or upper middle class, still far from rich.

    I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.

    I kinda like Chris Rock’s definition as well… something like: “you can lose rich if you pick up a drug habit… but if you’re wealthy, you can’t lose wealth… you can afford to do cocaine for the rest of your life if you’re wealthy”.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      An INDIVIDUAL income that’s double the median HOUSEHOLD income is pretty damn well off. This isn’t the 1950s. Single-provider households are not the norm.

      ‘Rich’ is income in considerable excess of the average. The idea that ‘middle class’ is actually considerably above the middle shows the obsession we, as a society, have with being midde class - aped from both above and below that status.

      I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.

      So ‘rich’ is money management to you?