$500K - $10M is the general range. Plus docking fees and upkeep which typically runs about 10% the cost of the yatch annual.
1 Like
yup, i can’t afford it
Feeling rich this week having just checked my retirement accounts. I can’t GET to that money for a while, and one of the two is more at risk, but it’s nice to think that yes, I WILL be able to retire if I don’t do anything totally stupid.
There is a comfort in that.
2 Likes
@Brock When you get your dive boat business up and running, give us a shout!!! 
3 Likes
Tom Brady was in the news last week because he bought a yacht called a Wajer 77, and I think the price was $6 Million.
Rich is whoever is richer than me
One could argue that this is the luxury.
And it’s a luxury that I, like you, am willing to pay for. I hate commuting and vastly prefer to live near where I work.
BUT NOT EVERYONE WORKS IN MANHATTAN.
OMG, IT’S LIKE I’M BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL TO CONVINCE PEOPLE I’M NOT RICH.
this conversation is so annoying.
I don’t think anyone is saying you’re rich because you live in Manhattan; we’re saying that living in Manhattan is a luxury. As in, living in a 500 square foot condo in Manhattan is preferable to living in a 500 square foot condo in the Po.
Poor and middle class and upper-middle class people buy luxuries all the time. Starbucks built an empire around being an “affordable luxury”.
they are saying i’m rich due to making whatever the hell they assume my salary is and the fact that i live in manhattan doesn’t take away from said wealth. i’m saying, it most certainly does since the cost of living here is higher than in the po and i work here, therefore i live here. people who work in the po and live in the po don’t pay as high cost of living, so the threshold for wealthy there is lower.
I hear what you’re saying but I think you’re mis-understanding the counter-argument.
The counter-argument is that living in Manhattan is expensive precisely because it’s a desirable place to live, for a variety of reasons. The fact that it’s preferable to other locations, all else equal, is the luxury.
FWIW, I sort-of assume that (with a few exceptions) most of us on this board, including you and me, are upper-middle class, or well on their way to becoming so in the case of actuarial students.
the primary reason it’s desirable is because people work here and need to be near work. that doesn’t make a person rich for living here.
this conversation is ridiculous.
i’m not misunderstanding anything.
If you think that
is relevant to the conversation then you are misunderstanding something.
I was told that I’m rich. I was told that where I live doesn’t matter in that statement.
i was also told that someone else could work in manhattan, but not afford to live here, thus implying i’m rich for living here.
Ok, I can’t speak for anyone else, just myself.
I haven’t seen your W-2 nor your balance sheet, but I’m guessing that you probably wouldn’t meet most people on here’s definition of rich.
As far as whether it matters where you live… I think the truth is in the middle. It’s not fair to say I’m rich because I could afford a villa in Vietnam. I couldn’t do my job in Vietnam. I might be able to do a similar job, but it would pay a lot less.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare NYC Metro to Las Cruces, New Mexico for the same reason, even though the salaries and costs of living are closer together than NYC Metro and Vietnam.
I do think it’s fair to compare working and living in Manhattan to working in Manhattan and living in either Jersey City or Staten Island. Hundreds of thousands of people commute to Manhattan from those places every day.
Choosing to avoid those commutes is a luxury.
Choosing to have a much larger home is also a luxury, albeit a different one.
You chose the first luxury. Others choose the second. There’s nothing wrong with either decision.
But you’re not poorer than a person who commutes into Manhattan from Staten Island. You just made a different decision.
I do think you’re poorer than a person living in Vietnam with the exact same income and value of their assets.
1 Like
I claimed that comparing me to a person who commutes to Manhttan is a fair comparison. What I claimed is an unfair comparison is comparing me to a person who lives and works in a different state entirely. I was called rich by American standards. That’s not fair to compare me to someone who works as an actuary in Atlanta or wherever.
That I would agree with.
BUT a person who makes my salary and lives on staten island and commutes into manhattan would not be rich either. My salary isn’t rich by almost any new york standards within commuting distance of manhattan, period.
I think to make that comparison fair, you’d have to consider what your income would be in Atlanta and then you’d be on the same level as that person.
I found an online COL calculator that claimed overall Atlanta is 58% cheaper than Manhattan.
I’m guessing you’d make ~10% less and have a higher standard of living in Atlanta.
Assuming my 10% is right, I think it’s fair to say that you are equally as wealthy as someone who makes and has 10% less in Atlanta, not someone who makes/has 58% less.
Not knowing your income, but having seen the salary surveys for pension actuaries with ASA and double-digit years of experience I probably have some vague notion. If that vague notion is in the right ballpark then I’d agree.