Define “rich”

[ao_fan]

I don’t think it’s fair to say that. I have ties to New York. I’d actually have to find a job in Atlanta. Some people live where they get a job. I’m not sure actuarial salaries are COL adjusted either. I’m going with the 58% less.

In another thread, a poster said they paid 500k in another state for a mcmansion. I could get a nice studio apartment in Manhattan for 500k. A McMansion in Manhattan, idk, 10 million maybe? beyond what I even bother to look at. beyond what even my rich sister can afford.

[twig93]

@ao_fan

I’m not sure actuarial salaries are COL adjusted either.

They are and they aren’t. You wouldn’t make 58% less in Atlanta. You’d make a little less though, probably, unless you were taking a step up in terms of job level / responsibilities (common with job changes).

Yes, having ties to NYC makes it more attractive to you. You and 10 million others… far more than Atlanta. That’s part of the luxury. Living in a city that 10 million people have ties to.

[ao_fan]

my company has an office in atlanta. so you know for a fact that my company pays their atlanta actuaries less?

THAT’S NOT A DAMN LUXURY. I WAS BORN IN NEW YORK. I DIDN’T CHOOSE THIS.

[John.S.Mill]

@Mathman

$2.5M, that’s your fortress of f***ing solitude. Seriously, I think $2.5M-ish is where I’d call you wealthy/rich for sure. That’s $100k on income per year forever, more or less. That’s in the top couple percent in the US and easily top 1% globally, and enough that you’d never have to work again.

yeah, but if I had 2.5M, I’d want to buy a 2M house, not live off of interest and not work for the rest of m life.

[twig93]

@ao_fan

I’m going with the 58% less.

Your standard of living is the same as an Atlantan with 58% less.

But I’d say in terms of classifying you as rich, upper middle class, middle class, poor, then 10% is the right comparison.

[dr_t_non-fan]

@twig93

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.

You are equating income and wealth.
Wealth = Inheritance (someone else’s wealth given to you) Plus SUM, where i = age, (Income(i) Minus Expenses(i)).

[twig93]

@ao_fan

my company has an office in atlanta. so you know for a fact that my company pays their atlanta actuaries less?

No clue what your particular company does. On average I think that actuaries with similar qualifications make less in Atlanta, but nowhere near enough less to compensate for the lower COL. therefore they have a higher standard of living.

[ao_fan]

standard of living matters.

[ao_fan]

it’s not like i can just walk on into atlanta and say

HEY GUYS, I’M HERE! I’M ao fan. HIRE ME NOW!!!

i’d compare me to a person in my company working in our atlanta office.

[John.S.Mill]

@ao_fan

standard of living matters.

I agree your standard of living is not what I envision a rich person would have.
Neither was my ex’s 1 br apartment in the UWS, though that’s probably all he could afford off of 500k in NYC.

I don’t think software engineers in my city or in SF are rich either, even though they make 300-400 minimum.

I define rich as the lifestyle you’re living, not how much you’re making or saving.

If all you’re doing is saving and not spending, you are not rich in my eyes.

[twig93]

Yes, it absolutely matters a great deal. I’d never dispute that.

I had an opportunity to take a job in Manhattan once and I chose to not take it because I didn’t want to take the hit to my standard of living.

I had a nice 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,900 square foot home with a two-car garage where I lived with my cat and a 20 minute commute. Working in Manhattan I’d have either a horrendous commute with a 1,000 square foot home or an ok commute with a 500 square foot home and I didn’t want either.

It if I’d taken the job I would have been living in Manhattan. Which is pretty cool and comes with its own set of advantages. To me the pluses didn’t outweigh the minuses. To you they do. That’s ok.

[twig93]

I should say an actuarial job.

I did briefly work in Manhattan before becoming an actuary.

[ao_fan]

I have family here. i grew up here. you probably did not. it’s not a fair comparison.

[twig93]

@John.S.Mill

If all you’re doing is saving and not spending, you are not rich in my eyes.

I disagree. There are miserly multi-millionaires out there. If you’re living in a shack and sitting on millions you’re rich even if you choose to not live an extravagant lifestyle.

[twig93]

You certainly have very valid reasons for reaching a different decision than me.

[John.S.Mill]

@twig93

I disagree. There are miserly multi-millionaires out there. If you’re living in a shack and sitting on millions you’re rich even if you choose to not live an extravagant lifestyle.

Then your richness is meaningless. If you don’t live like a rich person. You are not rich in my eyes. You are simply sitting on a pile of money until you die, having not spent a dime, and you might as well have been poor.

That is not rich.

[twig93]

It’s rich, but miserly.

There are people out there living extravagant lifestyles with negative net worths.

They are not rich. They are extravagant.

Big difference.

[John.S.Mill]

@twig93

There are people out there living extravagant lifestyles with negative net worths.

They are not rich. They are extravagant.

Big difference.

They are not rich either in my eyes.

Rich in my eyes means, you live like a rich person, and can afford to live like a rich person.

If you live in a shack all your life and you’ve had 100 billion your entire life, you are not rich. I will treat you like you’re a poor person, because you basically are poor. You live like you’re poor, and your money didn’t benefit you in any way.

[ao_fan]

If your only claim to richness is that you pay way too much for a studio apartment, you aren’t rich.

[John.S.Mill]

let’s put it this way. Money that you don’t spend before you die was never yours.