Who is 'Rich', Anyway?

We have a rough (if slightly problematic) idea of what is generally used to define poverty for statistical purposes.

Sociologists tend to define the middle class largely in terms of rough lifestyle — access to credit, property ownership, higher education (or the realistic expectation of it), savings accounts, etc.

But, off the top of your head, what would be the criteria — monetarily or otherwise — for you to consider someone rich?

(Shamelessly sampled from Klein.)

G.D.

G.D.

Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
G.D.
  • quadmoniker

    For me, it depends in part on the area in which you live. During the 2004 presidential campaign, everyone was using this vague $200,000 yearly income mark to determine the well-off. That’s certainly not true in Fairfield County, CT, where HUD uses a median income of more than $110,000 to determine eligibity for afforable housing programs. Obviously you would have to make much more than that, and more than $200,000 a year, to have the kind of disposable income to buy a luxury basket of goods that would qualify you as rich. But in a place like Arkansas or Nebraska or Wyoming, $200,000 probably puts you pretty high on the list. So I guess I would determine wealth based on a complicated analysis of relative income level and power to consume high-priced items without accruing much debt. it’s easier to define in relative terms, I think.

  • Right, but $200,000 puts a household in the top 5%. So yeah, while $200,000 isn’t a ton in Greenwich, it is comparatively a lot of money.

    Hmmm.

  • LH

    Rich to me says that regardless of economic conditions, geography, employment status or whatever curveballs life throws you, you’re able to live comfortably if not lavishly without a second thought.

    To quadmoniker’s point, rich in Chicago and rich in St. Louis are two different types of rich. I don’t have any stats or anything but knowing Chicago as I do, in order to be considered rich here you need to be holding about 10 million of ’em–liquid.

  • quadmoniker

    It’s definitely true that $200,000 is still a lot of money. But a family or four making that in Greenwich, where the median house value was almost $1.3 million in 2005, might be worse off by many measures than a family of four making $60,000 in Arkansas, where the standard of living is very low. The family in Greenwich has access to an excellent public school system, but they also are subject to extremely high housing costs and taxes. And the Greenwich family would have fewer resources to pay for health care, food, non-school programs for their kids, and save for retirement and college. The family in Arkansas could probably comfortably afford a house and a car. The value of the education received at the school system would be more up in the air, but they could more likely afford things like dance or music lessons, family vacations, etc., the markers of a well-off life. Plus, the family of $200,000 is ineligible for most federal, state and city aid programs, while the $60,000 would be closer to qualifying for some kinds of college aid, etc. I’m not crying for any family that lives Greenwich, and by a lot of measures (proximity to public transportation, arts organizations, and really good colleges) they’re probably better off. But I do think if you’re talking about what rich means in America, your fiscal comfort makes a big difference, and that probably depends a lot on where you live.

  • Big Word

    My definition of rich would be having so much money that you didn’t have to work anymore. Anybody who can just stop working and still meet all their wants, needs and obligations is rich.

  • I kind of agree with Big Word, I couldnt put a monetary amount on being rich…becuase it varies greatly where you live, but having enough money to not worry about making an income for a while, it what I call being rich.

    And being rich still doesn’t mean that you cant bite off more then you chew…I recently read reports that Vin Baler and Latrell Sprewel are broke and I know they have made more than $75 million in their careers

  • I think it depends on the context in which you’re discussing it. By American standards, I’d say “rich” means being able to buy a new car with cash. (I think “not having to worry” is probably an impossible standard and hey, no one is *ever* going to meet all their financial wants. Plus, “have” to work is a really fuzzy idea; I’m sure a lot of rich as shit people think they “have” to work to maintain ridiculous lifestyles, etc.)

    By world standards? Not ever worrying about food is rich. Not ever worrying about shelter (“crap, how am I going to pay the rent this month?” is not necessarily *worry*, unless there’s a realistic chance you’ll be evicted). Buying new clothes. Owning clothing and shoes that you have never, or very rarely, wear. Having most of the things in your life be choices rather than necessities.