I make half that, and I think I'm doing pretty well for myself. Admittedly, I don't have a family to support, but I can't complain at this point. It'd be pretty sweet to get a pay raise and then be able to go out and buy a new car and a new house, but then I'd be poor.

I understand that. I just don't factor that into my arbitrary definition of "rich".

Well, I guess that's the end of that then. Your arbitrary definition is stupid and completely out of whack with economic realities, but you have your own arbitrary definition, and it's yours, damn it, and you're not changing it.

Certainly I've been arguing that someone who makes 250k in Omaha is generally going to be far richer than someone who makes 250k in NYC.

Yes you have, and we've been loling because it's stupid.

No, you're arguing that of two people in NYC who make $250k the one who lives in Queens and drives a Camry is richer than the one who lives in Manhattan and drives a BMW because the first guy has more "disposable income".

You don't think the person living in Omaha will tend to have more disposable income? You don't think that they will tend to have a higher net worth after working for X years? If you answer yes to these questions, why do you think that using disposable income/net worth as a metric for wealth is stupid?

Not quite -- the guy living in Manhattan has a shorter commute, which is a variable in my rich/not rich algorithm. Excess consumption on a luxury good like a BMW also contributes to richness.

Because you're not exactly counting one's house as part of his or her net worth. Just like in NY, the amount of disposable income that the Nebraskan has will depend on choices that go into his or her residence.

Dude, please take a chill pill.

Quantify it. Write down your algorithm. Otherwise you're just making things up to suit you.

I certainly am counting the person's equity in the home as part of his net worth. I am not counting subjective "it's worth it to me to live in NYC over Omaha" value.

Why do you think NYC real estate costs more than Omaha real estate?

This seems like a reasonable statement to me if we assume (I don't know anything about Omaha) that the cost of living in NYC is greater than the cost of living in Omaha, I must be missing something. This is all semantics anyways, what's the point of this argument?

OK for a family of four with a single income it would be something like: take the monthly nut on the median home value of a nice 3500 square foot four bedroom home in the area they live, add it to the cost of leasing two nice cars, add $1400 for every hour per day of commuting, and subtract that total from their total monthly take home income. If the remaining number is greater than $6k then the family is rich.

Supply and demand.

Please stand by. Thread will be reopened in 5 minutes.

EDIT: Crap. Selecting posts en masse isn't working. Never mind.

Well, now that that's over....

So, all these poor people living in NYC. Are they trapped there? They have no choice? They can't flee to Omaha, the Golden Land of Opportunity, where they'll finally be rich?

Or do they have a choice? If they have a choice, is the extra expenditure it takes to live in NYC, which may add to one's net worth, btw, if one owns a condo, is that money count as frivolous expenditure, like springing for a flat screen and fancy furniture or the Beamer over the Camry that rich people do in Omaha that you consider an essential part of being rich, or have you just redefined it to be the kind of expenditure like lighting hundos on fire that just makes you poorer without counting towards making you rich?

Where does net worth in assets count into this?

You divide net worth by the average actuarial remaining number of years of life for the parents, divide that number by twelve and add it to total monthly take home income.

This, of course, means that people who spend a lot on their condo in Manhattan are actually rich, at least once they have some equity.

They might be, but they almost certainly wouldn't be as rich as someone living on an equivalent salary in Omaha.

Well, instead of disposing of all their disposable income in Omaha, they're investing it in a condo in NYC.

Less than half of a typical mortgage payment will build equity.