Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class) Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class)

07-12-2014 , 10:20 AM
Like I said, arbitrary line.

Bergdorf Goodman then with InCircle membership. You can get that by spending ~10k (pretty sure less to be honest, but I know 10k gets there) a year at the store. It's not THAT much more than what you'd spend at JCrew if you shopped regularly.
07-12-2014 , 10:25 AM
Rich people can order from menus that don't have prices listed.
07-12-2014 , 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
rich people don't shop at j crew
yes they do
07-12-2014 , 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
yes they do
On this note while we're at it, I know tons of rich (and I mean filthy Romney+ rich) people shop at JC Penney's and Macy's.
07-12-2014 , 11:46 AM
me too, was basically the point of my post

people shopping at prada or whatever are usually complete idiots with no real wealth
07-12-2014 , 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ineedaride2
Rich people can order from menus that don't have prices listed.
The great lobster price crash of 2013 made for some unexpectedly cheap meals for the upper middle class.....rich folks prob didnt even notice.
07-12-2014 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
The way I think of rich is the ability to shop... oh, arbitrarily, at J.Crew and eat anywhere without worrying about the price tag or sales.

A professor making steady 500k a year on tenure: rich unless utterly ******ed with personal finances.

A minimum salary pro athlete making 500k a year but one injury away from bagging groceries: not rich, although he might act and feel like he is.

A 20 something making 250k: not rich yet. But should be in 10~20 with prudent personal finance management, even if income growth (other than investment income) is zero and we assume a relatively low 4% return. By prudent management I mean a savings rate between 30~50%. That still leaves ~80k a year to spend. Half of that to rent, 10k to food, 10k to girls (my car goes in this... I hate driving), 10k to misc entertainment, and 10k to clothes. That's pretty comfortable IMO.

A 50 year old making 250k and with less than 1 mil net worth: not rich and probably will not be but he's not going to starve any time soon. He just will have to settle on a country club and probably won't be afford a second home after he pays his medical bills that will skyrocket soon enough.
1) How many professors do you think make 500K a year with tenure? I'll give you a hint: barely any. Like, maybe a few each at the top institutions in the country, I know the dinosaur guy at the AMNH in NYC makes a ton of money though it's hard to suss out from where, and that's about it. Most probably top out at 80K. Not that this is a huge point of contention or anything, I just thought it was a particularly strange example.

2) Skyrocketing for a 50-year old? Maybe like 70-75 in this day and age, at which point you will be on Medicare, or if you get cancer or some other awful illness, but all in all that person should be pretty comfortable if not exactly "rich."

Also 40K a year in rent? To live where? About the only thing I agree with you is that J Crew is expensive as ****.
07-12-2014 , 01:58 PM
Really the takeaway here is that there is a natural human tendency to focus on people who are doing better than you. It's a really good thing for productivity and general economic conditions that this is the case, too. Like, a guy making 100k as an accountant/lawyer/banker or whatever, who is solidly in the top quarter of wage earners, almost certainly doesn't see himself as UMC, though to the guy mowing his lawn that's insane.

The same phenomenon exists all the way up to the very top of the income chain. I have heard tons of people with recurring million dollar incomes earnestly describe themselves as UMC. See, e.g., Max's pathetic display ITT. And again, it continues all the way up the ladder - the guy with Net Jets looks at Larry Page's 777 and says THAT is what rich really looks like. All, I would argue, in a really healthy way for the economy because by any objective measure anyone with Net Jets could easily shut it down for life and live very well. Of course the negative corollary is dip****s with tens of millions of dollars bloviating endlessly about taxes putting them in the poorhouse.
07-12-2014 , 02:09 PM
The phrase is keep it simple, stupid. Do not confuse this with the more popular keep it stupidly simple.

Like eating, having fresh water, sleeping in a home, having relationships, easing suffering, reading, writing, doing math, and playing games, to be brief, are bare minimums for a class of sentient beings with free will and indeterminable potential. So that's one class, the other class can eat money while doing those things.

So one class we will call humans the other class we can call humans with enough money to eat it.

Don't think I'm kidding, the rich wealthy whatcha classes probably have enough political power to make money edible and nutritious and some of them are already what they mentally eat in this regard. Edible money would also solve welfare. Mmmmmmm bacon flavored money would be awesome for every class. We got work to do people.
07-12-2014 , 02:23 PM
Spankthewookie, where do you get weed? Cause it sounds really potent.
07-12-2014 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowCoach
Spankthewookie, where do you get weed? Cause it sounds really potent.
Usually from the lower-class side of town. But I do customer service and management consulting and have contacts at various restaurants and bars as well.
07-12-2014 , 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Really the takeaway here is that there is a natural human tendency to focus on people who are doing better than you. It's a really good thing for productivity and general economic conditions that this is the case, too. Like, a guy making 100k as an accountant/lawyer/banker or whatever, who is solidly in the top quarter of wage earners, almost certainly doesn't see himself as UMC, though to the guy mowing his lawn that's insane.

The same phenomenon exists all the way up to the very top of the income chain. I have heard tons of people with recurring million dollar incomes earnestly describe themselves as UMC. See, e.g., Max's pathetic display ITT. And again, it continues all the way up the ladder - the guy with Net Jets looks at Larry Page's 777 and says THAT is what rich really looks like. All, I would argue, in a really healthy way for the economy because by any objective measure anyone with Net Jets could easily shut it down for life and live very well. Of course the negative corollary is dip****s with tens of millions of dollars bloviating endlessly about taxes putting them in the poorhouse.


100k is top 6.67%.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2012
07-12-2014 , 03:13 PM
46% of people having income of less than $25k is a national disgrace. Jesus.
07-12-2014 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
The only non-completely arbitrary way to do this is to establish percentiles within a given region.

Poor: 0-20th percentile
Lower middle class: 20th-40th
Middle class: 40th-60th
Upper middle class: 60th-80th
Upper class: 80th-100th

99-100th = various levels of rich

So if I'm in the 85th percentile for Manhattan, I'm upper class. Subjective ideas about what kind of lifestyle = upper class are silly.
As long as words have meanings, this is correct
07-12-2014 , 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiggymike
1) How many professors do you think make 500K a year with tenure? I'll give you a hint: barely any. Like, maybe a few each at the top institutions in the country, I know the dinosaur guy at the AMNH in NYC makes a ton of money though it's hard to suss out from where, and that's about it. Most probably top out at 80K. Not that this is a huge point of contention or anything, I just thought it was a particularly strange example.
Professors with good grants can easily make 400k at big reaserch institutions. I'll bet 700 professors around the country make 400k. Thousands make 250k.
07-12-2014 , 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
46% of people having income of less than $25k is a national disgrace. Jesus.
If only a Tea Party candidate could get into the white house so they could fix this!
07-12-2014 , 06:17 PM
I guarantee median professor salary is around 100K, possibly less
07-12-2014 , 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Really the takeaway here is that there is a natural human tendency to focus on people who are doing better than you. It's a really good thing for productivity and general economic conditions that this is the case, too. Like, a guy making 100k as an accountant/lawyer/banker or whatever, who is solidly in the top quarter of wage earners, almost certainly doesn't see himself as UMC, though to the guy mowing his lawn that's insane.
Yeah, I just think the definition used by people on the cusp of upper middle class, rich etc is what we should use. I certainly wouldn't interject in a conversation amongst my domestic servants about what constitutes lower middle class.
07-12-2014 , 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Professors with good grants can easily make 400k at big reaserch institutions. I'll bet 700 professors around the country make 400k. Thousands make 250k.
http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2...rofessors-u-s/

There's just no way 700 professors make 400k+ if they couldn't come up with 10 that make 500k.
07-12-2014 , 07:31 PM
Professorships are a winner take all market, like the music business. You'll have an extremely small percentage make a lot, and an overwhelming majority make little relatively speaking.
07-12-2014 , 07:45 PM
1. that list is salary only.
2. no way that list is complete. Full time professors average like 200k in first tier universities.
07-12-2014 , 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu_22
If only a Tea Party candidate could get into the white house so they could fix this!
Well it's not like the progressive has a done a good job so why not?
07-12-2014 , 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
1. that list is salary only.
2. no way that list is complete. Full time professors average like 200k in first tier universities.
would be shocked if #2 is true
07-12-2014 , 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
1. that list is salary only.
2. no way that list is complete. Full time professors average like 200k in first tier universities.
citation needed.
07-12-2014 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
1. that list is salary only.
2. no way that list is complete. Full time professors average like 200k in first tier universities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu_22
citation needed.
Its not that far off. See here for Michigan, if you look only for people with titles of professor quite alot make over 200k fte.

      
m