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

09-06-2014 , 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I sincerely have no idea why you do it, you're the one who did it, you explain it.
Again, you said "Like at the core point, why is it so important to you to not be labeled rich?". It is not important to me not to be labeled rich and none of what I posted was based on a desire to be rich or not rich definitionally. I can't explain what I didn't do, but wanted you to explain why you think that is such a core issue to begin with.

Quote:
I would certainly never talk down to a homeless person and explain that they don't understand my struggles in the middle class because after I spent my paycheck on food and rent I only have a few hundred dollars a month that I can blow on whatever I want. This is because, in addition to basic social skills, I'm not a ****ing moron.
Would you object if a homeless person said you were rich because you have a few hundred bucks a month to spend after paying for shelter and food?

Last edited by dessin d'enfant; 09-06-2014 at 10:18 AM.
09-06-2014 , 10:41 AM
Creating annual budgets for multimillionaires is a much more fun direction for this thread than arguing about whether $300k/yr is enough to be qualified as "rich."
09-06-2014 , 10:42 AM
When I was a broke backpacker in Africa local people I'd meet would tell me I was rich. The first few times I tried to explain why I wasn't . Then I realized what a terrible and insulting argument it was for me to be making. They were right. I was rich.
09-06-2014 , 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
Exactly.....I'm not going to have very strong opinions about whether 30k a year for a family of 3 is poor or lower middle class because I am really ignorant on that sort of lifestyle and I'd appreciate the same respect on the other side.
Quote:
I said it in an intentionally inflammatory manner, but I do agree with the sentiment that what people near the rich/upper middle class line think matters more than what people not there think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by max
It is not important to me not to be labeled rich
Homie this whole thread got rebooted because you and wil had to have like some sort of weird mental episode about how you don't feel rich or whatever and it HURTS YOUR FEELINGS to see other people describe you as such, hurts them SO MUCH you want other people to HAVE THE RESPECT not to talk about it.
09-06-2014 , 10:52 AM
I mean I guess part of it was you wanted to brag about how your company paid for a nanny for your awful child, but like, more fundamentally, why was this an issue at all for you that you wanted to silence others?

If a homeless person told me they thought I was rich, I wouldn't ****ing tell him to shut his filthy hobo mouth because he doesn't understand the pain of having to remember to write a check for rent each month(I gotta mail that ****! An extra like 50 cents a month! Woe is me), and then delve into this weird narcissistic rant about how I don't FEEL rich because after I spend all my money on things all I have left is the things and also someone is richer than me.

Last edited by FlyWf; 09-06-2014 at 10:57 AM.
09-06-2014 , 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Homie this whole thread got rebooted because you and wil had to have like some sort of weird mental episode about how you don't feel rich or whatever and it HURTS YOUR FEELINGS to see other people describe you as such, hurts them SO MUCH you want other people to HAVE THE RESPECT not to talk about it.
Well, I never said any of this and you guys certainly seem to be on team HURT FEELINGS, not me. I would accuse you of having some sort of weird mental episode, but you pretty much do this in every thread.

Last edited by dessin d'enfant; 09-06-2014 at 11:09 AM.
09-06-2014 , 10:59 AM
Let's try the maximum yearly income one could have before getting guillotined by the poors.
09-06-2014 , 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
When I was a broke backpacker in Africa local people I'd meet would tell me I was rich. The first few times I tried to explain why I wasn't . Then I realized what a terrible and insulting argument it was for me to be making. They were right. I was rich.
Have you written about this anywhere?
09-06-2014 , 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
Have you written about this anywhere?
Nah, that opening phrase sounds way more dramatic than it was. I just spent 2 weeks in Senegal and The Gambia. Nothing much to write about, really.
09-06-2014 , 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2/325Falcon
Let's try the maximum yearly income one could have before getting guillotined by the poors.
O-6?
09-06-2014 , 10:15 PM
Max's child is awful?
09-06-2014 , 10:17 PM
Yeah that's some weird projection by fly
09-07-2014 , 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2/325Falcon
Let's try the maximum yearly income one could have before getting guillotined by the poors.
Lol I'd say none, seeing as how we already have hedge fund managers who make several billion a year and they still have their heads.
09-07-2014 , 01:24 PM
The WSJ asks us to emphasize with the well to do who live beyond their means.

Quote:
The newest piece has the air of unreality, not to say irrelevance, typical of the genre. Its central character is Sylvia Flores, a San Diego-area businesswoman who was earning more than $200,000 a year before she "got into trouble" with her spending.

"She had a personal chef and a housekeeper, and took her husband and two children to Hawaii for frequent vacations," we're told. Having seen the light, "she started making her own meals, moved to a cheaper condominium, cut out expensive vacations and shopped for clothes at thrift stores."

It turns out that Flores' problem may run deeper than simply failing to live within her means this one time--she also ran into trouble in 2005, when she acquired $500,000 in debt and had to file for bankruptcy. Is she really representative of wealthy people unable to make ends meet, or of a different kind of economic pathology? The Journal doesn't give us enough information to know.

There are other signs, however, that the Journal is placing its thumb on the scale. To break down how a wealthy family can go bust, the article asks us to "consider a hypothetical couple in the Chicago area making $400,000 a year." (The most recent IRS figures say that adjusted gross income of $389,000 puts one in the top 1%.)
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...07-column.html
09-07-2014 , 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Homie this whole thread got rebooted because you and wil had to have like some sort of weird mental episode about how you don't feel rich or whatever and it HURTS YOUR FEELINGS to see other people describe you as such, hurts them SO MUCH you want other people to HAVE THE RESPECT not to talk about it.
I don't know where you're getting this whole hurt feelings thing from. I don't think that at all, I just think the vast majority of people live pretty normally and I do as well. To look at one family that makes 130k and another family that makes 190k and to say one is rich and one is middle class is just ridiculous to me.
09-07-2014 , 08:24 PM
OK but you do understand that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, right? It's an arbitrary and subjective definition. For some as yet unknown reason, whenever people start spitballing where they put that definition, some people(INCLUDING YOU) throw a ****ing bizarre temper tantrum of this insane callous and narcissistic myopia about how you feel you live "pretty normally" so nobody label XXXk rich or upper middle class or well off or whatever the **** other trigger words you might have as you voluntarily choose to save an entire month's pay for someone on minimum wage to pay for your child's future education.

Last edited by FlyWf; 09-07-2014 at 08:32 PM.
09-08-2014 , 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
The WSJ asks us to emphasize with the well to do who live beyond their means.



http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...07-column.html
BWAHAHA

Quote:
The article examines their hypothetical spending with the help of Northern Trust Wealth Management, a firm that supposedly knows this segment inside and out. The bank's figures show the sample family to be "$10,000 in the hole every year."

The sample couple lives in a home valued at more than $1 million. Northern Trust estimates their mortgage payments at $87,000 a year.

Stop right there. A $1-million 30-year mortgage would have to carry an interest rate of 7.875% to cost $87,000 a year. Is this plausible? Current figures from bankrate.com place the going rate for jumbo mortgages in the Chicago area at 4.14%.

Would this couple really not have refinanced? Plug the lower rate into the mortgage, and you've saved the family about $30,000 a year; suddenly, they're back in the black. And that's assuming that their mortgage is for the full $1 million, that they didn't buy the house years ago for much less. (Of course, the house could have cost much more than $1 million, but that's not what the article says.)

The article also doesn't emphasize that mortgage interest is tax-deductible; if the mortgage is 10 years old, it could produce a tax break of $15,000-$25,000 per year--a break not available, certainly not on that scale, to a "hypothetical" lower-income household without a million-dollar home. The article also estimates "home maintenance" at more than $2,000 a month, which sounds pretty high unless we're talking about a million-dollar fixer-upper.

And it glosses over much of the hypothetical couples' other expenses, which include club dues, about $400 a week in fine dining and entertainment, a $60,000 new car every four years. These are expenses, of course, that most American families can't shoulder at all and that even for a wealthy couple are frills that can be dispensed with. There's also $22,000 a year in savings for retirement and college, which the typical family can't manage unless it's wealthy.

Articles like this fall into the category of reverse econ-porn. They offer the chance not to salivate over the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but to chortle over their heedlessness and stupidity. Fine: give us this glimpse into how high earners can spend their way to ruin. Just don't ask us to feel sorry for them.
09-08-2014 , 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
BWAHAHA
Good luck refinancing when you have that much debt and a bankruptcy < 10 years old. No way that "sample family" meets DTI requirements for any loan, let alone a jumbo that afaik can't be "HARP'd" or streamlined. 7.875% seems very right if they originally took the loan out in 2001-2002 or earlier.

Last edited by JAAASH; 09-08-2014 at 12:34 AM.
09-08-2014 , 12:34 AM
"Rich" is a fundamentally situational construction. I have what consider a good job with a decent income. In fact, I used to consider myself "wealthy," so to speak. But that was before my twin sister, who didn't have health insurance, was stricken with breast cancer. Watching her wilt away and die, I didn't quite feel so rich anymore.
09-08-2014 , 12:35 AM
I guess, in retrospective, I could have just paid for her medical expenses. Or at least written her a card or something. But hindsight is 20/20, what are you gonna do?
09-08-2014 , 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAAASH
Good luck refinancing when you have that much debt and a bankruptcy < 10 years old. No way that "sample family" meets DTI requirements for any loan, let alone a jumbo that afaik can't be "HARP'd" or streamlined. 7.875% seems very right if they originally took the loan out in 2001-2002 or earlier.
You're mixing up the woman who makes $200k/year but had a bankruptcy with the imaginary family in Chicago struggling on $400k/year.

Also you're completely missing the point. The WSJ has chosen to create a "hypothetical" family with the absolute worst case scenario for how they're stuck in some trap paying $87k/year for a $1M house. Can't refinance. Can't move. No options. Also let's ignore the gigantic tax break. Such struggles.
09-08-2014 , 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
You're mixing up the woman who makes $200k/year but had a bankruptcy with the imaginary family in Chicago struggling on $400k/year.

Also you're completely missing the point. The WSJ has chosen to create a "hypothetical" family with the absolute worst case scenario for how they're stuck in some trap paying $87k/year for a $1M house. Can't refinance. Can't move. No options. Also let's ignore the gigantic tax break. Such struggles.
Well my point was that the author makes it seem like a 7.875% interest rate on a mortgage isn't plausible when it is very much plausible.
09-08-2014 , 01:25 AM
Who cares if it's plausible? The hypothetical is supposed to be about a "typical" family struggling to make ends meet in Chicago on $400K. Very few people are paying that amount on $1 million home who can't refi or sell and take the equity.
09-08-2014 , 01:52 AM
JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH
09-08-2014 , 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
OK but you do understand that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, right? It's an arbitrary and subjective definition. For some as yet unknown reason, whenever people start spitballing where they put that definition, some people(INCLUDING YOU) throw a ****ing bizarre temper tantrum of this insane callous and narcissistic myopia about how you feel you live "pretty normally" so nobody label XXXk rich or upper middle class or well off or whatever the **** other trigger words you might have as you voluntarily choose to save an entire month's pay for someone on minimum wage to pay for your child's future education.
You're full of ****. WTF is this bull**** definition of "I get to save an entire month's pay for someone on minimum wage" bull****? So you're saying that because my family makes more than the MINIMUM WAGE in the country I live in, I should consider myself rich? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Let's just define "minimum". That means the absolute basic skills to do the most basic job. Let's take a same situation couple for example. Two basic minimum wage people compared to two people who have bachelor degrees and 15 years experience? Should we be making 1.5x min wage, or 2x min wage, or 5000x min wage? You hold it against me because I make more than someone who can push a button at a predetermined interval? Really?

Your point is beyond ******ed. I know what its like to have my heat shut off. I know what its like to get public assistance. I know what its like to make 25k, 50k, 100k, 200k. Don't sit here and tell me wtf I should be grateful about, because I know wtf I should be grateful about. I broke my butt putting myself through school and racking up 65,000 in student loans and paying back 500 bucks a month for 30 years. You hold it against me because I pay 2k in monthly bills, 1k for child care, 2k for savings/college funds for my child and help me and my wife's family to make ends meet and go to Bertucci's and buy a polo shirt once in a while?

You act like I have a Benz and butler and that couldn't be further from the truth. Because we can save 900 bucks a month vs two mouth breathers doesn't mean we are in the Big Pimpin' video.

      
m