# "reasonably wealthy" (spin off)



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

On the recent welfare thread, another poster said I must be "reasonably wealthy," and I don't consider myself reasonably wealthy at all. But it got me wondering, what does that phrase mean to YOU? Is it a certain amount in assets, a certain income, certain possessions? Does it have anything to do with how comfortable one is with what they have?

Just curious.

Since the thread, I've been trying to figure out what it means to me, and so far all I've got is "about 50K a year more than we make," which seems a little vague and unreachable, because I suspect that if we suddenly made 50K a year more, then my target would move to 50K a year more than that number.

(Since I would like a new car but can't afford one while paying for my kids to attend private school, and I had to budget shop for summer activities, I don't feel wealthy. If we could afford the private school AND the new car AND a week of horse camp for each kid, AND someone to clean the house, then I might)


----------



## new2this (Feb 11, 2010)

I guess I really don't know myself. I would say anyone who makes a six figure yearly income or close to that. Or I suppose a person who could walk into a store and not worry about having to budget. Because money just isn't an issue for them I mean in some ways we can do that but it would kill me to do so.

I mean for us yes we have 1 brand new vehicle that we put a good chunk of money down on it and 1 new to us (2007) vehicles but we are far from wealthy IMO. But we also are broke to my standards and in reality we aren't broke but we made choices that in some way needed to be done and we are still adjusting to the higher cost of living here. But I budget everything and all purchases are well thought out before we just go off spending money. So I guess on the outside we could appear to be somewhat wealthy as well. I mean we have one credit card that we use but it gets paid off each month. And outside of car loans, school loans. If we can't pay cash for it we don't buy it like furniture and we shop around. And I don't worry if we can pay X bill and not put food on our table type thing. We live in our means and save and plan.


----------



## MamaMunchkin (Feb 3, 2011)

Not sure what a good exact figure is ...

In my mind, reasonably wealthy would mean after all necessities + extras are taken care of, there's still ample savings - enough so if one gets laid off, a decent lifestyle can be sustained for a few years, at least. Truly wealthy means it's feasible to retire now and not to worry about getting another job ever.

All very subjective - what are 'extras' or not seem to vary individually and might also change with time for a particular individual. Similar arguments for 'necessities' probably hold.

Perhaps it's more of a state of mind, perhaps it's more about how one compares their everchanging needs to one's current financial conditions.


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

The fact that you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school means you're reasonably wealthy IMO. Even if that does mean having to budget elsewhere. But, as far as I'm concerned the ability to afford private school is definitely a wealth marker.


----------



## K1329 (Apr 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AutumnAir*
> 
> The fact that you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school means you're reasonably wealthy IMO. Even if that does mean having to budget elsewhere. But, as far as I'm concerned the ability to afford private school is definitely a wealth marker.


I don't view this as a wealth marker, more of a priority. I live in an area with troubled public schools. Plenty of parents sacrifice new cars, family vacations, and all "extras" to afford tuition. Some families at our school qualify for the free lunch program, too, yet manage to find the $ to pay tuition. Yet, driving past the public school car line, I've seen BMWs in line. Different folks, different priorities, & each to their own, but, IMO, not necessarily a wealth marker. JMHO.


----------



## rachieface (Mar 26, 2010)

From a global perspective, if you're on this forum, you ARE reasonably wealthy. You either own a computer with internet or have access to one. That's a big deal in many parts of the world.

I know that misses the point of this thread, but that's just to say that wealth is incredibly subjective. For me, in an American context, I would consider someone reasonably wealthy if they have the ability to buy "extras" indiscriminately. If someone could go out for a fancy meal, buy clothing at designer retails, etc. with very little thought, deliberation, or anxiety -- I might assume they were wealthy.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

To me reasonably wealthy in the US means you can meet all your family's basic needs (e.g. your kids eat healthy food, they go to school, they have a roof over their head, they have health insurance . . . ) and can make some decisions about luxuries.

My son attends some pretty high cost summer camps, and does several afterschool sports that aren't free. We go out to eat about once a week, and take a short vacation about once a year, we have a dog.

On the other hand, we rent a smallish apartment, we drive a much cheaper car than many other families, he goes to public school, I work long hours, we wear cheap clothes . . .

I know other families who meet the same basic needs, and choose things I don't have (SAHM, private school, newer car, owning their own home) while not providing things I do provide. I would say they are reasonably wealthy as well.

I would say that a lower middle class family is one who meets all the basic needs, but can afford few to no luxuries, and a working poor family is one who struggles to meet basic needs.

I think a "wealthy" family, without the "reasonably" qualifier in front is the one who is able to afford a wide range of luxuries, and doesn't have to think about the choices they make.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

I think it's really relative to where you live... as a pp mentioned, if you are able to be on MDC then generally you are reasonably wealthy compared to the majority of the world. But then our society (talking US/CA here) creates more "needs" which make us feel poorer... plus COL is higher here.

But in the context of just US/CA, I would say 'reasonably wealthy' would mean you can meet all your basic needs (food, shelter), all basic 'wants' (internet, car), and a good number of extras (vacations, dinner out, etc.) without too much concern and with some leftover for savings. I do feel that most people who can afford things like private school, camp, music/dance/etc. classes, etc. would be 'reasonably wealthy' but I also realize many may not be, & may be getting financial assistance, taking large loans, or making _major_ sacrifices to afford it, so we can't always assess based just on what someone appears to afford.

I think almost everyone would say they need 'just $50K more' to feel wealthy, because the more you have, the more you want, and the more you create extra costs -- i.e. people who can't afford an iPod don't have to budget for the cost of downloads, and if you can't afford a fancy restaurant then you don't have to worry about having a nice dress or new jewelry to wear out...

I do not think I am remotely 'wealthy' compared to the people around me. I regularly turn down almost any invitation to do things that cost money (even $2/pp is out of our budget right now!), we don't have any 'extras' (cable, Netflix, gym membership). But we have tons of food in our kitchen. We have 2 cars that run (nothing in walking distance here!). We 'own' our house (well, we have a mortgage, but one day we'll own it!). We have lots of hand-me-downs for DS and a sewing machine to repair my/DH's clothing. DS has lots of toys and we find tons of free activities to do. DH is on unemployment but we are not receiving foodstamps/medical/TANF/etc. We even have money in savings (which may be depleted if DH doesn't find a job soon...) So I feel content with what we have and happy with the lifestyle we live. Sure, I wish I could afford Music Together for DS. I wish we could eat out once every week or two, or buy pine nuts ($8/bag!!! that's crazy!!), or put flooring in the bedroom (it's just subflooring right now). It would be great to not have to compare the prices of beans to get the one that will save us 10 cents. But really, we have everything we need and some of what we want, so in mind, we're wealthy.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AutumnAir*
> 
> The fact that you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school means you're reasonably wealthy IMO. Even if that does mean having to budget elsewhere. But, as far as I'm concerned the ability to afford private school is definitely a wealth marker.


I know folks that live in apartments and never take summer vacations to afford private school... so no.. this is not a marker for me.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I wish we were what I would consider reasonably wealthy.









Of course, it's all a matter of perspective - wealth, rich, well-off, even being comfortable is dependent on different variables and personal situations.

I can define low-income, lower-middle class, middle class, and upper-middle class with monetary figures/assets, but wealthy and rich aren't as clear cut, IMO.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I'm really amazed at the sacrifices that some of the parents make to have their kids there. I know lots of people who could "never afford" private school who have FAR more money. I'm not saying private school should be a priority for other families, just that it really isn't a marker of affluence.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> I can define low-income, lower-middle class, middle class, and upper-middle class with monetary figures/assets, but wealthy and rich aren't as clear cut, IMO.


go ahead! I'd esp. love to hear where you put the line between middle class and upper-middle class.


----------



## mckittre (Jan 15, 2009)

I think there are two aspects to this. There's quantifiable wealth - having a lot in comparison to your neighbors, your country, or the world. And there's unquantifiable wealth - having more than enough to meet your needs and be happy in the lifestyle you've chosen. We make very little money, but have chosen a very cheap lifestyle. The same is true for many of our friends/neighbors. There are no private schools or expensive activities in my town, so that doesn't come up. We are happy, and if I could wave a magic wand, I'd ask for more time before more money. So maybe it's possible to be "reasonably wealthy" even with an income near the poverty line.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

This seems to be roughly on par with how I think of upper middle class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class_in_the_United_States

Quote:


> Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate the *upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. Using the 15% figure one may conclude that the American upper middle class consists, strictly in an income sense, of professionals with personal incomes in excess of $62,500, who commonly reside in households with six figure incomes.*[1][6][13][16] The difference between personal and household income can be explained by considering that 76% of households with incomes exceeding $90,000 (the top 20%) had two or more income earners.[13]


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying - but to someone who lives in an apartment, never takes summer vacations and still can barely afford public school, that would still seem "reasonably wealthy", yk?

I think terms such as "reasonably wealthy" are incredibly subjective. Someone upthread said a six figure income. DH is close to that - not there, but close. We're renting a townhouse in the cheapest non-subsidized complex in our municipality, and we couldn't afford to buy even a shack around here. OTOH, we were able to buy a brand-new minivan a year and a half ago, which means "reasonably wealthy", imo (nobody in my family of origin has ever bought a brand new car). OTOH, it was the cheapest minivan on the market, and it hurt us financially pretty badly, and we only went for it, because of a combination of wanting to be under warranty, not dealing with the likelihood of huge, unexpected repair bills, and it was available on a three year, interest free financing. We figured we could take the hit for three years, even if it hurt.

So, again...subjective. Is a new car a marker for "reasonably wealthy"? Is the fact that I'm a SAHM a marker (even though I probably couldn't earn enough to cover childcare, let alone other extras)? It's just such a subjective term. For ourselves, we're far ahead of many of our neighbours (in the complex we live in, I mean), but pretty much poverty-stricken by comparison to other people on our block (who are sitting on homes worth well over a half million dollars). We have money to burn compared to my sister, but probably aren't as well off as my brother. You know...it's all relative.

We can afford to pay the basics, and go out for an occasional dinner at a family restaurant (occasional meaning for birthdays and then maybe 2-3 times a year on top of that). We haven't taken a summer vacation in years, but may take one this year....but it will be less than a week, and only camping locally. There's no way we could even begin to pay for an actual trip anywhere that involved flying. We spend almost nothing on clothes (in the last year, I've bought one cheap dress, one pair of $15 shoes, five pairs of pants and three shirts, and dh has bought less than that...not sure we've bought any clothes for the kids, except for winter jackets). DH and the kids get infrequent haircuts at the salon across the street - I haven't had a haircut in 20+ years, and don't intend to ever get one again. We don't have a lot of savings. I wouldn't call us "reasonably wealthy", but we're also far from poor (btdt - it sucked). I have very few complaints...although it would be nice to have a yard...


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> This seems to be roughly on par with how I think of upper middle class:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class_in_the_United_States


I guess I still don't see how this kind of thing can be quantified. A single person making $65,000 - or a couple/family making $90,000 - might be able to buy an apartment here, but that's about it...and it would likely be a one bedroom. In North American society, I can't reasonably call someone who can't buy a "starter" house "upper middle class", yk?


----------



## cat13 (Dec 8, 2010)

This is an interesting question and one that I have been asking myself for the last few years. I grew up on welfare, food stamps and getting donations from the food bank. So my child-self would look at my now-self and think that I was super rich! I have a new-ish car, live in a nice rental duplex, always have whatever food I want in the fridge, and if there was ever an emergency, I could scrape enough money to pull through. However, I'm the sole breadwinner in our family, we have some debt, and I don't think we'll have enough money for at least 10 years or so to be able to buy our own home. So, my point is that I can't even agree with my past and present self about what wealthy is!

One thing I've always found interesting is the social pressure to claim "middle class." Poorer families often try to downplay their struggles, and wealthier families often try to downplay their wealth. Obviously, this is a big generalization, but I have found it very common. I wonder if anyone has ever looked at the statistics of how many families are really considered "middle class" compared to how many claim "middle class."


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

Quote:


> I'm not saying private school should be a priority for other families, just that it really isn't a marker of affluence.


this is very subjective to your area??

not in mine, the mere fact that you could even budget to allow for a non-public education is affluent in my area-many private schools are hurting and enrollment is way down, we have no charter school alternatives because the demand in not there

as far as private goes you have very little resources for aid (over 6th grade and very little for elementary or middle level) but mostly it is not at all within reach of the average family (in my area) to allow any budgeting to even think of enrollment no matter what you take it from

it would definitely be viewed as affluent in my area (and I did do private school with my one child-but it was in a different area)

my DH makes over $20000 more than the average for our area and we not affluent (nor are we view as it-in this area)


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


No matter what we did, what sacrifices we made there's no way we could afford to send even one of our two girls to private school. And I know I'm not alone!


----------



## rubidoux (Aug 22, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AutumnAir*
> 
> The fact that you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school means you're reasonably wealthy IMO. Even if that does mean having to budget elsewhere. But, as far as I'm concerned the ability to afford private school is definitely a wealth marker.


I agree and disagree. If you are really broke then I can see that it would look this way for sure. Otoh, there are people who put education as their very top priority and are making huge sacrifices elsewhere. I do not consider us to be poor, but we live paycheck to paycheck, barely. This pay period we ran out of money like 9 days before payday. We have the water shut off every few months bc we just don't have the cash on time. I always have to call the electric to make payment arrangements. I cannot shop at wholefoods. We share one car, bought used, a 2001, so I have to drive dh to work. I have a lot of dental work I *need* to have done and I'm very likely going to loose those teeth because I don't have the money to do it. But, we do spend $750/mo on Milo's montessori. I can't see thinking of myself as "reasonably wealthy." But when I was a kid we were dirt poor, and I know we aren't there either.


----------



## MittensKittens (Oct 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AutumnAir*
> 
> No matter what we did, what sacrifices we made there's no way we could afford to send even one of our two girls to private school. And I know I'm not alone!


Same here.

Wealth is subjective. Objectively, I am not wealthy. I don't own a car, and we don't go on holidays. Budgeting is something I can't avoid. Yet, I consider myself rich in many ways other than monetary. Compared to how I grew up, my kids are comfortable. They have access to fancy toys I never had, our fridge is always stocked, and with good foods, and we go out to cultual events and dinner all the time. Our life is free from financial worries despite the fact that I only work a couple of hours a day, because I chose to live in a developing country with a developed-country income. Time - concretely, my children's childhoods - is much more valuable than financial wealth.

But of course, there are many things that we could never afford with all the budgeting in the world, and that definitely includes private school. I recently looked up the fees, and they are astronomical where we live. Then again, if we went to live in, let's say, India with my current income, I might be able to pull it off.


----------



## MittensKittens (Oct 26, 2008)

And being able to afford private school would depend on how many kids you have as well, of course.


----------



## Tjej (Jan 22, 2009)

I consider reasonably wealthy to be when someone is able to afford to feed, clothe, and shelter their family to a standard that is healthy (although not necessarily optimally healthy like all organic...). I think that in the west even many "poor" people are "reasonably wealthy".

As far as what I think an upper-middle-class person is (which is maybe more on par with what others are answering for "reasonably wealthy") it is feeding, clothe-ing and sheltering the family along with doing extras like summer camp and activities and possibly private school (although depending on the school, that could be in the reach of less wealthy people).

Storm Bride - I find it interesting that I must live less than an hour and a half from you and can afford way more than you can with a much lower income. I know real estate in Vancouver is outlandishly expensive, but if you really do want a more relaxed lifestyle look farther down the valley. We made that choice when we got married and while our income is lower, costs are much lower.


----------



## 2xy (Nov 30, 2008)

My friend's family (married couple, 4 kids, wants another) is moving at the end of summer from RI to MO. For the same amount they are currently paying in rent, they will be almost doubling the size of their house, upgrading from a postage-stamp yard to a gorgeous fenced-in yard, and will also be able to afford the occasional housecleaning help.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

I just looked up private school tuitions in my state and they range from $9000-43000/year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mostly on the high end of that!!

OK I cannot imagine being able to afford even the low end of that, for even one kid, no matter WHAT sacrifices we made... Unless maybe those sacrifices included foregoing a home to move into a cardboard box on the side of the road...

But you never know how much debt someone is taking on... or how well or poorly they manage money... things aren't always what they seem...


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My kids school, even for highschool, cost less the the least expensive private school in your state. They do a great job with kids with mild special needs and 2E kids, and the parents who are making the biggest sacrifices to have a child there have kids who simply cannot be served well by public school (which are very badly funded and overcrowded here). One is a single mom, who's DD has Aspergers' and they live in tiny apartment and the mom drives a car that looks like it is about to fall apart. So yes, the mom has more money than someone who can't afford the school but still lives in a tiny apartment and drives a falling apart car, but she isn't wealthy.

BUT that does explain why someone would assume that I'm "reasonably wealthy" since my kids are in private school.

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's responses and the links on Wikepedia.

The cost of living thing is part of what keeps me from feeling 'wealthy.' We've lived all over with DH's job, and I see what we have as so relative. I so many people with less, but many people with more. The amount of money my DH makes goes a long way in some places, and not so far in others.

I just feel middle.









I'm starting think I just don't like the word "wealthy." It doesn't seem to mean anything but "more than I have."

I do, however, feel very blessed. Mostly to have my sweet children, and second to have a sweet relationship with my DH. And I also feel blessed that while we need to make choices with our money, we GET to make choices. We have a certain amount of power and control over our lives because we have enough to money to decide what is most important to us. I feel blessed.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

It really depends so much on where you are -

just an example - this is a private (non-religious and yes, they are cheaper) -

http://www.blair.edu/Admissions/ad_financial_info.shtm -private

http://www.stmarys1.org/17.html -religious in the same area as the private school

vs income for the state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_locations_by_per_capita_income


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

I think it comes down to how much choice you have - the wealthier you are, the more choice you have. So, I think being relatively wealthy means being able to choose more than someone who has less economic freedom. How that looks is going to differ by context (ie average person in a developing nation versus an average person in Brentwood, California). I think the critical piece is degree of choice/control.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

For me, it's about having choices. Do you have choices about where you spend your money? Then you are reasonably well off. Wealthy, I would probably define as having considerable disposable income each month. We fit in the former category, but not the latter.

For example, dh and I have a choice about where dh works. He currently works for himself, about 30+ hours a week. If he were to be employed by a company, he'd probably make 3x what he makes for himself. But working for himself gives him, and thus our whole family, incredible flexibility. He's home when the kids get home from school. If the kids get sick, I don't have to take off work (some days that would be no problem, some days that would be nearly impossible). He was available to cart ds to baseball. He could volunteer 2x a week after school for 10 weeks. Other kids in the neighborhood come hang out here because they know an adult is home (and reasonably enough, they're not allowed to hang out at houses with no adult). Thus, we've made the choice for lower income and greater flexibility.

If we wanted to, we could choose to send our children to private schools. But it would be a choice that would most likely entail my dh getting a 40 hour+ a week job. Private elementary schools range from $4,000 - $20,000, and private high schools from $11,000-$24,000. Even if dh got a full time well paying job, the upper end schools would be a big stretch.

But the thing is that we have the choice to make. Many families in our kids' elementary school do not have any choice. The choices they're making are whether to keep the power or the water on this month. We're not faced with that choice, and thus I would say our family is comfortable, but not wealthy. (We drive a 13 year old car, and we have only one, for example. That's another choice we've made.)


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, one of my friends with two kids in a pricey private school put it this way .....its like buying a new mini-van every year that you don't get to keep.


----------



## skreader (Nov 19, 2008)

I've never heard the phrase "reasonably wealthy" before. Does that mean rich? I think that Lyns6 is on the right track when she writes about choices.

I think having choices is a good definition of wealth, being rich and lack of choices is a fundamental part of poverty.

There's a phrase that I've heard and I googled around and found it's from the Talmud [forgive the non-gender-neutral language]: ""He who is rich is one who is content with his lot"

http://blog.beliefnet.com/virtualtalmud/2006/11/he-who-is-rich.html

So, since I am basically content w/ my lot, I am rich. Some people may have more choices and more discretionary income than me, but are not content w/ what they have, so they are not as rich as me.

The opposite of being rich is being poor. This blog posting "Being Poor" made the rounds on the Internet several years ago. It starts off "Being poor is knowing exactly how much things cost". Some of the stuff on that list I've experienced, but most (thankfully) I have not. It helps remind me of how very rich I am.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/


----------



## shantimama (Mar 11, 2002)

For me "reasonably wealthy" would mean that we didn't need to check with our budget for many expenses because there was never any question of being able to afford groceries, clothes, spontaneous shopping trips, etc. Even vacations wouldn't be a big deal - the discussion would be about where do we want to go, not where can we afford to go.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I agree with those who say it's subjective. I feel reasonably wealthy, even though our yearly income has never been more than aobut $24,000 a year (and is currently much less than that) and we qualify for, and receive, food stamps, Medicaid for our girls, and 100% hospital discounts for any medical care dh and I need.

We are buying our own home, we have plenty to eat, we have Internet access, and we have a working vehicle. I also have a great work-from-home job that I would never have even been considered for if I hadn't gotten a bachelor's degree back in 1988. And I owe nothing for my college education because it was all covered by my parents.

We know people raising their own kids while having to live with relatives or friends (which can be great depending on the kind of relationship you have but, in some cases, really sucks but some people feel stuck between a rock and a hard place) and we even know one couple who had to send their kids to stay with relatives for a while and they lived in their car. Now they are staying with friends for as long as that works out for them.

We know people who have to walk and take the bus everywhere, which can be great if you life in a city with great transportation, but Kansas City's transportation system is somewhat limited. My girls and I have fun taking the bus sometimes, but it's really hard and inconvenient trying to get to certain locations.

We know many people without Internet, and many people who have to work many more hours per week than I do for much lower pay because they never had the educational opportunities that were literally handed to me.

I think I would feel sorta poor if we lost our food stamps and very poor if we lost our medical coverage. I'd probably also be a widow as dh would probably just quit saying anything about how he feels or going to the doctor.


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> (Since I would like a new car but can't afford one while paying for my kids to attend private school, and I had to budget shop for summer activities, I don't feel wealthy. If we could afford the private school AND the new car AND a week of horse camp for each kid, AND someone to clean the house, then I might)


But you know what, you probably wouldn't. Because then you would feel bad that your kids couldn't go to a month of horse camp, that you couldn't get a new top of the line car or have a live-in housekeeper.

I guess to me wealthy means that you have so much money that you don't need to work. But I don't know about reasonably wealthy.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

It's pretty well-documented that most Americans think they are middle class. Only people who are really poor or fantastically wealthy will say otherwise. Also, many people who are really close to the bone don't want to think of themselves as poor and many people who are very comfortable like to consider themselves "average" or even "on a tight budget" without looking more accurately at their costs and outlays and income. I have a friend who is always saying how broke they are and how tight things are, but who also mentioned that they "only" have 100k in their retirement fund. My parents are convinced their community is "middle-class," but less than 3% of the kids in their school district are on free and reduced lunch.

A good way to judge this accurately is to look at the median income in your city and state and see where you fall. I find people really have no idea. Generally speaking, I would consider "reasonably wealthy" to be upper-middle class, or low 6 figures (100-150k per household).

It's very hard to judge any of this by looking at someone's car or even their house, let alone their discretionary spending. For example, we have one junker car (1997) and we live in a bitty old house on the "wrong" side of town, but we are actually much more liquid in terms of our finances than many people I know who earn more and whose lifestyles look wealthier. I never have to worry about running out of money at the end of the month (a worry expressed by people I know of widely varying incomes) and we carry no credit card debt.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *loraxc*
> we are actually much more liquid in terms of our finances than many people I know who earn more and whose lifestyles look wealthier. I never have to worry about running out of money at the end of the month (a worry expressed by people I know of widely varying incomes) and we carry no credit card debt.


oh yeah. We know people who are sooooo over extended and have NO security, inspite of having 6 figure incomes. Instead of really having more money, they just have higher bills.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Not sure what wealthy would mean. But I have read that being poor a few times over the last 10 years. I can relate to NONE of those sayings my entire life. Does it make me better than anyone who has, NO. Just lucky or maybe not.

I do not equate wealth with private school. We do not send out kids to the 2 local private schools because we have an outstanding award winning school 2 blocks away. We also have a large property tax bill to fund it. My DH makes a nice salary and affords me the ability to stay home for the last 9 plus years. We also have funded our retirement for 10 plus years. OTH, we live in a nice size house for a family of four, not over the top but nice. We drive two 10 yr old cars and will have to think of a new one sooner than later for me. I am by nature, very frugal and we live compared to others, pretty simply. I know others who have similar or higher salaries than us but have a mountain of debt to fund their lifestyle and others to think they are living the high life. Most people I know have not saved at all for their retirement, do not take advantage of 401ks etc and have nothing for the future. They are in their mid 30s or close to 40. But they eat out, drive new cars every few years and take wonderful vacations and have houses full of stuff upon stuff upon stuff. Are they weathly?

We can afford to take a vacation but do it frugally. We can afford to buy new furniture in our living room I waited years to buy and we can afford to eat out and pay for a sitter about once a month or so. I watch what I spend, just because I like to keep us in the black, not in debt. I can buy makeup at the dept when I want, a few times a year, not all the time. I shop markdowns for clothes, shoes, and gasp- furniture and I budget to the dollar. And we still make a lot more than what most americans make.

ETA, so I guess wealthy would be what I saw on a Chris Rock special- Shaquell O neil's check, hes got money. The guy who has the money to pay him- he is weathly! LOL

So I would say, we could send our kids to private school, we would find the money if neccesary. OTH, if I could pay for them plus send your kids as well, that is wealthy.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tjej*
> 
> Storm Bride - I find it interesting that I must live less than an hour and a half from you and can afford way more than you can with a much lower income. I know real estate in Vancouver is outlandishly expensive, but if you really do want a more relaxed lifestyle look farther down the valley. We made that choice when we got married and while our income is lower, costs are much lower.


We may move that way, if dh can find work there. If he can't, it won't work out for us, and definitely wouldn't be more relaxed. He's legally blind and I'd have to drive out to Vancouver, with the kids, every day, so that he could go to work. Any lifestyle gains we'd make financially would be more than offset by that.

ETA: My previous posts also failed to take costs related to ds1 into account. We got him a cellphone for his 15th birthday, on a three year contract, with the understanding that we'd pay the bill until he graduated (this month). He's had costs related to gymnastics, plus the tickets for the school musical ($85 for all of us), plus grad expenses (renting a tux, banquet tickets X3 - dh and I went with him - grad photos are crazy expensive, etc.). He's been a major financial sinkhole this year. Our financial situation will improve over the summer, because we won't have those expenses, anymore. He's living at home and getting free room and board next year, but we're not giving him allowance, paying for his cellphone or paying his university tuition. DS1 is a very busy young man, and extracurriculars cost money. (I have another $25 for an outstanding course fee, and if I don't pay it, he won't get his yearbook...trying to decide whether to spend another $20 on a book of inspirational writings by students, which includes an essay by ds1.)


----------



## JamieCatheryn (Dec 31, 2005)

I guess reasonably wealthy means you and your kids don't go hungry or malnourished, you have a reliable roof over your head and tolerable climate control inside it, you can get where you need to be, and your family can have some season appropriate clothes that fit and aren't ripped and torn. Then add to that enough that in a typical emergency (something needs repairs, someone gets sick, etc) you won't lose all of that instantly. We're reasonably wealthy, DH makes about a median income, 40 something thousand a year with a bit of raise every year. Problem is figuring out how to use that income wisely and stay out of debt and give to others, and keep up with replacing what wears out and such. The bills and need-to-haves always seem to grow in proportion to what's available and increases are never huge abrupt ones.


----------



## swd12422 (Nov 9, 2007)

I agree, it's totally subjective. Maybe since it was in the context of a "welfare" discussion, the fact that you can pay all your necessary bills makes you reasonably wealthy. I have no idea how I would really define that, though....

I do remember once when I was in my twenties and still single, I was chatting with a friend of my boyfriend's, who was married and expecting a baby soon. He was talking about getting out of debt before the baby starts school, and I guess I looked confused. (We don't talk about personal finances with near-strangers, or even friends where I come from, so I thought this was a bit inappropriate.) He asked me how much debt I had, and I said, "None." I had gotten my car used and paid blue book for it ($2000), and I rented my apartment, and was petrified of credit card debt so I never charged more than I could pay off each month. He reached out, shook my hand, and said, "Congratulations. You're the wealthiest person I know." I was stunned.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Reasonably Wealthy (to me):
~never having to contemplate applying for government assistance- you dont qualify.
~being able to donate your clothes, shoes, furniture, ect to goodwill while its still in good condition (you just "never wear" something that you bought instead of wearing them slap out and HAVING to get new shoes)
~having cable television, internet phone plans, the internet at home, and a car that was made within the decade (note that I said AND, not OR. Any one thing doesnt symbolize wealth to me, but all of them together do)
~sending kids to private school without HUGE sacrifices. If you own a home, have a fairly new car, send your kid to private school and still can go on summer vacation..you are a WHOLE lot more wealthy than me because I cant afford ONE of those things, much less all of them.
~Personalize licensed plates. Ive always just thought if you can afford that, you can have more money than sense, but I have now learned that in a lot of states it doesnt cost very much.

Yep, thats it. But, I am not even in the middle class, so my opinion of wealth is relative.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Oh, and also, I think the two private schools in my small town are both upwards of $15,000 per year, per kid. So if someone can spend $30,000 a year on private school , that makes me think they are wealthy. That is about what we make a year.


----------



## elmh23 (Jul 1, 2004)

Private schools have a large range of tuitions in one are. My kids attend a private school and will until 8th grade. For all three to go, it will cost $12,000 for one school year. The private high schools range from $11,000 to $23,000. My kids will not be attending.

And while yes, I spend $8,000 in tuition fees (only two of my kids are school age), I know families that spend that much or more on gymnastics and horse backing and other activities. My kids do the cheap activities at the community center ($13 a year.)


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

reasonably wealthy to me is a person who has enough to meet the best level of basic needs and still has money to spend on luxuries. private schooling is not a basic need but a luxury.

yes you may maintain a middle fo the line in everything by sending your kids to public school, but doing one at the cost of the other is not reasonably wealthy.


----------



## cyclamen (Jul 10, 2005)

Our income is slightly above the median for our city, but we qualified for WIC, medicaid, and are only about $900 a year away from qualifying for food stamps. If we had a second baby, there'd be no question. What that tells me is that a large number of people living in our city must be living well below the poverty line. That boggles my mind. We rent a lead safe apartment, have one car (paid off before I quit working), no savings, an internet subscription, a moderate amount of student loan debt, no credit cards, and I stay home. We are happy. We buy as little as possible (even from the thrift store), but we do try to get the best food we can. I have no doubt that we are living better than many... but I often wonder how others get by because it is not easy for us.


----------



## K1329 (Apr 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> reasonably wealthy to me is a person who has enough to meet the best level of basic needs and still has money to spend on luxuries. private schooling is not a basic need but a luxury.
> 
> yes you may maintain a middle fo the line in everything by sending your kids to public school, but doing one at the cost of the other is not reasonably wealthy.


In our area, I don't view private school as a luxury. Public schools here have a dismal graduation rate, low test scores, & in school criminal activity. We pay 3000.00 per yr tuition, & I very much view it as a necessity. I do, however, agree that having access to wants in addition to needs might be one way to define reasonably wealthy.


----------



## insidevoice (Feb 16, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> We may move that way, if dh can find work there. If he can't, it won't work out for us, and definitely wouldn't be more relaxed. He's legally blind and I'd have to drive out to Vancouver, with the kids, every day, so that he could go to work. Any lifestyle gains we'd make financially would be more than offset by that.


It's a tradeoff indeed. DH spends a lot of money commuting from Abbotsford to Langley where he then picks up a work vehicle to go into Vancouver to work much of the time. It's a lot more time this way, but the COL (housing!) is so much lower that it's worth it for us. We wouldn't be able to make the same decision if I had to drive him both ways because I would go absolutely bonkers.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *K1329*
> 
> In our area, I don't view private school as a luxury.


For one of my kids it is a luxury, but for the other it isn't. One of my kids is on the autism spectrum and this is really what she needs. For the other one, it's just a bonus. She would do fine at our local public school, but this is better for her and she likes it more, and it's more important *to me* than the new car.

On a more general note, I've been poor (I left my abusive home when I was a teen) and my very favorite thing about having *enough* money is being able to buy what I want at the grocery store. I'll never forget being in a store and carefully selecting a few items and planning around what was the cheapest food that would last me the longest. I remember wanting to buy strawberries, but not having enough money to buy them and buy beans and potatoes, and the strawberries wouldn't fill me up. Every single time I buy fruit I feel lucky. When my kids were little one of my favorite points of the week was going to the grocery store with them and letting them each pick whichever fruit they wanted.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

oh yes. i agree in certain cases - crime or PG or special needs private school no longer becomes an exception.


----------



## mamacolleen (Dec 16, 2009)

My understanding of wealth is that it describes one's financial assets and not income. So if you own property, a house, have savings of any kind, investments, etc, then you have wealth. In other countries wealth includes livestock and women's jewellery. It's a mechanism to have some degree of protection from financial ruin. Of course, income and wealth are related in that if you have more income, you are generally in a better position to acquire more financial assets but there's not a direct automatic causation. Of course lots of other things factor into that: COL where you live, your financial literacy, job security, etc.

The "reasonable" part of it is completely subjective and can't be quantified. It's based on values, expectations, spending habits, priorities, how you choose to compare your situation with those around you, etc. Things discussed in this thread as being markers of wealth (private schools, cars, being able to afford some luxuries, etc) are not strictly indicators of wealth since they are consumables and mainly reflect your values, priorities and life circumstances.

I also think it's an extremely useful exercise to compare oneself with others beyond one's immediate community. Wealth as possession of assets is out of reach of the vast majority of the world's people. When I think of it this way, I quickly go from feeling not really wealthy at all, to feeling incredibly wealthy.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I consider "reasonably wealthy" (with emphasis on the 'reasonable') to be the following:

*has money left over from paying necessities

*able to purchase most things new (even if they choose not to) rather than relying on thrift stores/freecycle out of pure necessity.

*would be able to survive for at least 6 months after a job loss due to assets/investments/savings.

I know lots of people who appear wealthier than us but whom I do NOT consider reasonably wealthy because of that last qualification. A lot of people who people ASSume are wealthy because of their clothing, cars, housing, ect. are really just one paycheck away from the brink. If that is you, even if you drive a rolls royce and eat bonbons, you're not wealthy. At least to me.

I agree that compared to the majority of the human population, the worst off American or Canadian citizen is fabulously wealthy. I think that the majority of Americans who "appear wealthy" are anything but.

Our family drives 10+ year old cars, doesn't go on expensive vacations, lives in modest house, shops at thrift stores and freecyle as a lifestyle decision, brown-bags it at school/work...but we are wealthier IMO that most of the people living in the McMansion development up the street because we are in no danger of foreclosure, could go a year without anyone in the house being paid (and have done so in a pinch/as part of working for a startup, it would hurt but we could so totally do it, esp. since we have NO consumer debt), and if the real estate signs I see popping up like daisies are any indication, a lot of our FAR wealthier appearing neighbors are not able to do that.,


----------



## VocalMinority (Apr 8, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rachieface*
> 
> From a global perspective, if you're on this forum, you ARE reasonably wealthy. You either own a computer with internet or have access to one. That's a big deal in many parts of the world.
> 
> I know that misses the point of this thread, but that's just to say that wealth is incredibly subjective.


I think about this a lot, too. My good friend, across the street, has 4 kids at home like we do; is a SAHM like I am; and has a husband who works in a project-based industry like mine does (think periodic temporary unemployment). So, we discuss/commiserate about our financial situations sometimes and what we can/can't afford and how we make ends meet. She cares more about fashion and interior decorating than I do. (Not that she sacrifices the important things, for these...but she wishes she could have high fashion AND the important things. Whereas, I would HOPE that if I could afford to buy whatever I wanted at Pottery Barn and J. Crew, that I would still have the sense to go to Target and garage sales instead, and save or donate my money.) Anyway, I know my neighbor really thinks of herself (and me, too, I guess) as poor.

But I often think that, to so many people in the world, the fact that I'm sharing 1,700 square feet with only 5 other people and not my entire extended family; that I have safe, running water whenever I want it; a big yard; a reliable (if used) vehicle; and I never have to worry about how I'm going to feed or clothe my kids (even if a lot of the clothes are 2nd-hand, we have plenty of them!)...would sound like living in the lap of luxury!

Then, when I talk to friends my own age who are in a much better financial situation than we are, I wonder if all my globalizing is genuine gratitude, or a way of avoiding thinking about improvements DH and I should make, in how we manage our money?


----------



## Lisa1970 (Jan 18, 2009)

I think reasonably wealthy will probably always be 50K more than you currently earn. But, the amount you currently earn is so different.

I think reasonably wealthy is an awful term. I mean..when it is wealthy..can you really put the word "reasonably" in front of it? I would call those with 1 million or more a year to be reasonably wealthy. But I think to someone who lives in poverty, someone with 50K a year might seem wealthy. Plus, things are different in different parts of the country and different parts of the world.


----------



## ancoda (Oct 17, 2005)

I do believe that the amount would vary a lot from state to state and even within a state mattering if you are in a big city or rural. If my DH was able to make here in Eastern Idaho what he was making in Portland, Or we would be pretty comfortable financially right now.

I think adaline'smama covered it pretty good below what I agree makes you Reasonably wealthy.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> Reasonably Wealthy (to me):
> ~never having to contemplate applying for government assistance- you dont qualify.
> ...


----------



## mamadebug (Dec 28, 2006)

I don't know what "relatively wealthy" means. But, if it was a comment made on the welfare thread, I know from growing up in a household with a single mom on an incredibly tight budget, that when you are used to living that way financially, any financial freedom can feel extravagant and "wealthy". If I stand back and look at my life now and am objective, I am not wealthy. But, I still feel really "wealthy" every time I go into Whole Foods and basically buy what I want. My mom used to borrow my babysitting money to buy groceries - the idea of going into a high end grocery store and getting what you want simply would have never happened when I was a kid. Sooo, I think that a lot of this is perspective - what a person is used to having, what others around you have and the geographical area you live in.

Also, I don't think sending kids to private school is a marker of wealth necessarily. I remember having utilities turned off as a kid - but I still went to private schools. There was a time when my grandparents paid for it and mostly I received financial aid. Most private schools give financial aid.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I've also heard some people refer to homeschooling as a luxury. And I kind of do see it as a luxury that either dh or I is always able to be with our girls. Not everyone is able to do that.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AutumnAir*
> 
> The fact that you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school means you're reasonably wealthy IMO. Even if that does mean having to budget elsewhere. But, as far as I'm concerned the ability to afford private school is definitely a wealth marker.


 I completely disagree with this. I have friends who managed to put there kids through private schools and on to college and I think it is a matter of hard work (side jobs) and being resourceful, not a measure of wealth.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> My kids school, even for highschool, cost less the the least expensive private school in your state. They do a great job with kids with mild special needs and 2E kids, and the parents who are making the biggest sacrifices to have a child there have kids who simply cannot be served well by public school (which are very badly funded and overcrowded here). One is a single mom, who's DD has Aspergers' and they live in tiny apartment and the mom drives a car that looks like it is about to fall apart. So yes, the mom has more money than someone who can't afford the school but still lives in a tiny apartment and drives a falling apart car, but she isn't wealthy.
> 
> ...


I pretty much agree with all of this and also live in an area where private school isn't a wealth marker (although there is ONE private school in town that probably is).

I think it is really hard to make the call of wealthy. I feel "comfortable" because we can go out to eat and always have money to pay the bills and such. But determining your own wealth based on what others around you are doing can be very misleading. You know that old saying - Big hat, no cattle. It happens. People with the most, best, or newest things may also be in a world of debt.

DH read the book The Millionaire Next Door and it was really interesting.

ETA: On a global perspective, yes I feel wealthy. In my community - Not.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

This has been an interesting thread. I think there are people who are wealthy (large net worth; no debt, or debt that is less than net worth; ability to choose from and utilize a wide range of resources). Then, I think there are people who are comfortable (have financial security either/or in savings, retirement, investments; no debt or debt that is manageable; better choice of resources but not on the scale of wealthy people). Then there are those who seem to fall squarely in middle class status (ability to feed, shelter, travel and pay for certain resources, which may be seen as luxury items, but obtainable if within budget; a portion would have debt like a mortgage, student loans, etc.; some savings). Then there are some who live somewhere in the pergatory of middle class and poor, who survive okay, but are forced to be frugal out of necessity. DH and I were in this group for a long time. We weren't poor in a food/shelter sense, but we had very little economic freedom in that our choices of where to live, what to wear, where to travel, etc. were extremely limited.

So I guess for me, it boils down to economic freedom. Like Linda, I would define DH and I as somewhere squarely in the middle. We have savings, a mortgage, some student loans, ability to rent a car if we want to visit friends/relatives, ability to send DD to a certain private school because it fits within our budget. At this stage in my life, however, I wouldn't view us comfortable because we're still forced to exercise frugality on some levels and we remain keenly aware of the idea that any severe change in the economic environment could risk our jobs/income. From my perspective, the wealthy and comfortable folks tend to have less of these financial worries. Not all, but I think there is a certain sense of safety when you've reached a certain worth/income level.


----------



## purslaine (Feb 20, 2006)

I am the one who said Linda might be reasonably wealthy. I said so based on her DH's job and on the 2 kids in private school. However, I realise I was absolutely making assumptions about her wealth based on the income of professionals and cost of private school in my area. My bad.

I do think it is posssible in some areas for kids to go to private school without being wealthy. Many middle class families can manage it, often with sacrifice. I do not think poor people (with few exceptions) can afford private school. If you are poor, no matter the cost of the private school, it will be too much.

I think the posters who spoke of choice as being a central to wealth were bang on. I also agree with the poster who mentionned assets in relation to wealth. When all is said and done, if you have high income but poor money management skills and no assets, you would be up the creek if your income dried up. One of the very cool things about having money is the security it brings.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most mothering.com users agree with you!







Most (but not all) of the people who responded to this thread have definitions of "reasonably wealthy" that include my family. We just aren't floating in dough to the degree that you imagined.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Reasonably wealthy is about net worth for me. It has nothing to do with lifestyle. You can live in a 7 room home with a maid and gardener, but you're not reasonably wealthy in my book if you have a negative net worth. You just have a bigger line of credit. I think that's what is so messed up in this country. Appearance of wealth and actual wealth are two VERY different things.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

I consider my SAHmom time as an extreme luxury. Why? Because I got to do it! IME and IMHO, I feel the sacrifice would have been NOT staying home. We are not wealthy by the standards of private school galore or a huge paid off home, high end this and that. But we are very fortunate DH makes a good salary that affords us this. We are also lucky we didnt have large student debts that some MDC members have and the upcoming generation has. if we did I would have been back at work by the time my DD1 was 6 weeks old.


----------



## Lisa1970 (Jan 18, 2009)

When I became a SAHM, we were very poor. We struggled a lot, but made it work. The people around me who would call me "Ms Moneybags" just because I stayed home with the children, would drive new SUVs and take vacations and had houses. I was living in a small apartment with 1 car, not an SUV. We bought it used and got a good price on it. So, while being a SAHM may be considered a luxury, it is also a choice. I think it is a rare person who truly cannot afford to have a parent as an at-home parent. But, I think not a lot of people are willing to give up the material things to stay home. I see people talking all the time about how they have no choice to work, then mention over $1000 in car payments. You do not get that big of a car payment from being frugal. Or huge debts left over from lavish weddings and vacations. We never would have gone in to debt for either one. Or, $3000-5000 a month house payments, even though in most of the country, you can get very nice houses for much less. Even manicures and pedicures, that they claim is a necessity.


----------



## pranava (Aug 11, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lisa1970*
> 
> I think it is a rare person who truly cannot afford to have a parent as an at-home parent. But, I think not a lot of people are willing to give up the material things to stay home. I see people talking all the time about how they have no choice to work, then mention over $1000 in car payments. You do not get that big of a car payment from being frugal. Or huge debts left over from lavish weddings and vacations. We never would have gone in to debt for either one. Or, $3000-5000 a month house payments, even though in most of the country, you can get very nice houses for much less. Even manicures and pedicures, that they claim is a necessity.


Maybe this is true for some couples but single parents aren't rare, and I think many single parents are getting little to no child support. I have considered starting a daycare so I could stay home, but that would not bring in enough money or give me health insurance. I simply have no other choice but to work.

I consider reasonably wealthy, living comfortably without any stress about paying your bills or how you would manage an issue like car repair or furnace breaks. Also, not in debt way over your head.


----------



## frugalmum (Nov 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *K1329*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


True, it depends on where you live. I live in an area where there are reasonably affordable private schools (tuition around 5k/ yr)... this is doable for families who aren't rich but can scrimp and save elsewhere. Whereas other private schools are 20-30k a year, definitely something for the well off.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lisa1970*
> 
> When I became a SAHM, we were very poor. We struggled a lot, but made it work. The people around me who would call me "Ms Moneybags" just because I stayed home with the children, would drive new SUVs and take vacations and had houses. I was living in a small apartment with 1 car, not an SUV. We bought it used and got a good price on it. So, while being a SAHM may be considered a luxury, it is also a choice. *I think it is a rare person who truly cannot afford to have a parent as an at-home parent.* But, I think not a lot of people are willing to give up the material things to stay home. I see people talking all the time about how they have no choice to work, then mention over $1000 in car payments. You do not get that big of a car payment from being frugal. Or huge debts left over from lavish weddings and vacations. We never would have gone in to debt for either one. Or, $3000-5000 a month house payments, even though in most of the country, you can get very nice houses for much less. Even manicures and pedicures, that they claim is a necessity.


I'm not sure this is entirely true, although I think it is for some people. However, it really depends where you live. Many of my friends live quite modestly and still need to have 2 working parents (not necessarily both full-time though). I did not have a lavish wedding, I don't drive an SUV (we buy used CHEAP cars), and I've never in my life had a manicure or hair appt. or whatever. Our mortgage is just about equal to rent for most apartments in the area (cheaper than many, actually!) and we do nearly all our shopping at the thrift store & a bag-your-own grocer. But DH and I both need to work due to the COL here. I am lucky that I have a job that 'allowed' me to telecommute so I can still be home with DS -- but I don't see how we could survive on just one income, and it's not like we have anywhere left to cut back -- we already make our own toothpaste and stuff.







Maybe if we had waited 'til our 40's to have kids, we could have saved up enough and all (but then would probably need to spend it all on adoption fees due to declining fertility!!) I guess it bothers me when people say being a SAHM is a choice, because so many people just don't have the option... I can't imagine a couple with both working for $8/hour at W*lmart being able to arrange for one to cut back on hours, let alone be a SAHP..


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I don't get why people get so bent out of shape about being considered "wealthy" by someone, somewhere.

There are nice, giving, moral, sweet, kind, awesome people of all income levels--so if someone thinks you are wealthier than they are, why give a crap? Maybe you are! Everyone's wealthier than someone else in *something*.

I know this is a major MDC thing, but I've never really been able to figure out why wealthy = SOULSUCKING EVIL!!!! here. Poor is no picnic, and there are plenty of horrible, mean, selfish, abusive poor people out there as well.


----------



## Marissamom (Dec 17, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


depends on daycare. If I was working full-time, but not in a field related to my degree, almost all of my pay would be going to daycare costs for two kids


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tigerchild*
> 
> I don't get why people get so bent out of shape about being considered "wealthy" by someone, somewhere.
> 
> ...


I don't think wealthy is evil, in any way. I don't get that vibe from most posters here. I think it's more that we're all struggling, in some way or another, and it's weird to realize that you have no money, are in debt, can't save anything, or whatever, and other people consider you "wealthy", yk.

I'm wealthy, compared to 10 years ago, in that dh and i have more savings than I used to have, and he's bringing in a lot more money than I was. OTOH, we also owe about four times more money (still only 4 digits) than I've ever owed in my life before, and that's not even counting the loan for the minivan. We rent a place, and won't ever be able to buy anything, unless we move. We're running on empty in terms of cash flow, and that makes me feel not very wealthy at all.

I have no problem with people who are much less well off than we thinking that we are "relatively wealthy". But, "relatively wealthy" is fairly clear cut, imo - subjective, and different for everybody, but clear cut. If you're living on the street, having a roof - any roof - over your head, is "relatively" wealthy. If you're living in a crappy little apartment and struggling to put food on the table, living in a house with a yard, and being able to buy groceries without having to think about it too much, is "relatively" wealthy. And, you can keep going that way. But, "reasonably" is a slightly different concept, and is a lot harder to pin down, imo.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tigerchild*
> 
> I don't get why people get so bent out of shape about being considered "wealthy" by someone, somewhere.
> 
> ...


This. I am flat out rich. For most of the past few 5 years our income has hovered around $150k/year. Our investment/retirement portfolio is worth noticeably more than our mortgage and we will pay off the mortgage before I am 40. I turn 30 in September. I am typing this from my ridiculously expensive hotel room in Inverness Scotland because we are on a month long vacation in Europe. I'm rich. Rich. Rich. Rich.

That said, I don't get everything I want. I make choices. I have purchased one new car in my life (it was paid off in three months) basically because I wanted to do it once. I'll never do it again. It wasn't worth the markup. I dress myself and my kids mostly in hand-me-downs. However when I lost 25 pounds in the month before this vacation due to extreme stress and a nervous breakdown, I went to J.Jill and Coldwater Creek and I bought some freakin new clothes. Right now our liquidity is lower than I like it to be, but I generally have between $20,000 and $30,000 sitting in my savings account separate from all that college/retirement/blah saving stuff that isn't easily accessible. I am rich rich rich rich.

It would be really easy for us to be in trouble though. We are this rich because I normally live very frugally. Our house is 950 sq ft. We are about to be 3 adults (my best friend is moving in with us because she has extreme health issues and can no longer live alone) and two kids in a three bedroom house. Our cars are both 2006 and we won't replace them till they die. We go out to eat a lot, but we don't have a television or any of the related expenses. In general our big splurges on a day-to-day basis is home improvement stuff. We don't go out to most of the events our friends go to because we think they are too expensive. We go see one movie a year in a theatre, normally the latest Pixar movie on a summer day when our uninsulated house is so hot we feel like lobsters being slowly boiled. We (so far) do not participate in any "activities". My hobby is travel and I scrimp and save and scrimp and save to do it. I'm in Europe right now because my childhood best friend is getting married in Scotland and the plane fare is by far the most expensive part of the trip. So we are staying for a long time and my husband is working remotely. That working remotely bit has really sucked and been incredibly stressful, but we wouldn't be able to do this trip if he wasn't.

So yes, no matter where you on the spectrum you can try to say that there are things you don't have. Our neighbors all assume we are poor because we have the crappiest house on the block and no tv. On a day-to-day basis we "look" like poor people to them. It's really funny to me. I grew up in actual poverty. I did steal food from the store in order to eat. I've been homeless.

It's been really weird to go from one extreme to the other. Very different perspectives.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm wealthy. I could afford to send my school-aged child to private school, but I can afford to live in an expensive place with amazing, well-funded public schools, so I send her to the amazing public schools. I don't see why being wealthy is considered bad. A lot of the choices I make are possible because of it. I get expensive raw milk from local pastured cows. I get expensive locally produced organic foods. I buy things from local artisans instead of shopping at wal-mart. I bought expensive cloth diapers and supported WAHMs. We wealthy MDC folks are doing our part, too!


----------



## purslaine (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> I'm wealthy. I could afford to send my school-aged child to private school, but I can afford to live in an expensive place with amazing, well-funded public schools, so I send her to the amazing public schools. *I don't see why being wealthy is considered bad*. A lot of the choices I make are possible because of it. I get expensive raw milk from local pastured cows. I get expensive locally produced organic foods. I buy things from local artisans instead of shopping at wal-mart. I bought expensive cloth diapers and supported WAHMs. We wealthy MDC folks are doing our part, too!


Bolding mine. I don't think most people on this thread think wealthy is bad - so I am not sure where this is coming from? (not picking on you, there have been several like this)

I agree by the way. I am middle class. I think it would be cool to be wealthy.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

In my opinion, people don't want to consider themselves wealthy because almost everyone is focused on what they want but don't have. I could play up the things I don't have (a nice house, private schools with full language immersion,a nice phone, etc.)compared to everyone around me and say that I'm maybe middle class, but I'm "not rich" but I would be deluding myself. I would be behaving entitled in my opinion. Yes, there are things I do without. So what? I'm still rich. I feel like most people are only willing to look at the things they want and can't afford as the marker of "rich". I have traveled enough to see that even when I was living in poverty as an American child, I was still better off than most of the world. Perspective is interesting.


----------



## Just1More (Jun 19, 2008)

I haven't read all the replies, but I think that wealth is choice.

The more money someone has left over for discretionary spending, the wealthier they are. So, someone making a six figure income who spends nearly all of it paying debt and meeting basic needs is not wealthy, but someone who makes far less yet has most of it left over after those basic needs well could be considered wealthy.

So, that said, we consider ourselves fairly "well to do". We have no debt, and, because of our lifestyle choices, we have a significant amount of our income left over each month to spend as we please. A few years ago when we were still paying off college and credit cards and a vehicle, we didn't have that choice, and the money felt a lot tighter. Even now, if we chose to have everything the "Jones" did, we'd be broke. Anyway, I agree that it's about perspective.


----------



## purslaine (Feb 20, 2006)

nm


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rightkindofme*
> 
> In my opinion, people don't want to consider themselves wealthy because almost everyone is focused on what they want but don't have.


I can't speak for "people," but for me, the reason I don't consider myself wealthy is that I don't meet the criteria of the word "wealthy" as I understand it. To me, it implies a level of luxury and ease that our family doesn't have. Some of this thread consider anyone who doesn't need government assistant to feed their family and has an internet connect to be wealthy. I'm curious what word they use for people who fly on their private to plains to their second (or third) home!

Wikpedia defines it this way: "An individual who is considered wealthy, affluent, or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth *relative to others in their society or reference group*."

Part of the difference may be what what considers their "reference group." Compared to much of the world, yes, we are rich. Compared to other Americans, we are doing pretty good. We live on the nice side of our city, and compared to people on this side of town, we are middle. The next development over has houses twice as expensive. And past that are the sprawling mansions with views, and prices starting at over a million. And there are lots of those houses.

My DH gets up and goes to work every day and he works his butt off. When his company tells him to travel, he does. When they've told us to move, we have. We have some savings. I work part time and drive our kids to their activities and clean the house. That makes us *middle class*. Because of our levels of education, that the fact that he gets to do interesting work, and that his job pays more than many other jobs, we are *upper* middle class.

I'm not turning down the label "wealthy" because I'm focused on what I don't have. I haven't thought about the word "wealthy" in ages and it took me by surprise. But now that I think about it, a lot of people in our society have accumulated a heck of a lot more wealth! And that's totally OK with me.

I feel blessed. Every night at the table, we go around and each person in my family says something they are grateful for. I feel very fortunate for everything we have, but especially that we have each other.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

The thing is, you don't know who is on the brink of collapse. People in this society seem to measure "wealth" by extraneous consumer spending and everyone wants to appear wealthy so they spend more money than they should and they evaluate one another by the size of their houses. It's really foolish. From start to finish. I don't appear wealthy because I want to actually be wealthy. I choose to not spend money in any area I can get away with it. I am in a very small subgroup of people in this country for that reason.

Also, if you want your kids to make a lot of money? Push them towards computer programming. Seriously. It's insane how much money they get paid.

ETA: if wealth is defined only by who you are standing closest to, that means that if you switched neighborhoods you could go from being poor to being wealthy without changing anything else about your life. That seems like a pretty useless definition of wealthy to me. 1 in 6 Americans are on some kind of assistance. That's a rather large percentage. You are comparing yourself to the top 1% and saying, well then I'm not wealthy. That's not especially useful because there is a lot of grey area in between. To be fair, I don't know anything about your financial situation and you could be 100% right about your evaluation of your position, you do say you are upper middle class.  I choose to not identify as "upper middle class" because I feel like it is... well... kind of a jerk thing for me to do. No really, we are rich. We have so many choices about what we have and do and where we spend our money. When we had to replace our roof I could just go do it. But that doesn't mean I am "uber rich" which is more what I think you are talking about.

I wish there were better designations. :-\


----------



## MittensKittens (Oct 26, 2008)

How do people who mentioned (mostly) middle class and upper middle class come to those conclusions? Is it to do with income, or more than that?

I am working class. I come from a family of manual workers and I was the first to go to university. Despite having advanced education, I am working class. Marxist definition - I don't own means of production and have to sell my labor to survive. Additionally, careful budgeting is needed to make things run smoothly, and don't own a house or a car - and that's living in a developing country. I also, in addition to being working class, consider myself rich - not financially, but definitely in many other ways. Also, I could make different decisions and make more money. That would require me to send my kids off to daycare and later school, but these are choices I could make. I have a job that I like, and plenty of time to spend with the kis.

Why does everyone self-identify as either middle class or upper middle class? Are there any people willing to identify as working class or upper class? And how do you reach these conclusions?


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MittensKittens*
> 
> How do people who mentioned (mostly) middle class and upper middle class come to those conclusions? Is it to do with income, or more than that?


I assumed it's based on income -- for the US you can get the median income from the US census bureau for where you live (and for the US as a whole). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Now I don't think most people actually looked this up before self-identifying as middle class, but they could.

The truth is though that more people call themselves middle class than are middle class. People who are in the top 10% of the US income still tend to call themselves 'upper middle class' when in reality, they aren't.

I don't think most people share the Marxist definition of working class. Under that definition, most people are 'working class'. But is a computer programmer making $150,000 a year selling their labor really working class? I don't think so. Also, the majority of people in the US (67%) are living in their 'own' homes (i.e. most likely homes with a mortgage), so they also don't qualify as working class under that definition because they own property.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

Quote:


> I haven't thought about the word "wealthy" in ages and it took me by surprise. But now that I think about it, a lot of people in our society have accumulated a heck of a lot more wealth! And that's totally OK with me.


you could turn things around- for ages, "wealth" y had noting to do with material goods - Sir Dyer - "My Mind to Me a Kingdom Is"


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

I consider wealth, riches and class (and even sophistication) to be different things and they are not mutually exclusive, nor does one lead to another. Wealthy doesn't mean rich and it also doesn't mean "upper class". The reverse is true, IMO. This is BEYOND a box of worms I care to unleash here. Wealth is simply how much you are worth if you die. To me, that answers the question the OP asked.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rightkindofme*
> 
> To be fair, I don't know anything about your financial situation and you could be 100% right about your evaluation of your position, you do say you are upper middle class.  I choose to not identify as "upper middle class" because I feel like it is... well... kind of a jerk thing for me to do. No really, we are rich. We have so many choices about what we have and do and where we spend our money. When we had to replace our roof I could just go do it. But that doesn't mean I am "uber rich" which is more what I think you are talking about.


but how do YOU define upper middle class, rich, etc.? You don't seem to have any solid definition, but feel that using certain words is jerky. I don't get that.

How can you say someone else is using a word wrong when you can't pin down what the word even means?

Where is the line for "rich"? for "reasonably rich"? for "uber rich"?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LynnS6*
> 
> The truth is though that more people call themselves middle class than are middle class. People who are in the top 10% of the US income still tend to call themselves 'upper middle class' when in reality, they aren't.
> 
> I don't think most people share the Marxist definition of working class. Under that definition, most people are 'working class'. But is a computer programmer making $150,000 a year selling their labor really working class? I don't think so. Also, the majority of people in the US (67%) are living in their 'own' homes (i.e. most likely homes with a mortgage), so they also don't qualify as working class under that definition because they own property.


I agree. The Maxist definition doesn't make ANY sense in a modern world. My DH works in aerospace, and the Marxist definition would have every single person in that industry as working class, even the general manager of a facility or the vice president of engineering -- they all sale their labor and none of them own the means of production. Companies are owned by stock, not private owners. (Actually many employees have stock in the companies they work for, so I don't know what to make of that).

I went by the wikepadia definition for middle class/upper middle class.

To me, having not looked it up yet, working class means someone who does a job with their hands, possibly very skilled, but not required a college education: a cable installer, shop floor worker, plumber, etc. It has to do with the type education required and the type of work done, not with salary, value to society, or job security.


----------



## purslaine (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *velochic*
> 
> I consider wealth, riches and class (and even sophistication) to be different things and they are not mutually exclusive, nor does one lead to another. Wealthy doesn't mean rich and it also doesn't mean "upper class". The reverse is true, IMO. T*his is BEYOND a box of worms I care to unleash here.* Wealth is simply how much you are worth if you die. To me, that answers the question the OP asked.


Bolding mine - now you have me intrigued.

Some other time, perhaps?


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I think rich/poor is relative.

For me, someone who makes $100K+ seems rich, because I make so little. But many here who earn well over that have professed before that they do not feel rich, although I have to wonder if we traded houses, cars, food budgets, and other expenses, how they would feel trying to support their lifestyle on my salary....lol!


----------



## MittensKittens (Oct 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> To me, having not looked it up yet, working class means someone who does a job with their hands, possibly very skilled, but not required a college education: a cable installer, shop floor worker, plumber, etc. It has to do with the type education required and the type of work done, not with salary, value to society, or job security.


However, someone with a PhD can work as a waiter, and someone with high school education can own a big company or even become president. It is true that some jobs require certain degrees, but others don't.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

Quote:


> To me, having not looked it up yet, *working class* means someone who does a job with their hands, possibly very skilled, but not required a college education: a cable installer, shop floor worker, plumber, etc. It has to do with the type education required and the type of work done, not with salary, value to society, or job security.


I strongly disagree with this

working class to mean -- to need to work (must have an income--this also goes for other's Phd's, MD, etc)

many highly $$$$$$ paid artists are working class with a great education as the other posted mentioned but working class is one that needs to work the opposite of one that does not need to work


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> but *working class is one that needs to work* the opposite of one that does not need to work


then how do you define middle class?


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

middle class - IMO is when you do not have ANY discretionary money- you only have what you need to cover your living

poor - lower or what every you want to call it - has *NOT* enough to meet basic living conditions

if you have money after you meet your basic needs (food, shelter, transportation to employment) you have wealth--you have money to do beyond the basic needs -

even the most "poorest" societies have "wealth" - those that meet their needs and have EXTRA


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I strongly disagree with this
> 
> ...


I don't think that economists and sociologists view the term working class in those simple terms (people who have to work vs. people who don't have to work). At least in the U.S., the working class has traditionally been a subset of the greater pool of workers. For instance, we have what we call white-collar workers (bankers, paper pushers, traders, etc). There are also the professional class of workers and licensed trades. Some of these overlap, but I think that historically in the U.S., working class has come to mean individuals/families who are at the lower end of the pay scale, usually involved with some kind of manual labor (from coal miner to assembly line worker to tailor). I mean, we have terms like working class neighborhood and working class hero. In the past, these terms have been used in a derogatory sense, and they were used about a certain class of worker, not artists or doctors or bankers.

I don't argue with the point that most people need to work, but I think that the term working class has come to mean more than just people who work. It has come to mean a specific socio-economic group. I think the term was probably born at a time when there was a distinct division between the ruling class and the rest of the people. Or, even a division between the bourgeois (sp?) and the people who labored.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

I certainly know what white and blue collars are -but there are those that need to work and those that do not need work to meet their basic needs

there are many making over $15000.00 and feel they need to work to maintain their life style and don't feel they are "rich" and call themselves middle-I don't call them middle

it is all relevant to your society - IMO


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> middle class - IMO is when you do not have ANY discretionary money- you only have what you need to cover your living
> 
> ...


This is in the direction of what I am saying. (typing on iPad, I will be brief and choppy, I'm not trying to sound rude)

I believe that it is jerky -for me- to refer to myself as only middle class because I grew up in genuine poverty and my family is still there. The amount of luxury, ease, and choice in my life is absurd. I will not demean people who are actually doing without by whining about the things I choose not to buy so I can spend my money elsewhere.

This is an issue that is huge for me. Class mobility is something I thing about a lot. I have a very hard time being sympathetic towards people who are in a bad place financially because they made bad decisions. It's an irrational, inappropriate hot button for me. I feel like people wanting to "claim" a lower financial/sociology-economic level than they really deserve is a pity grab. It bothers me. I don't think people are doing it consciously, but I think it is there.

With wealth comes responsibility and I take that seriously. I am on a month long trip. We are hemorrhaging money. Never the less when we go out to eat with my friend, whom we are visiting, we pay. We can afford to and it is only an inconvenience. It means I won't be able to do as many fun things. My friend would have to not buy groceries. That's not a trade off I can ask for because I am rich and she is not. It would be unethical for me to view myself as "only" middle class, so we have to be careful with our money and so she better do it to. Just no. When a different friend was in a horrible car accident and she was on the verge of being homeless I sent her $1000 because that was the difference between her surviving or not. It was honestly very inconvenient for me to do so. I had to give up things I wanted. But I view that as my role in society as a rich person. I help make up the gap for people who are working as absolutely hard as they can but they will never be at my level. I won't demean their struggles by acting like I am in the same boat.

Sorry for the typos, I don't know how to fix them.


----------



## MittensKittens (Oct 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rightkindofme*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Me too - I grew up in "run out of food by Wednesday" type poverty, and my family is still there. I feel rich now, but objectively that is not true. I feel lucky, and blessed, and grateful. Yes, I feel rich. But in terms of class, I am certainly working class. There is no shame in that, and working class does not necessarily mean absolute poverty - that is just a sub-category of the working class.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

the poorest dirt farmer in Africa that has 4 cows and the majority of his neighbors have only one is often considered wealthy

you can be middle class - IMO - and be wealthy but somehow it is hard for some to except and acknowledge

Quote:


> I have a very hard time being sympathetic towards people who are in a bad place financially because they made bad decisions.


nor do I feel they need a bail out


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

Oh goodness, I don't think there is shame in being working class. I really hope I haven't sounded like I think that. My beef is people who have a lot saying, "but so and so has more so obviously I'm not rich." uhhhh no. Unless you are Bill Gates, there will always be someone who has more. That doesn't necessarily make you not rich.









But all of these designations are really pretty useless.







and in the long run it doesn't matter if you are lower, middle, or upper class in terms of the worth of your personhood. There are crummy rich people who are a total waste of resources and air in my very judgmental opinion. There are destitute people who make the world enormously better. I'm trying to figure out my place in the scheme of things. I have a lot of privilege and I would like to use it for good for as many people as I can. I don't want to be just focused on increasing my net worth, you know? I feel a lot of social responsibility. I, perhaps naively, believe that if more people felt the same way that society as a whole would be improved. To me that includes being realistic about my privilege and not equating my struggles (which do exist) with the struggles of people in a different place in life.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *rightkindofme* 
I have a very hard time being sympathetic towards people who are in a bad place financially because they made bad decisions.



> ...It would be unethical for me to view myself as "only" middle class, so we have to be careful with our money and so she better do it to. Just no. When a different friend was in a horrible car accident and she was on the verge of being homeless I sent her $1000 because that was the difference between her surviving or not.


but almost every one makes a bad decision from time to time. How our lives are working out at any given moment is a weird combination of our choices and our luck. I've made bad decisions that ended up having a fairly minor role in my overall life, but I don't feel that I've been so perfect as to look down on people whose bad decisions had a larger impact on their life.

I think most people are doing the best they can with the information and understanding they have. None of us are perfect. Some people's mistakes are more obvious to the outside world, other people hide their mistakes better. I see myself in those who are struggling -- I see different ways my life could have played out. I don't think I'm better than someone who made a different mistake. Because of my childhood, I so easily could have ended up as a homeless woman with children fleeing an abusive relationship. That would have been statistically more probable for me than being happily married and living in the burbs.

I don't agree that someone seeing themselves as "only" middle class means that they can't/don't give to others. A tremendous amount of the goods and money given to charities (or to friends and family) comes from working class and middle class homes. Many volunteer hours are given every year by people who don't have much to offer other than their time.

I think I've managed to be nearly every social class at some point in this life time (except rich!) and even when I was barely getting by serving beer while going to college, I still found time in my schedule to spend one afternoon a week volunteering with children who had been abused. I ALWAYS felt I had something to offer and that the ethical path was to give what I could, even when buying groceries was difficult.

Some years back, my DH and I decided that we wouldn't sell things when we were done with them -- we would only give them away. We didn't need money from people who made less than us when we were ready to get new things. It has led to an amazing array of experiences and conversations. We just put it out them to the universe to get our old things to whoever needs them, and trust that the universe will return that energy to us in a form more valuable than money.

But we don't consider ourselves rich. We consider ourselves fortunate to have enough to be generous, sometimes even with strangers.

My DH and I are in our 40's now, and we are comfortable. It's been through a combination of hard work and luck. Time really helps -- I suspect that a lot more families are comfortable in their 40's than in their 20's. Good choices gradually build on each other. But we've made mistakes along the way, too. We've done some stupid things and learned from them.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

It is absolutely true that everyone makes mistakes. There is a big difference between making a mistake and making a bad decision, to me.

At this point I will say that my nasty judgmentalism is pretty much entirely reserved for my family. And given my relationship with them I'm allowed to be as hostile about their choices as I want to be. Pretty much everyone else gets a pass because I am aware I will never really know their story.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rightkindofme*
> 
> At this point I will say that my nasty judgmentalism is pretty much entirely reserved for my family. And given my relationship with them I'm allowed to be as hostile about their choices as I want to be.










that's so funny!!! Money is very important to my family of orgin and everyone has it. Most of them have more of it than my DH and I do. However, they are really, deeply crazy and refuse to get help for their mental health issues.

Being happy, kind, or sane aren't high on their goals.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

Dude, my mom called me the night before a major surgery to say, "oh by the way, I have to have this surgery tomorrow and I can't pay for it so you have to give me money" even though it had been scheduled for weeks. Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part.







I don't know where she got the money and I don't really care.

So, yeah. hot buttons!


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Try to remember that not everyone has the option to plan financially. There are those who have absolutely nothing leftover after bills, who have already cut every extra expense possible. Young people, also, have had much less time to plan and to carry out their plans for financial success. There are many situations where people could plan, and fail to do so, and I do agree with holding people accountable. But I like to cut people a little slack, because everyone makes mistakes. Things don't always go according to our plans. Even the best laid plans can fall through. Sometimes things happen that you just don't think to plan for. I'm sure there are many things that could happen to everyone posting on this thread that we each may have never considered before.


----------



## seawitch (Jan 29, 2011)

Sorry, my quote wasn't working...

"This is an issue that is huge for me. Class mobility is something I thing about a lot. I have a very hard time being sympathetic towards people who are in a bad place financially because they made bad decisions. It's an irrational, inappropriate hot button for me. I feel like people wanting to "claim" a lower financial/sociology-economic level than they really deserve is a pity grab. It bothers me. I don't think people are doing it consciously, but I think it is there."

Well, I consider us to be money-poor. We live on about 17K a year for a family of four. If we didn't shop at thrift stores, we couldn't afford clothes. I have worn the same pair of sandals for the past 17 years. We make our bills but can't afford health insurance. There are no splurges in our lifestyle. We eat healthy foods because we grow a lot ourselves. We qualify for some reduced cost programs, like joining the Y for practically free.

But I don't feel... I dunno. Deprived. The library and Internet keep me more than entertained. I am creative. We have two reasonably healthy kids. I have really cheap hobbies. I make a lot of handmade toys for the kids, I knit, we do puzzles together. I am a read-a-holic as are the kids. We do art together. All this stuff can be really, really cheap. We don't do camps in the summer but I'm home with them to do stuff with them.

Are there certain things we miss out on? Yes. Proper dental care, that would be nice. Or proper health insurance. Or vacations. I miss vacations.

When I was a kid we used to take thrice yearly trips to everywhere, Europe, the Caribbean, all around the U.S. But what's funny is that my family growing up was really rich. My father would go off on shopping sprees and buy thousands of dollars worth of shoes and belts, or buy my mom closets and closets of clothes and jewelry and opera tickets. But they never once sent me to camp or bought me electronic games. They had three luxury cars at the time and only my dad drove. He also had a chauffeur. They said that after school activities and sports would cost too much, so I never got to do a single one growing up, even though that was unheard of in my town. We had like a 5000 square foot house in the CT suburbs, a huge apartment in Manhattan, and a summer cabin as well. When I was sick they didn't take me to the doctor because they didn't bother paying for health insurance for me.

They always told me that they weren't wealthy. Are you kidding me? My mom still attests to the fact that they were just average. Mmmph. A LOT of rich people think they're "just average" imo...

On the other hand, we might be seen as totally poor by American standards nowadays but we are very well off compared to the rest of the world. I have an education and I think that counts for a LOT. We are time-wealthy. We have two gorgeous kids. We have a kitty. I am happier now than I ever was growing up, even with our huge house and whatever.

As for the OP's question.. I think reasonably wealthy would be about 70-75 K in an average cost of living area. Adjust according to your local cost of living. Then again, with inflation... well, it's all mostly relative, isn't it? Everyone struggles, I think, except the truly wealthy, who don't really care what the prices of things went up. But everyone else is having a harder time meeting ends meet. So, I think the income limit is about the same even in this age of recession etc.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *seawitch* 

When I was a kid we used to take thrice yearly trips to everywhere, Europe, the Caribbean, all around the U.S. But what's funny is that my family growing up was really rich. My father would go off on shopping sprees and buy thousands of dollars worth of shoes and belts, or buy my mom closets and closets of clothes and jewelry and opera tickets. But they never once sent me to camp or bought me electronic games. They had three luxury cars at the time and only my dad drove. He also had a chauffeur. They said that after school activities and sports would cost too much, so I never got to do a single one growing up, even though that was unheard of in my town. We had like a 5000 square foot house in the CT suburbs, a huge apartment in Manhattan, and a summer cabin as well. When I was sick they didn't take me to the doctor because they didn't bother paying for health insurance for me.

I'm not sure what to say, but I couldn't read that and not say anything. I find that really disturbing, and more than a little messed up. I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your parents these days, but they sound appallingly self-centered and selfish. I'm sorry they treated you as such a low priority when you were growing up.

They always told me that they weren't wealthy. Are you kidding me? My mom still attests to the fact that they were just average. Mmmph. A LOT of rich people think they're "just average" imo...

I haven't really run across that, but it sounds really frustrating to listen to.



> I honestly don't know where we'd fit in. DH makes slightly more than the median household income for our region. We're a single income family, so we only have the work-related costs for one person (but we also pay more tax than if we had the same income from two earners). We don't have to pay childcare. OTOH, most of the numbers I've seen for families are based on a family of four, and we're a family of six. I suspect we come in pretty close to average, overall. But, except for not being able to buy a house (housing prices in the Vancouver area are truly insane), I think we've got it pretty easy. We're definitely better off than my family was when I was growing up. We weren't poor - my parents owned a house (admittedly, it was more of a shack), but housing prices were much, much lower, even allowing for inflation, back then. But, dh and I eat better than we did (mom cooked from scratch, and had a vegetable garden, so we ate a reasonably healthy diet, but we didn't have anywhere near the variety that dh and I have...and we ate a lot of ground beef). We have more money for activities for the kids than my parents had, and that's a high priority item for us, as we're homeschooling, and want them to able to see and try a lot of different things. We don't eat out or get pizza all that often, but more often than my parents did (we ate out a few times a year, mostly because mom and dad wanted us to learn how to behave in a restaurant). We're certainly quite comfortable, wherever we'd fit into a graph of "wealth"...but we also don't have much in savings, and our savings rate isn't as high as it should be.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Funny story: my dad is so far to the right and I am such a flaming liberal that we don't even argue. We know there is such a huge sea of difference between us that why should we even bother, we can never meet. But growing up, he always said the funniest things: "It's a democracy, and I have 51% of the vote." And my favorite "You are such a liberal, but wait until you make over 100k a year, then even you will be a republican." What did he think, that I would just flip all my political and social beliefs based on my income? This still makes me laugh.

I would consider myself wealthy. And privileged. And having the luxury to say "I can't quit my job even though I hate it." Because reality is that it is not that I *can't* quit my job, it is that I *won't*. I want to live in the house we live in, in this neighborhood, I want to be able to redo my kitchen, I want to be able to go on vacation, and to be frank, I am so independent I don't want to heap all the financial responsibility on DH. But it isn't true that I can't quit, and trying to convince myself otherwise would just be dishonest. We would not go hungry, our kitchen from 74 looks totally out of date but there is very little actually wrong with it... These are all extras, and that means that I am privileged.

And it also bugs me when people with money are dishonest with themselves, saying "I can't do ABC or by XYZ" when in reality it is that they don't because they prioritize other items. I think it is totally fair for everyone to prioritize however they want. But then own up to it,as a choice.

ITA with the PP who said many rich people call themselves upper-middle-class. Or upper-socio-ecconomic class. Or whatever. Though class often has very little to do with class.


----------



## K1329 (Apr 6, 2009)

I think the definitions of wealthy, rich, middle class, etc. can vary widely from person to person.
To me, the definition of rich is having enough investments/assets or net worth to not have to work, yet still live comfortably. IMO, if you must work, you are not rich.


----------



## seawitch (Jan 29, 2011)

Storm Bridge:

Well, the relationship with my father was pretty sketchy. He said he would pay for my grad school like he did for my other sisters (that they never even told me I had until I was 18) but after I got accepted and couldn't change the private pay option he said he'd only do it if I broke up with my boyfriend (now husband). I refused; he cut me off and wouldn't speak to me again. He died a few years later and he left my mom five million and left me $10. That I'll get when I turn 35.

So that's about that.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seawitch*
> 
> Storm Bridge:
> 
> ...


I don't suppose you need anyone to tell you that is M.E.S.S.E.D. up. Mind games are so not worth it. Not even worth 5 million. For sure. Money, even given "free and clear" often has HUGE unwritten strings attached, if given by the wrong person. Even by the right person. I once owed 4000 dollars to my parents, which is very little but was a lot for me when I was so young. And they are kind, loving people, but there were still some subtle unwritten stings attachd to that debt I owed. I can not express the freedom and independence and relief I had paying it off. I have never owed anyone a penny since. I would rather (and have) eaten cold leftover soup for a week and be slighly hungry, than have someone be able to mess with my head over something like money. OK, that's my issue, and I can see I am getting off track. Just wanted to send you hugs seawitch. Also, I don't think a will like that would be valid - leaving someone 10 bucks when they are 35. But anyway, seems to me it was a favor he did, not speaking to you. You don't need that degree of disease in your life.


----------



## seawitch (Jan 29, 2011)

I know. Well, the will was perfectly valid, but I suppose I could have contested it. My mom ended up giving me some money anyway as a consolation prize or whatever but she was basically in control of how it was spent - which was basically on the grandkids. Whatever, that was fine, at least my kids got some nice things.

I think the way I "rebelled" against that kind of upbringing was to (subconsciously) not put much worth in money. He tried to use money to control us and I just didn't care to play into that. So I cultivated other sorts of wealth than money. Time wealth, self-sustainability, frugality, etc. Family togetherness. None of which he put much value on. Looking back I think I kind of self-defeated myself a few times when I could have been making more money. Now that I'm almost 30 I'm just now starting to seriously get some perspective on it. Their attitude towards money was unhealthy, but totally shunning money is not healthy either.

ETA: There were all sorts of other unhealthy things going on in our relationship. For example he tried over and over again to go into my teachers to tell them that I cheated/forged a paper when I never would have dreamed of it. In high school it worked. He tried to do it in college too but my professor there straight up told him to get out of his classroom because he knew I was in attendance when I said I was, etc. But in high school I got in tons of trouble. And I never, ever did anything like cheating or anything. Hell, when I graduated from college with a 3.8 GPA he said I had forged the diploma and he refused to believe I graduated. (Though I wonder if that had to do with the fact that he promised me a car and one of the many family apartments if I graduated, and of course never got.) Or they'd take my whole extended family on a cruise to the Caribbean but they wouldn't even tell me about their plans to do that until they needed me to take my spring break off to come house-sit for them while they were gone. Etc.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seawitch*
> I think the way I "rebelled" against that kind of upbringing was to (subconsciously) not put much worth in money. He tried to use money to control us and I just didn't care to play into that. *So I cultivated other sorts of wealth than money*. Time wealth, self-sustainability, frugality, etc. Family togetherness. None of which he put much value on. Looking back I think I kind of self-defeated myself a few times when I could have been making more money. Now that I'm almost 30 I'm just now starting to seriously get some perspective on it. Their attitude towards money was unhealthy, but totally shunning money is not healthy either.


It is so strange to me to read a 'stranger's' post as if she had written it for me. _I _can so relate to your attitude towards money. HOwever i wasnt disinherited. i just moved countries where my assessts werent worth much. When I went back to visit, my uncle who lives in a world of his own and rarely is aware of what is going on commented on my parenting and my relationship with my dd.

however i will say 'shunning' money gave me the courage to do what i love. the field i am going into, the path i have chosen i would have never been able to do if i didnt 'shun' money. i really feel i understand the 'worth' of money. i see it for what it is. paper. yes you do need a certain amount. but abject poverty and being super rich in my humble opinion is the same 'curse'. it looks different. its just different sides of the same coin.

so yes i too have 'cultivated' other sorts of wealth (dont think i did it consciously though) and my life now without money is far richer than my life with money ever was.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Thank you for sharing your stories!

My family of origin was crazy and abusive, and although they lacked they wealth that some of your families had, money and status symbols were VERY important to them. (They just weren't as successful with it was your families!) Reading about your experiences is helping to clarify some of my own attitudes towards money and success.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seawitch*
> 
> Storm Bridge:
> 
> ...


Umm...wow. I thought my grandmother was bad (actually - she was!) at the whole trying to control people through money thing. Your dad is something else again. (And, seriously - he left your mom $5 million, and she says they were "just average"???) That's seriously messed up.

I did something similar to you, actually. I think it was partly my upbringing, because my parents were people who just didn't care that much about money. (My mom has worked hard to build wealth, in the form of real estate, but that was a security thing - there was never any emphasis on having money or on spending money, yk?) But, I also consciously chose at an early age not to allow myself to be "bought" - and it drove my grandma crazy. My brother and sister both, in different ways, fell into the web, and I can still see the effects of it...and grandma died 21 or 22 years ago.


----------

