this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
85 points (96.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27231 readers
2434 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What does it take in terms of assets, abilities, and/or income for you to consider them wealthy?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 105 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Of course, rich is a relative descriptor, like tall or heavy, some people are richer than others.

I would call anyone who doesn't need to work in order to live (i.e. who can live off investments and interest) rich.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is apt, because I know people who earn six figures but work 60 hours a week and are living paycheck to paycheck. They're not poor, but they're not rich.

[–] wirelesswire@lemmy.zip 30 points 3 days ago

A 6 figure salary while living in midwestern USA or elsewhere with low CoL is very different from living in most areas along the coast.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would call anyone who doesn't need to work in order to live (i.e. who can live off investments and interest) rich.

Some caveats I would add: (1) Excluding receivers of pensions and/or other benefits.
(2) Without moving to a different country. I could retire today, if I moved to a low cost of living country.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago

For (2), in that country, you would be rich.

[–] Elextra@literature.cafe 6 points 3 days ago

Sorry for linking back to the R word. But FIRE comes to mind with your post

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee -4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Are old retirees rich, then? I wouldn't consider that accurate.

If you're not pulling in upper 6 figures from those investments, you're still not rich.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If I ever manage to earn ~3000 euros (my current net salary) a month from just investments and interest, I will definitely consider myself rich. There may still be richer people than me even in that scenario, which is why I wrote that "rich" is a relative descriptor.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That’s a totally obtainable goal!

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

For everyone? Do you really believe that?

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

Everyone? No.

Anyone? Maybe.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you max out your ROTH IRA every year until retirement that is possible (for the US). Yes, I believe one can easily save and invest in index funds. Based on compound interest with a return rate of 3-7% one could expect 450,000-1.05 mil after 35 years of working. That’s 583$ post tax dollars a month.

Post kids it’s been more difficult but I even picked up an extra job to make sure I can max out my retirement investments.

For everyone? Absolutely not. It is obtainable though. Even half of that per month would result in similarly good returns. The problem is investment education. Reminds me of my local communist reading group who to my surprise didn’t know anything about investing even though capital is like their whole thing.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Max contributions to a ROTH IRA is $7,000. Most people don't have an extra $7,000 lying around. If you do, chances are you're already in the top 10%.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would still say that’s not true… I probably make half as much as you but I just try to be extremely frugal… just saying it’s doable

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I do make maximum contributions, but I also have two kids with college funds and a mortgage that I'm paying down. We're comfortable, and I consider myself extremely fortunate for the life I've built for myself.

Unfortunately, it took me a while to pay off college debts, and then the 2008 crash wiped out a lot of our savings. I don't expect to ever have enough saved to actually retire.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

For everyone, right? Nobody works everyone just collects their 3k

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

For most of us reading this it is an obtainable retirement income. On the world stage if you can read this you are probably rich. A little bit of savings can get you 3k inflation adjusted once you reach "old age".

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Of course on the world stage this varies per country but I agree that a big of savings can get you there by retirement, especially if done early.

In China a common goal is to save 140k USD then invest it and retire by one’s mid 30s living a simple life.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago

That would be achievable in the US as well - 140k US saved and living a "simple life". Those some people who try it go back to work in a few years because it turns out they value a more complex life. YMMV.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

A little bit of savings? How much would you need to save per month?

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 days ago

Relax. If you max out your ROTH IRA every year until retirement that is possible (for the US).

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Old retirees that don't need to work to live are rich, yes. If they can afford their rent and food and healthcare, they are doing better than 90% of humans on Earth.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No. Not being destitute doesn't automatically make you rich. Things are not black and white. There's a wide spectrum that is very flat until you get to the top 0.1%.

Bring in the top 10% doesn't mean much when the different between top 99 and top 90 is multiple orders of magnitude larger than top 90 to top 10.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

If your definition of "destitute" is having to work for a paycheck, you and I are not on the same page.