Sorry don't have a number
I'd have considered a million rich back in the 70's and early 80's. Today I just think the word conjures up a sense of truly significant wealth. Blame the media if you want. For example belt tightening for the rich in these tough times might be selling the vineyard in Tuscany or putting the Gulfstream into a timeshare to help offset costs. Sure, the family with a 100 goats might be considered rich next to the family with 2 goats. Just one of those crazy 4 letter words open to a wide range of interpretation
I recommend a book by Lee Eisenberg, former EIC of Esquire magazine. I'm sure most on this forum have heard of it and some have read it. "THE NUMBER". (Sorry, I forget my 8th grade citation etiquette.)
I didn't learn much "practical" info in this book - such as AA, LBYM, etc. I did pick up some self psychology however. One of Eisenberg's "Bottom Lines" or take away messages is called "...almost everybody suffers from reference anxiety."
I'd always wondered about the phenomenon TargaDave pointed out above. It occurred to me that I had done the same thing 'to myself' over the years. I recalled a time in college when I didn't have a dime, yet had everything I needed. Then when I first got a job at Megacorp, I thought I was rich - for a month, anyway. After that, I always could (and sometimes did) compare myself to folks in my own work group, my old study group at college, by peers in other Megacorps or academia, etc. etc.
In simplest terms, it's a form of "keeping up with the Joneses." Never got into that too deeply, but here's where I learned something about myself. Eisenberg suggests there is a more insidious version of this phenomenon "...spiraling lifestyle entitelment." Or "When is good, good enough?" He explains it better than I can, but he gives an example of tastes in vodka. When you're a college student, any rot-gut will do. When you actually start to make some money, you move up to the "good" stuff. Then you find out there is "better" stuff and eventually, you buy only the "best". You still get just as wasted, but how could you ever go back to the rot-gut or even the good stuff?
Vodka is a bad example for me, but I can see this phenomenon in say, housing, TV sets, "toys" and other aspects of my lifestyle. While I consider myself an official member of the LBYM club, I can see lots of "life style creep" over the years.
Eisenberg also offers a "borrowed" definition of rich which includes some numbers. I won't quote the book further, but check it out (before inflation makes it obsolete!) at the book store or library sometime. The surprising thing is that when I just look at the numbers which define various levels of being "rich", they simultaneously seem too high and too low.
I'll give you an example. We (at least I) think of folks who fly private jets as being "rich". The top number Eisenberg lists as in the "rich" category is $100 mil. He doesn't go beyond that because his definition considers those folks "uninteresting" since they already have everything anyone could want. Don't think anyone on the board would argue that $100 mil is not rich.
But, I have an interest in such things as private jets. Can't explain it, I just do. I got to ride on Megacorp's Gulfstream a few times and now I try to follow prices of such "birds". I watch all the shows on the "mega-rich" and their toys. Jets and their outfitting are a big part of these shows.
So, consider that a new Gulfstream IV costs about $50 mil and you can see that even a rich person (with ONLY $100 mil) has to watch his pennies when he trades up to a G IV. Otherwise, his wife may not get to buy her 120 foot (sorry honey, we can't afford the 180 foot) yacht! Those poor rich people!
SO... It really is all relative. Anyway, the book helped me examine my thinking on wealth and "richness". Don't know if anyone else worries (or thinks) about such things. Guess they must or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
