Nearly Rich cutting back

[jebmke]

High Earners Not Rich Yet Spend Little in Economy Needing Fed Easy Credit - Bloomberg

The nearly rich aren’t spending nearly as much as the wealthiest Americans on luxury brands.

Didn't realize there was a new category called "the nearly rich."

Since I retired I work hard to keep my income as low as possible. Is there a category for that?

 

[MasterBlaster]

Didn't realize there was a new category called "the nearly rich."

Since I retired I work hard to keep my income as low as possible. Is there a category for that?

They define "nearly rich" by income using the bracket [$100k-$249k] rather than by net-worth.

The catagory that you refer to (as low an income as possible) would put you squarely in the [-]retired[/-] poor group.

 

[unclemick]

High Earners Not Rich Yet Spend Little in Economy Needing Fed Easy Credit - Bloomberg

Didn't realize there was a new category called "the nearly rich."

Since I retired I work hard to keep my income as low as possible. Is there a category for that?

'Cheap SOB' ---and dang proud of it!

heh heh heh - actually sloth and 'you can't take it with you' has allowed upward drift in spending over 17 years of ER.

 

[FIREd]

I had to laugh because this article really shows how atypical my wife and I truly are. We are a step above the HENRYs income-wise but I would never consider spending $14,200 a quarter on luxury goods! Apparently we are supposed to buy Maseratis and Coach bags! We do spend about $14,200 a quarter, but that includes everything (mortgage, food, insurance, etc... and the occasional luxury good).

On the other hand, if the economy is anemic because the HENRYS don't spend enough, then we are part of the problem I suppose.

 

[W2R]

HENRY is "High Earner Not Rich Yet"

I never fit into this category by their definition of high earner, but that's OK. I am enjoying retirement so much. To me, that's worth more than all the Maseratis and Coach bags in the world.

W2R - - LEAHR - - "Low Earner And Happily Retired"

 

[traineeinvestor]

If households earning US$100,000-249,000 pa are spending US$14,241 per quarter on luxury goods, then they should change HENRY to HENRE - High Earner Not Rich Ever. Annualising the the $14K pq and taking the midpoint of the income range ($175K pa) suggests that they are spending close to a third of their income on luxury goods.

It's a fairly safe assumption that a household spending that much on luxury goods is also spending a lot on non-luxuries like housing, education etc

I also thought the headline "High Earners Not Rich Yet Spend Little to End Federal Reserve’s Easy Money" was inconsistent with the rest of the article - increasing spending on luxuries by 20% yoy to $14,241 per quarter is not my idea of "spend little".

 

[misty57]

traineeinvestor: I totally agree with HENRE. DH and I are HENRYs and we did buy a new computer, a TV, and a new tool chest for DH in the first quarter of '11, at a cost less than $2500 for all. We don't usually spend close to that in a quarter - it just so happened that our main TV and a computer took a crap at the same time.

As for Coach bags. We live near a Coach outlet and everyone around here seems to think that they aren't someone if they're not sporting a Coach bag. UGH - don't even get me started.

 

[glippy]

If households earning US$100,000-249,000 pa are spending US$14,241 per quarter on luxury goods, then they should change HENRY to HENRE - High Earner Not Rich Ever.

 

[chris2008]

Quote:
The nearly rich aren’t spending nearly as much as the wealthiest Americans on luxury brands.

If they spend as much as the weathier people on overpriced crap (aka luxury brands) they will never make the jump from NERLY RICH to RICH....

 

[braumeister]

Quote:If they spend as much as the weathier people on overpriced crap (aka luxury brands) they will never make the jump from NEARLY RICH to RICH....

Ah, but they're rich in possessions!

 

[Andre1969]

The main thing I always hate about these articles is that they tend to use the words "rich" or "wealthy" when what they really mean is "high-income". The two are NOT the same.

If someone's making $249K per year, but has no savings and so much debt that their net worth is negative, they're not "wealthy", "rich", or "near-rich". Heck, I'm "nearer-rich" than they are...and I don't make anywhere near $249K per year.

 

[Gone4Good]

Didn't realize there was a new category called "the nearly rich."

It's in response to the recent outbreak of [-]whiners[/-] people who claim that earning more that 95% of the population doesn't make them rich.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Some people define "Nearly Rich" a bit differently...

YouTube - ‪nearly Rich Part I‬‏

 

[NW Landlady]

As for Coach bags. We live near a Coach outlet and everyone around here seems to think that they aren't someone if they're not sporting a Coach bag. UGH - don't even get me started.

I am really shocked that they name Coach handbags multiple times in the article as a "luxury" item.
Handbags are one of the few luxury items I have collected over the years ( Suzi O would totally approve too -cause I can afford em) but I wouldn't be caught dead with a Coach bag....!!
My PRADAs, FENDIs & Hermes even leave LVs in the dust price wise, Coaches are plain ol cheapies.

Now a Maserati -- that I can agree with is a luxury!