Apparently I'm an emerging affluent

Marketers do like naming categories and sub-categories.

Sorry to see that I'm far from rich in this article. Maybe I feel wealthy because I still sometime write check dates that are 1990s.... Ah well rich would be nice, but FI is good enough.
 
Apparently you can be 49 years old, with as little as $50,000 in savings, make $100,000 per year, and be considered "emerging affluent". To me that sounds like someone who's going to be working until their full retirement age and relying on social security to get by.

And suggesting that a 25 year old can save $1M by the time they turn 65 sounds fine, but what will the buying power of $1M be forty years from now?
 
Ready said:
Apparently you can be 49 years old, with as little as $50,000 in savings, make $100,000 per year, and be considered "emerging affluent". To me that sounds like someone who's going to be working until their full retirement age and relying on social security to get by.

And suggesting that a 25 year old can save $1M by the time they turn 65 sounds fine, but what will the buying power of $1M be forty years from now?
Click to expand...

a 49 year old with that little saved may have to work beyond SSFRA
 
This category more/less included everyone who saves something. If that is affluent, i guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
 
Ugh. That was a painful "article" to read. It appears that the author put about 4 minutes of thought into it and then about 6 more minutes actually writing it.

I did enjoy the video, though. Best advice from "people on the street"? Yeah, it was the guy that said, "If you want to have a small fortune, then you need to start with a large one." :)
 
Last edited:
Ready said:
Apparently you can be 49 years old, with as little as $50,000 in savings, make $100,000 per year, and be considered "emerging affluent".
Click to expand...

Of course, 'affluence' is more about location then an number. Having $1MM in Manhattan is a lot different than the same amount in a small town in the Mid-West.
 
I am 49 year old with 50k in investable assets, 900k mortgage and 80k car loan on my Tesla. I have a long term focus to work my sorry ass till ripe age of 75. Hence I am emerging affluent.
 
ExFlyBoy5 said:
....I did enjoy the video, though. Best advice from "people on the street"? Yeah, it was the guy that said, "If you want to have a small fortune, then you need to start with a large one." :)
Click to expand...

I thought the video was rather lame and ugly with stereotypes. Like the foreigner whose broken english was not understandable (I played it three times and still don't think I understood a word that he said) and the answers of the two African-American people.... "...Apply for a job" and "Play the Lotto?". Surely, Money could have done better.

Interestingly, no one mentioned stocks but a couple mentioned real estate ... the HGTV-effect I guess.

One of my major client's office was adjacent to Bryant Park and our offices were only a couple blocks away so when I was in NYC we frequently ate lunch there or strolled around. Nice spot.
 
Ready said:
Apparently you can be 49 years old, with as little as $50,000 in savings, make $100,000 per year, and be considered "emerging affluent". To me that sounds like someone who's going to be working until their full retirement age and relying on social security to get by.
Click to expand...

With an income that high, i'd agree with the term "emerging affluent". It's possible this person is newly promoted and able to save a large portion of that income. If they live in a lower-end COL area then they could still retire before age 60 IMO.
 
aaronc879 said:
With an income that high, i'd agree with the term "emerging affluent". It's possible this person is newly promoted and able to save a large portion of that income. If they live in a lower-end COL area then they could still retire before age 60 IMO.
Click to expand...

That is "Family" income of 100k. That would not be overly high even in Lincoln Nebraska.

But sure one can retire with 100k savings at 59 and then collect SS at 62.
 
pb4uski said:
It depends on what you need to live... some could.... we could not.
Click to expand...

I'm living on a dividend income of $16K/yr. Obviously, one size does not fit all when it comes to living expenses.
 
Does that mean that you only spend $16k a year for your living expenses (housing, food, transportation, entertainment, utilities, etc.)?

My point is what your income is and what you need to live on are two different things and can be very different. Currently, our income is only about 25% of our living expenses.
 
Last edited:
pb4uski said:
Does that mean that you only spend $16k a year for your living expenses (housing, food, transportation, entertainment, utilities, etc.)?

My point is what your income is and what you need to live on are tow different things and can be very different. Currently, our income is only about 25% of our living expenses.
Click to expand...

I just moved and I just started living off of just my dividends so it's hard to say what my living costs will be going forward. Right now it looks like I will spend about $14K this year not including taxes that I paid this year based on last years income. That includes moving expenses and paying for two places for a few months. My preliminary budget for next year is $12K not including taxes. After next year it should be $12K including taxes since taxes will be zero. I don't mind if I spend up to $15K but don't want to go above that. If ACA subsidies go away in a couple years then i'll have to take a contract job or two since that would add over $3K to my annual expenses even if I don't actually use any healthcare services.
 
pb4uski said:
Does that mean that you only spend $16k a year for your living expenses (housing, food, transportation, entertainment, utilities, etc.)?

My point is what your income is and what you need to live on are tow different things and can be very different. Currently, our income is only about 25% of our living expenses.
Click to expand...

Our living expenses are about 75% of my income, guess thats why I could retire.
 
pb4uski said:
Wow, that is super-cheap living.
Click to expand...

I would rather live on $12K/yr and not have to work than live on any other amount of money if it means I have to work full time. That $12K does not take into account expenses like dental work which is why I plan to live on $12-13K even though my income is $16K. I will be able to build a buffer for dental work. I can't think of any other unexpected expenses that I would have to worry about. I can get by without a car if needed, I rent so no roof or furnace type expenses, and have a max OOP of $500/yr for health insurance.
 
Just_Steve said:
Our living expenses are about 75% of my income, guess thats why I could retire.
Click to expand...

I'm also retired. Our income is taxable account dividends, and our living expenses are funded by those taxable account dividends supplemented by proceeds from the sale of stocks in our taxable accounts (a portion of which is capital gain and increases income) and does not count income or stock appreciation in our tax-deferred or tax-free accounts as I was thinking of solely tax-return income before Roth conversions.
 
pb4uski said:
I'm also retired. Our income is taxable account dividends, and our living expenses are funded by those taxable account dividends supplemented by proceeds from the sale of stocks in our taxable accounts (a portion of which is capital gain and increases income) and does not count income or stock appreciation in our tax-deferred or tax-free accounts as I was thinking of solely tax-return income before Roth conversions.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately all of my income is tax return income but if I have it figured out correctly there will be no additional tax due in April. I am certainly in a less complicated income stream. One check hits the bank on the 20th of each month and another on the last day of the month, like clockwork. Life is good. I like simple life.
 
Amethyst said:
aaron is our Zen master of frugality, I think.
Click to expand...

That $12K/yr includes some "luxuries". I'm renting a 2bd 900-something sqft apartment with a garage for $560/mo. I could've chosen a 1bd <800sqft apartment with no garage for $425/mo. After some serious consideration, I decided not to go without a car. If I went without a car, it would save me between $50-100/mo. I may be frugal for this group but I could cut back a bit. Now if I went without a car and rented out my 2nd bedroom, that would be frugal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Benefits of Former employer 401k, New Employer 401k, or Rollover?
Replies
18
Views
722
Aiming_4_55
A
S
Problems with Fidelity Bond depth of book
Replies
3
Views
484
foxfirev5
foxfirev5
braumeister
State Income Tax: not always perfect
3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
4K
athena53
athena53
jollystomper
Financial Advice Columnist falls for $50K scam
4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
10K
Koolau
Koolau
J
Need Advice for Stepbrother
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
ncbill
N

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom