What do you consider rich?

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you for proving my point. A car is much different from a burro, and it is only different in one direction, it is better. So the car is a qualitative improvement over the burro, which means that in that dimension, we are better off than they we 2,000 years ago.

No, it’s different in many directions – for example, it doesn’t eat when not in use. It doesn’t reproduce itself. It upholds a complicated system of manufacturing and trading, and so on.

After all, we still have the option to use burros for transportation, we just choose not to.

That’s overstated. There are many things we can’t use burros for, such as long-distance, high-speed travel.

Same thing with the computer and the wax tablet. They are both used for communication, but one is just much more efficient.

Did wax tablets interface with the internet? Did they allow to do research on the tablet itself? Did they do computations for you?

The point is, that in every instance where there has been a change in technology it has allowed the masses to have access to things that only the rich would have 2,000 years ago.

That part is true – but it reminds me of a course I used to teach on testing. In normative test design, you want to be sure you can compare results from the new test with results from the old. But it’s silly to spend money making sure results on a test for F22 pilots is comparable to a test for Sopwith Camel pilots.

 

[Pug]

Just a measure of income is not enough. I’ve known people making $30,000 a year who chose to continue to live with their parents. They had food, lodging, laundry, etc. all paid for, and they were young and not sick. Very easy to go to Hawaii in this situation.

I’ve gone to Europe on a free ticket. Yes, this means that since airfare was paid for, I could exist however I wanted for 1 week in Europe. Since lots of what one wants to see is free, imagine how cheap this can be, if you try hard enough. I wasn’t into super cheap. I spent $40 a night on lodging. This came with a free, real breakfast, which I chose to make my main meal of the day. Then pick up some fruit later in the day at a market. It all depends on what you mean by vacation. I had a great time!

 

[johnstown_johnn]

For the folks that consider $30-35,000 per annum as “rich” is surreal.

Life and its expenses are not soley about a vacation… it’s paying rent or mortgage; taxes; car; $35,000 is NOT rich. It is close to the poverty level. This comes down to about $12 an hour. Not very much above minimum wage. It is almost like working at McDonalds. Some here have broken with reality just to be clever. This is unbelievable!

 

[stinkcat_14]

For the folks that consider $30-35,000 per annum as “rich” is surreal.

Life and its expenses are not soley about a vacation… it’s paying rent or mortgage; taxes; car; $35,000 is NOT rich. It is close to the poverty level. This comes down to about $12 an hour. Not very much above minimum wage. It is almost like working at McDonalds. Some here have broken with reality just to be clever. This is unbelievable!

Actually, if we assume that people work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, then $35,000 works out to $16.83 per hour. Quite a bit above minimum wage. You mention expenses, but of course, these are the expenses of the rich. In poor countries, they are less likely to have a car, indoor plumbing, and can’t even think about taking a vacation. Compared to most of the world’s population, $35,000 per year is quite rich.

 

[Pug]

It is almost like working at McDonalds.

I know people who work at places like that. $35,000 is unbelievable for a basic employee there, at least around here.

Part of this depends on where you live. Are you talking about California coast, New York, Chicago, etc? Rent is much higher than in Podunk, USA. Same for houses. What is a half a million dollar mansion in one locale is a pillbox in another.

 

[Al_Masetti]

If some folks define the “poverty line” as $35,000 … then why does an income (to some folks) of $35,001 constitute being rich?
There is the vast “middle class”, which seems to be ignored.

If someone drives a Cadillac Escalade, does that make the person rich? What if the Cadillac was purchased used? Is that car owner still in the rich category?

If someone does not own a car, but they own a horse … would they be poor … or rich? What if that person lives in Manhattan? Poor … or rich?

What if a person scrimps on some things and puts the money saved into something else that another person might consider a luxury? Rich or poor?

Or is the discussion of who is rich … is that an exercise in envy?

I have personally overheard one person attacking another person (behind their back) because the other person owned a boat. The “attacker” owned a really nice house, nice cars, kids in great schools. The boat owner lived in a roachy apartment and only had a small boat … their only asset.

Who is rich? Or is it merely a discussion around and among the working poor who are skirting the edges of envy?*

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Actually, if we assume that people work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, then $35,000 works out to $16.83 per hour. Quite a bit above minimum wage. You mention expenses, but of course, these are the expenses of the rich. In poor countries, they are less likely to have a car, indoor plumbing, and can’t even think about taking a vacation. Compared to most of the world’s population, $35,000 per year is quite rich.

This is where I get off from you.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is where I get off from you.

I don’t understand your point. You claim that $35,000 is barely above minimum wage, I disproved it. You haven’t provided any evidence that $35,000 per year is poor.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If some folks define the “poverty line” as $35,000 … then why does an income (to some folks) of $35,001 constitute being rich?
*
*

Very simple, we have no agreed upon definition of who is rich, so everybody gets to come up with their own definition.

There is the vast “middle class”, which seems to be ignored.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Why do we need to use monetary measures to determine what is rich?

For example, middle class might be someone who is a “middle manager” or a “senior manager” or an “executive”. A middle class person has to work for a living but does not have to account for every hour… does not get paid by the hour.

A poor person must report to someone else on all of his or her hours … is supervised by someone else.

A rich person is someone who is above it all. Is absolutely in no danger of EVER having to work. There is no set of circumstances under which a rich person would ever be short of money.

It is also my contention that a lot of the debates and discussions and finely defining of the words are really a bunch of poor people who have been exposed to marxist rhetoric and are attempting to use the lexicon of marxism … which is incompatible with the lexicon of Christianity … and some of the concepts of sin … such as envy, etc.

Keep in mind that there is no sin in having money. The sin comes from the LOVE of money.

Very simple, we have no agreed upon definition of who is rich, so everybody gets to come up with their own definition.

The question then becomes, what is middle class? Do we measure middle class just relative to those in the United States? Or should we measure it relative to the population of the whole world?

Not necessarily, by my proposed definition of who is rich, I would definately fall into that category. So am I being envious by classifying myself as rich? I don’t think so, but I do think that I bring upon myself extra obligations that I might not have if I were not rich. So it may be a more convicting thing, rather than an envious thing.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Why do we need to use monetary measures to
determine what is rich?

If we look at the definition of rich, it means having wealth or having
a large number of possessions. We measure who is rich by their
wealth, which is measured in monetary terms.

For example, middle class might be someone who is a “middle
manager” or a “senior manager” or an “executive”. A middle class
person has to work for a living but does not have to account for every
hour… does not get paid by the hour.

A poor person must report to someone else on all of his or her hours
… is supervised by someone else.

A rich person is someone who is above it all. Is absolutely in no
danger of EVER having to work. There is no set of circumstances under
which a rich person would ever be short of money.

If my friend quits his professor job and just does consulting at $300 per hour, do you really want to suggest that he is poor? On the other hand, is anybody really rich by your definition. For example, Warren Buffett is worth $52 billion. But his wealth is in Berkshire Hathaway stock, it it goes bankrupt, his wealth evaporates. This is not likely, but it certainly is possible.

It is also my contention that a lot of the debates and
discussions and finely defining of the words are really a bunch of poor people who have been exposed to marxist rhetoric and are attempting to use the lexicon of marxism … which is incompatible with the lexicon of Christianity … and some of the concepts of sin … such as envy, etc.

I am neither poor nor a marxist. Although I am a university professor, so that might make me suspect. On the other hand, I am an economics professor and many of my more liberal friends in the university look at economics as a right wing plot.

Keep in mind that there is no sin in having money. The sin comes from the LOVE of money.

I have never said that having money is a sin. However, having too much
money is not necessarily virtuous if it brings you away from God.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In all seriousness, is there really ONE definition of “rich”? You use the expression " … THE …definition …"

If someone has a billing rate of $300 per hour, but their hours are limited … there are normally around 2000 working hours per year … then, are they rich? And what if their overhead expenses are high? Or what if all of a sudden, they become “unpopular” and stop getting hired? Are they rich?

Seems to be that if someone is rich, then they are insulated from the financial slings and arrows of life.

With respect to Warren Buffett and “warrenbuffettesque” types of people, their stock isn’t going to going to become “extinguished” [the euphemism for what happens to the stock of (and the shareholders of) a company when that corporation goes bankrupt. Well … I GUESS it could happen … Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A) is basically an insurance company and a REALLY bad year could hurt the company. But, probably not, because it is really a holding company. So if the reinsurance and insurance businesses go south (highly unlikely, because of the games they play with payouts and premiums), then they have lots of other businesses in the portfolio.

When you get that big, you are a one-man mutual fund. Immune to the (financial) slings and arrows, etc.

To me, THAT is the definition of rich … immunity from (financial) slings and arrows.

None of this $36,001 annual income bologna.

---

For yet another sort of profile of what a rich person is, take a look at the operations of someone like George Soros. His “hobby” [sarcasm intended] seems to be demolishing national governments by manipulating their currency and their politics. … sort of a kind of immunity cum mischief.

If we look at the definition of rich, it means having wealth or having
a large number of possessions. We measure who is rich by their
wealth, which is measured in monetary terms.

If my friend quits his professor job and just does consulting at $300 per hour, do you really want to suggest that he is poor? On the other hand, is anybody really rich by your definition. For example, Warren Buffett is worth $52 billion. But his wealth is in Berkshire Hathaway stock, it it goes bankrupt, his wealth evaporates. This is not likely, but it certainly is possible.

I am neither poor nor a marxist. Although I am a university professor, so that might make me suspect. On the other hand, I am an economics professor and many of my more liberal friends in the university look at economics as a right wing plot.

I have never said that having money is a sin. However, having too much
money is not necessarily virtuous if it brings you away from God.

 

[stinkcat_14]

In all seriousness, is there really ONE definition of “rich”? You use the expression " … THE …definition …"

Can you give me a citation of anybody else who uses your definition?

If someone has a billing rate of $300 per hour, but their hours are limited … there are normally around 2000 working hours per year … then, are they rich? And what if their overhead expenses are high? Or what if all of a sudden, they become “unpopular” and stop getting hired? Are they rich?

Are they poor? You said that anybody who gets paid by the hour is poor. So is my friend poor?

Seems to be that if someone is rich, then they are insulated from the financial slings and arrows of life.

With respect to Warren Buffett and “warrenbuffettesque” types of people, their stock isn’t going to going to become “extinguished” [the euphemism for what happens to the stock of (and the shareholders of) a company when that corporation goes bankrupt. Well … I GUESS it could happen … Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) is basically an insurance company and a REALLY bad year could hurt the company. But, probably not, because it is really a holding company. So if the reinsurance and insurance businesses go south (highly unlikely, because of the games they play with payouts and premiums), then they have lots of other businesses in the portfolio.

When you get that big, you are a one-man mutual fund. Immune to the (financial) slings and arrows, etc.

To me, THAT is the definition of rich … immunity from (financial) slings and arrows.

But in your definition, you said it was impossible for a rich person to become poor. My point is that it is possible for everyone to become poor, that nothing is guaranteed. I did say that it was not likely for Buffett to become poor, but certainly not impossible. If we were invaded by a foreign country and at the same time had hyperinflation there would be a lot of rich people turned poor.

None of this $36,001 annual income bologna.

My point is that compared to the rich during the time of Jesus, $36,000 is very well off. In addition, compared to most people in the world, $36,000 is indeed quite rich.
[/quote]

 

[Al_Masetti]

Can you give me a citation of anybody else who uses your definition?

Are they poor? You said that anybody who gets paid by the hour is poor. So is my friend poor?

But in your definition, you said it was impossible for a rich person to become poor. My point is that it is possible for everyone to become poor, that nothing is guaranteed. I did say that it was not likely for Buffett to become poor, but certainly not impossible. If we were invaded by a foreign country and at the same time had hyperinflation there would be a lot of rich people turned poor.

My point is that compared to the rich during the time of Jesus, $36,000 is very well off. In addition, compared to most people in the world, $36,000 is indeed quite rich.

We are operating within a certain context. The United States. Slipping from one venue to another doesn’t further the discussion.

For someone in Niger to come up with $36,000 would be quite a feat! But in the United States, an income of $36K would not be rich by any stretch of the imagination.

During the time of Jesus … we have very little financial or economic data of any comparable basis for that period. The circumstances were radically different from today. But we do have at least one clue: when Jesus proposed they feed the 5000 men (plus women and children) and one of the disciples said it would take six-months’ income (or a year’s) to feed all those people. If there were 15,000 people and if it would cost $10 per person to cater in sandwiches and beverages, that would suggest $150,000 in equivalent for a year’s income.

This is a far cry from $36,000.

SOOOO …, my original contention is still valid … that we are a bunch of poor people who are quibbling about one or another of us who has a few dollars more than the other … classical jealousy, leading to envy.

We are also talking about a drastically different tax structure … comparing then versus now. Probably much lower back then as a percent of peoples’ incomes.

But we are not dealing with third-world or fourth-world or feudal societies. We are dealing with the United States. Even Europe is radically different because the distances in Europe are much shorter than in the United States [Europe is really quite small … WW2 in Europe was fought in an area that would fit in the space from New York to Chicago. More or less.] They have high speed trains in Europe because the terrain is FLAT. Mostly. The European culture is laden with a history totalitarianism of every stripe from monarchy to “Genghis Khan-ism” to French Revolution-ism to modern Communism. Not to mention the continent having been pulverized, burned, sacked, and pillaged over and over about every fifty years. One study I did suggested that at one time there was a war about every 30 days. Until they moved from city-states to nations. Then the wars became less frequent but more destructive.

RICH people today can incorporate in many different countries … and they have homes in different places and can quickly more from one to another with absolutely no difficulty. They just get on their converted airliner and in a few hours they are in Costa Rica or Uruguay or Switzerland or and island that they might own or on a mega-yacht. They make large donations to all political parties, so that even in the most unstable times, they are always welcome.

If your $300 per hour friend were to stop working and if his income stopped, then he woud be poor.

If you HAVE TO WORK, then there is no way you can be considered as rich.