Class warfare time: what's "rich"?

[Robb]

Poll question: Class warfare time: what's "rich"?

I was reading another thread where the point was made that $90K/year wasn't "rich", assuming the person lived in an area with high apartment rent costs.

I bristled silently.

What do you think "rich" is?

[AZCat]

1. Is this for an individual, or a family? n/t

[Robb]

2. Hm. Good question.

Let's say for an individual.

[AZCat]

4. Gotcha.

It might be interesting to compare the two. Would you think about running a parallel poll (regarding total income for, say, a family of four) or do you think it would be useful?

[EVDebs]

8. Brilliant topic ! "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston shows us

that "The Super-Rich" are those 1 and 1/2% of taxpayers who essentially are being subsidized by the rest of us, the other 98.5% of taxpayers...plus, the globalized multinational corporations who shunt their tax burdens onto us.

This would mean that if you're making under $3 million or so as an individual or small business, You're Being Screwed !

Please read "Perfectly Legal", especially chapters 7 and 8. Also, check out Warren Buffett's quote in www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-01.htm

""Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934. Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning""

[rucky]

3. If I earned 75K, I would be ecstatic.

If you have the basics, can afford personal luxuries, and still have some money to put away, you're rich.

[LisaLynne]

5. And how are you getting the money?

Say I work 80 hours a week to make $50k, while my idiot cousin gets $50k from his "trust fund" and sits on his rear all day, every day? I say he's rich; I'm lucky to have a decent-paying job.

[DBoon]

13. Rich is what you own, not what you make

Most people, if they own anything, only own their primary residence and maybe retirement savings.

To be rich is to have enough liquid assets that you are not bound to a job.

To be rich is to have other people work for you.

$100k/year is a nice income, but this can still put you in the worker category. You may be a highly skilled worker, but a worker nevertheless.

A highly paid worker can afford to buy a nice car. A wealthy person will own a whole chain of car dealerships.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

32. If you're living off of a trust than you are at least rich.

There is a difference between wealthy and rich. A rich person still has to work for his/her money while a wealthy person's money works for him. Of course 100k falls short of rich but 200k grosses a million in 5 years so I would have included 200k in the poll.

[kodi]

62. rich is not having to work and being able to maintain your lifestyle

if you HAVE to work to maintain your living standard, you aren't rich.

[GiovanniC]

6. I Make Just Under 35,000 Per Year

I have a girlfriend but I live on my own and pay all my own expenses. Housing, car, cable, broadband internet, utilities, phone, groceries, gas... I live comfortably. If I made double what I make, I would consider myself rich, because honestly my lifestyle would probably change very little. That would mean I would be able to basically save and invest $30,000+ per year.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

7. It depends

on where you live. Here in the NYC area, I don't know how people with average incomes afford renting or buying. Therefore, here in NYC I would say that anyone who makes over $500K is "rich."

In the NC area where I lived for 15 years, I'd say anyone who makes over $100K is doing ok for him/herself. Of course, large families would need a bit more to be considered "rich."

But I guess it depends on what being rich brings you or what it means to you.

[xpat]

9. The framing is all wrong!

If you're talking about class warfare, the employer/employee dynamic is more important than the pay stub. Even the "knights of labor" are still in our class, not theirs. The "knights" might have some illusions about who they are but they aren't "rich".

Ask yourself if you can be fired. If the answer is yes, you are not rich.

[DBoon]

16. You are very right here

A skilled technical worker during the go-go days of the Internet boom could make a godawful amount of money. Lots of these folks make a lot less now.

Wealth is about power and control, not about being able to afford nice things.

[xpat]

78. I just read a class warrior in the IHT:

He said, "We know what we have to do; we just don't know how to get elected if we do it." In other words, "they" need to beat our living standards into the ground, but "they" know that we will eat them for breakfast if "they" try. At least that's the case in Europe. In the US, "we" are impotent wimps, from all indications.

[Stirk]

10. $90k isn't rich if you're in a place like New York, LA, or San Francisco.

You'll be comfortable, but not rich. I lived in Los Angeles on $20k/year when I first moved out here, and man- did it ever suck.

But rich... I'd have to say rich starts around $300,000/year or so.

[Robb]

14. Here's my thought on that...

...even if you're making $90K and spending nearly every penny of it, you still have more opportunity that someone making $15K and spending nearly every penny of it elsewhere, eh? Gaining more transferable experience in the workplace, building credit, etc. :shrug:

[TwilightZone]

21. That doesn't seem to fit your initial question.

If the question is "what's rich", then the answer could certainly vary depending on the circumstances.

Someone making $90,000 a year and living in San Fran, where the cheapest homes go for $500,000+, is certainly not "rich".

Someone making $90,000 a year and living in some small town in the midwest where homes are $60,000 is in an entirely different financial situation.

I guess it all depends on what you consider "rich".

[LibDemAlways]

66. I agree. It's all relative.

A decade ago my husband got a job offer in the SF area. On paper the offer looked good. But when we spent a weekend looking at housing in the area, we realized we wouldn't be able to find anything decent on that salary, so he passed.

We bought our home in Southern Calif. 30 years ago on a relatively modest income. Impossible today.

[Stop_the_War]

11. To me, anything $100,000 and above is rich...

[MostlyLurks]

12. I think locality has to be factored in.

I make a living wage in that I can make my house and car payments and have enough to eat, etc. but I can't put anything away for later: hand-to-mouth living. If you transport my wage to NYC, I'm pretty much homeless while in some of the worst-off areas of the country, I'd be doing pretty well.

I think the monetary amount is completely relative to your place. So I think the measurement should be what you can do with the $$ and I'd have to agree with a previous poster that it comes down to:

1. Can you pay your bills?
2. Can you afford a luxury or two on a regular basis?
3. Can you consistently put money aside for retirement or other forseeable expenses (college, general savings, etc)?

I would also add a fourth:
4. Do you live without fear of the "big unexpected expense" such as a medical emergency, high-priced car or home repair, etc. This is the one that separates surviving (1-3) from being really well off, as far as I'm concerned.

I think most people can easily manage 1 and 2; 3 and 4 are far harder to achieve.

Mostly

[Withywindle]

15. Obviously it depends on where you are...

...and how many dependents you have. Good point already about that.

I picked 100K because that's the point at which I really start to have trouble imagining what it would be like to make that much. :)

(For the record I make about 35K and I live in Chicago, which is much pricier than rural areas but not as much so as, say, NYC or San Francisco. I think of myself as lower-middle-class.)

[givemebackmycountry]

17. I make 75k a year and it's not what you think it is.

Every two weeks I get a pay stub that shows what's been electronically deposited into my bank account.

They take out close to $800.00 a check in taxes, health insurance, employee stock purchases, 401K, social security and other deductibles like disability insurance and the like.

That's $1,600 a month!

Yeah, I know that a lot of these things are optional, but I would be an idiot if I didn't take advantage of a ESPP and a 401k plan and health insurance.

I save a little, I spend a little, I go on a vacation or two a year so that's good.

I also pay cash for my cars, and my current one has 120k miles on it and it's 11 years old.

I keep my expenses down to the bare minimum and I don't believe in $350 a month car payments.

I'll get maybe a 4% raise this year and I have two more years to go before I will have 20 years on my job.

When I started back in 1987 I was making $16,500 a year so I've come a long way.

When I started to make $30 grand a year I thought I hit the lottery. Now I pray I never have to go back to those days!

Yes, I'm lucky...But when I see the CEO of my company getting $29 million, I wonder if there isn't something a little askew.

[ultraist]

25. That's a very good salary for one person

Especially if you don't have children to support. You are able to save while living a comfortable lifestyle. But I don't consider that rich even though it's nearly double the median.

As someone noted, wealth is not the annual income one earns off of their labor. Wealth is about your net worth. What you have in assets.

Income off of labor can create wealth. The CEO making 29 Million a year can do it in one year. Most banks consider net worth over 2M the cut off for wealth management accounts.

The top 400 wealthiest people in the world are worth 600 Million or more. That means their offspring will be wealthy for several generations without having to work.

[Jimbo S]

71. self-delete

[K-W]

18. You have to take into account more than income.

The very rich arent rich because of thier income, they are rich because of what they own.

Someone with a huge salary who doesnt own much is a in a very different boat than someone who has the same income but owns property, a business, etc

[FromTheLeft]

28. So true...

I make about 25k a year in albany and my life is not that uncumfortable, but most definetly not great. One of my best friends on the other hand makes 15k a year but was bought a house and a new car upon graduation and knows that his parents can aways bail him out of any situation he gets himself in. He has let a few friends move in who basically pay all the bills so almost all of that 15k is spendable, so I'm sorry, but I consider him rich.

[skids]

19. Be careful what you consider "rich"

Part of the problem of American politics is the large number of people that belive they are "upper middle class" when in fact, at best, they are middle class. People overestimate their standing, and in so doing, identify their interests as those of the people richer than them.

I used to make $70k (quit this summer, right after a raise from $60k) but I knew even without a family to support, that didn't make me "upper" anything. I'd like to say that even if I was upper-middleclass that I'd still support populism, but there were lapses even at that salary where I felt my views start to slip and expect privilage. Luckily I'm introspective. Not everyone is.

Now at $0k and glad to have my feet back on the ground. Gonna wiggle my toes in the dirt for a bit before I get back into the whole career thing. Again, luckily, I caught my lapses and lived well below my means. I knew eventually I'd need the empowermeant of a healthy savings account to make a stand. It came sooner than I had hoped, but so is life.

So if you think you are rich, think again. Put as much as you can away, because the incompetant-but-somehow-richer-than-you will just keep getting greedier and eventually you will have to stand your ground and fight.

[K-W]

22. Middle class is a distraction really.

Upper, Lower and middle class arent very useful breakdowns.

Its important to remember that when we discuss class warfare we arent really talking about upper, lower and middle classes. It is more about how you get the money, and what role you play in the overall structure of the economy.

There are alot of working class people trying to pretend they arent working class even though they have absolutely no control over thier economic future because they rely on the employment of others to survive.

[skids]

26. Agreed.

The real class breakdown is more or less along the lines of whether you work for money or not.

Now if you have worked for money, and here I'm not just saying that you have done so but that you have had the need to do so, and somehow managed to reach "escape velocity" and no longer have to, your class identity, in the end, is determined by your attitudes and actions towards your fellow man. Or in other words, if you recognize that you are one extremely lucky dog, and don't try to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other elite, you can still count yourself working class.

If you elevate yourself in your own head, you have unfortunately fallen prey to elitism and don't get to call yourself working class anymore. Without sufficient self-discipline, you'll only be reminded of your roots when they are ridiculed by those who never had to work, or when your status as a rentier is threatened by a more powerful rentier.

[ultraist]

30. National median is $43,000

US Census Bureau breakdowns Upper limit of Fifths/Household

2003 $9,996 $25,678 $43,588 $68,994 $147,078 $253,239

I think the breakdowns can be useful for some things. Breakdowns give a general idea of what type of lifestyle one can live and what tax bracket one is in. But they do not provide any info on whether or not someone is wealthy. Someone can be earning $253,000 and not be wealthy.

Net Worth (worth after all debt is deducted) is how to measure wealth.

[Kansas Wyatt]

23. Debt load....

People overestimate, because they include what they have on credit. The more debt one has, the easier it is for the "company store" to control them. Welcome to our new Corporate Government of the United States of America.

[gorbal]

49. I think people who live on 70K a year should trying living on 20K a year..

And then when you go back, tell me if you feel rich or not.

[skids]

57. I was living at quite a lower wage...

...before that. And yes, at the height, I was starting to feel rich. Which was a problem. It breeds attitudes that are antisocial.

[knitter4democracy]

65. We've done both.

When we got married, we had to live on my Catholic high school teacher salary: $17,600 gross. And that was in Cleveland. My mom actually gave us a little money every month because she was disgusted that any teacher would make so little. We barely made it from month to month and prayed that nothing big would happen to the car or anything.

Now that my husband's an attending (a real doctor, finally, after seven years of graduate and post-graduate training), we're making a heck of a lot more--and we're still cutting it tight every month. Not as tight, mind you, but it's still tight. We owe $175K for med school and have tons of credit card debt that we used to get through the big things that happened that we had no money for. There were scads of things we didn't buy because we didn't have the money and now have to get them (a working car, clothes for me and the kids, stuff like that). I know a lot of doctors in the same position and worse, actually. If they didn't come from money, they're in the same position we're in.

I did a happy dance when I finally made more than $20K a year, so yeah, I know what it's like. I call us rich now because I can actually afford medicine for me and the kids without straining the checkbook, but we're not as rich as everyone seems to think we are.

[Modem Butterfly]

76. I went from 90 to 35 K

I didn't feel rich at 90, and I certainly didn't feel rich at 35, but I sure am glad I saved most of it.

[William Bloode]

20. Depends alot on where ya live.

If you live here in the backwoods like me $75-100,000 would make you quite wealthy in short order due to low cost of living. On the other hand that same amount in L.A., S.F., or N.Y.C. would be like getting by on $25-30,000 here.

[porphyrian]

24. Other:

Rich is having enough money that you don't have to think about it anymore if you don't want to. Because that's a sliding scale depending on where you live and what kind of lifestyle you choose, I can't pick a specific dollar amount.

[Cleita]

27. This is a common fallacy. Income isn't what makes people

rich, it's assets. If you can make enough income from your assets to live well, then you are rich. Incidentally, payroll (FICA) taxes are only taken on wages, not income derived from assets, unless you elect to do so. So you see, the truly rich get another taxfree benefit.

[rman]

33. well, high income allows for aggregating of lots of assets

so there's correlation between the two.

but income numbers don't even come close to the numbers on actual wealth.

an income of a million/year doesn't matter that much if you've got a billion in the bank.

[JHB]

80. As Chris Rock put it:

Shaq is rich.

The white man who signs his paycheck is wealthy.

"Here ya go Shaq. Buy yourself another jumping car!" "Bling-bling!"

[Mr.Green93]

35. A Wealth Tax

is needed.

[ultraist]

41. capital gains, & inheritance taxes are two wealth taxes

A general overall wealth tax would be considered double dipping. You cannot tax someone twice on the same money, although this is what some claim inheritance taxes do.

How could it be done?

[Mr.Green93]

45. The same money can be taxed

more than once. A wealth tax could be understood as a yearly 'inheritance' tax.

[ultraist]

60. Yearly inheritance tax?

I don't think that term would work. Inheritance taxes are for money that is passed on to the heirs, (inherited).

Why should I pay inheritance taxes if I am not inheriting any money? And for those who have, why should they pay inheritance taxes more than once, at the time they inherited it?

[Mr.Green93]

63. So you seem to be an evocate

for the wealthy keeping theirs while taxing wage earners.

[BiggJawn]

70. In that case, I'm poverty-stricken.

I HAVE no "assets", OK, so what do you figure 10 old bicycles are worth?
That's it. no property, no real estate, no investmnents. Shit, maybe I should grow a beard and start wearing burlap robes and have people ask me the Meaning of Life...

[Yavin4]

29. Wealth Is Defined Thusly...

1.) Your assets minus your liabilities puts your net worth in the top 10% for all Americans.

2.) Income derived from your assets puts your income in the top 10% for all Americans. Think income from dividends, bonds, rents, etc.

Having a high paying job doesn't qualify you to be wealthy or rich. Income from a job is relative to where you live. In NYC, most apartments in Manhattan rent for over $2,000 a month. So making $100K will not make you rich.

Also, as ITers can attest to, your high-paying job can go overseas in a blink of an eyelash.

[ultraist]

31. What is the top 10% of Net worth?

I think this is pretty accurate.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=%3A%3A0671015206%3A&page=excerpt

The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy

About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.

Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dull-normal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.

About half of our wives do not work outside the home. The number-one occupation for those wives who do work is teacher.

Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.

We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.

On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.

Most of us (97 percent) are homeowners. We live in homes currently valued at an average of $320,000. About half of us have occupied the same home for more than twenty years. Thus, we have enjoyed significant increases in the value of our homes.

Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.

We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.

con't

####
I'd consider a net worth over 3 Million with an income of $250,000 to be the starting point of wealthy.

[Yavin4]

34. I Concur

I'd consider a net worth over 3 Million with an income of $250,000 to be the starting point of wealthy.

That sounds about right. What's truly sickening is that if that $250K is derived from dividend income alone, then that person will pay less taxes on that than the janitor cleaning toilets.

[ultraist]

39. Income vs. Wealth

Your point here speaks to the core issue: What's truly sickening is that if that $250K is derived from dividend income alone, then that person will pay less taxes on that than the janitor cleaning toilets.

Add in low capital gains, low inheritance taxes, tax shelters, Family Limited Partnership Trusts, and a myriad of other nifty legal loopholes, and it becomes glaringly apparent that the wealthy are very advantaged.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

36. Need more choices

We have five choices for $100K or less (does anybody really think that $10K per year is rich?). Next choice is $500K.

A family of four is certainly not poor on $100,000 per year. But if you throw in a couple of college tuition payments, they're not exactly rolling in it, either. A family of six might be hurting.

Individual situations can also make that figure pretty elastic. Say you've got a general practicioner earning $100,000 per year. As we all know, medical malpractice rates for some specialities (including family medicine) can range as high as $50,000 per year. So suddenly $100,000 is not as much as one might think.

I think you need to refine the definition to "Taxable Income" and to talk about incomes as "Per Household."

My SWAG is $100,000 Taxable Income for a family of four.

[bread_and_roses]

37. 80% of us make

So that is one measure of "rich." And if looking at wealth, the top 20% own > 80% of the wealth. So I would say being in either of those top 20% makes one "rich" in comparison to most of one's fellow citizens.

[ultraist]

43. My definition is different.

I wouldn't consider someone who earns in the top 20% rich. The top 20% earners are those that make $100,000 and up. It's very easy to spend 100k to support a family and not have anything left for investing. In some communities, 100k provides only a very middle class lifestyle.

Here's one definition of wealthy although it's outdated:
Has a net worth of $1 million or more. Based on this definition, only 3.5 million (3.5 percent) of the 100 million households in America are considered wealthy. About 95 percent of millionaires in America have a net worth of between $1 million and $10 million.

I don't consider a net worth of 1 million wealthy. I'd put it at 3 million.

****

There are market/economic definitions of wealthy and then there are personal definitions of wealthy. It's interesting to see how people evaluate this. Regardless of how people break it out, the fact remains that only a small percentage of our society are wealthy and those that live off of their income are carrying the burden.

[SharonAnn]

38. $90 K a year is a Teacher and Police Officer in their 30's or 40's

raising children, paying a mortgage, trying to save for their retirement and their children's college education.

Definitely not rich!

Better off than some? Sure, and they work hard for it and deserve it.

[NAO]

48. My sister is a public school teacher in her 50's 20+ yrs, earns

But your point is valid. 90K is a good living, and if two people are earning that much they are working hard, doing well, and deserve it.

They are NOT rich, which would become PAINFULLY obvious if either one of them lost their job and the family had to live on only one of the two incomes.

To meet my definition of 'rich', someone needs to have so much money that the loss of a job does not result in an immediate decline in lifestyle and a personal financial crisis.

[leftofthedial]

40. I put the bar at $300K

[B Calm]

42. Someone who never flies coach!

[ultraist]

44. LOL! No, someone who owns their own JET

Actually, some wealthy live pretty frugally. But, if you can afford a Jet, you have to be wealthy!

[Yavin4]

46. How About Someone Who Built A Landing Strip In their Front Yard

so that they can fly their private planes right up to their doorstep. (See John Travolta)

[NAO]

47. "Rich" is more about WEALTH than about WAGE EARNINGS

To me being rich is not just having a big salary but having a salary that is grossly out of proportion to the contribution that a person makes to the overall effort of others and what they are paid.

And "rich" often means that people do not have to worry - they will never have to work or produce anything or put forth any effort to have a decent lifestyle. They can just live off inheritances, trusts, rental income, stock dividends, or whatever. They get money from things other than the work that they do.

Someone who is paid $500,000/yr can easily end up on the street if they squander money and lose their job. Lots of broke rock stars and celebs can tell you about that. But someone with no job, no income, that has inherited an interest earning trust or stock portfolio or whatever, is truly rich, and all the stupidity, laziness and squandering in the world will not change that.

[lectrobyte]

55. yeah, "well off and doesn't have to work" is one definition that works

for me. And by well off, I'm thinking $250K/yr and upwards... I guess I have problems with any specific number, because a 2 income family can bring in $100K and not be what I'd call "rich" by any means. Upper middle class, but not rich.

[LiberallyInclined]

59. not always.

plenty of RICH people pull down a wage. especially if they're "self-employed".

there can be a big difference between "Rich" and "Idle Rich".

[Nikia]

50. $50,000 for an individual, $100,000 for a family

I'd call that well off at least. Of course around here, the average home value is around $100,000 and $300,000 buys a mansion. In most cases, you'd have some significant disposable income that could be set aside in investments.

[bush_is_wacko]

51. I guess I don't see the point of this poll. We aren't in a war against

EVERY rich person on the face of the earth. It is an ideal we are at war with. I know millionaires and I know VERY poor people. None of the millionaires I know are Republican, but one of the poor people I know is as is one of the middle class people I know.

Do you really think it is Rich V Poor? If that is the case, those numbers do not go high enough. Billionaire's exist and for the most part they are unknowns. I still say they aren't all evil and greedy.

[ultraist]

54. Nearly all of the millionares I know are Republican

Furthermore, Bush won the large majority of multimillionare voters, check the exit polls.

No one said they are all evil. But those that vote for Bush are highly questionable.

[bush_is_wacko]

61. I agree, but please don't believe that they are ALL voting for him.

Like I said I know some very wealthy people who can't stand the guy.

[RedCloud]

52. Rich means you own the government

You get more money than you deserve when you pull your WTC towers trapping people inside.

You get more money than you lost because your airlines couldn't afford to provide security cameras to verify hijackers.

Your kids watch other people fight their wars for them.

You get to scare the hell out of everybody with bogus claims and get rich.

Your five year old "rents" "his" mansion to you tax free.

You get to conduct depleted uranium experiments on several generations of US troops.

Rich means you own the hockey team but blame the entertainers/athletes for your lockout and the media prints it as a labor dispute!

[AP]

53. Rich is if you don't need your job to live happily. If you could leave...

...your job today and not have to accept fewer options, and if you could still do everything you wanted, and could afford vacations and a second hom, and eating out all the time, and a fulfilling life, you're rich.

If you need your job to survive and live happily and with dignity and options, then you work for a living. You're working class.

[redqueen]

56. Why are the increments ~30K, then suddenly jump to $300 and $500K?

I'd say $200K... for a family.

[durutti]

58. Class is defined by power, not income per se.

Those who can live off their capital are part of the ruling class.

[WLKjr]

64. Locomotive Engineers Make Between 76k and 110k a year

and that is based on Y.O.S and experience.


To someone that is like me making 15k a year that is a lot, but to a family with a couple of kids and a house, it's nothing.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

67. Local help wanted listed $36,000 to start.

I thought it paid much more too until I saw advert for I think it was CSX. It is a very difficult and highly responsible as well as being a dangerous job with no set schedule and of course constant travel in very dirty, noisy and unhealthy working conditions. Most rich people do not get their hands dirty.

[WLKjr]

79. With CSX that doesnt sound like a conductor/engineer maybe track worker

The track laborers I know aren't paid great, but it's not bad to start on if your single. Plus with CSX, being told this by a guy that has worked with them for about 20 years back when they were changing from C&O Chessie System to CSX, told me that your earning potential depends on how much you want to work. If you want to work a lot of hours, they will put you on the extra board and you can work lots of hours.


The numbers I quoted were national averages. But like I said too that depends on years of service too. There are a lot of people that work for the railroads right now that are retiring after 35+years of service. There are going to be lots and lots of jobs with them soon. Only thing is that if you want to work for them now, you have to go to school for like 5-6 weeks at a college that offers a conductor training program.

[shanti]

68. none of the above

that's a pretty big jump between 100 and 500 grand. my choice would be somewhere inbetween, so i didn't vote.

[No Exit]

69. Is $4 Trillion enough?

'Cause that's what The Carlyle Group made last year.

[Jimbo S]

72. If you work, you're not rich

Also depends on geography. New England and California have higher costs of living than say, the Heartland.

[lastliberalintexas]

73. The Have Littles vs. the Have a Little Mores

It's so very nice to see that some people on this thread have focused their attention on other wage earners for their anger, frustration, etc. The top 2% thanks you. :eyes:


People who make 20K a year need to understand that those making 100K a year are not rich. And people making 100K a year need to understand that they themselves are not rich. Not by a long shot.

People like Bill Gates who have a net economic worth of 48 BILLION DOLLARS are rich. People like the Waltons, with a net economic worth of about 18 BILLION EACH are rich. People like Michael Dell who have a net economic worth of 14 BILLION are rich. People like Warren Buffet who have a net economic worth of 41 BILLION are rich. It's bloody amazing that Buffet is even fairly progressive!


Keep your eyes on the prize, people, and let's not eat our own.

[lukasahero]

74. Good post.

I'm in the middle of reading "What's the Matter with Kansas" and so far, this seems to be the point Franks is trying to get at (to some degree). The "have little's" and "have less's" are so busy fignting each other over stupid trivialities that the "have's" and "have more's" are walking away with the gold. They love shit like this because it keeps us from fighting THEM.

[cheezus]

75. When you never have to worry that your family will struggle

that's when you're rich. I don't think it demands a dollar amount

[ChairOne]

77. Income-rich? 2 or 3 standard deviations above the average, imo