Author's Note: I have revised this post after realizing that I misinterpreted the data. The statistics are mainly what I incorrectly summarized in the initial post. It turns out the 45% of the people surveyed thought that $5 million or more meant rich, not the 78% that I initially stated. My apologies. That doesn't change my rant at the end though so I have left that intact.
This sort of topic always gives me rise. It came up as I checked my feeds in Google Reader this evening and I noticed Robert Frank's post on The Wealth Report at the Wall Street Journal site titled "A Rich Person's Definition of Rich." Forty-five percent (45%) of the "rich folk" (affluent households with greater thatn $500k in assets) said it takes $5 million to be rich. Of those folks, twenty-five percent (25%) said that it takes $25 million to be rich. Still yet, eight percent (8%) said it takes $100 million. Seriously, did the Spectrem Group interview The Real Housewives of Orange County. Forty-five percent (45%) of those interviewed said it takes more than $5 million to be rich. I am not that old, but I still remember when a gallon of gas was under a dollar. I must have missed the shifting paradigm of the rich. Maybe I just view things differently than those interviewed or than the world in general. I may never know unless I graduate to that level of the "rich" at some point in my life. The truth is I believe it is the latter in that I just view riches differently. That is the beauty of a subjective term such as rich. From a monetary or asset perspective in does take a good bit of money to reach the stature of rich. I have met rich people. For goodness sake I represent a fair amount of rich people, some with far more and some with far less than $5 million, and I have never compared asset levels set subjective standards to determine if they are rich or not.
Our world has evolved into the quintessential hedonistic society. So much so that we would not think twice about using currency for toilet paper if we thought it would impress our dinner guests. Wait, my apologies we would have to let Pottery Barn first assemble the currency on neat little rolls, stamp their logo on it, and charge us two dollars for every one before we would accept it. That is capitalism after all. It is time like this when I think back to a book I read in a seminar course in law school called the Monk and the Riddle by Randy Komisar. Mr. Komisar talked about, among many other things, his concept of the American work and retirement philosophy. I am not sure if he coined the phrase, "The Deferred Life Plan", but he used it in his book. We work and work and work with the promise of wealth accumulation and a glorified retirement as our dangling carrot. Many never reach the point when you can cash in the deferred life plan. That saddens me a great deal.
I imagine that some people will interpret this post as being political in nature given the division between Democrats and Republicans on issues of taxes, especially wealth transfer taxes. I'd like to think that I can rise above the politics to get to my intended point regarding the idea of wealth and the definition of rich. More than anything else I am publicly venting about the mentality that so many of us here in the U.S. take when it comes to developing our work-life-retirement paradigm. Personally, I cannot stomach deferring the more enjoyable aspects of life to a fictitious and non-guaranteed future time period commonly referred to as "retirement." I've railed on this mindset a number of time before. Would you take actually monetary riches ($5 million or more) for the time lost with your family, watching your kids grow up, and the memories of a life lived not worked to death? My financial planning friends are not going to like this idea as much as I do, but the reality is I'd rather spend less time working and more of my money on trips or other educational and memory creating activities than on planning for some time in my 60s. This isn't to say that I advise being cavalier regarding one's retirement planning. I just think that saving an amount equal to the GDP of a small developing country is a bit much.









Recent Comments