http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_fidelity_survey
QuoteA million dollars ain't what it used to be.
More than four out of ten American millionaires say they do not feel rich. Indeed many would need to have at least $7.5 million in order to feel they were truly rich, according to a Fidelity Investments survey.
Some 42 percent of the more than 1,000 millionaires surveyed by Fidelity said they did not feel wealthy. Respondents had at least $1 million in investable assets, excluding any real estate or retirement accounts.
"Every person in the survey is wealthy," said Sanjiv Mirchandani, president of National Financial, a unit of Fidelity. "But they are still worried about outliving their assets."
The average age of respondents was 56 years old with a mean of $3.5 million of investable assets. The threshold for "rich" rose with age.
"They compare themselves to their peer group ... and they are also thinking about the long period they will have in retirement and want more assets" to fund their lifestyle, said Michael Durbin, president of Fidelity Institutional Wealth Services.
Still, millionaires are slightly more optimistic now than they were in 2009, when 46 percent did not feel wealthy.
Respondents were also more optimistic about the U.S. economy. While they thought the current U.S. economy remained very weak, they think it will improve by the end of this year.
Fidelity noted the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans hold more than 55 percent of the nation's wealth.
I'd be happy to sacrifice my standards to see if there was any way I could possibly live a millionaire's lifestyle on a mere $3.5 million.
hmm, I guess I can see the thinking.
You've 50 million- money is no object, as long as you don't go TOO mad you can just buy whatever and live very comfortably.
7 million-a few ferraris, a boat and a mansion and you've eaten up half your money. You have to pay attention to money quite a bit more.
Of course, they really shouldn't complain.
US rich lose all perspective; film at 11. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2011, 10:49:55 AM
Of course, they really shouldn't complain.
What are you supposed to do when a survey asks you how you feel?
What is the country coming to; even the wealthy are feeling the tough times! ;)
Then again, it's not really surprising. Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status. Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends. That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 11:31:09 AM
Then again, it's not really surprising. Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status. Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends. That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.
That level is apparently 7.5 million.
To make that much money you usually have to live in cities like NY and Chicago and yeah a condo costs a million dollars over there. I can see how you might feel you have not quite made it even with a few million.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 14, 2011, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 11:31:09 AM
Then again, it's not really surprising. Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status. Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends. That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.
That level is apparently 7.5 million.
It's probably way lower than that. It's at 7.5 million now because that's where the special point in the distribution is, after decades of the rich getting richer. If somehow all the rich people lost half their wealth, that point would probably be pretty close to 3.75 million.
Yeah, I bet it depends a lot on where they live.
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 11:31:09 AM
Then again, it's not really surprising. Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status. Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends. That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.
I'm not surprised that DGuller is well aware of how the rich operate.
It actually sounds reasonable to me if you look at the criteria of being "rish" they used, which is enough money to not fear outliving your assets, and excluding real estate.
I know if I was handed a million dollars tomorrow it would not change my life substantially. It's not enough money I could retire on. Two million probably wouldn't do it either.
But $7.5 mil? Maybe that is the tipping point when I'd no longer have to worry about work.
I wouldn't quit my job at 1 mil either.
I'm not 30. What am I suppose to do with my time?
I seem to recall something similar to what DGuller says when there was a discussion regarding bonuses for CEOs and other top level executives over here. Turns out that even if the guy didnt need the money one iota the bonus still mattered as a symbol of status as long as others where getting theirs. And the absolute size of the bonus was rather unimportant, it was the relative size of it in comparison to what other CEOs where getting that really mattered.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2011, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 11:31:09 AM
Then again, it's not really surprising. Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status. Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends. That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.
I'm not surprised that DGuller is well aware of how the rich operate.
Why? Do you think I hang out with trailer trash or something?
Quote from: Brazen on March 14, 2011, 10:42:17 AM
I'd be happy to sacrifice my standards to see if there was any way I could possibly live a millionaire's lifestyle on a mere $3.5 million.
EuroMillion lottery is at 100 million € this weekend.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 14, 2011, 12:20:09 PM
I'm not 30. What am I suppose to do with my time?
Volunteer for non-profit/charity org.
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 12:19:09 PM
It actually sounds reasonable to me if you look at the criteria of being "rish" they used, which is enough money to not fear outliving your assets, and excluding real estate.
I know if I was handed a million dollars tomorrow it would not change my life substantially. It's not enough money I could retire on. Two million probably wouldn't do it either.
But $7.5 mil? Maybe that is the tipping point when I'd no longer have to worry about work.
I could retire at 23 on 2 million dollars quite easily.
Home for say 300k in the midwest is quite large, say five cars over the next 50 years, thats 200,000. Taxes on the house maybe 50-70,000. Discretionary spending including food maybe 40-50,000 a year.
Invest cautiously receiving 5-7% on 1 million over that period....and you can outlive that fairly easily. :unsure:
If you buy an inflation-adjusted annuity today for $2 mil, with 5% growth rate, and 3% inflation adjustment, you'll start with approximately $50,000 payment per year.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 14, 2011, 12:28:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 12:19:09 PM
It actually sounds reasonable to me if you look at the criteria of being "rish" they used, which is enough money to not fear outliving your assets, and excluding real estate.
I know if I was handed a million dollars tomorrow it would not change my life substantially. It's not enough money I could retire on. Two million probably wouldn't do it either.
But $7.5 mil? Maybe that is the tipping point when I'd no longer have to worry about work.
I could retire at 23 on 2 million dollars quite easily.
Home for say 300k in the midwest is quite large, say five cars over the next 50 years, thats 200,000. Taxes on the house maybe 50-70,000. Discretionary spending including food maybe 40-50,000 a year.
Invest cautiously receiving 5-7% on 1 million over that period....and you can outlive that fairly easily. :unsure:
5-7% might be too agressive, and inflation would eat away at that amount. $50-$70k per year might be enough now, but is unlikely to be enough in 30 years.
It takes a lot of money to not have to worry about working for a living, to travel without being treated like cattle, to send your kids to the best schools, to live in a good sized home at a good location, and to have people take care of trivial tasks for you (laundry, cooking and cleaning, etc). $7 million doesn't seems about right. You can say you don't need all those things to be wealthy, but it would be close to a standard in previous eras.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 14, 2011, 12:20:09 PM
I wouldn't quit my job at 1 mil either.
I'm not 30. What am I suppose to do with my time?
But working at a job because you enjoy it is different from working at a job because you have to.
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 12:36:10 PM
If you buy an inflation-adjusted annuity today for $2 mil, with 5% growth rate, and 3% inflation adjustment, you'll start with approximately $50,000 payment per year.
Which, inflation adjusted, is enough for Alci to live on comfortably. But it is hardly wealthy.
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.
Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.
Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.
The article talked about "investable assets". That would exclude your home, but would include restirement savings accounts.
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars. And I'm still surprised how ordinary a house I got for such a large sum of money (to my thinking).
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.
Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.
The article talked about "investable assets". That would exclude your home, but would include restirement savings accounts.
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars. And I'm still surprised how ordinary a house I got for such a large sum of money (to my thinking).
According to the article in the OP:
QuoteRespondents had at least $1 million in investable assets, excluding any real estate or retirement accounts.
That would make "millionaires" considerably rarer. If "millionaire" meant simply someone owning a million dollars in assets, they are common as shit - practically every upper-middle-class home-owner in a major city lacking a significant mortgage would probably be a "millionaire". When houses cost $700,000, it isn't hard to do.
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.
Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.
correct
the reality too is that paper millions are meaningless because their value can swing wildly with market forces
for instance, someone could easily have had a million dollar net worth in early 2007 and find themselves in a negative net worth position today with no change in asset mix
My God! McCain was right!
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 12:24:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2011, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 11:31:09 AM
Then again, it's not really surprising. Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status. Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends. That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.
I'm not surprised that DGuller is well aware of how the rich operate.
Why? Do you think I hang out with trailer trash or something?
:zipped:
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.
Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.
There was a recent survey about the rich in the
Economist that gave some figures for this. Credit Suisse estimates that there are 24.2m dollar millionaires with the rather loose definition that a millionaire is anyone with more than $1m in net assets. They reckon that 41% of these live in the USA. Capgemini defines it more stringently, as someone with investable assets of $1m or more (excluding their home), they reckon about 10m people meet this criteria.
I would imagine that the looser definition includes many people in their 50s and older who have had a reasonably successful career. I'm somewhat surprised that the two figures are not more different. $1m in investable cash is much rarer in the UK than, say, a pension that will pay out >£20k; which as Dguller points out is a major financial asset.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 14, 2011, 02:28:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.
Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.
There was a recent survey about the rich in the Economist that gave some figures for this. Credit Suisse estimates that there are 24.2m dollar millionaires with the rather loose definition that a millionaire is anyone with more than $1m in net assets. They reckon that 41% of these live in the USA. Capgemini defines it more stringently, as someone with investable assets of $1m or more (excluding their home), they reckon about 10m people meet this criteria.
I would imagine that the looser definition includes many people in their 50s and older who have had a reasonably successful career. I'm somewhat surprised that the two figures are not more different. $1m in investable cash is much rarer in the UK than, say, a pension that will pay out >£20k; which as Dguller points out is a major financial asset.
I'm surprised too - though if you disallow personal real estate *and* retirement accounts, as in the article in the OP, I'll bet that figure shrinks even further.
[Actuall, I'm also surprised that there are only 24.2 m millionaires under the loosest definition.]
since they apparently can't appreciate what they've got it's clear that they don't need it.
take away the money until they're left with 50K annually. that should help in the "don't whine you rich ass" department.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 14, 2011, 02:57:24 PM
since they apparently can't appreciate what they've got it's clear that they don't need it.
take away the money until they're left with 50K annually. that should help in the "don't whine you rich ass" department.
You are an idiot. But then we all knew that already.
Referring again to the survey in the Economist it seems that only 16% of these well-off people inherited their dosh; 47% made the money from starting and growing a business, 23% through highly paid employment. I guess if we took their money off them we would have to live in a society with few new businesses to generate employment and a shortage of surgeons and suchlike :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 14, 2011, 03:06:29 PM
Referring again to the survey in the Economist it seems that only 16% of these well-off people inherited their dosh; 47% made the money from starting and growing a business, 23% through highly paid employment. I guess if we took their money off them we would have to live in a society with few new businesses to generate employment and a shortage of surgeons and suchlike :hmm:
Please don't troll. We all know that wealthy people don't deserve the money they have.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2011, 02:26:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 12:24:50 PM
Why? Do you think I hang out with trailer trash or something?
:zipped:
I heard recently that New Jersey is the state with the highest per capita income in the country. :unsure:
The poors in this thread amuse me.
The Atlantic has an article on the unhappiness of the super-rich. Their cutoff was 25 mill.
When I asked one of my Wall St. buddies back in the late 80s how much it would take to walk away he said 5 mill. He called it "fuck you money."
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 14, 2011, 12:28:25 PM
I could retire at 23 on 2 million dollars quite easily.
Home for say 300k in the midwest is quite large, say five cars over the next 50 years, thats 200,000. Taxes on the house maybe 50-70,000. Discretionary spending including food maybe 40-50,000 a year.
Invest cautiously receiving 5-7% on 1 million over that period....and you can outlive that fairly easily. :unsure:
But if you invest cautiously, the return could be around 2-3%.
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.
Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.
The article talked about "investable assets". That would exclude your home, but would include restirement savings accounts.
There is a reason why these surveys are run by big financial services companies. They are trying to find out the size of their potential client base. They want to figure out how many people they need to hire, how much they should spend on advertising and where, how much money to allocate to each branch etc.
They want their clients to give them money to invest. You can't entrust your primary residence or your retirement accounts to your broker, that's why those are excluded.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2011, 03:00:31 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 14, 2011, 02:57:24 PM
since they apparently can't appreciate what they've got it's clear that they don't need it.
take away the money until they're left with 50K annually. that should help in the "don't whine you rich ass" department.
You are an idiot. But then we all knew that already.
at least I'm not you, which would be a million times worse.
You two really oughta work on your insults. :(
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.
Wow. That's insane.
Half a million dollars to live in Alberta? :blink:
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2011, 05:02:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.
Wow. That's insane.
That's cheap by HK standards :weep:
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2011, 05:13:36 AM
Half a million dollars to live in Alberta? :blink:
The oil money I guess.
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2011, 05:02:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.
Wow. That's insane.
Half million Canadian? My two-bed tiny terraced house went for more than that. My flat's worth 2/3 of that :weep: Bet it's a big house too.
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2011, 05:02:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.
Wow. That's insane.
You couldn't buy a three-bedroom house in Toronto for $500,000 in a reasonable area. The average is now up around $700,000. For that, don't expect it to be recently renovated.
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2011, 08:18:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2011, 05:02:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.
Wow. That's insane.
You couldn't buy a three-bedroom house in Toronto for $500,000 in a reasonable area. The average is now up around $700,000. For that, don't expect it to be recently renovated.
It's just hard to think of Edmonton as similar to Toronto.
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2011, 08:35:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2011, 08:18:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2011, 05:02:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.
Wow. That's insane.
You couldn't buy a three-bedroom house in Toronto for $500,000 in a reasonable area. The average is now up around $700,000. For that, don't expect it to be recently renovated.
It's just hard to think of Edmonton as similar to Toronto.
Edmonton is a resource boom-town. Everyone and their sister is moving to Alberta to capitalize on an economy fueled by, well, fuel. This has sent property values there soaring.
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2011, 09:05:46 AM
Edmonton is a resource boom-town. Everyone and their sister is moving to Alberta to capitalize on an economy fueled by, well, fuel. This has sent property values there soaring.
Yeah fair...I'm just saying that instinctively it's hard for me to think of wanting to pay a lot to live in Edmonton. :blush:
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 12:36:10 PM
If you buy an inflation-adjusted annuity today for $2 mil, with 5% growth rate, and 3% inflation adjustment, you'll start with approximately $50,000 payment per year.
I would say that I am of the opinion that unearned income of $50,000 a year is essentially "rich". You may not be jetting off to St Tropez every week, but you could certainly lead a life of leisure.
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2011, 08:35:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2011, 08:18:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2011, 05:02:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.
Wow. That's insane.
You couldn't buy a three-bedroom house in Toronto for $500,000 in a reasonable area. The average is now up around $700,000. For that, don't expect it to be recently renovated.
It's just hard to think of Edmonton as similar to Toronto.
Well then it's going to blow your mind when I tell you that I sold my house in Yukon for almost as much as I bought my new house for. :P
Resource booms in both places. Oil in Alberta, mining in Yukon. Thank God I've been in the market long enough to benefit - I don't know how someone looking to buy their first home would be able to do it.
And Brazen - it'd probably be huge by British standards, but in N America, it really isn't. Someone edited out how my almost a half million dollar house was really quite ordinary. :(
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2011, 11:01:53 AM
Well then it's going to blow your mind when I tell you that I sold my house in Yukon for almost as much as I bought my new house for. :P
Mind not blown but it does seem a waste. :P
Wow, that's a lot of house to finance when you can't even get a true fixed rate mortgage.
Quote from: DGuller on March 15, 2011, 11:27:41 AM
Wow, that's a lot of house to finance when you can't even get a true fixed rate mortgage.
& none tax deductible interests!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.cheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2009%2F12%2F28%2F129065226180439461.jpg&hash=3684b706db3b75d6d0432cc745eefde64be1c1ad)
:P