Yesterday's link to DeLong's post about rich people and their problems led to an email discussion of that timeless topic, How Much Do You Need to Be Rich?
Ignoring the obvious cul-de-sacs (e.g., many Americans would seem rich in much of the world, if you have your health, etc.), it's still hard to define the shades of meaning. I'd say "rich" is at the top of the heap, above "wealthy," with "comfortable" and "well to do" down in upper-middle-class territory.
Multi-billionaires and even mere billionaires and centimillionaires may need their own category, but I don't think they should have "rich" to themselves.That's what intensifiers are for ("really rich," etc).
In the email exchange, I proposed the baseline for "rich" as being asset-based: being able to live a fairly luxurious life without an earned income. That standard might cause the really rich to snicker in their private jets, and it doesn't address the level of earned income needed to be rich, but it's a starting point. Thoughts?
Recent Comments