Rich vs Poor

[Mike D]

Reading the thread about the poor people in N.O. and the differeing opinions of why people are poor and who's fault it is started me wondering how we define rich people vs poor people. Isn't it relative? To someone who makes $25k a year, a person who makes $60k a year might be rich. By the same token, someone who makes $5.00 an hour and can barely afford to feed their kids might view a person who makes $25k a year and has health insurance as rich. So who really is rich and who is poor? In your opinion:

 

1. What is your definition of rich?

 

2. What is your definition of poor?

 

3. Is rich and poor relative? If not, is there some formula we can use to define who is rich and who is poor in absolute terms?

 

I do think there are general thoughts on who is rich and who is poor - for example people who are poor are homeless, or maybe have a roof over their head but don't know where their next meal is coming from. And a rich person might be thought of as someone who lives on an estate in the Hamptons, has a private jet, has hundreds of millions in the bank, etc. But these are just generalities. In my opinion I do think it's all relative, based on where you live geographically, the amount of debt you have, and what you have relative to others in your community. And there are different measures of wealth... i.e. income or cashflow vs net worth. Someone can be cashflow poor but asset rich, and the other way around.

 

I would bet most of us would define ourselves as neither rich or poor, but somewhere in the middle. But would that really be accurate? What's your opinion?

[Bongo]

For me, Rich is: having enough money to live upper middle class and never having to work again.

 

 

PS. I'm not there yet.

[Mike D]

For me, Rich is: having enough money to live upper middle class and never having to work again.

PS. I'm not there yet.

So you define financial independence as rich? I would probably say the same thing, and for the record I am not there either

 

So what is upper middle class? Does that even have a definition?

[Mike D]

In America, if you're on welfare you're wealthy compared to most in 3rd World countries.  We sponsor a child in Guatemala that only eats TWICE a day, thats it.  They work as a family 30 days a month in the rice fields and have no opportunity for education.  When I asked if I could give more to Mario so that he could receive an education they said he couldn't because his family needs him...they will remain illeterate.

So does this mean people in the US on welfare should't be complaining? In some ways I think no they shouldn't, they could have things much worse off. But then on the other hand, they are on the lowest rung of the ladder in American society, so they do complain. I guess then that all goes back to who's fault is it they are there in the first place?

[Biggles7268]

people on welfare aren't on the lowest rung in America, that guy sleeping in a box under a highway overpass is. There is also a difference between being poor and being poverty stricken or destitue.

[Mike D]

people on welfare aren't on the lowest rung in America, that guy sleeping in a box under a highway overpass is.

If you are talking in terms of need yes I would agree with you.

 

By that comment I was meaning welfare people on the ladder of American society in the context of their wealth compared to people in a 3rd world country. Homeless people generally having nothing at all, so they are probably worse off in terms of wealth than someone in a third world country who might still have at least a roof over their head, and possibly even a few personal possessions. So in that sense, homeless people have a lot more room to complain than people on welfare when it comes to which one is worse off compared to 3rd world countries.

[crazy-tiger]

It's all relative...

 

 

As a rule, if someone is better off than you, they're rich... if they're worse off than you, they're poor.

 

Of course, there are certain points where that rule breaks down... say, when a person with $10M is compared to someone with $8M, or when you compare someone who barely makes enough to feed themselves to someone who is disabled and gets barely enough welfare to feed themselves... That's when the comparison becomes a waste of time.

 

But, in general, it works.

[pandora]

Just because someone on welfare here is a lot better off than the poor in third world countries doesn't mean that they shouldn't complain or that they shouldn't get help.

 

Social injustice is social injustice and since wealth is relative, I think that because the US is so goddamn RICH, it is a greater evil that we can't take care of our own. In "third world" countries (I think the PC term these days is "developing") there may be a few really rich people, but even if they shared their wealth, the majority of their citizens would still be poor.

 

I am not saying we shouldn't help the destitute in other countries, but making sure companies provide a living wage in our own would be a great start.

[Lizard]

Hmm..according to government standards, we are barely above the poverty levels..however, I don't view it that way.

 

 

They figure everyone has debt up the ass..and credit card bills, car notes, etc..

 

But..it really does depend on outgo more than income. If your outgo is less than your income..well, you're doing pretty good.

[Ouroboros]

It's all relative...

Our personal and subjective idea of it is. Agree. I hear that there is some kind of definition of what a rich person is. He should have a certain amount saved, certain income, all in the range that he could retire and live happily ever after... I guess... I'm not sure. But personally, yeah, I think it's a relative term.

 

As a rule, if someone is better off than you, they're rich... if they're worse off than you, they're poor.

Oh, I thought that everyone that was better off are rich... and I am poor... but people wors than me, are poorer.

[Amethyst]

Rich is, to me, the elite. Those who make so much money on stocks and what not that they barely have to set foot in an office, if ever. These are the people who have the money to go on cruises and tour the world on a regular basis and vacation at places like Martha's Vineyard. Those who snub their noses at everyone else, and have the money to spend lots of money on clothes they'll only wear once. Yeah, them.

 

I'm technically middle class, but only because I lucked out with my current contract job. I temped quite a bit before this, and had a permanent job doing web development. I was living paycheck to paycheck. But the cost of living is a bit lower here than it would be in say, New York or someplace, so I managed okay. I just didn't buy a lot of stuff.

 

I agree that the definitions of rich and poor are relative to one's own situation.

[Mike D]

Interesting question.  Also correlates class/status.

 

For instance, you might have someone who works as a janitor for $9 per hour and lives in apartment with his wife and one kid.  They only socialize with other blue collar workers and his family came from the poor side of town where they still live.  And then you might have a college student who is finishing up his masters and working an internship type job for $9 at a big corporation.  He also lives with his wife and kid in a small apartment, but he only socializes with other college students and his family comes from the upper class side of town where he went to a private high school.  Even though both men make the same wage and live in the same size dwelling, the first will be percieved as "poor" while the other will not.

You are very right about this and I think it is a double standard. This is another similar scenario I have run into before:

 

Joe: 23 years old and a certified electrician. Starts his own business and nets $65k a year. Just bought his own condo and has enough money at the end of the month to put a decent amount into savings.

 

Fred: 25 years old, degree in finance. Works for a bank as an accounting clerk making $29k a year. Barely has enough money to meet his rent and other expenses at the end of the month.

 

By some people's standards, Joe might be described as a "hard working American", "joe sixpack", "working man", etc. while Fred might be described as "yuppie scum", "elitist", "greedy corporate rat", etc. just because one is "blue collar" and the other is "white collar". Yet Joe is younger than Fred, has more money, owns his own business and if he plays his cards right might do better in the long run financially. I think this scenario is probably more common than people think, yet many people would probably assume the blue collar guy barely gets by, while the guy who works at the bank is rolling in the money. Our perceptions are sometimes so totally different than reality....

[Mike D]

The most important lesson that I have learned and try to instill in my children is one that I learned from my grandparents.  There is someone always worse off than you, so make the best of being happy where you're at.  It's hard for me to complain about not having enough money to go on a nice family vacation; when someone else has to share a one room home with a family of 5.  It's hard for me to grumble about the neighborhood I live in; when someone else is living in the projects.  It's hard for me to complain that my home isn't nice enough; when someone else doesn't have a roof over their heads.  It doesn't mean that I never complain, but it helps me not to complain a lot and humbles me.  Many other poor people, like my grandparents, have that same attitude about life and thats how they maintain happiness.

All very excellent points, there's not much more I can add to that...

[Mike D]

Just because someone on welfare here is a lot better off than the poor in third world countries doesn't mean that they shouldn't complain or that they shouldn't get help.

Well I guess that depends on what they are complaining about. If they are doing nothing to better themselves and complaining that they don't get enough in welfare, then I don't have much sympathy....

[Vigile]

Here's food for thought.

 

Here in St Petersburg the average household income is $200/month; enough to buy potatoes and some meat. Supplemented with food grown at your datcha (small summer home nearly everyone owns) you might have enough left over to buy a beer or two during the month.

 

Sounds like everyone just ekes by right?

 

Here's some more facts:

 

Everyone has an apartment (if you are homeless it's because you are an alcoholic or drug addict and you somehow pawned off your government issued apartment. It is rare)

 

Health care is free.

 

Education (even university level) is free.

 

Public transportation is a pittance.

 

People here are happy, don't worry much about the future, and are quite comfortable.

 

Compare these facts to the average lifestyle in the US. Which country is rich and which country is poor?

 

Note: I'm not arguing for American socialism. I don't believe it would/could ever work in US culture. This is merely an exercise in relativity.

[indoctrinated]

This is a fascinating thread. I agree with most of what's been said. Rich and poor are obviously relative terms.

 

Some people have touched on more absolute measures, such as whether a person has the basics for survival (food and shelter). Maybe destitute rather than poor is the best word for someone who doesn't.

 

There are other measures one can use for a country or a region, such as infant mortality rates and average life expectancy. I don't know if it's true but I have read that some regions of the USA have a higher infant mortality rate than some third world countries!

 

Back to a personal level, I have heard poverty defined as lack of choice. I think this is a fairly modern definition as most people throughout history would not have thought in terms of life choices. You were born into a station and role in life and that was that.

[Vixentrox]

I'm feeling poor now that I was forced into retirement.

 

As Mike D said though, a lot of blue collar workers make VERY good money indeed. Certainly not all, but then neither do all white collar make tons of money. I was just a TSgt in the Air Force and I was pulling in about $52K a year which wasn't too bad really considering all the extra bennies that come with service life. Of course, the "bullshit tasks" factor was higher than if you worked with a civilian company I should imagine.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Far from *rich*, slipping more into lower middle class as time and inflation continue to eat away at what we do have.

 

However what haciendaFatmna does have is more than enough to pay bills, have some playtime dinero, and still able to sock a touch away for Beastie's education.

 

There is never enough for extra toys, ammo, guns, trucks, and ammunition..

 

Do have enough to keep a pack of rescued mutts happy, healty and well fed.

 

Bought a new manufactured house a year and change back, making the 30 year plan of payments..

 

We're not *rich*, our heads are still above water.

 

kevinL

[MQTA]

It's all relative...

As a rule, if someone is better off than you, they're rich... if they're worse off than you, they're poor.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Oh, what was that I heard a few years ago?

 

"It's a recession when your neighbor is out of work; it's a depression when you're out of work."

 

 

 

I guess it's all relative and personal to ones POV and standing. Some people just never have 'enough', and others are quite rich in their poorness.

[Alice]

This is very true.  While I am a supporter of captialism, I don't like the fact that many people accumulate wealth just for the sake of accumulating wealth.  Once you own a million dollar house on a hill and have a 3 or 4 million in the bank so that you can live very comfortably for the rest of your life, I don't understand why that isn't enough.  And for many wealthy people that just won't do.  If someone has $100 million in the bank, is having $100 million more really going to make that much of a difference in their lifestyle?  Probably not.  But that additional $100 million could make a *huge* difference in the lifestyles of people who can barely afford to put food on the table.

 

Anyway my problem is not so much that there are rich people and poor people, because "rich" and "poor" are relative.  My problem is with the disparity in how wealth is currently distributed between the people at the top and the people at the bottom.  I don't know how anyone in good conscience can have $500 million and still want more, when the people at the bottom can't even afford to feed their kids. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I picked up on this in the other thread and put it down in here (the other one has gotten too political for me - can't follow it anymore!)

 

This is about things all being relative. The bar at which what seems distasteful or excessive to you - could be set so much lower. If I have a car that can get me from a to b - and somebody's child is starving isn't the fact that I traded in for a shiny new model immoral? Not that I have a flash car - but it's better than the last one. We recently built an extension on the back of our house to double the size of our kitchen and add on a conservatiory where we can enjoy the evening summer sun. We've managed perfectly well without these things for the last ten years ... and with the money we spent - the homeless could have been housed.

 

I think wealth does come down to choice. My hubby and I have both chosen jobs that don't pay too well (comparatively) we could have taken our qualifications and gone for higher paying private sector jobs - but money doesn't buy happiness.

 

A certain amount of money can alleviate a certain amount of suffering. - this is true. But in terms of aquiring lots of wealth I can't see what's so good about it - unless it was to give it away. I can't think of many things worse than having a couple of million dollar houses and everything that money can buy.

 

I like my life as it is most days. That makes me very very rich.

[crazy-tiger]

Oh, what was that I heard a few years ago? 

 

"It's a recession when your neighbor is out of work; it's a depression when you're out of work."

Y'know... I haven't heard that one in years.

I guess it's all relative and personal to ones POV and standing.  Some people just never have 'enough', and others are quite rich in their poorness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

[Clergicide]

Poor I think can be defined as the ability to only satisfy the most basic of human needs, food, clothing, shelter and nothing more. Wealth is the relative term where it's defined by the excess of possesion beyond those basic needs.

 

Rich...well in America...you have to have something in the line of 5+ million but also generating a high 6 or low 7 figure income. This is the lower upper-class, also known as "new money" because this wealth was earned within their lifetime.

[Guest aexapo]

1. What is your definition of rich?

The ability to live independently due to hoarded wealth without having to work. I believe that's kinda of the definition books like "Millionaire Next Door" and "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" use.

 

2. What is your definition of poor?

Living at or below the U.S. federal poverty line, or not making enough money to meet basic sustainance needs for you and your family (i.e. having to rotate between buying food and paying utilities)

 

3. Is rich and poor relative? If not, is there some formula we can use to define who is rich and who is poor in absolute terms?

I believe some people feel that it's relative, but it's really not. There are people that have magnificent paychecks, and still live paycheck to paycheck -- but they're neither rich nor poor. If you're a hourly wage-slave, you're never rich -- no matter HOW much money you make.

 

Conversely, there are poor people who refuse the label. Honey, if you're on foodstamps -- your ass is poor. LOL!

[Guest aexapo]

So you define financial independence as rich?  I would probably say the same thing, and for the record I am not there either 

 

So what is upper middle class?  Does that even have a definition?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's those high-end "paychecks" -- I'd say it could be a simple definition: making more money than the median income, with "lower middle" making below it.

 

The two plus the great median make up the entire middle class, which to me are all who work (or have workers in the home) and are neither rich or poor as defined.

[shy1680]

In America, if you're on welfare you're wealthy compared to most in 3rd World countries.  We sponsor a child in Guatemala that only eats TWICE a day, thats it.  They work as a family 30 days a month in the rice fields and have no opportunity for education.  When I asked if I could give more to Mario so that he could receive an education they said he couldn't because his family needs him...they will remain illeterate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your child in Guatemala is doing better than some children in America. Read the book Left Empty and you will see that the children of the working poor are worse off sometimes than those in 3rd world nations, some dont even get to eat once everyday. And that book provides real stats, not just opinions. And for those who say "its their fault", it's not always the parents fault. Its just how capitalism works, there can be no tops if there are no bottoms.

 

As for the comment about being on welfare in America being rich compared to 3rd World nations. Try living off $170 a month and raising 2 children in Mississippi, thats the MAX for that state. Alaska seems to be the only state in this country were you can actually live off welfare, it tops at something like $923 a month. It's rediculous to even try to compare living poor in the US vs living poor in another nation. Our economy is pretty much based on middle class incomes, yet there are many areas of this country with very few if any jobs offering pay at that level. So who in there right mind would choice to live broke and struggling to keep meals on the table everyday?

 

Yes there are some states that have abuse problems, like my "great" state of NY. They pay enough cash to pay the rent and then offer all kinds of benefits that after getting all those life is better than working for minimum wage. Which in a lot of situations is the only thing offered.