No, of course not. That’s not what I said. I was referring to the people who have enough or more than enough because they have lived very frugally but cannot open their wallets because of ingrained habits. Those are really the people described in the Times article. Often, they either dole out gifts or intend to pass their leftover wealth to the next generation, frequently with strings attached.
“Can’t say I notice most peoples shoes…well…unless they are a truly cool pair of boots, preferably a well worn in pair of Frye’s with a patina only age can provide.”
I’m not resoling good shoes because I want to impress other people. I get pleasure out of investing in something and wearing it for the long-term.
“if you metaphorically fly first class when the cost exceeds the benefit, and then if at some point you don’t have enough to pay your bills when you are older and in a tough place, should your kids, who perhaps have been frugal and living within their means, pay your bills?”
As you know, welcome to my life 
I’m picking up after someone who was a millionaire and spent accordingly and now is broke.
That’s what we were told. And we are tiptoeing into real extravagance.
I see nothing wrong with this, within reason. My money, my terms. If they don’t want it, it goes to charity.
Reasonableness might vary among folks. But it’s a First World problem, of course.
And then there was my dad, who was very careful with his $, but his cashflow became a problem after several years. We re-fi’ed his house after his 401ks were all spent down, but he had a lot of costs in his old age, and cashflow was an issue. He had some other funds that were less liquid. He wanted us to pay his expenses and then recoup our costs after he died, because he didnt want to touch his money.
If I expect my kid to get good grades in college for all that money, does that count as reasonable
Sorry, this is college confidential…
I’d like to use the word ‘conditions’ rather than ‘strings’.
When I say this money is for college education, it’d better be for college education.
When I say after completion of college, it means someone better finish college.
I’d like to see one of these articles that profiles a SAHP who is a caregiver to one or more family members with a chronic illness or disability. Expenses come in the form of opportunity costs for working parents, therapies or medical costs not covered by insurance, loss of social capital, and increased household expenses (special diets, accommodations to living space, specialized respite care.) Often a caregiving family member pays with increased mortality.
These types of articles often also disregard the contributions of “social capital” to a household’s well-being. And, in some communities it takes money to accumulate social capital.
I notice shoes other people are wearing. But only because I have a shoe problem and shoe envy ;).
What is this about again…
Both of your grandparents worked at a time when it was common to only have one wage earner, so good for them but today most families need two wage earners to keep up. Also if you look at income statistics, in 1973 the bottom 90% earned 68% of national income. Today that share has fallen to 52%. Also the minimum wage in 1968 was $10.34 inflation-adjusted. The minimum wage for the past 20 years has been in the $6-$7 range, or 30-40% less. There also wasn’t the explosive cost growth in healthcare or education we’ve had in the past couple decades.
So not downplaying your grandparent’s accomplishment, but achieving the same thing today with the same jobs is more difficult.
Deb, you will definitely notice my new pair. 
Dang DHL, can you move a bit faster - the weather is supposed to be nice, and I want to feel like a million bucks wearing my new sandals! 
Both of your grandparents worked at a time when it was common to only have one wage earner, so good for them but today most families need two wage earners to keep up
Keeping up, is not something we aspired to. We wanted the flexibility of having a stay at home parent.
That’s why we moved from a well heeled suburb and moved to the city, admittedly to what was then a blue collar neighborhood, but now is one of the most fashionable, in one of the most expensive cities in U.S.
We raised two kids & saw them through college on one income. Of course our house is small compared to many on CC, I imagine very few would consider living with one bathroom.
My grandparents house was actually smaller, although it was well built & designed. They also just had one child, I imagine if they had more, they would have stayed in central Seattle, rather than moving to Magnolia.
What today’s family now considers a necessity, a family 20 years ago would consider a miracle.
I do realize that the minimum wage has far from the purchasing power it had. It apparently peaked in 1968!
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/20/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/
But to go back to the topic, the wealthy are just like anyone else. They have their splurges and they have their making do.
My grandmother was a retail clerk, but not at a discount store, but at the downtown location of the nicest department store in town. We all dressed very nice, if a bit stuffy for a kids taste in 1969. I wanted a fringed suede jacket like Neil Young wore, not a camel hair coat!
Keeping up with living a comparable lifestyles and saving rates, that is. Not with the Joneses.
But despite two income households, families still aren’t keeping up with savings.
I really worry about them, since lifespans have extended, but who knows how long they will be able to work, even though they keeping raising the age for Social Security.
$4,000 in 1965 is equivalent to $30,044.32 in 2015, by CPI inflation.
However, cars have gotten a lot better since then. While the $2,461 that bought a 1965 Ford Mustang is CPI-equivalent to $18,484.77 today, short of the $23,600 that bought a 2015 Ford Mustang, the 2015 Ford Mustang is a far better car. And any 2015 car in the US that costs $18,484.77 or less is a far better car.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/04/the-1965-ford-mustang-started-a-legacy/index.htm?loginMethod=auto
http://www.consumerreports.org/content/dam/cro/news_articles/cars/CRM_Mustang_August_1964.pdf
I never had a job with a pension or 401K (or similar) program, throughout my work career. Fortunately, I put the maximum amount into my IRA for many years and it did very well. But I don’t think I am typical.
It’s an interesting article and the couple profiled seem to be indeed quite well off, but the term “millionaire” has lost its meaning. Maybe we need a catchy phrase that means deca-millionaire (10 million plus) to capture what “millionaire” used to mean. In the 1950’s a millionaire was quite wealthy. Today, with inflation, a million dollars at the end of the era (eg. 1960) would be equivalent to 8 million today.
Again, from the author of the article:
Several million dollars but not more than $10.86 million. Not one million, although he doesn’t define “several.”
It’s neither here nor there, but I checked the value of $1,000,000 during the year I began working and compared it with today’s value because that seems to make the most sense to me:
1986: $1,000,000
2015: $2,148,000
http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1000000&year=1960
A multiple of the 2015 number as it relates to the notion of being a “millionaire” (whatever connotation that carries today) keeps things in more useful perspective for me. YMMV.