<p>Personally, I have great difficulty imagining 15 people in a home of <700 square feet as well. </p>
<p>To me, the term “millionaire” always meant someone earning a million a year. Don’t know why and how it came to mean net assets of $1m, excluding primary residence. </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think the charts posted are accurate for many young adults except those who graduate debt free and immediately enter highly paid jobs like engineering, IB and similar.</p>
<p>I know many many young adults with college degrees who are spending more than they earn and can only get part time jobs. Their net worth is way under the charts–negative or only slightly positive. There are many basement dwellers amongst our young. </p>
<p>I like to attend photography meetups, for example. Carrying a 200mm F2 for a portrait session or a 600mm F4 for a zoo session among most of cheap zoom lenses makes me feel rich. </p>
<p>What I found surprising is that the charts in the Financial Samurai link seem to be generated without regard to income, only that contributions to 401K were maxed out beginning the second year of employment. The author seems to be shilling for an online investment advice company, so I think the intent is to make people feel “financially challenged”. I know many “above average” people who didn’t begin contributing to tax deferred retirement plans until they were well into their 40’s. </p>
<p>I wonder how many people can put 17K (or whatever the max is) into their 401K in their second year. Probably not many, and probably very few couples where they both can.</p>
<p>If you calculate the retirement assets you need to replace the funded retirement our older relatives could count on, being in the group quoted with 1 - 5 million in investments doesn’t make you rich, it makes you prudent. We are working hard toward that goal.</p>
<p>Flashing diamonds (like my neighbors) or cars or cameras or electronic stuff never makes me feel rich. I tried it, made me feel kind of empty.</p>
<p>@Dad II – Do you find yourself wanting the 800mm once you have a 400 & a 600? I couldn’t even rationalize the 70-200/2.8 and we don’t have any debt and college is fully funded. The thing was so heavy I can’t imagine how anyone carries the 400 or 600. Fortunately, HS swimming ended so I stopped debating the purchase, but it was tempting when I saw the photos from a Canon shooter who had the 400 and 60o at the same meets.</p>
<p>@megpmom - I loved your post as this is something I struggle with. I paid for a fair bit of my education, but we are not asking the same of our children. I want them to appreciate what they have, but I don’t know that I did even though I had to earn the money. We could give them so much more than we do, but it doesn’t seem right. I don’t feel that we ‘spoil’ them, especially when I look around our community. Not a bad problem to have….just something to ponder.</p>
<p>Payroll and income taxes are higher, but still leave a higher after-tax income. Other things like costlier housing and more expensive tastes are voluntary expenses. It is not like anyone is forcing you to spend every last dollar of your high after-tax income.</p>
<p>Yes, colleges with need-based financial aid do cost more for the high income. But most colleges do not have good need-based financial aid, so the kids of high income families generally have a much greater range of affordable college choices than kids of low and middle income families with the same academic credentials.</p>
<p>The cost of living in HI, especially housing and food are among the highest in the US, which makes it tough with these relatively low wages that don’t match the high cost of living. </p>
<p>I had a Nikon 70-200/2.8 which was great but as you say too heavy. It was stolen so I recently replaced it with the Nikon 70-200/4, much lighter, $1,000 cheaper and at least as good optically, quite amazing (many reviews support this impression). Of course you give up the f2.8 but that isn’t a a problem for me.</p>
<p>Maybe “rich” is too individual to be defined by income alone. Some people who have a lot of money don’t manage it well and end up in debt. Some people with less money are frugal and have some in the bank. Cost of living is variable. $200K in NYC would not go as far as $200K in a rural area. Large families may not have as much disposable income as families with few to none. Some families may be caring for or helping support other family members. Some of these could be considered personal choices, however the choices may still affect how one sees themselves as “rich” or not.</p>
<p>Perhaps expectations play a role. For example, when H and I married 34 years ago I never expected to someday be able to afford the home we live in now. Never would have anticipated being able to have the savings that we have. I always planned to work and never thought that I would be financially able to be a SAHM for 10+ years , but I was, etc.
I appreciate the fact that we both have well paying jobs and have been fortunate (up till now at least) to have not had personal/family illness, extended job layoffs, relatives who needed assistance,etc.
Yes I do feel rich.</p>
<p>For some (clearly not all) the reason they don’t feel rich is two-fold. First, they focus on what they pay in taxes, not what they keep. I know one guy who is worth millions and millions of dollars. He bought his house for $5 million - with cash. Much of his income is tax sheltered or tax-advantaged. Yet he talks constantly of how much he pays in taxes. He pays a lower tax rate than my D who earns very little. Sure he pays a lot of money in taxes, but percentage-wise, he keeps a huge percentage. He doesn’t pay attention to what he keeps. </p>
<p>The second reason they don’t feel rich is that most people live among people who earn around the same as they make. They don’t feel rich because they compare themselves to their neighbors, not to the larger society. And the richer you are, the more that is true. </p>
<p>^Tax rates are lower than what it used to be in the 70-80’s. I think it’s expectations. People expect more. The “average” talk about private elementary schools and Ivy leagues. Anything less seem below average. Many TV shows are about people who are financially comfortable.</p>
<p>Or who seem to be but work in jobs where they likely wouldn’t be.</p>
<p>I used to watch Friends and wonder how the heck they afforded those large, lovely Manhattan apartments while working at coffee shops, the odd acting job here and there, catering, etc. </p>
<p>And, no matter what a TV character did for a living, they always looked amazing, had beautiful clothes, homes, and plenty of time to hang out with family and friends. </p>