What does it take in terms of assets, abilities, and/or income for you to consider them wealthy?

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 days ago

    When you could stop working and just coast off of what you’ve got till you die. At that point, making more is a luxury.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I think people should have luxury, just not to the extent that it starts hurting society as a while. Like with Jeff Bezos’s behaviour.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          There’s an enormous gap between grandma living month to month on her pension cheque and Jeff Bezos money. Grandma doesn’t work though so you could say she’s “coasting” even if she relies on the senior discount at the grocery store to get by.

          There’s also a lot of people who have a lot of wealth (in the form of land, buildings, equipment) yet can’t afford to stop working, such as farmers. The UK government is going after these folks aggressively and they’re very unhappy. We could be seeing a strike by farmers in the new year where they simply stop delivering food to market.

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            Yep, Bezos is hurting a lot of people in his pursuit of wealth though. Granda gets to enjoy her extra time in her way.

            And yep, some people have plenty of assets to work with. But that doesn’t make you wealthy per se. You provided some good examples of that.

            They’re not wealthy. At least not in the way I consider wealth, which was the question.

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I’m confused. Here was your original comment:

              When you could stop working and just coast off of what you’ve got till you die. At that point, making more is a luxury.

              That, to me, includes grandmas who live off their pension cheque as “coasting off what you’ve got.” Did you not intend for that interpretation?

    • pound_heap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Well, luxury and rich are closely related terms, aren’t they? I think what you described is a financial independence.

      I’d add that if you can support your desired level of luxurity for yourself and your family without working anymore - that’s being rich.

      Edit: I misread the original question, which was asking about wealthy, not rich. Still, I think my answer applies

      • DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Working class people contribute to society.

        The rich are parasites.

        That’s the difference.

        And no, telling people what to do is not real labor. Rent seeking is not real labor.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        That is not what I’m describing, no. I am specifying that it’s about having enough wealth that you can stop working.

        Having a job, investments, being a landlord, freelancing etc. Those are all ways to achieve financial independence. But none of those allow you to stop doing any of them.