My response to the "privilege" MEME.

[vicarz]

I was talking to someone the other day about whether owning a ferrari means you're rich. I argued it did, and we talked about the difference between spending what you make and saving for retirement. I hadn't really thought about it, but I realized I sock away about 25-50% of all the money I make into the future. 15% of salary goes into my retirement problem off the top, then I max out my roth IRA - another 5k post taxes annum as of today. Right there I'm already over 20%, then if you figure my private stocks and property investments are retirement plans as well (they definitely are, but technically I could sell them), I might be even over 50% of my income spent on the future. My god - I don't use half of my income! Am I rich? Poor?

If I had rich parents I would probably spend my money, perhaps even earn it, in a different way. Privilege? I went to public schools, had educated parents, and received help going to college. The important thing in my current view is what I have to do based on my parents financial well-being. I've lived my life knowing I had to support myself - that I would always be responsible for me, so when the time came that I fell ill or was otherwise unable to take care of myself, I had to have the resources to take care of it. On my parent's death, I receive nothing or minimal funds. I'm strapped in a lower-middle class lifestyle because despite my income and sound financial decisions I have to invest in my future with a huge portion of my income.

I have friends of similar income levels living much better than I am. They receive gifts from parents, but more importantly have a financial situation in which they can be assured a legacy of retirement money from their parents. Several have "millionaire" parents if you count the property owned in addition to investments. Their entire lives, they have lived with the knowledge that no matter what they did, they had a lifetime of security to fall back on. Most of those friends are very successful, hard-working, and should be very independently proud of where they are today based on their labors. Had they not had rich parents, they may well still be successful at similar income levels to where they are today. However, the lifestyle they live, the risks they took, the time they spent playing, and the fact they don't sock away 25-50% or more of their income is also the product of their privilege.

If I sound proud of what I've accomplished given my resources, I am. If I sound jealous of my richer friends, I am; but I'm not bitter. I'm proud of them too. I just wish I could get back those years I was living on beans and rice while I worked in a factory through grad school, and I wish I had their retirement plan so I could play with my hard-earned money today.

Comments

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Interesting - I think I agree. Now, owning is relative...I am in a contract to own 2 condos, and I own a majority of one, but barely the nipple of the other and won't for some time.

I think I have a funny definition of rich - it's nice home in good location, cars at whim, and no need to work - ever. It's not jet-set big boat rich though - that's a different league than just rich. Interesting though - I'm discovering the issue is tough as rich is such a relative term.

I'm so privileged I thought everyone thought rich was the same thing I thought it was?

[underfiend.livejournal.com]

I'm so privileged I thought everyone thought rich was the same thing I thought it was?
Pretty much.

But really, if you have to ask the question "Am I rich?" you're rich. Poor people, or even moderate-income individuals do not ask that question generally.

When you know you could potentially spend an excessive amount of money on say, something like a top of the line brand new car without planning to do so and will be fine afterwards, you're rich.

Actually, you're right in your last comment because my perception is not the same. I believe the terms "rich" and "wealthy" which are two different things. Rich is what the person is who wins the multi-million dollar lottery (and this money can easily be lost/spent), "wealthy" is man who doesn't need to ever work because his money pretty much self-sustaining, either through investments, property, business, etc; in other words, there is money enough for them- the individual is worth a lot, ergo, there is no real need for them to actively gain more wealth, nor can this wealth be easily lost.

Just for giggles, MW says:


Main Entry:
rich Listen to the pronunciation of rich
Pronunciation:
\ˈrich\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English riche, from Old English rīce; akin to Old High German rīhhi rich, Old English rīce kingdom, Old High German rīhhi, noun; all from prehistoric Germanic words borrowed from Celtic words akin to Old Irish rí (genitive ríg) king — more at royal
Date:
before 12th century

1: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth

--

Main Entry:
wealth Listen to the pronunciation of wealth
Pronunciation:
\ˈwelth also ˈweltth\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English welthe, from wele weal
Date:
13th century

1obsolete : weal welfare2: abundance of valuable material possessions or resources3: abundant supply : profusion4 a: all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value b: all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time

[vicar.livejournal.com]

But really, if you have to ask the question "Am I rich?" you're rich. Poor people, or even moderate-income individuals do not ask that question generally.

Win. Nobody knows what rich is, but we all know what poor is.

When you know you could potentially spend an excessive amount of money on say, something like a top of the line brand new car without planning to do so and will be fine afterwards, you're rich.

But fine is releative - in what time period? How fine? Back to door #1.

[underfiend.livejournal.com]

True. It's subjective, just like attraction.

Considering America is affluent, and our society decedent, it is relative to your location and your culture. Were you in India, you'd probably be on par with some of the more successful IT gurus so you would probably be considered upper-middle class, but not rich. Of course, those kids taking dirt baths there or even here in the US would see you as rich.

I had a bit of a shock one day when I compared the average income in DC to that of VA and then to my income. I wasn't as "well off" as I thought I was. Just because I currently have disposable income, I am by no means rich nor wealthy. I guess that's why it's generally best not to gage one's self, success, or happiness against external factors.

Fifty years ago, we'd be living like princes with the income we gain currently. Who knows what it will take to be comfortable fifty years from now.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I'm very in tune with that disposable income issue. I used to live on less than half what I made, and spent of the extra on law school. As that wrapped up, I sucked up 2 mortgages (in addition to my first one) to buy the new ritzy ghetto penthouse while keeping my old ghetto basement. I'm accumulating home equity while I make payments on 2 places, but it means I have no more disposable income.

If I took this salary and lived out in the country I'd be doing very well. In DC socking away for my future - it's just holding steady. At least in my perspective. :)