Maybe There's a Reason Disney Hates Poor People.

https://www.wsj.com/economy...g-2c34a571

That's paywalled, so here is the summary:

The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets. Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.

And later in the article:

Between September 2023 and September 2024, the high earners increased their spending by 12%. Spending by working-class and middle-class households, meanwhile, dropped over the same period.

Well, I’m not trying to sound like a buzzword factory and a bit douchy with this post, but.

The rich spend the most, and the rich are getting richer, meanwhile the majority of the country are spending less. Shocking. What did that article accomplish?

Maybe the widening wealth gap is an issue? The rich might be able to drive the economy, but when the working class which make that economy possible collapse, then they will as well. Can’t have a skyscraper built on quicksand, need to drive those foundational pillars deep into bedrock.

Does any business like poor people?

Wal Mart maybe?

People (well, couples) making $250k a year are not "rich."

TheMillenniumRider:

The rich spend the most, and the rich are getting richer, meanwhile the majority of the country are spending less.

This is where I again point out that the "shrinking middle class" argument lacks the important context that more people are moving into the upper class than the lower class. That the lower one is expanding at all definitely isn't good, but it's hard to make an argument about the "shrinkage" if it doesn't include where the people are going. It also can't be said that a "majority" is spending less. That hasn't been true since the pandemic, though I read a recent concern that more people are now doing so on credit instead of what they have. The Pew Research piece I generally refer to shows this change:

And here's the thing about "wealth:" It's largely an unrealized paper win, which is why there aren't any great ways to tax it. You haven't "made" the money until you've sold the assets. I'm also not sure why people treat the market as some kind of secret society thing that only benefits the "rich." Anyone can open an E-Trade account and buy some ETF's with no real minimum. Online investing has completely democratized wealth building. But if you're dumb like me, and spend your 20's spending recklessly, you can't really make up for the lost time. At my poorest, I could have put something into the market, but I chose not to. Financial literacy is about as good as our literacy literacy in our country.

Jeff:

People (well, couples) making $250k a year are not "rich."

Depends on who you ask. If I asked the couple person making 8/hr. 250k a year is insanely rich. If I asked Warren Buffet. Well you get the idea.

It is a perception is reality thing maybe?

What are the thresholds for lower, middle, and upper income in that study?

Also, what does adjusting incomes for number of people in the household mean? Lots of spouses didn’t work in 1973 and they do now. If they have one really high earner in the household and average the incomes now you have two decently high earners, vs one minimum wager and one really high earner. How was the dataset altered or adjusted?

"Literacy literacy". I like that.

Just an interesting political sidenote. A not insignificant number of people on TPS, being threatened to be sent back to their home countries, are "wealthy" people. My community has over 10,000 Venezuelans, many on TPS, and many are well off. (After all, they were the ones who could afford to get here). Losing them will certainly have an economic impact, though it is hard to tell what extent. (I understand there are 375,000 people in Florida currently on TPS).

Study is here:

https://www.pewresearch.org...dle-class/

I posted a link to an article in another thread in the last couple of weeks that estimated how much Disney (parks and cruise line) the different income brackets could afford. No doubt businesses favor people with money. Its like robbing banks.

Jeff:

People (well, couples) making $250k a year are not "rich."

That puts a household in the top 10% of all earners in the US... I'd say that is pretty "rich" as long as you don't live in one of the highest COL cities in the country.

The percentage has nothing to do with economics of the income level. A $250k household is not "F-you money" by any stretch. That person is still going to have a mortgage, car payments, etc. They're going to be able to take nicer vacations, eat out more and such, but that isn't rich. It's not boat money, at least. 😁

The problem with "rich" is that it usually means "Makes substantially more than I do."

One could say the concept of being "rich" involves a slider of some sort.

Rich is subjective.

Invest in relationships.

Nothing else matters.

To me, a couple making 250K a year is definitely "rich". Probably about 90% of everyone I know bring in much less. It might have something to do with living in West Virginia.

My expenses are very low though, so I'm content.

Ok, so now I wanna know how sad the financial situation really is in West Virginia. So I look.

I found a really interesting article from just a couple weeks ago.

Here's the Gonch's Notes:

It begins with the same summary we arrived at:

What it takes to be “rich” can vary from person to person: it could be owning a house, making a lot of money, or, in today’s world, finding eggs under $4 per dozen.

In regards to being "West Virginia Rich":

Roughly 500 miles away in West Virginia, you would need to earn about one-third of that — or roughly $435,300 — to rank among the state’s top 1% of earners. West Virginia’s top 1% makes the least in the U.S., according to the data.

Last line of the article:

One in 10 households [in the US] had a wealth exceeding $1.6 million.

Which means one in ten people you pass (West Virginia excluded) is a millionaire...hell, they're on the back half of approaching "multimillionaire" status.

None of this answers if bringing in $250k a year qualifies you as rich. Who knows? But it certainly makes you income abundant.

On the other hand, more than a non- significant number of these one-in-ten almost-multimillionaires got there on less than that.

My personal financial philosphies are a lot like my seat belt philosophy. Live fast, die young.

I did put on a lot of city miles, so dying young is a possibility.

Ideas above in terms of people you walk by are what's behind the Millionaire Next Door and Wealthy Barber books. Basic idea is spending less than you make and investing the difference. Easier said than done for many though. But I know many people with modest incomes who have substantial nest eggs. And people with substantial incomes who have modest nest eggs. I see it with my kids. My son is a saver (always has been). My daughter is a spender (always has been). Talked to them a lot when they were growing up. Gave both of them the Wealthy Barber. But they internalized it very differently. Expect his net worth at my age will be substantially higher than hers at my age (though she may well out earn him). Different choices.

Gonch brings up something I must have been subconsciously thinking about regarding wealth, which I suppose is conflated with being "rich." If you manage to get yourself to a position where you're able to retire at a reasonable time, that requires that you have enough to last until you die. With the asshats running Washington, I'm not convince that Social Security will make it. One in 10 having $1.6m is much higher than I expected, but even the idea of "millionaire" in the context of retirement is not a lot of money. I want to bail, which is to say be a low-stakes worker selling churros or something, when I'm 58. I should be able to get to $1.2m by then, but there are so many caveats to go with that. I have to be able to downsize to a smaller house with no mortgage, inflation has to consistently be under 3%, investments have to grow 6% per year, and it would help a lot if SS survives and is a reasonable amount at age 65. Medicare also has to persist, or I don't know if we could ever retire. We also can't live much beyond age 95, which seems plausible with modern medicine (though life expectancy in the US is lower than most peer nations).

In other words, I'm not all that far from being a millionaire, but it ain't gonna make me rich. Had I started investing in my 20's, I'd be hitting $2m or more well before that time.

GoBucks89:

My son is a saver (always has been). My daughter is a spender (always has been). Talked to them a lot when they were growing up. Different choices.

If you hit the reset button, gave everyone $100k, and started over with a blank slate, it wouldn't be long before we had evil millionaires and struggling homeless folks again. (first thing I'd personally do is take half of it to Vegas - could go either way, I suppose)

This is why, at some point, for me, personal responsibility supersedes attempts at "equality" in most cases. It's ok to have winners and losers. It's natural.

The only problem with that is that we didn't give everyone $100K, and the starting conditions do make a difference.

I don't hate the random card draw for each player entering game at this point either.

(of course you don't, Gonch, you have [insert some sort of] privilege)

Maybe?

Still the same rules. People dealt the winning hand will end up all over the spectrum. People dealt a losing hand will too.

But shouldn't that path...or opportunity...be equal for all to fail or succeed on their own?

Maybe?

But, like I said, I still think we do that just fine under the current system. People will fail up. People will succeed down.

Sigh. CoasterBuzz, why can't I quit you?