you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 114 points 2 months ago (46 children)

Millionaires are working class. $1B - $1M is ~$1B.

  • source
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    With 3 million dollars in liquid assets (ie: not a house), you can bring in about $120k from the safest of investments. Just a high yield savings account. Fully insured.

    With an index fund, you can bring in $300k.

    That's enough to live on, given how many people live on that much or less from their job.

    So some millionaires may work, but they're not really the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Investment returns are by definition the fruits of other people's labor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    And yet ultimately that's what every retirement and disability system of any kind has to be based on. Whether you're talking traditional methods of just letting your old or sick relatives live with you, state-run pension systems or disability, or private retirement accounts and disability insurance, it's all ultimately the same deal. The systems vary extremely in their effectiveness and equity. But ultimately there's no getting around the unavoidable truth. If you want to live in a world where the elderly and disabled are simply not abandoned to die, some of the labor of the young and healthy will be siphoned off to support the old and infirm.

    If you want to live in a world where you yourself will not be cast out onto the street to die when you are too old to work, then for some of your later years you will depend on the labor of others, just as you did when you were a child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    And yet ultimately that’s what every retirement and disability system of any kind has to be based on.

    There's a fundamental distinction to be made to the below point of yours:

    If you want to live in a world where you yourself will not be cast out onto the street to die when you are too old to work, then for some of your later years you will depend on the labor of others, just as you did when you were a child.

    I strongly disagree with your first point, but maybe you misunderstood me. Investment returns are basically letting other people work for your profits, with nothing given in return. I.e. a form of wage theft (or other shenanigans like messing up the environment for profits or exploiting resources or funding a totalitarian regime).

    Your second point - while correct - has nothing to do with my criticism of (stock / fund) investment returns: That could be (and was for a few decades, at least in Germany) a generational contract, where society manages to pay out pensions from which elderly / retired people can afford living & care from the GDP. Those pay-outs have been paid in advance by those needing them because they funded the old and retired people at the time they were still in work.

    For that system, you do not need any kind of finance products. Of course that doesn't keep our corrupt governments from spending our retirement money elsewhere and investing in shady funds for private profits and shitty retirement payments. So in today's world, in practice, yes, people rely on finance product returns for their retirement savings and most of us have no choice in that. But it wasn't always like that, and it should not be, because it's a pyramid scheme.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I thought FDIC insurance capped at 250k/person

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    As the other said, it's not per person. Wealthfront and betterment insure up to like 500k, because they put the money in several banks. Vanguard probably has a similar thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    I learned recently that FinTech companies like Wealthfront actually aren’t FDIC insured but like to claim they are because the banks they use behind the scenes are.

    But there was one case where a similar FinTech company went belly up for whatever reason and their platform closed down, and customers couldn’t claim back their savings because apparently all the money from everyone was pooled into a single (or a couple) of accounts on each of the backend banks, and the banks had no idea how much was owned by who. I moved most of my money out of my Wealthfront HYSA after learning about that.

    To see if your financial institution is directly insured, you can check here: https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/bank

    EDIT: Found an article: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/02/synapse-fintech-fdic-false-promise.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well that's concerning. They say it's all insured via the partner banks ( https://www.wealthfront.com/blog/wealthfront-fdic-insurance/ ) but you can just put anything on a website.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    It’s technically true (“insured via”) but customers get into a false sense of security. We don’t know how they manage the money in their partner banks behind the scenes. If they operate like Yotta (in the linked article) did, then good luck getting your money back if Wealthfront suddenly closes. And the worst part is you can’t claim insurance with Wealthfront because they aren’t actually insured (the partner banks are) and they don’t actually have any of your money.

    Of course I’m not claiming Wealthfront has the same setup. But I’d rather just deal directly with an FDIC-insured bank than have that uncertainty. Besides, Wealthfront’s rates aren’t any better than other banks right now anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 65 points 2 months ago (18 children)

    Can’t even buy a house for $1m where I live. So not rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    Yeah, millionaire status is rapidly becoming meaningless. Lots of people who have a mortgage will probably be millionaires when they pay it off, but they can't buy anything for it because they still need a roof over their head.

    I think 10 million now is the million of the past. Call it inflation. It's entirely driven by ridiculous housing prices (which are mysteriously not counted in inflation figures).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I am old enough to remember when a simple savings account at the bank was 5% interest, no minimum balance. Now grabbing a high yield account of 3.5% is doing well for the average person, and requires a high balance to qualify for that "incredible" rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yes but a mortgage was 11%.

    Now housing was still affordable then, so…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Housing was affordable and wages hadn't fully flatlined, so a single income family could still possibly pay that mortgage, even pay extra against the rate, and support a family. Definitely a lot more than one single rate number, lots of things are broken.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Owning a house doesn't protect you at all. Every decade or so there's a real estate bubble that pops, you lose all your equity, and you have to start over.

    Also try not paying your taxes, or your HOA, and you'll quickly find out that you don't really own your home, you're still paying someone to keep it, or the court will forcibly remove you. And if a squatter moves in, they can stay, and you're paying for the right for them to stay there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    That's if you consider a house a store of wealth.

    I consider it a place to live that compared to everything gets cheaper every year. By the time my mortgage is paid off all I have to pay is maintenance and property taxes. Which are a fraction of rent. If we assume things stay proportional, rent for a similar property per month is around $1,200. My property taxes are $2,800. Double that for a yearly average maintenance cost. That's 466 a month. You can't even get a used sedan for that much a month let alone a place to live

    Also in 0 states can a squatter move in to an owner occupied home and claim squatters rights. Only an issue if the property is vacant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I was shocked to learn that the average homeowner in the US lives in their house for only 7 years. I think it’s due to the nature of how huge the country is and that something as simple as a job change means you have to move across the country and sell your house. There’s also the culture of always upgrading.

    I grew up in a place where you usually buy once and live there forever, so equity isn’t really too important. But then again it’s a more centralized way of living where you can stay in place for most of your life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I bought land with this mentality. Permanently reducing my costs and investing in off-grid infrastructure to make retirement cheaper.

    I think it’s also the culture of seeing real estate as an investment. People buy houses planning on selling after they’ve lived there. I personally don’t think I can tolerate the risk of using equity as leverage for paid off land, because then there’s a risk the bank will take it. I’d rather leverage things I can live without if the bank takes it for whatever reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I was shocked to learn that the average homeowner in the US lives in their house for only 7 years.

    I wonder how much of this is a question of what average is being used. It's the old median vs mean problem.

    Elon Musk and a hundred homeless people are in a room. By the mean, the average person in that room is a billionaire. By the median, the average person is homeless.

    I'm really curious whether that 7 year average figure is based on the median or mean. Because I could see it being really skewed by young people in their twenties that move around a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    skewed by young people in their twenties that move around a lot.

    Those people tend to rent and not own though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Sure. But I think the seven year figure is how often people "on average" move, not just how often people sell and buy new homes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I did a quick search and apparently it’s around 12 years in 2024 now.

    In 2024, the average length of U.S. homeownership is 11.9 years. While this number is nearly double the length of 6.5 years in 2006, home ownership has been on the decline since 2020

    https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/what-is-the-average-length-of-home-ownership.html

    So this is actually only counting people who bought a home and moved out later, not just people moving in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

    Seriously. My partner and I are millionaires. We're almost 40 and have a net worth just shy of $2M. We've a couple of DINKS. We're both engineers, are pretty good with numbers, and understand compound interest. We got on the property ladder pretty early. I bought my first townhouse in 2012 pretty much right at the bottom of the housing market. We've moved twice since then and have benefited from the full rise in house prices.

    Our net worth is a little under $2M. About $10k of that is checking and savings. Another $80k in a taxable brokerage account as an emergency fund. $450k in home equity. The rest is in retirement accounts such as 401ks and IRAs.

    We are working class. The closest either of us have ever come to hiring someone is when we've hired a plumber or electrician to fix something at our home. I've technically owned a business, but just for my own freelance tutoring work. And the closest either of us have ever come to being a landlord was when I had a couple of roommates at that first townhouse I bought.

    We're doing very well; we have no complaints. And while we've achieved some modest amount of wealth, it's not ultimately about living large or in luxury. We live well below our means. We recently bought our first new car in many years, a new Toyota Corolla. It replaced a 15 year old Corolla that my partner bought new. We buy affordable reliable vehicles and drive them til the wheels fall off. I still get most of my clothes at thrift stores. We have a house worth over $600k, but our mortgage payment is just $2k, and that's on a 15-year note. A few years ago when I was in grad school, I was literally a millionaire who road the bus.

    But again, we're not trying to get rich for the sake of getting rich. We don't want to own some huge company and lord over a room full of workers. We're not trying to hoard the largest possible amount of money we can. We don't view wealth as a lifetime high score. It's simply a means to achieve stability and safety. We're on the path to early retirement. We hope to retire by the time we're 50. We need to save up a couple of million not because we want to live in luxury, but simply because it's the only way to have a decent stable and safe retirement in this capitalist hellscape we live in. In a world with universal healthcare and a universal basic income, we would have no need for millions in retirement savings. If my partner and I each brought in say, $20k a year from UBI? If we had a paid off house and also didn't have to worry about healthcare? We could live quite well off just that $40k per year.

    I'm a millionaire and I support much higher taxes on millionaires. I do this because ultimately the point for us for having a couple of million is not to have a couple of million. The point is to have safety and stability in our lives. And the more secure the social safety net, the less the need to cover those needs privately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 2 months ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Petit bourgeois? Our money is all in our house and in retirement assets that are just America's poor excuse for a pension system. If we're petit bourgeois, so is every retired school teacher that's worked long enough to earn a pension.

    Petit bourgeois refers to people that have to work but also control their own means of production. Classically this meant artisans, tradesmen, shop owners, etc. People who aren't having their labor exploited, but also still have to work.

    In our careers, we've almost always worked regular salary jobs. We're not immune to job loss. We do not own the means of production. We've had our labor surplus siphoned off by employers our whole careers.

    That's the whole point of this discussion. Even most millionaires are just working class people trying to achieve a little bit of stability in their lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago* (9 children)
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You are quite literally in the global 1%

    That's true for a lot of people in "first world" countries. One is ahead of billions of poor people basically for existing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    You are saying that capitalists own the means of production, while "little capitalists" don't.

    I don't think its useful to lump in high-income professional work with the low end of capital accumulation. The sums may overlap, but the actual class interests don't, at least not entirely. Good analysis should recognize the distinctions here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    You can have whatever definition you want. But for me, working class means just that - a person that has earned their bread through the work of their own hands, not through the exploitation of the labor of others, through rent-seeking, or from inheritance.

    I'm sure you can cite plenty of theory, but frankly, I don't care. I prefer a definition of the term centered in lived experience. If you go off raw wealth, you just end up classifying entire nations as working class or bourgeois, at which point the term loses all meaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 2 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, you're just a racist garbage person. Xenophobia does not become OK simply because the target are Americans.

    Well, if I guess if I'm irredeemably evil simply because of where I happened to be born, then you have no room to complain. I'm just doing what I was born to do, apparently. I'll disregard your words, because they're irrelevant to an evil monster like myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    FYI, this person told me to kill myself because I said they don't handle criticism well and tell people to kill themselves.

    I can't report it because I'm banned in the community for saying China isn't perfect.

    https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/73259654/27442305

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)