[onion2k]

Someone with $2.5m to spend on end of life care is a heck of a lot wealthier than someone with $250k to spend on end of life care. No matter what, if everything else is equal, someone with $2.5m is very wealthy.

Arguments like "Ah, but they're not really wealthy because..." will always fail because there'll always be the case of someone in the same situation who doesn't have $2.5m, at which point the person with $2.5m is definitely wealthy.

[refurb]

You bring up a good point. When we're talking about wealth, we all seem to ignore age in the process. Age has a huge impact on how wealthy you are.

If you're 25 and you have $2.5M? Yes, you're wealthy since you have 40 years of earning potential on top of your money.

If you're 65 and you have $2.5M? Very well off, but nowhere close to the 25 year old.

Same goes with inequality. If you ignore age, then things really unfair. How can someone have $3M and another nothing? But that ignore the fact that you'll have inequality regardless just due to age. It's not unreasonable for someone who is 65 to have a lot more money than someone who is 25. That's just the benefit of time.

[brandonmenc]

I generally agree with you.

The problem, in my opinion, is that there are too few gradations when talking about wealth. Yes, someone with a million dollars in assets - heck, even $10k in assets - is very wealthy, globally. I completely agree.

But to lump them in with the actual ruling class and call them "elites" is naive.

[meric]

Yeah, even $200k is very good, that's like 4 houses in India. Most people don't even own one.