[amscanne]

They didn’t suggest that, it said:

> Still, Christie didn’t consider herself wealthy

Almost no one considers themselves wealthy. Even people that are very well-off typically consider themselves some variation of middle class, because they can so obviously and clearly see the next rung up the ladder, and how they are not on it. This point is made perfectly by her quote about how only the rich have cars.

[adrianN]

The middle class is just very wide. Essentially anybody who doesn't starve when they're out of work for a couple of months is middle class. Upper class is distinguished from middle class whether you have to work at all. Very few people have enough passive income to afford a ~median lifestyle. Agatha Christie might not fit into middle class, but today a lot of people do.

[pm215]

Since she was English, I suspect Christie would have considered herself middle-class on the basis of her parents, and not believed that her wealth had much to do with what class she fit into. Equating income levels with class levels is more of a US thing, AIUI. (Though wikipedia suggests her family was definitely pretty wealthy: she said her father "was a gentleman of substance, and never did a handsturn in his life", and the family could afford to send her to a boarding school in Paris. So definitely the upper reaches of upper-middle-class.)

[R0b0t1]

I've seen an updated definition that kicks in at the time you can take one or more yearly vacations, so basically just doctors, highly paid laywers, highly paid SWEs, and executives.

[leoedin]

Maybe this is my naive European view, but taking a yearly vacation doesn't seem like a "rich person" thing here. You don't need to be earning vast amounts to afford a weeks package holiday in Spain.

[christophilus]

It sounds strange to me, too. I grew up pretty poor in the US, and we always took at least one family vacation per year. Often, it was a camping trip or the like. Sometimes, it was a visit to a city or national park. My parents were very, very frugal. We almost never had new clothes. I guess it was just a matter of what they prioritized. Looking back on it all, I’d say they got just about everything right.

[lagadu]

That's extremely US-centric. Nearly everyone in Europe gets 20+ paid days a year, including minimum wage workers and it's common to use at least two of those weeks to go somewhere that's not in the region that you live in.

[thriftwy]

They usually never take those yearly vacations since it would mean lost of practice and connections.

By this definition, the only people who are rich are young professionals in Western countries who actually take those vacations and go on year-long travel through South America, for example.

[01acheru]

I think he meant "one or more vacations per year" not "one or more years long vacations" (it also confounded me when skimming)

[thriftwy]

That would mean that Russia is a country of very rich people, since even the blue collar workers here can afford a family vacation per year, going to e.g. Turkey or Egypt - these tours come pre-packaged therefore really cheap. Middle-class youth routinely have 2-3 of these, going to more exclusive destinations. A lot of these will never buy a car, especially a new one, since a new car costs 10 years worth of vacations.

[01acheru]

I agree with you, I think it is a very US centric point of view.

BTW I think they where referring to middle class: you are middle class if you can go on vacation. (IMHO it doesn't make sense to be considered rich if you can go on vacation)

In Europe we are used to having a lot of vacation time, it (almost) doesn't matter which is your job, in the US it is not like this.

[jccalhoun]

Reminds me of the Chicago law professor who made $250,000 and didn't think he was rich but he lives in a super nice neighborhood and sends 3 kids to private school https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/todd-henderson-we-are...

[boring_twenties]

To know if he's rich or not we would need to know his net worth, not his income (or how nice his stuff is).

[bhelkey]

I disagree.

In an extreme example, Tim Cook made ~$100 Million in 2021 [1]. Regardless of his net worth, I would consider him rich.

[1] https://news.yahoo.com/apple-tim-cook-compensation-other-tec....

[eaxix]

Well, at that point it's borderline impossible to spend (on consumables, not assets) your yearly earning, so even if he's poor now, he almost certainly won't be by the end of the year (unless he has a massive amount of debt).

In contrast if you make $250k it's quite easy to spend the whole amount or close to it (again on consumables, not assets), hence your net worth stays the same in a year. You have to limit your spending to slowly build up your net worth.

[boring_twenties]

Your example only works because it's so extreme, it's enough income for a dozen people to become rich instantly, even if they all start from 0.

By contrast, a house in a "super nice" neighborhood along with multiple private school tuitions can easily eat up the entirety of the $250k/yr income, leaving that guy actually broke in the end.

[tonyedgecombe]

Yes, wasn't it Bloomberg (a billionaire) who said he didn't consider himself wealthy. It turns out there are ten people in his apartment building who are wealthier than him.

[curiousllama]

I remember the first time I got a chipotle burrito with double-meat and guac. I'd just gotten my first big paycheck. I turned to my friend and went "dude I'm so f***g rich now." He kinda chuckled, and when he realized I wasn't really joking, looked uncomfortable; he made more than me.

It is weird how uncomfortable rich people are acknowledging how rich they are.