$380k is not wealthy. Most people can live just fine on $380k, don’t get me wrong, but it is basically upper middle class. If $380k/yr is wealthy then what is $20 million/yr?
I think you should not be redefining what words mean to make your argument.
Wealthy means to have wealth. Wealth is the abundance of financial assets. Income can become wealth if saved/invested, but it is not wealth.
There are numerous definitions of middle class, with many being "not upper, not lower". Upper class is defined as those that have the most wealth (explicitly not income) and political power.
$People with 380k of income, but without significant assets are not upper class. They would be considered upper middle class.
They should, but but it is not guaranteed. There is also a long way between having more wealth than most, and becoming upper class where you can live "comfortably" entirely off the earnings of your wealth.
My previous comment seemed to have touched a nerve with some people, which strange given that I (IMO) was politely providing commonly accepted definitions of words/terms, with supporting references. I guess people do not like the actual meanings of the words. Or perhaps I sounded like an condescending asshole :shrug:
You should realize that multiple things can be wealthy.
$380k is wealthy and $20M is also wealthy. $20M is wealthier than $380k.
Im the US, an income of $380k is the 99th percentile.
In a higher COL state of California, an income of $380k is still in the 99th percentile.
And for the very high COL city of San Francisco, an income of $380k is still just about the 99th percentile
If a person is making $380k, regardless of what they may believe, they are absolutely not middle class in any way shape or form. They are "wealthy".