Likewise, the buying power of $1M in 2014 would be like having $40k in 1910.
Forbes defines weathly as $1M/yr in income and $10M in assets. If you were to retire today with $25M and put this money in bonds, you could collect about $1-2M/yr.
This definition of "wealthy" seems really, really arbitrary. My ancestors made a living by exporting lumber which was chopped by hand, and came close to dying of cold and hunger four or five times during the early 1900s. By that measure, we are all living like kings.
You could live comfortably for the rest of your life on much less than $10MM in assets, even in the absence of an income. So I'd say if there's an absolute limit to "wealthy" in our geographic region, it would have to be "don't have to work for a living", which would be around $1-2MM for a middle-class lifestyle and a 4% annual return on capital.
I totally agree. The definition of "wealthy" really depends who you are talking to (subjective). This is why I used the Forbes definition because I am not sure if your definition matches mine.
The term also varies internationally as well (emerging vs developed countries). Like having a car, hot water, etc.
You could live comfortably for the rest of your life on much less than $10MM in assets, even in the absence of an income. So I'd say if there's an absolute limit to "wealthy" in our geographic region, it would have to be "don't have to work for a living", which would be around $1-2MM for a middle-class lifestyle and a 4% annual return on capital.