You Have To Have $5 Million ($1 Million In Cash) To Be Rich But Yesteryear Millionaires Better Off

If you've got more than five million in asset and about a million of that in cash, then you're rich. I don't if that puts you in the 1% like Mitt Romney or President Obama but I figure you should be okay. Even three to four million is fine too. Being far from all that, I'd have to take your word for it.

Your word is that of a majority of investors from UBS Investor Watch who was asked about this. (Today MSN).

However, I like to chime in a bit about this even though I'm not in the millionaire club. I did spend time pondering how much would I need to have to feel secured and wealthy. And I take you back to the 80s when as a kid, I became aware of the value of asset and money.

Then in LA, you can get a decent house for $80,000-$100,000. In a very nice neighborhood too. Some of those folks were millionaires too. But like $1 to $2 millionaires. Growing up, they were folks that I wanted to be like when I grew up. That means they should have bought about 10 to 20 of those houses.

That was how I measured rich as a little dude.

If I take that measurement to today's buying power, those millionaires in the 80s have more purchasing power than today's $5 millionaires. Most decent houses in Los Angeles are closer to $800,000, even $1 million a pop. That means they can only buy 5 to 6 houses at most.

Now, I'm not saying that I would not want to be in a $5 millionaire's shoes. But I wonder if being a millionaire today means anything anymore.

I think it's time we stop throwing the "millionaire" term around, come up with a new term and set our standards and dreams a bit higher. Me?

I want to be a decallionaire.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

No comments: