The “wealthy” is not going to work

[bryanfze55]

Childless millennials love Disney and will keep it alive for eons to come. The freaks.

Most of them don’t have the household income referenced in the original post.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Some people have the notion that if you need to work for a living at all, you aren’t “wealthy.” That true wealth is living off investment income only… I can see that argument, but I dispute it. Building wealth is, and should be, a long-term commitment. If you make $2.5 million you can easily afford a $5 million house and still build investment wealth quickly. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Yeah…I agree with you.

You can build wealth. You rarely ever start at nothing - so “upward mobility” is a bit of a Robin leach era myth - but it doesn’t mean people can’t enrich themselves.

We’re starting to get the opinion here that you have to wear a smoking jacket in downton abbey to be wealthy.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Childless millennials love Disney and will keep it alive for eons to come. The freaks.

Most of them don’t have the household income referenced in the original post.

If that’s what you think will sustain them…they’re not well positioned. That’s an exaggerated population segment.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

According to your own math it sure looks like $2.5 million debt. Equity = value that is variable, inconsistent and just numbers on paper. So, I see a net worth of "0".

My friend, you’re missing the value of the asset ($5 million) in your equation. The person owns the deed to the house. That deed is worth $5 million. There is a mortgage on that deed for $2.5 million. The net worth in that scenario is indisputably $2.5 million

Net worth is always on paper. Not sure what your point is there.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Somebody whose mortgage is the same figure as one's net worth needs to get their head examined but then again during the 2008 recession when some in my areas lost their jobs and homes, the local pawn shops and Mercedes and BMW dealers Pre owned sections were flooded with inventory, kids were pulled out of colleges and private high schools.

I didn’t say it was a smart decision but I’m saying that just because someone needs to continue to work (due to poor financial decisions), doesn’t mean they aren’t “wealthy.”

 

[Disney Glimpses]

If that’s what you think will sustain them…they’re not well positioned. That’s an exaggerated population segment.

Exactly. Disney wants high income families with spoiled children.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Exactly. Disney wants high income families with spoiled children.

Yes…amongst others

 

[Lilofan]

I didn’t say it was a smart decision but I’m saying that just because someone needs to continue to work (due to poor financial decisions), doesn’t mean they aren’t “wealthy.”

Was not a poor decision but a doctor in our hospital is $500K in debt from undergrad and medical school while earning low $200K annual salary, can’t afford to buy a home , rents an apt, drives a used car, but doesn’t consider himself wealthy. Malpractice insurance which he has to have is also not cheap.

 

[Ayla]

To confirm, you don't believe a technical multi-millionaire is wealthy? I think you are giving too much credit to the word "wealthy."

No. Double-income households with good paying jobs should have close to that net worth by their mid to late 50's if they contribute the max to their 401k, are homeowners and aren't excessive spenders.

 

[dreday3]

Welp, we're poor!

 

[Disney Glimpses]

No. Double-income households with good paying jobs should have close to that net worth by their mid to late 50's if they contribute the max to their 401k, are homeowners and aren't excessive spenders.

I don’t disagree with that but I guess we have different definitions of wealthy. Economists put it around $2 million. In any event, it doesn’t matter. “Wealthy” is not Disney’s target demo. It’s high income.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No. Double-income households with good paying jobs should have close to that net worth by their mid to late 50's if they contribute the max to their 401k, are homeowners and aren't excessive spenders.

Except a 401K isn’t accessible. So to call investment accounts with stiff penalties that you would only tap in your active life in an “emergent” situation “wealth” is an intellectual red herring/misdirection.

If you want to call gambling…sorry “day trading” proceeds that…I get you. But there’s gonna be a lot of tears in that pool in the coming months/years.

 

[drizgirl]

Nobody ever cops to being wealthy in discussions like this. Wealthy is always the person with more than them.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don’t disagree with that but I guess we have different definitions of wealthy. Economists put it around $2 million. In any event, it doesn’t matter. “Wealthy” is not Disney’s target demo. It’s high income.

Exactly

View attachment 1658930280988.gif

 

[Lilofan]

Nobody ever cops to being wealthy in discussions like this. Wealthy is always the person with more than them.

One neighbor home owner has more than him . He said he has only 3 months emergency savings to live on if he loses his job.

 

[John park hopper]

I really don't think Disney is catering to the rich exclusively. Who they are catering to are those people who will spend the money to go. Disney doesn't care whether you have the cash on hand or have to go in debt. Disney knows there are enough of both to support their ridiculous prices.

 

[Lilofan]

I really don't think Disney is catering to the rich exclusively. Who they are catering to are those people who will spend the money to go. Disney doesn't care whether you have the cash on hand or have to go in debt. Disney knows there are enough of both to support their ridiculous prices.

Frankly, does any business really care if the consumer has cash or keeps charging on the card to go deeper into debt? Business want you to stay, return and keep spending. This is what fuels the American economy as a slaves to debt mentality / lifestyle. Years ago BMW had a slogan to gain new customers - Lease your dream .

 

[Roy G. Dis]

It's not Disney's responsibility to make sure you can afford your purchases.

 

[bryanfze55]

I don’t think you can subjectively define “wealthy,” but if we had to… it’s being able to quit working and replace the desired portion of your income (I.E., retiring on 80% of your pre-tax gross income). Some people are born wealthy due to generational wealth. Some people become wealthy overnight… perhaps they sell their California home for a $2 million profit and buy a $200K home in Nebraska and live off the proceeds.

But the vast majority of wealthy people aren’t wealthy until they’re 60+. They aren’t wealthy at 35, regardless of their income.

I have no idea how to define “rich,” though. No money worries at all?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's not Disney's responsibility to make sure you can afford your purchases.

It’s their responsibility to sustain their product by providing value and repeat business across the broadest audience possible…to insulate them from shareholder decline.