How to define being poor?

How do you determine whether or not you are poor? If you live in an apartment, are you automatically deemed as poor regardless of any other factors? What is the net worth (total assets minus total liabilties) for a person of average age (30 to 35) that draws the line between being poor or not? If trying to determine whether or not I am poor, what questions should I ask myself?

I know this sounds like a dumb question, and I'll admit it is.

My personal definition of poor for a 30 to 35 year-old in most urban US areas is someone with a total net worth (total assets minus total liabilities) less than $100,000. Total assets include cash, cash equivalents, and LIQUID assets, being something that can be easily sold at full value with ease. This is for someone between 30 to 35 years of age.

If you are 45 years of age, you have had more time to advance your career, buy a house, and progress financially. Age has to be considered for a fair comparison.

Notice income is not a factor. This is because anyone can lose their job at any time, and unearned revenue should not be considered a factor. Earned revenue, however, is a factor and should be evident in a person's total assets.

I live in Houston where the median income in 2009 was $42,945 and the average age was 31 according to city-data.com. However, compariing my income to the median does not yield a sufficient answer to my question.

This question is strictly in regards to financial wealth. I full acknowledge and understand that a person who is happy but financially poor is more wealthy than a person with lots of money but totally miserable for reasons outside of personal finances.

wat?

I think it's a stretch to say that someone is poor just because they have a net worth below $100,000. That would be pretty difficult for a large % of the population to obtain by age 30. I think if you have no debt (besides mortgage), have a 6 month emergency fund, and regularly contribute to an IRA/401k, you're ahead of the game.

Net worth under $100,000 is poor? Maybe in expensive cities like NYC or Honolulu it would be on the lower end of things. The apartment thing doesn't make any sense unless you are referring to Section 8 apartments.

I'd say a better gauge is the amount of disposable income you have after your bills are paid, plus your savings/401k, etc. Whether or not you are poor depends on your ability to pay for basic things in relation your savings and income in the particular area you live in.

You are poor if you are receiving any kind of housing or food assistance for things you can't pay for yourself.

if youre able to acces the internet from home i doubt youre that poor unless youre doing it from a public library.

[quote name='nuugatman']I think it's a stretch to say that someone is poor just because they have a net worth below $100,000. That would be pretty difficult for a large % of the population to obtain by age 30. I think if you have no debt (besides mortgage), have a 6 month emergency fund, and regularly contribute to an IRA/401k, you're ahead of the game.[/QUOTE]


Go Dave Ramsey!

OP, your definition of "poor" is ridiculous. I'm 30, easily have assets well above 100k and have no debt. I have a 12 month emergency fund, max out my 401k and max out my Roth. Do I consider myself well off? hardly. I'm certainly not "poor" to most people, yet somehow using your made up bullshit quota, I'm barely making it.

What's your point here?

If you have to ask? You're probably not poor.

[quote name='eldergamer']If you have to ask? You're probably not poor.[/QUOTE]

This.

/thread

[quote name='steve_k']
My personal definition of poor for a 30 to 35 year-old in most urban US areas is someone with a total net worth (total assets minus total liabilities) less than $100,000. Total assets include cash, cash equivalents, and LIQUID assets, being something that can be easily sold at full value with ease. This is for someone between 30 to 35 years of age. [/QUOTE]

I went arround and added up all my stuff and i might be able to get $2000.
thats total assets.
To me someone that has $100,000. is the same thing as Bill Gates.

You are not poor

If you've ever had to decide what bills to pay because some will let you be later than others...
When you've had to decide between buying diapers for your kid or paying for your inhaler...

I define poor as someone who is working but can barely afford to eat well/have shelter. If you are on public assistance and not working but are able to and choose to live of a fixed income that is just lazy, not poor. They are ahead in terms of having a stress free life and tons of free time.

If you are in college, even if you are flat broke you are not poor. You have nice shelter and probably a meal plan. And more free time than you even realize which is a luxury in itself.

With the way most people spend, a lot of people are going to be under that $100,000 threshold. I am in a very high paying field but don't have cable TV or a smart phone/data plan. This saves me in the neighborhood of $90-100/month. I cannot believe that people making $20-30k a year or less blow almost 5% of their income on these things, yet they almost all do.

Living in an apartment does not make someone poor. Some people, like older retirees prefer them because they are low maintenance (ie. you don't have to mow your own lawn, fix leaky pipes, etc.) and in a lot of cases rent actually costs more than a mortgage payment on a cheap house.

I Define poor as someone with only one mansion and only five servants.

When you spend 4 hours deciding if spending $1.24 on a game on the Steam Sale will break you.

wen u dun hav $$

its all relative what some people think of as poor may not be to the next guy. i remember a time when not having meat for dinner was a sign of poverty or maybe eating generic brand cereal vs having the name brand stuff or having to wear no name shoes vs having nikes/reebok.

i think for kids in this day and age poor would be not having a cellphone or a home pc with high speed internet and not having a tv in your room.

you get over it eventually though i was a no name shoe kid growing up during the era of jordans very rough life ( at least thats how i felt) once i grew up i realized all that shit was worthless. poor i guess is a state of mind or an idea of self compared to others centered around what you have vs what you dont or what others have that you dont.

When you have no car, no place to live, and virtually nothing to your name I'll consider you poor.

[quote name='steve_k']How do you determine whether or not you are poor? If you live in an apartment, are you automatically deemed as poor regardless of any other factors? What is the net worth (total assets minus total liabilties) for a person of average age (30 to 35) that draws the line between being poor or not? If trying to determine whether or not I am poor, what questions should I ask myself?

I know this sounds like a dumb question, and I'll admit it is.

My personal definition of poor for a 30 to 35 year-old in most urban US areas is someone with a total net worth (total assets minus total liabilities) less than $100,000. Total assets include cash, cash equivalents, and LIQUID assets, being something that can be easily sold at full value with ease. This is for someone between 30 to 35 years of age.

If you are 45 years of age, you have had more time to advance your career, buy a house, and progress financially. Age has to be considered for a fair comparison.

Notice income is not a factor. This is because anyone can lose their job at any time, and unearned revenue should not be considered a factor. Earned revenue, however, is a factor and should be evident in a person's total assets.

I live in Houston where the median income in 2009 was $42,945 and the average age was 31 according to city-data.com. However, compariing my income to the median does not yield a sufficient answer to my question.

This question is strictly in regards to financial wealth. I full acknowledge and understand that a person who is happy but financially poor is more wealthy than a person with lots of money but totally miserable for reasons outside of personal finances.[/QUOTE]
Did a girl not go out with you because they said you were poor or something? What's your Real reason for asking?

[quote name='lionheart4life']I define poor as someone who is working but can barely afford to eat well/have shelter. If you are on public assistance and not working but are able to and choose to live of a fixed income that is just lazy, not poor. They are ahead in terms of having a stress free life and tons of free time.

If you are in college, even if you are flat broke you are not poor. You have nice shelter and probably a meal plan. And more free time than you even realize which is a luxury in itself.

With the way most people spend, a lot of people are going to be under that $100,000 threshold. I am in a very high paying field but don't have cable TV or a smart phone/data plan. This saves me in the neighborhood of $90-100/month. I cannot believe that people making $20-30k a year or less blow almost 5% of their income on these things, yet they almost all do.

Living in an apartment does not make someone poor. Some people, like older retirees prefer them because they are low maintenance (ie. you don't have to mow your own lawn, fix leaky pipes, etc.) and in a lot of cases rent actually costs more than a mortgage payment on a cheap house.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what field you work in, but $1000 to $1500 is not that much to spend on a cellphone plan with data AND cable on the side. If you don't spend that money, then good for you, but just because someone makes under $30k doesn't mean that they need to live a life of drudgery just to satisfy your sense of superiority and classism. Is it better for a rich person to buy a yacht for $1,000,000 and let it sit in some polluted harbor for 330 days out of a year? You're wagging your finger at the wrong people, buddy.

And to insinuate that people on public assistance are lazy and stress-free show how little you know about it. It's not a choice and it's NOT easy.

[quote name='lokizz']its all relative what some people think of as poor may not be to the next guy. i remember a time when not having meat for dinner was a sign of poverty or maybe eating generic brand cereal vs having the name brand stuff or having to wear no name shoes vs having nikes/reebok.

i think for kids in this day and age poor would be not having a cellphone or a home pc with high speed internet and not having a tv in your room.

you get over it eventually though i was a no name shoe kid growing up during the era of jordans very rough life ( at least thats how i felt) once i grew up i realized all that shit was worthless. poor i guess is a state of mind or an idea of self compared to others centered around what you have vs what you dont or what others have that you dont.[/QUOTE]
Poor isn't a state of mind, it's a state of being. You can be poor and have the latest Jordans, cellphones, cable, coach bags, etc. You can have less relative to people around you, but that does not make someone poor. Having a $500k house with neighbors that have $550k houses does not make you poor.

Look fellas, there's nothing wrong with a poor person trying to alleviate some misery by getting some enjoyment out of life through some "luxuries." An extra $1000-$1500 per year while making less than $30k won't magically change someone's economic status from poor to not-poor. To use that argument to show that poor people only have themselves to blame for being poor is ludicrous and devoid of any real logic.

I was gonna say if you have to sign up for a website to find ways to save $10 on a game, but then I made myself sad.

[quote name='nasum']I was gonna say if you have to sign up for a website to find ways to save $10 on a game, but then I made myself sad.[/QUOTE]

'

lol nothing wrong with saving money on games they cost too much for the most part.

If you regularly go to a site called Cheap Ass Gamer

[quote name='DirtyBill']If you regularly go to a site called Cheap Ass Gamer[/QUOTE]

I think coming to this website is a characteristic of the wealthy, not the poor. A poor person will eventually come across 60 extra dollars and blow it on a game at full MSRP. It's a well-known fact that 98% of all video games are greatly depreciating assets that will not retain their value. Look at Grand Theft Auto 3 on PS2 for example. It came out in 2001 and couldn't be found on store shelves for less than $50 until two or three years after its release. Now, 10 years later, it can be had for $3 to $5.

It's a characteristic of a wealthy person to consider the long-term perfornace of his puchases and to be cheap on investments that will not increase their personal wealth in the long run. I read somewhere that the most common car among millionaires was the Toyota Camry. It's not a clunker and is a step up from the Corolla, but still, it's a pretty basic car without many thrills. Acknowledging that cars are depreciating assets that are virtually guaranteed to lose value over time, many millionaires opt for a functional, but less expensive vehicle.

I'll pay large amounts of money for assets with a likelihood of value retention and possibly appreciation (by applying the laws of supply and demand), but I'm a total cheapass when it comes to everything else. Of course, there are a few exceptions like my 52" HDTV that I know will quickly depreciate in value, but I wanted it, and the enitre point of working hard for disposable income is to enjoy the things you want in life.

There are a few reasons why I chose $100,000 as a basis of being poor. One of those reasons is that I suspect people have a tendency to exaggerate their wealth and give the appearance they are actually more wealthy than they actually are. I want to call B.S. on them, but wanted to first entertain the idea that I am the one who is wrong.

Someone asked if I was rejected by a girl for being poor. The answer is 'yes'. I calcuated my break-even point for financially stability wihtout her and then recalcuated it after taking responsibility of her living expenses. My annual break even point would have multiplied by 4X had I agreed to stay with her. She does not have a job (zero income) and has incredibily high living expenses (three times higher than mine). My income alone would not have been sufficient for the both of us. This one one factor that made my consider whether I was actually poor and hadn't even realized it.

Being poor is all relative, until you reach the point where you cannot afford a safe place to live, food that isn't slowly killing you, health insurance that actually covers anything, and a car that doesn't break down every year, among other things - that's when everyone reaches the "poor" threshold. But it's okay as long as the rich can keep going on vacations, eating out at nice restaurants all the time, and buying things they never use.

Read up on what real poverty means here: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

That's poor.

Its, quite simply, ing absurd to think below $100,000 is "poor." To say that is to have no idea what it means to be poor and impoverished. The median household income is about half of that, and if you want to assume a household has two primary wage earners earning equally, those are people earning maybe $25,000 each. Yet they're not "poor." According to wikipedia: "the mean household income in the United States, according to the US Census Bureau 2004 Economic Survey, was $60,528, or $17,210 (39.73%) higher than the median household income." Those average people are not poor in any true sense of the word.

Stop using the word "poor" to describe "not wealthy enough for some lazy gold digging bitch." They're not synonymous.

[quote name='steve_k']
There are a few reasons why I chose $100,000 as a basis of being poor. One of those reasons is that I suspect people have a tendency to exaggerate their wealth and give the appearance they are actually more wealthy than they actually are. I want to call B.S. on them, but wanted to first entertain the idea that I am the one who is wrong.

Someone asked if I was rejected by a girl for being poor. The answer is 'yes'. I calcuated my break-even point for financially stability wihtout her and then recalcuated it after taking responsibility of her living expenses. My annual break even point would have multiplied by 4X had I agreed to stay with her. She does not have a job (zero income) and has incredibily high living expenses (three times higher than mine). My income alone would not have been sufficient for the both of us. This one one factor that made my consider whether I was actually poor and hadn't even realized it.[/QUOTE]
Who exactly are you trying to call BS on? People you see who are up to their eyes in debt? People who live a lifestyle they can't afford? What do you think entitles you to judge those people?

You are the one who is wrong, OP. You're not poor. I would qualify you as a huge prick if you have to sit around and calculate a "break even point" for financial stability however. That's a bullshit move. You dating some girl who spends beyond her means doesn't mean that just because you manage your money (do you?) that you are somehow poor.

[quote name='mtxbass1']Who exactly are you trying to call BS on? People you see who are up to their eyes in debt? People who live a lifestyle they can't afford? What do you think entitles you to judge those people?

You are the one who is wrong, OP. You're not poor. I would qualify you as a huge prick if you have to sit around and calculate a "break even point" for financial stability however. That's a bullshit move. You dating some girl who spends beyond her means doesn't mean that just because you manage your money (do you?) that you are somehow poor.[/QUOTE]

I'm tempted to call B.S. on some of the people who claim to be wealthy but do not have an occupation or side-hobby that is able to generate a nice income. I suspect they are living above their means simply to keep up with everyone else and impress others.

Maybe a net worth of $100,000 is a bit much to expect from most people in their early 30's. That was one of the points of this post. I suspected the statement may have been wrong. That's why I posted.

Maybe I'm not poor, and it's not like I sit around and calculate my break-even point. There were about ten reasons why we broke up. The finances were about number three or four on the list. When you start talking to someone about getting serious, it's normal to be curious whether you will be living in poverty and stressing about whether or not you will be able to pay the rent from month to month versus being finacially stable and not having to worry about money. When you've worked hard your entire life to avoid a life a poverty, financial stability carries a little bit of weight. If this was the only reason to question getting serious, maybe I would simply overlook it. However, there were about nine other compounding factors not relating to finances which I will not go into detail here.

If you have a toaster with rims on it, you're poor.


stevek is right in one respect: most "rich" people are frugal.

Lighten up a bit Dough. The guy is just asking. I think it's a fair question though one that's a bit convoluted.

Its important to understand that everyone in this thread is American. (at least from an American perspective, I assume the topic creator is American because I am infact American and therefore anyone else I could be bothered to talk to is American (or I would just ignore them) . So now that we've established that everyone in this thread is American, we can continue! =)

Joking Aside. Money is tantamount to freedom and power in a Capitalist society.

If you have money, you have freedom. you have the freedom to go into any store and walk out with the product you desire. You have the freedom to not perform labor or laborous tasks (around one's home) because you can use money to command power over someone. Money also allows one to pursue things that they desire. Trips to locations, procuring books or games or other objects that one feels entertains and enriches their lives. Money can even used to enact change in one's local environment, government or political landscape, changing the laws that govern the limits of freedom.

As an example of service: I do not wish to run phone line under my house. so I am free to use money in order to gain power over an electrician and have him perform the task for me.

Now that electrician is running that phone line chiefly because he wants my money. There are probably other things he would like to do such as spend time with his daughter or read Frans Kafka, but at present by virtue of offering money he has traded away his freedom and will temporarily become a tool of my will. Yes he does have the free will to quit. But that would result in him NOT getting money, and thus losing even more freedom to enact his will.

So then I submit that "poor" should be measured by a person's personal freedom to pursue their desires and will. If you are not free to pursue your desires through lack of capital (be it travel, accumulation of objects, etc) then you are poor. If you can pursue your desires then you are not poor.

That about clear it up?

[quote name='EncryptedPrints']Lighten up a bit Dough. The guy is just asking. I think it's a fair question though one that's a bit convoluted.[/quote]
Funny how I pegged the OP for getting dumped for not being able to afford a trophy gf/wife/sex slave isn't it? This is not a fair question; it's not even about the question at all. It's about him being butt-hurt because he thought he reached a certain socio-economic class and thought that he was entitled to his idea of what being in that socio-economic class entails.

Its important to understand that everyone in this thread is American. (at least from an American perspective, I assume the topic creator is American because I am infact American and therefore anyone else I could be bothered to talk to is American (or I would just ignore them) . So now that we've established that everyone in this thread is American, we can continue! =)

Joking Aside. Money is tantamount to freedom and power in a Capitalist society.

If you have money, you have freedom. you have the freedom to go into any store and walk out with the product you desire. You have the freedom to not perform labor or laborous tasks (around one's home) because you can use money to command power over someone. Money also allows one to pursue things that they desire. Trips to locations, procuring books or games or other objects that one feels entertains and enriches their lives. Money can even used to enact change in one's local environment, government or political landscape, changing the laws that govern the limits of freedom.

As an example of service: I do not wish to run phone line under my house. so I am free to use money in order to gain power over an electrician and have him perform the task for me.

Now that electrician is running that phone line chiefly because he wants my money. There are probably other things he would like to do such as spend time with his daughter or read Frans Kafka, but at present by virtue of offering money he has traded away his freedom and will temporarily become a tool of my will. Yes he does have the free will to quit. But that would result in him NOT getting money, and thus losing even more freedom to enact his will.

So then I submit that "poor" should be measured by a person's personal freedom to pursue their desires and will. If you are not free to pursue your desires through lack of capital (be it travel, accumulation of objects, etc) then you are poor. If you can pursue your desires then you are not poor.

That about clear it up?

Click to expand...

So if someone makes $250k a year, wants a Veyron, but can't afford one, they're poor? Your explanation is devoid of any sense of reality.

To your argument Dough:

My post is indeed devoid of reality because we are not dealing with a tangible subject (so far as I know Poor isn't on the periodic table). We can deal with the effects of poverty / being poor. But what the TC has asked is for us to define the concept of poor. What are it's limitations? Is there something below Poor or does it also represent zero? Is there a solid upper limit? What about changing needs and circumstances?

If one is to define something one must take into account all the implications of the defenition. Therefore I say again that the Veyron, the Bugatti, The PS3, A first edition of Kafka's Die Verwandlung / The Metamorphosis. These things while pricy are transitory. A great example of this is given in the RIFTs core book on an explanation of post-apocalyptic economics. Jewels and fancy goods fetch only a modest price compared to functional weapons and salvageable gear. Change the circumstances and Veyron is just the name of a big fragile paperweight.

So I submit your argument is only from your perspective and not apt to serve as a defenition for poor that can endure. We cannot simply take large numbers (or in this case, objects that represent very large numbers) and use them. There will always be bigger numbers to make big numbers look infinitely finite. And circumstances to strip that symbol of it's value in short order.

To put it another way See Bill Gates' "Who could ever possibly need more than 640k of ram?" quote from the 80s.

My argument is from necessity vs luxury.

You are poor if you do not have necessities.
You are rich if you do have luxuries (sustained parallel but never without necessity)

In other words, if you consider a veyron a necessity and cannot afford one. you are poor by your own definition.

I do not desire a veyron hence I do not use it to gauge my wealth. I can use it to gauge the wealth of others but that does not designate them as poor or rich from their own perspective. What of the man who owns a Veyron but truly wishes he owned a vintage 1948 Ferrari 166 Inter. Or wishes he had a Dubai Oil Tycoon's 500 foot yacht?

In Short: I seek to define it by concept. you seek to define it by real world observation.

The topic title is "How to define being poor" I respond to that with:

-You are poor if you do not have the things you designate necessity.
-You are rich if you have luxury and can sustain that luxury along with your necessities.

I don't define necessity simply as a shack and Top Ramen. I define necessity as:

-Shelter with room for earner(s) and family to live comfortably.
-Food that provides proper nutrition and variety
-Hobby/Entertainment that the person can invest themselves in when not earning a living
-Spiritual / Public Organization which one can use to meet new social contacts.

Others can define necessity for themselves and thus increase or decrease what they perceive as the borderline of poor. But the above is based on Manfred Max-Neef's fundamental human needs list.

Below is Max-Neef's list of human needs. I have added in parenthesis various ways in which money can be used to meet those needs)

subsistence (Grocery store, fast food, restraunt)
protection (Weapons, security cameras, government agencies)
affection (Dating, Prostituition, giving money to loved ones)
understanding (College, trade school, books, Internet)
participation (Clubs, Online Videogames, Sports, Religion)
leisure (Videogames, Travel, Education, Debate, Social Groups)
creation (Hobbies)
identity (See Above)
freedom (See Above)

So since all human needs may be met with money, if one does not possess enough money to meet those needs one can be considered poor. That is my answer to the TC's question.

If you require government assistance to meet basic needs, then you are poor.

Everyone could be considered poor when being compared to someone else. But the fact is we're all really poor because the greatest asset that we possess is our life itself and from the moment of birth the counter starts moving into the red and when it gets there it doesn't matter in the slightest how much $$ you have saved, invested or freely available because death is free and there's no way to pay for more life.

[quote name='dohdough']Funny how I pegged the OP for getting dumped for not being able to afford a trophy gf/wife/sex slave isn't it? This is not a fair question; it's not even about the question at all. It's about him being butt-hurt because he thought he reached a certain socio-economic class and thought that he was entitled to his idea of what being in that socio-economic class entails.[/QUOTE]

I'm not 'butt-hurt' at all and never had any perception that I was anywhere near wealthy. Even if I did realize I am poor, the only change I would make is to question what else I can do in addition to my career to generate income and try to step up my ambition and effort. The realization that I can do better is like a wake-up call that says 'Think outside the box!'

I'm not questioning whether or not I am poor because of the breakup. It's a combination of experiences and obvervations, the breakup only being one of those. Besides, she was not the typical image of a 'trophy wife'. She just happend to have a cost of living three times higher than mine and no earning potential of her own. Like I said, there were about ten reasons I wanted to break up with her. Finances were number three or four on the list.

Also, there are different tiers of being poor. One person can be poor to a light extent while another can be poor to a greater extent (poverty). I know I am not living in poverty. I was trying to determine if I was border-line poor. Say for example most people in life by a certain age have accomplished XXX, and you know you have accomplished more than X, but am unsure whether you are between XX and XXX. If you are closer to XX than XXX, you may want to question what you can do about it. Realizing a need for change is the first step to making a change. Some people need a wake-up call, and I think I may have had a wake-up call from a recent experience (completely unrelated to the breakup).

35 still in apartment life... you can't be banking it, that's for sure.

Poor (financially) to me is someone who can't afford the basic necessities of life i.e. shelter, food, medical, etc. The example above is low income or afraid to make the jump or you live in NYC.

I think OP needs a wake up call for how society works. Now he's wondering if he was "borderline poor." Jesus Christ.

$100,000 is in the upper 28th percentile for federal income tax. You're not close to borderline poor.

Again, stop using the word "poor" because you're not even close to any conventional definition of "poor," formal or informal.

Failing to reach a certain level of success or income or other achievement by a certain age isn't "possibly borderline poor." It may be a shortcoming or failing of your own/society's expectations, but it's not poor.

Like the poster above me said, poor is not affording basic necessities. Somewhere above poor is having some wiggle room for luxuries without sacrificing necessities. At $100,000 you're not going to lack food, shelter, medical care, etc. etc. etc. You may not be able to afford some gold digging bitch and it may cause you to question whether you've accomplished enough financially in life since you can't afford a gold digging bitch in your 30s, but that doesn't mean you're even close to poor, borderline poor, etc. You've just simply failed at some level you think you may be important to your life. But stop trying to classify that as a degree of poor.

The fact that OP even uses the word poor in this sense makes me think he has no real world common sense. He may be intelligent enough to have some kind of career where he makes a six figure income and he can calculate it against being the sole provider for a gold digger (did you remember to factor in the dependent deduction on your income taxes if you'd be providing her with 50% or more of her necessities?) but he appears to lack social knowledge and common sense. No wonder he's in his 30s posting on a video game deals message board about whether he is poor because he couldn't hold onto a gold digger.

Why can't we have some more good off topic threads like that guy who caved in and bought a used car he didn't want, or that guy asking for advice on what to wear on a date. Instead we get this to entertain us.

[quote name='kodave']

I think OP needs a wake up call for how society works. Now he's wondering if he was "borderline poor." Jesus Christ.

$100,000 is in the upper 28th percentile for federal income tax. You're not close to borderline poor.

Again, stop using the word "poor" because you're not even close to any conventional definition of "poor," formal or informal.

I'm not referencing an annual income of $100,000. I'm referencing a total net worth of $100,000. That includes your home equity, car, personal savings, cash equivalents, and other valuables. It includes everything you can claim ownership to minus anything you may owe to anyone else. Most people with a total net worth of $100,000 have been working at it for a number of years and make nowhere near $100,000 per year.

I'll give everyone credit that the word 'poor' was not a wise choice. I should have used another term to reference peoples' positions who could be doing better financially given they had made better financial decisions. There is a difference between this and poverty.

Click to expand...

[quote name='steve_k']I'm not referencing an annual income of $100,000. I'm referencing a total net worth of $100,000. That includes your home equity, car, personal savings, cash equivalents, and other valuables. It includes everything you can claim ownership to minus anything you may owe to anyone else. Most people with a total net worth of $100,000 have been working at it for a number of years and make nowhere near $100,000 per year.[/quote]
Look OP. Stop being a little cry baby and just accept that her calling you poor messed with your fragile little ego. You are not poor. You just don't have/make enough money to support a goddamn gold-digging ho bag. Having $100k in liquid assets is probably better than more than at least 60% of the population. Feel better now?

And what the hell do you mean by "not a typical image of a trophy wife?" Perhaps something stupid like having brown hair instead of blonde?

I'll give everyone credit that the word 'poor' was not a wise choice. I should have used another term to reference peoples' positions who could be doing better financially given they had made better financial decisions.

Click to expand...

WTF is the difference between the word poor and how you conceptionalized that definition you just vomited onto the internet? If I was a gold-digging ho bag, I'd expect a lot more from you considering how socially stunted you are. We're you raised in a freaking bubble or something?

There is a difference between this and poverty

Click to expand...

No shit sherlock. The problem is that you don't seem to know what any of those words mean.

If you simply made a thread about being down in the dumps because some girl dumped you because she said you were poor and left it at that, we'd be a little more sensitive to your plight. Instead, you're pontificating about what "poor" means. This is the least of your problems if you're anything like this in real life. Judging from your posts, I can't really blame her for wanting more to deal with someone that has the personality of a block of wood.

you worry about bills.
go shopping and look ONLY at prices

Man this is like watching somebody speed-run , even if they do finish it's still an hour of shaq the guy'll never get back.

c'mon now what's the deal with you two? Stevie you're not poor of materials, just mental maturity. Don't use other people or their things to judge yourself. You gotta just take stock in what you got and go from there. Life is a game of losses but the compensation by the house more than makes up for it if you're willing to spend enough time at the tables.
Like I said you're not poor but you don't have much in the bank when it comes to knowing how the other halves live. You could use some exposure outside your safe-zone. Get to know people above and below your station then you'll have a very clear sense of where you are and where you can go.

Dough> Again man what's the anger for? If I had to guess I'd say it's because you may not have 100k in assets. It always sucks to hear someone complaining all the way to the bank. Truth is though Money doesn't make you smart just by having it. Alot of people who are rich are in a bad state too. they don't know any better how to handle their lives so they just have to raise their hand and ask like everybody else. Give the guy a break. He's got money and problems, money isn't one of his problems, but I'm sure he's got problems money wouldn't fix (instantly, anyway).

The above isn't a slam on you Stevie so please don't take it that way. =)

Poor is dependent on where you live. I've got friends paying more in rent for 1/3rd of an apartment than I do for my house (mortage+insurance+property taxes), they live in the bay area and I live in a "poor" town in Washington.

[quote name='EncryptedPrints']Dough> Again man what's the anger for? If I had to guess I'd say it's because you may not have 100k in assets. It always sucks to hear someone complaining all the way to the bank. Truth is though Money doesn't make you smart just by having it. Alot of people who are rich are in a bad state too. they don't know any better how to handle their lives so they just have to raise their hand and ask like everybody else. Give the guy a break. He's got money and problems, money isn't one of his problems, but I'm sure he's got problems money wouldn't fix (instantly, anyway).[/QUOTE]
So if I only had $10k in assets, would that make my point only 1/10th as valid? If I had $200k, would that make my point twice as valid? Let's say I have $1,000,000, would that make my point 10 times as valid? I guess I'm wealthy in emotional maturity, but am in financial poverty.

The point is that it doesn't matter where the advice is coming from as long as it's sound.

If he can't be honest with himself and others, there's no point in trying to help this kid here. That's why I said:

If you simply made a thread about being down in the dumps because some girl dumped you because she said you were poor and left it at that, we'd be a little more sensitive to your plight.

Click to expand...

[quote name='EncryptedPrints']Man this is like watching somebody speed-run , even if they do finish it's still an hour of shaq the guy'll never get back.

c'mon now what's the deal with you two? Stevie you're not poor of materials, just mental maturity. Don't use other people or their things to judge yourself. You gotta just take stock in what you got and go from there. Life is a game of losses but the compensation by the house more than makes up for it if you're willing to spend enough time at the tables.
Like I said you're not poor but you don't have much in the bank when it comes to knowing how the other halves live. You could use some exposure outside your safe-zone. Get to know people above and below your station then you'll have a very clear sense of where you are and where you can go.

Dough> Again man what's the anger for? If I had to guess I'd say it's because you may not have 100k in assets. It always sucks to hear someone complaining all the way to the bank. Truth is though Money doesn't make you smart just by having it. Alot of people who are rich are in a bad state too. they don't know any better how to handle their lives so they just have to raise their hand and ask like everybody else. Give the guy a break. He's got money and problems, money isn't one of his problems, but I'm sure he's got problems money wouldn't fix (instantly, anyway).

The above isn't a slam on you Stevie so please don't take it that way. =)[/QUOTE]

I'm not fixated on money, but I think we can all admit it's natural to be curious how we compare to others. Sometimes this is hard to do when people have a tendency to exaggerate. If you're a South Park fan, maybe you remember the recent episode where Cartman measured all the boys penises. When Kyle asked Cartman about why he didn't measure his, Cartman replied 'Oh, it's cool. I measured myself at home. I'm 13 inches'. Kyle had to call BS on Cartman. Sometimes I'm tempted to call BS on people in the same sense when they comment on their wealth when I know what their occupations are.

In the case of wealth, there is a valid reason for curiosity. If you find your wealth is below average, you can ask yourself what others are doing and follow accordingly. I have the perception that nearly all of a person's income comes from a profession, whether it be hourly or salaried. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most people have an income-generating practice in addition to a career and I have never been brought aware of this because I have never been curious. Knowing this, I could venture about, be a bit more ambitious, and realize I could be doing better.

Dough, why are you so angry? I already acknowledged that my intial statements were flawed and expressed the purpose for asking. If I was dead-set on my defintion, I would not have brought it up in the form of a question. I don't have all the answers. This is my way of finding the perspectives of other people.

OP you seem obsessed with money.

My inital definition of 'poor' was intentionally flawed and was based paritally on:

1. natural tendency of people to exaggerate
2. exposure to both the indigent and the wealthy and decifering the 'middle ground'
3. expectations from others to be wealthy

My genuine and now expressed definition of 'poor' is:

1. inability to pay bills prior to payday (living paycheck to paycheck)
2. inability of financial progression due to lack of resources
3. inability to support dependents (children, wife) under normal circumstances

I was trying to set a debate in my high qualifications for exclusion of being poor. It looks like a set more than a spark, but rather a fire. Some people were apparently more pissed off than others. I guess you know you're poor if this post pissed you off.

At the same time, I suspected maybe many people earn two or more streams of income from other assignments. This would explain the minimum-wage employee who makes $50,000 plus annually.

Is everyone okay now?

[quote name='steve_k']I'm not fixated on money, but I think we can all admit it's natural to be curious how we compare to others. Sometimes this is hard to do when people have a tendency to exaggerate. If you're a South Park fan, maybe you remember the recent episode where Cartman measured all the boys penises. When Kyle asked Cartman about why he didn't measure his, Cartman replied 'Oh, it's cool. I measured myself at home. I'm 13 inches'. Kyle had to call BS on Cartman. Sometimes I'm tempted to call BS on people in the same sense when they comment on their wealth when I know what their occupations are.

In the case of wealth, there is a valid reason for curiosity. If you find your wealth is below average, you can ask yourself what others are doing and follow accordingly. I have the perception that nearly all of a person's income comes from a profession, whether it be hourly or salaried. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most people have an income-generating practice in addition to a career and I have never been brought aware of this because I have never been curious. Knowing this, I could venture about, be a bit more ambitious, and realize I could be doing better.

Dough, why are you so angry? I already acknowledged that my intial statements were flawed and expressed the purpose for asking. If I was dead-set on my defintion, I would not have brought it up in the form of a question. I don't have all the answers. This is my way of finding the perspectives of other people.[/QUOTE]

Holy balls. You got dumped for another guy that you think makes less money than you and she told you its because you don't have enough loot, didn't she.

And in case you haven't noticed, you are dead set on it because you keep repeating it. Your understanding of how the world works would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Just face it man, its not the money, its you.

Now I could give you the answer to the question you posted, but it wouldn't do you any good.

If you're lonely you're poor. Having money doesn't mean shit. There are people in third world countries broke as a joke and are probably happier than 80% of Americans. Except in Africa, where they have access to rap music and know how bad they have it.

[quote name='steve_k']I guess you know you're poor if this post pissed you off. [/QUOTE]

Holy shit you got it. I'm poor, you're poor, we're all poor. Change the name of this site to "PoorAssGamer." That's why this thread upset people. It had nothing to do with your social ineptness and the fact you weren't even close to a sensible definition of poor.

It sounds like dohdough nailed it on the head with "Holy balls. You got dumped for another guy that you think makes less money than you and she told you its because you don't have enough loot, didn't she."

I don't even understand why someone would be with someone who had zero income and lived way beyond their means. Is the sex really that good?

No, you're not poor...but you would be very quickly if you stayed with her.

[quote name='kodave']It sounds like dohdough nailed it on the head with "Holy balls. You got dumped for another guy that you think makes less money than you and she told you its because you don't have enough loot, didn't she."[/QUOTE]

That's what I'm getting out of it. OP keeps trying to see where he is on this wealth metric he has and then keeps bringing up how people overstate their wealth and income. He doesn't care what being poor means, he's just angry some other guy is out there driving a nice car pretending to be wealthy or something.