What exactly is a millionaire?

[Senegoid]

@ultrafilter

How many brains do you need to be a zombie millionaire?

Well back in the late 1800’s when this thread was started, being a millionaire really meant something. But today, this zombie thread needs to be adjusted for inflation (again) to be meaningful!

[Rand_Rover]

If you want to use wealth, and want to value all of one’s assets (as opposed to just liquid assets), then you’d have to look at intangible assets like one’s ability to work–it’s probably every person’s most valuable asset. So, say a person can earn $100,000 per year for the next 30 years, that’s some number today when discounted back at some rate. I’d bet for just about anyone that number far exceeds the net value of all their other assets.

Also, I think the accredited investor definition is a bit wack and illustrates the large disparity between asset-based and income-based notions of millionaires. I know lots of people who make over $200,000 per year (really, the majority of people I know fit that category probably), and I would wager that very few of them have net assets worth a million. Maybe this is just my age showing though–I would assume all of these people would have a million in net assets sooner or later if they keep making that much.

[NetTrekker]

Millionaire: Net Worth >= $1,000,000 (current/nominal dollars, fair market value of assets). It’s nothing to do with income nor liquidity of assets.

[md2000]

@Colibri

I was once a multi-millionaire - In fact, I still have a couple of 1,000,000-zaire notes with a picture of President Mobutu on them. One afternoon in the eastern Congo I blew two million on a couple of bottles of warm beer.

I remember talking to a consultant who did some work in southern Africa. He mentioned that converting $US100 got you a huge stack of money - almost a foot high! The only down side - the locals ran around in loincloths, so there was only one place for the guys to stuff their money…

@kunilou

I have worked with a lot of farmers whose assets (land and equipment) total well over $1 million. Subtracting their mortgage and equipment debt, however, they are worth considerably less than $1 million. When they count only their after tax net annual income, some of them would actually qualify for food stamps.

The usual term for that is “land rich, cash poor.”

@NetTrekker

Millionaire: Net Worth >= $1,000,000 (current/nominal dollars, fair market value of assets). It’s nothing to do with income nor liquidity of assets.

Simple definition - net worth is greater than or equal to $1M. (Assets minus liabilities) If you can sell the house and car and cash in savings to get $1M you are. If house minus mortgage is only $50,000 you are not, even if the house cost $2M. (Unless you have $950,000 in other assets)

Yes, it does not mean what it used to, now that wages in the hundred thousands for specialist jobs are not unusual.

[ultrafilter]

@Rand_Rover

Also, I think the accredited investor definition is a bit wack and illustrates the large disparity between asset-based and income-based notions of millionaires. I know lots of people who make over $200,000 per year (really, the majority of people I know fit that category probably), and I would wager that very few of them have net assets worth a million. Maybe this is just my age showing though–I would assume all of these people would have a million in net assets sooner or later if they keep making that much.

The criteria for an accredited investor were set in 1933. It’d probably look a bit different if it were updated for today’s world.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Rand_Rover

If you want to use wealth, and want to value all of one’s assets (as opposed to just liquid assets), then you’d have to look at intangible assets like one’s ability to work–it’s probably every person’s most valuable asset. So, say a person can earn $100,000 per year for the next 30 years, that’s some number today when discounted back at some rate. I’d bet for just about anyone that number far exceeds the net value of all their other assets.

This has nothing to do with wealth, other than potential to get it.

I could make 250,000/yr but fritter it away on gambling, women, or even foolish things. I could have that income and become disabled tomorrow.

You either have a million in net assets, or you don’t.

I do think the colloquial understanding of the term is that a “millionaire” is someone with relatively unlimited disposable funds, at least for ordinary pursuits.
By that definition, a million dollars in net assets is nowhere close to the colloquial use.

[Leo_Bloom]

@BCE

I think we should change the definition to be:

Millionaire: One whose annual income exceed a million dollars (or other unit of currency).
The ‘old’ definition based on wealth, whether it is total assets less liabilities or limited to liquid assets, is too broad in today’s world. A hundred years ago, “millionaire” meant something along the lines of “top 1% of wealth.”

Basing the definition on income would bring back some of that exclusivity to the word. Movie stars, sports stars, CEOs and others of that ilk would be the only millionaires. An average lawyer/doctor who owns a house in San Francisco would be excluded from the new definition.

An amusing zombie, from when President Obama was still in school. Remember, higher taxes will apply only those wealthy few who are “$250,000-ers.”

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

According to the Economist’s style guide:

[QUOTE=http://www.economist.com/styleguide/m]
Millionaires
The time has gone when girls in the Bois de Boulogne would think that the term millionaire adequately described the man who broke the Bank at Monte Carlo. If you wish to use it, make it plain that millionaire refers to income (in dollars or pounds), not to capital. Otherwise try plutocrat or rich man.
[/QUOTE]

So it’s not just a couple zombies on the Internet from ten years ago who thought assets were no longer adequate. At least one reputable style guide decided calling every homeowner in San Francisco a millionaire was poor word choice for their publication.

Of course I’m suggesting that this is evidence you can have a legitimate disagreement, not that it proves the income definition is correct. Personally I agree with them. If you’re an unusual case who managed to earn $1,000,000 one year and never again then there are better word choices available.

[Quartz]

@threeorange

I’m not exactly a math guy, but I believe I’ve heard the words “decimillionaire” for 10,000,000 and “centimillionaire” for 100,000,000. Neither word is particularly catchy, though.

You need to remove the third syllable to give you decillionaire & centillionaire (qv decurion & centurion). Deci- would be 1/10th, or 100K (qv decimetre, decimate). Similarly, centi- is usually 1/100th or £10K (qv centimetre, cent).

[threeorange]

@Quartz

You need to remove the third syllable to give you decillionaire & centillionaire (qv decurion & centurion). Deci- would be 1/10th, or 100K (qv decimetre, decimate). Similarly, centi- is usually 1/100th or £10K (qv centimetre, cent).

Wouldn’t a decillionaire be someone with a decillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00)?