The Rich Are Not Who We Think They Are. and Happiness Is Not What We Think It Is

This really seems like an extremely long-winded way to say "money can't buy happiness". Which is partially true, in that after a certain point, once your essential needs are met you get diminishing returns for happiness on the additional money you make, in part from the additional exertion it takes to do that.

However I think this is a huge distraction from the fact that not having enough money to meet your basic needs is aboslutely an impediment to happiness, since this causes a constant state of fear, precariousness and helplessness. Fixing income inequality and helping more people gain access to food stability, healthcare, and jobs that pay a living wage would increase the happiness of many people.

>The researchers found that the typical rich American is, in their words, the owner of a “regional business,” such as an “auto dealer” or a “beverage distributor.”

It would be interesting to see how many people who own auto dealerships or beverage distributorships grew them from nothing versus bought them. I have frequently heard both of these businesses described as licenses to print money, and have seen that firsthand with some auto dealerships (notably Toyota). Retired athletes often buy into these businesses for that reason.

Maybe I just had different experiences in my life, but that many of the high-income earners own unsexy businesses does not surprise me. Millionaire Next Door talked some of that, and I remember reading a number of books that talked about owning assets that generate income rather than getting a higher paying job. Even Tim Ferris's 4 Hour Workweek was coming from that frame.

To go further, I had also went through a period of exploring and practicing minimalism. And now, my understanding of "wealth" and "abundance" has changed again, closer to the classical turn of the phrase, "the fat of the land". There's abundance and regenerative growth in natural systems that have yields for humans, for those that are good stewards of the land at least.

Thanks to raising a kid in a large US city, and through my job in tech, I've met and/or regularly interacted with a fair number of "rich" people, as defined by this article. The level of richness definitely was in tiers.

$1B+ - I've met five of these types, and all of them were founders of tech companies.

$100M+ - Again, a small sample size of only three or four people. One was a founder of a non-tech business, and the others were children of founders of large tech companies.

$10M+ - This was the smallest bucket with only 1-2 people. Both were in finance.

$1.5M+ - Dozens upon dozens of families. Some lawyers and the one "unexpected" small business owner occupied the lower end of the range, while nearly everyone else was in finance.

< $1.5M - Everyone else.

I consider anybody who has all of his/her expenses covered by passive income (assets) to be wealthy. In other words, if you still have to work to cover your expenses then you are not wealthy. And of course the more expenses your passive income (assets) can pay for, the wealthier you are.