Originally posted by @Dan D.:
I think what the discussion and article supports is that "wealth" for many is more of a state of mind than a financial number. I think wealth has more to do with an abundance of time than an abundance of money.
If you read about the ultra-saver groups where they are retired at age 27 living in a tent or sailing a boat, they consider themselves wealthy because they have the abundance of time on their side.
The abundance of time to do what you want 7 days a week is wealth. The having huge houses, nice cars, and high salaries can create wealth, but if you aren't making yourself more able to be independent of your need to commit your time to a business or company against your free will, you aren't inching towards wealth.
My wife and I aren't fond of raising kids in a tent though, so we aren't as wealthy as a 27 year old retired blogger, but the blogger doesn't have the wealth of the experiences my wife and kids provide me.
Wealth is in the eye of the beholder.
I don't really agree wealth is a state of mind. I do think it's an actual milestone but it might differ between person to person so you may not be able to peg a specific number to it. But if we go by a time definition a bum would be wealthy he has all the time in the world.
And extreme savers I don't really count because I think if you are wealthy you shouldn't have to make those types of compromises. Otherwise what's the point of being wealthy? I do agree that extra time comes with wealth but a lot of things that cost a ton of money actually save you time (housekeeping, private chef, eating out, etc). If you enjoy those things then fine but if you have to do a lot of things yourself just to save then I wouldn't say that is wealthy. Wealth means being able to do whatever the hell you want when you want.
Most financial planners will tell you a net worth of $2-$10M will provide enough for retirement and financial freedom. From my experience I think that is in the right ballpark for someone living in the United States.
