Reply #7: Most people don't think about this realistically.

[eallen]

They don't consider the fact that a 20 year-old who has no assets is very different from a 65 year-old who has a million-dollar net worth, which might be nothing more than a house that is paid for, a vested pension, and a moderate amount of savings. Human lifecycle has to be considered, if someone wants to think clearly about economic classes. I can imagine groupings like (a) the independent but not rich aged, who have enough to live for the rest of their lives, barring major catastrophe, but not much in excess of that, (b) middle-aged workers who are likely to move into (a), (c) young adults, about whom there's no way to tell yet because of their youth, regardless of what they are now doing, including living on the street, (d) children, (e) adult dependents of various categories, (f) the rich, (g) the middle-aged and aged poor who are incapable of working. That's not exhaustive or adequately fine. But it's far more realistic than viewing a 65 year-old as "rich" and a 20 year-old as "poor," even when the latter clearly has more advantaged background and better life prospects than the former, simply on the basis of current net worth.