"Above average" or "reasonably affluent," maybe--but "rich" or "wealthy"? - walt crawford

Sounds rich to me. - m9m, Crone of FriendFeed

I guess it depends on location. That's less than the *median* family income in San Mateo, Santa Clara or Marin County-and less than 2/3 of median household income in Menlo Park, where we lived for several years and which never seemed especially wealthy. It's just over median in Alameda County, which includes Oakland, rarely accused of being a bunch of rich folks. - walt crawford

[I would note that our family/household income is not that high, not even close, but then we're both pretty much retired. And we were always in the library business.] - walt crawford

Income is so widely spread that I think it's hard to draw those lines no matter where you are. I had a lifelong argument with my grandmother on whether we were upper middle class (my take) or middle middle (hers). I'm sure $100,000 isn't luxurious in the Bay Area, but it sure would seem that way if you were at the poverty line. - laura x

Laura: Absolutely right. And I'd say "rich" or "wealthy" should be WAY above upper middle class--at least twice the median household income for a given county, say. (I'd guess most people think of "wealthy" as "having twice [or X multiple] as much money as I do," no matter what that amount is.) - walt crawford

Hell, objectively, many people in Africa and India would regard people at the U.S. poverty line as being wealthy. - walt crawford

Actually, I think of "wealthy" largely as a synonym for "having access and privilege," which is only partly a function of having money and which is why I will always think of myself as upper middle class verging on wealthy, no matter whether I'm living paycheck to paycheck or have savings. - laura x

Different people have different definitions, and I think "wealthy" is trickier than "rich." - walt crawford