5 Things You Didn't Know About America's Millionaires

[Kalergie]

Fascinating stats on millionaires and, among others, their spending habits. I particularly liked the Automobile part. 10% spend 25,000USD or less on an automobile ever, among the 1-5mio$ net worth range. Fascinating!

http://time.com/money/4897052/things-you-didnt-know-about-americas-millionaires/

[kayvent]

Well-dated The Millionaire Next Door talks about this in-depth. That Times article is impressive. Despite being so short, it was able to contain a lot of trash.

[Kalergie]

kayvent: trash? Elaborate please? Well, one man's trash is another man's treasure. I took great value from it. :D

[undercover]

Fascinating stats on millionaires and, among others, their spending habits. I particularly liked the Automobile part. 10% spend 25,000USD or less on an automobile ever, among the 1-5mio$ net worth range. Fascinating!

http://time.com/money/4897052/things-you-didnt-know-about-americas-millionaires/

I think that stat reads: 90% in the $1M-5M range spent less than $25k in a year on automobiles. That's a pretty useless statistic since it's a yearly spending stat and not simply "total cost of your vehicle".

[Kalergie]

You know what. You might be right, there. I totally misinterpreted that stat. Probably projection from my side since I never ever spent that much on a car. :)
Thanks for the clarification.

[GenXbiker]

Yes, it's 10% spent "more" than $25,000 on their automobiles.   There are always those unknown finer details they don't give you.   Does that mean per vehicle if they have two vehicles in the family?  I doubt they are purchasing many $12,500 or less cars.  Does it include tax?  etc.

[BTDretire]

This struck me as funny.
"After a dip in 2008, the number of America's millionaires has increased steadily every two years,"...
 So the increase skips every other year? I guess it's possible.

[NeonPegasus]

This article brings to mind this question - as a married couple, do you consider yourselves millionaires if you have over $1mm in invested assets together or if you each have over $1mm in invested assets?

The article refers to households with over $1mm and then says that most millionaires are white men who are married. Well what about their wives? Aren't they millionaires too? If 76% are married, how are only 33% of millionaires women women? If half of the 76% are men and half are women, that's 38% each right there. If all of the unmarried millionaires are men (24%), then that only gives you 62% men, not 67% as the pie graph shows. I'm sure there are some gay couples in those figures but I'm also sure that not all of the unmarried millionaires are men.

[GenXbiker]

This struck me as funny.
"After a dip in 2008, the number of America's millionaires has increased steadily every two years,"...
 So the increase skips every other year? I guess it's possible.

I thought so also.  Maybe there was a drop one particular year since then, so they couldn't say "every year."  ha!

[Valhalla]

This article brings to mind this question - as a married couple, do you consider yourselves millionaires if you have over $1mm in invested assets together or if you each have over $1mm in invested assets?

The article refers to households with over $1mm and then says that most millionaires are white men who are married. Well what about their wives? Aren't they millionaires too? If 76% are married, how are only 33% of millionaires women women? If half of the 76% are men and half are women, that's 38% each right there. If all of the unmarried millionaires are men (24%), then that only gives you 62% men, not 67% as the pie graph shows. I'm sure there are some gay couples in those figures but I'm also sure that not all of the unmarried millionaires are men.

I would believe it to be household based.  A single parent worth over $1m with kids would count, so would married couples, so would single persons.  I doubt there is enough data to segregate the data any further without some significant private information being mined / dug up.

[kayvent]

This article brings to mind this question - as a married couple, do you consider yourselves millionaires if you have over $1mm in invested assets together or if you each have over $1mm in invested assets?

The article refers to households with over $1mm and then says that most millionaires are white men who are married. Well what about their wives? Aren't they millionaires too? If 76% are married, how are only 33% of millionaires women women? If half of the 76% are men and half are women, that's 38% each right there. If all of the unmarried millionaires are men (24%), then that only gives you 62% men, not 67% as the pie graph shows. I'm sure there are some gay couples in those figures but I'm also sure that not all of the unmarried millionaires are men.

It doesn't state that. It only is written in a way that the reader would think that. It states "America's millionaires are mostly white, largely male—and tend to be married." These are disjunctive clauses but a quick reader will assume these are conjunctive. I try not to read minds but in this case I will: I think the author intentionally did this to trick readers. The classic "I didn't lie, you misinterpreted my misleading but factually accurate statements."

[NeonPegasus]

This article brings to mind this question - as a married couple, do you consider yourselves millionaires if you have over $1mm in invested assets together or if you each have over $1mm in invested assets?

The article refers to households with over $1mm and then says that most millionaires are white men who are married. Well what about their wives? Aren't they millionaires too? If 76% are married, how are only 33% of millionaires women women? If half of the 76% are men and half are women, that's 38% each right there. If all of the unmarried millionaires are men (24%), then that only gives you 62% men, not 67% as the pie graph shows. I'm sure there are some gay couples in those figures but I'm also sure that not all of the unmarried millionaires are men.

It doesn't state that. It only is written in a way that the reader would think that. It states "America's millionaires are mostly white, largely male—and tend to be married." These are disjunctive clauses but a quick reader will assume these are conjunctive. I try not to read minds but in this case I will: I think the author intentionally did this to trick readers. The classic "I didn't lie, you misinterpreted my misleading but factually accurate statements."

You don't have to read the words. The graphs show 67% men/33% women and 76% married. My questions stand: Does this article count millionaires by household or individual? If 76% of millionaires are married, how are at least 38% of millionaires (half of 76%) not women? I can't imagine that there are so many married gay male millionaire households that it skewed the percentages that far male. This question is important because it touches upon financial equality in a marriage  - are millionaire households filing married filing single so that only one of the spouses (likely the man) is considered a millionaire whereas his wife is not?

[caracarn]

Fascinating stats on millionaires and, among others, their spending habits. I particularly liked the Automobile part. 10% spend 25,000USD or less on an automobile ever, among the 1-5mio$ net worth range. Fascinating!

http://time.com/money/4897052/things-you-didnt-know-about-americas-millionaires/

I think that stat reads: 90% in the $1M-5M range spent less than $25k in a year on automobiles. That's a pretty useless statistic since it's a yearly spending stat and not simply "total cost of your vehicle".

I'm missing where it says this is a yearly stat.  The graphic for this spending simply lists amounts but no time reference that I can see.  I'd agree we can probably infer they MEANT per year, but if not specifically called out that may be an incorrect assumption.

[scantee]

You don't have to read the words. The graphs show 67% men/33% women and 76% married. My questions stand: Does this article count millionaires by household or individual? If 76% of millionaires are married, how are at least 38% of millionaires (half of 76%) not women? I can't imagine that there are so many married gay male millionaire households that it skewed the percentages that far male. This question is important because it touches upon financial equality in a marriage  - are millionaire households filing married filing single so that only one of the spouses (likely the man) is considered a millionaire whereas his wife is not?

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. My guess, just based on how I've seen these kinds of stats being misreported in the past, is that the net worth amounts are for households and the individual characteristics (ethnicity, gender and marital status) are for the head of household or primary earner. For households with just one adult it's fine to combine household and individual statistics, but it makes no sense for households with more than one adult. So yes, this is probably misrepresenting the number of married women who live in households with a net worth of more than a million.

[MrsPete]

I agree that it's often difficult to understand the statistics in mass media articles, and it's usually because of sloppy writing; however, no one wants to plod through a research journal article with its detail on methodology, etc. 

My thoughts on the article:

- Looking at the areas where the most millionaires live:  A fairly large number are clustered around Washington DC, which isn't a surprise ... and of course the celebrities in California are driving up the millionaire numbers in that state ... I can't really justify Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado.  And Alaska?  That's a surprise to me. 

- The dip in 2008 is easy to understand.  They're measuring the number of people who are millionaires, not the number of new millionaires.  So roughly 9 million people were millionaires in 2007, then we hit the recession ... and quite a few of the people who were right on the bubble lost money in the market and were no longer millionaires ... and then they built up slowly after 2008. 

- I'm not at all surprised that only 2000 people in the US have more than 500,000,000.  There's a world of difference between one million and five hundred million.  An ordinary person who starts early and makes good choices can expect to save $1,000,000; however, $500,000,000 is out of the question for us ordinary people. 

- Interesting that wealthy people spend so little on jewelry. 

- Interesting that the average millionaire's income is $125,000/year.  That's achievable by most 2-professional families. 

- I don't understand the chart at the end that concerns wealth and average age. 

[GenXbiker]

- I don't understand the chart at the end that concerns wealth and average age.

That one is just "connect the dots" with the bottom line drawn to scale between the 3 ages.

Those with 1-5 Million average 62 years old
Those with 5-25 Million average 66 years old
Those with >25 Million average 52 years old

[Laura33]

- I don't understand the chart at the end that concerns wealth and average age.

That one is just "connect the dots" with the bottom line drawn to scale between the 3 ages.

Those with 1-5 Million average 62 years old
Those with 5-25 Million average 66 years old
Those with >25 Million average 52 years old

It also took me a while to figure this one out, but in the end I think it is the most enlightening.  The first two entries seem to demonstrate the value of the MMM/Bogleheads approach, i.e., earn a decent salary and save a bunch of it, and your 'stache will (a) reach the low-to-mid millions, and (b) grow as you age (e.g., a guy with $4M and still working will likely have $5-6M by 66 and so change categories).  OTOH, the third entry seems to demonstrate the limits of this approach:  the average age drops quite significantly, so achieving that level of wealth can't be attributed to long-term working-and-saving to the same degree as the first two categories.  That suggests that the $25M range is more attributable to one-time or short-term events, e.g., "start a company and sell it."

Of course, I don't think anyone here would actually aspire to the $25M level -- we'd pretty much hit category 1 and call it good well before the 'stache had a chance to grow that much. :-)

[dude]

The middle bar on the last graph that reads "Median Retirement Assets (Workplace)" is blank on my page. DOes it show up on anyone else's? It's obviously between $125k and $1.75M, but it's not labeled.

I pretty much hit all the characteristics -- white, professional, educated, married, money mostly in stocks, etc.  I am surprised to learn that there's only 7% of households in my (northeast) state with $1M or more in investable assets. I'd honestly have thought it would be higher. I just don't feel like I'm in the top 5% of earners in the U.S. and apparently top 7% of savers/investors in my state.

[kayvent]

- I don't understand the chart at the end that concerns wealth and average age.

That one is just "connect the dots" with the bottom line drawn to scale between the 3 ages.

Those with 1-5 Million average 62 years old
Those with 5-25 Million average 66 years old
Those with >25 Million average 52 years old

It also took me a while to figure this one out, but in the end I think it is the most enlightening.  The first two entries seem to demonstrate the value of the MMM/Bogleheads approach, i.e., earn a decent salary and save a bunch of it, and your 'stache will (a) reach the low-to-mid millions, and (b) grow as you age (e.g., a guy with $4M and still working will likely have $5-6M by 66 and so change categories).  OTOH, the third entry seems to demonstrate the limits of this approach:  the average age drops quite significantly, so achieving that level of wealth can't be attributed to long-term working-and-saving to the same degree as the first two categories.  That suggests that the $25M range is more attributable to one-time or short-term events, e.g., "start a company and sell it."

Of course, I don't think anyone here would actually aspire to the $25M level -- we'd pretty much hit category 1 and call it good well before the 'stache had a chance to grow that much. :-)

A quarter of all software engineers in the USA have recently read an MMM article. I think we're a very likely group to live on nearly nothing while shoestring an exciting tech venture.

[Jesstache]

My thoughts on the article:

- Looking at the areas where the most millionaires live:  A fairly large number are clustered around Washington DC, which isn't a surprise ... and of course the celebrities in California are driving up the millionaire numbers in that state ... I can't really justify Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado.  And Alaska?  That's a surprise to me. 

Living in Oregon I can tell you that many people have moved here from the neighboring WA and CA and brought their large amounts of home equity with them.  Coupled with the fact that many of them are coming here to retire or downshift from their stressful tech jobs, and it's not hard to believe there are quite a few millionaires in OR.  Our household is one, though we didn't move here from CA or WA.  Colorado and Alaska also attracts a similar demographic as Oregon with people sick of the rat race and looking to raise their kids in more outdoorsy laid back setting.  People who are able to do that likely have a good amount of $$.  That and Alaska has oil!

[Re3iRtH]

This article brings to mind this question - as a married couple, do you consider yourselves millionaires if you have over $1mm in invested assets together or if you each have over $1mm in invested assets?

The article refers to households with over $1mm and then says that most millionaires are white men who are married. Well what about their wives? Aren't they millionaires too? If 76% are married, how are only 33% of millionaires women women? If half of the 76% are men and half are women, that's 38% each right there. If all of the unmarried millionaires are men (24%), then that only gives you 62% men, not 67% as the pie graph shows. I'm sure there are some gay couples in those figures but I'm also sure that not all of the unmarried millionaires are men.

It doesn't state that. It only is written in a way that the reader would think that. It states "America's millionaires are mostly white, largely male—and tend to be married." These are disjunctive clauses but a quick reader will assume these are conjunctive. I try not to read minds but in this case I will: I think the author intentionally did this to trick readers. The classic "I didn't lie, you misinterpreted my misleading but factually accurate statements."

You don't have to read the words. The graphs show 67% men/33% women and 76% married. My questions stand: Does this article count millionaires by household or individual? If 76% of millionaires are married, how are at least 38% of millionaires (half of 76%) not women? I can't imagine that there are so many married gay male millionaire households that it skewed the percentages that far male. This question is important because it touches upon financial equality in a marriage  - are millionaire households filing married filing single so that only one of the spouses (likely the man) is considered a millionaire whereas his wife is not?

These statistics are always "by household". It would be too cumbersome (and maybe impossible) to get individuals. Do you think someone is entitled to another's hard work, creativity, sacrifice, forward thinking, and risk taking .. because they signed a paper? Where is the virtue and integrity in that. Talk about priorities. Luckily, people seem to be waking up in this young generation.

[deborah]

Whether you are married or divorced, you would know that an enormous part of your wealth (or lack of it) depends upon your significant other. This forum is full of examples where couples helped or hindered their household. I suspect that few make it to being a millionaire the MMM way (just to get a pay check, and be frugal) WITHOUT the assistance of their SO - whether it is to help earn, spend wisely, manage investment, cheerfully tolerate frugal habits, or any of the myriad of things that get a household past the line.

[Rife]

This article brings to mind this question - as a married couple, do you consider yourselves millionaires if you have over $1mm in invested assets together or if you each have over $1mm in invested assets?

The article refers to households with over $1mm and then says that most millionaires are white men who are married. Well what about their wives? Aren't they millionaires too? If 76% are married, how are only 33% of millionaires women women? If half of the 76% are men and half are women, that's 38% each right there. If all of the unmarried millionaires are men (24%), then that only gives you 62% men, not 67% as the pie graph shows. I'm sure there are some gay couples in those figures but I'm also sure that not all of the unmarried millionaires are men.

It is still an interesting article, but it is poorly written. It seems clear to me they are mixing stats from different sources that don't align properly. Some of the stats say by household yet the breakdown at the bottom looks like it is taken by whose name is on the investment account. Some of our investment accounts have both our names, but our 401ks are by individual.

[RedwoodDreams]

This article brings to mind this question - as a married couple, do you consider yourselves millionaires if you have over $1mm in invested assets together or if you each have over $1mm in invested assets?

The article refers to households with over $1mm and then says that most millionaires are white men who are married. Well what about their wives? Aren't they millionaires too? If 76% are married, how are only 33% of millionaires women women? If half of the 76% are men and half are women, that's 38% each right there. If all of the unmarried millionaires are men (24%), then that only gives you 62% men, not 67% as the pie graph shows. I'm sure there are some gay couples in those figures but I'm also sure that not all of the unmarried millionaires are men.

It doesn't state that. It only is written in a way that the reader would think that. It states "America's millionaires are mostly white, largely male—and tend to be married." These are disjunctive clauses but a quick reader will assume these are conjunctive. I try not to read minds but in this case I will: I think the author intentionally did this to trick readers. The classic "I didn't lie, you misinterpreted my misleading but factually accurate statements."

You don't have to read the words. The graphs show 67% men/33% women and 76% married. My questions stand: Does this article count millionaires by household or individual? If 76% of millionaires are married, how are at least 38% of millionaires (half of 76%) not women? I can't imagine that there are so many married gay male millionaire households that it skewed the percentages that far male. This question is important because it touches upon financial equality in a marriage  - are millionaire households filing married filing single so that only one of the spouses (likely the man) is considered a millionaire whereas his wife is not?

These statistics are always "by household". It would be too cumbersome (and maybe impossible) to get individuals. Do you think someone is entitled to another's hard work, creativity, sacrifice, forward thinking, and risk taking .. because they signed a paper? Where is the virtue and integrity in that. Talk about priorities. Luckily, people seem to be waking up in this young generation.

Not sure what you mean, but this isn't my view of marriage. My husband was the stay at home parent to our son, while I worked a well-paying IT job. His being home meant I could focus on work and progress in my career, get promoted, and receive better salary increases and bonuses. Our son was well cared for, and if he needed to come home sick from preschool or school, my husband could pick him up and I could still focus on work. Being able to focus to that degree gave me much more opportunity at work. My husband also takes care of all household repairs, our cars, etc., saving us a ton of money. Most importantly, having one parent at home reduces the stress level for all of us. He's also not spendy and is careful with *our* money. It would be an empty feeling indeed if I considered our hefty stash MINE alone just because I was the one in the pixel mine. It's something we're working on and building together.

[kayvent]

These statistics are always "by household". It would be too cumbersome (and maybe impossible) to get individuals. Do you think someone is entitled to another's hard work, creativity, sacrifice, forward thinking, and risk taking .. because they signed a paper? Where is the virtue and integrity in that. Talk about priorities. Luckily, people seem to be waking up in this young generation.

Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone. A marriage is not two people sharing assets or worst, how you describe it, one person cleaving unto another's hard work. It should be on cohesive entity that works towards its goals.

[dogboyslim]

... being home meant I could focus on work and progress in my career, get promoted, and receive better salary increases and bonuses. ... Most importantly, having one parent at home reduces the stress level for all of us. ... It would be an empty feeling indeed if I considered our hefty stash MINE alone just because I was the one in the pixel mine. It's something we're working on and building together.

Other than reversed genders, this is how I feel also.

[effigy98]

I was the one in the pixel mine

Great description of what a tech job really is. Just another mine to get money out of.

[kayvent]

I was the one in the pixel mine

Great description of what a tech job really is. Just another mine to get money out of.

At least we don't have to be naked to work. Lol

[Gone Fishing]

I'm surprised how little real estate and private businesses are owned.  Perhaps the RE is held in securitized REITs and the data on private companies is bad?