Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaycebasques | Hacker News Reader

The "76000 millionaires" number might be a little misleading. I've lived in Silicon Valley since I was 3. I bet that a lot of those millionaires are home owners on the Peninsula who have nothing to do with "Silicon Valley" as we commonly refer to it (the tech industry). My Grandpa, for example, was a high school teacher all his life. He bought a home up in the Burlingame hills back in the 60s or 70s, and that thing is probably worth multi-millions now.

View on HN

Elsewhere the authors have said that the "millionaire" category excludes real estate wealth.

Let's look at it... a family making $250k a year, don't go into debt, max out your RIA, and your easily a millionaire before retirement. Then over the past 20 years...increased home sales, salaries, company buyouts...etc. The average salary in silicon valley is $94k with 3 million people. If this is the average, only 2.5% of the population need's to make $500k or more and save for a few years.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/09/24/silicon-v...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/silicon-valley-p...

He is still a millionaire. He could sell it and live like a king in many places in the US. A million still goes far even in many places in CA like Lake County, Humboldt, or the East side of the Sierras.

$100k would allow to live like a king in many places in the world.

While I understand the reasoning, I'm don't understand what's your point.

The parent was postulating that his father wasn't a true millionaire because only his house was worth a million dollars. I was suggesting that his father was a true millionaire because he has the choice to liquidate his holdings if we so wishes. Do you disagree?

I think that "millionaire" used to designate an incredible wealth.

If you're 60 and you have to pick between having 1 million in cash or having a roof [in a moderate sized flat] over your head, you're not doing that well.

I honestly don't know, so I'm asking a genuine question: if someone has no money in their bank account but owns a house worth millions of dollars, are they considered a millionaire? Even though they've never realized that money and could never spend that money?

Sorry, your comment just raised an interesting question in my mind.

> I honestly don't know, so I'm asking a genuine question: if someone has no money in their bank account but owns a house worth millions of dollars, are they considered a millionaire?

Depends on other assets and liabilities. "Millionaire" is $1 million+ net worth; it's quite possible to have, say, a $3 million house, a $2.4 million mortgage, and $0 net between other assets and liabilities, and not be a millionaire.

From an outside perspective, people would see you as a millionaire. But from your perspective, you wouldn't feel like one.

I would wager that most billionaires do not have a billion dollars in liquid assets, yet they're still called that. It seems that the same would apply for 'millionaire'.

Well, they can still sell the house. Then they can spend the money.

But they don't have a place to live anymore.

Many people live in places without owning a $1M house.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com