1 in 5 Americans Will at Some Point Be Rich, and That’s a Bad Thing

It’s the Americans dream — work hard, become successful, get rich. Now, that dream may be closer than ever for more people, as a new study claims that 20 percent of all Americans will at some point in their lives earn at least $250,000 per year, a financial point in which a person is considered wealthy.

According to the Associated Press, “The new rich have household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives, putting them — if sometimes temporarily — in the top 2 percent of earners.”

At first glance, that would seem like good news. After all, wealthy is good, right? After year of slow economic gains, stagnant wages, layoffs and long term unemployment, any study that points to a larger portion of the population becoming more affluent has to be a good thing.

Yet in many ways, learning that one in five Americans will at some point be rich may be more damaging to our economy, especially when considering that those who make it to that magic mark may only be there temporarily, according to the AP. “In a country where poverty is at a record high, today’s new rich are notable for their sense of economic fragility,” writes reporter Hope Yen. “They rely on income from their work to maintain their social position and pay for things such as private tutoring for their children. That makes them much more fiscally conservative than other Americans, polling suggests, and less likely to support public programs, such as food stamps or early public education, to help the disadvantaged.”

Because wealth is so tenuous, it’s difficult to obtain but even more difficult to hold on to. Those who may be part of that top 2 percent in one moment may soon learn that the assistance they voted against — extended unemployment insurance, higher taxes that could pad the social safety net by providing TANF funding or social security benefits for the disabled — isn’t there to bolster them later if they do find themselves a victim of an accident, a layoff or some other change in fortune.

Sadly, it’s easy under those circumstances to see why someone who hovers at the $250,000 mark may be so willing to do everything within their voting power to keep that level of affluence, even if it’s done with an “I got mine, too bad for you” sort of attitude. What’s more unfortunate is that a large portion of the 80 percent who will never earn enough to qualify as rich are still more than willing to support politicians and policies that fly in the face of their own best interests, all because they believe that at some point they might get to be part of that 2 percent of earners at some point.

It’s this aspirational voting conundrum that fed red state victories for the GOP for years, leading Thomas Frank to dedicate an entire book to the question “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” In essence, no one is willing to believe they could actually be poor, but they do find it much easier to imagine being just a step away from rich.

“[P]overty is not necessarily a permanent state,” wrote pundit Gary Younge shortly before the 2012 election. ”People fall in and climb out of it. Americans are particularly reluctant to describe themselves as even working class let alone poor. A Pew survey in 2008 revealed that 91% believe they are either middle class, upper-middle class or lower-middle class. Relatively few claim to be working class or upper class, intimating more of a cultural aspiration than an economic relationship.”

Ever since the birth of the Horatio Alger story, where anyone can go from the streets to CEO with a little elbow grease and a spirit of determination, America has divided itself into two camps — one that believe that being poor is a sign of weakness or some other spiritual ill, and one that understands that circumstances will always have a role when it comes to economic issues. Just as the divide between the rich and the poor has grown wider than ever, our emotional divide, believing that we should have a responsibility to ensure not just our own economic well-being but that of those less fortunate, is just as great.

With the belief that everyone has a one in five chance of being rich at some point, that gap is only going to grow.

Photo credit: Thinkstock


Jim Ven
Jim Ven4 months ago

thanks for the article.

raya ENGLER2 years ago

Hi Frank,
People have a right to do as they wish w/their money, however my wish to have wealth comes from a need to want to help. I'm by far wealthy, but have been donating to organizations for years since there are so many people and animals who are in extremely difficult situations and desperately need assistance. Wish I could do more.

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline2 years ago

@ RAYA E: Nobody is saying that making money nor being rich is of itself, a bad thing

What are the bad things of "being rich" is "how did you get it?" and "how do you keep it?"

Then we must remember that there's comfortable, well off, wealthy, rich, filthy rich, greedy, avarice and "I WANT IT ALL". I can't see why someone needs to be more than "filthy rich". For what? To control others? To make the world cater to one's every mood?

Being rich isn't a crime though too many times, how one gets rich and how they keep it can easily be most definitely so.

raya ENGLER2 years ago

Is making money a bad thing? Maybe being poor makes people make these idiotic statements. Why - are people with money making the ones who don't have it look bad?

Sure. Let's all not make money and be poor as dirt and we can all be happy in our misery.

Hope I win the lottery this coming year !

Ulli W.
Ulli W.2 years ago

go into your countries statistics; look up the »mean assets per capita« – compare to yours.
It gives you a clue where the "residue" might be.
Or by simple division, how many must be at or below ZERO to maintain ONE above a MILLION.

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline2 years ago

@ John C: Yes, Kennedy made money several ways, still he was the son of a wealthy Saloon Owner and was able to have a fully manned, operational, efficient and hugely profitable liquor distribution already set up just as soon as prohibition ended

Yeah, he didn't make a ton of money off liquor during prohibition

Dennis D.
Dennis D.2 years ago

John C. Are you a birther??

Dennis D.
Dennis D.2 years ago

John C. I should understand my own politics better than some one an public forum.. I am a moderate Liberal. I am not even a democrat. So while you can pigeon hole me to your hearts content. You have seriously misread my politics.

And by the way.. Warren Buffet wants the rich, that does include himself, at a much higher rate.

If you want to bleat at the third richest man on the planet. You do so..

But again what does the third richest man on the planet know about how money works right.

David C.
David C.2 years ago

@Frank H

You may be confusing me with David F. You won't Fox talking points from me. I'm an unabashed progressive.

On Joe Kennedy. I suggest you do some research yourself. Kennedy money came from several sources including plays in the market, real estate, post-prohibition liquor distribution. There is no conclusive evidence he was in the liquor trade during prohibition. Even if it was true, that trade would have been a minor contributor to his fortune.

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline2 years ago

@ David C: John F Kennedy made even more money after prohibition as the Kennedy family, his dad, made it DURING prohibition

Of course they could make more with distribution of distilled spirits, they already had that working for them

Same for a lot of rich families. As they say "a great fortune startes with a crime" and "it takes money to make money"

I really wish you'd decide to learn something and change your baselss talking points with oh, say, evidence and facts