Talk:Millionaire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 13, 2005 - Anyone know who the world's first millionaire is, if it has been documented?

A millionaire is a person who has a net worth or wealth of more than one million United States dollars, euros, UK pounds or units of a similarly valued currency.

Wealth is not precisely defined, and what is a "similarly valued currency"? It appears that there is no good definition of "millionaire". Brianjd 11:09, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I also don't think it's clear that the currency needs to be "similarly valued" (if we can even say meaningfully that United States dollars and UK pounds have similar values). The website Whatmillion.com takes a net worth in any of a few currencies, and finds the currency where the holder would be a millionaire (e.g. Vietnamese đồng, Kuwaiti Dinar, etc). I also remember having been in some countries, but can not definitively site examples, where the term is reserved for earnings rather than net worth. TheSparrow 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to be a Turkish Millionaire?! Ewlyahoocom 22:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The origin of the term millionaire is in revolutionary France where the Assignat currency was so over-inflated that people were described as millionaires and yet were still poor.

Contents 1 Number of millionaires quite ambiguous? 2 Tag 3 Number of millionaires by country 4 this article... 5 centimillionaire ???? 6 Millionaire Definition

[edit] Number of millionaires quite ambiguous?

CNN Money has reported that as of May 2005 the number of millionaires in the U.S. itself is nearly 7 million. Is this number simply including "paper millionaires," whereas this Wikipedia article is only counting those who have 1 million dollars or over in "cash?" If not then maybe it's time to edit the information! (This comment was left by User:24.16.63.183)

The CNN report obviously counts "money millionaires." It very clearly states that real estate equity is the most common assets among millionaires in the US. Also, please remember the original research policy. We don't count here; CNN counts, Forbers counts, Merril Lynch counts. We just report the findings of such institutions and thus need to list all their findings, those who include "equity millionaire" and those include "financial asset millionaires." Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I was the one who had asked this question before creating my Wikipedia account. And thank you for updating/upgrading the article!--Theelectricchild 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Please include the female spelling, millionairess.

And create a Redirect Article millionairess.

Thanks

100110100 08:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Millionairess, like "aviatrix" and "editrix", is thought by most to be archaic and has therefore fallen out of use. But perhaps a mention of the term as such would be interesting (cc:100110100's talk page) --Seja430 16:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of millionaires by country

Number od HNWIs (in thousands ) in selected countries from World Wealth Report 2005 and 2006 Country - year 2003, 2004 and 2005

Australia 117 134 146

Brasil 92 98 109

Canada 200 217 232

China 287 300 320

Germany 756 760 767

India 61 70 83

Russia 84 88 103

UK 383 418 448

US 2272 2498 2669

country -year 2004 and 2005

UAE 53 59

Saudi Arabia 70 80

country -year 2004

Singapore 49

South Africa 37

Hong Kong 67

South Korea 71

Spain 141

sources: http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/jun/21rich.htm (2006 Report) There are now 8.7 million millionaires on the planet, 6.5 per cent more than there were last year. The report said that United States is the richest nation with 2.67 million millionaires. The other countries with the highest number of HNWIs are: Germany (767,000), the United Kingdom (448,000), China (320,000), Canada (232,000), Australia (146,000), Brazil (109,000), and Russia (103,000). HNWI http://www.fin-rus.com/sector/economics00004009FC/default.asp http://www.us.capgemini.com/DownloadLibrary/files/Capgemini_FSI_WWR06.pdf http://www.us.capgemini.com/DownloadLibrary/files/Capgemini_FSI_WWR05.pdf

[edit] this article...

portrays millionaires in the wrong light. most millionaires do not own superexpensive homes, cars, etc. they save money. that's how they got to be millionaires. right now, i'm reading The Millionaire Next Door, and it talks about stuff like that. it's a good book, if anybody wants something to read. Harpiegirl6 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

True. Just about half of all millionaires are retired; meaning that they have simply managed to accumulate one million over the course of their lifes. Most millionaires are middle class people who were smart with their investments and now have a lot os assets. Besdies a most millionaires (By Net Worth) have their assets locked up in real estate; thus their million does not affecting their lifestyles. I think it is also important to remember that the majority of millionaires are not multi-millionaies, meaning that their net worth ranges between one and two million. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that someone close to me is a millionare and that's why I was reading this article. But the thing is he just found out that he is because a house he bought a long time ago is now sitting on prime real-estate. His networth is now huge but he's the same guy who has to work his ass off for a living. -- 18:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactely. The real estate market has been the dirivng force behind the recent increase in millionaires. Fact is that while 7% are millionaires according to net worth only 2.6% actually have assets (other than equity) worth 1 mil or more. The story you shared above is very typical of a modern millionaire. Here in California, house prices increased up to 400% in just five years, leaving many working class people, finding themselves with a net worth of one million or more, because what was once a modest home is now a "California cottege." Personally, I haven't read the book but encourage you to edit the article with the info from the book. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article starts with a false premise - that a millionaire "is a person who resides in a household whose net worth or wealth exceeds one million". So the live-in maid on minimum wage is a millionaire! Similarly, if 10 people live in a house and each have a personal wealth of 100,000, by this definition all of them are millionaires! And this leads to the pointless discussion above based on property (real estate) values. A sensible definition of a millionaire ought to be along the lines of a person having annual income, earned or not, in excess of a million dollars/pounds/whatever and therefore having the appropriate spending power. The poor guy with the inflated house is just that - poor. If he realises his million he's homeless! Emeraude 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No the maid isn't going to be millionaire but the guy's teenage son or daughter is. Also, yes if ten people w/ $100k live together then they are living in a millionaire household. That's how the US government collects data; by household not individual. Its the same problem with income. Three low-income people live together and their household may be among the top 10% on the income strata. Consider that the majority of households with six-figure incomes wouldn't have them if they didn't have two income eanrers. Who's wealthier a family of four making $120,000 or a family of two making $80,000 a year? There is an inherit flaw in counting the gross total earnings and net worth by household instead of dividing them by household member, but that's how the Departement of Commerce does it. And finally yes, "The poor guy with the inflated house," is by net worth a millionaire. Trust me I live in CA, I see households who make less than $60k in million dollars homes all the time-I know it sounds rediculous to call them millionaires, but according to Gov data they are. How else would almost 8% of Americans get to be millionaires. I agree with you that income should be the definition, as that really affects lifestyle, but unfortunately that's not how the Gov or media sees it. Regards Signature^brendel 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. However, I'm willing to bet that the Dept of Commerce definition of millionaire isn't the same as the IRS's. Perhaps the first sentence in the article should stipulate that the rest of the article is based on a flawed argument from the DofC and someone can make another article on 'real' millionaires. Emeraude 21:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really up to re-writing the article now. The thing is that there are different definitions of what a millionaire is. It's also a loaded term and recent deveoplments in the economy have made it possible for "The poor guy with the inflated house" to call himself a millionaire, in terms of net worth. The DofC def isn't really flawed, its based on net worth. The DofC also measured assets, excluding home equite, then only about 2.6% would be millionaires. There are a lot of ways to count wealth, just like there are a lot of ways to count income. If this article was to feature a scientific approach it should eventually look something like my Household income in the United States article. Perhaps we need to mention the image that pops into peoples heads when they hear the word millionaire aside from all the economic stats we can cite. Anyways, feel free to edit the article, this one needs it. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] centimillionaire ????

centimillionaire, being someone with 100 million or more. Is this a correct use of the term centimillionaire?? I would have thought a centimillionaire would have a mere $10,000.

You're right according to the SI system you would expect a centi-millionaire to be worth in tens of thousands. But as far as I can see the term is acutally used to describe people worth in the hundreds of millions. See this Forbes article regarding Bob Hope, whose described as "Just another Centimillionaire" with a net worth between 400 and 700 million. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some research on the term "centimillionaire" and sure enough, this is taken to mean more than 100 million. I shall never know why this is the proper term since it goes against the SI system, but such as it is. Anyone know the origin of this term??? If so, it would be interesting to make mention of it in the article Caffeine USA 19:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What sources did you use? Forbes has used it incorrectly time and time again (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aforbes.com+centimillionaire). Centi-, the prefix, means 1/100. Centimeter is 1/100 of a meter. Centimillionaire is 1/100 of a millionaire. Yes there are words like "century" which are derived from the use of "cent" (Lation for 100) in the non-inverse way (100 instead of 1/100), but whenever you use the "centi-", as a prefix to modify an existing value, it means 1/100. More info SI_prefix. Perhaps it could be mentioned that Forbes has used it incorrectly many times, and is an unreliable source due to this. (If it becomes mainstream enough, what I have said will be wrong do to the natural change of the English language to coincide with popular belief.) I changed the article. 71.7.199.51 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just google it. The word has its meaning, which is not consistent with how the prefix is otherwise used. But that doesn't mean we get to rewrite the english language. Centimillionaire means worth over 100 million, even if it doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not a platform for linguistic crusades. :) Enkrates 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

True, the term does not follow the SI system. Here centi means 100 times and centimillionaire thus means 100,000,000. Yes, technically that is incorrect following the SI system-but that doesn't apply here. Language doesn't always follow scientific guidelines. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a platform for linguistic crusades." Agreed. ... I think the problem comes from the USA's lack of usage with the metric system. I bet most of those Google results are USA. People in countries unfamiliar with the metric system do not see what a POOR choice "centimillionaire" is. It is so clear that "hectomillionaire" is the correct choice. I'm not just saying it is technically correct, I'm saying it is clearly correct, and naturally understood to be correct by anyone familiar with "centi-". It's just odd that the richest nation just happens to be one of the only countries left not using metric... and therefore opting into such a bad choice (out of ignorance). I think Wikipedia "backing" this improper usage is wrong, and should set the stage correctly. 71.7.199.51 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"but that doesn't apply here..." It applies perfectly. It is used as a modifier of a value (1,000,000) by a value (100)... "hectomillion" = 100,000,000. centimillion = 10,000. This is truth. "-aire" is tagged on afterwards. 71.7.199.51 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And I already mentioned that I do understand that usage defines meaning, not technicalities. I'm just not sure the usage is widespread enough. I'm not sure about a lot of this, but I thought I should bring up my thoughts anyways! 71.7.199.51 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hectomillionaire and centimillionaire both equalling $100,000,000 net worth are not mutually exclusive conditions, which means that hectomillionaire is correct no matter what centimillionaire is decided to be. Shouldn't this be added? 71.7.199.51 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How does one "win" a Wikipedia argument? It appears this argument is over as long as the page retains the edit requested by the other side. Does the page have to be edited back to "hectomillionaire" to force a continuity to this discussion? I'm really unsure how argument or discussion on Wikipedia works. (And I do not mean any offense by this.)

And, to repeat, doesn't hectomillionaire mean one hundred million dollars net worth (despite the technically incorrect usage of centimillionaire to mean the same)? (It does, I just posed that as a question to inspire thought.) They are not exclusive of one another. If so, shouldn't this be noted? (This is actually what I'm unsure of.) Shouldn't it be noted that Forbes is technically incorrect with their usage of the metric system, although being the main force in popularizing it? I wrote an article on my thoughts on the matter: http://xona.com/2006/12/17.html 71.7.199.51 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millionaire Definition

There seems to be universal acceptance of a definition that excludes the equity built up in a primary residence. Here are some problems with that:

- Allows individual control of whether they qualify for "millionaire" category. Example: I live in a $900k home. I have $500k in equity, and another $500k in non-residence assets. If I decide to sell my home and move into a rental apartment, I get to be a millionaire (woo hoo)! Or I can appear to be worth zero by investing what is left of my non-house assets in a $1.4 million home.

- Discredits individual's wealth building skills when their knowledge and timing of investment in real estate happens to be connected with their strategy for acquiring a primary residence. Example, I timed my purchase of my primary residence for the 90's real estate recovery. But according to the definition, I have failed to create 1 million in wealth because my savings and investment vehicle was my home. Again, why should ownership or liquidation of a primary residence be able to "swing the meter" from millionaire, to "poor", then back to millionaire? The same skills and principles of building wealth are employed in either case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.57.19.103 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).