Association of Rich Persons Raises 'Rich' Threshold to $20 Million

Greenwich, CT — The Association of Rich Persons, the nation's oldest private wealth advocacy organization, announced today that it has formally raised the baseline definition of being rich from $1 million in liquid assets to $20 million, citing what its executive committee described as "widespread millionaire dilution" and "a fundamental breakdown in the social utility of the term."

The vote, which passed 847–3 at the Association's annual summit held aboard a chartered superyacht in Long Island Sound, marks the first adjustment to the organization's wealth taxonomy since 1987, when the threshold was raised from $500,000 to $1 million following what members called "the yuppie contamination."

Under the new standard, individuals possessing fewer than $20 million in liquid assets will be reclassified from "rich" to "financially exposed"—a designation the Association insists carries no judgment, merely accuracy.

"A million dollars used to mean something," explained Association spokesperson Harrington Clyde IV during a press conference held in a private dining room at The Core Club. "It meant you had arrived. It meant you could stop thinking about money. Now it means you still check prices. That's not rich. That's comfortable with anxiety."

The White Paper: Wealth, But Make It Meaningful Again

The reclassification follows the publication of a 247-page position paper titled Wealth, But Make It Meaningful Again, which argues that inflation, market democratization, and the proliferation of accessible investment vehicles have fundamentally eroded the distinctiveness of millionaire status.

"With inflation, market access, and casual private equity," the report states in its executive summary, "a million dollars is just a buffer between you and discomfort. It is not freedom. It is deferred worry. The millionaire of 2025 is simply someone who can absorb a medium-sized medical emergency without refinancing."

The paper includes extensive appendices documenting what researchers call "wealth behavior indicators"—observable patterns that distinguish authentic affluence from what the Association terms "liquid adjacency." Key indicators that someone with $1–5 million in assets does not qualify as rich include: still flying commercial without pretending to enjoy it, asking follow-up questions about fees, caring about interest rates, knowing what groceries cost, having a budget that exists, comparison shopping for insurance, attending events primarily for the open bar, and describing real estate as "an investment" rather than "a place."

"If you are aware of money," the paper concludes in bold italics, "you do not have enough of it."

"The defining characteristic of wealth is its invisibility to the wealthy. When you notice your net worth, you are not wealthy. You are merely solvent."

The New Wealth Taxonomy

Alongside the redefinition, the Association unveiled a comprehensive restructuring of its wealth classification system. The previous binary distinction between "rich" and "not rich" has been replaced with a four-tier framework designed to reflect what economists call "the experiential gradients of affluence."

Tier One: Functionally Vulnerable ($1–5 million) — Individuals in this category possess significant assets by historical standards but remain "one divorce, one lawsuit, or one prolonged medical event away from genuine concern." The Association notes that this tier encompasses approximately 13.5 million American households, rendering it "statistically unremarkable and therefore definitionally not rich."

Tier Two: Comfortable but Anxious ($5–20 million) — This demographic has achieved what the Association calls "insulation without immunity." Members can absorb moderate financial shocks but continue to track portfolio performance, maintain active relationships with financial advisors, and experience what the paper describes as "phantom poverty"—the persistent sensation that wealth could evaporate despite mathematical evidence to the contrary.

Tier Three: Rich (Entry Level) ($20–100 million) — The newly established baseline for authentic wealth. Individuals at this level have "transcended the gravitational pull of economic anxiety" and achieved what the Association terms "financial weightlessness." Key characteristics include: inability to accurately estimate household expenses, genuine surprise when informed of consumer prices, and the capacity to make significant purchases without subsequent emotional processing.

Tier Four: Finally Relaxed ($100 million and above) — The aspirational category representing "complete liberation from economic physics." Members at this level report that money has become "infrastructural"—present everywhere, noticed nowhere, like electricity or oxygen. The Association notes that individuals at this tier "do not think about money because thinking about money requires acknowledging it exists as a constraint, which it does not."

A footnote in the classification document clarifies that "liquid" is defined as "available without explaining yourself"—a standard that excludes retirement accounts, primary residences, and any asset requiring more than one phone call to convert to cash.

Member Testimonials

Several Association members agreed to speak candidly about the reclassification, provided their identities remained protected and the venue remained a private club.

"I have friends with a million dollars," admitted one member, a third-generation industrialist who requested anonymity. "They worry about things. They ask questions like 'should we drive or fly?' and 'what's the budget for this trip?' That's not rich behavior. That's tourism with better hotels."

Another member, a technology executive who sold his fourth company last year for an undisclosed sum, was more direct: "If you can't absorb a bad year without changing your lifestyle, you're just cosplaying. You're wearing the costume of wealth without actually inhabiting it. And I say that with compassion. I was there once. It's uncomfortable."

A third member, who identified herself only as "someone who stopped counting," described the psychological dimensions of the threshold. "When you have a million dollars, you know you have a million dollars. You check. You monitor. You feel it. When you're actually rich, you have people who know those numbers for you. The information exists, but not in your consciousness. That's the difference."

"My accountant sends me a quarterly summary. I don't read it. I file it. That's wealth. If you read yours, you're not there yet."

Methodological Framework

The Association commissioned Hartwell & Associates, a boutique research consultancy specializing in what it calls "experiential economics," to develop the analytical framework underlying the reclassification. Lead researcher Dr. Cassandra Hartwell presented findings at the summit in a session titled "The Phenomenology of Having Enough."

"Traditional wealth measurement focuses on what you have," Hartwell explained. "Our methodology focuses on what you notice. The rich, properly defined, do not notice scarcity. They do not notice constraint. They do not notice money at all, because it has ceased to function as a limiting variable in their decision-making."

The research team developed a proprietary assessment tool called the Wealth Awareness Index (WAI), which measures financial consciousness through a series of behavioral and psychological indicators. Sample questions include: "When was the last time you checked your bank balance?", "Do you know your monthly expenses within 20 percent?", "Have you ever declined an invitation due to cost?", and "Can you name three items and their prices from your most recent grocery trip?"

According to Hartwell, individuals scoring above a certain threshold on the WAI—indicating high financial awareness—automatically disqualify from the "rich" designation regardless of net worth. "You can have fifty million dollars and still not be rich if you're tracking it," she noted. "Vigilance is the opposite of wealth."

The Millionaire Response

Reaction outside the Association ranged from disbelief to laughter to something approximating existential recalibration. Several individuals who had previously identified as rich reported confusion about their new status.

"So I'm poor again?" asked Marcus Chen, a Bay Area software engineer with $3.2 million in liquid assets, speaking outside his home in Palo Alto. "I worked for twenty years to get here. I thought I'd arrived. Now you're telling me I'm 'functionally vulnerable'? What does that even mean?"

The Association responded through a spokesperson: "We didn't say poor. We said effectively poor. There's an important distinction. Poor means you lack resources. Effectively poor means you possess resources but remain constrained by awareness of their limits. It's a psychological category, not a material one."

Chen did not appear comforted. "That sounds like something a rich person would say," he replied.

Others took the news in stride. "Honestly, it tracks," said Jennifer Holloway, a Chicago-based attorney with approximately $4.5 million in assets. "I still worry about whether I can retire. I still calculate. I don't feel rich. Maybe that's the point—if you don't feel rich, you're not."

Expert Reactions

Economists contacted for comment largely declined to engage with the reclassification, with several citing what one Harvard professor called "psychological distance" and another termed "professional self-preservation."

Dr. Elaine Marsh, a behavioral economist at MIT, offered a measured assessment. "The Association is making a definitional argument, not an economic one," she explained. "They're saying that wealth should be understood phenomenologically—as an experience rather than a quantity. That's actually not unreasonable from a behavioral perspective. The question is whether we want private organizations defining the terms of public discourse about inequality."

Thomas Piketty, reached by email, responded with a single sentence: "I wrote a book about this."

Conservative economist Stephen Moore praised the reclassification as "finally bringing honesty to the conversation about wealth in America." In a statement, he argued that "a million dollars isn't what it used to be, and pretending otherwise is statistical gaslighting. The Association is simply acknowledging reality."

Progressive commentators were less sympathetic. "This is a masterclass in class maintenance," wrote journalist Anand Giridharadas in a social media post. "The rich are literally moving the goalposts so they don't have to share the designation with people who might humanize it."

Implementation and Compliance

Effective immediately, Association members have committed to implementing the new terminology across all relevant contexts. Specific commitments include: updating biographical materials and professional introductions, ceasing to refer to millionaires as peers in social settings, reclassifying previous success stories as "early chapters" rather than "arrivals," and reserving the word "wealthy" exclusively for individuals who have demonstrated they never check balances.

Private events organized by Association members will now include signage reading: "Minimum Liquidity Required: $20M. No exceptions. No explanations." Attendees who cannot verify asset levels will be directed to a separate reception area designated for "aspirational participants."

The Association is also developing a certification program called Verified Affluent Status (VAS), which will allow qualifying individuals to display credentials confirming their position within the new taxonomy. Certification requires submission of financial documentation to an independent review board, completion of the Wealth Awareness Index assessment, and a personal interview designed to evaluate what the Association calls "unconscious relationship to capital."

"We're not trying to be exclusive," clarified spokesperson Clyde. "We're trying to be accurate. Anyone can become rich. The bar is now simply set at a level that reflects what richness actually feels like."

Historical Context

The Association of Rich Persons was founded in 1923 by a consortium of industrialists concerned about what they called "the dilution of distinction" following the post-war economic expansion. Original membership required $100,000 in liquid assets—approximately $1.8 million in current dollars—and a demonstrated "temperament consistent with permanent prosperity."

The organization has adjusted its threshold four times in its century-long history: in 1954 (from $100,000 to $250,000, following the "middle-class intrusion"), in 1972 (from $250,000 to $500,000, in response to "inflationary contamination"), in 1987 (from $500,000 to $1 million, after "the yuppie contamination"), and now in 2025 (from $1 million to $20 million, addressing "millionaire dilution").

Association historians note that each adjustment has been accompanied by similar controversy, followed by gradual acceptance as the new threshold becomes normalized. "The pattern is consistent," observed Dr. William Ashford, the organization's official archivist. "Initial outrage, then accommodation, then amnesia. In five years, no one will remember that millionaires were ever considered rich."

Dissenting Voices Within

The three members who voted against the resolution issued a joint statement expressing concern about what they called "definitional escalation." The statement, attributed to members identified only by their tier classifications, argued that "the Association risks losing touch with its historical mission by continuously raising standards that fewer and fewer can meet."

"If we keep moving the threshold," the statement continued, "eventually 'rich' will mean only billionaires, and we will have defined ourselves into irrelevance. The power of the term lies in its accessibility—in the aspiration it creates. Remove that, and you remove the social function of wealth as a motivator."

The majority dismissed these concerns as "nostalgic." One board member, speaking anonymously, described the dissent as "the kind of argument you'd expect from people still doing their own taxes."

Political Implications

Lawmakers reacted to the announcement along predictable ideological lines, though with notable variations in emphasis.

Senator Bernie Sanders issued a statement calling the reclassification "a perfect distillation of the problem with American capitalism—the rich literally redefining language to exclude everyone else from the conversation about wealth." He proposed legislation that would establish a federal definition of "rich" tied to the median household income, with automatic adjustments for inflation and geographic cost of living.

Senator Ted Cruz praised the Association for "bringing market discipline to an imprecise term," arguing that "words should mean something, and 'rich' had become so diluted that it had lost all practical utility." He suggested that the new threshold might actually be too low given current economic conditions.

The White House declined to comment directly but issued a statement emphasizing the administration's commitment to "an economy that works for everyone, regardless of how private organizations choose to categorize wealth."

Cultural Commentary

The reclassification has already generated significant cultural commentary, with observers noting its implications for how Americans understand economic mobility and success.

Cultural critic Sarah Kendzior wrote in a widely shared essay that "the Association has inadvertently revealed the fundamental absurdity of wealth discourse in America—we argue about who counts as rich while avoiding the more fundamental question of why we organize society around the accumulation of numbers that most people will never possess."

Comedian John Mulaney reportedly declined to comment, with a representative noting that "the situation has become too absurd for satire."

Social media response was predictably voluminous, with the hashtag #AmIRichNow trending briefly before being replaced by unrelated content about a celebrity relationship dispute.

Next Steps and Future Adjustments

The Association has indicated that the $20 million threshold will remain in effect "until market conditions necessitate further refinement." A committee has been established to monitor "wealth perception indicators" and recommend adjustments as needed.

Internal projections suggest the threshold may need to be raised again within the decade, potentially to $50 million, as "the continued democratization of investment vehicles and the persistence of inflation continue to erode the distinctiveness of any fixed-dollar amount."

The organization is also exploring the development of a "parallel track" for individuals who possess significant wealth but continue to exhibit high scores on the Wealth Awareness Index. This category, tentatively titled "Rich in Theory," would acknowledge substantial assets while noting ongoing psychological barriers to authentic affluence.

At press time, several individuals with $2–3 million in liquid assets were seen reassessing their lives, updating spreadsheets, and realizing that they had been rich only temporarily and only by a definition that no longer applies.

The Association of Rich Persons has scheduled its next annual summit for the same location, same yacht, same threshold—for now. Members are advised to monitor their Wealth Awareness Index scores and to remember that, in matters of affluence, the only constant is recalibration.

The goalposts moved. Again.