While I believe that I mostly understand the distinction between Old Rich and New Rich (myself being neither of them), I wonder where individuals such as Warren Buffett fall in the social distinction. While it's obvious that in practice he's "new rich" in terms of family timeline, he is famously quite the opposite of the showy New Rich stereotypes. Furthermore, I'm sure there are countless more like him (though not quite so rich) that are virtually unknown precisely because they are so restrained and discreet about their wealth.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm curious as to how the Old Rich feel towards these non-New-Rich-but-newly-rich types. Are they still considered part of the New Rich riff-raff even if they do happen to be more sensible with their money? Or are they seen as honorary Old Rich out of respect? Or something else?
Hopefully some Old Rich HN commenter (we know you're there!) can give me some insight.
You've got two bell curves that mostly overlap and a bunch of upper middle class know-it-alls who are trying to say profound things about the nature of the irrelevent little valley between the two summits.
None of this crap really matters. There's plenty of old money types who spend on flamboyant crap and plenty of new money types who don't and trying to generalize based on how many generations they've had money is beyond a fool's errand.
Buffet's diet consists of coca-cola and hamburgers, and every year he throws a massive self-promotion and sales event in Omaha that lasts multiple days. By old money standards it's vulgar.
It’s legitimate. He doesn’t even own McDonalds but every day would get bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit for $3.17. It’s a comfortable, new money thing. You grow up on these things and a lot of the times it ends up being a familiar routine. Gates is the same way with burgers. God knows I’d still doing the same thing past a billionaire.
‘Rich’ is a relative term but my family might qualify as ‘old rich’ and do tend to distinguish from ‘new rich’. The terms are misnomers. People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations. It is a relatively easy-to-observe distinction.
I am not saying it’s an important distinction to me.
This makes sense, and sounds reasonable. I think people are getting hung up on 'qualities of tastes', believing (I assume) it is a value judgement. I read it as 'characteristics'.
As a result of proximity over time, the 'old rich' have developed unique cultural habits that are easily recognized as different to 'new rich'. Every group does this. Sure, there is good and bad to it, but it's a natural and expected outcome.
It's a term made up to embarrass newcomers. Cultural differences are not right or wrong, they just are.
To say someone has the wrong 'qualities of tastes, behaviors or values' is arrogance. Everybody's culture is handed down, that's another weasel-phrase that just disguises bigotry.
It’s a poor term but one that simply refers to observable differences. It is unfortunate that there may be bigory or judgements accorded. I am inclined to suppose that those people are in the minority.
> People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm curious as to how the Old Rich feel towards these non-New-Rich-but-newly-rich types. Are they still considered part of the New Rich riff-raff even if they do happen to be more sensible with their money? Or are they seen as honorary Old Rich out of respect? Or something else?
Hopefully some Old Rich HN commenter (we know you're there!) can give me some insight.