Wealth levels of the rich and famous.

Michael Thayne · 12-06-2018, 02:11 PM

It's common for fictional characters to be rich, but it's often not obvious how to translate that into GURPS terms, both because GURPS's handling of money is not very realistic, and it may not be clear how much money is actually required to fit a particular popular stereotype. I'm going to try to work up some guidelines, ignoring official numbers and taking "Average" wealth to usually mean the American median household income of ~$60,000, applying multipliers found in RAW (e.g. "Comfortable" is twice that or $120,000). These numbers will sometimes need to be adjusted if a character has higher-than-average expenses which yield no benefit for adventuring purposes. Since I'm a fan of the "abstract wealth" rules (IIRC Pyramid #3/44), it also might be worth looking at threshold values and picking one that "feels right".

Many famous people have highly variable incomes, so statistics on "what this person made last year" are often misleading. When in doubt, I'd rely more on net worth statistics than income statistics, and assume an annual income of 4% of net worth for people like e.g. Jeff Bezos. This is because 4% is fairly standard among financial advisors for what you can live on indefinitely. For example, if your net worth is $1 billion at the beginning of the year and becomes $2 billion by the end of the year, trying to spend $1 billion a year carries a very high risk of being bankrupt in short order. But if you spend $60 million per year, you'll almost certainly weather the ups and downs of the stock market just fine. Based on that math, a billionaire might "only" have Multimillionaire 1.

What's the low end of truly wealthy? A million dollars in 1939 (the year Batman debuted) would be worth 17 million today. For an example of wha that means today, Weird Al Yanchovich (one of the first people I looked up as an example of a "fairly minor celebrity") is reportedly worth $16 million. At 4% per year, that easy entails a passive income of over $600k, or slightly more than 10x the median household income. In GURPS terms, that's somewhere between Very Wealthy and Wealthy. In expensive parts of the country like LA, rounding down might be justified. On the other hand, if your basic expenses aren't too high, you might have a lot of money left over for discretionary spending, which could justify rounding up. Young celebrities are likely not to have much saved, but that will tend to be offset by higher earnings potential.

That suggests most "celebrity" PCs need to spend at least 20 points on Wealth, with Very Wealthy (for 30 points) being common. Are there exceptions? Certainly. Even "best selling" writers often make much less than musicians, actors, and sports stars who might seem comparably famous—many still have day jobs. And even sports stars, musicians, etc. who manage their money poorly can end up pretty broke. There you want to look at current earnings (minus debt repayment, which can be substantial) rather than net worth. A once-famous actor or musician with any ability to cash in on their former fame is probably at least Comfortable—and even then people will be surprised by how little money they have. Average wealth is for the former child stars who end up having to take normal-person jobs.

It would be interesting to work on improving the "what cost of living gets you" table for TL8. Not that I love the cost of living rules, but it's useful to know typical lifestyles for a given status. For example Status 2 describes "grounds" and a "housekeeper"—I don't know what kind of person has "grounds" these days, and in my experience nannies are more common than full-time housekeepers nowadays (though many people have a one or twice a week cleaning service—which is probably a Status 1 thing).

Michael Thayne · 12-07-2018, 01:06 PM

This isn't a wealth-level issue, but it's related: Rank conveys Status, and according to the rules "If you get Status free from Rank (p. 29), you need only pay the cost of living for your Status before this bonus, not for your final Status level. Someone else – your organization, the taxpayers, etc. – covers the difference." This certainly fits heads of state and top military officials, but I don't think is particularly accurate for for most members of Congress. Members of Congress have budgets for carrying out their official duties, but they're strictly prohibited from spending that money on personal expenses. Similar restrictions apply to how they spend their campaign budgets. Congressional salaries look competitive with those of doctors, lawyers, etc. but they're legally required to maintain a residence in their home state. That means they either have to maintain two residences (which can really do a number on your pocket money) or sleep on a cot in their office (some non-wealthy members actually do this). It would be really nice if we had a better table of "actual lifestyles enjoyed by people in various jobs".

Michael Thayne · 12-07-2018, 01:35 PM

This link may be useful here. Would be interesting to compare these income ranges against the number of (status symbol) in the US. Number of second homes, number of yachts, etc. FWIW ~5% of Americans have a second home, and maybe 0.1% have a yacht. Still working on mansions, bodyguards, and aircraft owned by individuals.

David Johnston2 · 12-07-2018, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

This isn't a wealth-level issue, but it's related: Rank conveys Status, and according to the rules "If you get Status free from Rank (p. 29), you need only pay the cost of living for your Status before this bonus, not for your final Status level. Someone else – your organization, the taxpayers, etc. – covers the difference." This certainly fits heads of state and top military officials, but I don't think is particularly accurate for for most members of Congress. Members of Congress have budgets for carrying out their official duties, but they're strictly prohibited from spending that money on personal expenses.

Doesn't actually matter because the status cost of living is not just restricted to personal expenses. Having a nice office is a display of status.

Donny Brook · 12-07-2018, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

This isn't a wealth-level issue, but it's related: Rank conveys Status, and according to the rules "If you get Status free from Rank (p. 29), you need only pay the cost of living for your Status before this bonus, not for your final Status level. Someone else – your organization, the taxpayers, etc. – covers the difference." This certainly fits heads of state and top military officials, but I don't think is particularly accurate for for most members of Congress. Members of Congress have budgets for carrying out their official duties, but they're strictly prohibited from spending that money on personal expenses. Similar restrictions apply to how they spend their campaign budgets. Congressional salaries look competitive with those of doctors, lawyers, etc. but they're legally required to maintain a residence in their home state. That means they either have to maintain two residences (which can really do a number on your pocket money) or sleep on a cot in their office (some non-wealthy members actually do this). It would be really nice if we had a better table of "actual lifestyles enjoyed by people in various jobs".

Members of Congress don't have Rank.

dcarson · 12-07-2018, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Doesn't actually matter because the status cost of living is not just restricted to personal expenses. Having a nice office is a display of status.

Arranging for someone to go on the non-tourist tour of the White House, tickets the an Inauguration ball, etc. Being able to use your Rank to get a complaint to a actual undersecretary of foo instead of a very junior peon. All help with the bonuses that Status gives. Shows that you are someone that you want helping you instead of being in the way of.

AlexanderHowl · 12-07-2018, 03:24 PM

I would argue that Senators have Political Rank 6 and Representatives have Political Rank 5 (leaders in each chamber would get +1 Political Rank). They can demand answers from anyone in the world, especially in the USA, and they are the only people who can present and vote on new laws. Anyway, it is not like a Senator spends the equivalent of $600,000 per month on the COL.

Michael Thayne · 12-07-2018, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Members of Congress don't have Rank.

City Stats gives Nancy Pelosi Political Rank as Speaker of the House. Granted there's a difference between leadership and back-benchers. I think I've seen other sources suggest elected reps have Rank, but I'm not sure which off the top of my head.

Michael Thayne · 12-07-2018, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I would argue that Senators have Political Rank 6 and Representatives have Political Rank 5 (leaders in each chamber would get +1 Political Rank). They can demand answers from anyone in the world, especially in the USA, and they are the only people who can present and vote on new laws. Anyway, it is not like a Senator spends the equivalent of $600,000 per month on the COL.

That's COL for Status 5. But forget about that—assuming reps have at least Political Rank 5, that's +2 Status, which comes with a housekeeper, multiple properties, etc. Governors and some mayors might get perks along those lines, but reps who have that are paying out of their congressional salary or investment income.

Donny Brook · 12-07-2018, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

City Stats gives Nancy Pelosi Political Rank as Speaker of the House. Granted there's a difference between leadership and back-benchers. I think I've seen other sources suggest elected reps have Rank, but I'm not sure which off the top of my head.

I would agree she would have Rank due to being in the House Leadership, but not by virtue of being a Congressperson.

12-06-2018, 02:11 PM	#1
Michael Thayne Join Date: May 2010	Wealth levels of the rich and famous. It's common for fictional characters to be rich, but it's often not obvious how to translate that into GURPS terms, both because GURPS's handling of money is not very realistic, and it may not be clear how much money is actually required to fit a particular popular stereotype. I'm going to try to work up some guidelines, ignoring official numbers and taking "Average" wealth to usually mean the American median household income of ~$60,000, applying multipliers found in RAW (e.g. "Comfortable" is twice that or $120,000). These numbers will sometimes need to be adjusted if a character has higher-than-average expenses which yield no benefit for adventuring purposes. Since I'm a fan of the "abstract wealth" rules (IIRC Pyramid #3/44), it also might be worth looking at threshold values and picking one that "feels right". Many famous people have highly variable incomes, so statistics on "what this person made last year" are often misleading. When in doubt, I'd rely more on net worth statistics than income statistics, and assume an annual income of 4% of net worth for people like e.g. Jeff Bezos. This is because 4% is fairly standard among financial advisors for what you can live on indefinitely. For example, if your net worth is $1 billion at the beginning of the year and becomes $2 billion by the end of the year, trying to spend $1 billion a year carries a very high risk of being bankrupt in short order. But if you spend $60 million per year, you'll almost certainly weather the ups and downs of the stock market just fine. Based on that math, a billionaire might "only" have Multimillionaire 1. What's the low end of truly wealthy? A million dollars in 1939 (the year Batman debuted) would be worth 17 million today. For an example of wha that means today, Weird Al Yanchovich (one of the first people I looked up as an example of a "fairly minor celebrity") is reportedly worth $16 million. At 4% per year, that easy entails a passive income of over $600k, or slightly more than 10x the median household income. In GURPS terms, that's somewhere between Very Wealthy and Wealthy. In expensive parts of the country like LA, rounding down might be justified. On the other hand, if your basic expenses aren't too high, you might have a lot of money left over for discretionary spending, which could justify rounding up. Young celebrities are likely not to have much saved, but that will tend to be offset by higher earnings potential. That suggests most "celebrity" PCs need to spend at least 20 points on Wealth, with Very Wealthy (for 30 points) being common. Are there exceptions? Certainly. Even "best selling" writers often make much less than musicians, actors, and sports stars who might seem comparably famous—many still have day jobs. And even sports stars, musicians, etc. who manage their money poorly can end up pretty broke. There you want to look at current earnings (minus debt repayment, which can be substantial) rather than net worth. A once-famous actor or musician with any ability to cash in on their former fame is probably at least Comfortable—and even then people will be surprised by how little money they have. Average wealth is for the former child stars who end up having to take normal-person jobs. It would be interesting to work on improving the "what cost of living gets you" table for TL8. Not that I love the cost of living rules, but it's useful to know typical lifestyles for a given status. For example Status 2 describes "grounds" and a "housekeeper"—I don't know what kind of person has "grounds" these days, and in my experience nannies are more common than full-time housekeepers nowadays (though many people have a one or twice a week cleaning service—which is probably a Status 1 thing).

12-07-2018, 01:06 PM	#2
Michael Thayne Join Date: May 2010	Re: Wealth levels of the rich and famous. This isn't a wealth-level issue, but it's related: Rank conveys Status, and according to the rules "If you get Status free from Rank (p. 29), you need only pay the cost of living for your Status before this bonus, not for your final Status level. Someone else – your organization, the taxpayers, etc. – covers the difference." This certainly fits heads of state and top military officials, but I don't think is particularly accurate for for most members of Congress. Members of Congress have budgets for carrying out their official duties, but they're strictly prohibited from spending that money on personal expenses. Similar restrictions apply to how they spend their campaign budgets. Congressional salaries look competitive with those of doctors, lawyers, etc. but they're legally required to maintain a residence in their home state. That means they either have to maintain two residences (which can really do a number on your pocket money) or sleep on a cot in their office (some non-wealthy members actually do this). It would be really nice if we had a better table of "actual lifestyles enjoyed by people in various jobs".

12-07-2018, 03:24 PM	#7
AlexanderHowl Join Date: Feb 2016	Re: Wealth levels of the rich and famous. I would argue that Senators have Political Rank 6 and Representatives have Political Rank 5 (leaders in each chamber would get +1 Political Rank). They can demand answers from anyone in the world, especially in the USA, and they are the only people who can present and vote on new laws. Anyway, it is not like a Senator spends the equivalent of $600,000 per month on the COL.

12-07-2018, 01:35 PM	#3
Michael Thayne Join Date: May 2010	Re: Wealth levels of the rich and famous. This link may be useful here. Would be interesting to compare these income ranges against the number of (status symbol) in the US. Number of second homes, number of yachts, etc. FWIW ~5% of Americans have a second home, and maybe 0.1% have a yacht. Still working on mansions, bodyguards, and aircraft owned by individuals.