But they could if they wanted to, by borrowing against their 401k at nearly the lowest interest rates possible.
I want a simple term that describes people that can and can't do that. Millionaire is it as there is a clear distinction between people that have zero and negative net worth, and people with one million dollars in assets that can be borrowed against.
> a “millionaire”, at least when I was growing up, meant someone who could afford luxuries that almost all could not.
Well that's inflation for you. I think you're the one that will need to pick another word. My experience with the luxury concept is that people imagine things are more expensive or unattainable than they are. Like, there is a kind of "commoner's luxury" which is catered towards via leasing and borrowing and there is no way to distinguish which person has actually afforded the lifestyle or simply assumed even more debt. The "millionaire" colloquialism seems to have spawned generations of posers with nearly zero net worth, surrounding themselves with the image of luxuries, which even the illiquid farmer with millions of dollars of land can afford.
In common vernacular, a “millionaire”, at least when I was growing up, meant someone who could afford luxuries that almost all could not. And while a secure retirement may be available to a select few, that was not the kind of luxury you would refer to when labeling someone a “millionaire”.
I would say describing someone’s wealth in terms of what they can afford to risk, or what they can afford not to worry about is most useful.
You can start with shelter, food, loss of income, health, retirement, legal, etc. By the time one can (per my judgment) start affording discretionary luxuries or investing in PE funds, you should probably have your legal risks covered, which involves you having enough assets or cash flow to not have to work and simultaneously pay lawyers.