> Still, Christie didn’t consider herself wealthy
Almost no one considers themselves wealthy. Even people that are very well-off typically consider themselves some variation of middle class, because they can so obviously and clearly see the next rung up the ladder, and how they are not on it. This point is made perfectly by her quote about how only the rich have cars.
By this definition, the only people who are rich are young professionals in Western countries who actually take those vacations and go on year-long travel through South America, for example.
BTW I think they where referring to middle class: you are middle class if you can go on vacation. (IMHO it doesn't make sense to be considered rich if you can go on vacation)
In Europe we are used to having a lot of vacation time, it (almost) doesn't matter which is your job, in the US it is not like this.
In an extreme example, Tim Cook made ~$100 Million in 2021 [1]. Regardless of his net worth, I would consider him rich.
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/apple-tim-cook-compensation-other-tec....
In contrast if you make $250k it's quite easy to spend the whole amount or close to it (again on consumables, not assets), hence your net worth stays the same in a year. You have to limit your spending to slowly build up your net worth.
By contrast, a house in a "super nice" neighborhood along with multiple private school tuitions can easily eat up the entirety of the $250k/yr income, leaving that guy actually broke in the end.
It is weird how uncomfortable rich people are acknowledging how rich they are.
Wealth, especially pre-World Wars, in the UK as elsewhere in Europe meant owning land and collecting rents. You didn't get wealthy by having a high income. You had a high income because you were wealthy.
Given we're talking about Agatha Christie here, I imagine the £200 of passive income came from book sales.
Many factual points in the introduction, with the modest apartment, income in today's value, and her own regard of wealth frame it as if she's relatable middle-class.
A live-in maid would have their accommodation, food and bills provided, which would be reflected in a lower wage. The UK average wage at the time was closer to £100 a year for a woman (£200 for a man).
The equivalent today would be like someone earning 7 * the UK minimum wage, which would be about £120,000 a year (US$160,000).
[1] https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1... [2]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nominal-wages-consumer-pr...
We like to demonize the past, and sure it was rough but let's not try to make it look even worse than it was.
They rented a fourth-floor walk-up apartment in London with four bedrooms, two sitting rooms, and a “nice outlook on green.” The rent was £90 for a year ($530 per month in today’s dollars). To keep it tidy, they hired a live-in maid for £36 ($2,600) per year, which Christie described as “an enormous sum in those days.”
The couple was expecting their first child, a girl, and they hired a nurse to look after her. Still, Christie didn’t consider herself wealthy. "
Ignoring the point and rest of the article but it's a strange and uncanny framing to start it, while simultaneously giving the true numbers, trying to suggest that Agatha Christie in this circumstance of having income 25x that of the working class might not be considered well-off.