The "new rich" counterpoints are that:

1. old money is afraid to spend frivolously because (a) they are embarrassed because they know they didn't earn it themselves and (b) they don't believe they could make it on their own if they had to. Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.

2. because old money is the opposite of meritocratic (inheritance based) they have to come up with all kinds of gatekeeping strategies to maximize the advantage of their social position.

3. social rules that keep the old monied themselves in check, to slow down the inevitable reversion to the mean.

>Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.

I think charity type stuff is seen a bit different than flashy ridiculously expensive cars and such. It's a way that might be seen as showing off but is not perceived as badly and so less likely to get you noticed in a less desirable way. Similarly those art collections unless lent/donated don't leave the estate and are hardly flashy

Of course it's perceived differently, that's the entire point! A $2000 Brunello Cucinelli sweater is conspicuous consumption just like an oversized Gucci belt.

And the art world is small. People know who the collectors are.

The difference is that every joe blow knows what Gucci looks like but only certain people, if any, can spot a sweater like that. You are signalling to completely different groups. Honestly I'd be surprised if anyone outside diehard fashion "experts" could spot a subdued Brunello sweater at all so the intent there is not to signal at all.

New rich can sometimes be a middle finger to the old rich.

I'm thinking of some Hiphop stars.

Over the top behaviour, perhaps, but I'll always respect that more than the old rich dripping in the unearned benefits of their generational wealth, connections and status worship. But I'm not bitter.

But new rich means people are closer to the source of wealth. Someone who built a successful business is more admirable than someone who never worked, but their ancestors were very wealthy.

Why would one admire another human because they made money? Isn’t someone’s character the main reason to admire them?

Oh come on, it’s easy. Firstly, everyone kinda wishes they won the lottery, intense wealth sounds fun.

I don’t bootlick billionaires and I generally consider wealth inequality a major societal failure, but I can recognize that someone who built immense wealth usually worked hard (and got very lucky!), and potentially possessed some entrepreneurial skill I lack. I also admire musicians because I have no musical ability, and I admire athletes because I have no athletic ability.

The same way you can admire a soccer player because they score lots of goals, despite what their character may be.

What is “character” good for if not helping society in some way? For the most useful ways you could help society, you end up getting paid. So while making money != character, there’s a correlation.

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.

And you believe that's not just advertisement for the brands he invests in.

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.

I’d akin old vs new rich is a much more European distinction than an American one

‘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.

That's exactly what a parvenu would say. Not the done thing, old chap. Too chippy. You won't be invited to the best parties with that attitude.

Bless his heart, poor fellow, I'm sure he means well. Perhaps he's not really a bolshevik.

But anyway ...

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

Such as? 4 dinner forks?

> Such as? 4 dinner forks?

It is not about what you do have and what you do, but rather what you don’t do that distinguishes.

>"I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that."

Thanks. I needed something to induce vomit.