#and I'm not even talking about ultra-rich people like that's a category above rich

[spoonietimelordy]

talking about money, in France we have this class in between the middle class and rich people which I don't feel like exist in English despite most mildly famous people being part of it. We call those people "aisé", it's not the high end of being middle class, it's above that, but it's not rich rich yet. Rich people will always be fine, they will always have the money to live comfortably even if they loose a lot of money to a bad investment. That's what separate them from "aisé" people, "aisé" people do not live pay check to pay check, they can own multiple house and go on vacations multiple times a year without a thought, but they also can loose it all. I'm putting in this category people like doctors and owners of successful companies who don't come from generational wealth, as well as a lot of nationally famous actors, those kind of people.

To me, a really poor person, those people fell rich, because they are in comparison to me. But I feel like the distinction is important because those people are not the people who hoard money, those people are the ones who actually can loose everything in a blink. And putting those people into the same socio-economic category as rich people (without even talking about ultra-rich people), reinforce the idea that rich people have worked to deserve their money and that they're not that rich actually. And it's because we lump together 2 different social class. And yes it's easy to confuse those 2 because they often interact and are in the same circle, but economically they're not the same.