I'm lazy and type quickly. But I dont quite understand your point about being an outlier - I mean I do understand it, but don't really agree. Someone rich should be considered rich everywhere - to me that's rich. Yeah I get that I might be considered top 1% in Nigeria, so would most of the US population. If you're rich though, you should be able to live a highly affluent lifestyle anywhere in the world. Honestly I don't consider anyone rich unless they're in that 100k/month income territory. But if you want the cutoff at 70k or 50k I can see that discussion - 12k a month though? I suppose you're looking at it from a relative POV - 12k a month is probably top 5% globally speaking. But in reality I think probably well under 1% or even 0.1% of the planet is actually "rich".

Edit: and I suppose this also bugs me because I know people midwest making 4k a month who seem to be doing just as well as people out here making 2-3 times that. When you call someone "rich" you're basically telling them that they have no financial constraints or struggles. That's 100% not true though. I'm sure as heck not living high off the hog. Maybe I'm comfortable, but rich is something totally different.

I think you have no idea what I just said.  Being rich in one place is not rich in another place therefore a worldwide average is irrelevant.  Spending where?  Every country would have to have its own separate average.   This graph is for kids who don't have basic understanding of the greater world around them.  

80% of the US population live in urban areas. Nearly everyone is left out of this imaginary study.  There are major extremes between the high end and low end of spending and the 147k is NO WHERE near rich for any of those 80%.

Its just redicilous.

I'm not a kid.  Try to have some respect.  Arguing with personal insults is pointless.  The problem with your idea of price parity is that it doesn't apply to me or anyone I know and we don't live in NY.  That was just an example.  Each region would need to have its own level (as is the case with reality).  There are certain numbers that can't be averaged like that.

Let me explain further.  Less than 1% of the people on the planet make more than 100k a year.  That on it own should be enough to get you to understand the wool this article is trying to pull over you.  Second the graph has 8.4 billion people represented.  Even if we were to cock our arms around our head and fain retardation, we can still tell that the 200 million rich figure surpasses the what is even possible if somehow less 1% make over 100k but 2.4% can spend 147k a year.  

How you would get the articles numbers is by taking the spending of the super rich, the middle class, and the poor and averaging it.  The super rich, in their infinitesimal size, make enough money that they can skew the average upward.  But its a meaningless figure.   You would want to use a deviation to get a better figure.  Again, there is no where in this country where 147kyear spending makes you rich. However, the rate of millionaires in the US is 3x the rate of the worlds 100k+ earners.  

You're joking right?

Manhattan, 4.5K-6K for a 2 BR apt in a fairly reasonable neighborhood. That's room for a family of 4, 2 kids, and 2 adults.  Let's go on the high end. Now you buy a luxury car at $800 a month and pay for parking at a secure location,  another 1K. Food, that's about $700 a month, $1000 if you have teenagers. Transit passes for the whole family $500 a month. that puts us at $9,300  for a family of 4 in manhattan. With your 12K that leaves $2,700 a month for entertainment and vacation. A vacation for a family of for a 2 weeks can easily be had for $3.000.

Now this is with a nice apartment, a luxury car, plenty of good and healthy foods, and a secure parking lot for your luxury car.  After all that, having near $3,000 a month to frit away, that is not middle class. With that money you could afford a family vacation every 2 months for 2 weeks and still have money left over for going to see a few shows on broadway and enjoying fine dining at least 1-2 times a week. Again, this is in Manhattan and taking a 6K a month rent/mortgage fee.

Remember, the amount is Spending, AKA net pay, not Gross wages before taxes and insurance is taken out.

Edit/Addendum: It seems most people forget that there is a large section of the population that is well above Middle Class and not Super Rich. There is a term for this and it is called Affluent. Being Affluent does not mean that you are filthy stinking rich, but you also make more than middle class. 

This might be a little off topic, but I remember what my Grampa told me when I was growing up. It's not how much money you make that matters, but how much you can bank. I didn't take his advice, sadly. You can make 100k a year, but if you have a lot of debt and live in an expensive area like San Francisco, it won't go far. I hope to pass this advice to some of the young folks here because I don't want you to fall in the same trap I once did. Observe everything before making a decision on what job to take.

I'm ok with the term "affluent". Saying 12k a month spending is affluent is reasonable. My issue is with the term rich. NBA players are rich. A list Actors are rich. People with helicopters, yahts, mansions and private drivers are rich. And yeah I get that it's spending, but like I said, I pretty much spend everything I make and no way would I classify myself as rich. I dont even own a luxury car (any car period) but money goes fast. Food costs, sending money back to family, vacations, etc. Affluent on a global scale, sure, but rich I dont think so.

thanks to capitalism people are being lifted out of poverty at a rapid rate

the socialists don't like this off course, they'd prefer if everyone was poor suffocating beneath the boot of the government

I can't wait for the caravan of people coming to the United States to educate us on the wonders of socialism.

Overthrown them how? We don't own their countries. Hell, a lot of those countries are our enemies and always threatening us. Those countries are poor and struggling due to their own failures. A lot of countries the United States are working with are actually quite prosperous or doing better because of us.

which is a good point for why centralisation under socialism is not a good idea when taken to the point where a government has the resources to do this shit

how does this never occur to you people?????