At the time, a million dollars felt like a lot. But as inflation and tariffs have made essentially everything more expensive, that amount of money doesn’t feel like all that much at all. In fact, Americans now think it takes an average of $2.3 million to be considered wealthy, according to a Charles Schwabreport.

The financial services firm surveyed 2,200 adults between the ages of 21 to 75 from April 24 to May 23, so a variety of generations offered their input. The average response for what it takes to be considered “financially comfortable” was $839,000. 

While the reported $2.3 million was a slight drop from last year’s Modern Wealth Survey at $2.5 million, it’s still 21% higher than the 2021 figure of $1.9 million.

Respondents also reported the bar to achieve monetary wealth feels as if it’s increasing, and 63% said it feels like it takes more money to be wealthy today compared to last year, citing the impacts of inflation, a worsening economy, and higher taxes.

Brad Clark, founder and CEO of financial advisory firm Solomon Financial, said these sentiments are relatively reflective of what he hears from his clients. There are a large number of millionaires in the U.S. when you factor in all assets, he told Fortune, but this typically includes their home, meaning their investable assets are typically less than $1 million.

“With so many middle-class Americans being considered millionaires, it stands to reason that the average individual would consider $2.3 million to be wealthy, as it may seem out of reach,” Clark said. 

But experts said being considered wealthy doesn’t necessarily equate being opulent in all life choices. 

The $2.3 million figure is “not luxury for everyone, but security. It’s wanting to have a house, retire well, have family, and have one’s time,” William “Bill” London, a lawyer and partner at Kimura London & White LLP who routinely handles high-net-worth families and individuals in divorces and estate cases, told Fortune. “Affluence is not about excess, but about reducing anxiety.”

What it means to be wealthy for different generations

The Charles Schwab survey showed when compared with other generations, Gen Z tends to set lower thresholds for what it takes to be wealthy and financially comfortable—$1.7 million and $329,000, respectively. Meanwhile, millennials and Gen Xers say it takes $2.1 million to be wealthy, and $2.8 million for baby boomers. 

That may have to do with how exactly different generations define wealth. Earlier generations like baby boomers more frequently frame wealth in terms of security, London said, with a focus on property, pension, and assets that get passed down. Younger generations, on the other hand, more frequently consider experiences, freedom from debt, and lifestyle decisions, he added.

“More of my younger clients are more concerned about breathing space and time than they are about a big house or pricey assets,” London said. “Their definition of wealth is more about lifestyle than about acquisition.”

But it could also be the fact younger generations have a harder time acquiring large assets like a home due to comparatively high mortgage rates and home prices. 

“Millennials and Gen Z are justifiably pessimistic about the prospects of home ownership, which historically was the most common way for Americans to build wealth,” Markus Schneider, associate professor and chair of the economics department at University of Denver, told Fortune. “There are lots of reasons why millennials and Gen Z may feel less secure about the world than the boomers did when they were the same age, and that may also impact how they feel about their wealth.”

Despite the differences among generations, experts agree it takes more than money to feel wealthy—and it shows in the Charles Schwab report. Some of the most popular personal definitions of wealth include happiness, physical health, mental health, quality of relationships, accomplishments, amount of free time, and material possessions.

“You don’t have to look too far to find a study that shows how depressed ultra-wealthy people often are. If you are defining wealth solely based on dollars, you likely will be disappointed when you achieve the number,” Clark said. “True wealth is being able to use your assets to free up your time to benefit those around you. The happiest people tend to be those with a greater purpose in life.”

A version of this story was published on Fortune.com on July 10, 2025.

There is another path forward. Paramount Skydance has submitted its own hostile bid to compete with Netflix’s. Combining Paramount Skydance with Warner Bros. Discovery would create a new competitor with the scale and resources necessary to challenge Netflix’s dominant grasp on the streaming and entertainment landscape. That deal would maintain – and arguably enhance – competition in the space, bolstering cost discipline and choices for consumers. Importantly, Paramount has also said it remains committed to theatrical releases, a stark contrast to Netflix, whose leadership has written off theaters as outdated and anti-consumer.

Instead, the Netflix acquisition of Warner Brothers will create an entity that would dominate the media industry. This year, Netflix announced its largest-ever subscriber increase to over 300 million users, making it the largest Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) service in the U.S. and the world.

On the same day it released its subscriber increase it also announced a price hike. If this is any indication of what Netflix does when it has increased market power, consumers can expect higher subscription prices in a less competitive market.

Netflix promotes itself as an innovator: as recently as October, CEO Ted Sarandos told investors that the company is “more builders than buyers.” But its skyhigh bid for Warner Brothers suggests that its trendsetter days have peaked and it’s now pivoting toward acquisition for subscriber growth rather than spending money to create new content.

The streaming giant’s recent dispute with Hollywood writers, which ended with a $42 million settlement, seems to confirm Netflix’s pivot away from investing in new content. One industry analyst opined that “a Netflix purchase of Warner would be a death knell for some of the movie business’s most important aspects, properties, and long-held traditions.”

The merger between Warner Brothers and Netflix threatens to push the industry past a dangerous tipping point: The combined company would command about 30 to 40 percent of the market, giving it enough power to dictate the terms of engagement to consumers, content creators, and distributors alike.

The effect on the market could be significant, with some market analysts fearing that it would put an end to the so-called streaming wars. That’s hardly positive news for consumers, who reap the benefits of more content, greater innovation, and lower prices when companies have to compete for viewers.

The downstream impacts of the merger are also problematic for the market: A Warner Brothers acquisition would allow Netflix to exert its newfound power over theaters (it has a notorious reputation for refusing wide-release feature films), writers and creative directors, and the entire entertainment industry ecosystem that relies on the entertainment industry. Director James Cameron, a major player in the market, warned that a merger with Netflix would be a “disaster.”

The increased power the acquisition of Warner would give Netflix is not lost on federal trust busters: Senior White House officials raised concerns last month that a merger with the streaming giant could stifle competition and suggested that the FTC would be compelled to initiate an in-depth investigation of the transaction.

Open markets and robust competition drive innovation, which helps keep prices low, but when a handful of firms dominate an industry, competition disappears. Big Tech’s power has already shown us what happens when companies become “too big to challenge,” and Big Media seems to be intent on replicating that playbook.

The purpose of antitrust law should not be to regulate innovation out of existence, but to ensure that markets remain open, competitive, and aligned with the interests of consumers and the broader economy.

Warner Brothers’ leadership may believe that it is getting the best deal from Netflix. But the merger will surely face intense regulatory scrutiny, and for good reason—it would do a disservice to American consumers.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

The cut decreased the Fed’s rate to about 3.6%, the lowest it has been in nearly three years. Lower rates from the Fed can bring down borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards over time, though market forces can also affect those rates.

Chair Jerome Powell suggested at a news conference that after six rate cuts in the past two years, the central bank can step back and see how hiring and inflation develop. In a set of quarterly economic projections, Fed officials signaled they expect to lower rates just once next year.

Fed officials “will carefully evaluate the incoming data,” Powell said, adding that the Fed is “well positioned to wait to see how the economy evolves.”

The chair also said that the Fed’s key rate was close to a level that neither restricts nor stimulates the economy, a significant shift from earlier this year, when he described the rate as high enough to slow the economy and quell inflation. With rates closer to a more neutral level, the bar for further rate cuts is likely higher that it was this fall.

“We believe the labor market will have to noticeably weaken to warrant another rate cut soon,” Ryan Sweet, global chief economist at Oxford Economics, said.

Three Fed officials dissented from the move, the most dissents in six years and a sign of deep divisions on a committee that traditionally works by consensus. Two officials voted to keep the Fed’s rate unchanged: Jeffrey Schmid, president of the Kansas City Fed, and Austan Goolsbee, president of the Chicago Fed. Stephen Miran, whom Trump appointed in September, voted for a half point cut.

December’s meeting could usher in a more contentious period for the Fed. Officials are split between those who support reducing rates to bolster hiring and those who’d prefer to keep rates unchanged because inflation remains above the central bank’s 2% target. Unless inflation shows clear signs of coming fully under control, or unemployment worsens, those divisions will likely remain.

“What you see is some people feel we should stop here and we’re in the right place and should wait, and some people think we should cut more next year,” Powell said.

A stark sign of the Fed’s divisions was the wide range of cuts that the 19 members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee penciled in for 2026. Seven projected no cuts next year, while eight forecast that the central bank would implement two or more reductions. Four supported just one. Only 12 out of 19 members vote on rate decisions.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday criticized the cut as too small, and said he would have preferred “at least double.” Trump could name a new Fed chair as soon as later this month to replace Powell when his term ends in May. Trump’s new chair is likely to push for sharper rate cuts than many officials will support.

Stocks jumped in response to the Fed’s move, in part because some Wall Street investors expected Powell to be more forceful in shutting down the possibility of future cuts. The broad S&P 500 stock index rose 0.7% and closed near an all-time high reached in October.

Powell was also optimistic about the economy’s growth next year, and said that consumer spending remains resilient while companies are still investing in artificial intelligence infrastructure. He also suggested growing worker efficiency could contribute to faster growth without more inflation.

Still, Powell said the committee reduced borrowing costs out of concern that the job market is even weaker than it appears. While government data shows that the economy has added just 40,000 jobs a month since April, Powell said that figure could be revised lower by as much as 60,000, which would mean employers have actually been shedding an average of 20,000 jobs a month since the spring.

“It’s a labor market that seems to have significant downside risks,” Powell told reporters. “People care about that. That’s their jobs.”

The Fed met against the backdrop of elevated inflation that has frustrated many Americans, with prices higher for groceries, rents, and utilities. Consumer prices have jumped 25% in the five years since COVID.

“We hear loud and clear how people are experiencing really high costs,” Powell said Wednesday. “A lot of that isn’t the current rate of inflation, a lot of that is e mbedded high costs due to higher inflations in 2022-2023.”

Powell said inflation could move higher early next year, as more companies pass tariff costs to consumers as they reset prices to start the year. Inflation should decline after that, he added, but it’s not guaranteed.

“We just came off an experience where inflation turned out to be much more persistent than anyone expected,” he said, referring to the spike in 2022. “Is that going to happen now? That’s the risk.”

The Fed’s policy meeting took place as the Trump administration moves toward picking a new Fed chair to replace Powell when his term finishes in May. Trump’s nominee is likely to push for sharper rate cuts than many officials may support.

Trump has hinted that he will likely pick Kevin Hassett, his top economic adviser. But on Wednesday, Trump said he would meet with Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor who has also been on the short list to replace Powell.

Trump added that he wants someone who will lower interest rates. “Our rates should be the lowest rates in the world,” he said.

A government report last week showed that overall and core prices rose 2.8% in September from a year earlier, according to the Fed’s preferred measure. That is far below the spikes in inflation three years ago but still painful for many households after the big run-up since 2020.

Adding to the Fed’s challenges, job gains have slowed sharply this year and the unemployment rate has risen for three straight months to 4.4%. While that is still a low rate historically, it is the highest in four years. Layoffs are also muted, so far, as part of what many economists call a “low hire, low fire” job market.

The Fed typically keeps its key rate elevated to combat inflation, while it often reduces borrowing costs when unemployment worsens to spur more spending and hiring.

Powell will preside over only three more Fed meetings before he steps down. On Wednesday, he was asked about his legacy.

“I really want to turn this job over to whoever replaces me with the economy in really good shape,” he said. “I want inflation to be under control, coming back down to 2%, and I want the labor market to be strong.”

___

Associated Press Writers Collin Binkley and Alex Veiga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.