I can tell you (don't) have money by...

The old money homes I worked in were the opposite. Inherited furniture isn't matchy-matchy--especially if it comes from both sides of the family. I also noticed there was usually one room that took more of an onslaught of clutter, such as the study or the guesthouse. (ETA: But the stuff of the clutter was good quality.) Furniture in the guesthouse almost never matched, because that's where the "I'm tired of it but not ready to part with it because it was my great grandmother's" things tend to go.

Not just the country. In the US, what "wealth" looks like varies from state and even from city to city, because, as you point out, it depends on the cultural norms. Some cities have a cultural norm of showing your wealth. Others are much more subtle about it.

 

Thanks for all the suggestions. I should have noted that this will probably take place in southern California, and the older woman isn't "to the manor born," but her late husband was a Vietnam vet who probably caught the aerospace engineering wave at just the right point. Good pay, stock options, and smart investing have left her quite comfortable and she's got good taste, but she's not buying an island or anything. Lots of good ideas in this thread that I can use, thanks!

 

New money versus old money? Old money (people whose parents/grandparents were wealthy) probably don't feel the need to display their wealth. They take it for granted, so they do what they want to do and don't care what people think. New money, on the other hand, often loves display. They WILL buy the most expensive car, the largest TV, the most expensive house, etc. They might even go over their means to do this. I would say ostentatiousness and attention to fashion is often an indicator of new money.

Think of the British Queen. Okay, she has to wear fancy dresses on state occasions—that's her job—but when she's out and about on her estates, she's quite the frump. Baboushka headscarf, clumpy boots, no makeup, etc. She doesn't give a hoot what she looks like, and she has never been a fashion plate, not even when she was young. She wears a frumpy uniform in different colours (as did her mother) that she sticks to when she has to do public appearances. She's the Queen. She takes her wealth for granted and doesn't need to display it to anybody.

Contrast her with Princess Diana. Diana came from a wealthy background, but was insecure in her position, and felt the need to be flamboyant in public, showing awareness of what was expected from somebody with her position and fortune. This changed, to a large extent, after her divorce. Contrast Diana with Princess Anne, who, like her mother, takes her position for granted and doesn't give a toss about being a fashion plate.

 

I have no idea whether this will have useful information, but the book The Millionaire Next Door comes to mind.

 

Some members feel the need to introduce Princess Diana into EVERY THREAD. My Diana was not new money, she was old money. MI5 are not stupid and agents select only thoroughbred mares for a regal legacy - related to the Duke of Monmouth, or something Charles II.

And this:

Is this your mother-in-law? The scheme sounds too - frankly boring - for my fiction collection. So Frank said he 'caught the aerospace wave at the right moment [mixed metaphor] and made a heap of sensible investments...' Crazy people. Are you planning a crime?

...

[Thinking]...so...that generation - bad people (6os B Boomer)? I'm thinking she's obsessed with festivals, having a good time, healthy lifestyle, outdoors and fun. And now that Frank's dead she's on to 'Plenty O Fish,' - makes jokes about 'swinging' but her eldest son checked her profile, it's just aspiration so not to worry.

 

She's a transient minor character who exists only to show off my MC's observation skills, moral code, and perhaps sexuality. Once that’s done, she can resume her secret life of multiple aardvarking for all the MC and I care.

 

She most likely wouldn't shop a whole lot nowadays. Whatever clothes shopping she does now would be for everyday around the house wear, but would harken back to an older brand.
Her collection would most likely be made up of Valentino, Gucci, Hermes, Chanel, Versace, Ferragamo, Gaultier, Pucci, etc.
The things she buys today would probably be something she looked good in 30 - 40 years ago and retain a classic look- Sasson, Yves Saint Laurent, Oscar De La Renta, Christian Dior, etc.
She would most certainly have some Diane von Furstenberg wrap dresses.

Where she shops would depend on where the story is set- Bloomingdales, Macy's, Bergdorf, Saks, Neiman Marcus, and even Nordstrom. She wears quality that lasts.

 

I don't think so. She'd have to be ninety for that get-up, and the husband's an aviation engineer not a Kennedy. I'm thinking blue wellingtons with red polka dots, slogan t-shirt, probably a tattoo done with her grandson, hearing aid, miniature schnauzer.

 

Oh and if they owned horses at one time- Pendleton, Rockmount, vintage Sears, vintage Wrangler, etc.

 

Good fits, thanks!

Not quite that well off

 

Ah. Southern California comfortable / well-to-do of the age of my parents' friends.

She will wear tastefully applied makeup, and she wouldn't let her hair go gray.

In So Cal, she'd still shop. Shopping and lunch is a social activity for women of that age, and peer pressure is a thing in So Cal. We call them "Ladies who lunch." She just wouldn't buy as much, claiming nothing grabbed her eye. She'd even drive a distance if necessary to "meet the girls" once a week, or once every other week. (ETA: Women in their 80's still do this or find someone to drive them. They travel in small herds and do as their friends do, which is why they're so predictable.)

In So Cal if she lived near the L.A. area she'd drive into Beverly Hills and shop the boutiques and standalone stores on Rodeo Drive, as well as Barneys (this would be huge, and she'd lunch at Barney's as well, or go to LaScala for a chopped salad, which she would have been doing for years.), Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Saks, Bergdorf. Macy's is where she'd buy her everyday stuff and housewares. (It's not that high end compared to the others.) She'd still be mourning the loss of Bullock's Wilshire. (She probably bought much of her wedding trousseau there.) In her younger days she probably shopped there and at Robinson's and The Broadway department stores, which are no more. This is important detail: as department stores closed and consolidated, shoppers in So Cal, who tended to be loyal to a store or two, had to shift to different stores. Bloomingdales we have in So Cal, but she probably wouldn't shop there unless she was originally an East Coaster. Bergdorf got bumped up to become more of a thing among non-East Coasters after Bullocks Wilshire closed.

Bouncing off the list @surrealscenes gave, brands a So Cal matron would wear: Chanel, Valentino, Ferragamo, Yves Saint Laurent, Gucci, Oscar de la Renta definitely. Versace, and Hermes, possibly. (Hermes would be more "buy or receive a gift" than a brand bought regularly to wear.) Pucci would probably be a no-go except as resort wear in Palm Springs or Palm Beach. Gaultier, probably not. Sasson, doubtful.

The online estate sale company Everything But the House can be a good resource for looking at people's stuff, because it goes by city. You have to sign up for an account to look, but it's handy for looking at regional differences in the US.

edited in the lunch part.

ETA: If your MC can sneak or con his way to milady's bathroom or vanity, the cost of her skin care products can be a pretty good indicator of wealth.

 

Sorry for the double post, but I thought of another one when I saw the neighbors taking down their Christmas lights:

Depending on the time of year in which your story takes place, ^^^ that can be an indicator of wealth between neighbors in a Southern California neighborhood. In So Cal, hiring a Christmas lighting company is definitely a thing for those who can afford it, and the day after Christmas and the day after New Years you see the trucks all around some neighborhoods. People with less money do their own lights.

In general, household help, or what sort of tasks the person hires people to do is a pretty good indicator.

 

A great list to ‘steal’ and write my 97 year old LA shopper.

I must say as a citizen of the world having a firm arrange the Xmas lights is fantastically vulgar and enlightening. In the UK the guys who provide the lovely domestic displays are kind of a comedy ‘trope’ I think is the word...

2019 I’ll begin my lighting business journey. No.

 

Some wealthy people have a Christmas decorating firm do their Christmas tree as well, so don't forget to add that to your business plan. (That's less of an indicator of wealth than the outside of the house, though, because plenty of wealthy people decorate their own trees.)

It is kind of vulgar but makes a weird kind of sense when you take into account the Southern California lifestyle and what it takes to be wealthy there. To steal a Britishism, being house proud is very much a thing in Southern California, and owning a home in a wealthy neighborhood requires working long hours. In winter in California, it's dark when they leave for work and dark when they get home. Weekends are crammed with entertaining, family time, and errands. So, to keep up with the Joneses, anything needed to make the house look nice on the outside is typically done by a hired company.

 

Yes, I understand @Shenny - SoCal’s major role in world tapestry. I was only playing ‘prig.’

 

I thought everyone had others decorate their Christmas trees. I have my wife do ours.

 

I know that, Woolfy. No worries. I love living in So Cal but equally love watching the rituals of the keeping up with the Joneses crowd.

Thought of another one, @Iain Aschendale . How could I forget Armani? For a while the daily "uniform" of a Beverly Hills matron was slacks, an Armani blazer worn open, and depending on the time of year, either a blouse or silk-T-shirt under the blazer. She'd still wear some of the classic-cut blazers and suits.

 

Just because I worked for a day in an expensive clothes shop, I think that what the old lady is wearing is a Burberry and it's very expensive. (Unless it's a chinese copy of the chinese copy).

 

Oh no! It's a cliche actually. Met many people that faked their wealth. Hysterical, megalomaniac women and grandiose, "intellectual" men that bread insecure kids or cool rebels.

 

I heard this guy on Clark Howard the other day talking about how he has 120,000 saved for his 9 year old's college, and wanted to know if that was enough, and if he should stop saving. Howard pointed out that the projected cost of private school in 10 years is going to be about 320,000 for a 4 year degree.

Imagine parents that make the same kind of money, but think that their kid should join the military, or go to trade school, or take over the family business, or pay their own way with loans through state college. Imagine people that blow 320,000 on lifestyle over 10 years instead of saving for their kid's college. Or imagine someone just out of college. One guy went to Yale and moved back in with his parents. Another got a 100 thousand dollar engineering degree at state school, has 100k in the bank, and his parents bought him a 120k dollar house. Same wealth, just done up differently. To know them both, you'd think the second guy was richer, even though he's from the same class as the Yale guy.

That's what I find strange about the idea of moderate amounts of wealth is that spending it can look so different.

 

How much have they got invested in their hobbies? That would seem to be a good indicator. The pictures on the walls, are they actual art works or prints? Things like that. One thing about the very rich and very poor in the private sector, they're both cheap.

 

Okay, more detail needed. I always have trouble balancing laying out my whole story in my OP with giving too few details and wasting people's time.

MC can actually see ghosts, but there aren't many of them haunting about, so he pays the bills with fraud (he can't get a regular job, more detail on that is available elsewhere). His clientèle fall into three basic categories:

1) Younger, well-off women with more money than sense. The sort who never fail to instagram a yoga session or mani-pedi. These customers are the ones who buy spiritual cleanses (tap water in a colored glass vial), homeopathic energy drinks (tap water in a colored glass vial), and periodically have their crystal sets re-balanced to account for the upcoming equinox.

2) Lonely older women who aren't actually being haunted but need someone to talk to. These customers have convinced themselves that there's someone/thing (beloved pet?) on the Other Side who is trying to get in touch with them. MC uses a combination of research, cold-reading, and general personableness to provide them with regular "sessions" in which they can reassure themselves that their loved ones are happy. Since MC can actually see ghosts, he knows that their beloved have moved on, but to whence is outside of his knowledge.

3) People who are actually being haunted. These are rare, and tend to be one-off sessions, as ghosts are a result of spirits who can't move on due to unfinished business on Earth, and it's got to be pretty powerful unfinished business. Once the MC can make contact, he tries to ascertain what the problem is and how the ghost's surviving family/friends can sort it out for their dearly departed.

In all of these situations, he follows the code of "fleece, don't slaughter." He only takes what the client can afford to give him, which is why he needs to be able to assess their means. In the case of Scenario One, the old lady is going to be a genuine haunting, but also genuinely well-off, so he won't feel guilty in taking a substantial (to him) sum from her for a trivial task on behalf of her late husband. In the case of Scenario Two, he'll be doing a favor for a friend of his (a priest who knows of his abilities) in checking out at "haunted" house. Once he sees the financial condition of the owners, he'll realize that there's no way he's making a dime on the job since they're pumping all their money into an underwater mortgage. However, what he finds in the house becomes the prime driver of the story, after it's been found, they can fade off into the great wherever (might work on wrapping that angle up, but irrelevant to me right now).

 

Yep. It's pretty much standard operating procedure in any glamour profession. It's also very common in professions that have up/down years.

 

Anyone know what time (SoCal) housekeepers generally finish up? In A Man In Full, Tom Wolfe has one of his characters realize the socioeconomic gap by showing the *help* walking back through a neighborhood with no sidewalks, I could do the same by showing that everyone else in my house-proud town-mouse's burb has staff, but my subjects obviously don't.

 

It depends on whether they’re full or part time and whether meal prep is involved. In So Cal one person do-it-all housekeepers are the norm, rather than the formal hierarchy of housekeeper, maids etc. .

You have a pretty wide latitude based on the needs of the homeowner. Figure 4-5 hours part time, 8 plus an hour break full time.

If part-time with little to no meal prep or cleaning only, 9 to 1 or 10 to 2:00 or 3PM is pretty common. (If they start at breakfast or the homeowner has to be at work at 9, they’d arrive at 8.)

Working past 3 for a part-time housekeeper would be rare.

ETA: If you need them to leave in the evening, that’s doable if the housekeeper does dinner prep or cleans up after dinner. People get home around 6:30-7, so I’d have her leave at 7:15-7:30 at the latest, because she’ll have most of the cleanup done when they arrive home.


Feel free to PM if you need help sorting out your help.