Can you see this separateness of “new rich” and “old rich” nowadays too? Can you see this separateness of “new rich” and “old rich” nowadays too? Can you give me a suitable example?...
Can you see this separateness of “new rich” and “old rich” nowadays too? Can you give me a suitable example? Thank you very much
I see the old rich and the new rich in probably a different light than many. For instance, I am 47 years old, and I see most of my generation as the "old rich." We were raised to work hard and be productive citizens and good things will come to us. And this is exactly how the kids from the 70s were raised. Hard work was instilled in us through our hardworking parents. We appreciated all that we had and appreciated our parents who gave it to us. I don't see much of this attitude today. This new millennium generation is what I see as the "new rich." This is the generation of the throw-away world. If it's broke or lost, don't fix it, just buy new. This generation today sees everything as disposable and replaceable. I'm not sure where value stands with them. The expression "Money doesn't grow on trees" definitely does not pertain to them. Money indeed grows on trees for them. Because they are handed everything they want, not need, a strong work ethic is lacking. Just look at the number of jobs young people hold today. If they want to take a day off of work and their employer won't let them off, they will simply quit and find another job. For them, "Money does grow on trees"!
Chris Rock, the comedian, has a famous bit concerning the difference between being "rich" and being "wealthy", suggesting that wealth is something that cannot be thrown away. It is deep and lasting.
One of the many examples he makes which seems to demonstrate exactly the distinction you are looking for comes when Rock says that former NBA star Shaquille O'Neal is "rich" (noveau riche) and the person who wrote Shaq's paycheck is "wealthy" (old rich).