Skinny, too! Way too skinny!
Interesting, but I think it drastically underestimates how much money is required to wield real influence, how expensive some places are, and how much some luxury really costs. ;D
It is a meme after all.
I live in a fair amount of luxury, and I donât have a level 9 stash. Luxury carries with it a certain amount of subjectivity.
Sure, but "all luxuryâ is much less subjective, even without going too crazy. Someone at level 9 on that chart with $15M with thinking that all luxuryâ is easily accesible is gonna be back at level 5 in no time. 
It depends, which is my point. Your idea of all luxury and mine are different. While I donât have EVERY conceivable luxury, I canât think of anything I need or desire that I donât already have.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the meme. It is, as Iâve said, a meme after all. Best not to take it too seriously.
Yeah, I donât disagree with the chart, but where itâs saying I should be 6, 7, or even 8, depending how things are being measured, I certainly feel more like level 3 or 4! 
How are you maybe a 6, 7, or 8 based on liquid net worth in that chart? I can see spanning 2 at the boundaries, but 3? 
I definitely âfeelâ like a 4 based on the description, vs the description (both economic reality and power) attributed to my liquid net. 
Iâm guessing heâs not simply looking at the money part.
Liquidity isnât always easily defined.
Cold hard cash is liquid, but nobody keeps more than a few months or a year of expenses in cash as itâs literally a losing position over time unless youâre holding it as a war-chest for an expected opportunity, and anything else is a variable depending on the timeframe.
E.g. a 6mo CD is generally considered liquid, while real-estate or tangible goods is not, but how about real-estate thatâs being flipped, or goods I am exporting and will see turned in 30 days? How do you value crypto - at buy price, or net present value? How about if itâs being used as defi collateral for 90 days?
Etc 
And not everyone buys a RR when a Subaru will do.
A regular CD is considered liquid because you can liquidate it whenever you want (being subject to penalties doesnât change that - this is why 401ks and IRAs are actually liquid despite many not considering them as such). Real estate is not, regardless of whether its meant for flipping, because itâs itâs not up to you whether youâll find a seller quickly and how quickly they can close, almost regardless of how much of a hit one is willing to take. Crypto is liquid at todayâs prices, but not (by definition) if you have it locked up.
Right, but if one applies that guideline to the chart then majority of even the richest folks will be in the 3/4/5 zone. I mean sure, some 0.01% with hundreds of family staff and dozens of multi-$M residences will have more liquidity (by this narrow definition) just for day-to-day expenses - making the flipside of the question whether funds which are allocated to near-term use really liquid?
In short, liquidity is really not the measure here, HNW individuals (and/or family offices) simply donât handle money this way. Even the real-estate definition is fungible, plenty of folks put extraneous cash into real-estate and then borrow against it for other purposes.
I realize the chart is meant to be a simple tool that anyone at any level of worth can grasp, but it really starts to break down in the middle, (which I suppose is a message in itself?) 
Yea, no way. you donât think the âmajority of even the richest folksâ have more than $750k in super liquid equities? Câmon now!
And some practically have zone 3 cash in walk around money, nevermind much, much more in cash accounts.
Or much, much, more, but the vast majority maintain a low profile and have a family office managing their money responsibly.
But that does kind of prove my point, the more money one has the broader the range of options, (and eccentricity, lol), and the more susceptible the chart becomes to survivor bias! 
Hate is relative.
I hate all the hate. Even the stuff I hate, I hate hating it.