Why you're not wealthy

[jillian]

why? are you wealthy? you know, given that you're giving all of this advice.

Why what?

you know what my point is. i asked if you're wealthy given that you seem to have all these opinions and advice...

 

[jillian]

"Citizens?"

Of the USA, I assume?

There are few countries where citizens have better opportunities to become wealthy.

and yet the ability to be upwardly mobile has been shrinking rapidly... that shouldn't be ignored... not if each generation wants its kids to do better than the one before. that simply isn't happening right now.

I wouldn't say that it "simply isn't happening."

I would say it simply isn't happening very often for the upper-middle class.

I would say that second gen. Immigrant's Children continue to do better than their parents, and would disagree that their "ability to be upwardly mobil has been shrinking rapidly." However, if it is declining at all, then I would blame the phenomena on an aging workforce remaining in jobs that were given up to younger workers 30 years ago. Again this happens more in higher paying, white collar jobs (that don't require much manual labor).

i don't know what the numbers are on that. i think it's a presumption. but if the majority of immigrants now are latino, then no, i don't think that's the case. I know it isn't happening not only for upper middle class, but for 'middle class' and working class. i think the reason for that is the jobs that used to allow people to climb the economic ladder no longer exist. we don't manufacture. we outsource. the factories, factory owners and workers are gone. you can't even get a job at federal express without a college degree.

 

[Bern80]

why? are you wealthy? you know, given that you're giving all of this advice.

Why what?

you know what my point is. i asked if you're wealthy given that you seem to have all these opinions and advice...

No I don't. Simply asking 'why' implies that I told you to do something and now you are asking me why you should do it. I never told anyone to do anything. Hence my question WHY WHAT?.

No I'm not wealthy. Though have studied it quite a bit and have been exposed to many people that ran their own businesses in my upbringing. Me not being wealthy doesnt disprove a thing I said. I simply am not one of the people that is going to blame others for why I'm not wealthy. I know I could make different choices to improve my wealth and I'm simply not doing them. The reason for my lack of doing things differently simply means I must be content enough with the way things are that I'm not doing anything about it right now.

 

[Bern80]

and yet the ability to be upwardly mobile has been shrinking rapidly... that shouldn't be ignored... not if each generation wants its kids to do better than the one before. that simply isn't happening right now.

I wouldn't say that it "simply isn't happening."

I would say it simply isn't happening very often for the upper-middle class.

I would say that second gen. Immigrant's Children continue to do better than their parents, and would disagree that their "ability to be upwardly mobil has been shrinking rapidly." However, if it is declining at all, then I would blame the phenomena on an aging workforce remaining in jobs that were given up to younger workers 30 years ago. Again this happens more in higher paying, white collar jobs (that don't require much manual labor).

i don't know what the numbers are on that. i think it's a presumption. but if the majority of immigrants now are latino, then no, i don't think that's the case. I know it isn't happening not only for upper middle class, but for 'middle class' and working class. i think the reason for that is the jobs that used to allow people to climb the economic ladder no longer exist. we don't manufacture. we outsource. the factories, factory owners and workers are gone. you can't even get a job at federal express without a college degree.

Then I guess we partially agree. Why would you assume what worked before is what will work now? It isn't that the opportunites aren't there. It's that they've changed.

 

[Paulie]

Wealth doesn't specifically have to imply money.

I'm just sayin.

 

[Bern80]

Wealth doesn't specifically have to imply money.

I'm just sayin.

No, not necessarily. But for the sake of this particular argument, that's what I'm talking about. Even in monetary terms it is different things to different people. If I doubled my meager income I would almost consider myself wealthy.

From a pure survivability standpoint I can tell you from experience it doesn't take a lot of money for one person to get by and even have a few 'luxuries'. I live in a small apt. for $450 bucks a months maybe $50 in utilites. Luxuries I would consider to be high speed internet, satelite, cell phone. All perfectly doable for under $25k a year.

 

[Paulie]

Wealth doesn't specifically have to imply money.

I'm just sayin.

No, not necessarily. But for the sake of this particular argument, that's what I'm talking about. Even in monetary terms it is different things to different people. If I doubled my meager income I would almost consider myself wealthy.

From a pure survivability standpoint I can tell you from experience it doesn't take a lot of money for one person to get by and even have a few 'luxuries'. I live in a small apt. for $450 bucks a months maybe $50 in utilites. Luxuries I would consider to be high speed internet, satelite, cell phone. All perfectly doable for under $25k a year.

Well I guess my point was that not everyone chases monetary "wealth" because everyone has their own opinion of what is wealthy.

To some people, making enough to pay the bills and have some fun during the year on top of it is wealthy.

The fact that the whole thing even gets turned into specific amounts of money is what fuels the hatred between the haves and the have nots.

Some of those "have nots" have no damn clue how much they actually do have.

 

[Bern80]

Wealth doesn't specifically have to imply money.

I'm just sayin.

No, not necessarily. But for the sake of this particular argument, that's what I'm talking about. Even in monetary terms it is different things to different people. If I doubled my meager income I would almost consider myself wealthy.

From a pure survivability standpoint I can tell you from experience it doesn't take a lot of money for one person to get by and even have a few 'luxuries'. I live in a small apt. for $450 bucks a months maybe $50 in utilites. Luxuries I would consider to be high speed internet, satelite, cell phone. All perfectly doable for under $25k a year.

Well I guess my point was that not everyone chases monetary "wealth" because everyone has their own opinion of what is wealthy.

To some people, making enough to pay the bills and have some fun during the year on top of it is wealthy.

The fact that the whole thing even gets turned into specific amounts of money is what fuels the hatred between the haves and the have nots.

Some of those "have nots" have no damn clue how much they actually do have.

I guess my overarching philosophy is to look look at life from the bigger picture. There are an awful lot of things to experience here on earth and a very short time to do it. My goal is to experience as much of it as I can. That being the goal it seems a little counterproductive to that end to become narrowly focused on just getting a job to earn money and working more hours for more money. What is the point of more money if I have less time to myself? The means to my end ought to be, and I hate to sound grandiose, how do I fund the life I want? Then it just comes down to how to geneate cash flow and just working for money isn't the only way to do that. Money can in fact work for you instead of you working for money.

 

[Sallow]

He's small potatoes. There are other stories I know about but can't discuss in open forums.

But he's not unique. Not at all. And a good example.

I would contest that statistically he is. You really don't need to backstab or be underhanded to be wealthy. that seems to be what a lot of people think though and the excuse they make for not being rich. "Well I'm just to get a person to be weatlhy." What a convenient excuse that is.

And me? I do pretty well..I am not "wealthy"...and not really asking to be.

Which is exaclty my point. You haven't made being weatlhy a goal so you have little legitimate reason to complain about not being so or complaining about those that have chosen to pursue that.

Statistically according to who? Granted not everyone who is wealthy, accrued wealth in a way one would deem "underhanded"..but a good amount of people do. And a progressive tax system adds a bit of parity to that.

And yes..I do have a legimate reason to "complain". A great many obscenely wealthy in this country..and others..have hijacked our political system to keep public funds flowing into their coffers. That's something I do not support.

Rich is one thing. Rich, having all the power, and causing economic collapse is an entirely other thing.

 

[Paulie]

No, not necessarily. But for the sake of this particular argument, that's what I'm talking about. Even in monetary terms it is different things to different people. If I doubled my meager income I would almost consider myself wealthy.

From a pure survivability standpoint I can tell you from experience it doesn't take a lot of money for one person to get by and even have a few 'luxuries'. I live in a small apt. for $450 bucks a months maybe $50 in utilites. Luxuries I would consider to be high speed internet, satelite, cell phone. All perfectly doable for under $25k a year.

Well I guess my point was that not everyone chases monetary "wealth" because everyone has their own opinion of what is wealthy.

To some people, making enough to pay the bills and have some fun during the year on top of it is wealthy.

The fact that the whole thing even gets turned into specific amounts of money is what fuels the hatred between the haves and the have nots.

Some of those "have nots" have no damn clue how much they actually do have.

I guess my overarching philosophy is to look look at life from the bigger picture. There are an awful lot of things to experience here on earth and a very short time to do it. My goal is to experience as much of it as I can. That being the goal it seems a little counterproductive to that end to become narrowly focused on just getting a job to earn money and working more hours for more money. What is the point of more money if I have less time to myself? The means to my end ought to be, and I hate to sound grandiose, how do I fund the life I want? Then it just comes down to how to geneate cash flow and just working for money isn't the only way to do that. Money can in fact work for you instead of you working for money.

Absolutely.

You know, watching my son grow up the last 3 years has probably been more rewarding than any vacation, or materialistic item I could have ever had. A lot of very wealthy people have never experienced what I've experienced the last 3 years, and because of that I can consider myself to be wealthy in my own way.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I'm not wealthy because my wife spends entirely too much time and money at Wal-Mart.

 

[Bern80]

Statistically according to who? Granted not everyone who is wealthy, accrued wealth in a way one would deem "underhanded"..but a good amount of people do. And a progressive tax system adds a bit of parity to that.

And yes..I do have a legimate reason to "complain". A great many obscenely wealthy in this country..and others..have hijacked our political system to keep public funds flowing into their coffers. That's something I do not support.

Rich is one thing. Rich, having all the power, and causing economic collapse is an entirely other thing.

I certainly agree with the later.

As to how people attain wealth and whether they do it underhandedly or not; it just isnt very conducuive sustained wealth accumulation to be 'shady' shall we say. You earn a bad rep, or worse start doing something illegal. Maybe you can make a quick buck but it probably won't work over the long run.

 

[Sallow]

Statistically according to who? Granted not everyone who is wealthy, accrued wealth in a way one would deem "underhanded"..but a good amount of people do. And a progressive tax system adds a bit of parity to that.

And yes..I do have a legimate reason to "complain". A great many obscenely wealthy in this country..and others..have hijacked our political system to keep public funds flowing into their coffers. That's something I do not support.

Rich is one thing. Rich, having all the power, and causing economic collapse is an entirely other thing.

I certainly agree with the later.

As to how people attain wealth and whether they do it underhandedly or not; it just isnt very conducuive sustained wealth accumulation to be 'shady' shall we say. You earn a bad rep, or worse start doing something illegal. Maybe you can make a quick buck but it probably won't work over the long run.

Well the guy I described basically cleaned up his act once things got rolling. That's not really the point either. And again..I don't have a problem with wealth..indeed some might consider me "wealthy" (I'm not..not for NYC anyway). My problem is the concentration of wealth and it's negative effect on society in general. After centuries of Monarchies and Aristocracies; it should be in the DNA of Americans to have some disdain for royalty..of any sort.

 

[chanel]

Interesting discussion. While I cannot claim to know what "wealthy" even is, I would like to mention that MARRIAGE can double ones family income and consequently, divorce can half it. Simple concept but one that often gets lost when people are discussing poverty.. Single
parenthood is
the number one cause. And for many, it is a choice. It gets exhausting hearing people say "no one chooses to be poor. Yes. Many do.

 

[loosecannon]

In response to the myriad threads I'll just lump together and call 'evil rich people', I thought maybe we ought to change things up a bit and see if we can get some of the haters to change their thinking.

Why aren't you wealthy? Is it really because all these evil people are holding you down? Or is it because your mindset doesn't really allow for much in the way of wealth accumulation? I would contend it's the later.

I think I'm safe in saying most of us would like more money. But how many of you have made that a goal? How many of you are really working toward that goal by finding ways to increase your cash flow?

What an idiot! I wouldn't become you for a billion dollars.

Nuf sed.

 

[jillian]

I wouldn't say that it "simply isn't happening."

I would say it simply isn't happening very often for the upper-middle class.

I would say that second gen. Immigrant's Children continue to do better than their parents, and would disagree that their "ability to be upwardly mobil has been shrinking rapidly." However, if it is declining at all, then I would blame the phenomena on an aging workforce remaining in jobs that were given up to younger workers 30 years ago. Again this happens more in higher paying, white collar jobs (that don't require much manual labor).

i don't know what the numbers are on that. i think it's a presumption. but if the majority of immigrants now are latino, then no, i don't think that's the case. I know it isn't happening not only for upper middle class, but for 'middle class' and working class. i think the reason for that is the jobs that used to allow people to climb the economic ladder no longer exist. we don't manufacture. we outsource. the factories, factory owners and workers are gone. you can't even get a job at federal express without a college degree.

Then I guess we partially agree. Why would you assume what worked before is what will work now? It isn't that the opportunites aren't there. It's that they've changed.

ok. so we agree that there are changes. and i wouldn't assume that what worked before wouldn't necessarily work now. .

the point is that the *changing* opportunities aren't just changing opportunities, they're diminishing/diminished opportunities. it's like a big game of musical chairs and there aren't enough seats for everyone. ... you can't always blame the people who can't get a seat at table for their circumstances.

not everyone has equal education. not everyone has equal encouragement. not everyone has equal ability.

 

[Samson]

and yet the ability to be upwardly mobile has been shrinking rapidly... that shouldn't be ignored... not if each generation wants its kids to do better than the one before. that simply isn't happening right now.

I wouldn't say that it "simply isn't happening."

I would say it simply isn't happening very often for the upper-middle class.

I would say that second gen. Immigrant's Children continue to do better than their parents, and would disagree that their "ability to be upwardly mobil has been shrinking rapidly." However, if it is declining at all, then I would blame the phenomena on an aging workforce remaining in jobs that were given up to younger workers 30 years ago. Again this happens more in higher paying, white collar jobs (that don't require much manual labor).

i don't know what the numbers are on that. i think it's a presumption. but if the majority of immigrants now are latino, then no, i don't think that's the case. I know it isn't happening not only for upper middle class, but for 'middle class' and working class. i think the reason for that is the jobs that used to allow people to climb the economic ladder no longer exist. we don't manufacture. we outsource. the factories, factory owners and workers are gone. you can't even get a job at federal express without a college degree.

So, there are no jobs except in factories?

 

[Bern80]

Well the guy I described basically cleaned up his act once things got rolling. That's not really the point either. And again..I don't have a problem with wealth..indeed some might consider me "wealthy" (I'm not..not for NYC anyway). My problem is the concentration of wealth and it's negative effect on society in general. After centuries of Monarchies and Aristocracies; it should be in the DNA of Americans to have some disdain for royalty..of any sort.

That's entirely anothe issue: Is wealth disparity bad? Let's assume it is for a moment. Don't you have to figure out WHY it's happening first? If the reason some are wealthy and some are poor were a matter of blind luck, if for instance there was a lottery when everyone hit 25 where money was just passed out to live on the rest of your life and you could either get 50 milion dollars or 50 thousand dollars, I'd say we indeed have a problem.....

......but that isn't how it works. If this is a problem people are really interested in then one has to weigh all of the possible causes for that problem and you objectively have to acknowledge that one possible reason as to why few people are wealthy and many are not is because the few made weatlh accumulation a goal and priorty and the many did not. There are other factors of course, like socio-economic background. I certainly acknowldege we aren't all born with the same advantages. You don't control the starting point. You do control the end. And yes some are wealthy from inheritence. But by in large I believe it is the choices of individuals that caused this disparity. Not some invisible hand holding people down despite their best efforts. I believe that because it is observable day in and day out. If wealth accumulation is a goal that requires certain actions then a hell of a lot of people aren't doing it the right way.

My whole point is here is I just don't get the whining about the rich (and I know you aren't). If wealth was something that was just suppossed to happen to people then maybe some would have a point. But if you want money than making money needs to be your goal and priority. If you haven't taken the appropriate actions to do that, you have no reason to wonder why you aren't wealthy and no reason to piss and moan about those that are.

 

[Bern80]

i don't know what the numbers are on that. i think it's a presumption. but if the majority of immigrants now are latino, then no, i don't think that's the case. I know it isn't happening not only for upper middle class, but for 'middle class' and working class. i think the reason for that is the jobs that used to allow people to climb the economic ladder no longer exist. we don't manufacture. we outsource. the factories, factory owners and workers are gone. you can't even get a job at federal express without a college degree.

Then I guess we partially agree. Why would you assume what worked before is what will work now? It isn't that the opportunites aren't there. It's that they've changed.

ok. so we agree that there are changes. and i wouldn't assume that what worked before wouldn't necessarily work now. .

the point is that the *changing* opportunities aren't just changing opportunities, they're diminishing/diminished opportunities. it's like a big game of musical chairs and there aren't enough seats for everyone. ... you can't always blame the people who can't get a seat at table for their circumstances.

not everyone has equal education. not everyone has equal encouragement. not everyone has equal ability.

I acknowledge that socio-economic disparity exists. We don't get to control are starting point in life, but we do get a good deal of control over the end, financially speaking anyway.

The musical chairs metaphor doesn't quite work either. The number of 'chairs', or opportunities for wealth, are not set in stone. That is the beauty of capitilism. If someone doesn't get a 'chair', that doesn't have to be the end of the game for them. They can decide to build a chair for themselves (building a chair here being a metaphor for starting a business).

This is why I keep saying people need to re-think their notions about wealth. Wealth accumulation is not limited by job opportunities. That isn't the only way to create weatlh and in fact it's probably the worse one short of doing nothing. Wealth accumulation is limited by an individuals motivation and imagination.

 

[finebead]

I acknowledge that socio-economic disparity exists. We don't get to control are starting point in life, but we do get a good deal of control over the end, financially speaking anyway.

The musical chairs metaphor doesn't quite work either. The number of 'chairs', or opportunities for wealth, are not set in stone. That is the beauty of capitilism. If someone doesn't get a 'chair', that doesn't have to be the end of the game for them. They can decide to build a chair for themselves (building a chair here being a metaphor for starting a business).

This is why I keep saying people need to re-think their notions about wealth. Wealth accumulation is not limited by job opportunities. That isn't the only way to create weatlh and in fact it's probably the worse one short of doing nothing. Wealth accumulation is limited by an individuals motivation and imagination.

Interesting good thread by Bern, my compliments.

I think Bern's original post is quite good. More folks don't have more money because they don't focus on making it happen.

I was a "top of the poor class" kid, family had middle class values but grandparents lost everything in the depression and had to start over. I got a degree in math, have worked in computer programming 37 years. I hit my number last year, can retire anytime now. My wife didn't work until the last 5 years, house is paid for 20 years ago, put 3 kids through college with no loans, never had a car note since I was 25 (I save for a car and drive mine 7 to 10 years, then pay cash for the next one, bank pays me interest on my money which I use to buy the next car, I never pay interest... HE WHO KNOWS INTEREST EARNS IT, HE WHO DOESN'T KNOW INTEREST PAYS IT - except for a house).

I have focused on investing, I did not swing for the fence, but I was always OUT when the crashes came. I did not lose money. Bern is right, if you want to have more money, you have to make it an objective. But it has less to do with how much you make, it has more to do with how much you SAVE, and how you invest it. Never take the big loss!!!

I read an investors story about going to a meeting with a bunch of small time millionaires (like 2 or 3 mil.), and they all showed up driving Accords and Camrys or pickup trucks, no BMW's. They talked about clipping coupons and how to keep their expenses low. It works.