 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Is economy good or bad? article link |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| seeker |
 Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Straydog |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, seeker wrote:
[quote:a30578fc6f]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051108/bs_nm/economy_jobs_openings_dc;_ylt=Ah658WevFyAFyfaC5WDtFJyyBhIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
[/quote:a30578fc6f]
Is the economy good or bad? If you are an overling in the richest 1%, then
the economy is good. If you are in the bottom 40%, the economy is bad.
Reference: "Shifting Fortunes: The Perils of the Growing American Wealth
Gap" by Collins, et al. ISBN 0965924920 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Straydog" <asd@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.63.0511082301390.25438@panix2.panix.com...
[quote:8de231dc85]
Is the economy good or bad?
[/quote:8de231dc85]
Hi,
Compared to what? Or to when? Or to where?
[quote:8de231dc85].....If you are an overling in the richest 1%, then
the economy is good.
[/quote:8de231dc85]
OK.
[quote:8de231dc85].....If you are in the bottom 40%, the economy is bad.
[/quote:8de231dc85]
???? Then why to so many millions of people move here each year to become a
part of that bottom 40%.?
[quote:8de231dc85]
Reference: "Shifting Fortunes: The Perils of the Growing American Wealth
Gap" by Collins, et al. ISBN 0965924920
[/quote:8de231dc85]
Actually each income quintile has been showing an increase in real income
except the bottom one. And that bottom one is composed largely of those
immigrants who came to the US to be a part of the bottom quintile.
Question: If the "economy" isn't good for them, why do they stay here?
(Hint: maybe because they don't stay in that bottom quintile for very long?)
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Trucker |
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dkte7t$mjp$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:16736b1ea4]
"Straydog" <asd@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.63.0511082301390.25438@panix2.panix.com...
Is the economy good or bad?
Hi,
Compared to what? Or to when? Or to where?
.....If you are an overling in the richest 1%, then
the economy is good.
OK.
.....If you are in the bottom 40%, the economy is bad.
???? Then why to so many millions of people move here each year to become a
part of that bottom 40%.?
[/quote:16736b1ea4]
Because people living in the USA are generally better off
than those living in Mexico or India. Unfortunately, Blair,
that is not of any interest to average US citizens who would
be a lot better off without the immigrants.
[quote:16736b1ea4]
Reference: "Shifting Fortunes: The Perils of the Growing American Wealth
Gap" by Collins, et al. ISBN 0965924920
Actually each income quintile has been showing an increase in real income
except the bottom one. And that bottom one is composed largely of those
immigrants who came to the US to be a part of the bottom quintile.
[/quote:16736b1ea4]
Actually, the increase is so much concentrated at the top that
the rest of us are losing our financial independence from the
rich.
[quote:16736b1ea4]Question: If the "economy" isn't good for them, why do they stay here?
(Hint: maybe because they don't stay in that bottom quintile for very long?)
[/quote:16736b1ea4]
Actually, it is because the place they were is already like the
place that we will be if the Repugnicans retain control and
the ILLEGAL immigrants keep coming. As soon as the
Repugnican dream of a nobility and a bunch of serfs is
realized the people may just go back home.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Vienneau |
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <dkte7t$mjp$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, "Jim Blair"
<jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:5decbbc68e][ lies - deleted ]
[/quote:5decbbc68e]
Jim Blair has been lying on this topic for years.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dan in Philly |
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"The Trucker" wrote in message ...
[quote:cc520f17de]Actually each income quintile has been showing an increase in real
income
except the bottom one. And that bottom one is composed largely of
those
immigrants who came to the US to be a part of the bottom quintile.
Actually, the increase is so much concentrated at the top that
the rest of us are losing our financial independence from the
rich.
So even though most people have more financial resources, they have less
financial independence? I say the greater your resources, the greater
your
independence.
Not where money and power are concerned, Blair. Those are
zero sum as I have stressed before. If Bill Gates gains 10% and
I gain 5% then he has increased his control over me by some
amount. He has much more disposable wealth so as to buy
himself some more congresscriters and to increase his power
over me even more.
[/quote:cc520f17de]
But Mr. Gate$ still only has one vote at election time. The voting majority
could easily install redistributionist congressmen if they so desired
(there's always a Socialist running in virtually every district in every
election, promising a $15 minimum wage, huge taxes on the rich, etc). But no
on votes for them. Even well-known pols (Mondale, Kerry) who promise to tax
the rich end up losing.
So apparently most people don't believe they are under the malevolent
control of Bill G. or any other plutocrat.
Dan in Philly |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4377f96e$1_3@alt.athenanews.com...
.......
[quote:3c6ae0176e]
But Mr. Gate$ still only has one vote at election time. The voting
majority
could easily install redistributionist congressmen if they so desired
(there's always a Socialist running in virtually every district in every
election, promising a $15 minimum wage, huge taxes on the rich, etc). But
no
on votes for them. Even well-known pols (Mondale, Kerry) who promise to
tax
the rich end up losing.
So apparently most people don't believe they are under the malevolent
control of Bill G. or any other plutocrat.
Dan in Philly
[/quote:3c6ae0176e]
Hi,
Yes. They question is WHY do people in the USA do vote the way they do and
not the way Trucker seems to think that they should?
I suggest that when people read about Bill Gates or any of the millions of
"not rich" who became rich, instead of resentment and wanting to punish them
and stop that sort of thing from happening, they instead see them as
examples to follow. People want to keep the opportunities for getting rich
open so maybe they too can do it someday.
That may not be the case in many other countries. France for example.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Trucker |
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4377f96e$1_3@alt.athenanews.com...
[quote:e75c21e96d]"The Trucker" wrote in message ...
Actually each income quintile has been showing an increase in real income
except the bottom one. And that bottom one is composed largely of those
immigrants who came to the US to be a part of the bottom quintile.
Actually, the increase is so much concentrated at the top that
the rest of us are losing our financial independence from the
rich.
So even though most people have more financial resources, they have less
financial independence? I say the greater your resources, the greater your
independence.
Not where money and power are concerned, Blair. Those are
zero sum as I have stressed before. If Bill Gates gains 10% and
I gain 5% then he has increased his control over me by some
amount. He has much more disposable wealth so as to buy
himself some more congresscriters and to increase his power
over me even more.
But Mr. Gate$ still only has one vote at election time.
[/quote:e75c21e96d]
While Mr.Gates gets but one vote at election time
he also gets a personal audience with the lawmakers
to plead his case for more H1B visas and thus be
sure to let the law makers know that should they
decide against him they will probably get no campaign
funds from him.
[quote:e75c21e96d]The voting majority could easily install redistributionist congressmen if they
so desired
[/quote:e75c21e96d]
The sad thing is that you actually believe this. Can you tell
us the number of congressional representatives in the House
that are NOT Republican or Democrat? How can you maintain
that some individual or some group has the finances to
run for a seat in the house when so much money is controlled
by the Dems and the Pugs and the constituency sizes demand
the expenditure of huge sums of money? We have the best
congress money can buy.
[quote:e75c21e96d](there's always a Socialist running in virtually every district in every
election, promising a $15 minimum wage, huge taxes on the rich, etc). But no
on votes for them. Even well-known pols (Mondale, Kerry) who promise to tax
the rich end up losing.
[/quote:e75c21e96d]
Gee.... I don't recall Kerry promising to tax the rich...
[quote:e75c21e96d]So apparently most people don't believe they are under the malevolent control
of Bill G. or any other plutocrat.
Dan in Philly
[/quote:e75c21e96d]
I beg to differ, sir. It is just that there is little that can
currently be done about it.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:40 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:53:53 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:4217186dfd]I suggest that when people read about Bill Gates or any of the millions of
"not rich" who became rich,
[/quote:4217186dfd]
You misspelled "thousands."
[quote:4217186dfd]instead of resentment and wanting to punish them
and stop that sort of thing from happening, they instead see them as
examples to follow.
[/quote:4217186dfd]
Ignoring the fact that they are and always will be unable to follow.
[quote:4217186dfd]People want to keep the opportunities for getting rich
open so maybe they too can do it someday.
[/quote:4217186dfd]
Yes, it's the same inability to do arithmetic that leads them to buy
lottery tickets, frequent the track or casino, etc.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43795812.56762493@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
[quote:07877b5c56]On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:53:53 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
I suggest that when people read about Bill Gates or any of the millions
of
"not rich" who became rich,
You misspelled "thousands."
[/quote:07877b5c56]
Hi,
I still think that millionaires are "rich", and there are now about 2.3
million of them in the USA.
Note that there were 1.5 million of them in 1988.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/nummil.htm
And according to Stanley and Danko, 80% of them were born to families that
were "not rich".
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/106.txt
[quote:07877b5c56]
instead of resentment and wanting to punish them
and stop that sort of thing from happening, they instead see them as
examples to follow.
Ignoring the fact that they are and always will be unable to follow.
[/quote:07877b5c56]
???? Always? How about those 2.3 million?
[quote:07877b5c56]
People want to keep the opportunities for getting rich
open so maybe they too can do it someday.
Yes, it's the same inability to do arithmetic that leads them to buy
lottery tickets, frequent the track or casino, etc.
-- Roy L
[/quote:07877b5c56]
Er, yes, people do that also. Which supports my point that many people
desire that which they are statistically unlikely to obtain. But it is
their desires that govern their behavior.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:18:14 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:77c97b284b]
royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43795812.56762493@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:53:53 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
I suggest that when people read about Bill Gates or any of the millions
of
"not rich" who became rich,
You misspelled "thousands."
Hi,
I still think that millionaires are "rich", and there are now about 2.3
million of them in the USA.
[/quote:77c97b284b]
Define "millionaire." If *net assets* I can count 2.3 million in my
neighborhood.
[quote:77c97b284b]Note that there were 1.5 million of them in 1988.
[/quote:77c97b284b]
Somethings wrong here. The increase from 1988 to 2005 is much
larger than 1.5 to 2.3.
see, for example:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/?cnn=yes
[quote:77c97b284b]
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/nummil.htm
And according to Stanley and Danko, 80% of them were born to families that
were "not rich".
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/106.txt
instead of resentment and wanting to punish them
and stop that sort of thing from happening, they instead see them as
examples to follow.
Ignoring the fact that they are and always will be unable to follow.
???? Always? How about those 2.3 million?
People want to keep the opportunities for getting rich
open so maybe they too can do it someday.
Yes, it's the same inability to do arithmetic that leads them to buy
lottery tickets, frequent the track or casino, etc.
-- Roy L
Er, yes, people do that also. Which supports my point that many people
desire that which they are statistically unlikely to obtain. But it is
their desires that govern their behavior.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post
[/quote:77c97b284b] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ololn11vd6gl1cc3991k0irr7eecuj2qb7@4ax.com...
[quote:67866bfff4]On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:18:14 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43795812.56762493@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:53:53 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[/quote:67866bfff4]
jeb:
[quote:67866bfff4]
I suggest that when people read about Bill Gates or any of the
millions
of
"not rich" who became rich,
[/quote:67866bfff4]
roy:
[quote:67866bfff4]
You misspelled "thousands."
[/quote:67866bfff4]
jeb:
[quote:67866bfff4]Hi,
I still think that millionaires are "rich", and there are now about 2.3
million of them in the USA.
[/quote:67866bfff4]
Mason:
[quote:67866bfff4]
Define "millionaire." If *net assets* I can count 2.3 million in my
neighborhood.
Note that there were 1.5 million of them in 1988.
Somethings wrong here. The increase from 1988 to 2005 is much
larger than 1.5 to 2.3.
see, for example:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/?cnn=yes
[/quote:67866bfff4]
Hi,
You are right. My 2.3 million was from the 1990's and out of date.
[quote:67866bfff4]
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/nummil.htm
And according to Stanley and Danko, 80% of them were born to families
that
were "not rich".
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/106.txt
instead of resentment and wanting to punish them
and stop that sort of thing from happening, they instead see them as
examples to follow.
Ignoring the fact that they are and always will be unable to follow.
???? Always? How about those 8.9 million? (corrected figure ;-)
People want to keep the opportunities for getting rich
open so maybe they too can do it someday.
Yes, it's the same inability to do arithmetic that leads them to buy
lottery tickets, frequent the track or casino, etc.
-- Roy L
Er, yes, people do that also. Which supports my point that many people
desire that which they are statistically unlikely to obtain. But it is
their desires that govern their behavior.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post
[/quote:67866bfff4] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:18:14 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:2fceb07472]royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43795812.56762493@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:53:53 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
I suggest that when people read about Bill Gates or any of the millions
of
"not rich" who became rich,
You misspelled "thousands."
I still think that millionaires are "rich", and there are now about 2.3
million of them in the USA.
Note that there were 1.5 million of them in 1988.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/nummil.htm
[/quote:2fceb07472]
The income from $1M, invested conservatively, does not buy an affluent
lifestyle, so that's not enough to make you rich. You're rich if you
can afford a distinctly more affluent than average lifestyle
(including at least one full-time-equivalent servant), after taxes and
inflation, without either working or dipping into your assets. $5M is
probably about the lower limit.
[quote:2fceb07472]And according to Stanley and Danko, 80% of them were born to families that
were "not rich".
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/106.txt
[/quote:2fceb07472]
As you know, I've already refuted that claim. But of course, that has
never stopped you from repeating it.
Firtsly, the respondents were generally not born into rich families
only in the sense that when they were born, their parents were still
in their 20s or 30s, and had not yet inherited.
Secondly, Stanley and Danko's "research" was totally unscientific: the
sample was self-selected, the great majority of the respondents were
not really rich (see above), and the source of their wealth was
self-described, and never checked:
"OK, next question: 'Did you earn all your money, or are you a
privileged, idle parasite?'"
"What are you talking about, 'parasite'?!? I earned every penny!"
"Uh-huh. Sure. What about the college education your parents paid
for, including your room and board?"
"That didn't increase my assets one cent! And I worked my butt off to
get into Skull and Bones!"
"What about the house your wife's parents gave you when you got
married?"
"That was only worth about $50K! Today I'm a millionaire!"
"But you sold that house 30 years later for $750K...."
"If you make a good investment, you've earned your profits!"
"But it was actually your wife's parents that made that good
investment, wasn't it?"
"I made my money in my own business, working 12-hour days!"
"More accurately, you bought land with a business on it through family
contacts so you didn't have to pay interest, kept the business going
for 30 years while drawing a modest salary and making minimal profits,
then went out of business and sold the land for a larger capital gain
than all the profits and salary you took out in those 30 years. Isn't
that about it?"
[quote:2fceb07472]instead of resentment and wanting to punish them
and stop that sort of thing from happening, they instead see them as
examples to follow.
Ignoring the fact that they are and always will be unable to follow.
???? Always? How about those 2.3 million?
[/quote:2fceb07472]
Refuted above.
[quote:2fceb07472]People want to keep the opportunities for getting rich
open so maybe they too can do it someday.
Yes, it's the same inability to do arithmetic that leads them to buy
lottery tickets, frequent the track or casino, etc.
Er, yes, people do that also. Which supports my point that many people
desire that which they are statistically unlikely to obtain. But it is
their desires that govern their behavior.
[/quote:2fceb07472]
Right. And the desires and beliefs of the masses are easily altered
to serve the interests of the elite.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ololn11vd6gl1cc3991k0irr7eecuj2qb7@4ax.com...
[quote:12aeefd66d]On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:18:14 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
.....[/quote:12aeefd66d]
[quote:12aeefd66d]I still think that millionaires are "rich", and there are now about 2.3
million of them in the USA.
Define "millionaire." If *net assets* I can count 2.3 million in my
neighborhood.
[/quote:12aeefd66d]
Hi,
The standard definition would be households that have over $1,000,000 in
assets excluding the house/condo where they live, and their personal
property; such as cars, clothes, jewels, etc. It does not count their claim
on future Social Security payments
So that means mostly stocks, bonds, bank CD's, Tresaury bills, money in the
bank, and any real estate, rental property, or time share value.
..
From your link:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/?cnn=yes
I see that there were 8.9 million of them in 2005.
Note that in 2005 their average age was 56, average household income was
$119,000 ($82,000 of that from wages or professional fees) and their wealth
from real estate investments has been declining.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:437b7626.21864798@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
[quote:a2b881de31]On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:18:14 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43795812.56762493@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:53:53 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
I suggest that when people read about Bill Gates or any of the
millions
of
"not rich" who became rich,
You misspelled "thousands."
I still think that millionaires are "rich", and there are now about 8.9
million of them in the USA.
Note that there were 1.5 million of them in 1988.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/nummil.htm
The income from $1M, invested conservatively, does not buy an affluent
lifestyle, so that's not enough to make you rich.
[/quote:a2b881de31]
Hi,
That income gets you about $50,000 a year. Perhaps not "affulent', but I say
comfortable. And of course you have the option of spending some of that
million.
[quote:a2b881de31]....You're rich if you
can afford a distinctly more affluent than average lifestyle
(including at least one full-time-equivalent servant),
[/quote:a2b881de31]
None of my "rich friends" have a full-time servant. Even those with several
homes--one in Wisconsin for summer and one in Florida or Arizona for winter.
[quote:a2b881de31].....after taxes and
inflation, without either working or dipping into your assets. $5M is
probably about the lower limit.
[/quote:a2b881de31]
Mason Clark once said that today it takes $20M to be a "millionaire". But
OK maybe one million is just middle class. By US standards.
The subjects in the study averaged several million in assets.
[quote:a2b881de31]And according to Stanley and Danko, 80% of them were born to families
that
were "not rich".
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/106.txt
As you know, I've already refuted that claim. But of course, that has
never stopped you from repeating it.
[/quote:a2b881de31]
You have criticized it, but not refuted it.
[quote:a2b881de31]
Firtsly, the respondents were generally not born into rich families
only in the sense that when they were born, their parents were still
in their 20s or 30s, and had not yet inherited.
[/quote:a2b881de31]
??? Sure my parents were a lot richer when they retired than when I was
growing up. And I am richer now than when my kids left home for college.
But so what?
[quote:a2b881de31]
Secondly, Stanley and Danko's "research" was totally unscientific: the
sample was self-selected, ....
[/quote:a2b881de31]
As is any survey. But do you know of a better study of the habits of the
rich?
[quote:a2b881de31]....the great majority of the respondents were
not really rich (see above), ...
[/quote:a2b881de31]
Several million compared to your 5 million?
[quote:a2b881de31]....and the source of their wealth was
self-described, and never checked:
[/quote:a2b881de31]
Name a better study. You assume that their answers are not reliable?
[quote:a2b881de31]
"OK, next question: 'Did you earn all your money, or are you a
privileged, idle parasite?'"
"What are you talking about, 'parasite'?!? I earned every penny!"
"Uh-huh. Sure. What about the college education your parents paid
for, including your room and board?"
[/quote:a2b881de31]
Note that most went to public schools, and I would assume that means state
colleges as well.
[quote:a2b881de31]
"That didn't increase my assets one cent! And I worked my butt off to
get into Skull and Bones!"
[/quote:a2b881de31]
Er, Yale is a private school.
[quote:a2b881de31]
"What about the house your wife's parents gave you when you got
married?"
"That was only worth about $50K! Today I'm a millionaire!"
"But you sold that house 30 years later for $750K...."
[/quote:a2b881de31]
But the value of the primary residence is not included. And if you sell one
house for a lot, chances are the gain is eaten up when you buy the next
house.
[quote:a2b881de31]
"If you make a good investment, you've earned your profits!"
"But it was actually your wife's parents that made that good
investment, wasn't it?"
[/quote:a2b881de31]
You are assuming that most millionaires were given a house--if not by their
"not-rich" (OK at the time not-rich) parents, then by the also
not-rich-at-the-time parents of their wife? I mean people tend to marry
those of comparable income/status.
[quote:a2b881de31]
"I made my money in my own business, working 12-hour days!"
"More accurately, you bought land with a business on it through family
contacts so you didn't have to pay interest, kept the business going
for 30 years while drawing a modest salary and making minimal profits,
then went out of business and sold the land for a larger capital gain
than all the profits and salary you took out in those 30 years. Isn't
that about it?"
[/quote:a2b881de31]
You claim that most who start a business do so with family help and
contacts? Any evidence for that assertion?
And suppose that most businesses in the US don't make money from sales but
gain value mostly because of the land under them. If if that were the case
(and I doubt it--look at how many of them start up in rented space), that
would not invalidate the claim that the best way to get rich is to start
your own company.
[quote:a2b881de31]instead of resentment and wanting to punish them
and stop that sort of thing from happening, they instead see them as
examples to follow.
Ignoring the fact that they are and always will be unable to follow.
???? Always? How about those 8.9 million?
Refuted above.
[/quote:a2b881de31]
They don't exist? They aren't really rich? They got rich because of their
not yet rich parents? They got rich because of the land under their
marginal business?
[quote:a2b881de31]
People want to keep the opportunities for getting rich
open so maybe they too can do it someday.
Yes, it's the same inability to do arithmetic that leads them to buy
lottery tickets, frequent the track or casino, etc.
Er, yes, people do that also. Which supports my point that many people
desire that which they are statistically unlikely to obtain. But it is
their desires that govern their behavior.
Right. And the desires and beliefs of the masses are easily altered
to serve the interests of the elite.
-- Roy L
[/quote:a2b881de31]
Because the masses (or at least some of them) want to BECOME elite.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:41 am
|
|