Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The act of driving around in a beaten pick-up truck or whatever other statements of "folksiness" when tyou are RICH is hypocritical and nauseating.
Not endearing.
Just curious, why does this bug you so much? Who cares if rich people drive around in old pick-ups? Maybe the car has sentimental value. Maybe they need the towing capacity. Maybe they are rich from farming and use the truck in the field (LOTS of people in the midwest like this). People here hate when the rich drive new luxury cars and they also hate when they drive old beatup cars. What car is "acceptable" for a wealthy person to drive? A Toyota Prius? But "Hating On the Wealthy" IS the point of this thread.
Your sentiments on car choice bewilder me. I could care less what kind of cars other people drive. And I bet most "rich" people driving pick-ups are not trying to portray "folksiness." Most probably care little what other people think about it. They tend to be too busy making money to care about little things like that.
I have a problem with people having no other God in life but aspiring to be rich and successful. Whether they plan on flaunting it or not.
How about aspiring to be financially secure and content? There is a difference.
If you think that a rich guy's statement of "humility" via his consumption choices automatically makes him a good guy - you are just plain naive and easy to manipulate. That's exactly why such millionaires next door do it.
I have a family income approaching 200,000 and no debts whatsoever.
I drive a used, 7000$ car with 100,000+ miles on it. I do not intend to change it until it drops dead in the dust. Does that make me a wonderful person just because I could conceivably afford more car but I choose not to? No. I drive that kind of car because I don't care about cars and I want to use my money elsewhere, such as annual vacations to Europe.
Is that flashy? Does that now make me an ostentatious b**ch?
Yes, I love Warren Buffet. I just think he is an extraordinary man. I love the way he looks, the way he talks, the way he sounds - I just get a good vibe about this guy. It's in his eyes.
However, I will not form my opinion about him based on the consumption choices he makes. He would not impress me with an amazingly luxurious residence just like he would not impress me with his choice of driving a beaten pick up truck. In fact, I would fine the latter gesture to be highly irritating because of the inherent hypocrisy. I would need to know more. Much more. All I know about him is his demeanor - and this I like. That's all I can say.
I would expect the guy to live in a very nice, high quality residence that meets all of his needs (not whims) just like I would expect him to drive a solid, high quality car. Neither flashy nor humble.
Wow.... I just cannot relate to highly judgemental people who expect people of a certain income level to live in a certain type of house and drive a certain type of car. That people of a certain wealth should adhere to a stranger's subjective criteria of what is not too flashy, yet is not too humble. Is there a published guide on this somewhere?
I don't believe striving to be rich and successful makes you Godless. Money is a tool. What if you are striving to be rich so you can donate much of it to charity (e.g. Gates, Oprah)? Do you approve of that? What if one's success provides jobs and healthcare to thousands of employees and spawns new industries (e.g Steve Jobs)? Do you approve of that?
It seems hypocritical to proclaim that people are "naive and easy to manipulate" if they judge someone by consumption choices and then go on in your posts to not only judge someone by consumption choices (e.g. car and residence) but to even be "highly irritated" and "nauseated" by it. Does that make sense to you?
And I find that bit about knowing that Warren Buffet is good by the "look in his eye" a bit odd.
I cannot relate at all to your thinking, but I respect your right to your opinion. Just like I respect anyone's choice in car or house, be it too flashy or too humble.
Ah, Hanlons Razor why must you be so accurate? Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
1/2 of the students aren't incapable of reading. Maybe 2% are. Stupidity isn’t an adequate explanation for ½ being unable to read.
Teaching word memorization instead of sounding out words? This is a stupid idea but over the last 50 years it should have been corrected.
Again: If a Rich person spends a lot of money on something then the results tend to reflect his/her intentions. Particularly over the coarse of more than 100 years. (If they weren’t getting what they were paying for, then they would stop spending their money on it or correct the situation.)
Two congressional investigations 50 years apart found that both the Carnegie and the Rockefeller foundations were bad for education in America. There is malice.
And I find that bit about knowing that Warren Buffet is good by the "look in his eye" a bit odd.
I cannot relate at all to your thinking, but I respect your right to your opinion. Just like I respect anyone's choice in car or house, be it too flashy or too humble.
Yes, there's quite a bit of communication breakdown here.
My point is that MOST of those rich people whom you see making "humble" consumption choices do so in order to make a statement, and NOT because they are such wonderful people! This is hypocrisy, not virtue.
Most such "millionaires-next-door" drive a beaten car not because they are so sentimentally attached to it (what a poor investment choice for one's sentiments!); neither do they do it because they think such humble consumption choices would significantly contribute to a further increase of their wealth; neither do they do it because of environmental concerns!
They do it in self-serving ways! To make a statement and to remind themselves and others about how COOL they are - in opposition to a nauseatingly crass Paris Hilton (oh, so beneath them).
While I agree that the latter can hardly attract the admiration of any decent human being, the former is typically not that much more virtuous either.
I did not say I would judge Warren Buffet negatively if he failed to consume certain specific products. By "expect" I meant what a guy like him would most likely and reasonably opt for.
I would simply not be impressed if he tried to pull off the "folksy" gimmick on me. It can be quite insulting for truly folksy people - with a brain.
As long as we are dealing with a system where a few are born rich/get rich and most are not/do not, it is normal to expect rich people to opt for nice, beautiful high quality, well-performing things. It is human nature. There is a relatively long continuum between flashy-crass and pauper-humble dictated by economic coercion.
Most decent rich men will make reasonable consumption choices that maximize their quality of life, without trying to hit others over the head with hypocritical statements. If they really were into the pauper lifestyle, they would not have put so much effort into worldly endeavors like "getting rich" in the first place. They would have chosen the Mother Teresa path instead.
In other words, it is normal, expected and uneventful for someone like WB to live in a pleasant and safe area, in a high-quality residence, driving a solid, quality car. It is not admirable for someone like WB (or anyone else for that matter!) to make extremely flashy consumption choices, to walk around puffing their chests and to imply that every little bit of their fantastic situation in life is due to their own awesomeness (he obviously doesn't do that because it doesn't seem to be in his nature/character). Likewise, it is not admirable to flaunt one's "humility" by showcasing beat-up products so that people can fall in love with your "modesty" and "great character". That is called reverse snobbery and you are not going to fool anyone with two brains cells to rub together - rich, poor or middle class. What such "humbles" count on is that most people don't have those two cells to rub together and will most probably fall for their populistic scheme.
Both options (flashy consumption or overly humble consumption while filthy rich) are crass. I don't care who you are and how amazing you think your own individual efforts and merits on this Earth have been.
Authenticity has never failed to beautiful. So try to be pretty.
If you went from redneck to mega-millionaire over night there IS a way to continue to honor your background all while NOT staying in your trailer or in your beaten pick-up truck.
Yes, there's quite a bit of communication breakdown here.
My point is that MOST of those rich people whom you see making "humble" consumption choices do so in order to make a statement, and NOT because they are such wonderful people! This is hypocrisy, not virtue.
Most such "millionaires-next-door" drive a beaten car not because they are so sentimentally attached to it (what a poor investment choice for one's sentiments!); neither do they do it because they think such humble consumption choices would significantly contribute to a further increase of their wealth; neither do they do it because of environmental concerns!
They do it in self-serving ways! To make a statement and to remind themselves and others about how COOL they are - in opposition to a nauseatingly crass Paris Hilton (oh, so beneath them).
While I agree that the latter can hardly attract the admiration of any decent human being, the former is typically not that much more virtuous either.
I agree only with your first sentence. I disagree with most other sentences in your post.
What PROOF do you have that MOST rich people who drive a beaten car are doing so to make a statement and are really self-serving? Until I see some proof, this appears to be an uneducated stereotype based on "hating on the wealthy."
I think this because you seem extremely emotional about which cars strangers drive and which houses they live in. Why do you care so much? Could there be a misinterpretation /bias /insecurity that contributes to these conclusions? Do you have all facts? Who knows if they are even rich? Do you have access to their net worth statements? There are so many reasons a person buys a specific house or car. You cannot possiblly know all the criteria that goes into these decisions.
Some of the richest people I know are midwest farmers sitting on a goldmine of prime acreage with the price of food going up. Most have worked VERY hard and taken major risks in their industry. An industry that is good for America. AND they drive beat up pick ups. Are you trying to tell me that they do this to appear "cool" to strangers? Don't you think that most successful people focus on more important priorities in life?
Theres a few types I can hate.
One is my buddies Uncle. Retired pharmacy owner with plenty of balance($,$$$,$$$)
Comes and borrows my buddies truck and boat to go crabbing. He's not rich and works 6-12's right now, but has fixed up an old F-150 and a 16' aluminum boat. Uncle doesn't want to pay $5 to launch the boat at the good launch so goes to the beach and has the truck 1/2 way in the salt water to get the boat to float. Brings it back and leaves my buddy to clean everything up, then next time he goes to use the truck the brakes are frozen on the rear axle.
No reason to be so damn cheap.
Theres a few types I can hate.
One is my buddies Uncle. Retired pharmacy owner with plenty of balance($,$$$,$$$)
Comes and borrows my buddies truck and boat to go crabbing. He's not rich and works 6-12's right now, but has fixed up an old F-150 and a 16' aluminum boat. Uncle doesn't want to pay $5 to launch the boat at the good launch so goes to the beach and has the truck 1/2 way in the salt water to get the boat to float. Brings it back and leaves my buddy to clean everything up, then next time he goes to use the truck the brakes are frozen on the rear axle.
No reason to be so damn cheap.
Yes, there are those who are wealthy who have accumulated their wealth by way of being cheap. It's like when I read about this story:
I'm not sure why people continue to cite a book like Millionaire Next Door - a book published in 1996 using data mainly from the early-90's and the 1980's. It has some good advice, but circumstances have changed.
Everyone who accumulated wealth in America during the 1980's and 1990's enjoyed the fruitage of a series of unsustainable economic bubbles. It doesn't matter if they invested directly into the market or not - if they sold anything or had customers or worked for a business that did, they benefited from the bubbles.
This is an economic principle of sorts - when you have lots of money sloshing around a large economy with respectable growth, a certain number of people are going to be able to accumulate capital.
That's a function of a combination of their behavior and the nature of the economy into which they were placed.
Younger people today do not enjoy those kinds of advantages. There aren't - percentage-wise - as many "decent-paying" jobs out there for younger workers (especially less-educated ones) as there were in the past. There are some - and you can always point to individual examples - but the percentage has fallen.
What this means in real terms is that you can have the same percentage of people behaving in the manner of the "millionaires next door" from the 1990's, but due to structural economic changes, a smaller percentage of them will end up with the same level of wealth as the 1990's cohort.
This is something a lot of people refuse to accept, since it cuts against the idea that one's economic success is purely driven by morals and work ethic.
It isn't. To a large extent, these things are due to luck, placement, the larger economy, personal/familial contacts, and other factors that fall outside the scope of personal morality.
I'm not sure why people continue to cite a book like Millionaire Next Door - a book published in 1996 using data mainly from the early-90's and the 1980's. It has some good advice, but circumstances have changed.
Everyone who accumulated wealth in America during the 1980's and 1990's enjoyed the fruitage of a series of unsustainable economic bubbles. It doesn't matter if they invested directly into the market or not - if they sold anything or had customers or worked for a business that did, they benefited from the bubbles.
This is an economic principle of sorts - when you have lots of money sloshing around a large economy with respectable growth, a certain number of people are going to be able to accumulate capital.
That's a function of a combination of their behavior and the nature of the economy into which they were placed.
Younger people today do not enjoy those kinds of advantages. There aren't - percentage-wise - as many "decent-paying" jobs out there for younger workers (especially less-educated ones) as there were in the past. There are some - and you can always point to individual examples - but the percentage has fallen.
What this means in real terms is that you can have the same percentage of people behaving in the manner of the "millionaires next door" from the 1990's, but due to structural economic changes, a smaller percentage of them will end up with the same level of wealth as the 1990's cohort.
This is something a lot of people refuse to accept, since it cuts against the idea that one's economic success is purely driven by morals and work ethic. It isn't. To a large extent, these things are due to luck, placement, the larger economy, personal/familial contacts, and other factors that fall outside the scope of personal morality.
How refreshing to read a rational, well-reasoned post devoid of hyperbole, hatred, and inflammatory rhetoric. It is well-grounded in reality and takes into account the negative developments of the past several years without the "sky is falling and the streets will soon be awash in blood" bombast that seems to dominate the internet these days.
By the way, I recognize that some people may believe that bodies will soon be hanging from lamp posts, and that that belief is one legitimate reading of our possible near-term future, although different from my reading. Foretelling the future is always a very iffy thing so I cannot say anyone is wrong. But what I do not get, at all, is the seeming glee and relish with which some folks brandish their dire predictions. What attitude towards fellow human beings, even flawed human beings (which we all are) makes it possible to actively wish for a bloodbath? If we have a Jungian (or Star Warsian) viewpoint, perhaps it is "the dark side of the force" becoming prominent at this time.
The absence of raw, exaggerated hatred and the emphasis on linear, analytical thinking is what I find so refreshing about Tablemtn's post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
