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.
This is absolute garbage. A lot of makers, creators, thinkers have become billionaires. A lot more of them have $300k net worth, or $3 million. The people who don't have it are people who have not learned to do something that distinguishes them from the crowd.
Actually, our society is so affluent that *even the crowd* has $300K net worth - that's the average. Per individual, not per family.
I have countless friends who are teachers, cops, tradesmen, etc. who have a multiple of that amount of money. My violin teacher, who does nothing other than play the violin and teach it to students, has a multiple of that amount of money.
Go do something that is useful to other people and reasonably difficult (or else anybody can do it, driving the price down) and save 1/4 to 1/3 of what you make. The money will take care of itself.
Quite frankly, in the world in which a teacher can make enough money to support a family, secure a home, and save up to $600k - $1m by middle age, considering the cost of rent and childcare etc., is really so far from the economic reality where I am that I give up.
You clearly run with far more intelligent, useful, and talented people than myself.
But to be fair, about 80% of the population is not going to be able to "[learn] to do something that distinguishes them from the crowd." Because they aren't distinctive.
So, what about those people? Even if you think that everyone who is in the bottom 50% deserves to work until they die, what about people who are, say, in the top 30%? Many of them are hard workers and contributing a lot to the production of wealth, but they aren't saving because they are salaried.
It really isn't that difficult to accumulate a net worth in excess of $297k by your mid 40's even for those with an average factory job if they have a little financial sense and self-control.
Bingo.
The problem is most people seem to lack any kind of self control. I think most people don't have a strong "why" for building wealth. They don't see the value in the flexibility and freedom it brings.
Rent control? Doesn't exist in this country outside CA and NYC.
p.s. in a market where rents are increasing 10% per year, what rational landlord would agree to a rental contract that states they can't raise rents to market?
Reality FAIL.
p.p.s. I downsized my living quarters (to a 9x9 room) and my rent went UP. Go figure.
But that is because the Universe is conspiring against you. What did you do to annoy it?
I'd still like to know the details, if any of them care to share.
I'm a renter. I just am priced out of owning in my area.
So I've always either shared housing or lived in a studio--been in a studio apt. for the last 12.5 years.
I keep my rent a reasonable percentage of my gross income. Currently about 23% of gross income. It was close to 15% for the 8.5 years when I shared housing.
I've also lived a block away from my job for the last 9 years, so my car expenses are pretty low. I was able to drive my last car until it was 20 years old even though I didn't take particularly good care of it.
Keeping my overhead low allowed me to pay off debt and build savings over the years. I'm 47, have always had a very average/below average income for where I live (but great benefits). My net worth is more than 297k. I always saved money in savings accounts as well as retirement accounts, as well as a few taxable investments.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 01-23-2018 at 02:09 AM..
I can't see saving on a $75k/year salary, even without cable television, a land line, or anything.
Most of our money goes to housing, food, and education savings.
Saving the leftovers would leave us with nothing near $10k/year required to end up with $300k after 30 years.
The above anecdote on your own personal finance situation is completely different than your previous rant post claiming people cannot get wealthy by working for a salary and living frugally, and that thinkers/creaters/makers don't have wealth.
Are you seriously going to stand by the "if you don't have kids" qualifier you added too? Since you cannot build wealth with a job and kids nobody else can?
The problem is most people seem to lack any kind of self control. I think most people don't have a strong "why" for building wealth. They don't see the value in the flexibility and freedom it brings.
Can't remember who said it: "You can become a millionaire by the time you are 35 if you concentrate on nothing else." And that was said when $1M was real money.
Maybe - just maybe - concentrating on making your pile is not the most admirable or desirable end goal of a life. Maybe we value that questionable achievement for the same reasons we value 3-point shots, unearthly beauty on the big screen and shiny expensive stuff: a completely shallow morality.
Just maybe those who put money/wealth first and hardly anything else as high as second aren't ideal role models and paragons of virtue.
Just maybe the contributions of the billions who do something well but aren't paid a lot for it counts for more than numbers in a spreadsheet.
And just maybe that's why I find conventional economic theory and discussion - the secret language of Them That Got Theirs, laden with value assessments based on wallet thickness, and defining those with money as worthies and those without as [stupid | lazy | worthless] - right about on a level with what any hardworking farmer can find in his pasture on a balmy Sunday morning.
So the total household wealth is 96 Trillion. And we have a population of 323 Million. Including babies, elderly, teenagers, etc. That equates to a wealth of 297K per ever person alive in America today, clearly an extremely wealthy country. But I know few people with 300K net worth. Much less babies, teenagers, or millennials with that level of wealth. Most are much lower. A few are higher, but not astronomically so. How can our country be so rich in terms of household wealth when everyone seems so poor?
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.58 trillion in circulation as of September 20, 2017, of which $1.53 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
U.S. Population (2017) : 326,474,013
>>> $4,686 per capita <<<
If everyone tried to "cash out" their so-called household wealth, it would be obvious that the evaluation is bogus.
THE.MONEY.DOES.NOT.EXIST.
Ergo, you cannot presume any value, denominated in dollar bills, that exceeds the quantity in circulation. Unless, of course, you are bat-feces crazy.
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.58 trillion in circulation as of September 20, 2017, of which $1.53 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
U.S. Population (2017) : 326,474,013
>>> $4,686 per capita <<<
If everyone tried to "cash out" their so-called household wealth, it would be obvious that the evaluation is bogus.
THE.MONEY.DOES.NOT.EXIST.
Ergo, you cannot presume any value, denominated in dollar bills, that exceeds the quantity in circulation. Unless, of course, you are bat-feces crazy.
Of course that much money doesn't exist.
The only way that much money could exist is with massive central gov't creation or a huge number of private loans. And the very large bulk of that new money would be electronic, not cash currency.
But why would everyone want to sell everything they had all at the same time, and all go to cash currency?
Maybe - just maybe - concentrating on making your pile
is not the most admirable or desirable end goal of a life.
Do you know a lot like that? Certainly they exist but my experience of them is as outliers.
Most people attempt to approach all of these aspects of life in a balanced manner.
Those who understand more do tend to do that balancing thing with better results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neerwhal
Saving the leftovers would leave us with...
There's your problem: You can't save the leftovers and expect any success.
You have to save as the FIRST step.
The second step is a budget for all the things you want that can actually be afforded
when you understand that you start with LESS THAN your net of tax withholding wage income.
---
Start with as much PREtax deductions for retirement accounts, HSA, etc. as you can stand.
Certainly to the max of any matching contribution but fully maxing out IRA limits is a REAL goal too.
Also deduct anything else that comes out of gross whether you like it or not (Tax/FICA; garnishment?; loan?).
Then you plan a budget based on ONLY this net income amount.
And I'll tell you right now you're likely spending too much.
--
Real estate related expenses (housing) continue to be the biggest line item for most.
But too many are too willing to accept a too high number or have others in their lives
who are telling them they simply must live "there" when it's clear it's just not affordable.
I've said it here many times before but it seems to always bear repeating:
12/52's (~23% of net) one WEEK's net income vs one MONTH costs is your housing allowance.
Beyond just the rent/mortgage... housing includes utilities and any other fees required to live there.
Many people are paying more than 23% of their net. Too many.
But I guarantee you that those with the $297K (or more) are controlling their expenses...
and they're 'paying themselves first' with savings/investments BEFORE anything else.
Last edited by MrRational; 01-23-2018 at 10:02 AM..
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.
The money does not exist. Not even funny munny.
