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.
Some people invest in property only to lose out on that property due to un-seeable circumstances beyond their control.
So what I hate is when people think everyone who's not rich is just not as smart as they are.
Plenty of people who get rich get rich because of a large helping of good luck and circumstance, even though they may have worked hard to get the seed money to start.
Many poor people also work even harder and invest their money wisely, only to lose their investment for reasons no one could foresee.
I know people who saved a lot of money but their money was wiped out in the savings and loan fiasco, for example. Bad luck.
Just realize that luck/ circumstances often play a big part in both good and bad fortune.
So not all poor people are stupid or bad investors, they're often just not as lucky as you. And not all rich people are smarter or harder working than the poor.
By the way, there's no point in arguing with the rich. They insist they are rich because of their fabulous intelligence whereas they insist the poor are poor because of their stupidity and laziness.
I
But the most industrious and some of the smartest people I know are poor.
The knee jerk response of the times best said by Obama. You did not earn it you are just white and lucky
You say you are happy I made it -why doesn’t it feel that way
I was getting the white privilege lectures when I was homeless
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 07-19-2019 at 08:19 AM..
It's a pretty big distinction whether someone owns actual stock or just contributes to a fund through their work. If it's the latter - they are not actively involved in any decisions regarding the funds, someone else manages it and someone at the workplace makes decisions of how much can be contributed, which classes of funds to buy, etc... the worker justs put a contribution in through deferred compensation. I hardly consider that person an "investor" even though that person has an interest in the market doing well. But we all do.
If a person has an account with a brokerage where they can actually make buy and sell decisions... that person is an actual investor even if it's a small amount.
It's a pointless distinction, because that person still has an enormous stake in the overall disposition of corporate profits, whether he makes the investments himself or entrusts his financial portfolio to a fund manager. Either way, profits go into increasing the value of the company--in turn increasing the value of the stock and that person's portfolio--or into the bottomless maw of government through higher corporate taxation.
And, once again, even a token contribution grows in time. I mentioned earlier about a small, almost forgotten 401k in a mutual fund I made 25 years ago. Over time, it has averaged double-digit growth without my touching it. Today it's worth more than 10x what I put into it. If it follows the historical average over the next 15 years, my total return will have been 4,500% without ever lifting a finger.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 07-19-2019 at 11:21 AM..
Prove this with statistics from a valid source, please.
I’ll jump in and state per the NY Post and Fidelity Investments - roughly 80% of millionaires are first generation. Most did not inherit their money nor did they grow up in country clubs. The breakdown of highest salaries - (as a percentage of millionaires)
Banking and Finance, 14%
Lawyers, 8%
Doctors, 16%
Executive/Corporate, celebrities, sports figures, etc.
I’ll jump in and state per the NY Post and Fidelity Investments - roughly 80% of millionaires are first generation. Most did not inherit their money nor did they grow up in country clubs. The breakdown of highest salaries - (as a percentage of millionaires)
Banking and Finance, 14%
Lawyers, 8%
Doctors, 16%
Executive/Corporate, celebrities, sports figures, etc.
You failed to post a link to your source, though.
And if millionaire just means someone with a net worth of least one million dollars, that's not considered massive wealth anymore.
And if millionaire just means someone with a net worth of least one million dollars, that's not considered massive wealth anymore.
I agree - but for most, millionaire doesn’t mean just one million in net worth. Most consider only liquid assets (as we don’t typically liquidate a home, cars, etc. for cash). We still have to live somewhere!
I did cite the source; I just didn’t post the link. There are numerous articles everywhere speaking to the common myth of millionaires inheriting their wealth - it’s a common topic for wealth management firms, of course.
Yes it is true. The myth is that a poor person can't be rich. I used to be dirt poor for 95% of life and went through hell to break through.
Most millionaires were once poor.
I don’t believe the bolded is true; in fact, your first statement appears to counter it in itself i.e. ‘going through hell to break through’ and ‘95% of life’. While I agree it’s a myth most millionaires inherit their wealth, it’s also a sugar-coated myth to believe ‘most millionaires were once poor’. We all know how difficult it can be for most people to break the cycle of poverty; I would suggest the majority of millionaires once fell somewhere among the middle class (if for no other reason than statistical odds).
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.
