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.
Pshaw. If you think that's a lot of money, you haven't been paying attention. Two Americans have a quarter of that amount, themselves. That number sounds more like the profits of insurance companies.
Okay you contrast the US with other countries by saying the US blames people in poverty whereas most other countries actually attempt to alleviate the problem. When it is pointed out we spend over 400 billion you just wave your hand and dismiss that since we have some very rich people here. Your mind is obviously made up and facts won't get in the way of your naive conclusions.
Quote:
You keep diverting away from what I said.
You keep making things up then ignoring when called on them. Do you have any comment on your latest jturism (tm) that the average American net worth is negative? Would you like to refute the numerous sources that say otherwise or is your plan to chalk it up to darn caught in a lie again let's move on to other points?
You keep making things up then ignoring when called on them.
Can't you do anything but nitpick numbers? The simple fact is that tens of millions (the exact number is unimportant) of American families are staggering under crushing debt and can see no way out of it, and you and your conservative and libertarian friends blame those facing difficulty for lacking personal responsibility and would gleefully reduce the welfare budget to zero in a minute and tell the poor to walk off the edge of the earth, without shedding a tear for a single one of them. So you can keep the whole $400-billion for yourselves because (sniffle) your net wealth is only $200K or whatever, and you work so hard for it (in the tin mines, or stooped over in rice fields, or whatever you do that is such hard work) and its being stolen from you by bleeding hearts.
for most of america net worth isnt negative.... the problem is trying to count a home in the early years.... a homes will push almost any newbee into the negative in the beginning...
for the masses they can have a decent income but no way will they have more then the mortgage due regardless if they are just starting out.. but that goes away with the mortgage later on in life.
i think it would be interesting to see breakdown by age with no mortgage counted.
this is according to census info and analyzed by the federal reserve in 2004
Age Range
Median
Net Worth
Average
Net Worth
Less than 35
$14,200
$73,500
35 – 44
$69,400
$299,200
45 – 54
$144,700
$542,700
55 – 64
$248,700
$843,800
65 – 74
$190,100
$690,900
75 or more
$163,100
$528,100
Median means that half of the households surveyed had a net worth above, and half had a net worth below the median. So, for the less than 35 group, half of those who took the survey had a household net worth of LESS THAN $14,200 and half had a net worth GREATER THAN $14,200. Notice the huge difference between the median and the average. The survey used real net worth, which is the difference between a families’ gross assets and their liabilities.
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-17-2010 at 05:43 AM..
Can't you do anything but nitpick numbers? The simple fact is that tens of millions (the exact number is unimportant) of American families are staggering under crushing debt and can see no way out of it, and you and your conservative and libertarian friends blame those facing difficulty for lacking personal responsibility and would gleefully reduce the welfare budget to zero in a minute and tell the poor to walk off the edge of the earth, without shedding a tear for a single one of them. So you can keep the whole $400-billion for yourselves because (sniffle) your net wealth is only $200K or whatever, and you work so hard for it (in the tin mines, or stooped over in rice fields, or whatever you do that is such hard work) and its being stolen from you by bleeding hearts.
I deleted my last post because I didn't want to be against the poor as they have so much against them already. Many of the things I say sounds like conservative and libertarian propaganda but that is not my source. My source is my experience and I will admit to reading an economics book based on the Austrian school of economics. I admit that the outcome of a pure supply and demand economy is both great and scary. Great because it means anybody can try and achieve wealth. Scary because there will always be somebody who wants what you have and may be willing to do it for less.
What I don't agree with that particular book is that people don't always go for the cheapest price. In my experience, it pays to pay a little more if the car lasts longer. It pays to pay a little more for a smarter tradesmen. It pays to pay a little more for good dental work. However, there are some people who don't care and that goes both ways. Some people want to buy the cheapest thing and some people want to charge as much as they can even if their product or service don't deserve it. American made products I have purchased come to mind in that last sentence.
The book doesn't go into this real life situation and if it did I am sure it would explain it away as the person who does the research is the one who wins. Which I have to agree with because research takes work and it takes work to make money.
I support welfare for the poor but I would like it if the welfare was used for something productive. This can mean different things according to ones abilities and needs. For me personally it meant, purchasing a cook book that I tested first by checking out at the library. I was extremely inefficient and wasteful. It also means not purchasing toys for my daughter. They don't hold her attention long and she is soon chasing my legs. It also means having a prepaid cellphone that I keep off forcing my friends and family to call me at home. They know when I am home. I don't need a cellphone to make money and, no, I don't need to know what so-and-so did.
I am not particularly smart. However, the one thing that has helped me get out of poverty was to realize that not all things were worth having. You can't force another person to see this because of what I said before. What might be productive to me might not be productive to you because we have different abilities and needs. You would be telling somebody how to live and this person may have greater or lesser abilities than you.
I have advised poor people before. For example, an elderly woman passed away leaving behind an unpaid washing machine that had an interest rate of 19%. A son called the store and asked what would happen if they stopped paying. The store threatened that they better pay the bill or else they are taking it away. For some reason this frightened the family. I told them, stop paying the washer machine. Let them pick it up. Save the money in the mean time. Use coin laundry if they take it away too soon, which is what they were doing before. They did just that and didn't have to do it for long. I see nothing wrong with providing resources (money or information) to poor people as long as it makes them productive.
We're not talking some tiny difference you're always lecturing with facts that spin up as you go. An entire paragraph explaining how the average homeless man in India is actually wealthier than the average American based on your "fact" that the average American has negative net worth.
It isn't nitpicking to point our your entire premise is flawed because you manufactured your information about the average American net worth being negative when it is in fact likely well over six figures. What gets in your head jtur88 when you make these things up, do you really believe it or are you just hoping nobody calls you on it.
One can only imagine how you're to be taken seriously with your more difficult to verify lecture points contrasting attitudes of Americans with others when something as simple as this proves to be yet another case of you fabricating data.
I knew that, you knew that, he probably knew that. This is the same guy who when trying to make a point claimed China doesn't have beggars anymore, he's got a habit of gross exaggeration then accusing others of nitpicking when called to the table on it.
The problem is that any asset you buy on leverage can always show a negative net worth in the early years.. there really is no way to get an accurate picture of net worth if a mortgage is counted for this purpose.
...
would you subtract out all the future rent payments of someone who didnt buy a house and didnt take a mortgage?
of course not...
but if you subtract out the debt for future housing to the homeowner in effect thats what you are doing to them and comparing them to the renter.
for most of america net worth isnt negative.... the problem is trying to count a home in the early years.... a homes will push almost any newbee into the negative in the beginning...
for the masses they can have a decent income but no way will they have more then the mortgage due regardless if they are just starting out.. but that goes away with the mortgage later on in life.
i think it would be interesting to see breakdown by age with no mortgage counted.
this is according to census info and analyzed by the federal reserve in 2004
Age Range
Median
Net Worth
Average
Net Worth
Less than 35
$14,200
$73,500
35 – 44
$69,400
$299,200
45 – 54
$144,700
$542,700
55 – 64
$248,700
$843,800
65 – 74
$190,100
$690,900
75 or more
$163,100
$528,100
Median means that half of the households surveyed had a net worth above, and half had a net worth below the median. So, for the less than 35 group, half of those who took the survey had a household net worth of LESS THAN $14,200 and half had a net worth GREATER THAN $14,200. Notice the huge difference between the median and the average. The survey used real net worth, which is the difference between a families’ gross assets and their liabilities.
If these figures include the net worth of the home (house or dwelling), what do they mean as the value of those homes keeps dropping? How do you calculate net worth with property included, in these times?
It isn't nitpicking to point our your entire premise is flawed because you manufactured your information about the average American net worth being negative when it is in fact likely well over six figures.
Interesting statement, but I would like to see a verifiable source for it.
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.
