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.
What does salary have to do with being rich? You can make $30K a year and be rich or you can make $100K a year and be poor.
Average american makes from 30 -45K a year. Well more like 25K thx to the recession. If you make 60K your above the average american salary. If your at 100k your well above average. If you make 4 million you make 100x what the average american makes.
I see the point your trying to make from a psychological standpoint but lets use realistic financial and gross income classifications.
What does salary have to do with being rich? You can make $30K a year and be rich or you can make $100K a year and be poor.
Sure. You can make a mere 30K and be rich, if you live like a hermit for the rest of your life and your investments go well.
Sure. You can make 100K a year and be poor, if you spend money like water or have an addiction that spirals out of control.
The truth is that 100K isn't what it used to be. I mean if you work for a decade that is only 1 million provided that you don't spend a dime and you have a minimal investment to protect against inflation.
Neither of those incomes can be considered rich by any stretch of the imagination.
The only truly wealthy guys I've known, and I don't know many, did not come by it through their own hard work; generally they had it handed to them by their parents. One in particular comes to mind and while it all looked good on the surface, there was no substance there. No interest on my part.
My husband earns a good salary as do I. We're not rich but comfortable. I would rather be in my situation than with a guy who has never had to work. I grew up in a middle class family, that's what I know. My dad was a hard worker and always worked, aside from the last six months of his life as he was too ill. Had he been released medically to go back to work, he would have in a second. He was never wealthy but did well for himself; I still have a lot of respect for his work ethic.
There are plenty of hard working wealthy guys out there, I'm sure....the two I know, however, are not. Money is nice but it sure isn't everything.
Average american makes from 30 -45K a year. Well more like 25K thx to the recession. If you make 60K your above the average american salary. If your at 100k your well above average. If you make 4 million you make 100x what the average american makes.
I see the point your trying to make from a psychological standpoint but lets use realistic financial and gross income classifications.
Being rich comes down to Saving and Investments mainly. People who think that a guy making $60K driving an expensive luxury car may not be rich. Infact he might be in debt. Guy making $30K a year maybe drive a modest car and paid cash for it, therefore have more assets in value.
$30K in certain states is considered good but not in CA and NY.
The US Gov't is in heavy debt and we now have the highest foreclosures ever. That tells a lot.
Most of the US working class wealth is in Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate, Precious Metals, etc.
People who are rich are frugal, spend their money wisely, sound investments in the stock market (401K, IRA's), Real Estate, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MariaKintobor
Sure. You can make a mere 30K and be rich, if you live like a hermit for the rest of your life and your investments go well.
Sure. You can make 100K a year and be poor, if you spend money like water or have an addiction that spirals out of control.
The truth is that 100K isn't what it used to be. I mean if you work for a decade that is only 1 million provided that you don't spend a dime and you have a minimal investment to protect against inflation.
Neither of those incomes can be considered rich by any stretch of the imagination.
My last two boyfriends were unemployed...I can't say that's wise either, depending on the reason anyhow.
I guess both would be considered average looking, but one had a particularly cute face & the other was very well groomed. Most people called the one cute & the other nice-looking, but neither was "hot". They both were not boring to me, and they both were rather intelligent in a way that complemented my intelligence (as I think there are different ways of being intelligent). Bottom line was I enjoyed them as people & found them physically attractive by MY responses, not some objective standard.
I think the problem with the poll is that it is trying to quantify attraction. For me, it's there or it's not. There's no measuring of how boring or good-looking or intelligent someone is when I decide to date them. Ultimately, the over all attraction is simply ENOUGH to make me overlook whatever flaws they inevitably have.
I wonder when she'll be moving out of that luxury apartment and selling all that stuff at a pawn shop after that program airs.
I'm curious as well when she might get some self worth, can't teach that in school and there is nothing like telling the entire world you are a prostitute, even though you don't think you are.
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.
