Rich People
Belf Da Dog
phenomenon of marriage and its psychological impact on human beings. I now
understand better why it drives male humans crazy. Anyway, I've furthered
my observations and studies into the area of what qualities cause a human
being to become wealthy.
What qualities do self-made millionaires/billionaires possess that
differentiate them from others? A high proportion of them were not
considered to be clever when they were children -- in fact, quite the
opposite. Most didn't stand out as children, In fact, according studies
conducted by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D., author of "The Millionaire Mind",
many were actually humiliated as children -- placed in the "dumb section" of
the class and so on. Maybe such experiences served to toughen them up, and
generate the desire to win, much like how a boxer, infuriated by being hurt
and knocked down by his opponent,, standing up and continuing to fight.
Perhaps many kids who are constantly praised and molly-cuddled -- "Oh,
you're so clever." Yadda yadda yadda -- are psychologically unprepared to
deal with failures, set-backs and humiliations later in life. Anyway, the
smartest people and the richest people are NOT one and the same, though of
course there may be some modest overlap.
Belfagor da Dog
PSmith9626
Some of us never made being rich a goal.
It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
best
penny
Belf Da Dog
"PSmith9626" wrote...
> dear belf,
> Some of us never made being rich a goal.
> It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
> best
> penny
>
Of course. Anybody wishing to be rich will find that the process of
achieving wealth involves a heck of a lot of repetition (esp. sales) and
trying to please and charm people one would normally avoid -- something that
would certainly turn-off many individuals of higher intellect, one would
imagine (hey, I'm just a dumb canine).
PSmith9626
Gistak
20021226210758...@mb-mr.aol.com, "PSmith9626"
<psmit...@aol.com> wrote:
> dear belf,
> Some of us never made being rich a goal.
> It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
> best
> penny
>
Right. Although I'd like to have more money (I do see value in it!), I'm
happier doing what I enjoy 40-60 hours a week. I've made more money doing
other things, but left them for what I'm doing now.
I do supplement my regular income in some ways, but the more time I spend
thinking about how to make more, the less time I have to enjoy what I've got
and to spend it with the people I have around me.
P
Feek O'Hanrahan
Of course, some people might find the acquisition of wealth, and all it's
intricacies terribly interesting. There's a lot to learn about it, including
human psychology (which plays a huge role in sales).
--
Left to themselves, thoughts will merely spin in circles, racing
themselves down a path they've already beaten.
- Tyler Trafford
Joseph Weinstein
Belf Da Dog wrote:
Consider those for whom net-asset-value is *the* score. Money=making is best
considered a game. I forget who said it, but there's a good idea that the more serious
a situation is, the more you should treat it as a game... Winning the money game does
take some intelligence, but not a lot. What distinguishes most big winners is not buying
into the 'higher-education = better job = better money' game. A good read is
Robert Kyosaki's 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad', about his real dad and a family friend who
treated Robert like a son, teaching him about what to do with money and how to
make it. R's real dad was a loving, accomplished academic who never 'got' money,
who thought it a venal and somehow unworthy topic, not fit for family dinnertime
discussions.
R's adopted dad debunked such common myths as 'your house is your greatest
asset' etc. and taught R. the difference between assets and liabilities, and how easy
and *intelligent* it is to buy assets. I believe that American education is skewed
toward the 'higher-education = better job = better money' life plan, and for most that's
OK, but it never teaches what to *do* with money or even think about it, allowing the
car and jewelry commercials on TV to do that.
Rich people (and prospective rich people) differ from consumers by realizing what
a financial asset is, and buying them, rather than buying financial liabilities such as
bigger houses and cars etc, *until they have enough money that the drains (from property
taxes, insurance, upkeep etc) are easily affordable*. The fundamental strategy of
wealth accumulation is simply *deferral of gratification*. This applies beneficially at all
economic strata(1), and is counter to the bulk of common culture portrayals, and is
not at all taught. It should. Small businesses are the most reliable way for personal
wealth, and they are not usually about intellectual leaps, but rather are about providing the
goods and services for everyday life to the consumers of those things, more economically
than the next best alternative for the targeted consumers, and to do so profitably.
(1) This might cause debate, but is nevertheless true. Of course, it is more easily and
largely applicable as you already have 'discretionary' income, but many of those who
became rich, had the benefit of starting *poor* enough to know more about how little
is really necessary. Conversely it is those who feel it crucial to be *seen* as rich,
who buy the trappings as soon as they can finance them, that never really make it.
As it has been said, with a $100/month budget, the difference between heaven and
hell is having monthly expenses of $99 or $101.
An example of a perfectly capitalistic small business which is very profitable and
beneficial to the society it served (else it would never have surived) is the bank in
India that started out making 'micro-loans' to the smallest of informal economy businesses.
Women who did piecework manufacture to a middleman who they often owed for the
machinery to do their work, could obtain loans of $20-$100 dollars at a low enough rate
to pay off their bosses and immediately keep more for their won and pay off their
tiny loans. A bank is often seen as sterile, amoral money-making capitalism. Here is
an example of such, starting out small, taking appropriate risks and being able to be
paid for those risks, and being efficient enough to charge less for those risks than
the previous traditional arangement, and benefiting all involved. Pure capitalism
can be good. There was a recent article from a Peruvean economist that suggests
that it is not capitalism that hurts third-world economies, but *insufficient, incomplete*
capitalism. In these countries, most business is in the informal economy, like those
Indian women home-workers, paying no taxes, and (therefore) getting no government
help or investment attention. If this capital can be freed and recognized in the
formal economy (such as being recognized as a viable risk for a loan by that bank),
then this will allow the investment and leverage of this capital, such as those women
did in paying of their feudal overseers, and immediately raising their standards of living.
This economist suggested that if third-world countries streamlined the process by which
a business can be defined, established and formally recognized, it would help unite and
draw the considerable uncapitalized informal economy into markets that would provide
the ability to grow and prosper.
gistak
news:auhmq2$1...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
> Belf Da Dog wrote:
> > "PSmith9626" wrote...
> >> dear belf,
> >> Some of us never made being rich a goal.
> >> It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
> >> best
> >> penny
> >>
> >
> > Of course. Anybody wishing to be rich will find that the process of
> > achieving wealth involves a heck of a lot of repetition (esp. sales)
> > and trying to please and charm people one would normally avoid --
> > something that would certainly turn-off many individuals of higher
> > intellect, one would imagine (hey, I'm just a dumb canine).
>
> Of course, some people might find the acquisition of wealth, and all it's
> intricacies terribly interesting. There's a lot to learn about it,
including
> human psychology (which plays a huge role in sales).
>
Definitely true. I personally don't disparage anyone making that choice. I
just make different choices myself. (I know you weren't talking to me, but
what the hell.(
P
Adina Sobo
(PSmith9626) writes:
>dear belf,
>Some of us never made being rich a goal.
>It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
Or, if not necessarily trivial, just not what we wanted to do. I have
enough money to live comfortably with a little left over, and plenty
is being socked away for my retirement in a few decades. I'll never
be rich, but I'd much rather have a job I enjoy and leisure time to
have even more fun. My sister & her family who are what *I* would
consider rich -- not in Gates' league, for sure, but they live in a
4,000 sq foot home in a very nice neighborhood, have all the most
modern electronics and are always going to Europe and so on -- is
not, despite her money, nearly as cheerful as I am. I know my work
makes a difference (I'm a science educator) and I like it. Their whole
household is based on making more money and conspicuous
consumption to prove they have it. Feh.
- - - Adina
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing."
-- Archilochus (fragment 103)
http://members.aol.com/adinas/index.html
Joseph Weinstein
> >> Some of us never made being rich a goal.
> >> It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
> >> best
> >> penny
I am puzzled about this. Let's start by clarifying what is 'rich'
and what is not rich. I would like to suggest that the averagely
intelligent person recognises and values personal independence,
and also recognises that we are not dolphins in a fish-full sea, but
must work to provide goods and/or services for which we can
trade for the things we need. Different people need different
amounts of things, but we can consider the commonly shared needs
food, clothing, shelter, health care, and the ability to communicate
and participate in society. A typically intelligent and foresightful
individual might consider that one's ability and energy to work
can vary with age, and also that the economy fluctuates in a way which
usually does not guarantee that a given person's capabilities are always
profitably saleable. As such, it seems intelligent to work more/harder/smarter
ahead of time, and accumulate a sufficient sum to cover emergencies.
It seems that some 'emergencies' can last indefinitely, like the drop in
the need for wagon repairers, or terminal bunions for a dancer. More
seriously, my parents never realized until it was too late, that even as
valuable as they were (a nuclear physicist and a pathologist), they might
get old and tired enough not to be able to work as they had.
It seems intelligent to consider the possibility of having to support one's
self without a job for a long time, maybe for all one's remaining years.
If this sounds like something to consider, how much work should
we invest now to give us the independence that might be required of us?
On a positive note, there is a definite difference in a 'professed' freedom,
and an actual one. Many say "I can quit anytime", but the difference in
knowing, with calculations and savings, that one truely *is* free to work or
not, according to real desire, and not because of the health coverage,
is truely to be had to be appreciated.
So, let's do a prospective balance sheet. We have the needs I mentioned,
and if we have any dependents, our financial resposibilities grow. On the
plus side, we have social security and medicare etc. How much do we trust
that these benefits will cover what we need, and do we have any feeling
for the desireability of not depending on government? They have botched it
badly enough that it will be the next generations that will have to pay for
our entitlements. Do we feel OK about taxing them to pay us what they may never get?
I personally supported my parents after they'd become too old and
infirm to work, and I knew they were unhappy to need me do it. Just for
that, I want to make sure my kids don't have to support me.
Let's assume we don't want to leave any financial legacy, plus or minus.
Let's consider the possibility that we may have 35 years of non-earning,
and maybe not count on the government. How much should we save,
to make ends meet? If we assume a healthy 5% interest rate after inflation,
and an average monthly need of $1,500 after taxes, for food, clothing, shelter,
insurance, health coverage,communication, transportation, everything. This implies
you need a cushion of about a half-million dollars.
We can quibble with the amounts, and the need to capitalize the whole
latter third of your life, but this effort doesn't seem trivial, not a waste. People
who work hard and smart enough to reach a goal of personal independence
are not necessarily brilliant, but they seem to be operating on fairly supportable
premises and easily understandable goals. Simply, if personally amassing and
having a million dollars sounds wildly extravagant and pathologically aquisitive
to you, you may not have thought it through. It may be a lot, but it is not un-
attainable, and it is not unreasonable.
It seems elementary to calculate the cushion you determine is appropriate
for you, and it seems logical to build it in advance. I think that the seduction of
high intelligence can be the predilection for the consideration of mathematical
eternalities, the origin of constellations and the jitterbugging of continents across
the planet. It's just too mundane to focus on the banal economic needs of one person
in the real 40 years we individually have left... I do know that my parents would
have been better able to ponder their imponderables, and grow their orchids, etc,
if they'd spent just a few early years saving, and a few hours a month after, to learn to
grow it to become enough money to keep them independent in their old age.
Joe Weinstein
PSmith9626
I am not rich. But, I do ok. I do ok by working at what I enjoy ( like Adina)
and not at some task I hate just to get rich.
These days people have disability insurance.
best
penny
>Message-id: <3E0CEFD5...@bea.com.remove.this>
Joseph Weinstein
PSmith9626 wrote:
> dear joe,
> I am not rich. But, I do ok. I do ok by working at what I enjoy ( like Adina)
> and not at some task I hate just to get rich.
Excellent, and well done! I am just suggesting that some folks think 'doing ok'
for now is sufficient, without considering the possibility of not being able
to do what one likes forever, in a way that pays all the bills.
> These days people have disability insurance.
Some do, some don't. I just hope that people ensure that they can continue
to have (afford) insurance if something happens to their employment, nor
do some consider how insurance costs escalate with time. Self insurance
is the best insurance.
> best
And to you too.
Joe
>
> penny
>
> >Message-id: <3E0CEFD5...@bea.com.remove.this>
Feek O'Hanrahan
Hey, it's a public forum. :)
It's just that I watch a lot of posters here make people who want and
acquire wealth out to be mindless slobs that grunt after only greenbacks.
Now, while I feel that the ultimate goal of becoming rich is somewhat
shallow, I don't think that the people who hold that goal are single-minded
neanderthals. I also don't think they're all evil, either. I think that the
most publicized ones are those that are evil. "If it bleeds, it leads".
Feek O'Hanrahan
> On 12/27/02 12:48 AM, in article
> 20021226210758...@mb-mr.aol.com, "PSmith9626"
> <psmit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> dear belf,
>> Some of us never made being rich a goal.
>> It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
>> best
>> penny
>>
>
> Right. Although I'd like to have more money (I do see value in it!),
> I'm happier doing what I enjoy 40-60 hours a week.
Mutually exclusive? Not always. What if you can make money doing what makes
you happy?
As Uncle Scrooge McDuck says: "Work smarter, not harder". :)
Tom Spillman
"gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:auidl6$o...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
> >
> > Of course, some people might find the acquisition of wealth, and all
it's
> > intricacies terribly interesting. There's a lot to learn about it,
> including
> > human psychology (which plays a huge role in sales).
> >
>
> Definitely true. I personally don't disparage anyone making that choice. I
> just make different choices myself. (I know you weren't talking to me, but
> what the hell.(
>
> P
>
I made such a concious choice years ago. I got in on the ground floor of a
companie (125 employees when I joined, now over 100,000). I looked at what
it would take to "succeed" and decided the cost was to high in terms of lost
family contact, time away from home, long hours, etc., etc. and chose not to
take that path. Some of the guys I worked with took the other path and
ended up doing quite well.
OTOH, we are quite comfortable, while far from being "rich". We can do what
we want and buy what we want when we want it (luckily, we have very frugal
tastes!). However, we can afford the odd trip to Europe and my major
vice -- books. We don't depend on Social Security for our income. It makes
up a very minor part. Neither my wife nor I could live on just Social
Security.
Most of the "rich" people I know consider the acquisition of money a game
with money being the way you keep score. I opted out of the game some time
ago with no regrets...
Regards...
Tom
>
PSmith9626
Yes. I keep forgetting that not everyone has tenure.
best
penny
Of course, I took a huge salary cut to become a professor and tenure was a
major incentive.
Gistak
O'Hanrahan" <feek...@XattbiX.XcomX> wrote:
I agree completely. Different people make different choices, and I don't see
why my choice is any more valid than theirs.
I remember when the book "Generation X" came out, sparking a whole new way
to look at people my age. I thought the book was ok, and it very much was
about the kind of person I was at the time. Educated, but under-employed.
Drifting. Bored with what my socially-acceptable options seemed to be.
But even then it annoyed me that he portrayed the go-getter character as
being a moron. I thought, why can't he be a go-getter, but still be bright
and fun? I know several MBA's out there, pulling in huge dollars, who are
great people.
Different strokes.
P
Gistak
O'Hanrahan" <feek...@XattbiX.XcomX> wrote:
> Gistak wrote:
>> On 12/27/02 12:48 AM, in article
>> 20021226210758...@mb-mr.aol.com, "PSmith9626"
>> <psmit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dear belf,
>>> Some of us never made being rich a goal.
>>> It seemed like a trivial waste of intellect.
>>> best
>>> penny
>>>
>>
>> Right. Although I'd like to have more money (I do see value in it!),
>> I'm happier doing what I enjoy 40-60 hours a week.
>
> Mutually exclusive? Not always.
Of course not! I'm only talking about my personal experience. I've never
enjoyed any job as much my current one. I've made more money in other jobs
(and in similar jobs in other locations).
> What if you can make money doing what makes
> you happy?
I think that's great. I'm sure that many people do. I was talking about
myself, my own job, and what's important to me.
And I do make money. I just don't make TONS of money.
PSmith9626
>It's just that I watch a lot of posters here make people who want and
>acquire wealth out to be mindless slobs that grunt after only greenbacks.
Not me.
>I don't think that the people who hold that goal are single-minded
>neanderthals. I also don't think they're all evil, either.
True.
>Now, while I feel that the ultimate goal of becoming rich is somewhat
>shallow, I
Also true.
best
penny
Barbara Hunt
>
> What qualities do self-made millionaires/billionaires possess that
> differentiate them from others?
It's interesting that many in this discussion seems to have fallen
into the trap of thinking that making money and doing something you
love are mutually exclusive. People who work hard and make it to the
status of "millionaire" are often also doing something that they love
to do.
In addtion, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to make more
money. Money doesn't buy happiness, but money buys choices - and
choices bring happiness. For instance, my mother recently discovered
that she has breast cancer. She lives over a thousand miles away from
me. If I were "just getting by", I wouldn't have been able even think
about picking up and going to see her.
Barbara
gistak
news:f53b56f4.02123...@posting.google.com...
> "Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com> wrote in message
news:<O6IO9.40722$Zv4.2...@news2.telusplanet.net>...
> >
> > What qualities do self-made millionaires/billionaires possess that
> > differentiate them from others?
>
> It's interesting that many in this discussion seems to have fallen
> into the trap of thinking that making money and doing something you
> love are mutually exclusive.
Who said that? I personally said the exact opposite, as did others.
> People who work hard and make it to the
> status of "millionaire" are often also doing something that they love
> to do.
>
Of course. I could be wrong, but I don't remember anyone saying that no one
could enjoy what they do while making money. I can think of lots of people
who LOVE what they do and get paid VAST amounts of money for it. I can do
this even leaving out the entertainment industry.
But for most of those people, still, doing what they love is the goal, not
making money. The money is a bonus.
The original post mentioned that millionaires often weren't considered
clever. But no matter how smart you are, if doing what you love is the goal,
AND doing what you love doesn't make tons of money, then you won't make tons
of money. Intelligence isn't the key. The goal is the key.
> In addtion, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to make more
> money. Money doesn't buy happiness, but money buys choices - and
> choices bring happiness. For instance, my mother recently discovered
> that she has breast cancer. She lives over a thousand miles away from
> me. If I were "just getting by", I wouldn't have been able even think
> about picking up and going to see her.
>
> Barbara
>
Sure, but what if you had to give up seeing her because you had to work for
more money? See, you're PAYING money to go see her. Your goal is to have
less money (if necessary) in order to visit your family. It's all about
goals.
My goals are to do what I like, spend lots of time with my family and
friends, be honest and ethical, and make as much as I can WITHIN those
paramenters. Since doing what I like earns me a decent living, but not
millions, I can not expect to be a millionaire, no matter how smart I am.
This is very simplified, of course, but you get the drift, I hope.
P
Henry Chang
wrote:
>"Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com> wrote in message news:<O6IO9.40722$Zv4.2...@news2.telusplanet.net>...
>>
>> What qualities do self-made millionaires/billionaires possess that
>> differentiate them from others?
>
>It's interesting that many in this discussion seems to have fallen
>into the trap of thinking that making money and doing something you
>love are mutually exclusive. People who work hard and make it to the
>status of "millionaire" are often also doing something that they love
>to do.
>
>In addtion, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to make more
>money. Money doesn't buy happiness, but money buys choices - and
>choices bring happiness.
Choices do not bring happiness, persay.
I recall one of the major polling organizations doing a study relating
happiness to socioeconomic status and the "rich" only scored 1 percentage
point higher than the "poor".
And a personal note: my family was a rags to riches story through my
childhood and the times I remember my parents being the happiest were when
we were poor.
For a scientific study on what makes people happy see the book "Flow: The
Psychology of Optimal Experience" by University of Chicago Professor of
Psychology Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. I could expound upon it, but the
conclusions are too long to include in this particular post. Suffice it to
say that Csikszentmihalyi agrees that money and happiness are at best
distantly related.
Henry
zookumar
>"Belf Da Dog" <D...@Sniff.com> wrote in message news:<O6IO9.40722$Zv4.2...@news2.telusplanet.net>...
>>
>> What qualities do self-made millionaires/billionaires possess that
>> differentiate them from others?
>It's interesting that many in this discussion seems to have fallen
>into the trap of thinking that making money and doing something you
>love are mutually exclusive. People who work hard and make it to the
>status of "millionaire" are often also doing something that they love
>to do.
>In addtion, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to make more
>money. Money doesn't buy happiness, but money buys choices - and
>choices bring happiness.
Through the transitive property, money "brings" hapiness.
Ergo, money buys happiness indirectly.
>For instance, my mother recently discovered
>that she has breast cancer. She lives over a thousand miles away from
>me. If I were "just getting by", I wouldn't have been able even think
>about picking up and going to see her.
Exactly. Money improves the prospects of happiness.
To wit, everyone wants money. But not everyone (anyone??)
needs or "enjoys" money beyond some arbitrary threshold number;
indeed, when someone pursues money beyond the arbitrary number, they
usually do so for unpraiseworthy reasons. IOW, there does, indeed,
come a point in the (pre-)occupation of acquiring wealth where making
money _and_ doing something you love *are* mutually exclusive. This
appears to be the rule and the exceptions are so few that they are
abnormal in more ways than just statistical.
The trap is in *not* recognizing the mutually excluding point.
Moreover, this excluding point is different from person to person, and
really, only the individual person knows what their point is. It could
be a 100K for some, a million for others, and a billion for others
still.
Best wishes for your mother and you. Hope she gets well soon.
-zookumar-
Gistak
Spillman" <tspi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Right. Different people thrive on different things.
P
PSmith9626
Right. Money buys happiness at a price.
Sometimes, the price is too high.
best
penny
" Money doesn't buy Happiness, but I can afford a psychoanalyst."--Peter
Benchley
>Message-id: <02kQ9.232476$C8.6...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
PSmith9626
Actually, a million dollars is not so much anymore. The average middle class
familyhead earns more than that in a lifetime.
But, you are still correct.
best
penny
"Let's hide these incongruities with a few annuities, in gloves by
Abocrombie-Fitch..
"When the idle poor become the idle rich."--Finnian's Rainbow.
Tom Spillman
"PSmith9626" <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030102084623...@mb-cs.aol.com...
For an interesting read, try "The Millionaire Next Door"
Regards...
Tom
BruceS
news:av1m97$2...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Just one of many books that show you how to be wealthy without necessarily
having a high earned income. Also try _Rich Dad, Poor Dad_, _Smart * Finish
Rich_, or even _The Wealthy Barber_. None are directed at the best and
brightest, so don't be surprised at the intellectual level.
_Rich Couples Finish Rich_ factoid: if you put $10/day into an investment
with a 10% return (slightly less than the long-term return on Dow or S&P
500), it will be worth a million in about 34 years.
_The Millionaire Next Door_ factoid: millionaires *who participated in the
survey* tend to buy cars with a low cost per mass, not the flashy status
vehicles favored by high earners.
gistak
"BruceS" <bru...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:av2017$9...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Frugality was apparently a running theme in the Millionaire Next Door. I
didn't read it, by the way, but I skimmed it very heavily one afternoon. The
people in it always bought slightly or greatly less than they could afford.
That's why they were "next door." You'd have no idea that they were
millionaires, because they didn't live extravagantly.
A main point seemed to be not to rush. Don't by the big house until you have
the big money. I think the rule was that your mortgage shouldn't be for more
than twice your annual household income.
P
BruceS
Yes, frugality was the main theme. We have a culture of instant
gratification, and "entitlement", that leads to poor choices. I've seen this
in family members, neighbors, friends, and coworkers. Many buy what they
want, when they want it, without regard to affordability. My wife and I
don't do this, and the example we've set seems to have carried over to my
daughter. None of us are acquisitive, or hasty in our acquisitions. We have
lived well below our means, to the extent that losing well over half our
income meant only a few adjustments, not the dire problems this situation
often causes. My Christmas present from my wife this year cost <$100, as did
my wife's from me. we expect to retire in our 40's, with a higher residual
income than any earned income we've had so far.
The biggest problem I have with MND is that they keep glossing over the
selective nature of their sampling, and infer from their results things that
may not apply to millionaires in general. If you ignore the invalidity of
their generalizations, the book is interesting.
Feek O'Hanrahan
> _Rich Couples Finish Rich_ factoid: if you put
> $10/day into an investment with a 10% return (slightly less than the
> long-term return on Dow or S&P 500), it will be worth a million in
> about 34 years.
That's $300 a month, and in 34 years, a million won't be worth too much.
Think of how much a million of 1968 dollars are worth today.
Joseph Weinstein
Len Budney wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Great series of posts!
>
> Joseph Weinstein <j...@bea.com.remove.this> wrote:
> >
> > ...Robert Kyosaki's 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad', about his real dad and a family
> > friend who treated Robert like a son, teaching him about what to do with
> > money and how to make it.
>
> I'm afraid I must disagree here. Taking Kyosaki's advice is a great
> way to end up poor, if not in prison. For an excellent analysis of the
> book, see <http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html>. Some highlights:
Fascinating! Still I do think he makes some clearly functional points
with the basic definitions of assets vs. liabilities and the 'cash flow quandrant'.
> 1. The "Rich Dad" almost certainly never existed--Kiyosaki refuses to
> name him, but has described him in such detail that it is noteworthy
> that Honolulu journalists have tried and failed to determine his
> identity.
>
> 2. His advice consists mainly of harmless platitudes like, "Poor
> people work for money; rich people make money work for them." When it
> is specific, it is often despicable: he suggests making rich friends
> for the purpose of getting inside stock tips (i.e., illegal insider
> trading).
I must have missed this bit...
> 3. His claimed success is undoubtely a lie. He refuses to state his
> net worth, but once tried to impress an interviewer by saying that his
> net worth is "between $50,000,000 and $100,000,000 depending on the
> day." Anyone worth tens of millions who keeps his money in something
> that volatile (what, by the way? Pork-belly futures?) is a complete
> fool. Note also that he claims to have been broke and homeless in
> 1985, so must have accumulated over $50 million in about fifteen
> years. In all likelihood he's worth a million or two, and made it all
> selling get-rich-quick books.
>
> For financial advice on that level, I can't recommend "The Wealthy
> Barber" highly enough. The jocular writing style is grating at times,
> but the information is absolutely top-notch. For insight into the
> mindeset and habits of the rich, of course, there's "The Millionaire
> Mind" and its prequel, "The Millionaire Next Door". Wonderful stuff.
Coolness. i'll check them out, but I do believe it's impossible for the normally
paid individual to *save* one's way to a million bucks,. You can only *make* a million,
and the skills and mindset to do that (honestly, in all I recall of the R.K. stuff) is
good.
> > The fundamental strategy of wealth accumulation is simply *deferral of
> > gratification*. This applies beneficially at all...
>
> Right on! Can't be repeated enough.
>
> > As it has been said, with a $100/month budget, the difference between heaven
> > and hell is having monthly expenses of $99 or $101.
>
> Absolutely. Though Mr. Micawber said it a bit more prosaically in
> "David Copperfield": "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure
> nineteen nineteen and six, result: happiness. Annual income twenty
> pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result:
> misery."
>
> > Pure capitalism can be good.
>
> No, no, no! Capitalism is all about robbing the common man, by
> brainwashing him into performing voluntary transactions which result
> in his own destruction! ;-)
yep. socialism and/or our unwritten internal code of natural ethics, that's the answer... ;-)
>
>
> --Len.
Jerry Hollombe
> BruceS wrote:
>
>>_Rich Couples Finish Rich_ factoid: if you put
>>$10/day into an investment with a 10% return (slightly less than the
>>long-term return on Dow or S&P 500), it will be worth a million in
>>about 34 years.
>
>
> That's $300 a month, and in 34 years, a million won't be worth too much.
> Think of how much a million of 1968 dollars are worth today.
If I may interject, I am a millionaire -- or I was until Citigroup
dropped $20 from its peak value. I expect that to recover in the next
year or so. Never the less, I would not be living as comfortably as I
am (which is a fairly frugal lifestyle) if my wife weren't working and
well paid.
I could probably retire on my own assets, but it would be a very frugal
and minimalist retirement. To sustain the lifestyle I had when I was
working, for my projected lifetime, would require at least $2.5 million
-- and I've never considered myself wealthy.
Jerry Hollombe, Webmaster
http://thegarret.info/
htto://glaam.us.mensa.org/
BruceS
news:av3495$9...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
> Feek O'Hanrahan wrote:
> > BruceS wrote:
> >
> >>_Rich Couples Finish Rich_ factoid: if you put
> >>$10/day into an investment with a 10% return (slightly less than the
> >>long-term return on Dow or S&P 500), it will be worth a million in
> >>about 34 years.
> >
> >
> > That's $300 a month, and in 34 years, a million won't be worth too much.
> > Think of how much a million of 1968 dollars are worth today.
That's one major fault in these factoids, that they don't include inflation.
If you want a better number, you have to take long term inflation into
effect. I think it's something like 3%, while stocks return about 11%, so
use 8% as a *long-term average* adjusted rate of return. Using that, the
$10/day for 34 years yields ap. $641k in inflation-adjusted dollars. Still
not too shabby. A return of 7% on that investment (without adding to or
taking from the principle) would mean an income of ap. $45K/yr, or $123/day.
IOW, if you start putting away $10 per day into the stock market, and after
34 years stop adding to it and convert the account to a safer mix of stocks
& bonds, you'll get an income of about $123 per day in today's dollars. As
they say, historic performance is no guarantee of future performance. I'd
also be sure to do the reorganization of investment mix a little ahead of
time, to avoid the chance of hitting a bad year (or couple of years) for the
market.
> If I may interject, I am a millionaire -- or I was until Citigroup
> dropped $20 from its peak value. I expect that to recover in the next
> year or so. Never the less, I would not be living as comfortably as I
> am (which is a fairly frugal lifestyle) if my wife weren't working and
> well paid.
>
> I could probably retire on my own assets, but it would be a very frugal
> and minimalist retirement. To sustain the lifestyle I had when I was
> working, for my projected lifetime, would require at least $2.5 million
> -- and I've never considered myself wealthy.
OTOH, I'm quite sure I could live comfortably on the proceeds from $1
million. At an average return of just 7% (not really very spectacular),
that's $70k/year. I could readily live on much less than that, letting the
principle grow in good years and not completely sucking it dry in bad years.
Also keep in mind that you can take a higher income from your investments by
slowly eroding the principle. The downside of this is if you outlive your
predictions. Then you're left with a dismal last few years.
Jerry Hollombe
> dear z,
> Right. Money buys happiness at a price.
> Sometimes, the price is too high.
> best
> penny
>
> " Money doesn't buy Happiness, but I can afford a psychoanalyst."--Peter
> Benchley
"Money may not buy happiness, but it's a mighty pleasant way of being
miserable." -- Will Rogers
"I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better." -- George Burns
"Anyone who thinks money can't buy happiness doesn't know where to
shop." -- Anonymous?
Jerry Hollombe, Webmaster
http://thegarret.info/
Tom Spillman
"Joseph Weinstein" <j...@bea.com.remove.this> wrote in message
news:3E14DA6C...@bea.com.remove.this...
>
> >
> > > As it has been said, with a $100/month budget, the difference between
heaven
> > > and hell is having monthly expenses of $99 or $101.
> >
> > Absolutely. Though Mr. Micawber said it a bit more prosaically in
> > "David Copperfield": "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure
> > nineteen nineteen and six, result: happiness. Annual income twenty
> > pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result:
> > misery."
> >
> > > Pure capitalism can be good.
> >
> > No, no, no! Capitalism is all about robbing the common man, by
> > brainwashing him into performing voluntary transactions which result
> > in his own destruction! ;-)
>
> yep. socialism and/or our unwritten internal code of natural ethics,
that's the answer... ;-)
>
> >
There is another way.
One of my early goals was to be worth a million. I finally achieved it
while on a trip. I spent almost four months in Rio on a consulting study
for a major oil company in the 1980's. At that time, Brazil was subject to
rampant inflation and the Cruzero was changing value daily. The oil company
we were studying had set up all sorts of private networks in order to get
money collected from customers into the bank as soon as possible. If they
were delayed for only a day or two, the value would have changed enough that
they would have lost all of their profit on the deal.
One night, the six of us who staffed the project went out for dinner in a
Rio restaurant. Our bill was over 15,000,000 cruzeros! I contributed about
3,000,000 to the bill and I can safely say that I WAS a millionaire (in some
currency!).
Regards...
Tom
> >
> > --Len.
>
Feek O'Hanrahan
I remember once for my 401K, they had this little calculator page you could
work out how much you needed for retirement to be living on the same salary
as you were currently making. I was 23 in 2000 at the time of the
calculation, and for me to be living on my current (at the time) $65K/year
when I retired at 65 (avg. life span of 80, though my family tends to
outlive that), I needed something like $2.5 million (IIRC) adjusted dollars
in my retirement fund. Luckily, because I had 42 years to work up to that, I
only had to put a small amount away, but I remember thinking that it was a
huge amount.
I have since started my own business, so I should hopefully have no problem
having a lot more than that when I retire (barring nuclear wars and such,
obviously). Besides, I like doing what I'm doing now a heck of a lot more
than I did then, so it works out good. :)
--
"This is my father's favorite medical text book. Read it long enough
and it will show you the error of your ways" - Charity Trask, "Dark
Shadows"
Feek O'Hanrahan
> And that's at 10%; people making over $50K should be able to put more
> like 15% aside, as long as you follow the "Wealthy Barber's" first
> principle: pay yourself first. If you do, you'll get a *raise* when
> you retire.
What does "pay yourself first" mean?
Belf da Dog
"Jerry Hollombe" wrote...
>snip
>
> "Money may not buy happiness, but it's a mighty pleasant way of being
> miserable." -- Will Rogers
> Jerry Hollombe, Webmaster
"Was it a millionaire who said 'imagine no possessions'?" -- Elvis Costello
zookumar
Yup. But as he went from rags to riches, his credibility is
intact, IMO. If I remember correctly, he spent more than 50% of his
short lifetime (and many a hard day's night) as a nowhere man living
in a nowhere land before finding his ticket to ride on the magical
mystery tour. Living is easy with eyes closed. In the end, it all
depends upon a girl, anyways, regardless of how much money you have.
So why fight it? I mean, really, picture yourself on a boat on a
river, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies; somebody asks you,
you answer quite slowly, a wooooomyn with a calliope and spices.
-zookumar-
Feek O'Hanrahan
> "Feek O'Hanrahan" <feek...@XattbiX.XcomX> wrote:
>> Len Budney wrote:
>>>
>>> people making over $50K should be able to put more like 15%
>>> aside, as long as you follow the "Wealthy Barber's" first
>>> principle: pay yourself first. If you do, you'll get a *raise*
>>> when you retire.
>>
>> What does "pay yourself first" mean?
>
>
> Okay, it means that whatever you plan to save, stick it into savings
> before you touch your paycheck. For example, use direct deposit and
> only look at the part that goes into checking, or join your company's
> 401k and let them take your savings off the top of your paycheck.
>
> If you resolve to put 10% of your paycheck into an IRA, but you start
> by paying your bills, eating out, etc., and then have a look whether
> there's enough in checking...there won't be. But if you never see that
> money in the first place, you'll adapt and never miss it.
>
> Uncle Sam learned that trick as well, which is why we have payroll
> deductions for income tax. The hit for half of all Americans is over
> 10%--but they never see it, so they never miss it. If everyone had to
> write a check for 10% of their income every April, there'd be another
> revolution. :-)
Oh, that's it? I thought it was some great insight or something. I started
doing this when I was 19 and started living on my own. Geez, what a let
down. :)
Feek O'Hanrahan
LOL
RoyB
"zookumar" <zook...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eXCR9.234373$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
...........I think it is "a girl with kaleidoscope eyes."
Sorry, not trying to be anal. Just one of the FEW things I remember these
days....
Roy
Tracy Yucikas
"RoyB" <bias...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:CvOR9.324$Dz5...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
appears that zook is exercising 'poetic license'
tough to spell, toiugher still to exercise with credibility
in the unhewn forests of contemporary analysis.
incorporating the Magritte figure-field imagery
in subtle citations of musical memorabilia.
- - -
tracy
zookumar
>"zookumar" <zook...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:eXCR9.234373$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>> Belf da Dog wrote:
>> >"Jerry Hollombe" wrote...
>> >>snip
>> >> "Money may not buy happiness, but it's a mighty pleasant way of being
>> >> miserable." -- Will Rogers
>> >>snip
>> >> Jerry Hollombe, Webmaster
>> >"Was it a millionaire who said 'imagine no possessions'?" -- Elvis
>>Costello
>> Yup. But as he went from rags to riches, his credibility is
>> intact, IMO. If I remember correctly, he spent more than 50% of his
>> short lifetime (and many a hard day's night) as a nowhere man living
>> in a nowhere land before finding his ticket to ride on the magical
>> mystery tour. Living is easy with eyes closed. In the end, it all
>> depends upon a girl, anyways, regardless of how much money you have.
>> So why fight it? I mean, really, picture yourself on a boat on a
>> river, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies; somebody asks you,
>> you answer quite slowly, a wooooomyn with a calliope and spices.
>> -zookumar-
>Sorry, not trying to be anal. Just one of the FEW things I remember these
>days....
I know. But that would've been copyright infringement, wot?
A one and a two and a ... we all lived in a fellow submarine,
fellow submarine, fellow submarine. And we all longed for a filly in
our jeans! A filly in our jeans! A filly in our jeans!
Na na naaaaa na na na naaaaaaaa ... .
-zookumar-
RoyB
Catharine Honeyman
> a wooooomyn with a calliope and spices.
Funny, I always thought she was a womyn with kaleidoscope eyes.
--
Aloha,
Catharine
titubant sed non decidunt wiblia
Tracy Yucikas
"Catharine Honeyman" <cat...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:20030106010544.598$T...@newsreader.com...
> zookumar <zook...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > a wooooomyn with a calliope and spices.
>
> Funny, I always thought she was a womyn with kaleidoscope eyes.
sometimes it seems like
"... a world with confetti and pies ..."
ty
james
> news:av1m97$2...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
> >
> > "PSmith9626" <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030102084623...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> > > Dear mary,
> > > Actually, a million dollars is not so much anymore. The average middle
> class
> > > familyhead earns more than that in a lifetime.
> > > But, you are still correct.
> > > best
> > > penny
> > >
> > > "Let's hide these incongruities with a few annuities, in gloves by
> > > Abocrombie-Fitch..
> > > "When the idle poor become the idle rich."--Finnian's Rainbow.
> > >
> >
> > For an interesting read, try "The Millionaire Next Door"
>
> Just one of many books that show you how to be wealthy without necessarily
> having a high earned income. Also try _Rich Dad, Poor Dad_, _Smart * Finish
> Rich_, or even _The Wealthy Barber_. None are directed at the best and
> brightest, so don't be surprised at the intellectual level.
> _Rich Couples Finish Rich_ factoid: if you put $10/day into an investment
> with a 10% return (slightly less than the long-term return on Dow or S&P
> 500), it will be worth a million in about 34 years.
>
You won't get a 10% return over the long-term.
You will probably get a 3-4% real return (i.e adjusted for
inflation).That means your total of $124,100 invested over 34 years
will be worth between $220,686 and $268,830 in current dollars.
James
Belf da Dog
"james" wrote...
> snip
>
> You won't get a 10% return over the long-term.
>
> You will probably get a 3-4% real return (i.e adjusted for
> inflation).That means your total of $124,100 invested over 34 years
> will be worth between $220,686 and $268,830 in current dollars.
>
> James
>
>
>
34 years! Yikes! There are many fairly easy ways to get more than that in
months rather than years. My heart goes out to all the honest hardworking
folk out there, struggling to make ends meet, suffering...wow. One easy way
to make money is to rent out a gambling machine of some sort to a bar (where
it's legal, of course). Customers will eagerly lose lots of money in the
hopes of winning some. Another easy way to make money is surprising
effective -- set up a stall as a "psychic" in a shopping mall. Just master
the rudiments of psychic cards, psychic's mobile attached to your head, or
whatever, and voila, you're a psychic. Little education is required, yet
many customers are surprisingly well educated. I saw one psychic (an
unemployed computer programmer) make $300 in 1 hour.
Feek O'Hanrahan
> "james" wrote...
>> snip
>>
>> You won't get a 10% return over the long-term.
>>
>> You will probably get a 3-4% real return (i.e adjusted for
>> inflation).That means your total of $124,100 invested over 34 years
>> will be worth between $220,686 and $268,830 in current dollars.
>
> that in months rather than years. My heart goes out to all the
> honest hardworking folk out there, struggling to make ends meet,
> suffering...wow. One easy way to make money is to rent out a
> gambling machine of some sort to a bar (where it's legal, of course).
> Customers will eagerly lose lots of money in the hopes of winning
> some. Another easy way to make money is surprising effective -- set
> up a stall as a "psychic" in a shopping mall. Just master the
> rudiments of psychic cards, psychic's mobile attached to your head,
> or whatever, and voila, you're a psychic. Little education is
> required, yet many customers are surprisingly well educated. I saw
> one psychic (an unemployed computer programmer) make $300 in 1 hour.
The slot machine I have no problem with, but I don't think I could ever do
the psychic thing. At least with the slot machine everyone knows that they
are giving you their money for a small chance that they might get a tiny bit
back. Some people actually believe in psychics, and I couldn't take
advantage of them like that.
Tracy Yucikas
"james" <jame...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5870d4.03010...@posting.google.com...
I get $330,000 and $450,000 (aprx) reflecting 3 and 4 percent returns.
- - -
tracy
Tracy Yucikas
"Belf da Dog" <d...@sniff.org> wrote in message
news:JJjS9.103299$xp4.4...@news1.telusplanet.net...
what kind of licensing requirements are there ? (do you know California ?)
(I think in a mall you'd have to pay rent at the very least)
ty