|
Posted by Kris Krieger on September 25, 2007, 3:37 pm
>
>>
>>> Whats the minimal amount of money in the bank, that you could get
>>> your hands around in 24 hours, you'd have to have before you'd call
>>> yourself wealthy in the popular sense of the word?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know because I don't know what's meant by "in the popular
>> sense of the word".
>
> The *popular sense of the word* does indeed have a trick meaning.
> When a network bobbing head utters that word, wealthy, they ignore the
> *definition* and use it as a tool to divide people, the haves and the
> have less's.
OK, *now* I see your point ;)
You're exactly right. Wealth is generally in the proverbial 'eye of the
beholder'.
>
> When an Automatron stares at the flickering screen and is subjected to
> that word, wealthy, whats left of their brain splits in two exactly as
> planned. One half of their brain is spiteful, envious and jealous of
> those more successful then they are and the other half wishes they had
> all those coins two.
Exactly. Rather than doing their personal best and enjoying what they
have, people almost always seem to, themselves, ruin their own
experience, i.e. create their own misery, by the endless game of Making
Comparisons.
SO, rather than being excited that they got a new car that doesn't need
repairs every couple months (as do many cars when they reach the age of
12 years...), they hate their new car because it isn't as expensive
(read: "impressive", i.e. accompanied by an imaginary sense of increased
social status/importance) as soemone else's car (neighbor, relative,
whatever). So they end up miserable - but it's not because of what they
have or don't have, it's only because they *choose* to live in a
continual state of envy, whining about all the things they can't afford.
> One side of the brain is evil, the side that wants the money and the
> other side is good, the side that is spiteful.
> If they could call an 800 number from one of the sundry medication
> commercials on network TV that offered instant wealth after taking a
> prescription that would convert them from the good side to the evil
> side instantly the phones would be completely off the hook.
>
> Average of all the people on earth? Average for all people in
>> the US? Popular for a given income range? If Al makes $12K per year
>> and Bill else makes $50K, Al prob thinks Bill is wealthy - but if Cal
>> makes $100K, Bill prpb thinks he is not wealthy but Cal is -
>> meanwhile, if Doug makes $500K a year, Cal might not think he is
>> wealthy but that Doug is...and so on and so forth.
>
> I didn't mention *what other people think* and as far as I'm concerned
> it doesn't matter what they think.
Ah - but for many, and I'd guiess most, people, "what others think" is
something of an obsession. Material wealth is not something they crave
because they would *enjoy* it, but rather, because it would (they
imagine) increase their social status, i.e. their importance, becaus
ethat is how many (most?) people interpret envy - if others envy you your
stuff, they see you as having importance. And, really, that is how
poeple *behave* - what I mean is, if people *perceive* you as having
material wealth, they are drawn to you, they want to try to grap "part fo
the magic" so to speak. Buying a car is an excellent example. Go into a
car dealership dressed in jeans and a t-shirt and, even if they're
perfectly clean, you will be snubbed in favor for the people wearing
designer this and designer that. Been there, done that - it's like
pulling teeth to get a sales person to even acknowledge you. OF course,
when you say "Payments? No way, I'm paying cash", it's hilarious to see
them suddenly turning red and falling all over their dumbass selves to do
their jobs - since 99.99% of those folks in desnger duds are either
leasing, or extending the payments out as long as possible so as to lower
the monthly payments, even tho' it raises the end-cost of the thing by an
obscene amount.
IOW, most poeple are quite shallow and *DO* judge the proverbial book by
its proverbial cover, so, for most people, unlike yourself, "what others
think" is a central issue in their lives.
Personally, I couldn't care less about "impressing" a bunch of nitwits
and borderline-morons who are utterly irrelevant to my life (well,
irrelevant as long as they don't mess with me or my property...I never
said I wasn't territorial <L!>) But most people? IMO, most people thnik
and beleive an dlike what they're told, without thinking, never
developing an individual aesthetic, ethic, or idea.
>> ALso, is wealth=income or is wealth=liquid investments? IOW, what is
>> wealth? If all your investments are in real estate, the actual (and
>> oft- denied fact) is that you're only as wealthy as other people are
>> willing to make you - IOW, buy a forclosure for $10K in a poor
>> neighboorhood, put in mega-improvements, try to ask for $365K, well,
>> it's not likely anyone will bite.
>
> Can you wrap your hands around the coins in less than 24 hours?
I'd say very few folks - even ones whom others consider to be wealthy.
Too much cash sunk into house, car, gee-gaws, clothing, and so on. Very
few Americans have actual investments and emergency accounts and the like
that can be cashed-out.
>
>> If wealth=liquid investments, then some (many?) wealthy people are
>> not actually wealthy.
>
> Right, according to the parameter I outlined above.
Actually, I'd venture to guess that most, according to your parameter,
are dirt-poor.
>
>> IOW, it seems to be a bit of a "trick" question.
>
> Its an *individual* question.
That's why I put "rick" into quotes ;) I was being wry - or rye... ;)
> Money, wealth, is a highly individual thing and each person has their
> own idea of what that might be.
> I've heard that most people that have won large lotteries are broke
> again in 5 years, so no amount of wealth, except unlimited, would be
> enough for them. Other people live a long and happy life with little
> in the way of wealth. Wealth is a *tool* and can be used in good and
> bad ways and its up to each person how to use it.
Part of the problem is that the vast majority of people only think
"stuff" when they thing of welath - a big house stuffed to the rafters
with, well, stuff.
True financial wealth is not about acquiring stuff - it's abotu getting
*some* stuff, and then investing the rest of your $$ into a wide variety
of well-chosen areas.
That's why lottery winners bottom out - all they think of is spend,
spend, spend. Few seem to have in hteir vocabulary the word "invest".
And they also never ever seem to consider the fact of taxes.
Same is true of many sports stars - make $10 million a year for x years,
stop playing, and be living off the dole within 5 years.
>
> The *popular sense* that I mentioned is the *trick* you eluded to.
>
Yup - the "trick" being that the question has a different answer
depending upon whether one does or doesn't have a functional/thinking
brain <LOL!>
> For me personally a specific *amount* is not required but a certain
> amount on a monthly basis would be nice, say $5k.
> That would be exclusive of living expenses, just plain ol' walking
> money. BTW: I don't plan to ever *retire* in the traditional sense of
> the word.
>
"Retirement" is IMO something of a bogus word/concept. I think it is -
or, at least, should be - more like "life change" or "new stage of
life" - ideally, you get to the point where you can stop working just to
make money, and have enough savings and investments so that you can start
doing what you *really want* to do, whether it's getting into wildlife
carving and entering shows, pr playing a musical instrument, or raising
giant pumpkins, travelling, etc. :)
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap