This thread has actually been enlightening. You’ve been great subjects for study.
SUMMARY OF WHY YOU THINK YOU ARE NOT MILLIONAIRES:
------------------------------------------------------1. Mental illness (your brain is organically incapable -- this
one makes sense.)2. Social Class (you think you shouldn't be rich, having wealth
is not normal because no one you've ever known has it. And, for
example, you instead choose to be happy).3. Participation in Capital Markets is Futile (Understanding the
machinery of capitalism is unfathomable, no one can really do it
successfully, and even trying is laughable.)4. Learning from People who manage Wealth on a Daily-Basis is
Impossible (They're just 'lucky', and besides their either
rich-kids or douchey-billionaires who don't know how they got there.)5. Understanding Business Structure, and how to Organize your
friends into an efficient money making unit is Unimaginable. (It
takes too much effort. Plus, Business leaders are evil, and should be
taxed out of existence.)I'm calling this list "5 Habits of Not Being a Millionaire", thinking:
o cannot
o must not
o hopeless
o contempt
o too hardGreat work everybody! Carry on.
Seriously? Not caring about personal wealth is "contempt"?
That's not what the model says?? Oh I see, you twisted it to suit your needs (like FOX News does.)
.
You might want to re-think your priorities for a happy life, GM.
I'm just building a model from the data provided -- don't shoot the messenger.
(Oh I see, you're projecting feelings onto me.)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you go to work, arrive 15 minutes early, leave 5 minutes late, and
do what you are told to do..
I assure you i get to work when i want to (only work PT) i never stay late, the last time i played a video game was april, the last time i smoked was feb 1999, and as a stay at home dad (and landscape foreman before that) people do what i tell them to do.
keep at it tho, you'll get it right one of these days:-)
Well, with out getting heavily political and cynical, because I lack the ambition really. I am happier in a supporting roll. Thus, I will only become a millionaire by having it handed to me for whatever reason.
I don't say anything -- I just infer it. That way people can't say I said it because I didn't -- I'm just asking questions here.
I mean I didn't say the order of the first list actually correlates to the order of the second list. I didn't say it was right for someone to kill abortion doctors -- I just said I would not be surprised if someone did and I would understand why they would do so. I didn't say abortion doctors are murderers I simply said that the killing of unborn children is murder, and we have a word for people that go around murdering lots of people.
I didn't say Grand Magus is using all the tricks Glenn Beck uses, I am just impress with how much that his line of argument greatly resembles the means Glenn Beck uses to make his case.
But I didn't say it, so don't you ever say I did.
"That was not intended to be a factual statement."
I mean if I don't actually have a hypothesis, then I do not have to defend it because obviously I have nothing to defend, so I must be right because no one can question me.
None of my relatives who can make this happen are willing to just give me their money. They could at least give me 999990. I can find a way to make the last 10.
ahref = Who controls the world’s wealth
That is a weird chart.
Speaking of data:
data-science = Don’t Expect A Large Salary Increase If You Didn’t Go To College
( This is a perfect example of how a single visualization can tell so many interesting facts:
o If you have anything less than a Bachelors Degree then the median salary does not cross above 50K
... )
Since you're posting very interesting off-topic articles, I found this one that points out that the U.S. really isn't all that bad in terms of rich vs. poor. It was an interesting read for me, with lots of nice statistics...
CAVEAT: It's El Reg, so it has some bad language.
BBC just had a story tonight about how the widening gap between in income has cost the USA something like 7% gdp growth in the past several years.
|
BBC just had a story tonight about how the widening gap between in income has cost the USA something like 7% gdp growth in the past several years.
Yeah, Obama fans are pointing to the stock market highs and saying how great the economy is, yet they forget wages are stagnant and, at 58%, we are at the lowest job participation rate in a generation.
I tell them that the stock market doing well, in the face of the other factors, just means the Koch bros., Soros, Buffett, Gates, et al are doing GREAT while the rest of us are not doing so well.
I think we've hit a perfect storm of technology making a lot of old jobs obsolete, a high not really seen since the late 1800's and the Robber Barons in corporate greed and malfeasance (as well as blatant government bribery and collusion), and a polarization of our politics to the extreme that nothing will get done to fix any of the problems we face. Both parties killing off their moderates to appease their bases have truly screwed us on top of all of the other issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't accept the contract ExxonMobil has offered me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BBC just had a story tonight about how the widening gap between in income has cost the USA something like 7% gdp growth in the past several years.Yeah, Obama fans are pointing to the stock market highs and saying how great the economy is, yet they forget wages are stagnant and, at 58%, we are at the lowest job participation rate in a generation.
I tell them that the stock market doing well, in the face of the other factors, just means the Koch bros., Soros, Buffett, Gates, et al are doing GREAT while the rest of us are not doing so well.
I think we've hit a perfect storm of technology making a lot of old jobs obsolete, a high not really seen since the late 1800's and the Robber Barons in corporate greed and malfeasance (as well as blatant government bribery and collusion), and a polarization of our politics to the extreme that nothing will get done to fix any of the problems we face. Both parties killing off their moderates to appease their bases have truly screwed us on top of all of the other issues.
Most of the Obama fans I know aren't talking about how great the stock market is doing, but about how jobs are coming back, if slowly, and that there are starting to be some signs of wage growth - though that's definitely tentative.
They're also talking about how the Republican party has done everything they possibly could to kill anything Obama tried to do, including any measures to help the economy.
Reid blockading a lot of House passed legislation added to the ill will between camps. Both sides have been complicit since Bush's 9/11 good will ran out, and the patriotic bi-partisan chest pounding stopped.
|
|
With the stated goal of McConnell being to make Obama a one-term president, I have a lot of trouble spreading the blame evenly.
The stimulus back in 2009, while too small, stopped the initial bleeding and kept states from collapsing. From then on, they haven't been able to get any real stimulus and even normal government spending has been cut back, generally in attempts to compromise with the Republicans and get something done.
You can blame Democrats for those compromises that did hurt people, but you can't both blame them for that and for upsetting Republicans by blocking House legislation.
They can't both let Republicans do what they want and not compromise.
Yeah, the opposition is supposed to help secure a second term for the other side's guy. Are you seriously saying that blame is equal because dude stated the obvious goal of both parties if they're on the wrong side of the Oval Office desk?
As to the other part, that's pretty much the relationship O'Neill and Reagan had. If Reagan wanted anything, he has to give Tip everything. Sorry, that's just politics. Difference is, Reagan and O'Neill wore big boy pants, and Obama and Boehner are both Baby Boomer brats who won't let their egos take a nap.
|
|
Remember, thejeff, my take on the whole thing is it's all just grand theater for the masses, while we're getting screwed by the backstage goings on. The only real sides are the two faces most pols wear.
The Dems had a chance to put a stake in the heart of the Republicans after the Bush fiasco, but put all of their eggs in the basket of an empty suit from the corrupt Chicago machine. They threw the Blue Dogs to the wolves and went further left than Joe Six-Pack (even union card holding Joe Six-Pack, a la the Eighties and Reagan) is comfortable with, and it left the Republicans in a position where even the Tea Party anchor couldn't sink them.
The Dems made their bed. They better just hope they're smart enough to not nominate Hilary, or they better hope whomever the Repubs win with is a complete disaster, since he'll have the whole shebang with no Dem resistance, and Republicans have far fewer special interest mouths to feed, so they can do some focused damage with both houses and the presidency.
I get the complete opposite sense.
The Dem's tried to maintain some aspects of their left leaning side, but spent a LOT of time being wishy-washy over Blue Dog issues that they essentially looked like paralyzed deer in the recent election. The Keystone pipeline being a prime example. The delayed action on the pipeline for 2 reasons.
1) Dem's in left-leaning districts could continue to rail against the issue and promise how they would block it.
2) Dem's in more conservative districts/states could b&*~~ and moan about how it wasn't passed and promise how they would pass it.
You get similar things with the ACA, the president saying it's great, while representatives call it the work of satan. In the end it made the Dem's look clueless and directionless.
They really haven't gotten more liberal the past 15 years, but have gotten quite a bit more conservative. I say this as a person who has themselves become less liberal over the same time period.
|
|
I get the complete opposite sense.
The Dem's tried to maintain some aspects of their left leaning side, but spent a LOT of time being wishy-washy over Blue Dog issues that they essentially looked like paralyzed deer in the recent election. The Keystone pipeline being a prime example. The delayed action on the pipeline for 2 reasons.
1) Dem's in left-leaning districts could continue to rail against the issue and promise how they would block it.
2) Dem's in more conservative districts/states could b#%&% and moan about how it wasn't passed and promise how they would pass it.You get similar things with the ACA, the president saying it's great, while representatives call it the work of satan. In the end it made the Dem's look clueless and directionless.
They really haven't gotten more liberal the past 15 years, but have gotten quite a bit more conservative. I say this as a person who has themselves become less liberal over the same time period.
All of the Blue Dog Dems (beside Landrieu, and she lost last week) lost in 2010. What you saw were a bunch of the Progressive wing playing centrist in swing states and it didn't fly.
See, Dems screwed up and thought Bush Fatigue was a mandate to pull the country left. They didn't understand the people wanted the second coming of Bill and to move back to the center. Then Obamamania swept the nation and we got an empty suit with no body of work to make the assumption he'd actually be up to the job, a House and Senate leadership known for vitriol and arrogance, and an incestuous relationship between the media and the Oval Office, pretty much eliminating any serious coverage of the administration's deficiencies (both the president of CBS and ABC have a sibling or spouse as a close adviser to Obama, and the NYT, NBC, CNN, MSNBC all have top management related/married to people well positioned in the administration. Public info is a lovely thing, people should make us of it).
The first two years under Obama set the tone. "Shut up, we won" sealed the Dems' fate. They ran things for two years like they had a mandate. But they didn't. People really didn't want "change" they could "believe in", they were just told they did by the constant media spin. What they really wanted was "normal", which meant "how it was under Clinton" for a lot of people.
The Dems might seem conservative right now, I guess, but it's hard to tell. Boehner has pretty much kept Obama's agenda mostly sidelined, and Reid won't let what the House does pass get to the floor a lot of the time. I have a hard time calling gridlock an indication of a "conservative" Dem party. They've been mostly powerless, outside of Obama's executive order pen, since the 2010 mid-terms.
Now, clueless and directionless pretty much nails it either way, so I agree with you there.
It's every American's duty to pay taxes.
It is the final duty of every citizen to go into the tanks.
|
umm...
for me, I visited my gf in brooklyn in 2003-2005. she lived in a tiny apartment with her family, and to "get away" we would occassionally get a hotel room.
it turns out there were like... 6 hotels in Brooklyn. Almost all of them were pretty crummy.
SIX. In a city of 2.3 MILLION PEOPLE.
I was like... "why don't we start a hotel?"
Never did anything about it. And since then... well...
So... that is my could have been story.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wife and I are going to be millionaires.
We are saving 70% of our income and investing it.
We both have good jobs, have done the math and we can do this.
It will take us about a decade.
We have several unfair advantages-
We were born white middle class in a first world country.
We were raised to value education and both have degrees.
Our education was mostly freeish- we don't live in the US.
We don't have children and don't intend to have children.
We are both healthy.
We are both frugal.
Why aren't we millionaires yet?
Until the past few years I was working when I wanted at stuff I liked.
I was studying to get that degree.
Our jobs pay a lot less than a million dollars a year.
We are unable to borrow 10 million dollars to invest and turn into 12 million and pay back the 10 million plus 1 million interest.
What could stop us?
Some or all of our investments crash.
Losing our jobs.
Having children.
Getting seriously sick.
Divorce.
These are ordered from most to least likely.
The crash wouldn't stop us, just delay us... possibly until the next crash. And the next, and so on. If we can make it to a million, we should be able to diversify enough to avoid those sorts of things.
When we succeed it will be due to hard work and luck. Lots of luck.
But still better odds than the lottery.
*request*
Looks like it is over. (chart)
.
|
|
Oh, but I am a millionaire.
Just not in dollars... And no, I'm not gonna tell you what currency.
Now for the answers.
1. Because I'm not a greedy b#+&* that needs to have everything.
2. Okay, I had this one idea that could possibly work but I rather have a steady job instead of organizing group vacations for gay singles. But that's probably a niche market anyway.
It's been a couple years now. Do you know why yet?
Yes.
Free idea guaranteed to make you a millionaire:
Start a kickstarter-esque website for racist cops and homophobic local government officials. Call it "be the footprint." bethefootprint.com is available, by the way.
General idea is summed up in this sales pitch:
"Help support your brethren in Christ as they fight the war against Christianity we face everyday. In their time of need they look down and see just a single set of footprints in the sand. Will you be the one who carries them? Will you be their footprint in the sand?"
Collect money for bigots from bigots and scalp 20% off the top.
Oh, by the way, I'm not a millionaire because I like to sleep at night.
I am not a millionaire because we live in a !@#$ed world where RPG players don't get paid like sports stars.
(sorry if I am repeating somebody else...but this thread is too long to read entirely)
I believe I'm not a millionaire because God knows that my life would be too easy. I know exactly what to do with a million dollars to turn it into 100 million. I believe I still have to learn a great deal of humility or any other number of virtues before I ever make that kind of money.
Absences of intelligence, cunning, skills, and ambition.
Yes, I think that covers everything.
Oh, and I have the wrong sort of luck. My luck keeps me from getting into tragic car accidents and such, not winning lotteries. I prefer the luck I have.
Absences of intelligence, cunning, skills, and ambition.
Yes, I think that covers everything.
Oh, and I have the wrong sort of luck. My luck keeps me from getting into tragic car accidents and such, not winning lotteries. I prefer the luck I have.
How tragic is tragic? I would strongly concider losing as many as 4 fingers and 3 toes, sustaining a broken clavical, and a serious concussion if I could win a $600million powerball jackpot.
I'm not a millionaire because genius is often unappreciated in it's own time.
At least my grandkids will be rich entitled pieces of s*&$, so *yay*
How tragic is tragic? I would strongly concider losing as many as 4 fingers and 3 toes, sustaining a broken clavical, and a serious concussion if I could win a $600million powerball jackpot.Absences of intelligence, cunning, skills, and ambition.
Yes, I think that covers everything.
Oh, and I have the wrong sort of luck. My luck keeps me from getting into tragic car accidents and such, not winning lotteries. I prefer the luck I have.
Tragic to me would be like serious impediment to quality of life, i.e.: perpetually bed-ridden, vegetative state, requiring machines to live, that sort of thing. Or an event that kills your whole family but leaves you alive.
You have to bet big to win big. This means that working for a wage will mean that a worker will be sure of a paycheck, yet will only net a million after a lifetime of work.
Owning a business or means of production is how most went from humble beginnings to making millions, yet it is a risk - never a sure thing. Most small businesses fail or struggle. That is the risk that faces many people. Many take the risk and fail, some take it and succeed. Most prefer security and never take the risk, working the wage grind.
Ok, here's another free $1 million idea. Invent a DVR that doesn't let you delete a show if you weren't the person who set it to record.
I'd be a millionaire if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog!
Dad blew his inheritance on gambling and big boy's toys, that's why I'm not a millionaire.
A pity he damaged his organs with drinking and cooties, I'd like to get some of my money back from him.
I am too moral and ethical to rob a bank.
I am too prudent to jump on the latest get rich quick scheme.
I am not a big enough risk taker to start my own company.
I lack the insider knowledge to play to win at the stock market (or Vegas not much difference)
My family lost everything in the crash of 2008. So I will not inherit it.
Hmmm... It may not be too late to fall in love with and marry a rich man. Know of any that are single and looking for a perky gamer?
Dad blew his inheritance on gambling and big boy's toys, that's why I'm not a millionaire.
A pity he damaged his organs with drinking and cooties, I'd like to get some of my money back from him.
He damaged his organs with body lice? WOW.
You have to bet big to win big. This means that working for a wage will mean that a worker will be sure of a paycheck, yet will only net a million after a lifetime of work.
I'm fairly certain that this isn't true.
Here are some numbers:
* According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average computer and information system manager earns $125,660 per year.
* The average lawyer makes $130,490 per year.
* Orthodontists take home $204,670.
* Pediatricians [make] $156,000 a year, the lowest among physicians.
* Critical care physicians average $240,000 a year.
It's fairly easy to net a million in less than fifteen years with that kind of income. Of course, you need to be willing to actually save money -- but when the average household income in the US is about $40,000/year, you can live the same lifestyle as the vast majority of people in your city and still bank at least $50,000 per year.
Did you see the movie "The Big Short"?