The Sufferings of the Millionaires, and the Sufferings of the Millions...

There should never be a point in which wealth means not having to work anymore.

If anything, inheriting large sums of money or assets means a hell of a lot more work, because you then have to make use of this vast amount of freedom and power you've been given.

And I seriously dare you to find me a place in this country where a MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS in assets does not translate to instant financial security.

That, my friend, is completely nuts.

Most "middle-class" Americans make due with a mortgage and a $40,000 per year income, BEFORE taxes.

If you're still boo-hooing at 500k, what the fuck are you doing with all that money?

"Most "middle-class" Americans make due with a mortgage and a $40,000 per year income, BEFORE taxes."

First, let's get you back in the conversation in context of the thread. The poll asked people with abut 1.5M in assets if they felt wealthy. These would be people with a 500K or more house and an income of 100-150K.

"And I seriously dare you to find me a place in this country where a MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS in assets does not translate to instant financial security."

If you read my previous post I stated the amount of assets defined in the story would provide financial security. It doesn't define being wealthy. These people couldn't quit their jobs and maintain their lifestyle/ They're well off but not wealthy.

Wealthy is a person who could walk way from work long before retirement age and not miss a beat in their lifestyle. But most of these people are very motivated, enjoy the challenge and keep working.

500K is a significant amount of money. But it's not wealth.

My main point here is that these people have no right to say they're not wealthy given that they receive 12.5 middle class salaries every year, not including things they already own.

I understand if you want to change the definition of wealthy for the purposes of this discussion, which is fine, I'll concede to that.

On those terms, I don't think anyone really has a right to be wealthy. It makes no sense to organize a society such that someone can live their whole life off one financially lucrative decision, thus sapping the productivity of our economy because they won consumer bingo.

That's my opinion anyway. Feel free to disagree.

Your statement shows you don't understand what it takes to get there. I didn't benefit financially due to a decision I made. The decision could have driven my family into bankruptcy. The decision involved a lot of risk and sacrifices. In the first couple of years we worked for little or no pay. The first year we worked sixty-plus hours a week for no pay. The second year working for half of what we could make working for a corporation, the three of us would have meetings asking each other if we could go a month without pay so we wouldn't have to cut pay or benefits of employees.

We (three of us) obviously had skills, motivation and foresight others either didn't have or we understood how to optimize ours. Our goal was to create a successful company where we would become financially well off and have the freedom to make our own decisions. It never dawned on us someday down the road a major corporation would offer an incredible amount of money to purchase the company. We we're lucky. There wasn't a lottery. A lot of hard work, sacrifice and skills met opportunity.

You had this opportunity. I'll assume we both graduated from high school. I put myself through college. I graduated with loans to pay back. I went to work in a large corporation where I gained experience, training and they paid for me to get an MBA. Then we started a company.

I'm not saying you didn't work hard or didn't put up risks, but do you really think this one contribution you've made entitles you to a 50 year retirement?

When I said consumer bingo, what I meant was that you were essentially gambling with whether or not people would end up wanting whatever you were selling.

Obviously, it takes a shitload of talent to do that correctly. But all the talent in the world wouldn't have saved you if it ended up being something people didn't want to pay you for.

Ultimately, the economy isn't supposed to be about money, it's about providing goods, services and luxuries to people that need or want them.

When you have a permanent overclass of people who are receiving 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 times a normal paycheck to do nothing, well that's a lot of people who could be working with that money that you've essentially sapped away from the economy at large. What could justify that if those people aren't providing anything to the economy? It would have to been a pretty big contribution IMO.

While entrepreneurship and large compensation are an important part of what keeps capitalism competitive, they are not what keeps it running.

What keeps it running is a strong, empowered consumer class who will provide and buy all the things that make life good.

In that sense, it is offensive to me that these people don't realize the privileged position they are in to begin with. Economies are NOT meant to sustain titanic personal fortunes, especially not capitalist ones.

Money is a finite resource and it represents, literally, the productivity of the economy. So what could someone do that would entitle them to permanently not provide for the system they are reaping the benefits from?

In my opinion, a lot more than just starting one company some time in the distant past.

" I meant was that you were essentially gambling with whether or not people would end up wanting whatever you were selling."

Our first clients were prospects we had as corporate employees. They weren't willing to spend the level of money with three guys working at a kitchen table as they would have if we were still with the corporation. There was a risk factor for them. But we got enough of the business to get started. Ultimately what we had was a product and services many businesses wanted. It is a cycle. Each part of the cycle plays a part. Consumers need to be able to purchase product.

I can't speak for my two ex partners. But the money I made has been reinvested or donated to charity. Invested money allows businesses and governments (bonds) to invest in resources (capital and people). Money isn't taken out of the market. Where it goes depends on the health of the economy. Even with the extremely wealthy their "fortunes" aren't stuffed under a mattress. They invest the same way. But they can take more risks.

Money isn't finite because it's on paper, not backed by gold or silver. The money the wealthy person invests can help a corporation put people to work. The worker gets a paycheck and has buying power. The corporation makes a profit based on the workers production. The investor makes money on the corporation's stock increasing.

true Bob Their the ones who are gonna epically Fail this time sibob ya know

Well said .. and anytime your in Natti breakfast's on me!

+^d!

Amen, and amen again!

Wow could it be the same prince(I also cant tell you his idenity even I can't know its a secret shhhh!) who contacted me and was in my priority box at G-mail :/ waaats up wit dat .Googley..guess my arabian dream is over darn...

I'd feel wealthy if I had the point in the middle just ------ even! whoaaa I can only dream

Me too.

this is not about feeling happy, it's wealthy.
happy is subjective, you can be rich and still be clinically depressed so obviously your money won't buy happiness.

but paying your bills, having money to spend time with your family, not worrying about whether you guys can eat, or will you have to cancel christmas. those things are objective, either you have wealth or you don't.

and if you do and you don't manage it responsibly-- then that's your fucking fault and you can't shit on the economy if you don't feel "wealthy" because you don't make more than 2 million.

Sometime back, I read a rant from someone who was in the middle of the worst of all worlds- foreclosure, car was reposessed,couldn't support his family- because he had lost his job of 29 years.
He stated that the only way the rich would be aware of the poor, was when the poor stormed the gates of their communities, and the rich began to fear kidnapping as in other countries. I certainly don't condone his statements- but I sure do understand where he was coming from.

when the rich suffer they have to do without things.
like travel and extra houses and fancy meals..... maybe they cant fly the jet as much.
when poor people suffer they do it without houses or food.....
i see a difference

because they're not suffering.
maybe they're not wealthy because they spend irresponsibly, maybe they make the money and live right up to their means-- so they aren't "wealthy" because of liabilities.

but they're stupid if they can't be rich when they have millions. MILLIONS of americans live on less than 50k for a family, if rich people lived like those people and saved the rest of their income, they'd be extremely wealthy... but they don't, they buy too many houses and they own boats and buy horses-- that's not suffering.

Cause if your over 6 and don't know I ain't gonna be the one to tell ya silly rabbit it'll be a lovely surprise when your filling the shoes of another ...you know the kind , not so lucky to be as isolated and ignorant as you

I would feel rich if I had just enough not to worry about paying bills and buying the food I like to eat.

You've missed my point. Money is not wealth, money does not make one happy. One can have lost of money and suffer just as bad as a poor person. Lots of suffering has nothing to do with what a person has or has not. If I see a person suffering I will respond the same no matter what their pocket book looks like. I am not going say " you have no right to be sad because you worked hard and invested smartly" or "your suffering is meaningless because you were born rich, something you could not control."

Also I wouldn't call doing with out travel and extra houses suffering. I am talking about real suffering and no amount of money can make a person immune.

no, i dont feel sorry for bernie !

ditto

"because they're not suffering."

I agree to an extent. The author confuses the reader by equivocating (figrd likes doing that) the suffering of poor people struggling to make ends meet with that of millionaires who do not feel wealthy. You really can't compare the two. I actually didn't see any quote with a millionaire saying he was suffering in the article anyway. figrd is the one making the nonsense comparison. Its like a quadriplegic reading an article about a person who got a black eye and then ranting about how that's not suffering, I got ran over by a train. Their really shouldn't be a comparison made.

Also, houses and boats are wealth and money is not.

I got to thinking about that What if Happy doesn't want to get felt Today? He may black my eye If I was to feel Him. Besides I'm not that way I like the women Ya know? Besides that what gives you the right to go around telling folks who they should feel and all Why you masher You Vile animal. You! YOU! Pervert You. For shame Telling folks to go Feel Happy! thats just wrong.

You should post your links in a story or group or something its not too hard

Thanks buddy!

Is that the Toll Gate (gas station)next to Wal-mart and Bank of America?

doesn't seem to keep many of them awake at night..

storm the gates