Investment Manager Explains Why 99.5% Of Americans Can Never Win

[Sunshine]

It's the classic false dichotomy.

You are either poor or vastly wealthy all the gradations in between don't matter to those who constantly whine about "the rich"

I do not aspire to the lifestyle mentioned in the article. I don't want a yacht or an opulent home or a new Lambo in the garage.

Here's a some simple math for you people who say you can't achieve financial freedom.

If you save 100 a week for 45 years with an average return of 7% you'll retire with 1.5 million dollars.

1.5 million dollars safely invested at a 5% return could pay you 5000 a month and in 30 years you'd have a million dollars more than you started with.

That's my definition of winning.

But people will come up with every excuse in the book why they can't save that money.

Oh, you mean like the fact that millions simply don't have the money to spare because despite working their arses off, they don't make enough money to think about saving it?

If they can't save some every payday, they are making bad choices. Many employers offer the 401K plan with matching 100% for the first 3 percent of the person's pay and 50% for the next 2% of his pay. But a lot of people won't even save that 5%. They could, but they won't. It is a matter of values. My mother never had an income that would afford what middle class people today have. And she lived on Social Security from age 65 until she died at age 89. She amassed a staggering sum of money for someone in those circumstances. I was flabbergasted when I learned how much she had. But she lived in the same house she and my dad bought in 1937. She didn't make 'status' purchases. She didn't eat out at restaurants more than a couple of times a year. When we were children, she sewed all our clothes. And she was frugal with the food budget. I would consider my mother poor. Maybe in comparison to others in KY, she was middle class. But she saved money. It can be done if you are willing to live below your income level. Buy a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, don't buy status clothing for the kids, shop the sales for everything.

Saving is a matter of paying yourself. Pay yourself first and then live on what you have left. Don't spend your interest. Your interest is your children. It's like eating your children. There is a book called 'The Richest Man in Babylon' that explains it.

 

[SteadyMercury]

And your attempt to belittle me for actually caring about people and your apologizing for these monsters makes you, what? I mean, other than an asshole?

It makes me someone who calls you on your bullshit.

Anyone can run around claiming they care and others don't, you have no idea what other people in this thread do to help others and I've found those that make the most noise about being charitable and helping their fellow man are often doing so the least.

So yes, I'm belittling your for thinking typing on a message board makes you any better than anyone else. Being naive and able to throw around links to hunger organization websites doesn't make you shit.

 

[orogenicman]

It's the classic false dichotomy.

You are either poor or vastly wealthy all the gradations in between don't matter to those who constantly whine about "the rich"

I do not aspire to the lifestyle mentioned in the article. I don't want a yacht or an opulent home or a new Lambo in the garage.

Here's a some simple math for you people who say you can't achieve financial freedom.

If you save 100 a week for 45 years with an average return of 7% you'll retire with 1.5 million dollars.

1.5 million dollars safely invested at a 5% return could pay you 5000 a month and in 30 years you'd have a million dollars more than you started with.

That's my definition of winning.

But people will come up with every excuse in the book why they can't save that money.

Oh, you mean like the fact that millions simply don't have the money to spare because despite working their arses off, they don't make enough money to think about saving it?

If they can't save some every payday, they are making bad choices. Many employers offer the 401K plan with matching 100% for the first 3 percent of the person's pay and 50% for the next 2% of his pay. But a lot of people won't even save that 5%. They could, but they won't. It is a matter of values. My mother never had an income that would afford what middle class people today have. And she lived on Social Security from age 65 until she died at age 89. She amassed a staggering sum of money for someone in those circumstances. I was flabbergasted when I learned how much she had. But she lived in the same house she and my dad bought in 1937. She didn't make 'status' purchases. She didn't eat out at restaurants more than a couple of times a year. When we were children, she sewed all our clothes. And she was frugal with the food budget. I would consider my mother poor. Maybe in comparison to others in KY, she was middle class. But she saved money. It can be done if you are willing to live below your income level. Buy a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, don't buy status clothing for the kids, shop the sales for everything.

Saving is a matter of paying yourself. Pay yourself first and then live on what you have left. Don't spend your interest. Your interest is your children. It's like eating your children. There is a book called 'The Richest Man in Babylon' that explains it.

When a person is already living at a significant percentage below the poverty line, how much lower must their income level be before we acknowledge that that person needs assistance from others?

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, you mean like the fact that millions simply don't have the money to spare because despite working their arses off, they don't make enough money to think about saving it?

If they can't save some every payday, they are making bad choices. Many employers offer the 401K plan with matching 100% for the first 3 percent of the person's pay and 50% for the next 2% of his pay. But a lot of people won't even save that 5%. They could, but they won't. It is a matter of values. My mother never had an income that would afford what middle class people today have. And she lived on Social Security from age 65 until she died at age 89. She amassed a staggering sum of money for someone in those circumstances. I was flabbergasted when I learned how much she had. But she lived in the same house she and my dad bought in 1937. She didn't make 'status' purchases. She didn't eat out at restaurants more than a couple of times a year. When we were children, she sewed all our clothes. And she was frugal with the food budget. I would consider my mother poor. Maybe in comparison to others in KY, she was middle class. But she saved money. It can be done if you are willing to live below your income level. Buy a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, don't buy status clothing for the kids, shop the sales for everything.

Saving is a matter of paying yourself. Pay yourself first and then live on what you have left. Don't spend your interest. Your interest is your children. It's like eating your children. There is a book called 'The Richest Man in Babylon' that explains it.

When a person is already living at a significant percentage below the poverty line, how much lower must their income level be before we acknowledge that that person needs assistance from others?

If we had a realistic assessment of poverty, which the govt index is not -- it WOULD ring some bells about that person or family needing "some help".. Your problem is you believe the answer is always MORE MONEY..

The truth is --- that there is LITTLE that can be done for WILLFUL poverty. Having worked with recovering addicts and having a bit of family experience in CO-Dependence and tragedies --- you can't always get a person to ADMIT that they need help. Or to even CO-OPERATE with said help by taking steps to remediate their poverty.. For folks not willing to change and accept responsibilities, poverty is a perennial state for which MONEY often makes the suffering worse..

When you cut out the Middle Class that's getting killed economically because America wont get off its ass and risk CAPITAL anymore on new ventures --- and you cut out all the cases of perennial poverty with other underlying causes.. The only poverty left MIGHT BE solved with a check.. But this is always TEMPORARY welfare for folks who CAN get right again with very little other help..

There is little that a check from On High can do actually.. You just are using the wrong tools..

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah...................sure.....................poverty is the same thing as addiction................

Sorry, but at least if you're addicted to something, you have a clear cut goal in mind, or at least a state of mind that you're hoping to achieve.

Poverty doesn't give a person a rush, addiction (or at least the substance they're addicted to) does.

 

[orogenicman]

If they can't save some every payday, they are making bad choices. Many employers offer the 401K plan with matching 100% for the first 3 percent of the person's pay and 50% for the next 2% of his pay. But a lot of people won't even save that 5%. They could, but they won't. It is a matter of values. My mother never had an income that would afford what middle class people today have. And she lived on Social Security from age 65 until she died at age 89. She amassed a staggering sum of money for someone in those circumstances. I was flabbergasted when I learned how much she had. But she lived in the same house she and my dad bought in 1937. She didn't make 'status' purchases. She didn't eat out at restaurants more than a couple of times a year. When we were children, she sewed all our clothes. And she was frugal with the food budget. I would consider my mother poor. Maybe in comparison to others in KY, she was middle class. But she saved money. It can be done if you are willing to live below your income level. Buy a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, don't buy status clothing for the kids, shop the sales for everything.

Saving is a matter of paying yourself. Pay yourself first and then live on what you have left. Don't spend your interest. Your interest is your children. It's like eating your children. There is a book called 'The Richest Man in Babylon' that explains it.

When a person is already living at a significant percentage below the poverty line, how much lower must their income level be before we acknowledge that that person needs assistance from others?

If we had a realistic assessment of poverty, which the govt index is not -- it WOULD ring some bells about that person or family needing "some help".. Your problem is you believe the answer is always MORE MONEY..

The truth is --- that there is LITTLE that can be done for WILLFUL poverty. Having worked with recovering addicts and having a bit of family experience in CO-Dependence and tragedies --- you can't always get a person to ADMIT that they need help. Or to even CO-OPERATE with said help by taking steps to remediate their poverty.. For folks not willing to change and accept responsibilities, poverty is a perennial state for which MONEY often makes the suffering worse..

When you cut out the Middle Class that's getting killed economically because America wont get off its ass and risk CAPITAL anymore on new ventures --- and you cut out all the cases of perennial poverty with other underlying causes.. The only poverty left MIGHT BE solved with a check.. But this is always TEMPORARY welfare for folks who CAN get right again with very little other help..

There is little that a check from On High can do actually.. You just are using the wrong tools..

You'll have to point out where I have made mention of:

1) Cash handouts, and;

2) Willful poverty.

That said, the fact is that it does take money in order to help the poor, be it to buy food, to get a GED, housing, or whatever. No one lives in a vacuum, dude, not even you.

As for willful poverty, I'm sure there are those who do live that way. The vast majority of the poor DO NOT. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it. Blaming the poor for their circumstances is tantamount to blaming a rape victim for being raped. Congratulations.

 

[expat_panama]

...take money in order to help the poor, be it to buy food, to get a GED, housing, or whatever...

--so Marxists rob the wealthy saying it's to buy 'whatever' to give to the poor, and every time they just keep it for themselves and the poor end up worse off.

 

[orogenicman]

...take money in order to help the poor, be it to buy food, to get a GED, housing, or whatever...

--so Marxists rob the wealthy saying it's to buy 'whatever' to give to the poor, and every time they just keep it for themselves and the poor end up worse off.

You are assuming that the wealthy got that way by earning an honest living. Sorry, there is little evidence to support such a stupid assumption.

Oh, and don't you think your "Marxist" argument would be better served in a neo-Nazi chat room?

 

[Sunshine]

Oh, you mean like the fact that millions simply don't have the money to spare because despite working their arses off, they don't make enough money to think about saving it?

If they can't save some every payday, they are making bad choices. Many employers offer the 401K plan with matching 100% for the first 3 percent of the person's pay and 50% for the next 2% of his pay. But a lot of people won't even save that 5%. They could, but they won't. It is a matter of values. My mother never had an income that would afford what middle class people today have. And she lived on Social Security from age 65 until she died at age 89. She amassed a staggering sum of money for someone in those circumstances. I was flabbergasted when I learned how much she had. But she lived in the same house she and my dad bought in 1937. She didn't make 'status' purchases. She didn't eat out at restaurants more than a couple of times a year. When we were children, she sewed all our clothes. And she was frugal with the food budget. I would consider my mother poor. Maybe in comparison to others in KY, she was middle class. But she saved money. It can be done if you are willing to live below your income level. Buy a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, don't buy status clothing for the kids, shop the sales for everything.

Saving is a matter of paying yourself. Pay yourself first and then live on what you have left. Don't spend your interest. Your interest is your children. It's like eating your children. There is a book called 'The Richest Man in Babylon' that explains it.

When a person is already living at a significant percentage below the poverty line, how much lower must their income level be before we acknowledge that that person needs assistance from others?

I have no doubt my mother 'lived below the poverty line' her entire life. She managed so well she never needed 'assistance' nor would she have asked for it. I am not stupid. I have worked in the projects and I know what they poor spend their money on. It is not food, shelter, and health care.

I remember the days when we were the poorest. She really struggled. But my entire life, I had a penny bank and she put every penny in her purse in it for me. When I was a teen, I did as well. When it got full she rolled the pennies and put them in an account with my name on it. When I married I had the down payment for my first house. My mother was poor. But she understood compound interest.

She also had a dime bank. A little cylinder that held $10 in dimes. When that was full, she put it in her account. My father also had a savings account in addition to his checking account. I remember them talking about the banks closing during the depression. He lost $1000 and she lost $100. (The house we lived in cost $2000 in 1937. In the 60s much nicer ones sprang up around us, but they never felt the need to 'upgrade.') They paid for it in 2 years. They always put a little money back. And when my father was laid off from work we always had money to live on. He was too proud to apply for unemployment. He considered that a 'handout' and we didn't take handouts. My parents grew up in a time when there was no such thing as 'assistance.' You either did without or your family helped you. People like you are so stupid. Your value system is so fucked you couldn't survive a major disaster. You would be like that POS I saw during Katrina with a hamburger in one hand and a bottled water in another yelling, 'we ain't got no food, and we ain't got no water.' Or the ones complaining about the food when they were given MRE to save his worthless life.

 

[SteadyMercury]

That said, the fact is that it does take money in order to help the poor, be it to buy food, to get a GED, housing, or whatever.

And you are perfectly willing to spend other people's money to help them right? Oh, and spend a lot of time patting yourself on the back for posting about poor people online/

You are assuming that the wealthy got that way by earning an honest living. Sorry, there is little evidence to support such a stupid assumption.

Wow you're naive and love to show it eh?

 

[flacaltenn]

When a person is already living at a significant percentage below the poverty line, how much lower must their income level be before we acknowledge that that person needs assistance from others?

If we had a realistic assessment of poverty, which the govt index is not -- it WOULD ring some bells about that person or family needing "some help".. Your problem is you believe the answer is always MORE MONEY..

The truth is --- that there is LITTLE that can be done for WILLFUL poverty. Having worked with recovering addicts and having a bit of family experience in CO-Dependence and tragedies --- you can't always get a person to ADMIT that they need help. Or to even CO-OPERATE with said help by taking steps to remediate their poverty.. For folks not willing to change and accept responsibilities, poverty is a perennial state for which MONEY often makes the suffering worse..

When you cut out the Middle Class that's getting killed economically because America wont get off its ass and risk CAPITAL anymore on new ventures --- and you cut out all the cases of perennial poverty with other underlying causes.. The only poverty left MIGHT BE solved with a check.. But this is always TEMPORARY welfare for folks who CAN get right again with very little other help..

There is little that a check from On High can do actually.. You just are using the wrong tools..

You'll have to point out where I have made mention of:

1) Cash handouts, and;

2) Willful poverty.

That said, the fact is that it does take money in order to help the poor, be it to buy food, to get a GED, housing, or whatever. No one lives in a vacuum, dude, not even you.

As for willful poverty, I'm sure there are those who do live that way. The vast majority of the poor DO NOT. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it. Blaming the poor for their circumstances is tantamount to blaming a rape victim for being raped. Congratulations.

You're the one here thats starting threads about money disparities just to take shots at rich folks who stole it or didnt deserve it. And making sweeping generalizations a out how entire percentages of folks fit those class warfare definitions.. What im doing is simply telling you that money cant fix all those disparities. And for every Paris Hilton, theres a child TV star now sleeping under a bridge. Or a Michael Jackson dead from self abuse. Your also not being honest here, because your class warrior mission here is to prep the battlefield for stripping the undeserving rich (whom u openly despise) bare naked.

All so you can send more money to a lady who willl die in 2 years after being buried alived in tons of trash and momentos that she is uncontrollably hoarding for a decade.. But that mere act of bravely taking someone elses money and sending it to her absolves you of all guilt for not actually helping her.,.

By all means , if there WAS ANOTHER ENDGAME to this OP.. Please let me know. And feel free to correct me if its NOT all about money..,

 

[flacaltenn]

...take money in order to help the poor, be it to buy food, to get a GED, housing, or whatever...

--so Marxists rob the wealthy saying it's to buy 'whatever' to give to the poor, and every time they just keep it for themselves and the poor end up worse off.

You are assuming that the wealthy got that way by earning an honest living. Sorry, there is little evidence to support such a stupid assumption.

Oh, and don't you think your "Marxist" argument would be better served in a neo-Nazi chat room?

That Marxist label is a valid and genuine intelllectual reaction to the vacuous generalizations in your OP. And the surprising amount of Revolutionary hatred you openly display "for the rich".. You own all that...

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yup. If someone takes the risk in money, time, and opportunity costs to open a business, works hundred hour weeks to build it up, and if successful in expanding to where they can reap the benefits of their sweat with some earned wealth while employing others in their community what is the reaction orogenic? They didn't earn it with an honest living.

Spoken like someone who has never risked or accomplished shit in their entire lives. Way easier to sit on the sidelines and point and say it ain't fair or they cheated.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW - Since you have the hots for Paris Hilton, why dont you tell us how many companies she is running right now and how much money shes stolen from ya. I bet Becki and Steady will join with me to reimburse you for your loss...

 

[Stephanie]

The business insider pushes a lot of this wealth "inequality" and not fair stuff

so take them with a grain of salt

 

[orogenicman]

--so Marxists rob the wealthy saying it's to buy 'whatever' to give to the poor, and every time they just keep it for themselves and the poor end up worse off.

You are assuming that the wealthy got that way by earning an honest living. Sorry, there is little evidence to support such a stupid assumption.

Oh, and don't you think your "Marxist" argument would be better served in a neo-Nazi chat room?

That Marxist label is a valid and genuine intelllectual reaction to the vacuous generalizations in your OP. And the surprising amount of Revolutionary hatred you openly display "for the rich".. You own all that...

So if one openly points out how the rich is sucking this country dry, one wins the label "revolutionary", and "Marxist". Interesting. I have a label for you. But I would rather that you just respond to the rest of my earlier post, highlighted above, instead of simply relying on your tried and miserably failed misdirection playbook - failed because everyone can see through it already.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are assuming that the wealthy got that way by earning an honest living. Sorry, there is little evidence to support such a stupid assumption.

Oh, and don't you think your "Marxist" argument would be better served in a neo-Nazi chat room?

That Marxist label is a valid and genuine intelllectual reaction to the vacuous generalizations in your OP. And the surprising amount of Revolutionary hatred you openly display "for the rich".. You own all that...

So if one openly points out how the rich is sucking this country dry, one wins the label "revolutionary", and "Marxist". Interesting. I have a label for you. But I would rather that you just respond to the rest of my earlier post, highlighted above, instead of simply relying on your tried and miserably failed misdirection playbook - failed because everyone can see through it already.

You've proved no such thing as the "rich sucking this country dry".. I asked for your personal damages due to Paris Hilton --- and you've yet to submit the bill..

With all the hatred and faulty stereotypes you're carrying in here?? Of course the label fits.
It's called scapegoating.. And it treats a complex Capitalist economy as the "zero sum game" of the Marxists.

You've already added sports figures, authors, heart surgeons, and movie stars to list of the undeserving. I GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR THAT --- because most leftists just ignore the collateral damage from their "hate the rich" prescriptions. At least you're consistent in your hatred..

Gates, Jobs, Lady GaGa? THOSE are the reasons that the American economy is going down the crapper? No way comrade... America is going down the crapper because of economic uncertainty and risk adversion to funding new technology.. You need to look at your playbook and make sure YOUR TEAM aint responsible for the REAL REASONS the middle class and semi-to-unskilled workers are losing big time..

 

[expat_panama]

...if one openly points out how the rich is sucking this country dry, one wins the label "revolutionary", and "Marxist"...

--only if we're all speaking standard English.

A quick google of "what do Marxists believe?" yields dozens of sites that emphasize a foundation of class warfare and an alleged exploitation of the masses by the rich. The fact that millions (maybe billions) believe that nonsense doesn't change the fact that it's pathological --it's an attitude that wreaks great harm to the individual as well as to society in general. That's why you were correct when you said I'm--

...assuming that the wealthy got that way by earning an honest living...

--because I'm not at war with humanity. I like people and I don't accept the idea that they're either helpless or evil.

 

[orogenicman]

...if one openly points out how the rich is sucking this country dry, one wins the label "revolutionary", and "Marxist"...

--only if we're all speaking standard English.

A quick google of "what do Marxists believe?" yields dozens of sites that emphasize a foundation of class warfare and an alleged exploitation of the masses by the rich. The fact that millions (maybe billions) believe that nonsense doesn't change the fact that it's pathological --it's an attitude that wreaks great harm to the individual as well as to society in general. That's why you were correct when you said I'm--

...assuming that the wealthy got that way by earning an honest living...

--because I'm not at war with humanity. I like people and I don't accept the idea that they're either helpless or evil.

So what you are saying is that stratifying society into haves and have nots is, in your view, "fair and balanced", especially since you are one of the haves. Seems to me that we already fought one civil war over that and other related issues. Are you proposing another?

 

[orogenicman]

That Marxist label is a valid and genuine intelllectual reaction to the vacuous generalizations in your OP. And the surprising amount of Revolutionary hatred you openly display "for the rich".. You own all that...

So if one openly points out how the rich is sucking this country dry, one wins the label "revolutionary", and "Marxist". Interesting. I have a label for you. But I would rather that you just respond to the rest of my earlier post, highlighted above, instead of simply relying on your tried and miserably failed misdirection playbook - failed because everyone can see through it already.

You've proved no such thing as the "rich sucking this country dry"..

I don't have to prove it. It is self-evident.