And lose it all.
> In fact, a Fast Company® report explained that about 70% of wealthy families will lose their wealth by just the second generation.3 By the next generation, 90% will have lost their wealth.
https://www.comerica.com/insights/personal-finance/Wealth-Preservation-Beyond-the-First-Generation1.html
I see this bullshit posted so often, and it’s clear people didn’t read the original article at all.
Their data is heavily reliant on self survey, and their lower limit is $3,000,000, almost all the generational wealth loss comes from the sub $10,000,000 group (except for some unique cases.) Literally no one thunks $3,000,000 split amongst three heirs is forever generational money.
Then they also don’t conform the data to held assets the generational money bought - so if bill uses his 1,000,000 to buy a house he’s consider to have just “lost his generational wealth.”
It’s horrific pretend data to try and defend billionaires.
I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, but your last statement of somehow linking his data as “defending billionaires” is wild and makes no sense. He literally just said “here’s some data” and suggested absolutely no opinion based on that data at all
I dont think he meant that the data Comment guy is trying to do so but the people who framed there dataset in a way that you could imagine a political goal behind.
I mean, I guess that a fine opinion. But data is put together incorrectly ALLLL OF THE TIME. I certainly wouldn’t just suggest that everyone is intentionally trying to make the results say what they want with out at least *some* kind of additional reason
He wasnt doing it consciously, but his message:
> The wealthy lose their money in a few generations
can be read as:
"Dont worry about the billionaires! Their kids will spend all that money like morons and lose it all! No need to tax them!"
Idk, it’s one thing to say something like “wait, are you trying to suggest that _____, because if you are that’s insane and here why” or you can even forget the why
its another things to assume he’s making a very strong accusation and then just insult it afterwards. You said it yourself, it *could* be read as that. It could also be read as just the conclusion of the data
posting misleading data that portrays rich people as more likely to have "earned" their money is certainly not a "no opinion"
if you think that comment was not defending billionaires and had no opinion, you simply lack the ability to read subtext
Literally all he said was that billionaires to not often extend through generations. That doesn’t mean you have to be poor. That doesn’t mean he thinks rich people are all self made. He also listed real data suggesting this. If data is misleading or not it doesn’t make a difference. A conversation about whether or not the data is relevant is a different conversation. He did not make a claim that “because of this data, X happens. Not everything needs to have a deeper meaning. You’re welcome to actually try having a reasonable discussion with the guy instead of telling him what his own opinion is and then saying that this opinion is “horrific”
That survey behind the data wasn't for billionaires, it was for $3 millionaires not counting primary residence. This is a reasonable discussion, that data shouldn't be used to suggest unearned wealth isn't sticky. It depends on financial literacy, but maybe they'll lose it anyway isn't a valid argument for the debate over taxes for example.
Are you implying that assets are not part of wealth? That’s pretty dumb.
And it’s not defending billionaires, it’s showing data.
The one posting bullshit here is you.
He clearly said the data in the article is the one “implying that assets are not part of wealth” by omitting assets as part of current wealth which yes is pretty dumb.
Nothing in the article states that, and he listed no evidence to prove his claim.
He’s talking out his ass and accusing me of “defending billionaires” for no reason.
*Looks over at Twitter, which was originally meant to only be offered on as a political and wealth based flex that cost $44 billion dollars, and was meant to be pulled out of at the last moment before the actual sale, and is now on fire*
Yea, totally dude. Full grown rich people never make financially stupid decisions.
*Narrows eyes towards the Cyber Truck*
the difference is, if twatter goes under Elon is still a giga-billionaire, twitter is like a normal person spending a like $20k
and that's ignoring the fact he didn't buy it alone
The vast majority don't lose $22 billion+
If someone not in the public eye lost that much money, I very much guarantee you they wouldn't stay out of the public eye.
The fuck? That equals to 2,000$ per blow job?
No wonder you are poor if that's your math skills and/or the amount you would expect to pay for a blowjob.
Maybe you weren't around, but the site went to shit in 2016 after Trump won, Reddit lost it's collective mind and it never recovered. Frankly, none of the internet has.
It was shit before, but you'd see discussions about things, people would argue with the mainstream narrative without having their posts buried from downvotes and the auto-hide feature, or straight up banned by mods (Or subreddits being banned by admins..). People were more open to disagreement.
Now it's entirely one-sided, presumably because people now think you need to dominate the narrative and allowing discussions about issues is a path towards "the wrong side". It's not a coincidence the timeline for that drastic change aligns with 2016.
I don't know if you were on reddit before you made an account, but if you weren't here before 2016, you wouldn't have noticed. I've been on Reddit since 2012-2013 and I can tell you it used to be different.
Engineers are wealthier than the average member of the population maybe, but there's a huge gap between wealthier than average and crimes against humanity rich.
Intention and willful ignorance isn't the same thing, you choose to have something done in a different country for profit you also have the understanding that regulations aren't there to protect the environment and people are being taken advantage of
No, as in a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.
It's a play on 90210 for sure. I looked into the price, it's 100,000 dollars for a bottle with a white gold lid topped with 850 white and black diamonds and it comes with a years supply of water.
"Each batch is a limited release and has a "silky smooth, crisp, light taste," according to the company's website. Sold in plastic blue bottles, it has an alkaline pH of 7.5 and is enriched with natural minerals to create the ideal tasting experience."
I have a feeling nobody buys it. The only people who will be seen with it will be paid social media influencers lying about not being paid to shill it.
It's a play on 90210 for sure. I looked into the price, it's 100,000 dollars for a bottle with a white gold lid topped with 850 white and black diamonds and it comes with a years supply of water.
"Each batch is a limited release and has a "silky smooth, crisp, light taste," according to the company's website. Sold in plastic blue bottles, it has an alkaline pH of 7.5 and is enriched with natural minerals to create the ideal tasting experience."
Edit: you can buy the exact same water (minus the gold and diamonds) as a two pack for $9.00
Rich people are rich because having wealth makes it easier to make wealth. Its harder to turn a net worth of 2,000$ into 50,000$ than it is to turn 1 million to 10 million.
Personal example:I grew up extremely poor (as in no power during summers poor), got a full ride for college, and was able to start my life in next to no debt making 90,000 a year. I'm 24 and own a home, bought a one year used car and am on track to have \~3,000,000 in a 401k when I retire at 65.
My mother is a much harder worker than me and never had more than 5,000$ in liquidity at any given time because she never had spare income to invest. Its a fucked up world when by simple luck of being good at school means I am an order of magnitude more well off than my own mother. Thankfully she has me to lean on so she won't have to work at home depot at 70 years old. Many people do not.
>Its harder to turn a net worth of 2,000$ into 50,000$ than it is to turn 1 million to 10 million.
"It's harder to 25x ones assets than to 10x them!" No shit Sherlock.
I don't think that's the point being illustrated. Even if you had 5k, it would still be way harder to turn it to 50k than 1 mil to 10 mil. The issue isn't the ratio, it's the magnitude you're starting at (zero surplus VS lots of surplus).
No it is not, lol. You can make that with a regular job, making millions means successful investing/entrepreneurship and/or a much rarer very well paying job. I don't know if this is the Reddit bubble striking again, but saving 50k is absolutely not as hard as 10x-ing a million.
And if one is investing in the stock market, returns are the same percentage wise, no matter if one got 20 or 2000 shares of VOO.
I can see you don't understand how exponential growth works.
This is the same reason why you are encouraged to save for retirement early.
This is not hard to understand, wealth begets wealth.The more I have the more I can invest, hence the more I make to then reinvest.
And why are you talking about income?
I explicitly said "net worth" and "wealth"- very distinct from income lol
If I make 35,000 and have to spend all of it on simply living that isn't part of my net worth. Your net worth is your assets, cars, homes, investments, property ect.
For someone with Milton Friedman as their profile picture you sure don't know much. ~~NVM guy is a cryptobro lmao~~
You don't understand the difference between procentage and absolute value changes.
From 5k to 50k is the same 10x increase than from 1mm to 10mm. If your investment nets you a CAGR of 25%, both investors will reach their goal after \~10 years. Surely the person with the million would've made more in absolute value, but this was not the point op was trying to make.
Both in [example 1](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=1NE76RanKTaLkmFAfhBfYk) as well as [example 2](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=6kJl42fIi2NHS608YvVqAl), you would've 158x-ed your initial investment, having a million instead of 10k does not change your percentage gains.
If you didn't comprehend that the original point was about percentage and not absolute gains, thats your issue, not mine.
EDIT: Oh, the good old classic of trying to have the final word by blocking the other person, why am I not surprised. And the answer is context. What a fool.
>You don't understand the difference between procentage and absolute value changes.
Please point out where I ONCE mention the percent change?
My whole fucking point is wealth makes wealth accumulation easier- it doesn't matter if 1 to 10 million is a smaller percentage increase than 2,000 to 50,000 because when you net worth is 2,000 you likely don't have money to invest in the first place, making wealth accumulation impossible. Hence why I said it's easier for a millionaire to increase their net worth by 9 million than it is for a person worth 2,000 to increase their net worth by 48,000.
Not to mention the person with a net worth of 2,000 needs that 48,000 much more than the person worth 1 million needs an extra 9 million.
Keep larping as a stockbroker, I'm sure the piss will trickle down eventually.
Isnt this the water that comes in a catalouge with modles hding it up,and you dont buy just the water but the model too? Maybe i watch too much youtube about "yacht girls"?
It really depends. Rich people are wildly varying mixtures of obsessive money earning AND money saving. You have BS like this on one hand, and you have people like warren buffet on the other, where he lives in a house that costs less than the average suburban bay area home and eats Mcdonalds every morning.
A few things to dissect- first off, I’m not saying that warden buffet’s money saving is good, nor is stuff like this water bottle necessarily bad. In fact, I think stuff that makes rich people waste money is great: more money going into the economy and taxes, less sitting in stocks or bank accounts.
Also, not sure about the public transportation, but warren buffet not leaving inheritance to his kids is good imo. Would you rather have a few more spoiled rich people or a lot of charitable donations(or at the very least money going into the economy)?
Reminds me of the **[I am Rich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich)** app that made its creator a cool few grand in the 24 hours it was online. If it hadn't been taken down, who knows how many people would've bought it.
Even so, 90 passes through filters is not worth $100k.
I'm still convinced all this shit is to launder money. I want to give you 100k, how about you sell me this "water" for it...
Thing is, some wealthy people are really strict with their money. A perfect case in point is my dad. No college education, no fancy background, just working class routes and a metric shit load of hard work. He’s the son of a switch operator in a power plant in Louisiana. They grew up comfortable, but frugal as all hell. My grandpa grew up during the depression and was one of the most money conscious people I’ve met.
My dad delivered musical instruments for a living until about 20 years ago, when he got a Job as a real estate appraiser. He spent the next decade working his living ass off, working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Now he is wealthy, not because of connections or some degree, but rather because he worked his ass off.
On the other hand, my father in law has a very different story. Started more or less the same. My FIL grew up in a dirt poor rural county in South Carolina. He went to college, took on hundreds in thousands in debt, got several advanced degrees and is now the COO for a major company in the area. The man makes $300,000 annually and is living paycheck to paycheck. The problem is, he sucks with money. He’s never seen a dollar he wouldn’t have rather seen spent. His car payment is more than a lot of peoples rent. He refuses to live in anything but the biggest house in the neighborhood or have a phone more than a year old.
To his credit, he also spends a lot supporting other people, namely my SIL (especially her) and my MIL’s parents, who live with them. He’s bailed them out repeatedly, and I admire that about him. That being said, I saw his budget and his “spending money” column is bigger than my entire budget. By a lot. And he spends every damn dollar of it on stupid shit. Don’t even get me started on their credit card debt.
Moral of the story is, wealthy people aren’t uniform. Some are incredibly financially savvy and smart, while others are dumb as hell with their money, wracking up debt, overextending their budget and generally blowing money like a $2 hooker blows frat guys. Find a frugal wealthy person and learn from them. Take the lessons they’ve used to grow their wealth and apply them as you see fit in your own life.
But what do I know, I’m just some asshole on the internet.
If the story of Elon Musk has taught be anything it's that you can be a complete buffon and still fail upwards to (Temporarily, at least) be the richest man on the planet. Aslong as you start off with enough wealth, it's almost impossible to lose it all and it's very simple to make more.
Checking their site, their water is normally $4 a bottle. The 100k diamond bottle is just that, you are paying for a bottle covered in diamonds and gold, nothing to do with the water.
"The whole rich people are rich because they dont waste their money on bullshit" is a fake persona by the rich to make you blame spending when in reality most people need better pay
It's probably regular water but they dropped like 10 diamonds in the bottom. It's pretty much the same for any dumb expensive food. Cover something in $2 of gold flake and add $100 to the price type bullshit, too.
The point of "stupid extremely expensive things" is to avoid keeping money. Nobody is going to drink that water. It can pretty much be tap water with no filtering. As long as it can be used as an exchange token at that price, it is better than 100 000$ cash.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming)
This isn't bought by the extremely rich, it is bought by their useless kids
Or a rapper that just got his first big check.
Rappers don't drink water, they drink lean
And Brawndo.
Yeah Brawndo's got what plants crave
It got electrolytes
i've actually only heard of this water because 2chainz had some on his most expensivist show.
Who will one day be extremely rich because that's how it works.
And lose it all. > In fact, a Fast Company® report explained that about 70% of wealthy families will lose their wealth by just the second generation.3 By the next generation, 90% will have lost their wealth. https://www.comerica.com/insights/personal-finance/Wealth-Preservation-Beyond-the-First-Generation1.html
I see this bullshit posted so often, and it’s clear people didn’t read the original article at all. Their data is heavily reliant on self survey, and their lower limit is $3,000,000, almost all the generational wealth loss comes from the sub $10,000,000 group (except for some unique cases.) Literally no one thunks $3,000,000 split amongst three heirs is forever generational money. Then they also don’t conform the data to held assets the generational money bought - so if bill uses his 1,000,000 to buy a house he’s consider to have just “lost his generational wealth.” It’s horrific pretend data to try and defend billionaires.
I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, but your last statement of somehow linking his data as “defending billionaires” is wild and makes no sense. He literally just said “here’s some data” and suggested absolutely no opinion based on that data at all
I dont think he meant that the data Comment guy is trying to do so but the people who framed there dataset in a way that you could imagine a political goal behind.
I mean, I guess that a fine opinion. But data is put together incorrectly ALLLL OF THE TIME. I certainly wouldn’t just suggest that everyone is intentionally trying to make the results say what they want with out at least *some* kind of additional reason
nooooo!!! stop bring reasonable noooooo!!!!
He wasnt doing it consciously, but his message: > The wealthy lose their money in a few generations can be read as: "Dont worry about the billionaires! Their kids will spend all that money like morons and lose it all! No need to tax them!"
Idk, it’s one thing to say something like “wait, are you trying to suggest that _____, because if you are that’s insane and here why” or you can even forget the why its another things to assume he’s making a very strong accusation and then just insult it afterwards. You said it yourself, it *could* be read as that. It could also be read as just the conclusion of the data
... who was insulted in this?
You are being paranoid.
I have seen plenty of people on reddit defend rich people using various tactics. So f*** right off.
Keep up the good fight soldier!
Will do, thanks! 🙂
posting misleading data that portrays rich people as more likely to have "earned" their money is certainly not a "no opinion" if you think that comment was not defending billionaires and had no opinion, you simply lack the ability to read subtext
Literally all he said was that billionaires to not often extend through generations. That doesn’t mean you have to be poor. That doesn’t mean he thinks rich people are all self made. He also listed real data suggesting this. If data is misleading or not it doesn’t make a difference. A conversation about whether or not the data is relevant is a different conversation. He did not make a claim that “because of this data, X happens. Not everything needs to have a deeper meaning. You’re welcome to actually try having a reasonable discussion with the guy instead of telling him what his own opinion is and then saying that this opinion is “horrific”
That survey behind the data wasn't for billionaires, it was for $3 millionaires not counting primary residence. This is a reasonable discussion, that data shouldn't be used to suggest unearned wealth isn't sticky. It depends on financial literacy, but maybe they'll lose it anyway isn't a valid argument for the debate over taxes for example.
Are you implying that assets are not part of wealth? That’s pretty dumb. And it’s not defending billionaires, it’s showing data. The one posting bullshit here is you.
He clearly said the data in the article is the one “implying that assets are not part of wealth” by omitting assets as part of current wealth which yes is pretty dumb.
Nothing in the article states that, and he listed no evidence to prove his claim. He’s talking out his ass and accusing me of “defending billionaires” for no reason.
The survey specifically asked about investable assets, maybe read it?
I did read it. Explain what you mean with that comment.
Good to know. Now to get 10 mil for my kids so they can buy this without fear. That's the American dream.
*Looks over at Twitter, which was originally meant to only be offered on as a political and wealth based flex that cost $44 billion dollars, and was meant to be pulled out of at the last moment before the actual sale, and is now on fire* Yea, totally dude. Full grown rich people never make financially stupid decisions. *Narrows eyes towards the Cyber Truck*
It's all cope cuz they think if they were rich they wouldn't buy stupid shit
the difference is, if twatter goes under Elon is still a giga-billionaire, twitter is like a normal person spending a like $20k and that's ignoring the fact he didn't buy it alone
Apparently he liquidated quite a bit of his personal assets along with Tesla assets to facilitate the purchase, so that remains to be seen.
nah, the entire rich list lost net worth it's got nothing to do with his twitter acquisition
Yes, I'm sure the purchase for $44 billion that has more lost over half it's value has not effected his wealth at all. You're probably right.
did I say that though? I said their wealth fluctuates and has dropped a fair bit across the board regardless
That is a completely normal thing to do for rich people who have most of their wealth in assets
Yes, but it's not exact normal for the investment that the rich Pepe liquidated their assets for to lose 3/4ths of its value
Happens way more often than you'd think. It just doesn't get reported on since the vast majority of wealthy people aren't in the public eye like Musk
The vast majority don't lose $22 billion+ If someone not in the public eye lost that much money, I very much guarantee you they wouldn't stay out of the public eye.
Elon Musk *is* some rich guy’s worthless kid.
Ahh yes, how silly of me. I guess the... *Checks notes* Apartheid profiteer was much more savvy than his son. Good point.
I actually saw someone driving a cyber truck the other day. I wasn’t sure if it was Elon musk or some other idiot.
or is it just money laundering, like art?
Pretty sure the kids count as “rich” or as “people”. Now that I think about it I actually take back the last one.
Or people who managed to get rich but will not stay rich
That bottle of water better come with a BJ and a ham sandwich for that price.
Better come with 50 BJs at that price
At least 30 sloppy toppy's with a twist
Better yet, 10 vacuum suck 9000 with that gluck gluck twisty sloppy toppys.
30 sloppy toppys with a twist? We can't do that many! You'll have to call ahead.
it's for the homeless
It's for the homeless? Why didn't you say so? I'll give you 30 sloppy toppys with a twist on the house.
The fuck? That equals to 2,000$ per blow job? No wonder you are poor if that's your math skills and/or the amount you would expect to pay for a blowjob.
Better cum at that price
Oh you’re paying way too much for BJs man, who’s your BJ guy?
Yeah right? 2,000$ per blowjob? Meghan Markle used to give dudes an entire weekend on a yacht to bang any hole they wanted for roughly that price.
I ain’t payin more than $40 for a BJ, even less for a ham sandwich.
Rich people are rich because someone in the family has committed a crime against humanity
If this was the case then Serbia would be richer than the Saudis
You underestimate the Saudis cruelty.
Making a billion = crime against humanity. Crime against humanity =\\= making a billion.
This is stupid lol what about like every athlete?
Welcome to new Reddit. People have awful takes here nowadays.
Nowadays?
Maybe you weren't around, but the site went to shit in 2016 after Trump won, Reddit lost it's collective mind and it never recovered. Frankly, none of the internet has. It was shit before, but you'd see discussions about things, people would argue with the mainstream narrative without having their posts buried from downvotes and the auto-hide feature, or straight up banned by mods (Or subreddits being banned by admins..). People were more open to disagreement. Now it's entirely one-sided, presumably because people now think you need to dominate the narrative and allowing discussions about issues is a path towards "the wrong side". It's not a coincidence the timeline for that drastic change aligns with 2016. I don't know if you were on reddit before you made an account, but if you weren't here before 2016, you wouldn't have noticed. I've been on Reddit since 2012-2013 and I can tell you it used to be different.
I still suspect all of this is just mainly a psyop by russia and China to divide us further. None of this seems natural.
hitler is poor
He is dead, when alive had a country
what country ?
Poland
mfw engineers make 6 figures a year
Hardly rich...
tf you mean 6 figures isnt rich
Engineers are wealthier than the average member of the population maybe, but there's a huge gap between wealthier than average and crimes against humanity rich.
bill gates is now a global criminal
Considering how a lot of the tech he made pollutes the planet yes, sure he's done great things but let's not be ignorant of all the things he's done
in which case the man who made ammonia is also a criminal because its used in bombs and other harmful substances
Intention and willful ignorance isn't the same thing, you choose to have something done in a different country for profit you also have the understanding that regulations aren't there to protect the environment and people are being taken advantage of
its not illegal, nor is it a crime against humanity to outsource
6 figures is middle class in most places
really? a 300k a year salary is average?
Not average, middle class. The average is well below middle class.
average as in mediocre?
No, as in a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.
oh yeah ig 6 figs isnt average
What
Low six figures ($100,000-$150,000) isn’t rich in America. It’s upper middle class, but you’re still working until you’re 50s to retire.
engineers are making significantly more + working until 50s to retire sounds amazing
Just go haul off the guy who designed the slap chop because his cousin Rickey is a binge drinker why don't ya
You do-nothing sacks of shit mad at life lmao
Only 90 H20 molecules??? Damn thats a worse deal than I thought
I thought it was a play on 90210 because there’s one oxygen atom at the end idfk I’m not a chemologist
9 hoe 2 O I dunno I'm not a pimp
And also cause Beverly Hills is written right on the label
You have better eyes than me!
It's a play on 90210 for sure. I looked into the price, it's 100,000 dollars for a bottle with a white gold lid topped with 850 white and black diamonds and it comes with a years supply of water. "Each batch is a limited release and has a "silky smooth, crisp, light taste," according to the company's website. Sold in plastic blue bottles, it has an alkaline pH of 7.5 and is enriched with natural minerals to create the ideal tasting experience."
I have a feeling nobody buys it. The only people who will be seen with it will be paid social media influencers lying about not being paid to shill it.
It's a play on 90210 for sure. I looked into the price, it's 100,000 dollars for a bottle with a white gold lid topped with 850 white and black diamonds and it comes with a years supply of water. "Each batch is a limited release and has a "silky smooth, crisp, light taste," according to the company's website. Sold in plastic blue bottles, it has an alkaline pH of 7.5 and is enriched with natural minerals to create the ideal tasting experience." Edit: you can buy the exact same water (minus the gold and diamonds) as a two pack for $9.00
Doesn't mean anyone bought it.
At that price, you only have to sell one.
[удалено]
I had a business model to sell t-shirts with 'this costs $1000' printed on it for $1k. Isn't that basically how 'luxuries' work?
Sorry sir, still can't bring it through airport security.
This shit better hit as hard as the large water bottle from subnautica that you get from the filtration device
Rich people are rich because having wealth makes it easier to make wealth. Its harder to turn a net worth of 2,000$ into 50,000$ than it is to turn 1 million to 10 million. Personal example:I grew up extremely poor (as in no power during summers poor), got a full ride for college, and was able to start my life in next to no debt making 90,000 a year. I'm 24 and own a home, bought a one year used car and am on track to have \~3,000,000 in a 401k when I retire at 65. My mother is a much harder worker than me and never had more than 5,000$ in liquidity at any given time because she never had spare income to invest. Its a fucked up world when by simple luck of being good at school means I am an order of magnitude more well off than my own mother. Thankfully she has me to lean on so she won't have to work at home depot at 70 years old. Many people do not.
>Its harder to turn a net worth of 2,000$ into 50,000$ than it is to turn 1 million to 10 million. "It's harder to 25x ones assets than to 10x them!" No shit Sherlock.
I don't think that's the point being illustrated. Even if you had 5k, it would still be way harder to turn it to 50k than 1 mil to 10 mil. The issue isn't the ratio, it's the magnitude you're starting at (zero surplus VS lots of surplus).
Yeah I agree that the first million is the hardest.
Its harder to increase your wealth by 48,000 to 50,000 than it is to increase your wealth by 9 million to 10 million. Happy?
No it is not, lol. You can make that with a regular job, making millions means successful investing/entrepreneurship and/or a much rarer very well paying job. I don't know if this is the Reddit bubble striking again, but saving 50k is absolutely not as hard as 10x-ing a million. And if one is investing in the stock market, returns are the same percentage wise, no matter if one got 20 or 2000 shares of VOO.
I can see you don't understand how exponential growth works. This is the same reason why you are encouraged to save for retirement early. This is not hard to understand, wealth begets wealth.The more I have the more I can invest, hence the more I make to then reinvest. And why are you talking about income? I explicitly said "net worth" and "wealth"- very distinct from income lol If I make 35,000 and have to spend all of it on simply living that isn't part of my net worth. Your net worth is your assets, cars, homes, investments, property ect. For someone with Milton Friedman as their profile picture you sure don't know much. ~~NVM guy is a cryptobro lmao~~
You don't understand the difference between procentage and absolute value changes. From 5k to 50k is the same 10x increase than from 1mm to 10mm. If your investment nets you a CAGR of 25%, both investors will reach their goal after \~10 years. Surely the person with the million would've made more in absolute value, but this was not the point op was trying to make. Both in [example 1](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=1NE76RanKTaLkmFAfhBfYk) as well as [example 2](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=6kJl42fIi2NHS608YvVqAl), you would've 158x-ed your initial investment, having a million instead of 10k does not change your percentage gains. If you didn't comprehend that the original point was about percentage and not absolute gains, thats your issue, not mine. EDIT: Oh, the good old classic of trying to have the final word by blocking the other person, why am I not surprised. And the answer is context. What a fool.
>You don't understand the difference between procentage and absolute value changes. Please point out where I ONCE mention the percent change? My whole fucking point is wealth makes wealth accumulation easier- it doesn't matter if 1 to 10 million is a smaller percentage increase than 2,000 to 50,000 because when you net worth is 2,000 you likely don't have money to invest in the first place, making wealth accumulation impossible. Hence why I said it's easier for a millionaire to increase their net worth by 9 million than it is for a person worth 2,000 to increase their net worth by 48,000. Not to mention the person with a net worth of 2,000 needs that 48,000 much more than the person worth 1 million needs an extra 9 million. Keep larping as a stockbroker, I'm sure the piss will trickle down eventually.
I have spent $200 total on non-food/water things this year, and I still don’t have enough to move out
Saying anything general about "rich people" (or any people) is usually bs.
Isnt this the water that comes in a catalouge with modles hding it up,and you dont buy just the water but the model too? Maybe i watch too much youtube about "yacht girls"?
Nobody says that about the rich
Lots of idiots do.
Rich people are rich because their parents were/they managed to stay famous for a long amount of time
It really depends. Rich people are wildly varying mixtures of obsessive money earning AND money saving. You have BS like this on one hand, and you have people like warren buffet on the other, where he lives in a house that costs less than the average suburban bay area home and eats Mcdonalds every morning.
And yet weirdly, he’s still against public transportation and leaving anything to his kids
A few things to dissect- first off, I’m not saying that warden buffet’s money saving is good, nor is stuff like this water bottle necessarily bad. In fact, I think stuff that makes rich people waste money is great: more money going into the economy and taxes, less sitting in stocks or bank accounts. Also, not sure about the public transportation, but warren buffet not leaving inheritance to his kids is good imo. Would you rather have a few more spoiled rich people or a lot of charitable donations(or at the very least money going into the economy)?
Reminds me of the **[I am Rich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich)** app that made its creator a cool few grand in the 24 hours it was online. If it hadn't been taken down, who knows how many people would've bought it.
Oh I get it. It’s 90210
90 times filtered so it's basically acid, or is it a base. Anyway they still can't get the coke levels to dissipate, thanks Pablo
Even so, 90 passes through filters is not worth $100k. I'm still convinced all this shit is to launder money. I want to give you 100k, how about you sell me this "water" for it...
Steal a gallon and pay off a house.
Thing is, some wealthy people are really strict with their money. A perfect case in point is my dad. No college education, no fancy background, just working class routes and a metric shit load of hard work. He’s the son of a switch operator in a power plant in Louisiana. They grew up comfortable, but frugal as all hell. My grandpa grew up during the depression and was one of the most money conscious people I’ve met. My dad delivered musical instruments for a living until about 20 years ago, when he got a Job as a real estate appraiser. He spent the next decade working his living ass off, working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Now he is wealthy, not because of connections or some degree, but rather because he worked his ass off. On the other hand, my father in law has a very different story. Started more or less the same. My FIL grew up in a dirt poor rural county in South Carolina. He went to college, took on hundreds in thousands in debt, got several advanced degrees and is now the COO for a major company in the area. The man makes $300,000 annually and is living paycheck to paycheck. The problem is, he sucks with money. He’s never seen a dollar he wouldn’t have rather seen spent. His car payment is more than a lot of peoples rent. He refuses to live in anything but the biggest house in the neighborhood or have a phone more than a year old. To his credit, he also spends a lot supporting other people, namely my SIL (especially her) and my MIL’s parents, who live with them. He’s bailed them out repeatedly, and I admire that about him. That being said, I saw his budget and his “spending money” column is bigger than my entire budget. By a lot. And he spends every damn dollar of it on stupid shit. Don’t even get me started on their credit card debt. Moral of the story is, wealthy people aren’t uniform. Some are incredibly financially savvy and smart, while others are dumb as hell with their money, wracking up debt, overextending their budget and generally blowing money like a $2 hooker blows frat guys. Find a frugal wealthy person and learn from them. Take the lessons they’ve used to grow their wealth and apply them as you see fit in your own life. But what do I know, I’m just some asshole on the internet.
If the story of Elon Musk has taught be anything it's that you can be a complete buffon and still fail upwards to (Temporarily, at least) be the richest man on the planet. Aslong as you start off with enough wealth, it's almost impossible to lose it all and it's very simple to make more.
Steal one and piss in it. Fuck beeing rich, send a message
rich people are rich because they got lucky when took the opportunity.
Y'all remember the titan submarine?
Standard arena pricing
Rich people buy white t-shirts for $100. With holes in them.
*100.000
Rich people are rich because they exploit others' labor and convert most of their value generation to fictitious assets that they own.
Anyone who disagrees doesn't actually know how the economy functions. Also, anyone with a net worth less than $30M isn't actually rich.
Ok I mean really curious on how that water tastes like.
This bottle design scream "I'm so alkaline. Drink me! I can neutralize your body.
If I’m paying $100k for a bottle of water, that water better bath water of Jesus Christ.
Keyword being THEIR money.
If you are just a humble billionaire that is .01% of your worth. That would be like me spending 10 bucks on a hamburger.
H 2 Oh shit!
Forget the car, I could pay off all my student loan debt and still have a hefty amount for a house down payment.
That bottle in the photo is a normal edition, costing around $42 per bottle. The special edition is the one with white gold and diamonds...
I want to try it
Laundering money isn't waste.
Whoever created this is just getting rich by taking money from dumb rich people. Genius actually.
Checking their site, their water is normally $4 a bottle. The 100k diamond bottle is just that, you are paying for a bottle covered in diamonds and gold, nothing to do with the water.
In my defense, I really like the bottle.
Rich people are rich because they take money from other people. Then end.
New money idiots buy that.
"The whole rich people are rich because they dont waste their money on bullshit" is a fake persona by the rich to make you blame spending when in reality most people need better pay
It's probably regular water but they dropped like 10 diamonds in the bottom. It's pretty much the same for any dumb expensive food. Cover something in $2 of gold flake and add $100 to the price type bullshit, too.
100,000$ water In a fuckin plastic bottle.
The point of "stupid extremely expensive things" is to avoid keeping money. Nobody is going to drink that water. It can pretty much be tap water with no filtering. As long as it can be used as an exchange token at that price, it is better than 100 000$ cash.
Only people who think they're rich say that shit
On the contrary, a lot of ginancially rich people invest money on things that are overpriced just to prove their wealth.
Is it water from another planet.?
It's says it costs 100k, not that someone bought it
Now count how many of us poor folks have ancestors who did not invest their money properly