quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Why are so few people wealthy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Why are so few people wealthy?

Well first, wealth is pretty common. 2 million more people become millionaires in 2013, and there are nearly 14 million millionaires globally, 4 million of them in the US.

And what is "wealthy"? I think a lot of posters here would feel wealthy without 1 million if they had annual incomes of $100,000 -- and 20% of Americans do. Or even $75,000. And the average US income is $51,000.

But second, it's because people tend to think in terms of dollars per hour, which severely limits their income ceilings, rather than focusing on ideas and service and how to leverage those to create a strong market for their market segment. The Puritan work ethic says "if you didn't sweat, you didn't earn it." So we toil over producing crafts, rather than leverage our talents.

I had someone complain once that his friend wanted to make beautiful hand-carved cutting boards, but he couldn't make a living at it, so doing what you love and earning money was, in his mind, bullshit. I gave this problem to my business class yesterday. After all, how many cutting boards can you make, and at what price? Without turning to mass-production, which wasn't an option in this case, what could he do? What about teaching a class in how to carve these boards? What could he get for that reasonably? I have a friend who collects old barn wood and turns it into high end one of a kind furniture pieces that he sells in Manhattan for thousands each. Could high end art boards sell? For what? How many could he do? How many could he sell -- not many, perhaps, but one a month? And he could still make a few regular boards a week for sale. They came up with a very doable $87,500/year for this guy -- couple boards a week, one high end board a month, a six week once-night-a-week class every two months.

They could have gone further -- record a class and he'd have a DVD he could sell on the Internet -- Say, $30, and with decent marketing -- a Google Ad and a web site, maybe just the videos instead of DVD product -- sold another ... what? 10 a week? 100? 1000? Even ten is an extra $15,000 a year, and he doesn't have to do anything more for it.

He could let his students sell their boards in his store or on his site for a commission -- another income stream, and they don't need to set up separate marketing. He could speak on finding and sharing your life's passion -- another marketing opportunity and income stream. He could write a book about his experiences -- especially good for marketing, and another income stream.

He could partner with other intriguing craftspeople too, for even more opportunities.

But if he does what most people do, he'll live a bitter life, just scraping by, complaining no one appreciates his talents, and that their just aren't good jobs for wood carvers. Or that the economy sucks. Or that government is strangling businesses. Or that big corporations are greedy and unethical. Whine whine whine whine.

That's why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Why are so few people wealthy?

Easiest question on Earth to answer.

They choose not to be wealthy.

I've watched it happen a thousand or more times....always then same: Choices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

In other words trying to understand this problem is like trying to wrap your head around global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your first paragraph is dead on. It's not that it's some impossible mountain, but that most people aren't interested in climbing it.

The rest of your musings circle around the first issue I raised -- people think in terms of dollars per hour via labor employment and not in terms of income streams and marketable skills. When I was a teen, when you couldn't get jobs, you mowed lawns, painted houses, and so forth. You essentially started a small business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But you're still not addressing any of the issues. I taught college economics for a decade, started my career on Wall St., went on to run my own management consulting firm. And trust me, just because someone is enrolled in a major doesn't mean they've mastered it, that they know the subject well (people do get Cs and Ds, you know), or that you understand the conversations with them.

I've cited my points well -- I didn't ask you to trust my opinion. You responded with posts unrelated to the topic at hand, and demonstrated an ignorance of even microeconomic and monetarism basics.

Huff and puff and stamp and pout, but you're simply wrong here, and I explained why. I even responded nicely at first, noting a single error--but you couldn't acknowledge even a single fault, and immediately went on your endless tantrum.

Wake up princess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What the hell are you talking about now? Exactly when did the conversation turn to communism?

Check with your doctor -- your meds needs adjusting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
Why are so few people wealthy?

It's built into the definition of the word. We call the tiny percentage of the population with the most wealth, "wealthy". And so, only a few people are wealthy.
It's kind of like asking "why are so few people geniuses?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DamnedIfYouDont

I sense an agenda here, coming from an Econ professor. First, a minor quibble, I would place the modern supply side era at Kennedy's feet. He clearly understood (and spoke about) the drag of taxes on the economy. His tax cuts were a larger percentage of GDP than Reagan's. But to say "trickle down doesnt work" is wrong on two counts. "Trickle down" doesnt exist, except in the demand siders attempts to disparage supply side. Its name is the direct opposite of supply side theory. Second, the claim that supply side has been proven not to work is widely debated, and hardly an accepted conclusion. The fact is the economy has grown after every modern era tax cut.

Except that there is no tax cut without a spending cut, they are only deferred to a later date for somebody else to pay...with interest.

In fact, a so-called tax cut without spending cuts is Keynesian and the modern fiscal corruption (adored by the banking cartel) perpetrated by the ruling class to convince the masses that hey, they can be so much better off now without any consideration of the future. A sort of fiscal child abuse.

Ask David Stockman, Reagan's premier economic adviser about supply side and he will most vehemently disagree with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Why are so few people wealthy?

Easiest question on Earth to answer.

They choose not to be wealthy.

I've watched it happen a thousand or more times....always then same: Choices.

that is really simplistic and pathetic

quote:


Hon...read what he wrote. He's not telling you this is his opinion, but he's CLEARLY showing you the answers to YOUR posits which were...what do they think?

He told you.

Don't agree? Pretty basic stuff hon.....take it up with Keynes or Friedman.

They're the ones that wrote this stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:


Hon...read what he wrote. He's not telling you this is his opinion, but he's CLEARLY showing you the answers to YOUR posits which were...what do they think?

He told you.

Don't agree? Pretty basic stuff hon.....take it up with Keynes or Friedman.

They're the ones that wrote this stuff.

Congratulations, you too have changed the definition for monetarism. And he didn't know communism was relevant to the topic, RIGHT. LOL!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

I did?

(Are you on Earth?)

quote:

Your quote:

quote:

"Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon" is the central tenet of Friedman's work. You can disagree with him if you like, but it's still his position. And it's why his economic philosophy is called Monetarism.



REALITY:

quote:

During the 1960s, he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy known as "monetarism". He theorized there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment and argued that governments could increase employment above this rate, e.g., by increasing aggregate demand, only at the risk of causing inflation to accelerate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's your attitude prevailing, not the position. You're making shit up, and assuming quite a lot.

The issue instead is being a victim someone else must rescue, floating along helplessly, vs. taking a proactive stance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Entrepreneurship is one way to do that--and that doesn't mean embracing the black market, exploiting workers, and so forth. Sure, some people do that. But as you've pointed out, that's not a necessity, nor a good idea, though your points about German exports are whacked, because exports are simply one part of the economy -- Germany with a GDP around 3.6 trillion US dollars, vs. 16.8 trillion for the US.

But it's not the only way. When I was a worker, the last three jobs I held didn't exist when I created them -- find a need, propose it, and do it. I even got to negotiate salary. That, though, is still in the $/hr mentality. I could have, had I been smarter, found an area of the business management/owners were too busy to pursue, and negotiate instituting that area for them, for a cut of the profits. That would have removed the ceiling.

Nor is a job or a business the only road to wealth. As a college student, friends and I rented a huge house and negotiated a discount on the rent for paying six months in advance. But if we had truly been smart, we'd have used that money for a down payment on a fixer-upper, spent our vacations making the improvements, and then selling at a profit (and with equity accumulated) when we graduated. We could even have used the profit to buy more houses, and either keep flipping or rent them.

Nor did anyone say if we all were entrepreneurs, no one would be poor. Only that there would be options -- and options can be reassessed, improved, changed.

You're also wrong about no one left to do the work, even if everyone were an entrepreneur.