Different types of wealth - Page 6

emon87 · #51 07-10-2007, 07:48 PM

Yeah, hopefully people are still coming back to this thread.

What I meant was something like this:

Would you rather:

1. Live like a "typical" middle income/blue collar worker, not do much traveling or expensive vactioning/hobbying but have tons of money saved up.

2. Live like a very upper class household day to day, but not do much traveling/hobbying and have very little money in the bank.

3. Live like a "typical" middle income/blue collar worker, but spend lots of time and money on traveling or hobbying, and have little money in the bank.

Do not just say that 2 or 3 follows from 1, it's not what I'm getting at here.

prohornblower · #52 07-10-2007, 08:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What I meant was something like this:

Would you rather:

1. Live like a "typical" middle income/blue collar worker, not do much traveling or expensive vactioning/hobbying but have tons of money saved up.

2. Live like a very upper class household day to day, but not do much traveling/hobbying and have very little money in the bank.

3. Live like a "typical" middle income/blue collar worker, but spend lots of time and money on traveling or hobbying, and have little money in the bank.

Do not just say that 2 or 3 follows from 1, it's not what I'm getting at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...
1) Don't make a lot, but save it all.
2) Make a decent amount, spend all on housing/cars/college.
3) Don't make a lot, but spend it on hobbies.

Why are these the only options? Each of these sucks in its own way. I wouldn't do any of these.

Thremp · #53 07-10-2007, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If everyone was like me, saving 2/3 of their gross income before taxes then the economy would tank quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that people spending money drives an economy? You don't think that if people saved more they'd spend less? You don't think that people spending more than their net worth is generally good for businesses?

[/ QUOTE ]

The savings rate is to low. At an absurd rate which you have in theory would make cash essentially free to borrow and returns from investments would be grossly low. At some point it'll swing back. But the point remains that it wouldn't "tank". A high savings society can keep going just like a society with virtually no savings. Neither are optimal.

Justify your comment. If that much savings is bad... Is no savings bad? At what point does it become good? Is there a range? Or is it for the individual to decide in a free market economy a balance of current consumption v future consumption?

emon87 · #54 07-11-2007, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]

So...
1) Don't make a lot, but save it all.
2) Make a decent amount, spend all on housing/cars/college.
3) Don't make a lot, but spend it on hobbies.

Why are these the only options? Each of these sucks in its own way. I wouldn't do any of these.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

1) save most of what you make, regardless if it is 70k, 150k, or 500k.
2) save very little of what you make, regardless if it is 70k, 150k, or 500k., spending it on consumer things ("frivolously")
3) save very little of what you make, regardless if it is 70k, 150k, or 500k., spending it on more memorable things

They are meant to be extremes, I thought it would be interesting. Maybe you have to have read the books listed for this to make more sense. Or maybe it just isn't as interesting as I thought it would be.

diamonddawg · #55 07-11-2007, 02:01 AM

imo only real wealth is free time and freedom.

Nicholasp27 · #56 07-11-2007, 09:25 AM

ok, so that's what u meant

but they aren't WEALTH...u are just asking do u prefer to live less richly now in order to save for a better future, or do u prefer to live it up as much as u can for your payscale with 'luxury items', or do u prefer to live it up as much as u can on travel/doing stuff

so 1 is a way of possibly getting to wealth one day, while 2/3 are just simply spending what u make, live paycheck to paycheck, with 2 valuing material items and 3 valuing experiences

so really u are asking do u care more about: saving for your future, having material items, or living for the present

ChipWrecked · #57 07-11-2007, 09:30 AM

I consider my best assets to be my wife and kids, so I guess you could call that valuing #3 most highly.

I feed the 401k with an eye toward 1, though.

rwesty · #58 07-11-2007, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
seriously though, what most of you guys are talking about in regards to Wealth type #1, is not what the OP had in mind (but I understood what he meant), so there is some confusion as to what was meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Do you have anything else to say now that he's made it clear you misunderstood him?

guids · #59 07-11-2007, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seriously though, what most of you guys are talking about in regards to Wealth type #1, is not what the OP had in mind (but I understood what he meant), so there is some confusion as to what was meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Do you have anything else to say now that he's made it clear you misunderstood him?

[/ QUOTE ]

OP,

Who came the closest to understanding your OP?

and the fact that emon commented on that specific comment with:

yeah, I hope people are still comming back to this thread...makes you look like a complete dickless, arrogant loser.

do you have anything else to say?

rwesty · #60 07-11-2007, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
type 1 wealth seems like masturbation, and fairly stupid to have as a goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

combined with

[ QUOTE ]
I live pretty cheaply, the reason I do this though, is so that I have as much "disposable" income as possible if I find a high risk, but possible high-reward place to put my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

means you either didn't understand the OP at all, really enjoy masturbating or just don't understand what the concept of saving is.

which one is it?