Better off as a plumber?

[kinggyppo]

Big hat, no cattle means to me "all flash and no cash". I think the idea is that some folks want to show off and act like they are rich when they are not. Warren Buffett to me is a person whose behavior is the complete opposite of that, he does have a lot of cash though.


http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/kwze6btvQoc/Warren+Buffett+s+Home

 

[marketsurfer]

While obviously there are some wealthy persons who fit the "millionaire next door" description ( I know because my grandfather was one of these sad cases) -- it is not a true picture of real wealth. I dislike that book in a huge way. It takes away incentive, desire and motivation. Who the F would want to be a millionaire who lives like a dentist?? That book was written for the poor and middle class to SELL by making them feel better about themselves. . No other reason, real wealth does not fit that profile and those who with it who live like that generally have a mental disorder. Money is to enjoy, not hoard. True wealth enjoys the best this world has to offer in all things. Wealth creates itself from itself not by living like a poor person despite a large bank account. Frankly, I am surprised that those who aspire to true wealth on a trading board would embrace those ideas. Trading is not for the meek but for those who push boundaries and strive for empires not a few bucks in the bank. Those who are happy living like the millionaire next door would be better off sticking to their job and not taking risk. Could you go broke pushing the boundaries? Absolutely , but that's a far better life than being a nothing with a few bucks in the bank. If you don't get this, you will never get it.

Good luck!

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from kinggyppo:

Big hat, no cattle means to me "all flash and no cash". I think the idea is that some folks want to show off and act like they are rich when they are not. Warren Buffett to me is a person whose behavior is the complete opposite of that, he does have a lot of cash though.


http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/kwze6btvQoc/Warren+Buffett+s+Home

You don't really buy that PR do you? Facts are Buffet owns several homes all over the world, not to mention one costing 4 million in California.

He does live well beneath his means, but far above average.

 

[the1]

There isn't a thing wrong with having money and not spending it and there most certainly isn't anything sad about it. In fact, those who portray the image of being wealthy generally aren't because they are enslaved by their massive mortgage and car payments. Did a tax return today for some sap who drives a 2010 Cadillac and a 2010 AGI of 13k. When he drives up he definitely looks the part but...

Quote from marketsurfer:

While obviously there are some wealthy persons who fit the "millionaire next door" description ( I know because my grandfather was one of these sad cases) -- it is not a true picture of real wealth. That book was written for the poor and middle class to SELL. No other reason, real wealth does not fit that profile and those who with it who live like that generally have a mental disorder. Money is to enjoy, not hoard. Wealth creates itself from itself not by living like a poor person despite a large bank account. Frankly, I am surprised that those who aspire to true wealth on a trading board would embrace those ideas. Trading is not for the meek but for those who push boundaries and strive for empires not a few bucks in the bank. Those who are happy living like the millionaire next door would be better off sticking to their job and not taking risk. Could you go broke pushing the boundaries? Absolutely , but that's a far better life than being a nothing with a few bucks in the bank. If you don't get this, you will never get it.

Good luck!

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from luisHK:

The poster pennyStock gotta be trolling, he can't take his arguments seriously himself . Otherwise he must so immune to reality than he might indeed be happier than any billionaire.

Yeah, truly a delusional soul.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from the1:

There isn't a thing wrong with having money and not spending it and there most certainly isn't anything sad about it. In fact, those who portray the image of being wealthy generally aren't because they are enslaved by their massive mortgage and car payments. Did a tax return today for some sap who drives a 2010 Cadillac and a 2010 AGI of 13k. When he drives up he definitely looks the part but...

Nothing wrong with it, but nothing wrong with huge goals and living well also.

I find those who hoard money and don't enjoy it's fruits sad. Particularly when they die before tasting the worlds pleasures that they could have afforded easily

Best. Surf

 

[luisHK]

Quote from marketsurfer:

You don't really buy that PR do you? Facts are Buffet owns several homes all over the world, not to mention one costing 4 million in California.

He does live well beneath his means, but far above average.

On a side note, seen for outside it's amazing to look at the US in the sense where the cost of living seems quite a bit cheaper than in other countries enjoying a significantly lower average income.

Buffet house in Omaha looks quite big for 640k, and in Paris, London, or HK, with which I'm more familiar, 4million will get you a posh apartment but nothing even close to a multibillionaire dream house. I definetely have a hard time understanding how people with median salaries can make ends meet in London or Paris.

 

[1prometheus]

Very well said Surf.

I think the "Millionaire next door" is misleading because it cashes in on the "Millionaire" cache long after being a low level millionaire means you are rich or wealthy (take your choice.

I do not think most small businessmen and miserly middle class people (after a lifetime of skimping) used to be considered rich.

What changed?

Well, misers were richly rewarded by the big bull run from 1980 to 2000, so that did give them a boost beyond what was expected. More importantly, "Millionaire" still has psychological meaning that no longer matches the purchasing power.

How much did a nyc townhouse cost in the 70's? I have no idea, but I do know a guy who bought a back bay mansion in the early 70's for less than 100k.

Yea, If u can buy such a home for 100k, then 3-5m Is real money. If that home alone today costs 3-5m.. well, It is just not the same.

It is psychological: People are fixated on the nice round number 1,000,000 for being wealthy, just like 100,000 = "the good life" in peoples minds for the past 25 years, in spite of the massively eroded purchasing power.

Quote from marketsurfer:

While obviously there are some wealthy persons who fit the "millionaire next door" description ( I know because my grandfather was one of these sad cases) -- it is not a true picture of real wealth. I dislike that book in a huge way. It takes away incentive, desire and motivation. Who the F would want to be a millionaire who lives like a dentist?? That book was written for the poor and middle class to SELL by making them feel better about themselves. . No other reason, real wealth does not fit that profile and those who with it who live like that generally have a mental disorder. Money is to enjoy, not hoard. True wealth enjoys the best this world has to offer in all things. Wealth creates itself from itself not by living like a poor person despite a large bank account. Frankly, I am surprised that those who aspire to true wealth on a trading board would embrace those ideas. Trading is not for the meek but for those who push boundaries and strive for empires not a few bucks in the bank. Those who are happy living like the millionaire next door would be better off sticking to their job and not taking risk. Could you go broke pushing the boundaries? Absolutely , but that's a far better life than being a nothing with a few bucks in the bank. If you don't get this, you will never get it.

Good luck!

 

[nutmeg]

Well we do know one thing. The gov't thinks 10k is big money. After all, sumbody has to notify sumbody when we move 10k and if you don't pass the smell test with the bank (moving around 5k increments to circumvent reporting requirements), they'll still notify the Fed.

What the hey, narrowly missed having to notify the Feds if we spent 600 dollars (with new regs), bunch of crackheads.

 

[sle]

Quote from 1prometheus:
Yea, If u can buy such a home for 100k, then 3-5m Is real money. If that home alone today costs 3-5m.. well, It is just not the same.

Well, realistically, the house used to cost a 100k, but NYC was,erm, not as desirable at the time. I know someone who bought a nice Bleeker street loft for something like 25k, but she had to live there for 30 years to actually see the neighborhood improve. Guess what - you can buy a brownstone in the Bronx these days for a few hundred thousand, but would you want to live there?

Personally, I think its about 1:5 ratio of what a million dollars was then to now.