[Excelsior]

(02-23-2014 02:56 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Top 1% of money in the world is not 8 million. In the States only is it 8 million. Independent of nation it's about $440,000 per year salary.

The OP didn't specify "in the world". Many people here (including myself) would assume that OP meant top 1% in the USA, where most of us live and work (this is an American forum for the most part).

Top 1% in the USA is $8 million.

Even taking your premiseat face value, $440,000 is a lot of money to make on an annual basis. If managed wisely, you'll be a millionaire in just a few years and could easily die with tens of millions to your name.

Quote:

Again the wealthiest of people are not always powerful though. Look at all those celebrities making bank.

Those are not wealthy people, they are merely rich people. There is a difference. The people you're describing have high incomes (read: they're rich), but lack the financial intelligence to build actual wealth (read: get their money to make them money). Not all rich people are able to become wealthy.

Quote:

Wealth is not the only gateway to power.

No, it is simply the most effective one by a wide margin.

Quote:

It is actually the hardest gateway in my opinion.

No it isn't.

Quote:

It is also the most unreliable as your powerbase slips the the second you lack the appropriate funds.

That rarely happens to people with actual wealth. It happens to rich individuals who lack actual wealth and rely almost entirely on high incomes (and the image that said incomes can buy) that they lack the financial intelligence to turn into actual wealth. This reliance on high incomes makes them more susceptible to sudden financial inefficiencies of the kind you describe (ex: athlete depends on income from big contract - retirement ends contract - funds are gone, athlete has created no real wealth to avoid such a sudden drop - athlete is now broke - athlete's posse disappears). High incomes can be cutoff suddenly - real wealth is much harder to eliminate so rapidly. It is far more reliable once built, assuming you have the financial intelligence to maintain it.

Quote:

You're only a walking ATM with money alone. Once it's gone the courage and bravado of your subordinates is too.

And what exactly happens when you age and your "elite looks" (which don't get you much in the first place relative to wealth anyway) disappear?
If you're looking for unconditional loyalty, you're going find it hard to come by regardless of how much money, power, or aesthetics you possess.

[worldwidetraveler]

(02-23-2014 03:44 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:40 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Basing it on area would just subdivide this thread into sections for each country. No one would be technically able to argue as each country would have its own 1%. Why should we base it on area? It would be counterproductive to the argument completely.

No, it wouldn't.

I would rather be 1% in wealth anywhere I live. If the top 1% of wealth was 200k in Philippines and I was from the Phils I would still want to be there instead of looks. It would still take me a long time to earn that type of money if I was going to use my looks to earn cash.

It is the same when looking at cost of living between areas. Making 100k in areas of California is nothing like making 100k in Zanesville, Ohio.

[WestCoast]

^ exactly.

He's in college so no worries when he works for 3-5 years he'll rapidly change his tune.

@wwt this chart clearly shows your point: http://i.imgur.com/BrUbsVW.jpg

1% for the win

[Comte De St. Germain]

Holy shit Excelsior destroyed my argument completely well played sir well played. No coming back from that.

[worldwidetraveler]

(02-23-2014 04:34 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Holy shit Excelsior destroyed my argument completely well played sir well played. No coming back from that.

heh All you had to do was look at Westcoast's post about clearing 500k a year, every year, for life while never working another day again.

[WestCoast]

^ people have a hard time understanding compounding man.

Even when you're doing "okay" say $30K passive income it is actually a huge tailwind at your back. You can still work (or not) and boom you're balling outta control in a mere 5 years. Because to get to mid five figures passive you likely have a good job already!

Ain't no money like fuck you money.

Besides what if you get into a car accident now you're ugly and you're fucked! Forever!

Money is beautiful it doesn't give a shit if you are ugly or pretty it will still smell the same. It smells great.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 04:35 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 04:34 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Holy shit Excelsior destroyed my argument completely well played sir well played. No coming back from that.

heh All you had to do was look at Westcoast's post about clearing 500k a year, every year, for life while never working another day again.

I skimmed the thread quite a bit and was only really responding to a couple people. So I missed a couple of posts here and there. Kind of ridiculous to argue against 5-6 people at once mate.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 04:38 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ people have a hard time understanding compounding man.

Even when you're doing "okay" say $30K passive income it is actually a huge tailwind at your back. You can still work (or not) and boom you're balling outta control in a mere 5 years. Because to get to mid five figures passive you likely have a good job already!

Ain't no money like fuck you money.

Besides what if you get into a car accident now you're ugly and you're fucked! Forever!

Money is beautiful it doesn't give a shit if you are ugly or pretty it will still smell the same. It smells great.

Gotta agree there. Money gives no fuck about anything. Kind of why girls these days are married to it rather than settling down and having a family. Money is there pursuit.

[EuroSlumming]

I question whether the top 1% of the US is $8 million. 1 in every 100 people in the US has a net worth of $8 mil +?

Perhaps the average of the top 1% is $8 million but there are guys with over $20 billion in this 1% which pushes the number up.

And if it's the same calculation for the $440,000 number for world population i.e the top one percent of wealth divided amongst the number of people the actual figure to get in there will be much lower than $440,000.

[SpecialEd]

Lol to the guys saying you can buy looks. If youre short, you really going to get that height surgery where they break your legs? As for looks fading, a man should be able to maintain his looks into his 50s. I plan on being settled down by then.

It's kind of a moot topic though. If you're not extremely good looking, you just don't know...I will say this, if you're relying on money game to pull 9s, she has a boy toy on the side. Just the way it is...

[worldwidetraveler]

(02-23-2014 05:44 PM)SpecialEd Wrote:  

I will say this, if you're relying on money game to pull 9s, she has a boy toy on the side. Just the way it is...

How is that a problem for the men on this forum?

[Comte De St. Germain]

Realistically not one us care who she's fucking on the side. We're just using them to bust a nut one of life's simplest pleasures. These girls aren't wife material lets be real. We aren't in the game for LTRs in the States and even abroad at times. If we're looking for wife material we're going by more than looks. Looks is just a part of the criteria for the grade we're giving.

[WestCoast]

Haha WWT keeps beating me to it. I don't give a fuck if some broad cheats on me on the side that implies I actually give a fuck about her at all in the first place.

I assume all women fucked a dude 5 minutes before meeting me.

^^^

This was probably a bit extreme even for this forum. But whatever the point is money always wins. Anyone who says otherwise ain't never had any.

[General Mayhem]

Looks. I got a ton of pussy when I was broke as fuck playing guitar in dive bars. Girls are always inclined to try and, "Fix me". I couldn't pull that off if I was ugly. I am working on the money now, we will see where it goes.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Still gonna go with looks though. I'm fairly attractive as it is and I assume everyone else on the forum is too so getting a little boost wouldn't be so bad. This is just my subjective opinion at this point.

[WestCoast]

^ you're in the one percent bro! Only thing holding you back is $$$!

I'll see you in the club in Mexico city throwing pesos in the air and you can keep your free plastic surgery. Lol

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 06:45 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ you're in the one percent bro! Only thing holding you back is $$$!

I'll see you in the club in Mexico city throwing pesos in the air and you can keep your free plastic surgery. Lol

Dat sarcasm though.

[WestCoast]

^ not at all try this math.

Calculate number of people in the world. Chances of being American is 4%.

Now chances of being a man is 2%.

You're already at the top 2%.

Now calculate age brackets... Guessing you want to be between 0 and 40...

You're already in the 1%..

Do you want to play Russian roulette knowing you'll be a random american guy in the ages of 1 and 40 right now?

Pass. I'll take the grass, keep the cash and smile in the mirror.

Gotta make your day a little better no? Numbers don't lie.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 06:54 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ not at all try this math.

Calculate number of people in the world. Chances of being American is 4%.

Now chances of being a man is 2%.

You're already at the top 2%.

Now calculate age brackets... Guessing you want to be between 0 and 40...

You're already in the 1%..

Do you want to play Russian roulette knowing you'll be a random american guy in the ages of 1 and 40 right now?

Pass. I'll take the grass, keep the cash and smile in the mirror.

Gotta make your day a little better no? Numbers don't lie.

Implying Americans are the most attractive people on the face of the planet.

[WestCoast]

^ haha fine you can add all of Western Europe (and any other country you seem attractive and economically stable) and we will then bring the age bracket to 20-40...

You still wanna play that shitty game?

I know you don't want to be a pretty boy in Moscow lol.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 07:01 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ haha fine you can add all of Western Europe (and any other country you seem attractive and economically stable) and we will then bring the age bracket to 20-40...

You still wanna play that shitty game?

I know you don't want to be a pretty boy in Moscow lol.

There we go those odds look more fair. Then again aren't we all in this bracket shiiiieeett.
On the real I wouldn't mind being a pretty boy as long as I'm muscular. Gotta backup the pretty body mate.

[Hencredible Casanova]

[rudebwoy]

I am sure those Russian oligarchs that have women lining up for them, have great looks.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 07:23 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

I am sure those Russian oligarchs that have women lining up for them, have great looks.

On the real, even ugly dudes pull in my home country. Russia is just like that. The ratio of attractive women to dudes is astounding. It's a damn shame I learned Turkish as a kid and not Russian(I am half-Tutk from Fathr's side and half Russian from my mother's).

[lavidaloca]

The 8 million figure is probably household net worth...it would include future assets which are not currently redeemable such as pensions and probably includes equities which have a bunch of deferred taxes among other things.

I'd be surprised if 8 million is the break in point to the 1%. But I could see it based on the data I outlined above being the mid point of the top 1%.

The one thing I've never understood is how this can be fairly construed when realistically, outside of child stars, what sub 30 something is going to be a multi-millionaire? Whereas at 50 or 60 it's rather easy. It would be much better to include age demographics as I think you'd likely find that the millionaire population amongst seniors is drastically higher than that of people under 40.

If you start with nothing and invest 3000 dollars a month...not exactly an outrageous number and you obtain 10% returns (not outrageous either, perhaps a tad bit high), in 20 years you'd have 2 million + dollars. In 35 you'd break 10 million dollars. A normal working person will work probably 45-50 years in their lives on average. So it's not all that outrageous. Especially when you factor in dual income households where couples can easily live off of one persons salary and invest the entirety of their partner's income.

We had a guy in another thread who made 123k in a year (nothing to sneeze at but not huge either.) He saved 65k in one year which works out to just under 5.5k per month. In 35 years he'd break 18 million dollars if he received 10% returns.

Again, this isn't factoring in deferred taxes as many will owe taxes on that money. But it's just showing how viable it's to obtain a high net worth.

Someone saving $1000 a month (the average single American male should be able to do this atleast even with an average income) after 24 years will have 1.1 million dollars.

I think the problem most people has is they like to spend as though they are rich while the rich focus on building wealth. I see tons of friends right out of school with BMW's, porsches, audi's etc, then they get a big fat mortgage, have kids. They all of a sudden are very limited in their ability to build wife.

The best time in a person's life is their 20's unless you happen to be able to make money earlier. People put off saving thinking well 10 years from now I'll be a Director or VP and making 200k a year. Even if they do achieve that there spending habits increase accordingly.

If someone were to have 10 million in the bank they could safely withdraw 400k a year. How you would spend 400k a year in the 2nd or 3rd world is beyond me...which means you should be making even more money when you stop working as you keep on reinvesting the dividends. It snowballs by the time you are 60 or 70 you are stupid rich.