L
- Status
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
P
Peeps
Guest
I had my flip phone for 16 years before it finally broke. My students in the hospital didn’t know that it was a phone!
So when it broke, we went to the phone store, and I looked at all the i-phones…and bought another flip phone! I like having a phone that sends and receives calls and texts, and that’s pretty much it.
At least I won’t suffer from “Phone Finger Arthritis” someday!
So when it broke, we went to the phone store, and I looked at all the i-phones…and bought another flip phone! I like having a phone that sends and receives calls and texts, and that’s pretty much it.
At least I won’t suffer from “Phone Finger Arthritis” someday!
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
I honestly don’t think people “keep up with the Jones’s” now. People don’t pay much attention to their neighbors.
I think people try to “keep up with Madison Ave” and buy all the cool products they see advertised.
OTOH, all the people that I know (hospital workers, Catholic acquaintances, Protestant friends, various relatives) are very careful about what they spend their money on. Right now, “re-purposing” is in style and people are more likely to “fix up” their home, car, furniture, or whatever rather than buying something new.
I think people try to “keep up with Madison Ave” and buy all the cool products they see advertised.
OTOH, all the people that I know (hospital workers, Catholic acquaintances, Protestant friends, various relatives) are very careful about what they spend their money on. Right now, “re-purposing” is in style and people are more likely to “fix up” their home, car, furniture, or whatever rather than buying something new.
T
tafan2
Guest
You are wrong. Jeff Bezos is the richest man, worth 131 billion. If we were to assume that all 200 people had the same amount of money, that would equate to $3,700 per person. However, I just checked, and the 20th richest person has a net worth of $38B. So those 200 may average $13B per person, not $131B. So that gives us around $370 per person.
My assumption on the average could be off, divide or mulityply by 3 if you like.
How do people believe such nonsense, one simple Google search and 30 seconds of arithmetic disproves it.
ETA: forgot to mention, my numbers are based on them giving up all of their wealth, not just a percentage. If we go with you 10% idea, every one would get 37 dollars
My assumption on the average could be off, divide or mulityply by 3 if you like.
How do people believe such nonsense, one simple Google search and 30 seconds of arithmetic disproves it.
ETA: forgot to mention, my numbers are based on them giving up all of their wealth, not just a percentage. If we go with you 10% idea, every one would get 37 dollars
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Look, his numbers are wrong, but so is your response. You are correct, money is not static. The distributed, $370, would likewise be spent and end up doing all of the things you mentioned. Unless the money is taken out of circulation, ie stuffed in a mattress, it still moves through the economy.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I can find articles to say all sorts of things. Until you have BEEN poor, it is hard to understand what it is like to be college educated, empty nesters, and to lose everything.
Without some family wealth, everyone in the US is health issue away from poverty.
Without some family wealth, everyone in the US is health issue away from poverty.
F
FriendsOfJesus
Guest
I lived in Central America for 2 years as a volunteeer in Honduras. And you’re completely right. Such content people with just their rice, beans and tortillas. It’s hard now not being around people with that mentality.
P
Peeps
Guest
The key word in your post is “family.”
I know that if something happens to me and/or my husband, my brother would be there for me.
My parents-in-law would be there. My CHILDREN would be there. Some of the more distant relatives might be there–I’m not counting on them, but I think they would help out a little.
But my brother, parents-in-law, and children would be there. They’re not wealthy, but they have enough that they would share in order to restore me and/or my husband.
If only everyone had family, especially when health issues reduce someone to poverty.
I know that if something happens to me and/or my husband, my brother would be there for me.
My parents-in-law would be there. My CHILDREN would be there. Some of the more distant relatives might be there–I’m not counting on them, but I think they would help out a little.
But my brother, parents-in-law, and children would be there. They’re not wealthy, but they have enough that they would share in order to restore me and/or my husband.
If only everyone had family, especially when health issues reduce someone to poverty.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
In addition to marriage, working full time, and not having children out of wedlock, I would add one more important habit: regular, routine, saving, the earlier the better. Early savings have more time to grow. Spend less than you make, save some for the future always. But a lot of people have no idea what they spend, or even if they are overspending, because credit cards are used instead of cash.
M
mcq72
Guest
The hippies tried it in the 60’s and 70’s ( our society was criticized as being “plastic” materialistic). They did not do much better, yet many became Christians, on fire for Jesus
C
CTBcin
Guest
I certainly do agree with this, as it helps reduce poverty and is the moral thing anyway. But I don’t think that this alone is the answer to poverty, as many, many families also live in poverty. Personal responsibility and a healthy understanding of family is good, but societal factors must be taken into account as well.
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok, i see what you are saying. Yet i wonder if the 370 would benefit the economy as efficiently or wisely as millions spending 370 dollars. Most would probably spend it as consumers and not investors. Rich people have their fill in goods and services, and have plenty left over to invest, unlike the majority of citizens.
Another words, none of my 370 would be donated to a hospital, or library, or used to buy stock or help an inventor etc.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
You seem to be referring to two things: 1) allocation of capital. And 2) propensity of various economic classes to donate to charities.
Regarding the former, there is no evidence, that I know of that indicates consumer spending would affect efficient allocation of capital. Government spending can, just because it reminds too much of market allocation. But consumer spending is just one movement of money. Take a new dollar, and invest it in a new factory, great, but then the dollar goes to pay a worker, then it is spent, and so on. Take a new dollar and give it to a consumer, he buys a candy bar, then the grocery store spends it on their opperatiins, or distributes it to shareholders, etc. Eventually that dollar lands in a bank account and gets loaned to build a new factory…
As to donations to charity, my guess is that the rich, overall do not give that much more, percentage wise, than the middle class. But that’s a guess. Certainly more than the poor, though. I do not believe a more even distribution of wealth would negatively affect charitable giving. More likely to help it , but just my opinion.
Regarding the former, there is no evidence, that I know of that indicates consumer spending would affect efficient allocation of capital. Government spending can, just because it reminds too much of market allocation. But consumer spending is just one movement of money. Take a new dollar, and invest it in a new factory, great, but then the dollar goes to pay a worker, then it is spent, and so on. Take a new dollar and give it to a consumer, he buys a candy bar, then the grocery store spends it on their opperatiins, or distributes it to shareholders, etc. Eventually that dollar lands in a bank account and gets loaned to build a new factory…
As to donations to charity, my guess is that the rich, overall do not give that much more, percentage wise, than the middle class. But that’s a guess. Certainly more than the poor, though. I do not believe a more even distribution of wealth would negatively affect charitable giving. More likely to help it , but just my opinion.
T
tafan2
Guest
It should also be noted that the money of the rich is not sitting around. Jeff Bezos might be worth $131B dollars, but that is mostly held in securities, which are not money. His “money”, like everyone’s moves throughout the economy.
P
Peeps
Guest
I agree that there are two-parent (man and woman who are married) families who are poor. There are statistics that show that married couples are less likely to be poor–but any statistics study has outliers.
In our area of the country, this often happens because dad and sometimes mom are both working at the same company (often connected with cars), and when the company is shut down by their corporate headquarters, both mom and dad have no work and no skills for anything except making cars.
Those jobs pay so darned well, but not well enough to save half the income for the “rainy day” as middle managers routinely do (the middle managers that we know tell us that they save HALF their paycheck because they know that they will be let go after a few years–that’s the nature of their work–great pay while it lasts, but it doesn’t last long).
So…I guess one thing that seems prudent would be to not depend on two incomes, and definitely not count on an auto factory to stay in business. When you’re young and don’t have children yet, get some kind of certificate that qualifies you for a trade. Don’t depend on “assembly work”, because a lot of companies use robots to do this.
Another thing that might be worth thinking about is moving–there are auto plants all over the U.S., and if they are hiring, why not move? I know this is tough–leaving family and friends is awful.
So…maybe it would be a good thing not to plan on going to work at the local auto manufacturing facility, even though it pays great and has amazing benefits? It seems almost like one of those animal traps that is baited with a great meal–but once you’re inside it, you’re a goner.
In our area of the country, this often happens because dad and sometimes mom are both working at the same company (often connected with cars), and when the company is shut down by their corporate headquarters, both mom and dad have no work and no skills for anything except making cars.
Those jobs pay so darned well, but not well enough to save half the income for the “rainy day” as middle managers routinely do (the middle managers that we know tell us that they save HALF their paycheck because they know that they will be let go after a few years–that’s the nature of their work–great pay while it lasts, but it doesn’t last long).
So…I guess one thing that seems prudent would be to not depend on two incomes, and definitely not count on an auto factory to stay in business. When you’re young and don’t have children yet, get some kind of certificate that qualifies you for a trade. Don’t depend on “assembly work”, because a lot of companies use robots to do this.
Another thing that might be worth thinking about is moving–there are auto plants all over the U.S., and if they are hiring, why not move? I know this is tough–leaving family and friends is awful.
So…maybe it would be a good thing not to plan on going to work at the local auto manufacturing facility, even though it pays great and has amazing benefits? It seems almost like one of those animal traps that is baited with a great meal–but once you’re inside it, you’re a goner.
- Status