posted
Remember the phrase "one in a million"? There are 300million Americans. And a billion dollars won't even make ya one of the 300 richest Americans.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, if your a millionaire I guess that make you upper middle class in some areass? Jeez, who woul've thought.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even excluding the value of their own homes, ~8.9million American households have a net worth (ie assets minus debts) of over a million dollars; ie over 1 in 34 Americans is a millionaire. Since there are only ~114,384,000 US households, over 1 in 13 Americans live in a millionaire household.
And excluding the value of their homes leaves a deceptively small number of millionaires. There are a LOT of folks who are "house rich and cash poor".
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's difficult to find a house in the San Francisco bay area for less than half a million dollars. Lots of modest two-three bedroom houses sell for more than a million.
Of course, in a lot of places in the midwest, a million dollar house really is a mansion.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: And excluding the value of their homes leaves a deceptively small number of millionaires. There are a LOT of folks who are "house rich and cash poor".
Tons of those on the list are in my area; My zip was number 42. Houses are expensive here, but people aren't that rich... well... not everyone is that rich, I am not. Down the street there are like... houses that could probably go for about 6 million.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, they don't have any of mine on that list.
Though where I come from, most of the Packers don't even have million-dollar houses. I wonder what they're doing with all that money...
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder, what it matters to point out that half the world's population lives on a dollar a day, when in my part of the world you'd starve if you only had a dollar a day.
Living in Africa certainly isn't the same as living in America. They have less money to survive, but surviving, and I mean just being alive with food in your belly, is also a lot more expensive in the western world.
Where's the exchange rate?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goody- I found it interesting too that "the Donald" Trump ( ) is just UNDER Steven Spielberg on page 4. Kinda interesting that the Donald makes himself out to be among the biggest of the big hitters in whatever he does- and he doesn't even have as much as Spielberg. Granted, 4 billion is alot, but he's been bankrupted before, and he's more a gambler than a businessman.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woot! Local hero Tom Golisano on page 9. Interesting contrast reading his background (started a business with $3000 and a credit card) and compare to many of the lower tier folks whose claim to fame on the list is 'inheritance'.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The numbers of the beasts: 1 out of every 666 people is a millionaire (0.15% of the world population) as of the end of 2007.
"One in every three millionaires in the world lives in America" (3.3million out of 10million total) seems unlikely as heck considering that there were 8.9million American millionaires at the end of 2005. So the rest of the numbers may be equally screwed up.
posted
What? That what purports to be an article on economic facts claims that here has been 63% reduction in the number of American millionaires within two years? Or finding humor in the math?
posted
Useta be just being a billionaire meant somethin'. Nowadays it won't generate enough respect to getcha a decent plate of rissoto.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: You don't need much money to survive in America. We through so much stuff away there are people who live out of nothing but what they find in dumpsters. I'm not talking about the homeless either.
I wouldn't do it, but a lot of people who believe they're living ethically/sustainably do it. (I won't even drink expired milk. Eating a loaf of bread, dug out of the trash, no matter how well it's wrapped up, would make me want to throw up.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyr: You don't need much money to survive in America.
Comparatively, yes you do. My rent is $800 a month. When I lived in Montana, my rent was $400 a month. That's dirt cheap anywhere in this country. So when you're factoring in what it costs just to live, having a roof over your head is step one. So when step one already costs more per month than most people make in a year... you go from there.
According to the Global Rich List, I am in the top 2.59%, and I don't have money to throw around. I pay my bills, carefully. I buy food, I pay for gas, I come out a little bit ahead, but not much. I don't have enough money, for example, to be paying down my debt or building up savings.
Now, it is true that I don't live in a shack, or eat rotten bread, and all that. But what I'd like to know, is what percentage of the world's population does?
The only valid basis for comparison is not how much money we make, it's how well are we able to live, compared to other nations of the world.
I don't have data, I'm asking. I wonder if the way we live is really so much better. I doubt it. I might be wrong.
If I make, say, $42,000 per year, and am able to live, in this country, exactly the same way that someone who makes $8,000 in another country is able to live, the whole index becomes pretty meaningless.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, what you want is for your wealth to be counted in loaves of bread instead of dollars. This is extremely reasonable. If the stuff linked to were serious about wanting to rank Americans, it would use purchasing power parity numbers, not raw exchange rates. But that would not give nice soundbytes like "The average American is in the 97th percentile", so no news outlet would bother.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. It costs nearly as much to live a FirstWorld lifestyle in the ThirdWorld as it does in the FirstWorld. In some ways it costs more due to extremely high import taxes.
Think about it. Cost of construction material is set by world prices -- nearly the same with house fixtures, appliances, and furnishings -- as are the costs of fuel and cash crops (grains, soy, vegetable oil, beef, fish, shrimp, bananas, etc). And about the only offset to import taxes is cheap labor.
quote:It costs nearly as much to live a FirstWorld lifestyle in the ThirdWorld as it does in the FirstWorld. In some ways it costs more due to extremely high import taxes.
My impression (from anectotes, admittedly) is that the opposite is true.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd guesstimate the percentile would be about the same. For the percentiles to change, the ordering has to change significantly, not just the distribution, and I don't think many people who are not already ordered around or above many people in the US are going to be ordered above it with PPP as the measure.
The distribution would, however, change drastically.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It costs nearly as much to live a FirstWorld lifestyle in the ThirdWorld as it does in the FirstWorld. In some ways it costs more due to extremely high import taxes.
My impression (from anectotes, admittedly) is that the opposite is true.
Comme-ci, comme ça. Ya gotta put my statement in the context that living in Manhattan,NewYork costs ~2.618* as much as living in McAlister, Oklahoma. Similarly, the cost depends upon which ThirdWorld nation. Comparing the cost of living the average FirstWorld lifestyle in the FirstWorld and the cost of living the average FirstWorld lifestyle in the ThirdWorld produces a similar range.
* Remembered cuz the numbers reminded me of phi, then found the actual ratio to approximate phi squared.
quote:Originally posted by TL: My rent is $800 a month. When I lived in Montana, my rent was $400 a month. That's dirt cheap anywhere in this country. So when you're factoring in what it costs just to live, having a roof over your head is step one. So when step one already costs more per month than most people make in a year... you go from there.
According to the Global Rich List, I am in the top 2.59%, and I don't have money to throw around. I pay my bills, carefully. I buy food, I pay for gas, I come out a little bit ahead, but not much. I don't have enough money, for example, to be paying down my debt or building up savings.
Now, it is true that I don't live in a shack, or eat rotten bread, and all that. But what I'd like to know, is what percentage of the world's population does?
The only valid basis for comparison is not how much money we make, it's how well are we able to live, compared to other nations of the world.
Europe, particularly Scandinavia, has both the best per-capita income and the highest standards of living in the world. Followed by Japan, I think. America ranks WAY far down the list.
By the way, how the hell did you pay $400 in Montana? I shared a three-story townhouse in Columbus, OH that was literally across the street from OSU, and I paid only $300. I can't believe Montana is a more competitive real estate market.
(And where are you paying $800?)
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It costs nearly as much to live a FirstWorld lifestyle in the ThirdWorld as it does in the FirstWorld. In some ways it costs more due to extremely high import taxes.
My impression (from anectotes, admittedly) is that the opposite is true.
He's about right. The price for rice and raw materials is set globally. This was in a period of a weak dollar, but I was still paying roughly $1 for chocolate bars when I was in India (and considerably more in Europe). America is actually by far the cheapest place I've been -- fuel, electronics, and food are all stupidly cheap here.
That said, for about $200 in India I was able to buy over 120 Christmas packages, each with three gifts inside them. Being an industrial continent must give Asia some advantage in receiving cheap manufactured goods.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: My rent is $800 a month. When I lived in Montana, my rent was $400 a month. That's dirt cheap anywhere in this country. So when you're factoring in what it costs just to live, having a roof over your head is step one. So when step one already costs more per month than most people make in a year... you go from there.
According to the Global Rich List, I am in the top 2.59%, and I don't have money to throw around. I pay my bills, carefully. I buy food, I pay for gas, I come out a little bit ahead, but not much. I don't have enough money, for example, to be paying down my debt or building up savings.
Now, it is true that I don't live in a shack, or eat rotten bread, and all that. But what I'd like to know, is what percentage of the world's population does?
The only valid basis for comparison is not how much money we make, it's how well are we able to live, compared to other nations of the world.
Europe, particularly Scandinavia, has both the best per-capita income and the highest standards of living in the world. Followed by Japan, I think. America ranks WAY far down the list.
By the way, how the hell did you pay $400 in Montana? I shared a three-story townhouse in Columbus, OH that was literally across the street from OSU, and I paid only $300. I can't believe Montana is a more competitive real estate market.
(And where are you paying $800?)
I'm not TL, but I'm paying $800/mo for 1/3 of an apartment just outside Boston.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even excluding the value of their own homes, ~8.9million American households have a net worth (ie assets minus debts) of over a million dollars; ie over 1 in 34 Americans is a millionaire. Since there are only ~114,384,000 US households, over 1 in 13 Americans live in a millionaire household.
I wonder if they are including peoples 401Ks and pension plans in that. To live at the median income after retirement today, you need to have over $800,000 in savings. If you are retired, having a net worth of 1 million, would put you just over the median household income.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the way, how the hell did you pay $400 in Montana? I shared a three-story townhouse in Columbus, OH that was literally across the street from OSU, and I paid only $300. I can't believe Montana is a more competitive real estate market.
I'm sure there are places in Montana with low rent but you'd be surprised at how expensive the Montana real estate market is. I am currently renting the 3 bedroom house I own in Bozeman MT for $1200/month. Paying $400 per month per person is pretty typical in that area.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I could be happy with 2 or 3 million.. enough to retire comfortably and still build my dream home on 40 acres with a 15' high wall (wide enough to walk 2 abreast on) surrounding the whole place...
posted
I'd be happy if I had a million dollars stashed away and made 5% interest annually. I'd still keep a job and live carefully, but at least I'd know if something came up I'd be ready for it. As it is, if something bad came along I wouldn't be sitting pretty.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A wall that high and that wide would cost more than your total monetary goal, I suspect.
Of course, if you found a place with that wall already built, you could probably pick it up for a song.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob: You think? A wall is pretty simple and doesn't have things like plumbing and electricity to worry about. Then again, I can't remember the last time I priced a wall...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a house for sale in Rinard, Iowa, for $17,000. (posted at the convenience store in my town, I don't know the condition of the house.)
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some rough calculations - if you had a circular area of 40 acres, the circumference would be about 4680 feet. A 15' by 3' wall would be 45 cubic feet per lineal foot, so the total cubic feet of concrete needed for a solid concrete wall would be about 210k. Converted to cubic yards, 7800.
Even if the concrete costs $100/cubic yard, you could afford to buy it ($780k). However, you can probably get a MUCH better price for such a large order. And you probably don't need the wall to be solid concrete, either. Perhaps you only need 50% of the cubic yardage and only pay $50 for each cubic yard, you're only in for about $200k in concrete.
But how much for rebar, labor, grading and compacting the dirt? Could definitely add up quite a bit. $1 million for a wall that size doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It'd be similar to building nearly a mile of road.
I think you could swing it, in an area with flat well packed earth and low cost for the acreage. (You didn't want this to be in Orange county right?)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Houses are expensive here, but people aren't that rich... well... not everyone is that rich, I am not. Down the street there are like... houses that could probably go for about 6 million.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) is just UNDER Steven Spielberg on page 4. Kinda interesting that the Donald makes himself out to be among the biggest of the big hitters in whatever he does- and he doesn't even have as much as Spielberg. Granted, 4 billion is alot, but he's been bankrupted before, and he's more a gambler than a businessman.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
