Why Aren't More Guys Here Focused on Getting Rich?

[djfourmoney]

I'm not going to be "rich" by what many people would think of as rich but I am really focussed on having "enough" money. I don't think I have what it takes to be rich but I can get enough money for my needs.

I'm up to year 14 ie if I left my job tomorrow I'd have enough money to last for 14 years (1500 USD per month inflation adjusted - inflation rate of 3%, rate of return of 6% after tax). I'm a way off from getting to my goal of 25 years but really keen to make it.

The official rate of inflation already makes your plan flawed; The Unofficial inflation number is around 9%.

It also stands to go up, though I don't believe we'll ever experience the hyperinflation alarmist like to talk about.

IMHO and I don't claim to be an expert but it seems to me you need to project what inflation is going to be 10-15-20 years out and adjust whichever one is easier -

Lifestyle or Income source

However the truth is worst than that, since 1970 on some items vital to being considered "Middle Class" have gone up 200-300%!

Cornfed is right, the economy has been basically stagnant since the 1970's, Dean Baker has been saying this for a very long time actually.

Inflation is hard to get right. 4% might be a better estimate. MD makes a lot of valid points - costs really haven't gone up for the majority of items. In fact, things are cheaper than they've ever been. According to research by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren (I like her economics but not her politics) the only two things that households spend more on now than compared to 1970s are mortgages and cars. An individual car is much cheaper than in the 1970s but households tend to have more than one car nowadays. In the 1950s only 15% per cent of American households had more than one car.

So you're saying selling more cars automatically drove up the cost? Nevermind the technology in cars today compared to 1970.

See again, it's this love affair with the 1950's I have a problem with. You think adding Women to the workforce is solely responsible for the stagnation in wages? Civil Rights laws allowing more Black People to enter the workforce isn't responsible?

What's wrong with Warren's politics?

Housing has gone up for several reason, most of it has nothing to do with mortgages. The Government used housing as a way to inflate the economy after the DOT.COM crash because the housing bubble started in 1989 according to Chris Martenson.

So basically what you're saying is spending habits increased and that has caused the stagnation in wages and the increases in cost?

Many believe Edward Bernays was partly responsible for selling "You need this product to make you feel good" that allowed consumption to increase as incomes went up.

[kai1275]

I'm not going to be "rich" by what many people would think of as rich but I am really focussed on having "enough" money. I don't think I have what it takes to be rich but I can get enough money for my needs.

I'm up to year 14 ie if I left my job tomorrow I'd have enough money to last for 14 years (1500 USD per month inflation adjusted - inflation rate of 3%, rate of return of 6% after tax). I'm a way off from getting to my goal of 25 years but really keen to make it.

The official rate of inflation already makes your plan flawed; The Unofficial inflation number is around 9%.

It also stands to go up, though I don't believe we'll ever experience the hyperinflation alarmist like to talk about.

IMHO and I don't claim to be an expert but it seems to me you need to project what inflation is going to be 10-15-20 years out and adjust whichever one is easier -

Lifestyle or Income source

However the truth is worst than that, since 1970 on some items vital to being considered "Middle Class" have gone up 200-300%!

Cornfed is right, the economy has been basically stagnant since the 1970's, Dean Baker has been saying this for a very long time actually.

Inflation is hard to get right. 4% might be a better estimate. MD makes a lot of valid points - costs really haven't gone up for the majority of items. In fact, things are cheaper than they've ever been. According to research by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren (I like her economics but not her politics) the only two things that households spend more on now than compared to 1970s are mortgages and cars. An individual car is much cheaper than in the 1970s but households tend to have more than one car nowadays. In the 1950s only 15% per cent of American households had more than one car.

So you're saying selling more cars automatically drove up the cost? Nevermind the technology in cars today compared to 1970.

See again, it's this love affair with the 1950's I have a problem with. You think adding Women to the workforce is solely responsible for the stagnation in wages? Civil Rights laws allowing more Black People to enter the workforce isn't responsible?

What's wrong with Warren's politics?

Housing has gone up for several reason, most of it has nothing to do with mortgages. The Government used housing as a way to inflate the economy after the DOT.COM crash because the housing bubble started in 1989 according to Chris Martenson.

So basically what you're saying is spending habits increased and that has caused the stagnation in wages and the increases in cost?

Many believe Edward Bernays was partly responsible for selling "You need this product to make you feel good" that allowed consumption to increase as incomes went up.

Wage Stagnation has several causes. Anyone interested in that should read Paul Craig Roberts. He is a highly respected economist that used to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. He bashes neocons and liberals alike with REAL stats and facts and is closely allied with the Shadowstats economists. His writing style is awesome and he makes it easy to understand complicated stuff. His popularity is high for a good reason on the internet. He is a paleoconservative if you are trying to figure out what is political biases are....

Anyway a quick version of his research shows that the death of manufacturing, outsourcing, HB1 Visas, Corporate greed, and intentional manipulation of inflation numbers to prevent increases in things like SS payments and other govt. related pensions, and a few more things. He even is one of the few that bothered to figure out how many jobs/money in America were lost once high speed internet circuits spanned across the oceans.

Have fun reading his articles. They are incredibly insightful. He has small books that are cheap too you can buy on Amazon because no Zionist mainstream publisher would mass produce any real knowledge...

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/category/articles/

https://www.google.com/search?q=paul+cr ... rpunch.org

[djfourmoney]

I follow PCR and his blog. I agree with him 99% of the time.

[Rich]

I'm not going to be "rich" by what many people would think of as rich but I am really focussed on having "enough" money. I don't think I have what it takes to be rich but I can get enough money for my needs.

I'm up to year 14 ie if I left my job tomorrow I'd have enough money to last for 14 years (1500 USD per month inflation adjusted - inflation rate of 3%, rate of return of 6% after tax). I'm a way off from getting to my goal of 25 years but really keen to make it.

The official rate of inflation already makes your plan flawed; The Unofficial inflation number is around 9%.

It also stands to go up, though I don't believe we'll ever experience the hyperinflation alarmist like to talk about.

IMHO and I don't claim to be an expert but it seems to me you need to project what inflation is going to be 10-15-20 years out and adjust whichever one is easier -

Lifestyle or Income source

However the truth is worst than that, since 1970 on some items vital to being considered "Middle Class" have gone up 200-300%!

Cornfed is right, the economy has been basically stagnant since the 1970's, Dean Baker has been saying this for a very long time actually.

Inflation is hard to get right. 4% might be a better estimate. MD makes a lot of valid points - costs really haven't gone up for the majority of items. In fact, things are cheaper than they've ever been. According to research by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren (I like her economics but not her politics) the only two things that households spend more on now than compared to 1970s are mortgages and cars. An individual car is much cheaper than in the 1970s but households tend to have more than one car nowadays. In the 1950s only 15% per cent of American households had more than one car.

So you're saying selling more cars automatically drove up the cost? Nevermind the technology in cars today compared to 1970.

See again, it's this love affair with the 1950's I have a problem with. You think adding Women to the workforce is solely responsible for the stagnation in wages? Civil Rights laws allowing more Black People to enter the workforce isn't responsible?

What's wrong with Warren's politics?

Housing has gone up for several reason, most of it has nothing to do with mortgages. The Government used housing as a way to inflate the economy after the DOT.COM crash because the housing bubble started in 1989 according to Chris Martenson.

So basically what you're saying is spending habits increased and that has caused the stagnation in wages and the increases in cost?

Many believe Edward Bernays was partly responsible for selling "You need this product to make you feel good" that allowed consumption to increase as incomes went up.

No, I'm saying households are spending more on cars, a lot more, than compared to the 1970s. Rather having one or no cars, households have two or three. The cost of an individual car has never been cheaper.

[zacb]

I am focused on making money right now. I wish i had a running start during the boom, but oh well. Now I am looking for employment opportunities I can handle (due to issues I mentioned before). I tried online, but in between google updates for sites and competition, as well as foreign suppliers, bans on certain goods, as well as a generally lousy consumer sentiment for ebay, I have come to the conclusion I will need to find some employment. Now about that XD . But to the general point, I think we should focus on that more. The sooner you save up, the better.

[djfourmoney]

I'm not going to be "rich" by what many people would think of as rich but I am really focussed on having "enough" money. I don't think I have what it takes to be rich but I can get enough money for my needs.

I'm up to year 14 ie if I left my job tomorrow I'd have enough money to last for 14 years (1500 USD per month inflation adjusted - inflation rate of 3%, rate of return of 6% after tax). I'm a way off from getting to my goal of 25 years but really keen to make it.

The official rate of inflation already makes your plan flawed; The Unofficial inflation number is around 9%.

It also stands to go up, though I don't believe we'll ever experience the hyperinflation alarmist like to talk about.

IMHO and I don't claim to be an expert but it seems to me you need to project what inflation is going to be 10-15-20 years out and adjust whichever one is easier -

Lifestyle or Income source

However the truth is worst than that, since 1970 on some items vital to being considered "Middle Class" have gone up 200-300%!

Cornfed is right, the economy has been basically stagnant since the 1970's, Dean Baker has been saying this for a very long time actually.

Inflation is hard to get right. 4% might be a better estimate. MD makes a lot of valid points - costs really haven't gone up for the majority of items. In fact, things are cheaper than they've ever been. According to research by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren (I like her economics but not her politics) the only two things that households spend more on now than compared to 1970s are mortgages and cars. An individual car is much cheaper than in the 1970s but households tend to have more than one car nowadays. In the 1950s only 15% per cent of American households had more than one car.

So you're saying selling more cars automatically drove up the cost? Nevermind the technology in cars today compared to 1970.

See again, it's this love affair with the 1950's I have a problem with. You think adding Women to the workforce is solely responsible for the stagnation in wages? Civil Rights laws allowing more Black People to enter the workforce isn't responsible?

What's wrong with Warren's politics?

Housing has gone up for several reason, most of it has nothing to do with mortgages. The Government used housing as a way to inflate the economy after the DOT.COM crash because the housing bubble started in 1989 according to Chris Martenson.

So basically what you're saying is spending habits increased and that has caused the stagnation in wages and the increases in cost?

Many believe Edward Bernays was partly responsible for selling "You need this product to make you feel good" that allowed consumption to increase as incomes went up.

No, I'm saying households are spending more on cars, a lot more, than compared to the 1970s. Rather having one or no cars, households have two or three. The cost of an individual car has never been cheaper.

Never been cheaper? From 1970 to about 2009 when I saw that posted on a blog with some very useful, comparative information; Cars have gone up 200-300%.

The average price of a new car is over $30+K - http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/11/aver ... me-record/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-2 ... us-economy

Where in the world are you getting your information from?

If wages had kept up with the increases in productivity, min wage would be $22 a hour. Since the height of the crisis, productivity has RISEN while wages and overall employment have dropped or been static at about 16% REAL unemployment.

Its you who chose to say that nothing is wrong but blame Feminism instead I have a problem with.

[Cornfed]

If Western men did want to improve their economic situation, then getting together to take some form of industrial action against the corporations screwing them over would be an idea. The only model that has worked in the past is aggressive actions to make it less expensive for corporations to supply decent wages and conditions then not to do so. Yet just when we need aggressive tactics the most, no-one seems to be employing them.

[Rich]

The official rate of inflation already makes your plan flawed; The Unofficial inflation number is around 9%.

It also stands to go up, though I don't believe we'll ever experience the hyperinflation alarmist like to talk about.

IMHO and I don't claim to be an expert but it seems to me you need to project what inflation is going to be 10-15-20 years out and adjust whichever one is easier -

Lifestyle or Income source

However the truth is worst than that, since 1970 on some items vital to being considered "Middle Class" have gone up 200-300%!

Cornfed is right, the economy has been basically stagnant since the 1970's, Dean Baker has been saying this for a very long time actually.

Inflation is hard to get right. 4% might be a better estimate. MD makes a lot of valid points - costs really haven't gone up for the majority of items. In fact, things are cheaper than they've ever been. According to research by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren (I like her economics but not her politics) the only two things that households spend more on now than compared to 1970s are mortgages and cars. An individual car is much cheaper than in the 1970s but households tend to have more than one car nowadays. In the 1950s only 15% per cent of American households had more than one car.

So you're saying selling more cars automatically drove up the cost? Nevermind the technology in cars today compared to 1970.

See again, it's this love affair with the 1950's I have a problem with. You think adding Women to the workforce is solely responsible for the stagnation in wages? Civil Rights laws allowing more Black People to enter the workforce isn't responsible?

What's wrong with Warren's politics?

Housing has gone up for several reason, most of it has nothing to do with mortgages. The Government used housing as a way to inflate the economy after the DOT.COM crash because the housing bubble started in 1989 according to Chris Martenson.

So basically what you're saying is spending habits increased and that has caused the stagnation in wages and the increases in cost?

Many believe Edward Bernays was partly responsible for selling "You need this product to make you feel good" that allowed consumption to increase as incomes went up.

No, I'm saying households are spending more on cars, a lot more, than compared to the 1970s. Rather having one or no cars, households have two or three. The cost of an individual car has never been cheaper.

Never been cheaper? From 1970 to about 2009 when I saw that posted on a blog with some very useful, comparative information; Cars have gone up 200-300%.

The average price of a new car is over $30+K - http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/11/aver ... me-record/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-2 ... us-economy

Where in the world are you getting your information from?

If wages had kept up with the increases in productivity, min wage would be $22 a hour. Since the height of the crisis, productivity has RISEN while wages and overall employment have dropped or been static at about 16% REAL unemployment.

Its you who chose to say that nothing is wrong but blame Feminism instead I have a problem with.

I based my comment's on Elizabeth Warren's work:

http://grad.berkeley.edu/lectures/event ... cturer=102

[xiongmao]

I'm fed up with women for a while, so I'm back on the making money thing.

The good thing about quitting your job is that you then have a GIGANTIC amount of time to do man stuff.

I'm now working on something I thought of, which was triggered by a woman wanting money crisis and a rather brilliant post I just happened to see on my facebook wall.

[S_Parc]

I'm fed up with women for a while, so I'm back on the making money thing.

That's kinda what happened to me, once the big relationship had ended.

I'd gone from a 'near settled down' type to a very active person, getting new work contracts & exercising regularly w/o interruption.

[Jeremy]

Cornfed is spot on. Since everyone works hard, how much money you make is all luck. Getting the right credentials at the right time. Knowing the right people.

If my interviews go well, starting next week I'll be working for minimum wage at a deli during the day and a warehouse at night. Doing actual work, not just schmoozing. At this rate, it's going to take me until I'm 50 to get out of this hell hole.

Go back to school, you say? Didn't work the first time, and I have no interest in spinning the roulette wheel a second time.

[Jester]

If Western men did want to improve their economic situation, then getting together to take some form of industrial action against the corporations screwing them over would be an idea. The only model that has worked in the past is aggressive actions to make it less expensive for corporations to supply decent wages and conditions then not to do so. Yet just when we need aggressive tactics the most, no-one seems to be employing them.

Collective action is not possible without a wall of tariffs to prevent job-shifting.

[Moretorque]

I'm not going to be "rich" by what many people would think of as rich but I am really focussed on having "enough" money. I don't think I have what it takes to be rich but I can get enough money for my needs.

I'm up to year 14 ie if I left my job tomorrow I'd have enough money to last for 14 years (1500 USD per month inflation adjusted - inflation rate of 3%, rate of return of 6% after tax). I'm a way off from getting to my goal of 25 years but really keen to make it.

The official rate of inflation already makes your plan flawed; The Unofficial inflation number is around 9%.

It also stands to go up, though I don't believe we'll ever experience the hyperinflation alarmist like to talk about.

IMHO and I don't claim to be an expert but it seems to me you need to project what inflation is going to be 10-15-20 years out and adjust whichever one is easier -

Lifestyle or Income source

However the truth is worst than that, since 1970 on some items vital to being considered "Middle Class" have gone up 200-300%!

Cornfed is right, the economy has been basically stagnant since the 1970's, Dean Baker has been saying this for a very long time actually.

Inflation is hard to get right. 4% might be a better estimate. MD makes a lot of valid points - costs really haven't gone up for the majority of items. In fact, things are cheaper than they've ever been. According to research by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren (I like her economics but not her politics) the only two things that households spend more on now than compared to 1970s are mortgages and cars. An individual car is much cheaper than in the 1970s but households tend to have more than one car nowadays. In the 1950s only 15% per cent of American households had more than one car.

So you're saying selling more cars automatically drove up the cost? Nevermind the technology in cars today compared to 1970.

See again, it's this love affair with the 1950's I have a problem with. You think adding Women to the workforce is solely responsible for the stagnation in wages? Civil Rights laws allowing more Black People to enter the workforce isn't responsible?

What's wrong with Warren's politics?

Housing has gone up for several reason, most of it has nothing to do with mortgages. The Government used housing as a way to inflate the economy after the DOT.COM crash because the housing bubble started in 1989 according to Chris Martenson.

So basically what you're saying is spending habits increased and that has caused the stagnation in wages and the increases in cost?

Many believe Edward Bernays was partly responsible for selling "You need this product to make you feel good" that allowed consumption to increase as incomes went up.

Oh so the Blackman want to come out and play, you looked like you got upset in that other thread. Enough to cross the country and Kill Me? actually I like your post's and agree with most of what you post and enjoy reading your post " For A Blackman " anyhow I know you do not give a chit. I Have Heard PCR say a few things that were not on Q.

This is the thing people are having a hard time seeing, the money system has no basis in the reality of production side. They duped all of us into believing unbacked currencies which are only tied to our servitude to pay back with interest is a legitimate system for means of trade for our society.

When they got into this they were pretty sure most people were to stupid to see the con, they have unlimited funds to manipulate all society as they see fit, each country is forced into the socialist bankruptcy as our rulers see fit where nothing is backed or tied to something real and they then erect a wall between themselves through legal fiction and the police state they build around the people where they then take everything over by counterfeiting and arrange the world as they see fit.

You need to forget about all goods, services and property being part of the economic equation because all that is out the window when they control the fake money con where they set themselves up with unlimited funds . The whole means of trade is based on a fake foundation where they can drive the whole system as they see fit. Just look at what Bernie Sanders found when he looked at the FED's books for the first time and this is one look.

I am not saying these guy's are wrong, this is the system they has chosen and they have their plan for humanity. This is more than you can say for Daa herd Daa daa daa.

[Moretorque]

Cornfed is spot on. Since everyone works hard, how much money you make is all luck. Getting the right credentials at the right time. Knowing the right people.

If my interviews go well, starting next week I'll be working for minimum wage at a deli during the day and a warehouse at night. Doing actual work, not just schmoozing. At this rate, it's going to take me until I'm 50 to get out of this hell hole.

Go back to school, you say? Didn't work the first time, and I have no interest in spinning the roulette wheel a second time.

You have got to be connected to the fiat currency gravy train! nothing more, your credentials and all that is a joke with this counterfeiting operation. What happens is the non producers start getting to greedy and the civilization collapses because the producers throw the towel in. This is the real reason communism fails. Communism is the exact opposite of what they tell you it is in school boys and girls. It is a system where a parasite class strips the producer class and then says it is for the betterment of society.

This is by far the biggest lie of the last 160 years, probably followed by America but the Commie class took America over so we are really an extension of the communist party!

They did this with the FED act of 1913 in America, the people who are doing this are pretty smart. There are 3 elements to the con, 1 to pull this con off you have got to have unlimited money, how do you have unlimited money? you have to counterfeit! 2 they are armed with the lie, the whole system is based on lies period! 3 And this is what makes it all go. Daa stupidity of Daa herd to believe the lies of the whole system!

Those are the 3 core foundations of the system and how it is implemented is by another 3.

1 the credit monopoly, this guy sits atop the con and steers the boat. 2 the political, legal fiction class, ( Attorneys) to put all of us in a straight jacket and 3 the managerial media military police state class to enforce the dictates of it all. 2 is there mostly to cover the tracts of 1 so no one can see who is really running it all. 1 wants be left alone from prying eyes to steer the ship and reduce all to serfs. when 1 and 2 need enforcement they ramp up 3.

[Cornfed]

If Western men did want to improve their economic situation, then getting together to take some form of industrial action against the corporations screwing them over would be an idea. The only model that has worked in the past is aggressive actions to make it less expensive for corporations to supply decent wages and conditions then not to do so. Yet just when we need aggressive tactics the most, no-one seems to be employing them.

Collective action is not possible without a wall of tariffs to prevent job-shifting.

Many parts of the West are still needed for their natural resources. It should be possible to interdict these resources as they tried to transport them overseas for processing and demand that they be processed into finished products locally by workers being paid decent wages. Similarly, service workers and others whose jobs have to be local could engage in collective action.