More Millionaires

[jeffrey]

According to a new study by Spectrem Group, there are now more than 7.5 million millionaire families in the US. This is a 21% increase from the previous year and the largest increase since 1998. The 7.5 million millionaire families also broke the the previous record of 7.1 million millionaire families in 1999. The study excluded primary residences, but did include second homes and other real estate to calculate the million dollar wealth.

Another survey released by Boston Consulting Group showed that the US beats the rest of the world in creating new millionaires. This study showed that the number of households with liquid assets exceeding $20 million is increasing by some 3,000 families a year.

[VJW]

This data coordinates nicely with the fact that the Poverty Rate, the long-term Unemployment Rate, the number of uninsured, and the federal deficits and debt, have all increased in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, every year that this administration has been in power.

[JLP]

Originally Posted by VJW

This data coordinates nicely with the fact that the Poverty Rate, the long-term Unemployment Rate, the number of uninsured, and the federal deficits and debt, have all increased in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, every year that this administration has been in power.

Hmmm... that could also be due to the clinton bust that began BEFORE he left office. This is America. If you want to get ahead, you can. It's that simple.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by JLP

Hmmm... that could also be due to the clinton bust that began BEFORE he left office.

No it couldn't, as there was no "bust" during President Clinton's two terms. There was no recession during President Clinton's two terms either.

This is America. If you want to get ahead, you can. It's that simple.

* Then why did 86% of the wealthy either inherit their wealth or greatly benefit from their family's wealth ?

* And why is there very little economic mobility in America today ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/na...gewanted=print

You're wrong again.

#

[JLP]

I believe the NASDAQ (an excellent indicator of the clinton bubble) peaked in March of 2000. Then it fell bigtime the rest of the year. Bush took office in 2001. Tell me HOW this didn't happen under clinton!

Why is there very little mobility in America today? Because people are too busy buying stuff. They would rather have the fancy cars and the boats and nice houses rather than save money for retirement. Anybody can achieve success in America.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by JLP

I believe the NASDAQ (an excellent indicator of the clinton bubble) peaked in March of 2000. Then it fell bigtime the rest of the year. Bush took office in 2001. Tell me HOW this didn't happen under clinton!

A) There was no "Clinton bubble".

B) The NASDAQ fell because of the 'Internet Bubble', the stocks of which encompassed that exchange. Anyone who didn't know that was a bubble was a fool.

C) The 'Internet Bubble' was a very TINY FRACTION of the overall national economy, which grew at 5% GDP in 2000.

Why is there very little mobility in America today? Because people are too busy buying stuff. They would rather have the fancy cars and the boats and nice houses rather than save money for retirement.

That's NOT "economic mobility".

Anybody can achieve success in America.

Then why has Poverty INCREASED every year of the last four years ? Why is Long-term Unemployment the HIGHEST in three decades ? Why are bankruptcies at the HIGHEST level in history ? Why are home foreclosures at the HIGHEST level in history ? Why has the 'Standard of Living' of the vast majority of American workers gone BACKWARDS every year of the last four years ?

#

[skipper]

I completly agree we cant blame everything on Bush this is classic trickle down it started with Clinton and trickled down and became Bush's problem which he is trying to fix. These things take time to get into and more time to get out of

[JLP]

Originally Posted by VJW

A) There was no "Clinton bubble".

But it happened under clinton's watch! Think back to the mid-90s. The economy was booming because of the internet. People were going nuts over anything that had to do with the internet.

Originally Posted by VJW

C) The 'Internet Bubble' was a very TINY FRACTION of the overall national economy, which grew at 5% GDP in 2000.

Everybody knows that the market precedes a recession. The peak was during clinton's administration. Democrats seem to forget that.

Originally Posted by VJW

Then why has Poverty INCREASED every year of the last four years ? Why is Long-term Unemployment the HIGHEST in three decades ? Why are bankruptcies at the HIGHEST level in history ? Why are home foreclosures at the HIGHEST level in history ? Why has the 'Standard of Living' of the vast majority of American workers gone BACKWARDS every year of the last four years ?

Explain to me how any of this is directly Bush's fault. We went through a recession. Regarding bankruptcies: I would think it is because people are in too much debt. What about personal responsibility? Is it President Bush's job to make people more personally responsible?

[VJW]

Originally Posted by skipper

I completly agree we cant blame everything on Bush this is classic trickle down it started with Clinton

Care to explain how "trickle down" "started with Clinton" ???

and trickled down and became Bush's problem which he is trying to fix.

He's "tying to fix" it ?

YOU ARE KIDDING ?

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by JLP

But it happened under clinton's watch!

If there was no economic bubble, how could it have happened under "Clinton's watch" ?

Think back to the mid-90s. The economy was booming because of the internet.

I'm afraid not.

The internet was a TINY FRACTION of the overall national economy.

Overall retail sales in 2000 amounted to more than $3.2 Trillion. On-line retail sales in 2000 amounted to something like $50 Million.

I'll let you do the math.

People were going nuts over anything that had to do with the internet.

Yes, that explained the foolish 'Internet Bubble' within NASDAQ

Everybody knows that the market precedes a recession.

Everyone knows (or should) that the "market" has predicted TWENTY of the last nine recessions.

Explain to me how any of this is directly Bush's fault.

He implemented failed economic policies.

We went through a recession.

And ?

Regarding bankruptcies: I would think it is because people are in too much debt.

And you would be wrong.

The largest number of bankruptcies (almost half) are because of inability to pay medical bills (and the majority of them HAD insurance). The next largest segment (almost another third) are from job loss, which is at record levels.

Next ?

What about personal responsibility?

Ask the Bushies. They've irresponsibly piled up trillions of dollars of federal debt.

Is it President Bush's job to make people more personally responsible?

Non–sequitur.

#

[rockymamen]

All happens in...United States! Normal!

[JLP]

VJW,

I gotta hand it to you: you have an answer for everything. Unfortunately, most of them are pure drivel. You won't admit we had a bubble, which clearly we did. Sure, you say it was a tech bubble but it was much larger than that. The economic troubles this nation has had also started while clinton was still in office, but you ignore that.

You need to spend some time learning economics.

I'm through with you. Come back one year!

[elefriend]

Is this from Bush's tax policies!?

[VJW]

Originally Posted by JLP

VJW,

I gotta hand it to you: you have an answer for everything.

Just the facts.

Unfortunately, most of them are pure drivel.

Too bad you're not able to substantiate that mindless belief.

You won't admit we had a bubble, which clearly we did.

Another myth you cannot substantiate.

Sure, you say it was a tech bubble

Actually, I wrote that it was an "Internet Bubble".

The economic troubles this nation has had also started while clinton was still in office, but you ignore that.

Easy to ignore unsubstantiated fantasy.

The Boy Emperor Clown inherited the longest economic expansion in American history, federal budget surpluses, the lowest unemployment in four decades, record drops in poverty rates, and the creation of 22 million net new jobs.

You need to spend some time learning economics.

I'll allow others to determine who is in need of remedial classes in economics.

I'm through with you. Come back one year!

You obviously cannot even support your own misguided assertions.

BYE !

#

[nixuzer]

Originally Posted by VJW

* Then why did 86% of the wealthy either inherit their wealth or greatly benefit from their family's wealth ?

Can you provide where you got that number from?

Also, please define the term 'wealthy.' Are you referring to the top 1% or 2% or 5% of the U.S. population or the top 1% or 2% or (you get the point) of the worlds population?

[VJW]

Originally Posted by nixuzer

Can you provide where you got that number from?

It is derived from the Forbes 400 list.

Every year, subsequent to the release of the list of richest Americans, a study is released which divides the list into those who inherited enough wealth to automatically make them a member of the Forbes 400, those who inherited substantial wealth but not quite enough to get them on the list, those who inherited enough wealth to make them mere millionaires, and those who did not inherit their wealth but benefited greatly from their family's largess.

An example of the last category is Bill Gates, who although he did not inherit his wealth, was greatly benefited by his parents affluence. Gates himself admitted that if he had to work and attend college simultaneously as many of his fellow students did, instead of being completely underwritten by his parents, he would never have had the time to stay up all night, drink Coke, and write computer code.

Also, please define the term 'wealthy.' Are you referring to the top 1% or 2% or 5% of the U.S. population or the top 1% or 2% or (you get the point) of the worlds population?

The reference is to Americans, not the world, to American taxpayers not the general populous, and the IRS divides taxpayers into five quintiles, with the lowest quintile representing the Poor, the middle three quintiles the Middle-class (Lower, Middle, & Upper), and the top quintile the Wealthy. Generally speaking, I was referencing the top 2.0% to 2.2% of wealthiest taxpayers.

#

[nixuzer]

Originally Posted by VJW

a study is released which divides the list into those who inherited enough wealth to automatically make them a member of the Forbes 400

Is this study a Forbes study? If not would you mind giving the source?

Originally Posted by VJW

Generally speaking, I was referencing the top 2.0% to 2.2% of wealthiest taxpayers.

Not sure if you've read The Millionaire Next Door but it is a great book that is the result of a 6 month intensive study of over 1,000 millionaires. It provides a plethora of statistics a few of which I'll give below (these are based on 1996 statistics).

- 3.5% of American households have a net worth of $1 Million or more.
- Two-thirds of millionaires who are not retired are self-employed.
- Their average total annual taxable household income is $131,000
- Their average net worth is $3.7 million while the median (50th percentile) have a net worth of $1.6 million
- Approx. 80% are first time millionaires.
- Only 17% of them or their spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school
- On average, they invest nearly 20% of their household realized income each year.

I might be missing some of what your saying however the research I've been doing over the last 5 years on millionaires it really comes down to living below your income (based on above about 20% below). Many people choose to live in the now instead of looking to the future.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by nixuzer

Is this study a Forbes study?

It is taken directly from the Forbes 400 list.

Not sure if you've read The Millionaire Next Door but it is a great book that is the result of a 6 month intensive study of over 1,000 millionaires.

Actually, the book is based upon a SURVEY. You are aware that surveys tend to be heavily self-supporting and self–aggrandizing ? If, for example, you phone people and ask them if they attend church every Sunday, they will respond in the affirmative in percentages FAR above the number of people actually sitting in the pews on Sunday. The same kind of skew applies to questions regarding finances.

Two-thirds of millionaires who are not retired are self-employed.

If this is meant to mean that 2/3rds are self-made self-employed millionaires, then that is impossible, as something close to 45% of just those on the Forbes 400 list inherited enough to get them on the list. Then, since the last person on the bottom of the list is worth 3/4 of a billion dollars, there would be everybody between there and just above one million to contend with.

On the other hand, if it is meant to mean that 2/3rds are millionaires that happen to be self-employed, then that's not really saying all that much as it would be no big deal for a millionaire to buy or start a business.

Approx. 80% are first time millionaires.

Again, if this is meant to mean that they did not inherit the money, that would be impossible, for the same reason as above, only more so.

I might be missing some of what your saying however the research I've been doing over the last 5 years on millionaires it really comes down to living below your income.

The trouble with this hypothesis is that the "million" that one might potentially accumulate several decades later will not be worth anywhere near what a million does today. As they say, a million isn't worth what it used to be.

But it's the dubious assumption that living 20% below one's income and investing the remains is what really confirms the weakness in such an ideology. If you examine the stock market performance over the previous century:

1901-1921, real returns averaged 0.2%/year
1929-1949, real returns averaged 0.4%/year
1966-1986, real returns averaged 1.9%/year

Then there's the matter of the large negative performance so far in this century.

#

[nixuzer]

Actually I'd have to say that you're looking to shoot holes in any research related to millionaires due to your disbelief (at least that is how I'm reading your responses) in the ability of the average person to become a millionaire. Over the years I've become close friends with 4 different people that have net worths well in excess of a million dollars and of them only one would come from a household that I'd say in any way contributed to their becoming wealthy. Of the 4, 2 did become wealthy due to their owning their own business and the other two did it through chosing careers that paid above the median American salary. Of these four I'm not talking about the informercial real estate people that are in debt up to their eyeballs and have 'equity' in their real estate holding, these are people with liquidity of $1,000,000+ (in other words if something bad happened they could get their hands on a million or more dollars within a matter of a couple of days). They would agree with Ted Turners quote that the first million dollars was the hardest to make.

Since I'm younger (35) I'm not exposed to as many people that would tend to have higher net worths than someone that is in their 50's or 60's (since the 'average' millionaire doesn't attain their wealth until their in their 50's or later). There are also probably another dozen people I've met that I'd say are on their way to becoming millionaires due to their frugality of lifestyle combined with their ability to search for opportunities that have a realistic opportunity to make money (not going after the 'become wealth in 5 years with our plan').

Most of the statistics about consumer spending and debt would support that most people enjoy their stuff more than they enjoy saving. My experience would also support this, As I've tried to help people over the last handful of years they continue to amaze me in they just don't get (like I didn't for awhile in my adult life) how saving just a small portion of their income will get them in a position to earn a decent nestegg later in life.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by nixuzer

Actually I'd have to say that you're looking to shoot holes in any research related to millionaires due to your disbelief (at least that is how I'm reading your responses) in the ability of the average person to become a millionaire.

Then you would be wrong.

Lot's of "average people" have become millionaires, just not at the massively overinflated rate that you presume. Here is a report detailing how numerous average people, with names like Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway, Jerry Fiddler of Wind River Systems, Maceo Sloan of Sloan Financial Group, and Jim Sherblom of Genzyme, did it:

PDF REPORT

#