4 ms·

I'm doubling down because you haven't offered an explanation of what your counterfactual is. As best as I can guess, are implying that were something to be diff

I'm doubling down because you haven't offered an explanation of what your counterfactual is. As best as I can guess, are implying that were something to be different, the outcomes will be different, whether that is that people who bust their ass will become truly wealthy (which again, you have not defined) or perhaps that people who don't bust their ass will also be better off. I want to know what that something is, in what way it should be different, and why you think that difference will lead to the difference in outcomes you anticipate.

rco8786 4y ago
I’m not sure why you could possibly want all of that information from me. My original response was about how “kids these days” expect “ass busting results without the ass busting”, and I was pointing out that that is definitely not the case with OP’s job offer of $25-30/hr plus overtime, which is the exact opposite…ass busting without the results. But if you must, Let’s say somewhere in the top 50% of asset holders is a reasonable line for “wealth”. Do with that whatever you like.
- prottog 4y ago
  According to the Federal Reserve[0], the median household net worth (that is, the assets that a family holds minus its liabilities) in the US is $122k, which means that owning free and clear even a modest home in a modest area -- like in the life I've described -- would already put you at the 50th percentile or above. Among households that hold at least one asset, to filter out those who don't own anything, the median sits at $228k. Again, that's a nice home in a modest area or a modest home in a nice area, even before the recent real estate craze. Or from another perspective, someone making $60k a year (full-time employment at $25-30 an hour with no raises ever, which is an unreasonable assumption) who works for 40 years and manages a slightly above-average (remember, ass-busting) savings rate[1] of 10% will have that by the end of their career. We can conservatively assume that by investing their savings in a broad-market index fund they can at least match inflation. Which is to say, entering the top 50% of asset holders from below is by no means unreasonable even for someone who isn't making a cushy $400k a year working at a FAANG. It just won't be overnight and it will take some amount of busting ass. Your perception of how wealthy the median person (or asset-holder) is may be skewed by what you observe in a presumably very wealthy location. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
  - rco8786 4y ago
    I said "somewhere in the top 50%", not 50th percentile. I was being purposefully vague so that you wouldn't do exactly what you have done and try to pick apart whatever definition of wealth was brought forward. If you like, you can pretend that I said "90th" percentile exactly is the exact demarcation of wealth. Or take 50% as the mean and it's ~$750k net worth. Or take a definition of "poll 1,000 randomly selected Americans if your example is a wealthy person and take the majority vote". Go ahead and take those down also, if that's how you'd like to spend your time. Even the "$100k" house your example uses does not get you to the median (you don't get to casually add 20%+ to the house value just to get to the median). And you're, again, still living in a tiny house in the poorest areas with the worst amenities, the worst healthcare, the worst education, the worst economic prospects for your children, the worst obesity, the worst of the opioid epidemic, etc, effectively zero disposable income, zero college savings, zero travel, crappy old used cars, thrift shop clothing, pinching every penny just to pay down your mortgage quickly and get to the 40-45th percentile of wealth statistically. Worth it? Not for me. It's a perfectly "fine" life, if that's what you want. It does not meet a reasonable definition of wealth in the US. You can stop any time.

rco8786 4y ago

I’m not sure why you could possibly want all of that information from me. My original response was about how “kids these days” expect “ass busting results without the ass busting”, and I was pointing out that that is definitely not the case with OP’s job offer of $25-30/hr plus overtime, which is the exact opposite…ass busting without the results. But if you must, Let’s say somewhere in the top 50% of asset holders is a reasonable line for “wealth”. Do with that whatever you like.

prottog 4y ago
According to the Federal Reserve[0], the median household net worth (that is, the assets that a family holds minus its liabilities) in the US is $122k, which means that owning free and clear even a modest home in a modest area -- like in the life I've described -- would already put you at the 50th percentile or above. Among households that hold at least one asset, to filter out those who don't own anything, the median sits at $228k. Again, that's a nice home in a modest area or a modest home in a nice area, even before the recent real estate craze. Or from another perspective, someone making $60k a year (full-time employment at $25-30 an hour with no raises ever, which is an unreasonable assumption) who works for 40 years and manages a slightly above-average (remember, ass-busting) savings rate[1] of 10% will have that by the end of their career. We can conservatively assume that by investing their savings in a broad-market index fund they can at least match inflation. Which is to say, entering the top 50% of asset holders from below is by no means unreasonable even for someone who isn't making a cushy $400k a year working at a FAANG. It just won't be overnight and it will take some amount of busting ass. Your perception of how wealthy the median person (or asset-holder) is may be skewed by what you observe in a presumably very wealthy location. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
- rco8786 4y ago
  I said "somewhere in the top 50%", not 50th percentile. I was being purposefully vague so that you wouldn't do exactly what you have done and try to pick apart whatever definition of wealth was brought forward. If you like, you can pretend that I said "90th" percentile exactly is the exact demarcation of wealth. Or take 50% as the mean and it's ~$750k net worth. Or take a definition of "poll 1,000 randomly selected Americans if your example is a wealthy person and take the majority vote". Go ahead and take those down also, if that's how you'd like to spend your time. Even the "$100k" house your example uses does not get you to the median (you don't get to casually add 20%+ to the house value just to get to the median). And you're, again, still living in a tiny house in the poorest areas with the worst amenities, the worst healthcare, the worst education, the worst economic prospects for your children, the worst obesity, the worst of the opioid epidemic, etc, effectively zero disposable income, zero college savings, zero travel, crappy old used cars, thrift shop clothing, pinching every penny just to pay down your mortgage quickly and get to the 40-45th percentile of wealth statistically. Worth it? Not for me. It's a perfectly "fine" life, if that's what you want. It does not meet a reasonable definition of wealth in the US. You can stop any time.