Net Worth Disparity among whites and blacks/hispanics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white and I got nothing from my parents and grew up with a single (divorced) mom. The only reason I have a nice lifestyle now, despite going to college (loans), is because I married well.

Ummm...you realize that the bolded part undercuts the first part? You may have not had inter-generational wealth but you married someone who did. And that relative wealth will pass to your children. That's one of the points of the article.

Right, however the person I married is a 1st generation immigrant that came from nothing. He isn't black but he still was highly disadvantaged and did well for himself.

I am a 1%er who is the first generation to go to college (lower class) married to a first generation to go to college (lower middle class). We benefited from no inter generational wealth transfer. In fact, the wealth transfer has been reverse.

And you will end up transferring a ton of wealth to your kids.

So? I have earned it.

No one "earns" becoming a 1%er. If earn had anything to do with it the vast majority would be 1%ers and that mathematically just isn't possible.

. Wrong. Earned every damn penny after paying my own way through school.

[Anonymous]

Actually, most of the 1%ers I know earned their money. Only a couple inherited or are set to inherit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white and I got nothing from my parents and grew up with a single (divorced) mom. The only reason I have a nice lifestyle now, despite going to college (loans), is because I married well.

Ummm...you realize that the bolded part undercuts the first part? You may have not had inter-generational wealth but you married someone who did. And that relative wealth will pass to your children. That's one of the points of the article.

Right, however the person I married is a 1st generation immigrant that came from nothing. He isn't black but he still was highly disadvantaged and did well for himself.

I am a 1%er who is the first generation to go to college (lower class) married to a first generation to go to college (lower middle class). We benefited from no inter generational wealth transfer. In fact, the wealth transfer has been reverse.

And you will end up transferring a ton of wealth to your kids.

So? I have earned it.

But they didn't, and that is the issue of intergenerational wealth.

There is no "issue" of generational wealth except resentment and envy. I came from nothing and made something of myself. Others can do the same and their children can benefit. Envy and resentment...

I am the pp, and I can't see why I would be jealous of you since I am independently wealthy.

The fact remains that we both will transfer our wealth to our children. It's not wrong, but it's an advantage. And our grandkids will be even more advantaged. Poor people do not start out like that. Sure, some of them will make it, but it's going to take a combination of unusual dedication, talent, and luck. Our kids won't need talent or luck. They'll need a reasonable amount of dedication, and they will be fine.

[Anonymous]

A lot of this is about choices. Some middle income people spend every penny they earn--and some save and invest-results being that the savers have more in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Another PP here. No doubt you guys earned your money! I sure as hell earned mine. I am White and even I can admit that being White helped put me in a position to earn it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of this is about choices. Some middle income people spend every penny they earn--and some save and invest-results being that the savers have more in the long run.

Some but not all of it is about choices. Let's be honest, if you are a lower paid worker, you aren't going to build a nest egg by clipping coupons and taking a bag lunch to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of this is about choices. Some middle income people spend every penny they earn--and some save and invest-results being that the savers have more in the long run.

That is too simplistic. Some middle income people I knew invested religiously and had all their savings wiped out in the downturn. I lot of savers and investors were ruined. I think I have a problem with what you said because you are heading down that slippery slope of people "choose" whether to be rich or successful. It is not that simple.

[Anonymous]

That is too simplistic. Some middle income people I knew invested religiously and had all their savings wiped out in the downturn. I lot of savers and investors were ruined. I think I have a problem with what you said because you are heading down that slippery slope of people "choose" whether to be rich or successful. It is not that simple.

No. It is not that simple. But, if you don't do those things, for sure you won't get ahead. We all can do those comparisons in our own families.

[Anonymous]

Some but not all of it is about choices. Let's be honest, if you are a lower paid worker, you aren't going to build a nest egg by clipping coupons and taking a bag lunch to work.

No. But, it helps. It worked for my parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some but not all of it is about choices. Let's be honest, if you are a lower paid worker, you aren't going to build a nest egg by clipping coupons and taking a bag lunch to work.

No. But, it helps. It worked for my parents.

It is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, most of the 1%ers I know earned their money. Only a couple inherited or are set to inherit.

All depends on how you define earned. For most earned means being paid for you time. You work 8 hours you get paid for 8 hours. The only way you can become a 1%er is to be getting a whole bunch of money when your doing nothing.

Let's take a book for example. You decide to write a book and you spend 8 hours a day for 3 months writing the book. That's roughly 720 hours of work. The publisher takes the book, markets it, and it sells 1 million copies. You get a royalty check for 5 million dollars. So you basically "earned" $5,000,000 / 720 = $6,944.44 an hour to write the book. Now if you hired someone to work for you would you pay then $6,944.44 an hour?

Or another more drastic example, the lottery. You take 15 minutes of your time and go by a lottery ticket with numbers you laboriously pick. That night they draw the number and you win $250,000,000. Did you "earn" that money?

Getting money is one thing, earning it is another. There not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white and I got nothing from my parents and grew up with a single (divorced) mom. The only reason I have a nice lifestyle now, despite going to college (loans), is because I married well.

Ummm...you realize that the bolded part undercuts the first part? You may have not had inter-generational wealth but you married someone who did. And that relative wealth will pass to your children. That's one of the points of the article.

Right, however the person I married is a 1st generation immigrant that came from nothing. He isn't black but he still was highly disadvantaged and did well for himself.

I am a 1%er who is the first generation to go to college (lower class) married to a first generation to go to college (lower middle class). We benefited from no inter generational wealth transfer. In fact, the wealth transfer has been reverse.

And you will end up transferring a ton of wealth to your kids.

So? I have earned it.

But they didn't, and that is the issue of intergenerational wealth.

There is no "issue" of generational wealth except resentment and envy. I came from nothing and made something of myself. Others can do the same and their children can benefit. Envy and resentment...

I am the pp, and I can't see why I would be jealous of you since I am independently wealthy.

The fact remains that we both will transfer our wealth to our children. It's not wrong, but it's an advantage. And our grandkids will be even more advantaged. Poor people do not start out like that. Sure, some of them will make it, but it's going to take a combination of unusual dedication, talent, and luck. Our kids won't need talent or luck. They'll need a reasonable amount of dedication, and they will be fine.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that I was one of the "poor people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, most of the 1%ers I know earned their money. Only a couple inherited or are set to inherit.

All depends on how you define earned. For most earned means being paid for you time. You work 8 hours you get paid for 8 hours. The only way you can become a 1%er is to be getting a whole bunch of money when your doing nothing.

Let's take a book for example. You decide to write a book and you spend 8 hours a day for 3 months writing the book. That's roughly 720 hours of work. The publisher takes the book, markets it, and it sells 1 million copies. You get a royalty check for 5 million dollars. So you basically "earned" $5,000,000 / 720 = $6,944.44 an hour to write the book. Now if you hired someone to work for you would you pay then $6,944.44 an hour?

Or another more drastic example, the lottery. You take 15 minutes of your time and go by a lottery ticket with numbers you laboriously pick. That night they draw the number and you win $250,000,000. Did you "earn" that money?

Getting money is one thing, earning it is another. There not the same thing.

What a skewed view of "earning" you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, most of the 1%ers I know earned their money. Only a couple inherited or are set to inherit.

All depends on how you define earned. For most earned means being paid for you time. You work 8 hours you get paid for 8 hours. The only way you can become a 1%er is to be getting a whole bunch of money when your doing nothing.

Let's take a book for example. You decide to write a book and you spend 8 hours a day for 3 months writing the book. That's roughly 720 hours of work. The publisher takes the book, markets it, and it sells 1 million copies. You get a royalty check for 5 million dollars. So you basically "earned" $5,000,000 / 720 = $6,944.44 an hour to write the book. Now if you hired someone to work for you would you pay then $6,944.44 an hour?

Or another more drastic example, the lottery. You take 15 minutes of your time and go by a lottery ticket with numbers you laboriously pick. That night they draw the number and you win $250,000,000. Did you "earn" that money?

Getting money is one thing, earning it is another. There not the same thing.

What a skewed view of "earning" you have.

According to Webster
earn = to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, most of the 1%ers I know earned their money. Only a couple inherited or are set to inherit.

All depends on how you define earned. For most earned means being paid for you time. You work 8 hours you get paid for 8 hours. The only way you can become a 1%er is to be getting a whole bunch of money when your doing nothing.

Let's take a book for example. You decide to write a book and you spend 8 hours a day for 3 months writing the book. That's roughly 720 hours of work. The publisher takes the book, markets it, and it sells 1 million copies. You get a royalty check for 5 million dollars. So you basically "earned" $5,000,000 / 720 = $6,944.44 an hour to write the book. Now if you hired someone to work for you would you pay then $6,944.44 an hour?

Or another more drastic example, the lottery. You take 15 minutes of your time and go by a lottery ticket with numbers you laboriously pick. That night they draw the number and you win $250,000,000. Did you "earn" that money?

Getting money is one thing, earning it is another. There not the same thing.

What a skewed view of "earning" you have.

According to Webster
earn = to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered

. So the effort the author puts is indeed earnings... Just because he or she didn't Ypsilanti away at a minimum wage job doesn't mean the proceeds of the sale aren't earnings. The same applies to the software developer, the doctor, the attorney, e scientist, etc. just because they aren't low paying jobs doesn't mean that the product of their labor does not qualify as earnings.