Do you think like a millionaire?
Millionaire thinking
What traits do you share with millionaires?
I'm pretty optimistic. (I'm delusionally so
, I teach children.)
I'm making money doing what I love.
I have a plan.
I'm pretty frugal.
/soup nazi voice "No new car for you!"
8)
Nick
What traits do you share with millionaires?
I'm pretty optimistic. (I'm delusionally so
, I teach children.)I'm making money doing what I love.
I have a plan.
I'm pretty frugal.
/soup nazi voice "No new car for you!"
8)
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Millionaire thinking
What traits do you share with millionaires?
I'm pretty optimistic. (I'm delusionally so
I'm making money doing what I love.
I have a plan.
I'm pretty frugal.
/soup nazi voice "No new car for you!"
8)
Nick
I vary between being very optimistic and very pessimistic, so that's a wash.
I'm making money... sometimes I love it, sometimes...
I have a plan.
I'm a cheap, cheap, cheap bastard.
Here's an example: Researchers surveyed the Yale class of 1953, and found that 3 percent had written down financial goals for their futures at their college graduation. When the group reconvened in 1973, this 3 percent of the class that had started their careers with some kind of plan controlled more combined net worth than the other 97 percent combined.
now THAT is impressive.
The problem with an overview or rough survey like this is that it only looks at the winners, but not the losers. It may be true that if you don't think like this, your odds of financial success are low. But what would be more interesting to know is how many people think like this, yet still fail to become rich? How many people keep going like this until that wonderful optimism fails? If you only go around asking the rich how they succeeded, you'll never find out.
I'd also say that in some cases there can be an ugly side to getting rich. You're not going to get such info out of casual interviews with prominent business men and feel-good financial success books. I've been exposed to some venture capitalists who seemed to enjoy their successes the most because of the pleasure of making someone else lose to them. I truly think some of the rich prefer win-lose games to win-win games because they have a belligerent desire to crush others along the way.
For some of the rich, building and maintaining wealth is a whatever-it-takes game. Worrying about ethics is for suckers. Worrying about legality is only important to the extent that you don't get caught, or don't get yourself into a bind that "connections" and expensive lawyers won't be able to fix.
One thing the rich seldom want to credit is luck. Of course, if you only ask the people who've succeeded at becoming rich, and not ask those who have failed, is it terribly surprising that the winners are going to credit how they played their cards more than they credit which cards they were dealt?
All this said, I probably will be a millionaire myself before I retire, but that's only because a million dollars isn't what it used to be. Simply having a good paying job like I have now and investing in my 401K and Roth IRA (I do have that attribute of being frugal), I can easily have a few million saved by retirement -- but that amount of money after 25 years of inflation is only going to ensure a comfortable, but far-from-opulent life style.
I saw a survey in Fortune that said something like "80% of CEOs had dogs when they were kids!" They then went on and on about how dogs might build leadership characteristics, people skills, yadda yadda.
Well, of course, it didn't say how many non-CEOs had dogs as kids. Maybe it's 85%, and dogs make you less likely to be a CEO. Furthermore, it's possible that wealthier people have dogs, and wealthier people are more likely to become CEOs.
I wonder about these types of survey if some of the "millionare thinking" comes after they have the money, or maybe because they come from a family with money in the first place. There is no causal effect of this thinking, the causal direction is the other way around.
that's hard to credit as a fluke.
Originally posted by alcimedes
except the segment i quoted above is huge. the 3% who had a plan in college controlled 95% (sic - original text said 97%*) of the total wealth 20 years later?
that's hard to credit as a fluke.
I'm willing to believe that being that being the kind of person who plans ahead early in life is going to be a contributing factor to success, but without more data, I'd say that the odds are high that the magnitude of this effect seen here is a fluke.
The statistic is only for one graduating class at one school for one year. How would this hold up in for Harvard 1953? Yale 1954? Moose Bottom Community College 1973?
How many of that 3% contributed to that more-than-the-other-97%-have wealth? One or two stray billionaires in that 3% would really throw off the statistics. I have no idea how many people were in Yale's class of 1953, but let's say it was 1000. That would mean that roughly 30 students wrote down their future financial plans. If one or two billionaires were the major contributors to the high aggregate future wealth of that 3%, it could mean that 28-29 students didn't gain much, if anything at all, from the write-it-down effect. Also, if the wealth were so concentrated in a small number of individuals in that 3%, the apparent write-it-down effect could easily be mere coincidence.
One should never be too impressed with such a carefully hand-picked statistic. It's at best an interesting anecdote until much more statistical rigor is applied.
*Additionally, though still an impressive disparity, the original text does not say the 3% had 95% or 97% of the wealth. It said that the 3% write-it-downers had more combined wealth than the remaining 97% who weren't so forward planning. The 3% could have had any portion of the total wealth of the entire graduating class over 50% for this claim to be made.
Originally posted by alcimedes
except the segment i quoted above is huge. the 3% who had a plan in college controlled 95% of the total wealth 20 years later?
that's hard to credit as a fluke.
That is an amazing stat. And I believe that planning is critical for success in anything - much more so than an optimismistic personality which I believe has as many cons and pros.
But it technically still could be the reverse causal direction: It could be that those 3% planners came from family money and were taught how to think about money. Then they simply inherited money. So 'having money -> thinking like a millionare,' rather than 'thinking like a millionare -> getting money.'
[edit] optimismistic? what the hell is that?
I want to enjoy life, not to be the slave of a deverous money ambition.
I will not refuse some millions, but it's too late for me for Santa Klaus.
Originally posted by BRussell
That is an amazing stat. And I believe that planning is critical for success in anything - much more so than an optimismistic personality which I believe has as many cons and pros.
But it technically still could be the reverse causal direction: It could be that those 3% planners came from family money and were taught how to think about money. Then they simply inherited money. So 'having money -> thinking like a millionare,' rather than 'thinking like a millionare -> getting money.'
[edit] optimismistic? what the hell is that?
Not to be rude BRussell, but the article specifically mentions the traits of SELF MADE millionaires.
Nick
P.S. For all you folks who put on facade of not caring about money, you make some very silly assumptions about the trade-offs.
Originally posted by trumptman
Not to be rude BRussell, but the article specifically mentions the traits of SELF MADE millionaires.
Not to be rude, trumptman, but the particular statistic in question in no way limits itself to self-made millionaires, even if that is the subject of the article from which the statistic came. You can bet that a lot of those Yalies in that 3% came from money and were surrounded by money.
Originally posted by shetline
Not to be rude, trumptman, but the particular statistic in question in no way limits itself to self-made millionaires, even if that is the subject of the article from which the statistic came. You can bet that a lot of those Yalies in that 3% came from money and were surrounded by money.
I know but he made another post earlier concerning neither that stat or the article, but dogs....
I wonder about these types of survey if some of the "millionare thinking" comes after they have the money, or maybe because they come from a family with money in the first place. There is no causal effect of this thinking, the causal direction is the other way around.
If he wants to dispute some of the attributes listed and associated with the article, I am fine with that. However just chanting, "old money, old money," doesn't add much.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If he wants to dispute some of the attributes listed and associated with the article, I am fine with that. However just chanting, "old money, old money," doesn't add much.
Well, shetline?
Originally posted by BRussell
Well, shetline?
Who, me?
Originally posted by Towel
Google is your friend. And the Class of '53 anecdote is a myth.
Good catch! Makes you wonder how much hard-hitting research went into the rest of the article, and how much the article derives from the enormous swarm of Memes That Refuse to Die.
But what the hell? It's all about inspiration, not information. Why sweat the facts?
Originally posted by shetline
Who, me?
I don't like to argue with trumptman. He's mean.
well, i guess there's no point lying about something unless it's going to be impressive.