Millionaires in the making-CNN
I was looking around the CNN financial pages and came across this very cool feature they have been running. It looks at folks with the millionaire mind, notes their net-worth and debts and discusses what they do that leads to their success. As I read through the articles it sounds like there are a lot of shared values and mindsets. You hear things about simplicity even though they are worth tons. They sort of sound like variations on a theme but are all unique.
What do you guys and gals think?
Couple 1
Couple 2
Couple 3
Couple 4
BTW if anyone else know sof a feature like this that profiles couples and how wealth is accumulated, please post links because I find it enjoyable reading.
Nick
What do you guys and gals think?
Couple 1
Couple 2
Couple 3
Couple 4
BTW if anyone else know sof a feature like this that profiles couples and how wealth is accumulated, please post links because I find it enjoyable reading.
Nick
Comments
Then I'll be impressed.
These "Millionaire in the making" titles don't even include a question mark after that phrase -- the articles act like future wealth is a fait accompli.
I'm not saying that there aren't good things to be learned about the value of frugality and financial planning, I just think that there's a lot of financial failure and financial mediocrity that doesn't get tallied up, because it's rare that the stories of the losers are told. The stories about the winners get all of the attention.
How do you succeed in business? Well, ask someone successful, of course! The fact that a hundred other people might have tried the same things to get rich and failed won't come out, however. Why ask losers how to do anything?
These kinds of articles seem designed to appeal to the "luck is for losers" point of view. Something to make people are financially successful, or plan to be, feel good that wealth is a sign that they've be smart and frugal and daring enough in all the right ways, while anyone else who doesn't get the brass ring just didn't try hard enough.
Of course, "millionaire," meaning simply someone with a net worth of one million dollars or more, isn't a very impressive standard of huge financial success these. I'm well on my way to having more than that put away for retirement at age 65.
Originally posted by shetline
I'm not saying that there aren't good things to be learned about the value of frugality and financial planning, I just think that there's a lot of financial failure and financial mediocrity that doesn't get tallied up, because it's rare that the stories of the losers are told. The stories about the winners get all of the attention.
Very good point
These kinds of articles seem designed to appeal to the "luck is for losers" point of view. Something to make people are financially successful, or plan to be, feel good that wealth is a sign that they've be smart and frugal and daring enough in all the right ways, while anyone else who doesn't get the brass ring just didn't try hard enough.
How true. You know, I know quite a few people that have fallen ass-backwards into 'success,' which seems to mean being stupid enough to not think about the repercussions of actions. Somehow the US is set up to help these people succeed. Go figure.
The whole idea of 'self-made' is BS. It's also a sign of new money (read: semi-trash that want to play dress-up). And I never, ever hear it coming from loving people.
My philosophy is to buy smart, no matter what. What's the use of owning something without knowing anything about it anyway? Why would I buy a powerbook for full price if I can get it for ~$700 cheaper (as I did with my last two), even on the day it's released?
Of course, "millionaire," meaning simply someone with a net worth of one million dollars or more, isn't a very impressive standard of huge financial success these. I'm well on my way to having more than that put away for retirement at age 65.
I would say $1,000,000 should be the minimum.
Originally posted by shetline
Show me something like this that starts with an objective profile of so-called "millionaire mind" traits, and then tracks financial success over at least 25 years, if not more.
Then I'll be impressed.
These "Millionaire in the making" titles don't even include a question mark after that phrase -- the articles act like future wealth is a fait accompli.
I'm not saying that there aren't good things to be learned about the value of frugality and financial planning, I just think that there's a lot of financial failure and financial mediocrity that doesn't get tallied up, because it's rare that the stories of the losers are told. The stories about the winners get all of the attention.
How do you succeed in business? Well, ask someone successful, of course! The fact that a hundred other people might have tried the same things to get rich and failed won't come out, however. Why ask losers how to do anything?
These kinds of articles seem designed to appeal to the "luck is for losers" point of view. Something to make people are financially successful, or plan to be, feel good that wealth is a sign that they've be smart and frugal and daring enough in all the right ways, while anyone else who doesn't get the brass ring just didn't try hard enough.
Of course, "millionaire," meaning simply someone with a net worth of one million dollars or more, isn't a very impressive standard of huge financial success these. I'm well on my way to having more than that put away for retirement at age 65.
Well I would think that 25 years from now they wouldn't be a millionaire in the making any more. By they they would probably be a millionaire. Kinda loses the point of the title then right?
Future wealth isn't a fait accompli, but the alternative to trying with some proven strategies is what? Piss in the wind and see if your shins stink?
The financial failure and financial mediocrity doesn't get tallied up? Couldn't it be that knowlege and application aren't the same thing? Plenty of people can claim to know how to get rich, but they don't really know how or they don't have the desire to truly lay it on the line and risk failure to become a success.
How many Monday morning quarterbacks know what plays the coach and players should have called and run? It takes a lot more than an opinion to become well off. These folks have put the principles in which they believe into action. Other may talk the talk, but not walk the walk. It doesn't mean they are "losers" as you claim, but it doesn't mean they will be guaranteed success either.
As for whether a business can be successful or not. It really isn't that hard to be successful in business. There are just plenty of folks who commit halfway to things. We watch plenty of folks who are immigrants come in and begin running a business with lot of success. Likewise success can simply be learning from failure. There are successful business people who have had several failures. However they learned from them and become successful business people. So don't just ask the successful, ask those who failed and then succeeded.
As for luck being for losers. Haven't you ever met someone who managed the same amount of success even when the settings and variables have changed? It is easiest to spot this in say sports, but it is true in business and other aspects of life. I'm not found of sports analogies but look at Bill Parcells for example. He has turned his team into a contender whereever he has coached. What he doesn't isn't the luck of the draw. It is true for finances as well.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
How true. You know, I know quite a few people that have fallen ass-backwards into 'success,' which seems to mean being stupid enough to not think about the repercussions of actions. Somehow the US is set up to help these people succeed. Go figure.
The whole idea of 'self-made' is BS.
What you show is just that you don't have to be the best and the brightest to become financially well off. Instead of complaining about it you should be thankful since it still means you have a financial shot.
Success doesn't mean you have to be the brightest. Application is very different from knowlege at times. Plenty of people know for example that you have to (simplistically) basically eat less and do more to become fit and maintain your weight. However very few people seem to apply it.
Nick
To me, this is a pilgrimage. And don't confuse wealth with money. . . wealth is worth. Money is a free-market evaluation of worth.
Originally posted by trumptman
What you show is just that you don't have to be the best and the brightest to become financially well off. Instead of complaining about it you should be thankful since it still means you have a financial shot.
Success doesn't mean you have to be the brightest. Application is very different from knowlege at times. Plenty of people know for example that you have to (simplistically) basically eat less and do more to become fit and maintain your weight. However very few people seem to apply it.
Nick
You seem to have missed my point. Ironic, isn't it?
Originally posted by giant
You seem to have missed my point. Ironic, isn't it?
You missed my sarcasm. I said you should be greatful that you don't have to be the brightest because it still gives you a shot.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You missed my sarcasm. I said you should be greatful that you don't have to be the brightest because it still gives you a shot.
Oh really? Is that what you said? Why not repeat it a couple more times?
You still don't get it, do you?
Oh, the irony. Not even just on one thing, either. Keep it coming. You apparently need some way to feel like a big shot.
Originally posted by trumptman
The financial failure and financial mediocrity doesn't get tallied up? Couldn't it be that knowlege and application aren't the same thing?
So the knowledge of how to achieve financial success is unquestionable, and all failures to do so can be written off to not applying the knowledge correctly or with sufficient commitment?
Plenty of people can claim to know how to get rich, but they don't really know how or they don't have the desire to truly lay it on the line and risk failure to become a success.
Observer your own words risk failure. A risk is not a risk unless it can really happen. Obviously people fail. And no, not everyone will have the time left in their lives or resources to get back up and try, try again. Or maybe they will try again and again, yet still fail out of sheer bad luck, not because they didn't "apply the knowledge" the right way.
Other may talk the talk, but not walk the walk. It doesn't mean they are "losers" as you claim, but it doesn't mean they will be guaranteed success either.
I'm not questioning the notion that both knowledge and commitment are generally necessary for success. I'm questioning the way it's treated almost as an Article of Faith that knowledge together with commitment are sufficient, and that things like who you know and sheer luck don't factor in quite a bit.
So don't just ask the successful, ask those who failed and then succeeded.
But to know how good any particular advice for getting rich is, you can't just ask those who succeed, and those who fail, but then succeed, but you have to ask those who fail, and then fail, and then fail again and never succeed. It's a very biased measure of the value of the advice if all ultimate cases of failure are automatically ruled out as cases where the given advice was "obviously not applied correctly or with sufficient commitment."
If you automatically rule out all stories that don't ultimately end in success from your survey of how well recommended techniques for business success work, you'll never really know how well the techniques work.
As for luck being for losers.... I'm not found of sports analogies but look at Bill Parcells for example. He has turned his team into a contender whereever he has coached. What he doesn't isn't the luck of the draw. It is true for finances as well.
Let's say that even with a great deal of coaching talent, the odds of creating a winning team are about 25%. The odds of doing this with four teams becomes one of 256. There could be plenty of people out there with the same degree of coaching talent, but by chance only one coach out of 256 will succeed four times in a row. That one-out-of-256 guy will be the one who gets the press. And everyone will be certain that it's all due to talent, not luck.
I'm not saying that Bill Parcells isn't a great coach, or even that he isn't especially great. What I am saying is the there is a Mythology of Success that hates to even stop and consider the element of chance, and that thrives on enumerating successes and ignoring failures.
The negative side of this Mythology of Success is that those who do succeed often use it to justify their positions, and to categorically classify those who do not succeed to the same degree as people who haven't worked as hard or as smart or with as much commitment. "You think my wealth isn't fair? Well, I got what I deserved, and you got what you deserved, so shut up and stop complaining."
What exactly is this 'success' thing?
It seems to me that in the real world it doesn't exists.
'Success' (and by extension, the idea of a 'self-made man' and, by extension, trumptman's online persona) only exists in the minds of idiots that think money and/or property serves anything other than a purely utilitarian purpose.
And trumptman, don't give us this garbage about you being so frugal. You spend far too much time talking about your bitty piggy bank. Among all but the most crude, talking about personal worth is considered bad form.
And shetline is making some important points. It's actually some of the most insightful stuff we've seen here on AO.
Originally posted by giant
This whole idea of 'success' is such a joke. What does it mean? It can't mean money. Is it a certain kind of job? So, if you are a real estate investor, are you more or less successful than a airline pilot with more money? How about a professor? What about an accountant? What if they have less money? What if they have a ton more money, but a smaller house and a civic instead of two mercedes? What if they have less money, but a house in Costa Rica they spend half the year in? What about more money, better 'stuff' but haven't been able to take a vacation in four years.
What exactly is this 'success' thing?
It seems to me that in the real world it doesn't exists.
'Success' (and by extension, the idea of a 'self-made man' and, by extension, trumptman's online persona) only exists in the minds of idiots that think money and/or property serves anything other than a purely utilitarian purpose.
And trumptman, don't give us this garbage about you being so frugal. You spend far too much time talking about your bitty piggy bank. Among all but the most crude, talking about personal worth is considered bad form.
And shetline is making some important points. It's actually some of the most insightful stuff we've seen here on AO.
Pick your nose instead of picking and whining about everyones posts. Then get a life.
Nick
Originally posted by shetline
So the knowledge of how to achieve financial success is unquestionable, and all failures to do so can be written off to not applying the knowledge correctly or with sufficient commitment?
Sufficient commitment is the trait to which I would assign the most value. I have met very few persistent people in my life. Even when seeking wealth most people seem to do nothing but ride fads be it a stock or whatever. There are different ways to achieve success in everything, but likely there are some core values related to almost all of them.
Observer your own words risk failure. A risk is not a risk unless it can really happen. Obviously people fail. And no, not everyone will have the time left in their lives or resources to get back up and try, try again. Or maybe they will try again and again, yet still fail out of sheer bad luck, not because they didn't "apply the knowledge" the right way.
Bad luck? You make your luck in this world. Sure someone could fail against all odds, repeatedly, for their entire lives. But if you never gained any success from all those failures did you really learn and apply any new knowledge?
Failure brings with it the opportunity to grow and learn so that you don't repeat the process. If you just go on repeating the failing process, then you didn't really learn anything by failing.
I'm not questioning the notion that both knowledge and commitment are generally necessary for success. I'm questioning the way it's treated almost as an Article of Faith that knowledge together with commitment are sufficient, and that things like who you know and sheer luck don't factor in quite a bit.
Sure those factors (luck and who you know) can figure into success in some areas. I would say this is especially true in entertainment type fields where in actuality someone isn't necessarily a better singer, better looking or a better actor, dancer, etc. than someone else. It literally comes down to a lottery there. However I wasn't posting examples of that nature. I wasn't saying "Gee that Britney Spears is just such a better singer and so much more driven than anyone else."
That would be nonsense. If any industry relies on "luck" on top of talent it would be entertainment.
But to know how good any particular advice for getting rich is, you can't just ask those who succeed, and those who fail, but then succeed, but you have to ask those who fail, and then fail, and then fail again and never succeed. It's a very biased measure of the value of the advice if all ultimate cases of failure are automatically ruled out as cases where the given advice was "obviously not applied correctly or with sufficient commitment."
If you automatically rule out all stories that don't ultimately end in success from your survey of how well recommended techniques for business success work, you'll never really know how well the techniques work.
I do believe you can learn something from those who have ultimately failed. However I haven't encountered examples of where someone did everything right and then just ended up as failures. Since you claim these stories are ignored why don't you post some or link to some.
Let's say that even with a great deal of coaching talent, the odds of creating a winning team are about 25%. The odds of doing this with four teams becomes one of 256. There could be plenty of people out there with the same degree of coaching talent, but by chance only one coach out of 256 will succeed four times in a row. That one-out-of-256 guy will be the one who gets the press. And everyone will be certain that it's all due to talent, not luck.
Let me give you a hypothetical and then prove a point in reality with it. Oh sorry....
There are coaches who have never produced winning teams. Likewise your odds would have to be even worse than you claim because someone would be much less likely to hire someone who has failed repeatedly everywhere they went. You give everyone even odds regardless of success or failure. That isn't the case in real life where success and failure both have costs that are not equivalent.
Take the sports team examples since we are on that. Teams that do badly get to draft first. It is hoped that since they get first choice of talent they will improve. However there are teams that no matter how many first choice draft picks they have had, players they have traded for, etc. Well above the odds of luck, then end up on the losing end.
There are values and work that lead to results, not just the luck of the draw. Perhaps there were 4 other Michael Jordans who blew out there knees for example and couldn't play NBA basketball. However their drive and competitiveness if applied outside of basketball could have led to success in other fields.
I'm not saying that Bill Parcells isn't a great coach, or even that he isn't especially great. What I am saying is the there is a Mythology of Success that hates to even stop and consider the element of chance, and that thrives on enumerating successes and ignoring failures.
The negative side of this Mythology of Success is that those who do succeed often use it the justify their positions, and to categorically classify those who do not succeed to the same degree as people who haven't worked as hard or as smart or with as much commitment. "You think my wealth isn't fair? Well, I got what I deserved, and you got what you deserved, so shut up and stop complaining."
I don't think it ignores failures. I think it is just realized that you must persist even in the face of failure.
I don't think the negative side necessarily thinks others are not as smart or not hard working. However those traits alone don't create wealth and success. One of the smartest guys I know never went anywhere in a job. He had a desire to be right so often, he would pick fights with all his co-workers until he was fired at job after job. He had enough college credits for probably about 3 degrees yet was working at CompUSA for minimum wage and arguing with people about what photo printer they should buy like their lives depended on it.
I have always liked this quote by Calvin Coolidge. It sums up what I think well.
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Pick your nose instead of picking and whining about everyones posts.
You really are having a hard time using these 5th grade insults.
Someone needs to tell you trumptman: you ain't got that much cash. And you aren't that smart with it.
You know, I studied finance at Northwestern a few years back. I'm more than comfortable financially. I'm in a phase where I don't make much money (library, because I am a bibliophile and information addict), but if you wanted my household income you would still have to multiply yours by whole numbers. I don't talk about it. Why? Because no one ****ing cares and it doesn't matter at all. It's also rude and crude. Talking about personal worth is the mark of someone who is terribly insecure and weak. Money is not that important. It's sad you need someone to tell you that.
Your posts were interesting when there were few of them and they were informative. Now, it's just static.
You think you are all wheeling and dealing and making smart decisions and being a big-shot. That's totally understandable that you like to have your fun that way and it makes you feel good, but you are fooling yourself if you think you can lay that over everyone you meet and judge them accordingly. Your little ventures sure haven't gone that far, so you are hardly an expert. You also appear to only have 1 'job' and some single family homes. Not even commercial property. But it wouldn't matter if you didn't troll around here pretending you were king midas. In fact, your financial situation wouldn't matter at all if you were nice about it and didn't try to use it as a way to elevate your own self-image above everyone else.
The fact is that money is there to help you buy the things you need to live. That's just the way the world works right now. While we all should take some care with our finances, money is not something that should be the deciding factor in everything.
I have much more respect for someone who is willing to spend their entire savings on something important to them (helping a sick loved one, moving to the Himalayas) than someone who boxes himself in and hordes his money for some imaginary future.
You talk about 'success' and 'failure,' but those things mean nothing in the real world. It's an ideal with no relationship to reality. As I pointed out before:
This whole idea of 'success' is such a joke. What does it mean? It can't mean money. Is it a certain kind of job? So, if you are a real estate investor, are you more or less successful than a airline pilot with more money? How about a professor? What about an accountant? What if they have less money? What if they have a ton more money, but a smaller house and a civic instead of two mercedes? What if they have less money, but a house in Costa Rica they spend half the year in? What about more money, better 'stuff' but haven't been able to take a vacation in four years.
You can keep on living in your ideologue make-believe world, but it's people like you that make the stupidest mistakes. The saddest part is that you don't realize it until it's too late.
BTW: how much do you donate? You know, you don't make your living in a vacuum, and there are people, animals and organizations that could use it. 'Giving back' actually has an idea behind it.
Originally posted by giant
And shetline is making some important points. It's actually some of the most insightful stuff we've seen here on AO.
I just wanted to agree with this before the thread gets locked.
Originally posted by Eugene
The easiest way to become a millionaire is to get a million dollars.
The easiest way to become a millionaire is to be the son (or the daughter) of a millionaire. There is plenty of examples around the world
There is no secret reciepes to become millionaire. If that was that simple the whole world will be filled with millionnaires. I am amazed about the nubmer of books dealing with how becoming millionaires. Perhaps the secret is to fool some losers ...
Trumptman : sure there is common values sharing by people who succeed at least in making money. But it's not sufficiant and not always right.
Originally posted by giant
You really are having a hard time using these 5th grade insults.
Someone needs to tell you trumptman: you ain't got that much cash. And you aren't that smart with it.
You know, I studied finance at Northwestern a few years back. I'm more than comfortable financially. I'm in a phase where I don't make much money (library, because I am a bibliophile and information addict), but if you wanted my household income you would still have to multiply yours by whole numbers. I don't talk about it. Why? Because no one ****ing cares and it doesn't matter at all. It's also rude and crude. Talking about personal worth is the mark of someone who is terribly insecure and weak. Money is not that important. It's sad you need someone to tell you that.
Your posts were interesting when there were few of them and they were informative. Now, it's just static.
Well you know when you insult someone, you have to consider whether they will understand it. Hence 5th grade level for you is about right.
Someone needs to put me in my place, and I suppose that someone is you.
Then you get into household income. You boast that yours is multiples of mine yet not generated by you. We would then have to assume you have a spouse bringing home wads of cash while you work at a library. You declare that money is not all that important. I think that is sort of the point of my posts idiot boy. I do what I do on a teacher's salary. Do you think teachers have some incredible love of money? However people often make it an OR question. I can do what I want OR I can have lots of money. It doesn't have to be that way. You don't have to sell yourself out, never see your children, and slave away for ungodly hours in order to acquire a high net worth.
I post articles that reflect that not because I wish to boast about what I make or own, but because I get tired of teaching the children of parents who have two new car payments, a jumbo mortgage, a home equity line of credit to pay off their previous credit card purchases and a whole new round of credit card bill rung up. They do all this and then send their children off to school when they are sick because no one can stay home. They have busy weekends yet no time to help with homework. Exotic vacations yet can't read with their children at bedtime or talk with them at mealtimes.
Amazingly enough they think they have secured a financial future for their children when in reality they have squandered their child's education and their own earnings.
The families I posted do not necessarily have huge incomes. That is part of why I posted them.(3 or the 4 were under $100,000) If anything I don't consider income to an indicator of net worth. Income is like a snapshot when life is a movie. Do you think if I only treasured income or even money I would let my wife stay home and cut our income(from jobs) in half?
I post about finances because to do a lot with a little, you have to make fewer financial mistakes. We would not be buying a couple houses a year if we were buying brand new SUV's with DVD's on one salary that happens to be a teacher's salary.
Lastly you constantly complain about my posts and yet you ALWAY reply to them. The board even has an ignore feature. You don't even have to see them let along read them and reply to them. Please stop complaining about the pain of my posts that you inflict on yourself.
Nick
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The easiest way to become a millionaire is to be the son (or the daughter) of a millionaire. There is plenty of examples around the world
There is no secret reciepes to become millionaire. If that was that simple the whole world will be filled with millionnaires. I am amazed about the nubmer of books dealing with how becoming millionaires. Perhaps the secret is to fool some losers ...
Trumptman : sure there is common values sharing by people who succeed at least in making money. But it's not sufficiant and not always right.
Why is it not right as long as you are not exploiting people? The couples I posted did not appear to be making their money at the loss or harm of someone else.
Likewise even if it may not end up sufficient, someone is more likely to build an acquire wealth if they say, put money into their retirement accounts as opposed to say, spending more than they earn.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Why is it not right as long as you are not exploiting people? The couples I posted did not appear to be making their money at the loss or harm of someone else.
Likewise even if it may not end up sufficient, someone is more likely to build an acquire wealth if they say, put money into their retirement accounts as opposed to say, spending more than they earn.
Nick
I did not speak of exploiting people, or harm people, i was just speaking of books with titles like "how to become a millionaire in ten lessons", " the shortest way of sucess in life" ... and so on.
Discussions tend to become too serious here on AO, especially a discussion where none of the posters seems to be personally implied ...