The hard part is getting people to invest in that corporation. In in the case of certain investors like venture capitalists, they might demand shares of ownership or other strings attached to the money they give you.
But the whole point of creating a corporation is to separate the businesses assets and liabilities from the owners personal assets and liabilities.
If you read carefully, it said rich people know MARKETS are about emotion and greed. With their own money they are logical and unemotional.
This stuff has been discussed in the past, but in my mind, there are two kinds of “rich people”:
the “Old Money”: rich for many generations, no need to show off. These people drive old cars and wear their grandfather’s suits. They stay in high end suburbs, and do not mix with the hoi polloi. They tend to careers in government, or on the boards of corporations. They do have a problem, in that many of their offspring lack motivation and wind up dissipating the family assets.
the “Noveau Riche”-people who started businesses, have had big success in RE, etc. They have a desire to show the world that they “have arrived”-they by flashy cars, clothes, big expensive mansions. Generally, they haven’t thought about securing their family fortunes…that comes in the next generation.
Either class has one huge advantage: they do not have to work at jobs they don’t like. they also have time (the most precious thing that money can buy)
So is the article incorrect? Because it seems to me that based on the posts, most of you don’t think like the 21 points. And I assume most of you aren’t rich.
Also, I think the article is talking about rich vs average, not rich vs destitute. People in households making $50k a year and living comfortibly in some suburb of some mid-tier city.
Many people, like Der Trihs for example, seem to believe that the wealthy simply had their money handed to them or got rich by leeching off the poor. Or that there is some sort of superior morality to being poor or working class.
Often average people will short-change themselves because they don’t want to appaer “greedy”.
I’ve actually heard the opposite. Yes, when it comes to pursuing your financial or career goals and interest, you want to be ruthlessly selfish. And you don’t want to allow moochers and leeches to sponge off you.
But wealthy people also know that there is the concept of ‘reciprocity’. If I help you now, you’re more inclined to help me later.
This is really the Who Moved My Cheese mindset. What actions do you plan to take to get to where you want to be?
A degree in and of itself is not a ticket to wealth. No one is going to just hand you a fortune because you went to Wharton. One expects a Wharton MBA to apply his education to making a fortune.
Unless you plan to get rich through a time machine business.
Everyone should do this. Finance and accounting is very logical. We call people who are unable to apply basic logic to their finances “bad with money”.
Well…as long as your passion is collecting large checks.
True.
Yeah…BE the CEO of a hedge fund.
I think the point is that most rich people define themselves by what they do…entrepreneur, lawyer, whatever. Average people have “jobs” they go to for 8+ hours a day that they typically hate.
Already covered in a prior post…
Already covered in a prior post…
Really everyone should follow this.
Average people don’t know how to get rich. The best they can tell their kids is “go to school, listen to your teachers, get good grades, find a good job with a big company, listen to your boss, work your way up the ladder…” That’s certainly good advice. However, it’s good advice for being a worker drone your entire life.
I would think it’s the lack of money that stresses average people out.
So what is polo or yachting?
But I think the point is what if you took the time you spent on watching TV, playing Call of Duty and sitting in Zuccotti Park with a bunch of dirtbags and applied it to your career or learning some other money making skill?
Yup.
This is probably the most important point. Rich people EARN MORE MONEY.
I would say average people play it safe in stupid ways while rich people take smart risks. Storing all your money in a safe savings account is stupid.
I think this is true. Average people think in terms of “get a good steady job with good benefits and reasonible work hours”. Those people will avoid working at investment banks, silicon valley startups, top consulting and law firms because they couldn’t stand the hours, pressure or uncertainty of being “counselled out” for not making their numbers (not that they would get hired in the first place). They wouldn’t take risks like starting their own company or even taking some promotions in many cases. ’
Rich / successful people are comfortible with the uncertainty that comes with pursuing their goals. Even if they fail in the short term, very few of those choices result in a dead end.
And it’s easier to get rich when you have the energy that comes from being active and healthy.
I don’t think it’s a choice. Raising a great family takes money. Food costs money. Braces cost money. Air Jordans cost money. People tend to work harder when they are working for something they love.
A couple of my family members are *very *wealthy. They weren’t born into wealth. And most of the items in that list ring true to me.
I have observed that “below-average” people tend to be lazy and preoccupied with entertainment. They are also incapable of taking responsibility for anything; every personal plight is someone else’s fault. They are their own worst enemy. My rich relatives, by contrast, are preoccupied with work. They still manage to find some leisure time, but they spend the vast majority of their waking hours working.
That’s telling right there. Average people think that rich people just got lucky. They see the world as a magical place that’s unfair. Rich people know better.
I see poor people buying lottery tickets all the time. On occasion, some chronically poor person will win the lottery, become an overnight millionaire, and then be poorer than ever a year later. When Donald Trump lost his entire fortune a few years ago, he was a billionaire again six months later.
That’s not a matter of luck. That’s a matter of the kind of relationships those people have with money.
You should take a look at The Black Swan. Rich people are gamblers who won. Poor people are gamblers who lost.
And it is very common in Silicon Valley for the genius who made a fortune with a startup to fall flat on his face with the next three startups. By definition this guy won big the first time around. Those who lost the first time or two times are either broke or can’t get money from VCs.
Could you explain how being born with rich parents is not “getting lucky”? No, the world isn’t a magical place that’s unfair. It’s a reality-based place that’s unfair. That’s just life.
Here’s the kind of studyQuercus was talking about. It does not appear to be simply a matter of sour grapes belief that the best way to get rich is to be born with rich parents.
In honesty, I skimmed it rather than read the entire thing, but what it seems to conclude in part validates the idea that the rich think about money differently (I don’t think anyone here is arguing against that, just against the specific items on the list) and that these values are passed onto their children in a way that isn’t being made up for even in “welfare states” where things like higher education and health insurance are heavily subsidized. But it also concludes that the safety net of having rich parents allows children to take risks in their education and early work life that simply aren’t possibly for those without money. If a rich kid fails at 20, picks the wrong career path, launches a business that fails, whatever, mom and dad can help them out, and they’re a success by 30. If an average kid fails at 20, they don’t have the money for more education or a second try at a business opportunity and end up in a more mundane career trying to pay off their debts.
Essentially, the best way to think about money and earn money and use money the way the rich do is to have been born into a family with money.
Sure, it’s lucky. But there are plenty of wealthy people in the world that were not born into rich families. Look to the computer world for some great examples. Look to the entertainment world for more.
If you think that only the already rich and snotty count for anything, and you resent them for that, then you’ll hold yourself back from ever being rich yourself. Because really, do you want to become that which you resent?
Again, I think you are looking at getting rich like gambling, as opposed to taking calculated, smart risks. Is it better to spend $150,000 on a) college, b) a new business or c) lottery tickets? c) is obviously stupid. a) and b) however, will largely depend on what you choose to study and what business you choose to get into. And in some cases, failing at a new business would be better than failing at college. With the new business, at worst, you loose what you put into it. But you gain practical business experience, even if they are just lessons learned. If you fail out of college, you are still on the hook for the student loans but with no benefit to you since you don’t have a degree.
Realistically, your chances of making tens or hundres of millions of dollars are pretty slim though, even if you do everything right. That doesn’t mean you can’t be financially well off by making some smart choices.
Two (well, professionally successful if not “rich”). But they also converted their passion into a viable business. As compared to my very talented uncle who never made a success for himself because he can’t meet deadlines, can’t maintain any discipline, doesn’t modernize where he should and often gives away business for free. But at least we get really nice holiday cards every year.
One thing that I’m not sure has been mentioned. People usually don’t just wake up and “think like rich folk” at 20. People’s ideas about money are often ingrained into them from an early age. They grow up seeing their parents slaving at some low level crap job, doing the comfortible 9 to 5 thing, running a business or working as a well respected professional executive and those traits and habits become learned.
Also, a lot of people born into rich families don’t “think like rich people”. They think like people who don’t need to ever think about money.
At first I was going to disagree with you but then I saw your point. My parents have been, “all of the above” - Professor, not-for-profit employee, business owner, major multinational corporate employee.
So I suppose its true that I have grown up around the idea that you don’t have to stick with one path. Consistent with that, I’m on my third career, which is also my third totally different type of career (1. Corporate 2. Agriculture/small business employee 3. Government).
But what I don’t think is true is the idea that many people, average or not, hold the notion that settling into one thing and doing it forever is expected or even normal. I think this notion has actually been dead a long, long time, because it was dead when I was in college, and I’m old enough to have children in college. Typical American workers change employers every 4 years, and only 10% of the American workforce has been with one employer for 20 years (source: Wall Street Journal). I don’t know anyone currently working who has stayed in the same career their whole life. Hell even my grandmother had more than one career, and she’s 93. She was a fashion illustrator, then took more administrative duties as photography started taking over the fashion business.
This is what my brain added to each point. I am sharing so it will shut up already.
And yes, it’s snarky as hell. You’ve been warned, so no bitching!
Because poverty = untouchable. Right. It’s not where you are, it’s how you deal with it.
Because you can’t help others if you can’t help yourself; oxygen mask on the rich people first, and then THEY can help the poor
"Hrm, how can I get the money for that operation? I know, I can win the lottery!’ Beats robbing the rich people, I suppose.
Jack of all trades, master of none?
Most people do long for a time they were better off, so this makes sense.
Stress will do that to you; lack of it will allow you the time to BE logical about something that isn’t that important.
Because rich people can afford to.
Because it doesn’t matter if they fail.
Yeah, like well-connected and well-funded.
Fuck you, Bain Capital.
Which is why being selfish comes in handy, here.
The two standards of living are similar, it’s just easier for one than the other, so not as much money is needed to be comfortable and not worried about what next financial iceburg is going to take them down.
Well yeah; poverty is evil.
Duh?
Yeah, nothing worse than a Jed Clampett, am i rite?
Educated, wealthy, non-evil ones.
Penny stocks aren’t what they used to be. FUCK YOU BAIN CAPITAL!
Especially when it doesn’t really matter if they lose.
‘Ah, bills are paid and we can relax a little’ vs. ‘I am soooo bored…’
Ask anyone who’s had a kid in the last 20 years how much that set them back, and then say that again. With a straight face.
I call bullshit on this one, too. Most people know money won’t raise your kids properly all by itself.
And the truly destitute took the risk and failed for one reason or another.
This one hits the mark, I think. If you take two people of equal social status, the one who gets rich is the one who finds a way to get his hands on other people’s money for a living; as opposed to the one who uses his hands to make someone else money. Take a punk like Trump. You could take all his money from him, even his closely guarded name, and he would still get himself money because he knows how to get others to part with theirs in terms that favor him.
It really depends on which “average people” you’re talking about. If you’re talking about college-educated people, I’m sure you’re correct. But if you’re talking about the people I describe as having “middle-class incomes with working class attitudes”, they actually don’t expect to switch careers and often don’t even expect to switch employers. My relatives who work installing lines for Verizon might move to doing the same type of work for Time Warner, but they aren’t going to voluntarily look for a job in an entirely different field.
In my experience, for the most part, government workers fit into the above group. I find it amazing that you work in government and don’t know anyone who hasn’t changed careers - although I’ve known plenty of people who left one government agency for another , I can count on one hand the number who have voluntarily changed both careers and employers before retirement and nearly all of them moved out of state. I’ve known plenty of lawyers who left private practice and took government jobs as lawyers , plenty of social work types who left government work to take social work jobs at non-profit agencies and even government workers who after finishing law school/college/a master’s degree took a government position that they were newly qualified for. I’ve spent 24 years working for the government, and I’m still usually the person with the least seniority in any group.
I had a couple of successful decades in my life and my motivation was simply feeling passionate about the machine that made the money. I never cared much for money but was passsionate about the “machine” that made it, the thoeries behind what drove the machine etc. I became bored watching the machine just sit and run so would do things to up the rpms and stress the machine even more. Eventually the machine blew apart, I became broke and it seemed to have no effect on me whatso ever. I obviously do not have a rich man mentality. I could become just as excited about a machine that shelled peanuts as long as I was improving it and it did not remain static.
