rich people in the article -> ordinary westerners like us -> people on $2 a day
The whining and moaning of each link probably seems outrageously self-indulgent and ‘cry me a river’ to the next link. Fine, mock those richer/more successful than you for their lack of self-knowledge. But bear in mind that from another perspective, the rich arsehole is you.
I wonder if African kids, were they to have internet access would rant…
“Americans complaining that they pay $4/gallon for gas, and that they’ll have to trade from an SUV (ie gulfstream) to a smaller car (ie smaller private jet), well cry me a fucking river! They complain about paying a lot to drive to work, I’d kill for a car, job or even a decent-sized bowl of rice. Fuck that, even a mosquito net would do.”
See, it’s tha “become accustomed to a certain lifestyle” bit where your point fell apart. If your income drops, it doesn’t matter what lifestyle you were accustomed to; you make changes to live within your means at the new lower income level. It doesn’t matter whether you earned or won your previous high income, either. If you don’t make those changes and cause what you have left to fall apart on you, then it strikes me that you are rather foolish. This is true much more so for high income people who take an income hit than it is for people at the other end of the scale.
People at the low end of the scale often have to choose which necessities to do without if their income drops. The people in that article have to choose which opulent things to let go in exchange for things that are merely lavish. Fuck’em.
I knew a guy in texas, that told me that rich people actually pawn stuff! dURING THE LAST RECESSION, THERE WAS A GLUT OF rOLEX PRESIDENTIAL WATCHES (THEY ARE SOLID GOLD) and sell for $12,000 new. Anyway, there were so many of them on the market, that the pawnshops wouldn’t take them.
yes, cry for the poor rich-NOT!
Hold on a second. This guy, in addition to whatever his income has dropped to, has lost 60% of his net worth. That’s savings, not income. That kind of loss can really wipe out his family’s sense of financial security. I’m not saying that we should hold a fundraiser for the guy, but to just write him off as wildly irresponsible because he’s having trouble adjusting to a major shock strikes me as a little callous.
And if they did, they’d be wrong how? Which subsequently makes the OP wrong how?
I’m with Trunk; I have no sympathy for people who deliberately live above or at the limit of their means – whatever those means may be – and then whine when they get decimated by a slump. It has nothing to do with being rich, poor, or starving in Africa; it’s about recognizing that whatever your situation, things might not always be as good as they are now. The only way that income factors into it is that the guy with $20 million has a few more options available for his rainy-day plan than the kid in Africa does, which is why the fuck-you factor is so much higher in response to his complaints.
That said, losing 60% of your assets does have to suck, but when you’re left with seven figures at the end of the day, don’t expect sympathy from those who never had one tenth that much to begin with.
How is the OP wrong: he claims that a ‘poor’ American has a right to complain about loss of income, whereas the ‘rich’ one doesn’t. (sorry this is a rough gloss, but the gist of it is right). I claim that, from the global POV, they are both sitting pretty fucking pretty:
I would guess that the average westerner is closer to the $20m guy in terms of options than he is to the starving African.
In rich European countries even if you lose your job, you get social housing, benefits that get you some solid meals a day and are not time-limited, and free world-beating healthcare.
Though America treats its poor a bit more roughly than this, what you get in the US is still a pretty sucking awesome safety net, from the poor African POV.
Yep, but I feel no sorrier for someone who has to downsize from their three bedroom home in the 'burbs to an apartment in a not great part of the city and trade in their Grand Cherokee for a used Geo than I do for these guys. Both have failed to develop a model of living that would be sustainable in the case of a loss of income.
I do feel sorry for the guy who was already eating rice and beans and driving the used Geo out of necessity - because he didn’t have anything to save to start with. .
What I find troubling is that many of these guys fear losing their wives over this loss of income. While a huge loss can put a strain on a family, either these guys have married extremely shallow and materialistic women, or think that they have. Especially sad is the guy who will go into debt to keep his wife living in a lavish lifestyle. How close can they be if he can’t even tell her about the change in his financial situation? Does he think that she won’t understand? Is it possible that she actually won’t? (In which case he should gladly kick her to the curb.)
It’s really pathetic that these guys have built their entire sexual identity on their wealth.
The fact is that there really are two kinds of people financially: people who however poor or rich basically have to work for a living; and people whose net assets are enough that they can live, however frugally or extravagantly, on the dividends of what they already own, and who’s only work is managing their assets. The latter are the modern day equivalent of landed nobles: yes, a mere squire with a small patch of land and a servant or two is much poorer than a count or duke, but at least he’s still a gentleman. God forbid he should ever have to soil his hands like a common laborer.
Seriously, the “impoverished rich” really do see themselves as poor, because the next step down- no longer being financially independent- is an unthinkable loss of position. Kurt Vonnegut in his novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater called it “the money stream”- the critical mass of wealth necessary to become self-perpetuating. These days, a mere eight million dollars is dangerously close to sinking below the critical mass. It’s why you have the cliche’ of the Ruined Peer, the person who would rather live in a decaying manor and go to ridiculous extremes to maintain the social pretension of upper class standing, then admit the truth. It’s why you have innumerable murder mysteries where someone gladly commits murder when their fortune is threatened.
Especially because many wealthy people never actually worked for their money at any point in their lives. The majority of wealthy people got their money the old-fashioned way - they inherited it. It destroys the myth that millionaires deserve their fortune when you consider that all most of them did to earn it was be born to millionaire parents. From that point on all they needed to do was live off an existing fortune. They never developed any skills towards earning an income from nothing.
Right. Most of these people are Wall Streeters, making their money from finding ever more exotic financial products to trade, products like the ones responsible for the mortgage crisis. Entrepreneurs go bust all the time also (I live in Silicon Valley, so I know) but I don’t ever recall hearing them whine about it.
A previous news article quoted one of them saying that layoffs hurt real people. A letter writer said that he hoped they would remember that the next time they called for the heads of workers to boost a companies profits for the quarter.
Sorry, but this drives me nuts. CMOs have been around since the early 80s (see page 2 of this pdf), and have been used for most of that time without problems. The current crisis was caused by genuine stupidity on the part of investment banks and credit ratings agencies, not exotic derivatives.
I’ve got an uncle who was quite a hard worker and was pulling in some major cash as a high level executive. We’re talking mid six figures here.
Time comes where he gets a divorce. His now ex-wife is getting a very goodly hunk of alimony. The type where she doesn’t even need to pretend to work. She likes to play it that she’s independently wealthy.
So, she meets another independently wealthy guy and they get married.
Want to guess where he was getting his money?
So, you have two people who are “accustomed to a certain lifestyle” who got married and suddenly realized that neither one of them could actually provide that lifestyle.
You’ve had over $20 million? Could you buy the Dope a new server? This article was not about people getting laid off on Wall Street - something I do sympathize with, but people with a crapload of money now having a slightly smaller crapload of money.
I hope the quote about selling jewelry shows that I understand that not all the assets are in cash. However, there is no excuse to not have a good cushion of liquid assets.
No one mentioned in this article is anywhere close to poverty, and the article explicitly notes, several times, that no one is in danger of foreclosure. But you’re right about lifestyle changes. They don’t want to give up their $1500 a week personal trainers. Boo hoo. They don’t want to anyone to know they only have $8 million left. Too bad.
Fear of being out on the street, I can see it. Fear of having to spend less than $1,000 to get your hair done, no. I suspect that people who get married when neither had much can stand these minor jolts a lot better than when there is money involved. Whatever you say about the Enron guys, but those wives seemed to stand besides their husbands and not jump ship at an even worse bit of adversity.
In debt to pay medical bills, or for a house, or for education - I’m sympathetic. In debt to impress the neighbors? Not so much. I’ve got relatives with a lot more money than me and more debt too. I feel the same way about them.
The article did not mention anyone taking out loans to support their standard of living, only selling off stuff. Sure, if they go for a year without any adjustment in spending to match their lowered salary they could go into bankruptcy, but so can any of us. We should feel sorry for people who won’t face facts? I’d assume these people are financially skilled enough to do a budget, else I wonder what they were getting paid the big bucks for.
I’d say $20 million makes you rich, unless you call rich having more than anyone you know. I don’t have anywhere near that, but I’m doing fine, and I consider myself near rich. And I’m not under the assumption that you are guaranteed to stay rich forever (which is why I save) but they seem to be.
Oh, but wifie will get her revenge if kicked to the curb–wth the help of a good divorce lawyer. Although she may have to learn frugality, getting by on half of $8 million.