# The wealth gap



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A new report shows that 20 people in the US have more wealth than the bottom 50%.........151,000,000 Americans combined.

That is an unsustainable concentration of a country's wealth. There has to be more wealth re-distribution by taxes or other means.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...e-us-population-combined-20151207-glha3i.html


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Yikes. I agree sags. How does that happen other than "tax the rich plans"?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There are ways, and then there are ways.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

To be fair many on the list have been a net benefit to society not only in being massive employers/job creators but philanthropists also(gates and buffet stand out)
A huge portion of the people in the group on the other side of the coin is the brother in-law or cousin we all have that has been chronically unemployed and has done little to benefit society(self inflicted)
A little bit of a skewed prospective
but I get the point(I think most on the list are in agreement/the 20)I am not saying bill gates isn't over paid but look at the social utility Microsoft and himself personally(foundation)has done for *all* of us


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

News Flash - the unsustainable concentration and redistribution of wealth have already been dealt with philanthropically by most of these evil capitalists.
For example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/zuckerberg-to-give-99-of-facebook-stock-away-during-lifetime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

Now of course you can post your objections to the way that they have chosen to give away their billions, receive tax breaks, etc. 
Maybe you can tell us how they should have handled their good fortune! 
Just remember, if not for their evil capitalist ways you wouldn't be sitting in front of your computer or tapping on your cell phone to criticize their success.
Oh, and those who have benefited as a shareholder directly or indirectly (e.g. U.S. etfs) should probably refrain from being hypocritical.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

sags said:


> A new report shows that 20 people in the US have more wealth than the bottom 50%.........151,000,000 Americans combined.
> 
> That is an unsustainable concentration of a country's wealth. There has to be more wealth re-distribution by taxes or other means.


Red = true

Blue = your opinion

Surely you can provide a reason for why your opinion might be valid other than the fact you posted it. We'll wait.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't object to people making money. I object to them getting it by lying, cheating and stealing. There is a lot of corruption in big business fostered by corruption in politics which makes it more of a political or law enforcement problem than a social justice problem.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LBCfan said:


> Red = true
> 
> Blue = your opinion
> 
> Surely you can provide a reason for why your opinion might be valid other than the fact you posted it. We'll wait.


From Plato to Thomas Jefferson to Janet Yellen............there is lots of information on the internet about the negative effects and unsustainable nature of growing wealth disparity.

History also reveals the negative effects of wealth disparity. The rise of despicable leaders and the fall of nations are well documented.

In today's world.......radical left wing governments are winning elections in Europe, and Canada recently elected Liberal and NDP governments from one end of the country to the other.

People are unhappy with the growing divide between the uber-rich and everyone else, and don't want to hear politicians deny or justify it anymore.

US society is already starting to break down. While the uber-rich spend $180 million buying a painting, there are millions going to bed hungry.

It is violent in a lot of places in the US now.........and it could get a lot worse if changes aren't made so people are participating in the wealth.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ... those who have benefited as a shareholder directly or indirectly (e.g. U.S. etfs) should probably refrain from being hypocritical.


I expect most pension plans including CPP are or have benefited as well.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> ... US society is already starting to break down. While the uber-rich spend $180 million buying a painting, there are millions going to bed hungry.


You mean it's worse than when the robber barons threw the injured workers out in the street with no assistance beyond family? 




sags said:


> ... It is violent in a lot of places in the US now.........and it could get a lot worse if changes aren't made so people are participating in the wealth.


I'm not sure it's worse now than in the past.


Cheers


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

* Spends own money *
Selfish!

* Donates own money *
Selfish!

* Spends other people’s money *
Name an airport after this hero!


----------



## NewBrunswick (Nov 30, 2015)

There is a theory that if all of the wealth was distributed evenly throughout the world, it would all eventually end up back in the same divide.

Even if someone hit the reset button, human nature hasn't changed. We all want more so I can't blame those who have it all.


----------



## livewell (Dec 1, 2013)

Eclectic12 said:


> You mean it's worse than when the robber barons threw the injured workers out in the street with no assistance beyond family?
> 
> I'm not sure it's worse now than in the past.


No it not worse than past history such as back in feudal times or even further back in time with the Roman and Greek civilizations. However in recent history there is evidence that the wealth gap or inequality divide did shrink from post WWII through to the 1970's. Then from the 80's until now as the gap grown significantly, particularly in the US.

There is a lot of evidence that as inequality in societies grow so does extremism and violence. As Sags pointed out we are seeing 'far right' and 'far left' political movements starting to gain traction in Europe, perhaps we are seeing increasing violence in US.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Inequality in wealth shrank tremendously from the rise of capitalism and democracy in the early 1800s until around 1970. One guy, whose family was once very rich, pointed out that in the period 1900 to the 1960s the condition of 95% of the people improved beyond all recognition, while the condition of the richest 5% dropped just as much. For example as he put it, the typical millionaire's home of the 1960s would be about the size of the gatekeeper's cottage on the estate of the millionaire of 1900.

This has now reversed, and today the very rich are as far above the average worker, as they were before 1920.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

The main problem, of course, is government. They are bought and paid for by the super elite, who influence politicians to take money from the merely moderately wealthy (those 200k-10M earners) and fund the poor with that money (not the super elite's money). The government is all too willing to do this, as it creates great justification for increasing taxes and size of the government, and fosters dependency among the poor to secure their position of power for all eternity. 

The solution, of course, is to limit the powers of government, back to what their original intended purpose was by the founding fathers et al. External and internal defence (Military and police), the Judiciary to enforce the laws and adjudicate disputes, and (debatably) the control of the money supply.

Under these simple conditions, where one man can start with nothing and build a business empire, with no interference from the government to restrict or stop him, with no interference other than fair and lawful competition from other businesses (in which the government enforces these fair rules)... Under these conditions, a natural distribution of wealth can be achieved that is not so distorted as it is today. Today, where the poor are kept dependent on government largess, the upper class pays for almost everything, and the truly elite control everything and skim off all the wealth they can.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

This is worth reading....
The essay, which was written by an unknown author.
But this essay will keep in mind.


https://www.truthorfiction.com/steve-jobs-last-words-were-a-warning-about-the-pursuit-of-wealth/

Summary of eRumor:

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’ last words were written in an essay in which he called himself a “twisted being” who had foolishly dedicated his life to the pursuit of wealth.

The Truth:

Steve Jobs’ last words were not written in a deathbed essay about wealth and happiness.

The essay, which was written by an unknown author, was falsely presented as Steve Jobs’ last words as he lay dying from pancreatic cancer in 2011. An excerpt of the so-called Steve Jobs’ last words essay reads:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I reached the pinnacle of success in the business world.

In others’ eyes, my life is an epitome of success.

…

However, aside from work, I have little joy. In the end, wealth is only a fact of life that I am accustomed to.

At this moment, lying on the sick bed and recalling my whole life, I realize that all the recognition and wealth that I took so much pride in, have paled and become meaningless in the face of impending death.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^ So what's the message? That rich people shouldn't be so greedy and give up their money? Or that poor people should realize that being rich doesn't make you a better person and to stop being so envious and always trying to take take take? You already got an iPhone what more do you friggen want?!? :biggrin:


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

peterk said:


> ^ So what's the message? That rich people shouldn't be so greedy and give up their money? Or that poor people should realize that being rich doesn't make you a better person and to stop being so envious and always trying to take take take? You already got an iPhone what more do you friggen want?!? :biggrin:


The money or material is worthless when face of death. 
We are human being and have thoughts.
I think people will looking for and try understand what is their meaning of life just before leave this world.

Poor or rich will be there someday.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

peterk said:


> The main problem, of course, is government. They are bought and paid for by the super elite, who influence politicians to take money from the merely moderately wealthy (those 200k-10M earners) and fund the poor with that money (not the super elite's money). The government is all too willing to do this, as it creates great justification for increasing taxes and size of the government, and fosters dependency among the poor to secure their position of power for all eternity.
> 
> The solution, of course, is to limit the powers of government, back to what their original intended purpose was by the founding fathers et al. External and internal defence (Military and police), the Judiciary to enforce the laws and adjudicate disputes, and (debatably) the control of the money supply.
> 
> Under these simple conditions, where one man can start with nothing and build a business empire, with no interference from the government to restrict or stop him, with no interference other than fair and lawful competition from other businesses (in which the government enforces these fair rules)... Under these conditions, a natural distribution of wealth can be achieved that is not so distorted as it is today. Today, where the poor are kept dependent on government largess, the upper class pays for almost everything, and the truly elite control everything and skim off all the wealth they can.


Do you have any evidence to support this? Like, an example country with a relatively small state and relatively low wealth disparity? All the evidence I have seen indicates that after-tax income disparity tends to be lower in Western countries with relatively larger governments.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I don't object to people making money. I object to them getting it by lying, cheating and stealing. There is a lot of corruption in big business fostered by corruption in politics which makes it more of a political or law enforcement problem than a social justice problem.


I agree with this.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

peterk said:


> ^ So what's the message? That rich people shouldn't be so greedy and give up their money? Or that poor people should realize that being rich doesn't make you a better person and to stop being so envious and always trying to take take take? You already got an iPhone what more do you friggen want?!? :biggrin:


The message is "take from rich , give to poor"  , so 20 richest people will have same assets like 40 poorest people  
Remember 1917 ?! But it ended bad....


> History develops in a spiral. And for the second time - it's always a farce.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> A new report shows that 20 people in the US have more wealth than the bottom 50%.........151,000,000 Americans combined.


 An how much times more taxes those 20 people pay (considering that other 151,000,000 pay practically nothing)?!
No body prevent bottom 50% to become top 20, but they are probably just like counting someone else money...  I doubt that some billionaires spending 14-15 hours per day on CMF-like forums


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

You guys are missing something - the french revolution happened in guess what...France! Its always has had socialist leanings.

The new wealth gap is happening in the most capitalist country ever. This is a country that spends almost a trillion on defense while its citizens have no health care. They dropped a few trillion into Iraq and Afghanistan and another 4 trillion to bail out the banks. The people could care less if the 1% are grabbing it all. Thats capitalism and its not to be tampered with.

There will be no revolution. The 1% have enough power to crash the economy if there ever was. The sheep know their place now.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> From Plato to Thomas Jefferson to *Janet Yellen*............there is lots of information on the internet about the negative effects and unsustainable nature of growing wealth disparity.


Let's leave aside Plato, Jefferson etc. because they is dead as doornails, but what about Janet Yellen's own role (and that of her mentor Helicopter Ben) in perpetuating that same wealth inequality via financial repression, such as QE, ZIPR, LSAP, etc.
It is highly comical when the elites like Yellen, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, etc. talk about inequality but completely ignore their own role in creating that inequality.

The rising inequality of last 10 years, insofar as it may be a problem, has less to do with income redistribution and more to do with quantitative easing and financial repression created by central banks.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags, this one is tailored made for you...to re-inforce the point I made above..

*Elites and inequality*


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I can't disagree with you Harold, and now Poloz is musing about negative interest rates.

Great, so the bankers borrow money for less than free and get to lend it out for a profit ?

And of course, reward themselves handsomely for the profits their "brilliance" created.

As to the video, I agree with one of the comments on Youtube that this is how these people act when they are at private parties.......as we found out with Mitt Romney.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't believe in "taking" the money from the hard working successful people is the best way, but other than taxation I have yet to hear of a successful strategy to divert the wealth from going to a few people in the first place.

As we can see from Trudeau's tax changes, given the numbers lowering taxes on the middle class has very little individual impact. The most someone would save is $680 a year, and yet it would cost billions of dollars ?

Increasing worker's incomes would be the ideal solution, but in a world with high unemployment and people desperate to find work...........that isn't going to happen.

I have to go back to Free Trade and how we have been totally screwed in those deals.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> Great, so the bankers borrow money for less than free and get to lend it out for a profit ?
> And of course, reward themselves handsomely for the profits their "brilliance" created


That is part of it, yes.
However, my main point regarding QE is that such central banking policies disproportionately benefit the already-wealthy by inflating asset prices, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, art, land, other collectibles, etc.

The "middle class" does not own these asset classes.
Most of the middle class net worth is locked up in 1 family home bought decades ago, some cash, and at best, a vacation cottage or plot of land.
Individual stock/bond ownership is at all time lows.












> As to the video, I agree with one of the comments on Youtube that this is how these people act when they are at private parties.......as we found out with Mitt Romney.


Janet Yellen belongs to the same club of elites.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> Individual stock/bond ownership is at all time lows.


I wonder, does this factor in individual ownership of etf's and mutual funds?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I am sure it doesn't (obviously not 100% sure, but it seems reasonable to me). I think in the 50's, everyone was responsible for their own retirement savings and mutual funds didn't really exist. As time went on, they introduced mutual funds and 401k's/IRA's, etc, and nowadays most people invest in these types of accounts in whatever selection of funds their company has picked out for them.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

The first modern-day mutual fund, Massachusetts Investors Trust, was created on March 21, 1924. It was the first mutual fund with an open-end capitalization, allowing for the continuous issue and redemption of shares by the investment company. After just one year, the fund grew to $392,000 in assets from $50,000. The fund went public in 1928 and eventually became known as MFS Investment Management.

The growth of Canadian mutual funds

Four years later, in 1932, the first Canadian fund, Canadian Investment Fund Ltd. (CIF), was established and by 1951 had assets of $51 million. It changed its name to Spectrum United Canadian Investment Fund in November 1996 and to CI Canadian Investment Fund in August 2002.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Spudd said:


> I think in the 50's, everyone was responsible for their own retirement savings and mutual funds didn't really exist. As time went on, they introduced mutual funds and 401k's/IRA's, etc, and nowadays most people invest in these types of accounts in whatever selection of funds their company has picked out for them.


Say what?

The first US private company pension was the American Express company, where the pension was created *in 1875*.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad created one in 1884 that allowed an employee at age 65 with at least ten years service to collect between 20 to 35% of wages.

The US gov't made pension trusts income tax exempt in 1913 then introduced old age security in 1935. 


Cheers


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Clearly I had some misinformation! Sorry about that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> That is part of it, yes.
> However, my main point regarding QE is that such central banking policies disproportionately benefit the already-wealthy by inflating asset prices, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, art, land, other collectibles, etc.
> 
> The "middle class" does not own these asset classes.
> ...


Absolutely Harold, the rise in asset values is why so much wealth has flowed to the already wealthy.

They buy a Picasso for 50 Million and sell it for 180 million. They buy fine wines, real estate........anything that will go up in value and all they have to do is own it.

After the US housing bust, the vultures swept in and bought bankrupt properties for cheap and rented them out. When home prices turned around they benefited...........not the bankrupt previous owners.

As they say.......money flows to money.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I watched a movie last night on demand which is highly recommend(Stanford prison experiment)It is very relatable to this subject from a psychological view point.
How 'we' as humans think 'we' would be different than 'them' (subject being aimed at the 1%)
Basically psychology professor Philip zimbardo in 1971 took a group of college students and divided the group between prisoners and guards and simulated a prison in the basement of Stanford university and the experiment was to study what would happened in 2 weeks.
The study lasted 6 days lol
This mocked jail turned into something of abu ghraib no joke(everybody in the freaking study knew it was a mock simulation and were being paid but it was unreal what unfolded-the guards even knew they were being watched by the researchers)
After six days the guards had prisoners basically kissing their feet and calling them lord and the prisoners were obliging
Great study in what happens in a simulated hierarchy
Human nature is human nature and we are all made of the same stuff.
Interesting movie for sure.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The shrinking "middle class" in America










In this research, middle class is being defined based on income alone.
However, there are other, "softer" measures that are very important, too - such as home ownership, retirement security, leisure time/working hours, etc.
But even on most of those parameters, the trend is poor for middle class growth.

This is at a time when the welfare state is at all time highs.
Governments in all major westernized countries are spending record amounts of money on welfare programs, including social security, pensions, and general public sector expenditure.

The other side of the coin, which I have mentioned before, is the rising living standards in the erstwhile developing/under-developed world.
Living standards are rising, poverty and malnourishment is falling, infant mortality rates are dropping, education levels are rising, and income inequality is falling.

So to me, it is not enough to bemoan the rising inequality among developed countries alone.
We must evaluate that in light of rising living standards globally.
When evaluated from that perspective, it may not be such a bad thing after all.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

peterk said:


> The main problem, of course, is government. They are bought and paid for by the super elite, who influence politicians to take money from the merely moderately wealthy (those 200k-10M earners) and fund the poor with that money (not the super elite's money) ...


Odd ... according to this article, each income group [in the US] will pay a total share of taxes that quite is similar to each group’s total share of income. 

It also concludes that contrary to popular belief, when all taxes are considered, the rich do not pay a disproportionately high share of taxes. Of course, in a truly progressive tax system, they would pay much higher effective tax rates than everyone else.

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2014/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_in_2014.php


Cheers


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I seem to recall reading that the first pension plan in Canada was started by the Hudson's Bay Company for their factors. Of course, Canada was not quite Canada yet.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> The shrinking "middle class" in America....
> The other side of the coin, which I have mentioned before, is the rising living standards in the erstwhile developing/under-developed world.
> Living standards are rising, poverty and malnourishment is falling, infant mortality rates are dropping, education levels are rising, and income inequality is falling. So to me, it is not enough to bemoan the rising inequality among developed countries alone. We must evaluate that in light of rising living standards globally. When evaluated from that perspective, it may not be such a bad thing after all.



Harold, your comment is extremely relevant. The historical (post-war 1950's-1970's?) manufacturing base of developed countries such as North America no longer exists. The loss of jobs associated with this has 'hollowed out' the middle class. 
Initially moving to far east countries such as China, manufacturing is now moving to African countries such as Ethiopia. China's average manufacturing wage has grown to $560/mo and just can't compete with an average wage of $30/mo in Ethiopia. 
The shift from "Made in the USA/Canada", to "Made in China", to "Made in Africa" has had the effect of improving the wages and living conditions of millions of people in previously third world countries. It has also permanently changed the nature of jobs in Canada and the US. 
Whether you believe on balance that globalization has been a good thing or a bad thing will depend on your personal perspective, but there it is.

Some China-Africa links: http://theweek.com/speedreads/449297/chinese-manufacturers-are-now-outsourcing-africa 
This is a good short news video: http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/11/12/ethiopia-working-with-china-to-boost-manufacturing-sector
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/Event/Africa/Investing%20in%20Africa%20Forum/2015/investing-in-africa-forum-china-and-africa-expanding-economic-ties-in-an-evolving-global-context.pdf


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I dont equate paper assets the same as hard assets. The 1% may own more stocks and bonds, but that also carries more risk and volatility and paper losses can happen in a instant where as the same cant happen to your home due to the nature of liquidity. And someday, if there aren't enough individual investors in the market, the liquidity is going to dry up and the 1% will be buying from the 1%. I don't have a problem with that. They do that with art and wine, might as well do it with stocks too cause thats where its going. Most people who are in the market are just for pensions, if they had to do it on their own, they would own GICs. The proof of that is in our TFSA program.

This all doesn't mean the little guy can't be well off. He should just focus on real assets and forget about that 1% game. Quality real estate, some metals, cash, govt bonds, GICs. And when I say quality real estate for the 99%, that should be a home with a decent sized land base under it. In fact I predict a substantial back to the land movement in the near future because the cost of living in the city is going to be untenable for a lot of people.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

tygrus said:


> I dont equate paper assets the same as hard assets. The 1% may own more stocks and bonds, but that also carries more risk and volatility and paper losses can happen in a instant where as the same cant happen to your home due to the nature of liquidity.


That is not true at all.
Both sides of it, actually.

Regarding the paper assets of the 1%-ers, they do not hold their stocks & bonds the way we small retail investors do - they are always hedged, most of us aren't.
Their scale makes the cost of hedging very cheap for them.
The 1%-ers like the Gates, Buffetts, Icahns', Jamie Dimons', Lloyd Blankfeins' etc. of the world are able to outsource their risks to investment banks, insurance companies etc. via complex derivatives.
Those hedging techniques are not available to most small investors and even if available, the costs are prohibitive.

Also, the _liquidity _of assets like fine wine, art, etc. is often misunderstood & confused for _volume_.
These have low _volume_, but high _liquidity_.

Fine art does not trade every day.
Real quality art by the masters trades only a few pieces a year.
However, the liquidity is almost guaranteed.

If a billionaire wants to buy/sell a piece of art, a counter-party will be readily available.

*We saw evidence of this recently in the art auction by Christie's*

Do not confuse volume with liquidity - these premium alternative assets have almost guaranteed liquidity.

Now, on the other hand, regarding homes and other real estate held by the 90%-ers, those have real liquidity risks.
We saw this in action during 2007 - 2009, when a very large number of American homeowners were locked into negative equity homes, which they were unable to sell.
Volume dried up and liquidity dried up.
It wasn't until well into 2011 and even 2012 that liquidity opened up in the real estate markets, and that too due to institutions and funds like Blackrock making bids for these negative equity homes.



> This all doesn't mean the little guy can't be well off. He should just focus on real assets and forget about that 1% game. Quality real estate, some metals, cash, govt bonds, GICs. And when I say quality real estate for the 99%, that should be a home with a decent sized land base under it. In fact I predict a substantial back to the land movement in the near future because the cost of living in the city is going to be untenable for a lot of people


Yeah, this bit I agree with.
Well said.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

tygrus said:


> I dont equate paper assets the same as hard assets.
> 
> The 1% may own more stocks and bonds, but that also carries more risk and volatility and paper losses can happen in a instant where as the same cant happen to your home due to the nature of liquidity.


I suspect the group that the OP is talking about owns hard assets as well.

As for "can't happen to your home" ... I'm doubting the couple with kids that had a custom home build in the US (they were blending two families like the Brady Bunch) would agree.

The RE marketing specialist was telling them that despite what they though, the area would most likely bear only prices $600K below the price that they could have gotten a year before. If I recall correctly, that represented a 30+% drop in a single year. I hate to think of how it dropped after the 2008/2009 crash if they did not follow through on the advice or if the market had worsened.




tygrus said:


> Most people who are in the market are just for pensions, if they had to do it on their own, they would own GICs. The proof of that is in our TFSA program.


I'm not so sure one can draw that conclusion. 

Forty seven percent of TFSA holders say they are using the TFSA for emergencies so it is really a surprise that forty-four percent only have their TFSA funds in liquid investments such as cash or GICs?

The typical article that breaks down the investment choices leaves a lot to be desired as they appear to count multiple times the people with cash, GICs and equities.


The info I've seen is vague as well as weak for drawing conclusions.

Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Perhaps we just need to be content with being the doorman.






An article on how the New York billionaires treat their doorman at Christmas time..........baked goods, candy canes and $1 per year of seniority...........LOL.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/24/how-scrooges-of-park-avenue-stiff-doormen/


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Something seems fishy with that article Sags
I don't doubt they keep their money close But....
logically I can't see or fathom how Business oriented business owners would ever think like this(there has to be spin on this article we aren't seeing)
These guy are intimately involved in these people's personal affairs(luggage/vehicles/family/a layer into residents etc )
I have a hard time believing these guys don't logically do the 'math' or think in a risk/ratio perspective
Throwing 15 bucks a at doorman is basically a Fugk you on a grand scale
and the next day(or the next 365) the guy is fetching his Mercedes from the garage and packaging the luggage for the Mrs and junior 
This would be business 101 imo(ie not the people you shaft)
Koch is not that stupid is he lol
this has to be union spin lol


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People can be pretty cheap and you never know who it will be.

When I ran a delivery service, I ran a big food order of about 8 bags of Chinese food out into the country to a mansion on Christmas Eve. It was supposed to be there at 6 p.m. 

I arrived at 6:10 p.m..........I know because the lady was already tapping her feet on the front porch and not looking very happy. She said....YOU were supposed to be here at 6 p.m."

She wanted the bags in the front foyer, so I made a couple trips to the car and placed them there. She said "I paid in advance at the restaurant", which I knew was true......and "I left you a tip" which I knew wasn't true.

Ah well................other people more than made up for the cheapos but usually they weren't the wealthy customers like people would think.

As it says in the article...........they didn't get rich giving it away.

In the two years I did delivery..........I was ripped off 3 times, when people presented a credit/debit card when they knew I didn't have a mobile debit machine.

They always ordered at 11:30 p.m. and I delivered the food after the restaurant was closed and couldn't take the food back............so I trusted them and they never paid.

One couple met me in an upscale apartment lobby and pretended they were just moving in and would pay the next day. I found out later that they were actually just moving out............LOL..........

But it wasn't all bad. Their son caught up to me before I left the parking lot and handed me a $20 bill and said....."so you don't get completely ripped off"

I knew then they wouldn't be paying............but God bless their son.

Donald...........you never got ripped off by people with a lot of money ? My son works in construction (fencing) and people with money are always trying to rip off the company.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When I went on a cruise, one of our buddies told us that the waiters collect their tips on the 2nd last night of the cruise.

"Watch the dining room be empty that night" he said.

It was true. Empty tables all over the dining room. Then again..........maybe everyone wanted to get the free pizza that night instead.............LOL.

I guess the motto is.........generosity isn't borne from having money.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I have been taken advantage of a lot sags!(lots of stories)
esp in the first few yrs of business but now that I have been running a business for 10+ yrs I have learned very well from experience how to 'dis-qualify' potential problem clients.
Almost every contract I have is pre-bid(I am very transparent from the start in my bid and I get it signed before work is performed)
Problems occur when I don't follow this script
To be honest wealthy people tend to be the best to deal with!(obviously I know the prices well in the market and wealthly people tend to do their homework and they seem to view things/breakdown things against the other companies quoting and view it from that context(once you win the contract it's mute from there),where as Middle class people tend to focus on my price and than like to try and figure out the breakdown within my own price/bottom line and work from that angle-huge difference here in buying patterns!!)
I find middle class people also try to play 'vague' games where they come in and try to work things down from deception!(happens a lot!!)stating they have fictitious quotes for certain amts I can usually pick up on this instantly and will call their 'bluff' and stand firm and wish them well and 50% of the time they are back in contact with-in the next few days because there manipulation didn't work(I can tell a lot from body language and the vocabulary with accuracy if I am being bluffed)but like I say once past the bid hurdle I am fine
Often buyers misjudge and often think they are holding the 'hammer' in negotiating but actually most times believe it or not I find I am holding the advantage they just don't realize it at first....a lot of it caused by googling 'tips' on how to negotiate with a contractor but people failing to realize that most guys are calculating from the market prices has little to do with the individual if that makes sense.


----------

