Good point about links with type 2 diabetes. Other potential pitfalls that are easy to fall into include the increased risks of elevated blood sugar as you have less and less time for exercise and preparing healthful meals. We write extensively about issues related to blood sugar control, especially the connections between high blood sugar levels and gum disease which increase serious health risks and interfere with diabetes control, at http://dentistryfordiabetics.com/blog
- Charles Martin, DDS
Founder, Dentistry For Diabetics
"I'm arguably one of the best Esperanto-speakers in the country. And I'm almost certainly the best Esperanto-speaking Macintosh Unix sysadmin-capable professor of science education in the world. And yet my compensation has not kept pace with my uniqueness."
Esperanto? You're joking, right? No one pays anyone for speaking a made-up language no one else speaks.
Perhaps you are unique, Steve, but your skills simply are not in demand. You might consider developing skills that people need and want - that is, if you want to be paid more.
Its important that there is an integrated and independent feedback of Patient's rating for any hospital. Many big pocket hospitals can afford JCI accreditation but this does not mean that they offer best treatment. Its the patient who should give feedback and rate the doctor and hospital.
If you want to read more on my recent blog where I checked about growth of medical tourism in India with some key hospital executives, read http://kosansh.wordpress.com
I'm a dumpster diver, and while I don't have children yet, my dumpster-diving wife and I have talked about the prospects of feeding our future children from the dumpster, and we plan to be careful, but go for it. As for the fears you mentioned, I've actually never seen a rat or cockroach in a dumpster - only flies in the summer. But a vermin merely walking next to your food won't hurt anything, as long as it wasn't chewing on the food, and you prepare the food properly. Dangerous chemicals like Drano are rare in my experience, and usually bagged up with other garbage, rather than thrown into the dumpster loose - but sure, one has to keep an eye out for what is near what else. So thank you for your sympathies, and good luck if you decide to give dumpster diving a try, for yourself or your whole family!
I've known three wealthy people. All started with nothing, worked very hard all their lives, reinvested profits, and took care of others. The first, an uncle, took enormous, calculated to be sure, business risks. Not many of us trust our judgement or think as globally as that. He still painted his own garage at 92. We might look to him as one of the "wealthy" that people envy, but I would never put myself in those kinds of circles or under those kinds of pressures or even think on that kind of scale. He lived well, but well below his means.
The other was a house painter. He made it a point to finish a job or room before he cleaned his tools to go home. So if it took an extra hour on one house, he was fresh to go to a second one the next morning. He never really retired and lived in the same house he had purchased during WW2 on his soldier's pay for his parents. He lived very modestly, gave quietly and generously to many, had enough to cover his needs into old age and pass wealth onto his children. They live just as he had.
The third was our son's physical therapist. She is still seeing clients into her eighties and is as fit as a fifty year old. She was careful wih her money, packed her lunch, dressed simply, used simple exercise equipment in a modest rented space. She saved what she made and has enough for any contingency. On the weekends she lives in NYC and goes to the symphony.
The common threads are being self employed, working hard throughout life, and being wise with finances along the way. That's something many of us can do. More often than not though, our downfall is blowing our cash on piddling things along the way.
Too bad MJB isn't right. He says, "Typically the more unique/irreplaceable your abilities are, the higher your compensation. It's not perfect, but it's basically the way it works."
I'm arguably one of the best Esperanto-speakers in the country. And I'm almost certainly the best Esperanto-speaking Macintosh Unix sysadmin-capable professor of science education in the world. And yet my compensation has not kept pace with my uniqueness.
Dean Baker argues regularly that a big part of leveraging big compensation under the current regulatory framework has been the ability of the privileged to restrict competition in some fields (white-collar work) while allowing others (labor) to compete globally. He wrote a good rant recently in the Boston Review: Free Market Myth: Regulation is everywhere. Let’s choose who benefits.
@CommonSenseEtc., I haven't read Ayn Rand in decades (and can't claim to have ever read John Galt's speech in full), but I do re-read the Constitution and Declaration every year, and various of the Federalist Papers every few years. I commend them to you.
Curious how you automatically assume that those who disagree with you can't think for themselves! Or is that projection?
There is one big difference between government and monied interests. The former has a monopoly on the legal use of force. If I choose not to give any of my money to Bill Gates, there's absolutely nothing he can do about it except refuse to give me the latest Office package. If I choose not to give my money to the government, it will seize my property, put me in jail, and shoot me if I resist.
As for your psychiatric diagnosis of me, you rely on unwarranted assumptions. I neither hate government nor admire big business as a whole. They are both collections of people acting in their own self-interests, just like everybody else. For the reason stated above, though, I do have more trepidation about the ability of a massive government to harm me than any particular big business.
"None of your prognosticators predicted this economic tsunami so why should we believe their predictions about the future. Oh, and after the last Great Depression it took 25 years to break even in the stock market. So much for your ten year buy and hold strategy."
First of all, there were people who predicted it. Not too many of them, but several.
One thing about 25 years to break even after the Great Depression: this 25 years number would apply to you if you had bought all of your stocks at the peak right before the crash and hadn't bought any stocks since then. If you run the numbers based on continuing income averaging during the 30s and 40s, the break even year would be much sooner - around 8 years. Try it. Also, this number doesn't include dividends. The dividends were a big thing - some of the companies at the time were paying double digit dividends.
Also, banks didn't provide much safety back then and people who kept their money in some banks lost everything.
Another thing to keep in mind is the large deflation between 29 and 33 with the consumer index dropping by 27%. So if you held one or two stocks that dropped by less, the purchasing power of this same money would've increased.
One other thing to keep in mind about the indexes back then: they comprised a lot fewer stocks than now. Some companies did very well during the depression - e.g. IBM, Procter and Gamble. Yet in 1939 for some strange reason IBM was removed from the DOW and not added until many years later. Some estimate that had this not happen DOW during that same years would've been twice as high.
Nobody really knows where the market is going. Markets are risky. But cash isn't safe either. What if this printing of money government is doing causes huge inflation? How much will our cash be worth then? Thinking of buying commodities instead? But what if we have deflation because nobody is buying anything?
Face it, no matter what you do, it's risky. I personally, have about half in market (including energy and commodities) and half in cash and bonds (not just government infaltion-protected, but also a little of municipal and corporate bonds). Is this correct? I have no idea... One thing I think we all should learn: buying and holding stocks or buying indexes is not an excuse for not paying attention to economy and not thinking about what is right for each of us individually.
Tea has significantly less caffeine than coffee does (depending on how it is brewed), and is pretty good for you. I don't think that coffee is necessarily bad for you, either, unless it is consumed in large amounts. Tea has some other benefits that coffee doesn't, like lowering blood sugar.
I think you offer some great tips, but it's easy to get overexcited about this as a business and then be overwhelmed by the realities. A few years ago, my grandmother passed away and I volunteered to liquidate her library of rare old books. Granted, those do not sell as well as newer titles. It was wonderful to go through all the books, but I still have 700 of them sitting in my garage, and that's after culling the undesirables twice. In my experience, it's a big commitment with a long, slow return.
I find it sad that the present administration is stoking the fires of class envy.
Unfortunately, I believe our society is headed for another Revolution. It won't be like our first American Revolution but, alas, more along the lines of the French or Russian Revolutions.
Yes, a business has to pay as little as possible for it's resources, including its employees. I don't disagree. My point is that businesses have to pay the going rate for their employees. The more valuable the person's skill and work ethic is to the organization, the more that employee can demand. You get to sell your services to the highest bidder. If your skill is sweeping the floor and one business is willing to pay minimum wage and another will pay an extra few dollars and benefits - where will you go?
common sense -
I quoted Getty because he is using common sense. Some, a few, in society have the skills and motivation to rise to the top. They are the 'creatives', the producers, the doers. They represent a small percentage of the population. Without these people, society would be stagnant. Witness what happens when they are wiped out as happened in the Soviet Republic.
I don't believe the rich are necessarily geniuses. High intellect isn't the main indicator of success. The biggest determinant for success in business, or life in general, is a growth mindset. And, that's something that can be developed in every person.
@AnnJo: You've been reading too much Ayn Rand and listening to too many talking points. If you look at the revolving door of politics and big biz, you might realize that there is no difference between our government and the monied interests. Hating on one and admiring the other is schizoid.
Also, did you really write this???
>>>The biggest unsavory tactic I see business owners engaging in today is going hat in hand to the government to absorb their losses and minimize their risks. But at the same time, it's hard to blame them for doing that, since government has sucked up so much of the wealth of the country into its own coffers, and regulated the rest of it so vigorously, that it is hard to manage a big business without being at the mercy of the politicians.<<<
"J. Paul Getty once pointed out that you could divide all the wealth up and distribute in equal portions to everybody. In one week's time, the same people as before would be the wealthy ones."
I suspect that the same thought has been stated by others. It's the familiar idea of the meritocracy applied strictly to wealth accumulation. Looked at from the opposite end, it's the idea that the poor deserve to be poor.
But do people actually believe that redistributing wealth would have no lasting effect since the same meritorious people would get it all back in no time? If so, why is the proposition resisted so strongly? I suspect it's because people don't actually believe any such thing. They've got the money and they want to hang onto it because they think that depending on the way things shake out, somebody else will end up with it next time.
I suspect that poor people tend not to like the idea, paradoxically for much the same reason. They expect to get rich by winning the lottery and know that if their wealth is redistributed, it's unlikely they'll win the lottery again.
I don't know of any real tests of the idea, but the movie Trading Places examined it. The general conclusion, as far as I remember, was that the poor guy when switched with the privileged guy did fine, while the formerly privileged guy sank. Later, by joining forces, the two of them triumphed over the old, rich guys that set up the test.
Thank you, MJB, for pointing out what Philip Brewer seems to have forgotten. Mr. Brewer, I'm afraid you've been swept up in the 'class envy/hatred' some of our politicians are fomenting to divert voters from concentrating on the real problem - economy-killing government policies.
What, exactly, is the difference between an 'unsavory tactic' and frugality? If I shop carefully for the best deal, as you recommend, wouldn't that include shopping for the best deal in suppliers and employees, if I'm a business owner? Do you share your own profits and offer to pay extra at the grocery store or to the plumber who fixes your pipes? If not, why call a business owner 'unsavory' for behaving exactly as you urge us to - frugally?
The biggest unsavory tactic I see business owners engaging in today is going hat in hand to the government to absorb their losses and minimize their risks. But at the same time, it's hard to blame them for doing that, since government has sucked up so much of the wealth of the country into its own coffers, and regulated the rest of it so vigorously, that it is hard to manage a big business without being at the mercy of the politicians.
If having control over vast wealth is the source of great power, who is more wealthy: Bill Gates, who controls about $40 Billion (with a B) IN TOTAL WEALTH, or the team of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who control about $3.5 Trillion (with a T) PER YEAR? Obama/Pelois/Reid burn through the equivalent Bill Gates's AND Warren Buffett's total fortunes roughly EVERY WEEK.
@CommonSenseWillNotKillYou, 'society' is not the same as the tax man. Society is not the same as the government. The government is a PART of society, but not the only part. The frequent confusion of community/society/country with government is proof positive that our schools have abandoned teaching anything about the philosophies of our country's founders. I cringe every time I hear someone talk about the President and/or Congress 'running the country'; that idea, commonly accepted today, is so contrary to our Constitution that the document might just as well be put through the paper shredder.
In a sense we are all in business for ourselves. We accept a payment from an entity in exchange for the perceived value of the services we provide. We compete (sometimes globally) with others for this work and that competition factors into the price we can command and the compensation we enjoy. Typically the more unique/irreplaceable your abilities are, the higher your compensation. It's not perfect, but it's basically the way it works.
Being a solopreneur offers one very little leverage when it comes to effort. The person who is self-employed with no leverage is basically Now if they focus on providing greater value (maybe through specialization or deeper skill sets), more highly compensated services (movie stars make obscene money as solopreneurs) or seek to expand their reach through a leveraged mechanism (ie- writing a book, giving seminars or hiring employees), they can go beyond the solo level.
Last week I was talking to the owner of a new restaurant in my home town. He took money from his 401k and used it to create this establishment. He works a regular job AND he manages the restaurant. This place employs roughly 20 people.
From what I can ascertain, this owner is taking all the risk and working extremely hard to achieve a dream. In my mind... if he succeeds, he deserves to earn much more than anyone he employs. And, he has every right to pay the dishwasher what is market rate. Now, because his focus is on Wine, then maybe he'll pay above market rate for his dishwasher but expect that dishwasher to put our spotless glasses.
The bottom line is, you can focus OUT THERE; on other people, what you perceive is wrongfully acquired wealth, etc, or you can focus on building, living and achieving your dream by providing high value to the world around you. Maybe you are discouraged and think you will be poor. Watch Slumdog Millionaire and gain both perspective and hope. Read "Unique Ability" from www.strategiccoach.com and discover what you were meant to do.
And, as Philip states... stop being a consumer and become a provider. Aside from the questionable "Elite" or Large Enterprise wealth acquired in "unsavory" ways, it's still true that most of the wealthy in this country are small business owners who earned their wealth through risk, hard work, determination and providing jobs for others.
Or, go to work today and realize it's your choice. It's still a free country with tremendous opportunity.
Everybody sometimes does unsavory things--rich and poor alike. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
The idea that owners and managers jump at the chance to share the profits of the enterprise with their workers, though, I think is provably false. More important, the degree to which the profits of the enterprise are shared with the workers has undergone clear shifts over the past hundred years--moving sharply in favor of owners in the 1920, shifting back to workers from the 1930s through the 1950s, and then moving back in favor of the owners and managers in the 1980s and 1990s.
Of course, everyone is an individual. Some owners and managers don't try to squeeze every penny out of every business. Unfortunately, the pressures of the market win out over good intentions: A business that pays above-market wages will quickly be driven out of business by its competitors.
All of which, I think, is beside the point that a lot of the advantages that rich people have come from knowledge rather than wealth, and that even poor people can acquire the knowledge.
Just wanted to chime and in say that I am in my 6th day with no Caffeine... Was sick and couldn't keep anything down so afterwards I thought I would give it a try to go a week without... I don't want to quit, just give myself a break and see what happens... I am too much a slave to my french press to give it up completely... Getting a Vietnamese coffee maker this week. Soooo good...
Amen to everything you addressed in this article. It's sad, but promotions for us usually meant sacrificing things we really valued (family, time off, hobbies, church). Your points were dead on, Fred, and I love that you asked the "How much money is enough question." You can live on a lot less when you aren't killing yourself from the stress of a horrible job.
ouch!!!
if you pay only the minimun , the next month you will find high interest to pay . do u think is a good idea ??
Good point about links with type 2 diabetes. Other potential pitfalls that are easy to fall into include the increased risks of elevated blood sugar as you have less and less time for exercise and preparing healthful meals. We write extensively about issues related to blood sugar control, especially the connections between high blood sugar levels and gum disease which increase serious health risks and interfere with diabetes control, at http://dentistryfordiabetics.com/blog
- Charles Martin, DDS
Founder, Dentistry For Diabetics
I'm the best one-eared, mono-visioned,blue-eyed, sized 13 Wide footed, salesman on the planet!
Steve Brewer, you said,
"I'm arguably one of the best Esperanto-speakers in the country. And I'm almost certainly the best Esperanto-speaking Macintosh Unix sysadmin-capable professor of science education in the world. And yet my compensation has not kept pace with my uniqueness."
Esperanto? You're joking, right? No one pays anyone for speaking a made-up language no one else speaks.
Perhaps you are unique, Steve, but your skills simply are not in demand. You might consider developing skills that people need and want - that is, if you want to be paid more.
Its important that there is an integrated and independent feedback of Patient's rating for any hospital. Many big pocket hospitals can afford JCI accreditation but this does not mean that they offer best treatment. Its the patient who should give feedback and rate the doctor and hospital.
If you want to read more on my recent blog where I checked about growth of medical tourism in India with some key hospital executives, read http://kosansh.wordpress.com
I'm a dumpster diver, and while I don't have children yet, my dumpster-diving wife and I have talked about the prospects of feeding our future children from the dumpster, and we plan to be careful, but go for it. As for the fears you mentioned, I've actually never seen a rat or cockroach in a dumpster - only flies in the summer. But a vermin merely walking next to your food won't hurt anything, as long as it wasn't chewing on the food, and you prepare the food properly. Dangerous chemicals like Drano are rare in my experience, and usually bagged up with other garbage, rather than thrown into the dumpster loose - but sure, one has to keep an eye out for what is near what else. So thank you for your sympathies, and good luck if you decide to give dumpster diving a try, for yourself or your whole family!
not of this worked for me
I've known three wealthy people. All started with nothing, worked very hard all their lives, reinvested profits, and took care of others. The first, an uncle, took enormous, calculated to be sure, business risks. Not many of us trust our judgement or think as globally as that. He still painted his own garage at 92. We might look to him as one of the "wealthy" that people envy, but I would never put myself in those kinds of circles or under those kinds of pressures or even think on that kind of scale. He lived well, but well below his means.
The other was a house painter. He made it a point to finish a job or room before he cleaned his tools to go home. So if it took an extra hour on one house, he was fresh to go to a second one the next morning. He never really retired and lived in the same house he had purchased during WW2 on his soldier's pay for his parents. He lived very modestly, gave quietly and generously to many, had enough to cover his needs into old age and pass wealth onto his children. They live just as he had.
The third was our son's physical therapist. She is still seeing clients into her eighties and is as fit as a fifty year old. She was careful wih her money, packed her lunch, dressed simply, used simple exercise equipment in a modest rented space. She saved what she made and has enough for any contingency. On the weekends she lives in NYC and goes to the symphony.
The common threads are being self employed, working hard throughout life, and being wise with finances along the way. That's something many of us can do. More often than not though, our downfall is blowing our cash on piddling things along the way.
Too bad MJB isn't right. He says, "Typically the more unique/irreplaceable your abilities are, the higher your compensation. It's not perfect, but it's basically the way it works."
I'm arguably one of the best Esperanto-speakers in the country. And I'm almost certainly the best Esperanto-speaking Macintosh Unix sysadmin-capable professor of science education in the world. And yet my compensation has not kept pace with my uniqueness.
Dean Baker argues regularly that a big part of leveraging big compensation under the current regulatory framework has been the ability of the privileged to restrict competition in some fields (white-collar work) while allowing others (labor) to compete globally. He wrote a good rant recently in the Boston Review: Free Market Myth: Regulation is everywhere. Let’s choose who benefits.
@CommonSenseEtc., I haven't read Ayn Rand in decades (and can't claim to have ever read John Galt's speech in full), but I do re-read the Constitution and Declaration every year, and various of the Federalist Papers every few years. I commend them to you.
Curious how you automatically assume that those who disagree with you can't think for themselves! Or is that projection?
There is one big difference between government and monied interests. The former has a monopoly on the legal use of force. If I choose not to give any of my money to Bill Gates, there's absolutely nothing he can do about it except refuse to give me the latest Office package. If I choose not to give my money to the government, it will seize my property, put me in jail, and shoot me if I resist.
As for your psychiatric diagnosis of me, you rely on unwarranted assumptions. I neither hate government nor admire big business as a whole. They are both collections of people acting in their own self-interests, just like everybody else. For the reason stated above, though, I do have more trepidation about the ability of a massive government to harm me than any particular big business.
"None of your prognosticators predicted this economic tsunami so why should we believe their predictions about the future. Oh, and after the last Great Depression it took 25 years to break even in the stock market. So much for your ten year buy and hold strategy."
First of all, there were people who predicted it. Not too many of them, but several.
One thing about 25 years to break even after the Great Depression: this 25 years number would apply to you if you had bought all of your stocks at the peak right before the crash and hadn't bought any stocks since then. If you run the numbers based on continuing income averaging during the 30s and 40s, the break even year would be much sooner - around 8 years. Try it. Also, this number doesn't include dividends. The dividends were a big thing - some of the companies at the time were paying double digit dividends.
Also, banks didn't provide much safety back then and people who kept their money in some banks lost everything.
Another thing to keep in mind is the large deflation between 29 and 33 with the consumer index dropping by 27%. So if you held one or two stocks that dropped by less, the purchasing power of this same money would've increased.
One other thing to keep in mind about the indexes back then: they comprised a lot fewer stocks than now. Some companies did very well during the depression - e.g. IBM, Procter and Gamble. Yet in 1939 for some strange reason IBM was removed from the DOW and not added until many years later. Some estimate that had this not happen DOW during that same years would've been twice as high.
Nobody really knows where the market is going. Markets are risky. But cash isn't safe either. What if this printing of money government is doing causes huge inflation? How much will our cash be worth then? Thinking of buying commodities instead? But what if we have deflation because nobody is buying anything?
Face it, no matter what you do, it's risky. I personally, have about half in market (including energy and commodities) and half in cash and bonds (not just government infaltion-protected, but also a little of municipal and corporate bonds). Is this correct? I have no idea... One thing I think we all should learn: buying and holding stocks or buying indexes is not an excuse for not paying attention to economy and not thinking about what is right for each of us individually.
Hi, Pauline,
Tea has significantly less caffeine than coffee does (depending on how it is brewed), and is pretty good for you. I don't think that coffee is necessarily bad for you, either, unless it is consumed in large amounts. Tea has some other benefits that coffee doesn't, like lowering blood sugar.
-Andrea
I think you offer some great tips, but it's easy to get overexcited about this as a business and then be overwhelmed by the realities. A few years ago, my grandmother passed away and I volunteered to liquidate her library of rare old books. Granted, those do not sell as well as newer titles. It was wonderful to go through all the books, but I still have 700 of them sitting in my garage, and that's after culling the undesirables twice. In my experience, it's a big commitment with a long, slow return.
I find it sad that the present administration is stoking the fires of class envy.
Unfortunately, I believe our society is headed for another Revolution. It won't be like our first American Revolution but, alas, more along the lines of the French or Russian Revolutions.
wildgif -
Yes, a business has to pay as little as possible for it's resources, including its employees. I don't disagree. My point is that businesses have to pay the going rate for their employees. The more valuable the person's skill and work ethic is to the organization, the more that employee can demand. You get to sell your services to the highest bidder. If your skill is sweeping the floor and one business is willing to pay minimum wage and another will pay an extra few dollars and benefits - where will you go?
common sense -
I quoted Getty because he is using common sense. Some, a few, in society have the skills and motivation to rise to the top. They are the 'creatives', the producers, the doers. They represent a small percentage of the population. Without these people, society would be stagnant. Witness what happens when they are wiped out as happened in the Soviet Republic.
I don't believe the rich are necessarily geniuses. High intellect isn't the main indicator of success. The biggest determinant for success in business, or life in general, is a growth mindset. And, that's something that can be developed in every person.
Don't blame your success or failure on others!!!
@AnnJo: You've been reading too much Ayn Rand and listening to too many talking points. If you look at the revolving door of politics and big biz, you might realize that there is no difference between our government and the monied interests. Hating on one and admiring the other is schizoid.
Also, did you really write this???
>>>The biggest unsavory tactic I see business owners engaging in today is going hat in hand to the government to absorb their losses and minimize their risks. But at the same time, it's hard to blame them for doing that, since government has sucked up so much of the wealth of the country into its own coffers, and regulated the rest of it so vigorously, that it is hard to manage a big business without being at the mercy of the politicians.<<<
Just wow! Cognitive dissonance cubed.
"J. Paul Getty once pointed out that you could divide all the wealth up and distribute in equal portions to everybody. In one week's time, the same people as before would be the wealthy ones."
I suspect that the same thought has been stated by others. It's the familiar idea of the meritocracy applied strictly to wealth accumulation. Looked at from the opposite end, it's the idea that the poor deserve to be poor.
But do people actually believe that redistributing wealth would have no lasting effect since the same meritorious people would get it all back in no time? If so, why is the proposition resisted so strongly? I suspect it's because people don't actually believe any such thing. They've got the money and they want to hang onto it because they think that depending on the way things shake out, somebody else will end up with it next time.
I suspect that poor people tend not to like the idea, paradoxically for much the same reason. They expect to get rich by winning the lottery and know that if their wealth is redistributed, it's unlikely they'll win the lottery again.
I don't know of any real tests of the idea, but the movie Trading Places examined it. The general conclusion, as far as I remember, was that the poor guy when switched with the privileged guy did fine, while the formerly privileged guy sank. Later, by joining forces, the two of them triumphed over the old, rich guys that set up the test.
Thank you, MJB, for pointing out what Philip Brewer seems to have forgotten. Mr. Brewer, I'm afraid you've been swept up in the 'class envy/hatred' some of our politicians are fomenting to divert voters from concentrating on the real problem - economy-killing government policies.
What, exactly, is the difference between an 'unsavory tactic' and frugality? If I shop carefully for the best deal, as you recommend, wouldn't that include shopping for the best deal in suppliers and employees, if I'm a business owner? Do you share your own profits and offer to pay extra at the grocery store or to the plumber who fixes your pipes? If not, why call a business owner 'unsavory' for behaving exactly as you urge us to - frugally?
The biggest unsavory tactic I see business owners engaging in today is going hat in hand to the government to absorb their losses and minimize their risks. But at the same time, it's hard to blame them for doing that, since government has sucked up so much of the wealth of the country into its own coffers, and regulated the rest of it so vigorously, that it is hard to manage a big business without being at the mercy of the politicians.
If having control over vast wealth is the source of great power, who is more wealthy: Bill Gates, who controls about $40 Billion (with a B) IN TOTAL WEALTH, or the team of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who control about $3.5 Trillion (with a T) PER YEAR? Obama/Pelois/Reid burn through the equivalent Bill Gates's AND Warren Buffett's total fortunes roughly EVERY WEEK.
@CommonSenseWillNotKillYou, 'society' is not the same as the tax man. Society is not the same as the government. The government is a PART of society, but not the only part. The frequent confusion of community/society/country with government is proof positive that our schools have abandoned teaching anything about the philosophies of our country's founders. I cringe every time I hear someone talk about the President and/or Congress 'running the country'; that idea, commonly accepted today, is so contrary to our Constitution that the document might just as well be put through the paper shredder.
In a sense we are all in business for ourselves. We accept a payment from an entity in exchange for the perceived value of the services we provide. We compete (sometimes globally) with others for this work and that competition factors into the price we can command and the compensation we enjoy. Typically the more unique/irreplaceable your abilities are, the higher your compensation. It's not perfect, but it's basically the way it works.
Being a solopreneur offers one very little leverage when it comes to effort. The person who is self-employed with no leverage is basically Now if they focus on providing greater value (maybe through specialization or deeper skill sets), more highly compensated services (movie stars make obscene money as solopreneurs) or seek to expand their reach through a leveraged mechanism (ie- writing a book, giving seminars or hiring employees), they can go beyond the solo level.
Last week I was talking to the owner of a new restaurant in my home town. He took money from his 401k and used it to create this establishment. He works a regular job AND he manages the restaurant. This place employs roughly 20 people.
From what I can ascertain, this owner is taking all the risk and working extremely hard to achieve a dream. In my mind... if he succeeds, he deserves to earn much more than anyone he employs. And, he has every right to pay the dishwasher what is market rate. Now, because his focus is on Wine, then maybe he'll pay above market rate for his dishwasher but expect that dishwasher to put our spotless glasses.
The bottom line is, you can focus OUT THERE; on other people, what you perceive is wrongfully acquired wealth, etc, or you can focus on building, living and achieving your dream by providing high value to the world around you. Maybe you are discouraged and think you will be poor. Watch Slumdog Millionaire and gain both perspective and hope. Read "Unique Ability" from www.strategiccoach.com and discover what you were meant to do.
And, as Philip states... stop being a consumer and become a provider. Aside from the questionable "Elite" or Large Enterprise wealth acquired in "unsavory" ways, it's still true that most of the wealthy in this country are small business owners who earned their wealth through risk, hard work, determination and providing jobs for others.
Or, go to work today and realize it's your choice. It's still a free country with tremendous opportunity.
MJB
Everybody sometimes does unsavory things--rich and poor alike. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
The idea that owners and managers jump at the chance to share the profits of the enterprise with their workers, though, I think is provably false. More important, the degree to which the profits of the enterprise are shared with the workers has undergone clear shifts over the past hundred years--moving sharply in favor of owners in the 1920, shifting back to workers from the 1930s through the 1950s, and then moving back in favor of the owners and managers in the 1980s and 1990s.
Of course, everyone is an individual. Some owners and managers don't try to squeeze every penny out of every business. Unfortunately, the pressures of the market win out over good intentions: A business that pays above-market wages will quickly be driven out of business by its competitors.
All of which, I think, is beside the point that a lot of the advantages that rich people have come from knowledge rather than wealth, and that even poor people can acquire the knowledge.
Just wanted to chime and in say that I am in my 6th day with no Caffeine... Was sick and couldn't keep anything down so afterwards I thought I would give it a try to go a week without... I don't want to quit, just give myself a break and see what happens... I am too much a slave to my french press to give it up completely... Getting a Vietnamese coffee maker this week. Soooo good...
Amen to everything you addressed in this article. It's sad, but promotions for us usually meant sacrificing things we really valued (family, time off, hobbies, church). Your points were dead on, Fred, and I love that you asked the "How much money is enough question." You can live on a lot less when you aren't killing yourself from the stress of a horrible job.
Linsey Knerl
Your kind words are always appreciated. :)
Linsey Knerl
i have a jaguar 1985 calender never been out of the package, does any one think if this is worth anything.