try this for example :- last year 2 weeks staright i started work 9-5:30pm. ate dinner at 6pm went to my IP to renovate finished the tiles, carpetr removal etc etc. finished at 11:30. pulled out my sleeping bag, slept and woke up 7:30pm shower, breakfast and back to the rat race.
What is your NET WORTH?
- Thread starter virgo
- Start date
haha i take some time to read the financial papers first before heading off by 8:30am.
You;re talking chalk, we;'re taklking cheese.
You can mange your invesmtents in ANY job that finsihed a 5pm
It's what you actually do all day at work that some might be talking about
you woke up at 7.30pm to go to work?haha
What time you supposed to wake up ?
Not really. If you're doing a development/renovation you can't really do that with a 9-5 job even.
I like how you have the percentages down to an exact number and somehow have figured out that exactly 65% of those stuck in the rat race are hating life.
Do you have a source for this study or is it just gut feeling? I know many high income earners who work many hours because they don't mind it.
I think many people get confused with high paying jobs and low paying jobs.
When I was cleaning stuff back in those days when I was younger, I hated every minute of it because it was labor intensive, boring and the pay was low. I could not imagine doing it 12 hours per day! However, after I graduated university and started work in a field I actually enjoyed, work was no longer boring. Hours would go by extremely fast and my pay packet was heaps better.
I think some average income earners confuse themselves by thinking that just because their jobs are bad (physical, low pay, boring), that somehow high income earners working long hours will be affected by the same type of misery they do. You'll often find that this is not the case, those on higher incomes usually sit at an office desk somewhere, doing something they don't mind (no physical activity, high pay, more mind stimulating, not repetitive work).
I'm laughing because he clearly meant 7.30am....
Tell me abt it. I had a tenant who i used to go out with and trying to use favours to get a cheaper rate per week.
hahahahahaha LOL
With all due respect to the intelligent people who came up with that;
I think a better formula would be a higher k value though more importantly the age should be age minus 18years or perhaps 20 in this day and age for average working commencement.
Without this it really does not fit the curve for working peoples wealth creation or assets over time at all?
Well I am certainly an underachiever according to it at any rate, so I don't like it.
Yes I was not comfortable with that side of it either, i.e. the k value being linear. I wrote this and then deleted it out of my post because:
The income is also included, i.e. income on investments so this does make the output exponential by default. i.e. as you build wealth exponentially your income grows exponentially and feeds back into the result of the equation.
I then deleted it out because my head started to hurt and I was not sure about whether you could have a simple k factor rather than an exponential one due to this feedback into the formula.
Almost certainly though for it to represent a working persons wealth creation over time you would need to have an (age minus 20) or some such in it. The only justification for not having this I can think of is if for some reason people inherit an amount of wealth over time approximately equal to 0.112 x 20 of their income at any given time?
I guess it is true that higher earners have a higher propensity to have higher earner parents so it is possible? And the mortality of same would be higher as the individual earns more?
Perfect post Dazz....
I know some of the richest people you could ever meet, but a lot of them are pretty miserable!
That being said, I know a lot of seriously happy rich people too
Wealth is a matter of time really for the normal person - when you're starting out, it's $100k - when you've been at it for 10 or so years, you're looking at $1-5m, and the longer your leave it, the higher it goes. What would have been interesting is a second question - what is your net worth and how long has it taken you to get there!
In my experience ( and I work in an industry where the postcodes of 2088, 2089, 2027, 2028, 2030 and 2110 are typical of addresses where many of these people tend to live - so feel qualified to comment - although i'm not one of them ! ! ) most wealthy individuals in terms of financial wealth don't come across as wealthy. They drive modest cars, don't wear designer label clothes, don't flaunt their wealth and are generally down to earth fun people
The type who drives the Merc AMG, wears Hugo Boss exclusively, eats at expensive restaurants often and drink French champagne regularly, has month long holidays at Whistler yearly and come across as snobby consistently are more often than not wannabees living on maxed out credit trying to impress what little true friends they have.
Perhaps you don't give enough credit to the chaps that developed and refined the formula....it used to be 0.1, after over a decade of researching and studying thousands upon thousands of high net worth individuals they refined it to 0.112 as a lineal constant.
Perhaps, after 5 minutes of thinking about it, you haven't quite grasped the enormity of what these guys have discovered and refined over and over for well over a decade. We aren't talking grade 9 parabolic curves here. We are talking about serious in depth interviews with many thousands of real life successful millionaires.
The formula would not be appropriate for the average Joe working his life away. Despite the banter in the last 70 odd posts in this thread, that is not what this thread is about.
I missed the "PM" bit completely
So it is a formula to calculate the likely wealth of certain high achievers?
I did not get that from your post. I thought it was for average or perhaps median wealth not a particular subclass of individual?
Even if it is for this I still cannot see how the graph could start at age 20 and have 20 years of wealth behind someone?
Making a formula fit a line is not that difficult a prospect and knowing what the curve you have defined by that formula would look like, it looks nothing like what the general populations wealth creation would look like, irrespective of what degree the people who came up with it have? Certainly not for ages 20 to 30 at any rate as per my initial comment.
OK so I found a FAHCSIA working paper on wealth generation over peoples lifetimes with data used from 2002.
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/socialpolicy/Documents/prp33/sec3.htm
There are some interesting findings:
In thousands median wealth at various age cohorts based on 2002:
15 to 24 $5,000.00
25 to 34 $74,000.00
35 to 44 $204,800.00
45 to 54 $361,700.00
55 to 64 $422,100.00
After this as one would expect wealth starts going downhill.
I like that one better because at least I am a dramatic overachiever then.
So that I come back on topic and relate this to the thread of high performance people look at the 90th percentile:
15 to 24 $89,000.00
25 to 34 $385,000.00 OK I am struggling a bit there...
35 to 44 $727,000.00 And I suspect I will still be struggling then too....
45 to 54 $1,130,000.00 I have an outside chance I suppose.
55 to 64 $1,508,000.00
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/socialpolicy/Documents/prp33/sec3.htm
There are some interesting findings:
In thousands median wealth at various age cohorts based on 2002:
15 to 24 $5,000.00
25 to 34 $74,000.00
35 to 44 $204,800.00
45 to 54 $361,700.00
55 to 64 $422,100.00
After this as one would expect wealth starts going downhill.
I like that one better because at least I am a dramatic overachiever then.
So that I come back on topic and relate this to the thread of high performance people look at the 90th percentile:
15 to 24 $89,000.00
25 to 34 $385,000.00 OK I am struggling a bit there...
35 to 44 $727,000.00 And I suspect I will still be struggling then too....
45 to 54 $1,130,000.00 I have an outside chance I suppose.
55 to 64 $1,508,000.00
