I'm not from the US, and so I only follow this from a distance, but:
Taxes for the top 2 percent are very likely to go higher
Is this actually true? Obama couldn't get support to rollback tax cuts on the rich - is he really going to be able to increase them now? I believe Republican policy is to cut taxes on the rich (?)
In the United States, the very rich hold most of that wealth in dollars, which are worth increasingly less.
This isn't true either is it? Firstly, don't most of the rich hold their wealth in investments (eg, shares), which might be denominated in US Dollars but are relatively immune to long term changes in value of the dollar? Secondly, (despite all the talk) actually hasn't been any significant inflation in the US. (I'll happily concede that the US dollar has deprecated against other currencies, but that shouldn't effect the domestic purchasing power of the rich that much - even allowing for outsized impact due to imported luxury goods)
Is this actually true? Obama couldn't get support to rollback tax cuts on the rich - is he really going to be able to increase them now? I believe Republican policy is to cut taxes on the rich (?)
Spot on. The Bush tax cuts have only temporarily been extended, and the Democrats have expressed interest in eventually eliminating them for the top bracket only. I assume this is what the article is referring to. We'll see if that actually happens anytime soon. The Republicans certainly aren't going to support it because, as you said, their positions generally involve further cutting income taxes, if anything. Here's a chart that compares a recent Republican proposal to the Bush tax cuts: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/pawlenty%E2%80%99s-high-end-...
Let's not conflate the French and Russian revolutions - they have absolutely nothing in common. And yes, the French revolution did work out very well for the poor, eventually. It was at the root of the development of modern democracy in the Western world.
Let's not conflate the French and Russian revolutions - they have absolutely nothing in common.
I have issues with the word "absolutely". They had quite a lot of common - both were about overthrowing a system of government based on birthright, and the participants in the Russian revolution certainly tried to learn from the French revolution.
(One could argue that the Russian revolution was actually better for the poor in the short term than the French. Serfdom was immediately abolished, and it got them out of WW1. War had the biggest impact on the poor)
Well, there's the part where the monarchy collapses but no one really knows who's going to take over, and then there's the part where radicals take over, murder the entire royal family, and enforce a bloody reign of terror, and then there's the part where all the other countries in Europe get anxious about all the unrest and go to war with the revolting country, and then there's the part where the country ultimately ends up under an imperialist dictator who tries to conquer their neighbors. They were quite different affairs, yes, but it's an exaggeration to say they had absolutely nothing in common.
Money provides a different scale of experience, but doesn't actually have an effect in the intensity of happiness. True happiness is about managing your progression so you don't become adjusted to a lifestyle, no matter the scale. Humans adjust to almost anything, as a survival mechanism. The act of experiencing the present infinite moment can always offer enough richness for a human. This is why you can live a satisfying life whether you have everything or nothing. In the end, you must have power over your consciousness. You must be prepared for any situation, so you must learn to manage what you have at a small scale in order to manage what you have at a large scale. Just like in business, flexibiity and adaptability are most important.
"4. Watch your lifestyle leverage, especially early in your career."
This is so true. Living way below your mean is so important as that's a great way to gain financial independence to have the freedom to pursue what you love to do.
I was in music school for a while; a guy asked if it was better to be lucky, or talented. He answered, "the more talented you are, the luckier you get. The more you practice, the more talented you get."
I think the initial quote better addresses your point 2
> Money won’t buy happiness, but it will pay the salaries
of a large research staff to study the problem. - Bill Vaughan
Also, Zaphod: If he was asked at this moment where he would like to be he would probably have said he would like to be lying on the beach with at least fifty beautiful women and a small team of experts working out new ways they could be nice to him, which was his usual reply.http://www.otostopcu.org/yazi/h2g2/b2c7.php
I don't know specifically about tech companies but the hedge fund I work for will lend and match up to very large amounts of money that you put into the fund.
It really helps to motivate you when you realize that most of your net worth is tied up in the fund:)
Stock options to hot pre IPO companies like Facebook, twitter, etc are very similar. It's hard to leave before all your options vest( and they never do as you always get a new grant each year) as it's always in the back of your mind that the big IPO is just around the corner.
Absolutely, only it's more subtle. When you work at a company that feeds you gourmet lunches, does your oil changes and laundry for you, arranges shuttles from your apartment to the office, etc., you begin to feel like you couldn't possibly live any other way.
That is the dark side of perks.
Another way to keep people stuck is to pay them too much, much more than they could ever earn elsewhere. They will then rationalize that they are doing it just for the money, which leads them to hate their job, even tho they will not leave (because of the money). Then you see worsening politicking, squabbling, dark humor about "at least it pays well" and general "acting out."
I saw both of these in action at my last real job, at a tech co. you've heard of. The wild parties, the liquor cabinet, the gourmet kitchen, the rooftop deck in TriBeCa, and more importantly, the excessively huge amounts of profit-sharing... it was like geek summer camp, until it turned into a teen drama because of the "poor little rich boys."
I knew I could never work at another place after that, because (in most ways) it was just so great. We were all spoiled rotten.
I read "golden handcuffs" as extending a line of credit to employees to support and _encourage_ living beyond their actual means. This is very very different from being pampered and spoiled as you describe.
This is much more common in finance and legal firms, where much of the upside accrues to partners in the firm, and the junior people work long hours for much more modest compensation. But they're loaned money in order to get a jump start on the lifestyle that their more senior colleagues enjoy, putting them in hock to the firm. If they were to leave to join a startup, for example, they'd have to pay it back in a lump sum.
"They encourage up-and-comers to spend extravagantly; they extend lines of credit to their rising stars. You need a big house with a jumbo mortgage; you cannot pull up to a business meeting in anything less than the best luxury car. It is part of their corporate culture."
No, "golden handcuffs" are anything that seem like a good thing at the time but that prevent you from leaving.
"Golden handcuffs are a system of financial incentives designed to keep an employee from leaving the company. These can include employee stock options that will not vest for several years but are more often contractual obligations to give back lucrative bonuses or other compensation if the employee leaves for another company."
-- Wikipedia
I would like to hear arguments about how a doubled salary, thanks to profit-sharing, does not count as a "system of financial incentives designed to keep an employee from leaving the company."
Thanks for the tips. I'll make sure to be cognizant of the perks I'm getting. Any advice on how to survive a workplace like that and keep your mind in reality?
Referring back to the article, setting your own goals and having a gameplan for your career and finances that transcends your current gig and workplace.
From what I've found with a quick search it seems like most held wealth is earned rather than inherited. Does anyone know if this is accurate, and what the typical 'pre-earnings' demographic background of the very wealthy is in the U.S.?
Anecdotally, it seems that practically every billionaire in the US comes from an upbringing in the comfortable middle class.
This is basically what we'd expect, given that:
a) Folks who become rich are generally pretty darn smart.
b) People who are smart generally have smart parents.
c) The vast majority of smart people are in the comfortable middle class. (Not the poor, since they're smart enough not to be poor, but not the very rich, because statistically there ain't that many of 'em)
Therefore, if you're rich you probably had comfortably middle class parents.
Here's something I read today in this month's Atlantic:
"Many of today’s super-rich started out in the middle and make most of their money through work, not inheritance. Ninety-five years ago, the richest 1 percent of Americans received only 20 percent of their income from paid work; in 2004, that income proportion had tripled, to 60 percent. "
I know some wealthy people and the first three points seem pretty spot on. I wonder what the last four points were. I think I'll flag articles behind pay-walls from now on.
Thanks, I know how to get around them but I just don't think I will bother anymore. There is so much information out there that is just as interesting and freely available.
Then start your own business because that is true for 100% of the business. But they do spend a lot of money to make employees feel that they are very valuable and their work is worth a lot and they are adding a lot of value etc. Watch the move Matrix to understand the philosophy.
You spend even more time in exchange for money when you start your own business. The real fix is to do what you love because then work never feels like work.
Taxes for the top 2 percent are very likely to go higher
Is this actually true? Obama couldn't get support to rollback tax cuts on the rich - is he really going to be able to increase them now? I believe Republican policy is to cut taxes on the rich (?)
In the United States, the very rich hold most of that wealth in dollars, which are worth increasingly less.
This isn't true either is it? Firstly, don't most of the rich hold their wealth in investments (eg, shares), which might be denominated in US Dollars but are relatively immune to long term changes in value of the dollar? Secondly, (despite all the talk) actually hasn't been any significant inflation in the US. (I'll happily concede that the US dollar has deprecated against other currencies, but that shouldn't effect the domestic purchasing power of the rich that much - even allowing for outsized impact due to imported luxury goods)