Posted on Mar 19, 2021
Money: If Everyone Started with $500,000 How Much Would You Have in 5 Years?
219
7
4
4
4
0
If everyone started with $500,000, how much would you have in 5 years? Experience shows that the previously-rich would be richer and the previously-poor would still be broke. In a capitalist society, why are so many people ignorant about money and what can you do about it?
Bill Whittle and AlfonZo Rachel explore the moral questions that shape our politics in The Virtue Signal.
A very interesting video! Well worth the watch.
What are your feelings/knowledge on money and the handling of it?
Bill Whittle and AlfonZo Rachel explore the moral questions that shape our politics in The Virtue Signal.
A very interesting video! Well worth the watch.
What are your feelings/knowledge on money and the handling of it?
Posted in these groups: 
Money
Money
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
3
3
0
This is a VERY biased premise.
If I am so rich that I don't NEED money, and you give me $500,000 I am free to invest it and let it grow.
On the other hand, poor folks are going to spend that money improving their quality of life - upgrading vehicles, appliances, wardrobe, maybe even homes. Maybe let their family who has never experienced things like Disney World or a dinner at an upscale restaurant experience the "good life" once or twice. At the end of the day, they will STILL have very little money - but they and their family will be able to live a bit more comfortably, which, while not having money in the bank, is STILL an excellent investment.
Now... if you take that rich person, and take away everything they have. Make them live poor for a year, and THEN give them $500,000 - but don't give them back any of their stuff or their access to money managers or the wealthy elite that their previous wealth brought them, and THEN see where they are 5 years later.... I bet the results are pretty similar.
I know it is Hollywood fiction and complete farce. But look at the movie Trading Places (Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy). The movie is funny because of the underlying truth.
It isn't that the rich are SO MUCH BETTER with money, it is that they have SO MUCH LESS need to use it - and so many better connections to invest.
And yes, there is SOME truth to the element of the poor not investing well. But that is not because they are necessarily bad with money, it is because for *them* money (and the accompanying security) is so fleeting, they need to be able to see a TANGIBLE return. If they put it in the bank, it will last longer paying for things like rent and utilities - but the money will STILL evaporate with nothing to SHOW for it.
If I am so rich that I don't NEED money, and you give me $500,000 I am free to invest it and let it grow.
On the other hand, poor folks are going to spend that money improving their quality of life - upgrading vehicles, appliances, wardrobe, maybe even homes. Maybe let their family who has never experienced things like Disney World or a dinner at an upscale restaurant experience the "good life" once or twice. At the end of the day, they will STILL have very little money - but they and their family will be able to live a bit more comfortably, which, while not having money in the bank, is STILL an excellent investment.
Now... if you take that rich person, and take away everything they have. Make them live poor for a year, and THEN give them $500,000 - but don't give them back any of their stuff or their access to money managers or the wealthy elite that their previous wealth brought them, and THEN see where they are 5 years later.... I bet the results are pretty similar.
I know it is Hollywood fiction and complete farce. But look at the movie Trading Places (Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy). The movie is funny because of the underlying truth.
It isn't that the rich are SO MUCH BETTER with money, it is that they have SO MUCH LESS need to use it - and so many better connections to invest.
And yes, there is SOME truth to the element of the poor not investing well. But that is not because they are necessarily bad with money, it is because for *them* money (and the accompanying security) is so fleeting, they need to be able to see a TANGIBLE return. If they put it in the bank, it will last longer paying for things like rent and utilities - but the money will STILL evaporate with nothing to SHOW for it.
(3)
(0)
LTC Eugene Chu
Why It's More Expensive To Be Poor
It’s not just a matter of having less money. For many people below the poverty line, some goods and services can actually be MORE expensive. How can that be?...
Banks and other businesses exploit the poor with fees and other charges. Due to high cost of living expenses and stagnant wages, it is harder to save or invest today than in previous times.
https://youtu.be/aLwRZibUqL0
https://youtu.be/aLwRZibUqL0
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Actually SFC Casey O'Mally, the premise is: Everyone loses every red cent that they have - even playing field. No millionaires, no billionaires, everybody starting the same. Then everyone gets $500k "starting" money.
My wife and I got married and due to circumstances, we were on welfare before the end of our first year - with a new born in the house. So, I've been there. I was NEVER taught HOW to handle money nor was I taught what my relationship with money should look like. It has taken 30 years of sweat equity to be where we are now. How I think of money, how I use it, all of that has changed as I learned from those who were better at understanding it than I was. And none of them were investors.
My wife and I got married and due to circumstances, we were on welfare before the end of our first year - with a new born in the house. So, I've been there. I was NEVER taught HOW to handle money nor was I taught what my relationship with money should look like. It has taken 30 years of sweat equity to be where we are now. How I think of money, how I use it, all of that has changed as I learned from those who were better at understanding it than I was. And none of them were investors.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SSgt (Join to see) - I would be willing to wager that in that scenario, you would be HARD pressed, at the end of 5 years, which folks were previously rich. Especially if you strip away degrees, titles, and jobs.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google