Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   How well do you really know the middle-managers of the world domination set?   (cnbc.com) divider line 27
    More: Interesting, Brooks Brothers  
•       •       •

1312 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 7:54 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-08 05:28:52 PM  
What do millionaires say is the No. 1 reason they are wealthy?

Wow, I can tell this quiz is going to be HARD.
 
2014-05-08 05:32:04 PM  
The headline put me in the mind of this, for some reason.

ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com
 
2014-05-08 06:30:27 PM  
Dwight K. Schrute. Assistant to the regional manager
 
2014-05-08 08:00:19 PM  
I got the divorce one wrong. I understood the question as "have they ever been divorced," and the question meant "are currently married." My bad.
 
2014-05-08 08:12:25 PM  
you're so frou frou, subby. That headline sounds like a sentence out of a Tom Wolfe novel
 
2014-05-08 08:29:37 PM  
I feel like this quiz isn't deepthroating millionaires enough.
 
2014-05-08 08:46:02 PM  
Let me guess.  They are taking homes and retirement accounts into consideration.  So a lot of millionaires are near 60-65 are still married and are currently employed.

*takes quiz*

Well that didn't really tell me anything about the actual people, except that they are probably a pair of five-hundred-thousand-aires.  People under 55 are too busy working to enjoy home.  Those over 70 are too dead or already have the place how they like it.

/The path to a good MRS degree is through a B.Ed

$6,181,671.08 today is the equivalent to 1,000,000 in the 70s
 
2014-05-08 09:04:34 PM  
Middle management dominatrix?
cdn.images.express.co.uk
 
2014-05-08 11:29:53 PM  
A million dollars in assets is not a super high level of wealth these days, especially if you live in an urban area. Even a small condo runs for 700-800k or so in LA.
 
2014-05-08 11:47:49 PM  

shamanwest: Middle management dominatrix?
[cdn.images.express.co.uk image 590x350]


Ally Sheedy did always give me a hard on.
 
2014-05-08 11:57:16 PM  
The people who earn extreme amounts of money from 0 are extreme personalities.   The ones who build off of an already existing fortune are practical.
I think I would have been one of those fools who would have squandered my wealth if I inherited it.  I'm a better person because I wasn't tempted to do that.
 
2014-05-08 11:59:26 PM  
So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich, then ask these non-rich people if they act rich.  ZOMG, SURPRISE, they don't!  Amazing!

Farking tards.
 
2014-05-09 01:00:09 AM  

Emposter: So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich, then ask these non-rich people if they act rich.  ZOMG, SURPRISE, they don't!  Amazing!

Farking tards.


The quiz article is a little vague. The definition used for the survey was a million in assets not including primary residence, which they calculated to be 9.63 million people or almost exactly 3 percent of the population. I would think it fair to call someone who has more assets than 97 percent of the population of the wealthiest nation on earth "rich" but to each their own. The original data and survey are from the spectrem group (www.spectrem.com). You can get the info from the CNBC site but I couldn't find it without reading the transcript of a video.
 
2014-05-09 01:17:27 AM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich, then ask these non-rich people if they act rich.  ZOMG, SURPRISE, they don't!  Amazing!

Farking tards.

The quiz article is a little vague. The definition used for the survey was a million in assets not including primary residence, which they calculated to be 9.63 million people or almost exactly 3 percent of the population. I would think it fair to call someone who has more assets than 97 percent of the population of the wealthiest nation on earth "rich" but to each their own. The original data and survey are from the spectrem group (www.spectrem.com). You can get the info from the CNBC site but I couldn't find it without reading the transcript of a video.


If they HAVE a primary residence, maybe.  I don't, I rent...and if I was 60 and retired today, planning to live to 100, a million would barely even cover my rent for my 1300 square foot 2 bedroom apartment.

Not mention than not including primary residence is retarded.  A millionaire who rents isn't just magically richer than a millionaire who owns, because reasons.  Pretending that Person A with $1.5 million in assets is rich and Person B with $1.5 million in assets, but owns a house, isn't is the type of half assed crap you only pull if you want to massage numbers to come to a "shocking" result you can surprise people with, such as how rich people all act poor.

Have I mentioned yet how dumb this article is?
 
2014-05-09 01:47:15 AM  

Emposter: ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich, then ask these non-rich people if they act rich.  ZOMG, SURPRISE, they don't!  Amazing!

Farking tards.

The quiz article is a little vague. The definition used for the survey was a million in assets not including primary residence, which they calculated to be 9.63 million people or almost exactly 3 percent of the population. I would think it fair to call someone who has more assets than 97 percent of the population of the wealthiest nation on earth "rich" but to each their own. The original data and survey are from the spectrem group (www.spectrem.com). You can get the info from the CNBC site but I couldn't find it without reading the transcript of a video.

If they HAVE a primary residence, maybe.  I don't, I rent...and if I was 60 and retired today, planning to live to 100, a million would barely even cover my rent for my 1300 square foot 2 bedroom apartment.

Not mention than not including primary residence is retarded.  A millionaire who rents isn't just magically richer than a millionaire who owns, because reasons.  Pretending that Person A with $1.5 million in assets is rich and Person B with $1.5 million in assets, but owns a house, isn't is the type of half assed crap you only pull if you want to massage numbers to come to a "shocking" result you can surprise people with, such as how rich people all act poor.

Have I mentioned yet how dumb this article is?


Why they used that definition is explained on the site I gave you in my previous reply, and whether you like the definition or not doesn't change the basic fact that almost no one has that much. Also, that's not how retirement works.
 
2014-05-09 02:06:27 AM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich, then ask these non-rich people if they act rich.  ZOMG, SURPRISE, they don't!  Amazing!

Farking tards.

The quiz article is a little vague. The definition used for the survey was a million in assets not including primary residence, which they calculated to be 9.63 million people or almost exactly 3 percent of the population. I would think it fair to call someone who has more assets than 97 percent of the population of the wealthiest nation on earth "rich" but to each their own. The original data and survey are from the spectrem group (www.spectrem.com). You can get the info from the CNBC site but I couldn't find it without reading the transcript of a video.

If they HAVE a primary residence, maybe.  I don't, I rent...and if I was 60 and retired today, planning to live to 100, a million would barely even cover my rent for my 1300 square foot 2 bedroom apartment.

Not mention than not including primary residence is retarded.  A millionaire who rents isn't just magically richer than a millionaire who owns, because reasons.  Pretending that Person A with $1.5 million in assets is rich and Person B with $1.5 million in assets, but owns a house, isn't is the type of half assed crap you only pull if you want to massage numbers to come to a "shocking" result you can surprise people with, such as how rich people all act poor.

Have I mentioned yet how dumb this article is?

Why they used that definition is explained on the site I gave you in my previous reply, and whether you like the definition or not doesn't change the basic fact that almost no one has that much. Also, that's not how retirement works.


Of course not, there is SS, interest, etc.  It's also not how rent works, what with regular yearly increases as allowed by law.

It is, however, a way of putting $1 million in perspective.

As for the site, I'm not searching through that shiat.  Skimming over the various sections and main page links, plus a quick search, didn't find me anything useful, and that's all I'm doing.  You can provide a link, or not.  I doubt highly it will make the study any less retarded, so I'd probably not bother if I were you.
 
2014-05-09 02:35:37 AM  

Emposter: ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich, then ask these non-rich people if they act rich.  ZOMG, SURPRISE, they don't!  Amazing!

Farking tards.

The quiz article is a little vague. The definition used for the survey was a million in assets not including primary residence, which they calculated to be 9.63 million people or almost exactly 3 percent of the population. I would think it fair to call someone who has more assets than 97 percent of the population of the wealthiest nation on earth "rich" but to each their own. The original data and survey are from the spectrem group (www.spectrem.com). You can get the info from the CNBC site but I couldn't find it without reading the transcript of a video.

If they HAVE a primary residence, maybe.  I don't, I rent...and if I was 60 and retired today, planning to live to 100, a million would barely even cover my rent for my 1300 square foot 2 bedroom apartment.

Not mention than not including primary residence is retarded.  A millionaire who rents isn't just magically richer than a millionaire who owns, because reasons.  Pretending that Person A with $1.5 million in assets is rich and Person B with $1.5 million in assets, but owns a house, isn't is the type of half assed crap you only pull if you want to massage numbers to come to a "shocking" result you can surprise people with, such as how rich people all act poor.

Have I mentioned yet how dumb this article is?

Why they used that definition is explained on the site I gave you in my previous reply, and whether you like the definition or not doesn't change the basic fact that almost no one has that much. Also, that's not how retirement works.

Of course not, there is SS, interest, etc.  It's also not how rent works, what with regular yearly increases as allowed by law.

It is, however, a way of putting $1 million in perspective.

As for the site, I'm not searching through that shiat.  Skimming over the various sections and main page links, plus a quick search, didn't find me anything useful, and that's all I'm doing.  You can provide a link, or not.  I doubt highly it will make the study any less retarded, so I'd probably not bother if I were you.


Shrug... Again, my point is that whatever you believe a million dollars is worth, almost no one has it. That is all. Are you arguing that these people are middle class?

I'm certainly not here to white-knight CNBC, which I can't stand, or Spectrem Group, who I've never heard of before tonight.
 
2014-05-09 02:58:36 AM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: Shrug... Again, my point is that whatever you believe a million dollars is worth, almost no one has it. That is all. Are you arguing that these people are middle class?

I'm certainly not here to white-knight CNBC, which I can't stand, or Spectrem Group, who I've never heard of before tonight.


And my point is, once again, that calculating net worth without including homes is retarded.  In my mind, a person with $750k and an $250k house is better off than a person with just $1 million.  The study deliberately eliminating a huge number of people with net worth over $1 million, then saying there aren't that many...no shiat.

As for being middle class or not, I suppose it depends on how old they are.  Many of them certainly are middle class.  Retiring with $1 million is easily doable with a medium high 5 digit income.  High 5 digits if you have kids.  Medium, maybe even low, 5 digits if you live in the cheap seats of America.
 
2014-05-09 03:16:58 AM  

Emposter: And my point is, once again, that calculating net worth without including homes is retarded. In my mind, a person with $750k and an $250k house is better off than a person with just $1 million. The study deliberately eliminating a huge number of people with net worth over $1 million, then saying there aren't that many...no shiat.


Since you started with the exact opposite point, you'll have to forgive my confusion...

So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich

Also... if you have a million dollars and you want to have 750k and a 250k house instead, there's a simple way to do that....
 
2014-05-09 03:24:27 AM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: And my point is, once again, that calculating net worth without including homes is retarded. In my mind, a person with $750k and an $250k house is better off than a person with just $1 million. The study deliberately eliminating a huge number of people with net worth over $1 million, then saying there aren't that many...no shiat.

Since you started with the exact opposite point, you'll have to forgive my confusion...

So...they pretend having a million in assets makes someone rich


I'm not seeing how that's the opposite.

Also... if you have a million dollars and you want to have 750k and a 250k house instead, there's a simple way to do that....

That's my point...
 
2014-05-09 03:34:56 AM  

Emposter: I'm not seeing how that's the opposite.


You started by claiming that the survey included too many people in its definition of rich. Now you're claiming that it doesn't include enough.
 
2014-05-09 03:41:13 AM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: I'm not seeing how that's the opposite.

You started by claiming that the survey included too many people in its definition of rich. Now you're claiming that it doesn't include enough.


No, I'm not.  $1 million net worth isn't rich.  Which is what I said before.  What part of this aren't you getting?
 
2014-05-09 03:52:37 AM  

Emposter: ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: I'm not seeing how that's the opposite.

You started by claiming that the survey included too many people in its definition of rich. Now you're claiming that it doesn't include enough.

No, I'm not.  $1 million net worth isn't doesn't make a person rich.  Which is what I said before.  What part of this aren't you getting?


FTFM
 
2014-05-09 04:14:02 AM  

Emposter: No, I'm not. $1 million net worth isn't rich. Which is what I said before. What part of this aren't you getting?


What percentage of the U.S. population has a million dollar net worth?
 
2014-05-09 08:34:05 AM  
As a middle management guy in government, my sub 6-figure W-2 tells me I'm in the wrong kind of middle management
 
2014-05-09 09:53:23 AM  

edmo: As a middle management guy in government, my sub 6-figure W-2 tells me I'm in the wrong kind of middle management


No my friend, I can't think of any industry where middle management cracks 6 figures.

Now upper management ... That's a different story
 
2014-05-09 06:35:04 PM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: Emposter: No, I'm not. $1 million net worth isn't rich. Which is what I said before. What part of this aren't you getting?

What percentage of the U.S. population has a million dollar net worth?


A quick wiki check puts the estimate at as many as 16.6 million individuals. Of course, the proper percentage is not ([100*16.6]/314)% like you used before. It's more accurately ([100*16.6/[314*.765]) or about 6.9% of the adult US population, albeit this includes ages 19-22. It might be better to exclude that age range as it is predominately individuals in college and not business professionals. Doing a simple adjustment for that yields ([100*16.6]/[314*{1-.235*11/9}]) or about 7.4%. In practical terms, that translates to about 1 in 14 individuals aged 22 or older. While that is certainly not incredibly common, I would not classify it as "almost no one" as you did.

Of note is that the 16.6 million figure includes primary residence in its valuation of net worth. There are certainly arguments both for and against including primary residences in estimations of net worth. Without knowing the specifics of this study, I cannot say for certain whether they were justified in leaving it out.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report