<p>
If u don’t like how a corporation pays u as an employee, then don’t stick around. Move.</p>
<p>You can make Henry Ford a hero as much as you like. I consider him a product of the era. The time was right for his approach. We had the industrial revolution that enabled mass production. We needed an assembly line. And labor force to man it. A lot of people got hired forming a formidable class to reckon with. They got to rule. It’s different now. Educated people are coveted. Robots are manning the assembly line. It looks to me we are at a crucial point, we need to steer to take advantage of changing economy and position ourselves for future property without fighting the trend.</p>
<p>Deleted</p>
<p>Going back to the initial question – here’s an interesting article about who buys luxury items and geographical differences. <a href=“In Sales of Luxuries, Geography Matters - The New York Times”>In Sales of Luxuries, Geography Matters - The New York Times;
<p>“When it comes to splurging on luxury items, what people want seems to depend as much on where they live as what they earn.”</p>
<p>“It asked people in different states to agree or disagree with the statement, “I am perfectly happy with my standard of living.” Minnesotans topped the list, with 68 percent agreeing. But Connecticut, one of the wealthiest states in America by income, ranked 30th, with only 48 percent of respondents saying they were happy.”</p>
<p>There’s a chart that shows that the median income of someone who owns a luxury car is $83,900 in Texas compared to $155,500 in Ohio.</p>
<p>““Where we live in the country impacts how we choose to spend our discretionary dollars,” said Polly Flynn, a senior analyst at TGI and the person who analyzed the data. “The pursuit of luxury is perhaps most achievable, and in many cases most important, for consumers in the South.””</p>
<p>So I wonder if the “rich people” who don’t feel rich live in different places than the “rich people” who do feel rich.</p>
<p>Re: <a href=“In Sales of Luxuries, Geography Matters - The New York Times”>In Sales of Luxuries, Geography Matters - The New York Times;
<p>Would the percentage of Texas people who own “luxury cars” increase if fully loaded crew cab pickups with all of the luxury trimmings were included? (Try pricing one out.)</p>
<p>It personally seems stupid to me for someone who makes 100K to buy a 50K car, but apparently there’s this high geographic divide. My experience is with Michigan, which I’ll use Ohio as a bellwether for, which seems to align more with what I’ve seen and what makes sense to me than the Texas or California numbers for instance. Makes sense that someone making 100K would shop (not for all groceries, but for some specialty stuff you can’t get at Meijer/Grocery-mainstay) but traveling to Europe or buying a Mercedes when you only make 100K? </p>
<p>I’m wondering why they just picked the most populus states for the study? Would have been much more interesting compare Idaho or Utah and Mississippi or Louisiana and Virginia to see the difference the different demographics cause.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Larry Ellison. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not if that’s the way it’s always been. If it’s never been different it’s never descended. If we now moved to where 99% live in stone age levels of prosperity then yes, obviously. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan probably has a more “buy American [brand]” preference than many other states, so the list of expensive cars considered “desirable” there may be smaller (e.g. Cadillac, Lincoln, Chevrolet Corvette, loaded American-brand trucks and SUVs, but less so Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc.).</p>
<p>
In addition to a geographic divide, there a huge difference between Bogleheads and those who responded to that survey. 2/3 of BHs in a poll (<a href=“Your car(s) are equal to how many months income - Bogleheads.org”>Your car(s) are equal to how many months income - Bogleheads.org) indicated that the value of their cars range from <1 month of gross pay to 2 months. So, if they’re a typical BH, their cars would be worth $8-9k with an income of $100k.</p>
<p>There is great variability among BHs. Some really like driving beaters, and others really enjoy their cars. The typical car is a Honda/Toyota/Subaru/ etc. that is driven for 10 years. BHs are usually pretty honest, but they do sometimes tell tall tales when it’s a case of “I am more frugal than thou,” so the poll should be taken with that grain of salt, and also the caveat that some of the parameters of the poll were unclear.</p>
<p>I provide the poll only as entertainment :)</p>
<p>Full disclosure: our 4 cars are worth roughly 2 months gross income, which is how I responded to the poll. I counted all income, not just earned.</p>
<p>Hey Vlad, know what, I just realized something. You will not learn why income inequality degenerates, and absolute income inequality which is the way USA is going degenerates absolutely, unless for the rest of your life your current income just keeps pace with inflation, while that of your best buddy grows at 15 pct per year.</p>
<p>So I wish you that, mate. Be well.</p>
<p>4 cars Bob? Wow. We only have one. Do you drive all four?</p>
<p>@User51969, I was counting the kids’ cars. 4 drivers, 4 cars. We could probably get by with 3, but we are spoiled. And yes, I do drive all 4 on occasion, but usually my car (which, btw, is the only one with >100k miles on it 
).</p>
<p>ETA: and, in the interests of full disclosure, for the past 20 years or so, “my car” has been my wife’s hand-me-down.</p>
<p>Kids’ cars? I am not planning to buy the kid a car. In fact I am not not letting him get a driver’s license if I can prevent it lol Perhaps when he is 25 and has a mature brain he can get a driver’s license! I got into so many accidents when I was an early driver. A family friend was lamenting to my wife that her son drives like he has half a brain (the kid is 18) and my wife said in full seriousness that’s because they don’t have a full brain yet. Dunno if that’s true.</p>
<p>Corporations are individuals. ;)</p>
<p>And who runs those rich corporations GMT and hold a tonne of shares? I work with these guys daily, ok? Hiding behind the corporation is so mid 20th century. Real capitalists take corporate jets to Washington to ask for Govt money while laying off a few more low level folks on the side.</p>
<p>Cooperate greed,</p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/news/banks-took-unfair-advantage-commodity-050001181.html”>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/banks-took-unfair-advantage-commodity-050001181.html</a></p>
<p>I am sure no one would complain if they make honest money… </p>
<h1>967 regarding Larry Elliison: he is older than I am. The baby boomers had almost unlimited opportunities for economic advancement and wealth creation - imho. My husband and I were deliberately downwardly mobile and still ended up what I consider “rich.” Vlad, I don’t see that the majority of your generation has that opportunity. Some will do well, but based on luck of birth circumstances more than anything else. I only know a relatively small subset of young folks done with college and employed. Some are enthusiastically participating in the Silicon Valley gold rush. It seems to me they will all do extremely well financially but they are a network that keeps spreading jobs and unbelievable salaries among a very small group. At least that is what it looks like to me. How many non top school graduates are google and the like really hiring? And what in the world is going to happen to the young people who can’t afford college, or graduate from those for-profit places owing 25% of their income in college debt, if they are able to find a job. Which group has more members? I see on the one hand 20something yr olds poised to be millionaires before their 30th birthday and 20somethings who won’t be able to ever get ahead because of college debt. How are they going to pay for their apps? If the rich group can’t sell any more apps, what happens? Ford paid his employees enough to buy his product.</h1>
<p>We can help those who have less because it’s moral. We can help them out of enlightened self-interest. Or we can take advantage of them as much as possible and hope for the best. Your generation gets to deal with the consequences of baby boomer greed. I apologize.</p>
<p>adding: unfortunately I am not rich enough to buy an island because that would be very useful in terms of zombie defense.</p>
<p>“adding: unfortunately I am not rich enough to buy an island because that would be very useful in terms of zombie defense”</p>
<p>I’ve heard about this zombie defense thing a number of times. Sounds fun (or necessary, depending upon how you look at it). What is it? My son actually took a class in zombie survival, and thought it was pretty useful.</p>
<p>I’m hoping my kids get into the Silicon Valley gold rush crowd, then they can buy me an island. But it’s a new class of young people, who get there through brains, motivation, and skills, not family connections (unless your name is Gates). How cool you are, and how much of a jock you are means absolutely zip. Geeks rule. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I call healthy economy. I hope they win against Wall Street.</p>