I have a theory about people who "don't trust the govt."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There is the working class, then the middle class, then the upper middle class, then the well off, then the rich who think they are rich but aren't rich, and then the truly rich.

I put myself in the upper middle class, for your frame of reference.

I agree. I am in the middle class socio-economic group. I've seen the rich and they are aliens to most of us.

Seattle knows them as well, both personally and professionally.

We are not even close to being rich. I don't even fancy myself wealthy, just a working slob like everybody else around me.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree. I am in the middle class socio-economic group. I've seen the rich and they are aliens to most of us.

Seattle knows them as well, both personally and professionally.

We are not even close to being rich. I don't even fancy myself wealthy, just a working slob like everybody else around me.

you are upper middle class at the very least. I may be more accurately called middle class since I live in a house with bars on the windows and my two neighbors are both Hispanics doing blue-collar service work.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree. I am in the middle class socio-economic group. I've seen the rich and they are aliens to most of us.

Seattle knows them as well, both personally and professionally.

We are not even close to being rich. I don't even fancy myself wealthy, just a working slob like everybody else around me.

I think most people know someone who is truly rich. A few in the lower classes are related to them.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you are upper middle class at the very least. I may be more accurately called middle class since I live in a house with bars on the windows and my two neighbors are both Hispanics doing blue-collar service work.

Tell me what your definitions are for your groups and I'll tell you where I am.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Implicit in your definition is standard of living and financial acumen. Not sure how that relates to my choice of career.

I'm talking about income. There are surgeons in New York and Beverly Hills, and securities lawyes in New York, and leading edge plaintiff class action lawyers, who regularly earn enough income in one year to enable them to retire on just that year's income. But they are highly unusual, like the super-eilites in any profession.

The bottom line is there's really only one way to get "rich," and that's becoming a business leader, usually a highly successful business owner, a generator of vast wealth through inovation. Billing clients $400 or even $1,000 an hour won't make you rich. It will give you a high standard of living and seeming riches in the eyes of your milk man and gardner, but you won't be rich until you have done it for years and years, at least not by my definition of rich. And if you're doing it "for the money," you won't be happy.

Personally, I learned a long time ago that keeping score based on money is not too satisfying no matter who you are. You need to do what you do because you regard it as a calling to serve, and you live and love the labor, and this is especially true in the professions. It's just like no one should become a writer to get rich. I'm speaking what sounds like platitudes I know, but truer words were never spoken.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by K-dog

I think most people know someone who is truly rich. A few in the lower classes are related to them.

I don't know any truly rich. The nicest spread I have been to is a doctor's, for a work conference. He actually has a guest house, tennis court, mini-soccer field, swimming pool, and conference center and running track on his property, which is the central of rich-dom here in Dallas. He is in the stratosphere as far as doctors, especially academic doctors. I think I looked up the property value on Zillow and it was something like 6 or 7 million. He's not truly rich, I don't think, but he's not hurting either.

The other well-off people I know are more like in FMCoug's league. Not rich by any stretch, but do very well and have lots of toys.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm talking about income. There are surgeons in New York and Beverly Hills, and securities lawyes in New York, and leading edge class action lawyers, who regularly earn enough income in one year to enable them to retire on just that year's income. But they are highly unusual, like the super-eilites in any profession.

The bottom line is there's really only one way to get "rich," and that's becoming a business leader, usually a highly successful business owner, a generator of vast wealth through inovation. Billing clients $400 or even $1,000 an hour won't make you rich. It will give you a high standard of living and seeming riches in the eyes of your milk man and gardner, but you won't be rich until you have done it for years and years, at least not by my definition of rich. And if you're doing it "for the money," you won't be happy.

Personally, I learned a long time ago that keeping score based on money is not too satisfying no matter who you are. You need to do what you do because you regard it as a calling to serve, and you live and love the labor, and this is especially true in the professions. It's just like no one should become a writer to get rich. I'm speaking what sounds like platitudes I know, but truer words were never spoken.

Along these lines: I grew up feeling like I was on one of the lower rungs in my world, when it came to money. I was among the poorest of the YM in my ward, I was among the poorest when it came to the smarter kids that I had classes with in high school. So now I am a physician, and I swear, if you hang out with the wrong people, they will make you feel poor. And then these folks can run in circles where they are poor.

Point is that there are always going to be people with more, and you had better not let it bother you, or be motivated by it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm talking about income. There are surgeons in New York and Beverly Hills, and securities lawyes in New York, and leading edge plaintiff class action lawyers, who regularly earn enough income in one year to enable them to retire on just that year's income. But they are highly unusual, like the super-eilites in any profession.

The bottom line is there's really only one way to get "rich," and that's becoming a business leader, usually a highly successful business owner, a generator of vast wealth through inovation. Billing clients $400 or even $1,000 an hour won't make you rich. It will give you a high standard of living and seeming riches in the eyes of your milk man and gardner, but you won't be rich until you have done it for years and years, at least not by my definition of rich. And if you're doing it "for the money," you won't be happy.

Personally, I learned a long time ago that keeping score based on money is not too satisfying no matter who you are. You need to do what you do because you regard it as a calling to serve, and you live and love the labor, and this is especially true in the professions. It's just like no one should become a writer to get rich. I'm speaking what sounds like platitudes I know, but truer words were never spoken.

Exactly. Do what you love and you'll be compensated adequately.

Money for money's sake only goes so far.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm talking about income. There are surgeons in New York and Beverly Hills, and securities lawyes in New York, and leading edge plaintiff class action lawyers, who regularly earn enough income in one year to enable them to retire on just that year's income. But they are highly unusual, like the super-eilites in any profession.

The bottom line is there's really only one way to get "rich," and that's becoming a business leader, usually a highly successful business owner, a generator of vast wealth through inovation. Billing clients $400 or even $1,000 an hour won't make you rich. It will give you a high standard of living and seeming riches in the eyes of your milk man and gardner, but you won't be rich until you have done it for years and years, at least not by my definition of rich. And if you're doing it "for the money," you won't be happy.

Personally, I learned a long time ago that keeping score based on money is not too satisfying no matter who you are. You need to do what you do because you regard it as a calling to serve, and you live and love the labor, and this is especially true in the professions. It's just like no one should become a writer to get rich. I'm speaking what sounds like platitudes I know, but truer words were never spoken.

I work to get paid. I'm a lawyer because it is a profession that pays well. I've only been a lawyer since 2005 so I haven't done it long. I think you are reading too much into my statements if you think I am keeping score on wealth. I don't enjoy it any more than I have enjoyed my other jobs. Eventually, I'll leave it and do something else. I probably won't enjoy that either. Eventually, I'll stop doing things I don't enjoy. I probably won't get paid anymore.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Who is making money in Somalia? Who is making money in Sicily? Who is making money in Russia?

I think you would do well in those places.

Guys like me are making the money in Sicily. I am il Padrino.