CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Cincydawg on May 19, 2023, 04:03:16 PM
-
Think of in a general sense, not some isolated situation. NAV is the key, not income. If a person or couple has $X million, you'd consider them to be rich.
-
5
-
what would everyone consider poor or average in the US
my guess is it differs which part of the country you are living
-
Depends on how much you keep from the Gov't
-
I factor income in.
I have friend who are hauling in at least $290k as a household (I think). No idea what's in the bank, but I consider them at least lightly rich.
-
just remember this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1byW9-xNBU
-
Other.
Your poll choices are exactly what I was talking about. 1 million bucks in the bank is the lowest option? What???
.
Being rich is having options. Being comfortable. Budgeting as a good idea, not a necessity to avoid homelessness. Choosing where you want to live and not living where the market forces you.
.
Part of why I believe most here live in an economic bubble and think my description is nuts is because you're mostly older. Let's chalk it up to age.
-
Rich is when you have friends and family that love you, and support you.
-
Other.
Your poll choices are exactly what I was talking about. 1 million bucks in the bank is the lowest option? What???
.
Being rich is having options. Being comfortable. Budgeting as a good idea, not a necessity to avoid homelessness. Choosing where you want to live and not living where the market forces you.
.
Part of why I believe most here live in an economic bubble and think my description is nuts is because you're mostly older. Let's chalk it up to age.
Or maybe it's because you're posting on a board with a bunch of engineers, lawyers and financial guys.
-
The poll is simply an attempt to generate a board consensus, not everyone has to agree obviously, and there isn't any certain definition of the term otherwise. So, we're not seeking the "right answer", because there isn't one. We're seeking merely opinions. But I'm sure a few might think THEY have the "right answer" and everyone else is wrong.
fine.
-
The poll is simply an attempt to generate a board consensus, not everyone has to agree obviously, and there isn't any certain definition of the term otherwise. So, we're not seeking the "right answer", because there isn't one. We're seeking merely opinions. But I'm sure a few might think THEY have the "right answer" and everyone else is wrong.
fine.
I'm sure this is aimed at me........except I totally agree with your post.
I simply voted "other." No need to get your panties in a bunch.
-
Or maybe it's because you're posting on a board with a bunch of engineers, lawyers and financial guys.
Sure, that too.
So being aware of that, maybe there's no reason for some of you to downplay your obvious wealth.
-
I think another factor is age. A person who is 25 will have a different perspective than one who is 65 and has saved all his life for retirement. The latter can look at a million dollar pot and realize it's not really adequate, depending. The former may well view a million as an aspirational goal someday.
-
Downplay? Like others, I like nice things. We discuss here. Much of our discussions would be gone if we didn't talk about travel, cars, places to live, etc.
If not talking about those things is downplay, well, I'm not playing. And this board is probably toast.
-
I don't see anyone trying to "downplay" their financial situation. Usually, folks tend to up it in casual conversation anyway (probably not here, but in general). "I made a killing on bitcoin last year", etc.
I avoid those folks. We had a few at work. One guy kept bragging about how much he made flipping houses, and then 2008 happened and shut him up quick.
He was a jerk anyway.
-
Downplay? Like others, I like nice things. We discuss here. Much of our discussions would be gone if we didn't talk about travel, cars, places to live, etc.
If not talking about those things is downplay, well, I'm not playing. And this board is probably toast.
Didn't say that it was.
There are so many strawmen on this board, it's a fire hazard. I'm sorry I used the word 'rich,' had no idea it was such a trigger word for you guys.
-
It's all about how you define rich.
-
So being aware of that, maybe there's no reason for some of you to downplay your obvious wealth.
Who here has downplayed their obvious wealth?
-
Who here has downplayed their obvious wealth?
Some might. We don't know. I really don't care, but I'm happy to know that many of us are well-positioned for/in retirement.
Good group of people.
-
Think of in a general sense, not some isolated situation. NAV is the key, not income. If a person or couple has $X million, you'd consider them to be rich.
I'll give this a go based on conversations with my parents when I was a little guy in the 90s. A bit of a hybrid quantitative/qualitative answer.
"Mom, how much money does it take to be rich?"
"I'd say THREE MILLION."
(Keep in mind this was the Midwest in the 90s.)
My Mom's material reasons as told to a 10 year old?
You can pay off your house, keep a mortgage on a second home in a warmer state, pay for your children's college upfront and without loans, pay upfront for the fees to adopt a child (or two) from Romania, and host a Christmas Toy Drive for the "less fortunate" kids at your school.
You can see where my Mom's kind priorities were, but I can just hear Al Bundy or Roseanne hearing all this, and without missing the chance for a joke, responding: "Yes. Three million and maybe I can get courtside seats at the Chicago Bulls games and attract a trophy wife."
Fast forward thirty years later and I would raise this threshold to at least FIVE MILLION regardless of where in the U.S. you live and what your age is.
What I also find worth determining is the term "Generational Wealth." Chock this up as an unpopular opinion, but I find the term to be such a False Promise that it's worth questioning from a distance because of what the term ignores.
There's almost no amount of wealth that can survive a span of sixty years through a third generation. Even if invested properly (such as with the Rockefeller and Vanderbilt dynasties) uber-wealth faces an insidious and determined erosion due to inflation, division through successive inheriting, more aggressive taxing, and inevitable mishandling by undisciplined offspring.
I would say most Generational Wealth extends its usefulness only to the grandchildren (as overseen by their parents), but does not last substantially enough to be passed as an inheritance upon their parent's death, especially with how readily people live into their 80s.
-
^^^
Good post.
-
Who here has downplayed their obvious wealth?
I guess it didn't happen. Sorry I don't search through pages of posts every time you go "huh?"
-
The consensus here, so far, is about $5 million NAV. That's actually far short of my quip about someone who doesn't need any income, I think for that to be true we're going in excess of a hundred million, but I suspect everyone here would think a hundred mil is rich by any reasonable metric.
Imagine a person with a net worth of a hundred mil, maybe $20 million is in personal real estate, which incurs taxes and upkeep and probably some staff. Maybe $60 million is the company he started, maybe it's publically traded and so liquid, but as he sells any of that the tax man cometh. The other $20 mil is just invested in whatever, say stocks and bonds. He can "get by" by borrowing on those assets, say he needs $5 mil a year to "scrape by". He can borrow that off his assets, for a while, and pay zero tax. He'd have interest of course, and if the markets dropped a lot he might hear a margin call. At this level, he might be better advised to sell what he needs and pay the tax man. But if we make it $10 billion, he can borrow nearly forever and not sell and not pay income taxes.
I suspect none of us confront this particular challenge.
-
I love that the favorite past-time of the ultra wealthy is seeing how completely they can avoid contributing to the large, community pot.
Those most able seem to be the least willing.
-
I love that the favorite past-time of the ultra wealthy is seeing how completely they can avoid contributing to the large, community pot.
Those most able seem to be the least willing.
are you sure bout that
$193 Billion seems like a lot to me
https://www.assetmark.com/blog/charitable-giving-for-high-net-worth-individuals#:~:text=People%20with%20greater%20wealth%20account,of%20a%20projected%20%24306%20billion).
-
And how much would it be without the tax write-off?
-
And how much would it be without the tax write-off?
so you are now saying the well off do contribute to the community pot but only because of the tax write off
if you have a lot of money you wont do good things unless it benefits you
-
so you are now saying the well off do contribute to the community pot but only because of the tax write off
if you have a lot of money you wont do good things unless it benefits you
You're learning!
-
You're learning!
capitalism is bad
rich folks are bad
sounds kinda socialistic
are you a socialist
not condeming folks who are
just trying to see where you are coming from
-
OAM I found a video that reminds me of this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mf3Bypyk8
-
capitalism is bad
rich folks are bad
sounds kinda socialistic
are you a socialist
not condeming folks who are
just trying to see where you are coming from
Sigh.
.
All I've said is that on a long-enough timeline, capitalism ends in monopoly. And we'd all agree that is "bad." I don't recall saying "capitalism is bad." Capitalism has good aspects and bad aspects, but a really bad endgame. I know that's far too nuanced for you, but it is what it is.
.
I haven't said anything even approaching "rich folks are bad." It's like you can't help yourself. You're an expert strawman creator. Rich folks tend to value money over most everything else. That's how they get so rich. They tend to influence decision-makers to keep the status quo, as that's the situation in which they became rich iin the first place. Rich folks tend to value gaining an additional dollar over improving lives. They're all for improving lives, if it makes them one additional dollar over not doing it.
That's how they got rich.
And they seem allergic to simply paying taxes. You know, money for roads and schools and shit like that. They'll do every legal? gymnastic possible to avoid paying taxes. Honestly, it's fucking weird. But it's a game for them.
.
Capitalism vs socialism is largely an irrelevant choice imo. As long as those who crave power get it and as long as those who would do it best don't want it, there is no "right" answer.
-
Sigh.
.
That's how they got rich.
And they seem allergic to simply paying taxes. You know, money for roads and schools and shit like that. They'll do every legal? gymnastic possible to avoid paying taxes. Honestly, it's fucking weird. But it's a game for them.
and yet the top 1% pay in over 40% on the Federal Income Tax collected
-
and yet the top 1% pay in over 40% on the Federal Income Tax collected
I guess they're wasting money on those expensive accountants.
.
How much do rich people avoid in taxes? According to U.S. Treasury estimates, the top 1% of wealthy people underpay their taxes by $163 billion annually.
-
I guess they're wasting money on those expensive accountants.
.
How much do rich people avoid in taxes? According to U.S. Treasury estimates, the top 1% of wealthy people underpay their taxes by $163 billion annually.
they go on to say the total estimated underpayment is $600 billion by all tax payers
looks like we need to put those 80,000 additional IRS folks to work asap
one has to wonder just how they estimate this
seems like if they have enough info to estimate this they should be able to stop it or at least reduce it a lot
-
What does "underpay their taxes" mean?
-
And how much would it be without the tax write-off?
Of course any tax deduction only works against earned income, so there is that, and you're only getting cents on the dollar, especially if you only pay 8% as Biden has falsely claimed. (Biden keeps saying that even after being roundly fact checked on it.)
A ot of the donations I see, including my own, come from a charitable fund which was prefunded years back. You don't get any current tax break for that.
Pure capitalism would end in monopolies which is why we don't operate that way any more. Pure anything often doesn't work well. I prefer the terms "free market" or "centrally planned" economies to capitalism and socialism, both of which are overly broad nonspecific terms. Most western countries have hybrid economies of course, but most lean to free market, like say Sweden or Denmark, mostly free market economies. Sweden has more billionaires per capita than does the US.
-
Sweden has more billionaires per capita than does the US.
Utopia!!
-
We only visited one city in the south of Sweden, it was quite nice I thought, Some good food, nice folks, interesting historical sites, neat hotel from the 19th century. We spent two weeks across the straits in Copenhagen which of course we found to be outstanding (and no, I've not been to Amsterdam yet).
Just a pinch between your cheek and gum ...
-
Pure capitalism would end in monopolies which is why we don't operate that way any more.
Again, are we sure of this? I tend to find that a bigger a company becomes, the less agile and innovative they tend to be. If not for their own core competency, for the ability to do anything outside it (and react to anything that might disrupt it). And when they become less agile and innovative, they have a harder time serving customers. And a business which stops serving customers well loses market share to businesses that are better at it.
The only way for a "business" to be a monopoly, bad at serving customers, and remain in business is if that "business" is government.
-
I THINK in some business areas unrestrained "capitalism" would result in monopolies, for a period of time. Size is both an issue and an advantage. Where I worked there were clearly "noncompetitive" approaches to business that were technically illegal because they would promote monopolization. The company often skirted those, narrowly, depending on whether the FTC was paying much attention. Companies like GM at one time probably could have forced Ford and Chrysler out of business. I suspect later on, companies like Honda would have found a way to break that. Facebook is a virtual monopoly today, I think. "Utilities" often tend in that direction for obvious reasons.
Would Apple be a monopoly without FTC concerns? Probably not.
-
I'm just tired of longhorn reading that I like chocolate ice cream and then his reply is asking me why I hate vanilla.
Evolve, man!
-
Shirely there is a solution for that somewhere.
-
I'm just tired of longhorn reading that I like chocolate ice cream and then his reply is asking me why I hate vanilla.
Evolve, man!
but you never said you like chocolate only that vanilla is very bad for various reasons
Im the one who asked if you are a chocolate ice cream liker
if you find capitalism creates a bad situation and rich people think only of themselves it appears you favor socialism
so thats when I asked you if you were a socialist
you have never answered my question
-
I guess it didn't happen. Sorry I don't search through pages of posts every time you go "huh?"
You make a claim, like this one, and then run for cover when asked for an example and claim you don't want to go back and support your obviously faulty claim. It's a habit, not a good one.
-
Again, are we sure of this? I tend to find that a bigger a company becomes, the less agile and innovative they tend to be. If not for their own core competency, for the ability to do anything outside it (and react to anything that might disrupt it). And when they become less agile and innovative, they have a harder time serving customers. And a business which stops serving customers well loses market share to businesses that are better at it.
The only way for a "business" to be a monopoly, bad at serving customers, and remain in business is if that "business" is government.
This.
-
A major player in a retail business can "restrain trade" pretty easily, and develop into a near monopoly as a result. This is especially true when the consumer has marginal ability to assess the goodness of a product, let's use laundry detergent as an example. If the product has no major deficiencies, like say it doesn't leave residue for example, how do you know it cleans better than X?
So, one could sell "Tide" for example and use the power of that brand to suppress other brands and replace them with your own, say "Gain", and penalize any retail outlets that don't feature your products on the top shelves or end of aisle or run promos on them and not others. It's doable. Then you threaten to short ship a retail chain with say Pampers if they don't discount Tide and run the promo you want.
-
I THINK in some business areas unrestrained "capitalism" would result in monopolies, for a period of time. Size is both an issue and an advantage. Where I worked there were clearly "noncompetitive" approaches to business that were technically illegal because they would promote monopolization. The company often skirted those, narrowly, depending on whether the FTC was paying much attention. Companies like GM at one time probably could have forced Ford and Chrysler out of business. I suspect later on, companies like Honda would have found a way to break that. Facebook is a virtual monopoly today, I think. "Utilities" often tend in that direction for obvious reasons.
Would Apple be a monopoly without FTC concerns? Probably not.
Facebook is a monopoly? Only if you define things very narrowly. If you define social media more generally, including things like TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, etc, I think you'll find that there is plenty of competition in the market. And the alternative to being "forced" to use Facebook because they're a monopoly is to do what I do... NOT HAVE A DAMN FACEBOOK ACCOUNT! I know I'm not alone on this board as simply not participating at all.
It reminds me of when Sirius and XMRadio were merging and I was arguing with my neighbor that it should be blocked because it creates a monopoly. Yes, that's correct, if you NARROWLY define a monopoly as only relating to satellite radio. But Sirius nor XM were competing in a vacuum against only each other. They were competing with (free!) terrestrial radio, competing with all the other ways you could get music in your car at the time (CDs, MP3s, etc), and over the next decade now find themselves competing with a whole host of streaming radio services that didn't even exist in 2005.
I think you could point to monopolies as being bad if they are making it difficult to obtain essential goods and/or services, like Martin Shkreli who obtained the patent to Daraprim and then jacked up the price. However, that is ALSO an issue of government granting a monopoly in a certain drug in the first place. We can argue over the effects of intellectual property protections in the market, but absent government being able to stop everyone else from manufacturing that drug, Daraprim couldn't exploit that monopoly.
-
A major player in a retail business can "restrain trade" pretty easily, and develop into a near monopoly as a result. This is especially true when the consumer has marginal ability to assess the goodness of a product, let's use laundry detergent as an example. If the product has no major deficiencies, like say it doesn't leave residue for example, how do you know it cleans better than X?
So, one could sell "Tide" for example and use the power of that brand to suppress other brands and replace them with your own, say "Gain", and penalize any retail outlets that don't feature your products on the top shelves or end of aisle or run promos on them and not others. It's doable. Then you threaten to short ship a retail chain with say Pampers if they don't discount Tide and run the promo you want.
Yes, and this is what "big beer" has been trying to do for decades, up to and including acquiring successful craft breweries, all the while losing market share.
And P&G, facing inflation pressure, is fighting competition and having to offer discounts to protect market share. They may have a dominant place in the market, but they are absolutely NOT a monopoly nor are they safe from competitors:
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/tide-maker-pg-dialing-up-discounts-us-consumers-pull-back-2023-04-20/
-
Well, that's my point, they aren't a monopoly in large part because "unfair trade practices" are illegal. I think they could wipe other brands out if that were not the case. They really get worried when their market share goes past 65%, seriously, it's an issue when it happens.
-
Well, that's my point, they aren't a monopoly in large part because "unfair trade practices" are illegal. I think they could wipe other brands out if that were not the case. They really get worried when their market share goes past 65%, seriously, it's an issue when it happens.
Yeah, and I'm sure that when the market share gets up there, they're more worried about regulation than market competition. I get that it's a thing.
That said, it keeps being said that unbridled capitalism will lead to monopoly as if it is a foregone conclusion. And also that it's bad if it does.
My view is that the first statement is unproven (that capitalism in a truly free market leads to monopoly). And that the second statement is specifically what disproves the first--if a company tries to exploit its monopoly to the detriment of consumers, that is the way that competitors develop the niche to break the monopoly.
If P&G were to obtain a monopoly in laundry soap, and were harming customers by doing so, new entrants would attempt to unseat them. Yes, they could buy up new entrants or engage in predatory pricing to destroy them, but then they're just going to spend a ton of time lopping the heads off every snake that pops up.
And even beyond that, P&G might obtain that monopoly, but P&G can't be a monopoly in everything, right? What if Amazon decides "hey, P&G is making an absolute killing in laundry soap because there's no competition; it's time for us to enter that market"? P&G may be a gigantic company, but you can't just wipe out other gigantic companies if they go all-in to beat you.
The free market is dynamic. Per this thread, someone upthread said that "generational wealth" isn't truly a thing because it always gets diluted over a few generations due to various factors. I argue the same is true in the free market. It's dynamic. There are winners and losers, but you can only remain a winner if you are satisfying customers. If you stop that, it doesn't matter if you're P&G, or Ford, or Amazon, Apple, or Facebook. You stop satisfying customers, and they WILL seek out alternatives.
-
The funny thing, to me, was how P&Gers would complain about how Walmart would screw them over. We had a "Walmart Team" (and others) to deal with them, they were pretty vicious I was told, and had the heft to be that way. Costco is brutal also, from the standpoint of a supplier.
I think monopolies are possible in SOME areas, not others. I view FB as a monopoly because I view it as different from Twitter in kind. There was "My Space" back in the day. Amazon is nearing monopoly status in some respects.
Some products like paper towels etc. require a LOT of capital for any new entry. And that financial burden lasts a long time. It's a tough business to start from nothing, which is why it doesn't happen often at all.
-
The funny thing, to me, was how P&Gers would complain about how Walmart would screw them over. We had a "Walmart Team" (and others) to deal with them, they were pretty vicious I was told, and had the heft to be that way. Costco is brutal also, from the standpoint of a supplier.
The Walmart point is important as well... Walmart does NOT want to only have one supplier of household goods to sell. That puts them at the mercy of that supplier. A company like Walmart will do everything in their power to make sure that a second source is available, if ONLY to keep them healthy with enough market share to be leverage against a supplier like P&G.
If P&G starts raising their wholesale prices, Walmart will buy from a competitor and display them on the shelves for cheaper if they can get a couple extra points gross out of that sale than what they get from a P&G product.
There are non-regulatory brakes in the marketplace on monopoly, and your Walmart example is perfect for illustrating it.
-
They would IFF there is another competitor. Imagine I make paper towels and toilet paper and over time drive out or buy up every competitor.
-
You make a claim, like this one, and then run for cover when asked for an example and claim you don't want to go back and support your obviously faulty claim. It's a habit, not a good one.
It is a habit.
I'm not going to spend the time to find the post(s), say "look!", and then have it ignored anyway over and over again.
IF there was any reasonable belief it would make any of you acknowledge the point, I'd do it.
Alas, I have a bad habit of not wasting my time every time someone says "nuh uh."
Character flaw, for sure.
-
Yeah, and I'm sure that when the market share gets up there, they're more worried about regulation than market competition. I get that it's a thing.
That said, it keeps being said that unbridled capitalism will lead to monopoly as if it is a foregone conclusion. And also that it's bad if it does.
My view is that the first statement is unproven (that capitalism in a truly free market leads to monopoly). And that the second statement is specifically what disproves the first--if a company tries to exploit its monopoly to the detriment of consumers, that is the way that competitors develop the niche to break the monopoly.
If P&G were to obtain a monopoly in laundry soap, and were harming customers by doing so, new entrants would attempt to unseat them. Yes, they could buy up new entrants or engage in predatory pricing to destroy them, but then they're just going to spend a ton of time lopping the heads off every snake that pops up.
And even beyond that, P&G might obtain that monopoly, but P&G can't be a monopoly in everything, right? What if Amazon decides "hey, P&G is making an absolute killing in laundry soap because there's no competition; it's time for us to enter that market"? P&G may be a gigantic company, but you can't just wipe out other gigantic companies if they go all-in to beat you.
The free market is dynamic. Per this thread, someone upthread said that "generational wealth" isn't truly a thing because it always gets diluted over a few generations due to various factors. I argue the same is true in the free market. It's dynamic. There are winners and losers, but you can only remain a winner if you are satisfying customers. If you stop that, it doesn't matter if you're P&G, or Ford, or Amazon, Apple, or Facebook. You stop satisfying customers, and they WILL seek out alternatives.
Are you suggesting monopolies aren't bad? As if one company is the only one selling deodorant (or better yet, chicken), that they wouldn't price it much higher? That their quality control wouldn't suffer? That any and all complaints wouldn't be met with a shrug and a "tough shit"?
And for your last paragraph, the large company with pissy customers can prevent competition with ease (given an unregulated economy). Or they could improve things for 5-10 years and wait out the other company's failure as they spread monies around to protect their own interests.
.
I get that most of your argument is that monopolies aren't automatic, but if you're going further and saying they're not obviously bad for the masses......that's a lonely island.
-
He pretty clearly is arguing that monopolies are not an inherent end point of capitalism. I'm pretty sure he understands a monopoly is nearly always bad for consumers. He seems like a pretty bright guy, to me.
-
I love that the favorite past-time of the ultra wealthy is seeing how completely they can avoid contributing to the large, community pot.
Those most able seem to be the least willing.
These strikes me as a massive over generalization with no factual support.
-
He pretty clearly is arguing that monopolies are not an inherent end point of capitalism. I'm pretty sure he understands a monopoly is nearly always bad for consumers. He seems like a pretty bright guy, to me.
Why do you go there?
This is what I'm talking about.
Never have I called into question his intelligence. But you add that little barb that suggests maybe I did.
.
You've been pretty sassy the last few weeks. I've noticed.
You've stopped being an honest interlachuter.
-
These strikes me as a massive over generalization with no factual support.
They spend money preventing it from being able to support the claim factually.
-
They spend money preventing it from being able to support the claim factually.
Maybe English is a second language here?
-
Maybe English is a second language here?
You've really changed. For the worse.
-
Without rehashing everything in this thread I have a few thoughts on the subject:
Rich vs Wealthy:
We've talked mostly about NAV and to me that is more about "Wealthy" than "Rich".
If you are, let's say, a Surgeon who makes $1M/yr but you are also a crazy spender who spends every penny (as crazy as this sounds, there are people like this) then you are "rich" because you are living an extravagant lifestyle that costs $1M/yr (well not actually $1M but the after tax take-home on it). That said, you have a NAV of approximately zero so you clearly are NOT wealthy.
"Rich" to me is about the "income statement". If you have a lot of income, you are "Rich regardless of what your balance sheet looks like.
"Wealthy" to me is about the "balance sheet". If you have a high net worth, you are wealthy even if you have MUCH less income than the $1M/yr Surgeon in my example above.
That said, the definition of "rich" varies greatly by location. I don't know @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's income nor whether that makes him "rich" in California but it would take a LOT more income for him to be "rich" than it would for me here in Ohio.
Wealth is less regional because you either have the net worth to live comfortably in an expensive locale or you don't. Ie, if you have a net worth of $10M you can afford to live more-or-less wherever you want. If you are retired with a net worth of say $3M you can live pretty comfortably in a relatively low cost-of-living area but you'd be stretching it to try to retire in Hawaii on that money.
-
I can go along with that differentiation. Rich pertains more to lifestyle (and income to support same).
Someone once said "You never know what your neighbors make, but you can guess how much they spend."
A person could live a "rich lifestyle" for a while by borrowing relentlessly.
-
Interplay between "rich" and "wealthy".
I borrowed my $1M/yr Surgeon example from a book I read, The Millionaire Next Door.
The authors started out as marketing gurus and they were studying high net worth individuals on the mistaken assumption that those people would spend a lot of money. They found instead, at least in the $1-10M range, that most individuals were pretty thrifty and lived on a reasonable budget.
I loved this quote:
Someone asked them why a Millionaire would have a budget and they said: "Have you ever noticed that the people you see running EVERY morning don't look like they need to run every morning?"
Same principle applies to net worth. Most people in the $1-10M range inherited only a small fraction of their wealth (if any). They are mostly business owners and they mostly fit in such that if you were their neighbor (hence the title of the book) you would have no idea that they had a high net worth.
I think when people mentally picture "the wealthy" they tend to think Beverly Hillbillies or someone being showcased by Robin Leach. I mean the Ultra-Wealthy types who can buy basically anything, fly basically anywhere, etc.
Someone with $1M could buy a Ferrari or take a trip to Paris or whatever but they can't just buy any car any time or go to Paris every weekend.
Wealth also has both an age component and an income component.
Age:
The older you are the less you need. Some 20-something who hit it big and wants to retire needs a LOT of money because he has a remaining life expectancy of more than 60 years. An 85 year old retiree has a remaining life expectancy of five, maybe 10 years so he needs a lot less.
Income:
A family with a household income of $50k clearly isn't "rich" but that also means that they are spending around $50k/yr so if they have $500k in the bank that is 10 years at their spending. If the Surgeon from my example above had the same $500k in the bank that would only cover his expenses for six months.
-
I can go along with that differentiation. Rich pertains more to lifestyle (and income to support same).
Someone once said "You never know what your neighbors make, but you can guess how much they spend."
A person could live a "rich lifestyle" for a while by borrowing relentlessly.
And, crazy as my example sounds, there are a significant number of people with very high incomes living paycheck to paycheck. It isn't the same as eating Ramen and living paycheck to paycheck but they still have little or no savings to get through a tough time.
I mowed yards and did landscape in HS and college. I remember one couple, DINK (Double Income No Kids) that lived in a (then) Quarter-Million dollar house with a Mercedes and a BMW in the garage asking if they could pay me on Friday for mowing their lawn on Monday. I said "sure" but thought "seriously?"
-
They would IFF there is another competitor. Imagine I make paper towels and toilet paper and over time drive out or buy up every competitor.
My point is that Walmart is one of the brakes that stops you from taking that big of a market.
There are also others. If P&G starts making moves to buy up competitors beyond a certain level, that signals to the market an intent to become a monopoly. Other large companies may defensively buy up other paper towel / toilet paper companies to defend against letting P&G have them.
For example Costco. Costco knows that TP and paper towels drive a lot of revenue in their warehouses. Right now, I think they're happy contracting out the supply portion. But if they get a market signal that P&G is trying to corner that market, they might buy up a supplier to ensure they're getting stable supply at a price they prefer while still having that supplier sell into the general market.
Costco has already shown a willingness to do that with chickens. What's to say they wouldn't do it with these other items to protect their supply chain--and in turn, helping to protect a free market even if that wasn't their initial goal?
-
Yup, the moderately wealthy folks often as not got there by being thrifty over the years and not spending well beyond their means. I like the jogger analogy. And I agree those "in the news" like say Paris Hilton generate an image that all wealthy folks are like that, living a profligate lifestyle on inherited money. And some are of course.
The wealthy folks living a quiet life with a nice house don't get on TV.
One of the most wealthy, Bill Gates, is trying to give most of his money away. One of the most wealthy around here donates a ton as well, though he does like the publicity. Sam Walton is another example of a fellow with billions who drove an old truck, Warren Buffet lives in a 1962 nice ranch house in Omaha. one he bought in 1962.
I wouldn't be working like Buffett works if I had his resources, I would probably do like Gates is trying to do.
-
Maybe in the modern era business methods make monopolies unlikely, I can see that. In the distant past, a P&G probably could buy up all the paper companies without a "Walmart" knowing about it.
-
Are you suggesting monopolies aren't bad? As if one company is the only one selling deodorant (or better yet, chicken), that they wouldn't price it much higher? That their quality control wouldn't suffer? That any and all complaints wouldn't be met with a shrug and a "tough shit"?
And for your last paragraph, the large company with pissy customers can prevent competition with ease (given an unregulated economy). Or they could improve things for 5-10 years and wait out the other company's failure as they spread monies around to protect their own interests.
.
I get that most of your argument is that monopolies aren't automatic, but if you're going further and saying they're not obviously bad for the masses......that's a lonely island.
I'm saying that monopolies aren't automatic, yes.
And yes, I understand the issues that occur with monopolistic exploitation.
I'm also saying that the fear of monopolistic exploitation is one of the things that drives the market to reject monopolies and not allow them to form. And that it's also one of the things that would lead to a breakup of monopoly should one ever actually manage to form.
You have made the first assertion that monopolies are inevitable under an unregulated free market and the second assertion that once formed, they will be able exploit the masses basically forever.
I'm arguing that your assertions don't recognize some of the incentives in a free market economy that fight against the formation of monopolies and the dynamism of the free market that would lead to them breaking up.
-
Maybe in the modern era business methods make monopolies unlikely, I can see that. In the distant past, a P&G probably could buy up all the paper companies without a "Walmart" knowing about it.
I can stipulate that. I.e. why Walt Disney had to resort to all sorts of shell companies to quietly buy up the land around Orlando to build Disney World because he knew that if anyone knew he was doing it, the price would climb immediately.
It's a lot harder to pull that kind of stuff off these days.
-
Some might notice how "we" can adopt different points of view initially, exchange thoughts and observations and opinions, and arrive at something close to a consensus.
I think it would make for a neat experiment.
-
I would also state one thing...
The guy here who is most scared of monopolies that will overcharge for substandard product because of a lack of competition...
...happens to work for a monopoly that its detractors say overcharges for substandard product, and have been suggesting for decades that introducing competition--even if it remains publicly-funded competition--into that market would help with both.
-
You could add me to a list of folks "scared" of monopolies of all sorts.
-
I would also state one thing...
The guy here who is most scared of monopolies that will overcharge for substandard product because of a lack of competition...
...happens to work for a monopoly that its detractors say overcharges for substandard product, and have been suggesting for decades that introducing competition--even if it remains publicly-funded competition--into that market would help with both.
nice point
-
You could add me to a list of folks "scared" of monopolies of all sorts.
Don't get me wrong... So am I.
I'm especially scared of the big one HQ'd in Washington DC, and the smaller one HQ'd in Sacramento, etc... Those are the monopolies that charge me their rates of service at the point of a gun even if I don't like the product they're offering.
So far I don't encounter that in the private market--and yes, to a point you can say it's due to regulation preventing it. But even the monopoly that you claimed, Facebook, I have made my choice. I don't have a Facebook account and they can't force me to.
-
I can stipulate that. I.e. why Walt Disney had to resort to all sorts of shell companies to quietly buy up the land around Orlando to build Disney World because he knew that if anyone knew he was doing it, the price would climb immediately.
It's a lot harder to pull that kind of stuff off these days.
More like almost impossible. I work with builders who try to consolidate lands to build commercial and/or housing. Word gets out pretty quick when you can sit on Zillow and look for sold properties.
-
F Bookface.
F Lance Armstrong too.
-
More like almost impossible. I work with builders who try to consolidate lands to build commercial and/or housing. Word gets out pretty quick when you can sit on Zillow and look for sold properties.
China is doing this right now
-
Your gas and electric company used to be a virtual monopoly, with government "controls". Zoning boards are monopolies, I know how they get coopted. Governments as mentioned are. You can home school if you are able, and there are private schools, $$$$.
Commercial airliners are nearly a duopoly these days, and companies like Delta make a point of keeping both around (which aligns with your point nicely). It's not like the days of the Robber Barons. Anyway, interesting discussion.
(I do have a FB account, I find it interesting often as not. A good feature is that it is "free".)
-
China is doing this right now
Not here, legally. State law prohibits Chinese land ownership. I'm sure they are finding ways.
-
Your gas and electric company used to be a virtual monopoly, with government "controls". Zoning boards are monopolies, I know how they get coopted. Governments as mentioned are. You can home school if you are able, and there are private schools, $$$$.
Commercial airliners are nearly a duopoly these days, and companies like Delta make a point of keeping both around (which aligns with your point nicely). It's not like the days of the Robber Barons. Anyway, interesting discussion.
(I do have a FB account, I find it interesting often as not. A good feature is that it is "free".)
Yeah, gas/electric, cable, phone, etc are regulated monopolies. At least here they still are.
School is a de facto monopoly. Yes, you can avoid it via home-schooling and private schooling. But due to cost, that's not viable for most. There is also school choice in one additional sense--you can avoid the problems with lack of competition based on where you choose to live. But that just means the most vulnerable, those of lowest means, get trapped in failing school systems with no realistic alternative.
And yes, I've been thinking of Boeing/Airbus this whole discussion. The airlines simply won't let one become a natural monopoly by only buying from one and not the other. It's not in their interests. Although with acquisition, this is a point where regulation comes into play--if Boeing tried to buy Airbus (or vice versa), even if it made economic sense it would be shut down by government.
I don't have a FB account because I find it hard to suffer fools and keep my mouth shut. But I don't want to engage, so scrolling through a FB feed for me is an exercise in aggravation and willpower. I eventually decided it wasn't for me. Got into it with crazy autism moms in maybe 2013-14 or so and deleted my account b/c I was so aggravated. Restarted it in 2016 when I got divorced (you needed it at the time for online dating apps), found my wife, and then after being aggravated by it again deleted it again.
I do have Instagram, though. I know it's owned by FB. But it's less annoying and political, and more about funny memes and dog videos, so I actually enjoy scrolling through a lot more. It also doesn't have the social pressure of "OMG you totally have to friend your crazy aunt Mildred and then be subject to her political rants or she'll be incredibly offended" vibe to it.
-
And yes, I've been thinking of Boeing/Airbus this whole discussion. The airlines simply won't let one become a natural monopoly by only buying from one and not the other. It's not in their interests. Although with acquisition, this is a point where regulation comes into play--if Boeing tried to buy Airbus (or vice versa), even if it made economic sense it would be shut down by government.
Intel/AMD is another example. Computer OEMs keep at least a few AMD SKUs alive, just to NOT have to deal with Intel as a monopoly.
And indeed Intel itself would prefer AMD remain alive, to avoid inevitable government regulation that would occur were AMD to fail or retire from the industry.
-
I wonder how much, um, collusion, these duopolies experience, either between each other or with clients ...
-
I think Microsoft is a good example. They are one that was accused of being a monopoly, and to an extent, there's some truth there. They dominated desktop PCs, with Apple playing basically the same foil that AMD plays to Intel.
Yet... What has happened? They're still the dominant PC operating system. But we've seen the rise of tablets (iOS/Android) as secondary computing devices, cutting into the desktop/notebook space. Apple has certainly not gone away in the desktop/notebook space, and has become a "real" player with full software support and accepted in business settings rather than just being the choice of "creatives" back in the day. Chromebooks have become a huge thing, cutting into that notebook space. And in the datacenter? Just about every single thing is Linux.
You'd think Microsoft was unassailable because once they achieved their "monopoly", why would any software companies develop for non-Windows PCs, and why would anyone who learned to use Windows ever change?
And yet even though they're still pretty dominant, alternatives have been chipping away and consumers have other very viable choices if they want them.
-
Apple was around ~before DOS of course, in a rudimentary stage. I saw an Apple 1 once, and used a II+ at work for a while. It had Visicalc on it that was just incredible. I dimly recall when the Macs came out they grabbed a "Subaru-like" following of folks claiming they were much easier to use. I migrated back and forth as the company changed platforms. I then found Symphony, which was Lotus 1-2-3-4-5 in effect and used that for a long time. Then we were forced into using Word and Excel and some email thing.
As you note, the appeal of the hardware was more the software it came with. I use a Dell, and have for ages, my wife has an Apple MacBook because she thought it was easier to use (and then took a course to learn how to use it).
It is interesting to contemplate near duopolies. I'll name another almost one, in disposable diapers, with KC and P&G, though private lables still exist, I think. There is a ton of $$$ in diapers.
-
Sigh.
.
All I've said is that on a long-enough timeline, capitalism ends in monopoly.
This doesn’t account for advancement of technology. We would all still be in Walmart’s 90s world had Amazon not beat them at their own game with the advent of the internet.
Just one example, but Capitalism’s inevitable monopolies also face equivalently inevitable declines.
-
This doesn’t account for advancement of technology. We would all still be in Walmart’s 90s world had Amazon not beat them at their own game with the advent of the internet.
Just one example, but Capitalism’s inevitable monopolies also face equivalently inevitable declines.
And yet another example of one of the reasons monopolies fail... Usually competitive threats from outside their core competency are dismissed and ignored... And then they fail to respond until it's too late.
-
I would also state one thing...
The guy here who is most scared of monopolies that will overcharge for substandard product because of a lack of competition...
...happens to work for a monopoly that its detractors say overcharges for substandard product, and have been suggesting for decades that introducing competition--even if it remains publicly-funded competition--into that market would help with both.
A free public education overcharges?
Mkay.
-
Downplay? Like others, I like nice things. We discuss here. Much of our discussions would be gone if we didn't talk about travel, cars, places to live, etc.
If not talking about those things is downplay, well, I'm not playing. And this board is probably toast.
To stretch this out a little bit, some of what you wrote points to an element of being rich that this poll isn’t considering.
you, and a lot of us, like nice things. Many of us have nice things. Based on some of the logic we have above, if you like canned tuna and grocery store bread instead of nice food and playing chess in the park instead of driving a boat, you would be closer to being rich.
but instead you forgo some element of being “rich” to have an enjoying nice things. Which in part is the value of being rich. So, I would argue, the ability to comfortably have certain nice things is a hallmark of being some degree of rich. Maybe not extremely rich, but a certain degree of rich.
-
A free public education overcharges?
Mkay.
Have you never gotten a property tax bill?
Public education is NOT free.
-
To stretch this out a little bit, some of what you wrote points to an element of being rich that this poll isn’t considering.
you, and a lot of us, like nice things. Many of us have nice things. Based on some of the logic we have above, if you like canned tuna and grocery store bread instead of nice food and playing chess in the park instead of driving a boat, you would be closer to being rich.
but instead you forgo some element of being “rich” to have an enjoying nice things. Which in part is the value of being rich. So, I would argue, the ability to comfortably have certain nice things is a hallmark of being some degree of rich. Maybe not extremely rich, but a certain degree of rich.
Those are good points.
I do love canned tuna (for real).
-
I was musing again about the monopolies back in the day, steel, rail, shipping, oil, probably something else, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Hill, Rockefeller ... those guys knew what they were doing buying up any competitors, or undercutting pricing. Could something like that happen today? There is a decent argument above that it couldn't because of information and indirect competition.
Some guys today do achieve incredible levels of wealth obviously well above our $5 million threshhold. Some of them are in the "news" often, I'm sure stay out of the news intentionally and we don't hear much about them. I'd be one of them.
James J. Hill: Net Worth, Railroads, Robber Baron, Facts (american-rails.com) (https://www.american-rails.com/james-j-hill.html)
-
A free public education overcharges?
Mkay.
It's free? I wasn't aware you were not taking a salary...
-
So, what about banking? Sans the FTC, would banking over time morph into one "national bank"?
I'd guess the majors might condense into one, but we'd still have small local banks if that major priced themselves out of competitiveness. And we'd have credit unions. I think.
-
I don't see credit unions going away. We'd need @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) to weigh in on the rest of the dynamics.
-
Yeah, I'm obviously trying to think of some industry that would tend to monopoly. Amazon strikes me as a monopoly in one sense, but we all buy stuff from other retail outlets, so they can't raise their prices without competition.
Would Uber buy Lyft and become one? We still have taxis here and they are cheaper than Uber from the airport.
-
Yeah, I'm obviously trying to think of some industry that would tend to monopoly. Amazon strikes me as a monopoly in one sense, but we all buy stuff from other retail outlets, so they can't raise their prices without competition.
Would Uber buy Lyft and become one? We still have taxis here and they are cheaper than Uber from the airport.
I think it’s harder and harder to have a true monopoly, but probably much easier to have levels of vertical integration that foster anti-competitive situations.
-
I don't see credit unions going away. We'd need @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) to weigh in on the rest of the dynamics.
I do see much more bank consolidation on the horizon. Regulatory costs are pricing small and regional banks out. Without scale, it is just a question of time.
Right now, deposits are flowing out of banks to places where people can earn more in their cash- being paid by entities that are not nearly as regulated. This flow out represents banks low cost if funds, that would normally allow banks to lend at competitive rates, has forced banks to intentionally slow lending through pricing. The huge banks gain an even bigger advantage as they typically have much more liquidity and fee based income from many sources.
Credit Unions will be fine- in fact will benefit as they are not subject to anywhere near the regulatory rules and burdens that banks are- as well as the tax burden.
-
I can see that, good point, though in many cases I've seen vertically integrated operations start to farm out their supply operations. P&G used to have it's own tree farms, quite a bit, for example, and sold them off. They contracted out a lot of their formerly integrated operations.
-
Would Uber buy Lyft and become one? We still have taxis here and they are cheaper than Uber from the airport.
Again I think this is a case of so narrowly defining an industry such that you can talk about a monopoly that has zero power to exploit their monopoly, much as when Sirius and XMRadio merged. Except even less so, because an Uber/Lyft merger wouldn't have the same barriers to entry as two entities that had to launch satellites into space. All it would take is another app popping up.
I.e. what will happen if Airbnb and Vrbo merge? Where will I advertise my short-term rental?
What if Tinder buys EHarmony and Bumble? Where will anyone find a hookup? A **BAR** where they have to actually talk to someone face to face, like a neanderthal?!?!
I do share your fear of monopolies, especially if a monopoly was to form in a critical sector that we all have very little alternative to participate in (we'll use gasoline as an example). If someone cornered the world market on gasoline forming a monopoly, there's not much we could do to avoid paying whatever they asked.
But if you're worried about Uber/Lyft merging, I think you're reaching...
-
I've never really thought about this topic before. It's pretty common for folks to think we need the FTC and that unrestrained capitalism tends to monopolization, but thsi discussion suggests that is far from being obvious and could simply be wrong.
-
I've never really thought about this topic before. It's pretty common for folks to think we need the FTC and that unrestrained capitalism tends to monopolization, but thsi discussion suggests that is far from being obvious and could simply be wrong.
While it has been 40 years since I wrote it, my senior paper in college was on Why the idea of natural monopolies that need to be regulated was wrong. I argued that "natural" barriers to entries in the market could and have been overcome. That when profits are seen outside people and company's innovate and find the means to entry into the market against these "monopolies". At the time I use some real world examples (can't remember them off my head). Haven't stayed in the economic field, but my business economic degree tells me that Captalism tends towards monopoly when there are barrier to entry, economics of scale and so forth, but then other realized that profits to be made and find ways to break in via innovation, changing the market, natural changes in demand, etc.
-
I've never really thought about this topic before. It's pretty common for folks to think we need the FTC and that unrestrained capitalism tends to monopolization, but thsi discussion suggests that is far from being obvious and could simply be wrong.
Well, as @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) suggested, it varies by industry mostly based on alternatives and barriers to entry.
If you cornered the ATL taxi market and charged exorbitant rates I could buy a minivan and start Ubering people around ATL and people would do that and your monopoly would fail.
It would be different if you cornered the world Oil 🛢 market. Buying oil fields and/or drilling rights, installing oil wells, building pipelines and/or buying tankers, building refineries, and building a distribution network for finished petroleum products would cost billions and take years. You'd have no competition from anything like an equivalent to random guys driving minivans. Even an entity that had the financial resources to build a network to compete with you couldn't do it quickly and you could build up cash before they got up and running then cut prices to bankrupt them when they finally did get going.
-
Yeah, it would probably need to be a capital intensive business so barriers to entry were high. By the time I corner the OJ, I mean oil, market, folks would be driving EVs...
-
Capitalism and Monopolies: Is Regulation the Answer? – Solidarity (solidarity-us.org) (https://solidarity-us.org/capitalism-and-monopolies-is-regulation-the-answer/)
Capitalism and the Misunderstanding of Monopoly | Mises Wire (https://mises.org/wire/capitalism-and-misunderstanding-monopoly?gclid=Cj0KCQjwyLGjBhDKARIsAFRNgW-VHi8hwGaz7_WSdU6Pi4x9W_FnvzQfaW72uHIdZ-3YeDcjaI13bN8aAju0EALw_wcB)
-
One monopoly the government grants is from patents. A patent lasts 20 years from date of filing, and grants you a monopoly (you have to enforce that in court). In return, you explain how your invention works in its best mode. This was viewed sufficiently important as to be in the Constitution.
-
He compares the lists of Fortune 500 firms in 1955 with those six decades later in 2017.
Only 59 enterprises were on the list in both these years, or less than 15 percent. Many of the companies on the 1955 Fortune 500 list were not only not on the 2017 list, but they no longer existed. Many of the companies on the list both of those years held different relative positions, with some higher and others lower in 2017 than in 1955. And a good number of companies on the 2017 list had not even existed sixty years earlier and therefore could not be on the 1955 list.
-
If you cornered the ATL taxi market and charged exorbitant rates I could buy a minivan and start Ubering people around ATL and people would do that and your monopoly would fail.
I would argue in many places, this is exactly what happened. The taxi market in some places is SEVERELY restricted, such as NYC where taxi medallions are limited in number presumably to reduce supply (and increase rates). In other places the taxi market was merely complacent because they had no real competition. In both cases the outcome was simple; higher prices and worse service.
In most cases, taxis, by being regulated industries, had naturally higher costs and compliance burdens, which further limited supply even in places where they didn't have hard numerical limits like NYC.
So in a lot of ways, taxes were effectively a regulated monopoly in many places, not unlike an electric or gas company.
Uber and Lyft sidestepped that by offering taxi-like services without going through the regulatory burden that taxis were subjected to. Essentially they did an end-run around all regulations, and then by the time gov'ts started trying to regulate them, they were too big (and too popular) to simply ban them.
-
Again I think this is a case of so narrowly defining an industry such that you can talk about a monopoly that has zero power to exploit their monopoly, much as when Sirius and XMRadio merged. Except even less so, because an Uber/Lyft merger wouldn't have the same barriers to entry as two entities that had to launch satellites into space. All it would take is another app popping up.
I.e. what will happen if Airbnb and Vrbo merge? Where will I advertise my short-term rental?
What if Tinder buys EHarmony and Bumble? Where will anyone find a hookup? A **BAR** where they have to actually talk to someone face to face, like a neanderthal?!?!
I do share your fear of monopolies, especially if a monopoly was to form in a critical sector that we all have very little alternative to participate in (we'll use gasoline as an example). If someone cornered the world market on gasoline forming a monopoly, there's not much we could do to avoid paying whatever they asked.
But if you're worried about Uber/Lyft merging, I think you're reaching...
Cable sort of had one, but streaming is taking a bite out of that. (Though the bundle/unbundle psychology is fascinating)
-
Yeah, it would probably need to be a capital intensive business so barriers to entry were high. By the time I corner the OJ, I mean oil, market, folks would be driving EVs...
Yes, and as mentioned before, my company is involved in two main businesses. One, there are only 3 companies in the world that produce what we make. The other, there are effectively 4 companies in the world doing it today, although a Chinese firm [likely with a fair bit of state support] is trying to catch up and become competitive to make it 5.
The reason for this in both businesses is absolutely capital intensiveness and significant technological barriers to entry.
But in some ways there are similarities to the Boeing/Airbus example here. The biggest customers regulate competition themselves via buying patterns, not allowing one producer to become too dominant and threaten the survival of the other(s). Because they refuse to allow them to become beholden to only one supplier.
Capitalism and Monopolies: Is Regulation the Answer? – Solidarity (solidarity-us.org) (https://solidarity-us.org/capitalism-and-monopolies-is-regulation-the-answer/)
Capitalism and the Misunderstanding of Monopoly | Mises Wire (https://mises.org/wire/capitalism-and-misunderstanding-monopoly?gclid=Cj0KCQjwyLGjBhDKARIsAFRNgW-VHi8hwGaz7_WSdU6Pi4x9W_FnvzQfaW72uHIdZ-3YeDcjaI13bN8aAju0EALw_wcB)
Although I'm not one to throw out a source because of who they are, I'd point out that you have two very ideologically-motivated sources here. Obviously one of them (Mises Institute) is on my end of the spectrum, but it's clear that they're arguing the theoretical/doctrinaire case against monopolization, but it's not exactly empirical.
-
I would argue in many places, this is exactly what happened. The taxi market in some places is SEVERELY restricted, such as NYC where taxi medallions are limited in number presumably to reduce supply (and increase rates). In other places the taxi market was merely complacent because they had no real competition. In both cases the outcome was simple; higher prices and worse service.
In most cases, taxis, by being regulated industries, had naturally higher costs and compliance burdens, which further limited supply even in places where they didn't have hard numerical limits like NYC.
So in a lot of ways, taxes were effectively a regulated monopoly in many places, not unlike an electric or gas company.
Uber and Lyft sidestepped that by offering taxi-like services without going through the regulatory burden that taxis were subjected to. Essentially they did an end-run around all regulations, and then by the time gov'ts started trying to regulate them, they were too big (and too popular) to simply ban them.
The taxi one is interesting because they combined improved UX with dodging regulations.
Taxis might’ve been able to hold on longer with appropriate foresight and innovation, but they didn’t see what was coming. (And that allowed us to be socialized to have randos drive us places)
-
Cable sort of had one, but streaming is taking a bite out of that. (Though the bundle/unbundle psychology is fascinating)
Yes, it is absolutely fascinating. It has really IMHO moved market power from those who own the pipes to those who supply (and who own) the content.
It's changed the game from "how much am I willing to spend for X channels delivered to my house on the chance that they'll be showing something I want to see?" to "what programming do I want to watch and how much am I willing to spend for it individually?"
-
The taxi one is interesting because they combined improved UX with dodging regulations.
Taxis might’ve been able to hold on longer with appropriate foresight and innovation, but they didn’t see what was coming. (And that allowed us to be socialized to have randos drive us places)
(https://i.imgur.com/WAcShpq.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/WAcShpq.png)
Yep, things change. Sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the bad.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/are-you-rich-the-answer-may-surprise-you-i-kiplinger/vi-AA1bKpi5?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=5e693785d3c54d45a5b5ba0453d365de&ei=102 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/are-you-rich-the-answer-may-surprise-you-i-kiplinger/vi-AA1bKpi5?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=5e693785d3c54d45a5b5ba0453d365de&ei=102)
-
Interesting read.
Charles Schwab, Logica Research (https://content.schwab.com/web/retail/public/about-schwab/schwab_modern_wealth_survey_2023_findings.pdf)
-
wealth
noun
an abundance of valuable possessions or money.
"he used his wealth to bribe officials"
the state of being rich; material prosperity.
"some people buy boats and cars to display their wealth"
plentiful supplies of a particular resource.
"the country's mineral wealth"
-
Americans generally choose non-financial assets when asked to choose which better describes wealth
What????
-
Need to strike a balance. Money is good but it doesn't buy everything.
-
I agree, but wealth is $$$ and materials and assets
not good feelings
-
We are living in a "feelings" era.
Where should I send your trophy?
-
We are living in a "feelings" era.
Where should I send your trophy?
If I could do one thing in the world, it would be to burn that metaphor to ash.
It’s just meaningless enough to apply to anything, plus the actual root is about parents and not kids.
(That’s a lie. I’d do something better for the world, but two work beers has me a little feisty)
-
I can afford most anything we want to do that is reasonable and rational. I'd like to be able to get first class tickets to say Tokyo and not worry about the price, but I can't.
I won't pay $7 K per to fly to France and back per.
-
If I could do one thing in the world, it would be to burn that metaphor to ash.
It’s just meaningless enough to apply to anything, plus the actual root is about parents and not kids.
(That’s a lie. I’d do something better for the world, but two work beers has me a little feisty)
This is true, but we are seeing the results now.
-
Do you think you’re rich? Here’s what Americans say (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/do-you-think-youre-rich-heres-what-americans-say?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2aaRRVA23t52ENYVlm0aHxrYVBfMdLqA7do4Q4RisMLVypAxHjUxWmreY)
It takes $2.2 million to be considered wealthy
According to Charles Schwab (https://www.foxbusiness.com/quote?stockTicker=SCHW), this year’s survey of 1,000 respondents revealed there is a paradox between how people define wealth for themselves and how they define it for others.
-
My own vision of "rich" probably means something like what most would consider "truly wealthy", a person who has no concerns about spending for just about anything. He or she would have a private chef cooking at least dinner most nights. They could fly first class or use a private jet (rented, not owned, that starts to get excessive). They could donate $100 K to something and not really have a thought about it. They'd have a "personal lawyer" and financial advisor on call, a personal trainer, a travel agent person largely on call for them (and maybe 10 others).
"Hey, Julie, we want to go to Paris, please set us up for two weeks there. I want a car to pick us up and available to take us around when we need."
And of course there is "extremely wealthy" where you might really have your own Gulfstream, not too many get there. That's more in the billionaires category where you realize you'll never spend as fast as you're making it in most years.
It could be that folks who largely have it made always consider the next level to be rich, and not them, because they have constraints.
-
Breakdown by City. There is only one on the list I'd even consider, and even then probably not.
We don't care for condo life.
How much money it takes to be wealthy in 11 major US cities (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/how-much-money-it-takes-to-be-wealthy-in-11-major-us-cities/ar-AA1d487g?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a48b3a9ad9db446784c77b4c52e1e218&ei=17)
-
That seems rather qualitative and based on in part "feelings".
Obviously, this depends hugely on your "wants" and what you may already have that isn't fungible with wealth.
-
Blue water access is at the top for us, as it's always been.
-
We don't care for condo life.
I don't at this stage of life.
I do wonder if, as I get older, I'll have more of a desire to live somewhere walkable, and will accept condo life as part of that bargain.
-
Breakdown by City. There is only one on the list I'd even consider, and even then probably not.
We don't care for condo life.
How much money it takes to be wealthy in 11 major US cities (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/how-much-money-it-takes-to-be-wealthy-in-11-major-us-cities/ar-AA1d487g?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a48b3a9ad9db446784c77b4c52e1e218&ei=17)
How do you define “condo life”?
-
How do you define “condo life”?
Having to use an elevator to get to your domain. We did it for the last 2+/- years up North and we found it to be a PIA.
-
I don't at this stage of life.
I do wonder if, as I get older, I'll have more of a desire to live somewhere walkable, and will accept condo life as part of that bargain.
Good point. I haven't gotten that far yet to be honest. I just know we didn't care for it when we did it.
-
There is a rather nice residential area just our north with basically all the location advantages we have if you don't like "condo life" ...
Ansley Park, Atlanta Real Estate & Homes for Sale - Homes.com (https://www.homes.com/atlanta-ga/ansley-park-neighborhood/?gclid=CjwKCAjwkeqkBhAnEiwA5U-uM-YXOLn6hCNRucjBkVuwEnXu2luPiFCEw8Njn9a7TSbs5T-ObMOMABoCFxAQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds)
299 the Prado NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 - For Sale (homes.com) (https://www.homes.com/property/299-the-prado-ne-atlanta-ga/kzw55g74nrjh0/)
(https://i.imgur.com/sto2cDl.png)
We stroll though there at times and I am thankful I don't have yard work.
-
If you could buy a house for $5 Million, you wouldn't worry about the yard work because you wouldn't be doing it.
-
I'm too cheap to hire it out though ...
1760 Barnesdale Way NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 - For Sale (homes.com) (https://www.homes.com/property/1760-barnesdale-way-ne-atlanta-ga/tk2gn887bwrg5/)
A bit more affordable, build in 1950, but it is right on a major freeway, nyet.
-
if the condo was on the golf course, I'd take a look
I'm too cheap to pay for yard work. Takes me less than an hour to mow.
I don't even pay for snow removal, but I've thought about it.
-
To be wealthy, you need a net worth of $2.2 million, according to the 2023 Charles Schwab Modern Wealth Survey.
hah, I'm half way there
BUT, that's why I don't and wouldn't live in any of those cities or any city close to that.
I'm guessing even Des Moines and Omaha and Lincoln aren't close.
and my little city of 100,000 isn't close to Omaha or Des Moines
and I don't live in that city
town of 300 is cheap livin.
-
I hadn't figured on city living myself. I always lived in the 'burbs, and figured I'd retire on about 20 acres in the country somewhere and have a veggie garden and some dogs. There are advantages and disadvantages for nearly everything of course and it depends on personal preference. There are even some disadvantages in being "rich" in terms of "really rich". I don't think any of us would turn down a gift of $100 million (think lottery), we'd be thrilled for a time, and then I suspect parts of that would be onerous. I am willing to give it a go.
-
Advantages of city living (around here):
We can walk anywhere we need to go, symphony, doctors, groceries, restaurants, park, etc. Could manage with no car.
Subway to airport is fairly convenient and cheap.
The park and botanical garden is next door, really helps with greenery. (I don't think I'd like living in any of the 30+ story towers away from the park).
The Beltline is about a mile away, Ponce City Market a bit further, a lot of bars that way with rooftops and breweries
This condo has a decent pool and gym and front desk for packages etc., and we travel a fair bit.
Most folks we see walking are much younger than we are which I think is a plus.
A ton of "ethnic restaurants" nearby.
Disadvantages:
Property is pricey, I could easily have my 20+ acres in NE GA with a pretty decent house on half what we spent
Property and sales tax is high (the latter is 8.9%)
Traffic can be a mess if we need to drive more than 3 miles or so
Some drivers get a bit crazy, more than a bit
Street noise can get high briefly, usually, stereos booming, loud exhausts ...
There are homeless folks around, they very rarely bother us, or even ask for money, which surprised me.
-
being able to walk to most things would be nice
would be nice for my health, since I don't exercise regularly
4-5 block walk to a small town bar with great food and good people.(even the hawkeye fans) ;)
I can drive to anything within 20-30 minutes usually less than 10 with little to no traffic
I don't mind driving. Kinda enjoy it.
90 minutes to the airport in Omaha - easy airport
but, I rarely travel by air
Greenery is not a problem here. Plenty of fresh air, wild life, stargazing is good.
Very little crime or other issues. Haven't locked my doors since moving here in 89.
Property is very inexpensive.
Property and sales tax is inexpensive (the latter is 7%. This is the total of state and county sales tax rates. The Iowa state sales tax rate is currently 6%.)