Non-scientific societal notes about wealth and power

[vicarz]

Ugh I think I'm coming down with something - just started fairly abruptly last night, and of course I can't not go to school and I can't call in sick because I'm on a higher-grade detail. Argh!

I've noticed something in my current position where I review the assets and liabilities of all sorts of high and mid-ranked people - no one has earned their money. This is hardly a scientific sample, but it seems a vast majority of the wealthy folks I am exposed to here have inherited their funds rather than earned them independently. I suppose these are the stealth millionaires we hear so much about, for they work beside you and I.

In my personal experience, which includes the tech sector boom, the only people I know that have become wealthy on their own really had help from their parents, or were able to engage in risky ventures because of their parents. I mean I could ditch my investment program and dabble more in stocks or real estate if I had a couple mil willed to me 30-50 years in the future, making more money if I could engage in higher risk ventures - as things stand, I am 100% dependent on my own funds to retire and die someday so I must have a bulk of my funds in low-risk securities. Hell even a couple hundred thousand years ago or today would make a significant difference in my investment strategies and portfolio. This is on my mind a lot lately for as it is Jan, I have to figure out where to plug my $4k Roth IRA investment for the year. How much can I risk, how much risk to take, and on what timeframe? I'm noting my lack of accumulation of wealth that I am used to because tuition from my cheaper-than-average law school is taking a significant toll.

Ran into the underling of an insecure twit who reminded me of the department I left. I've run into a bunch of high-ranking officials lately who are complete lofty pricks who constantly attack those below them, surrounded themselves with people so dumb they look good by comparison, and are really into the symbols of rank. I hate people who don't respect those below them, and loathe those that have forgotten where they came from. It seems that people from multi-generational wealth are usually quite respectful of those around them, while the new rich tend to flaunt their wealth and treat their former peers like dirt.

Wholly unscientific sample and bias here - it could easily be that I find something in the above that I expect to see, so selective biases cause me to remember the examples that fit my impression of the phenomena, and forget those that do not conform.

Comments

[syn09.livejournal.com]

Fuck. Come work in retail in Montgomery Mall for a while. I could have told you all this and saved you the hassle. Case in point, 9 out of 10 people who come into the store are miserable bastards whose spouse makes the money which they eagerly spend on crap. What's more, they expect that because of their spending power that they can stand at the counter and direct, with a wave of the hand, the poor wage slave who exists only to do their bidding. Whereas others, like the Marriots, are fabulous people who are secure in who they are and will, more often than not, hang around and chat for while when they shop. Interesting the difference between old and new money.

[turbogrrl.livejournal.com]

Money is an amplifier. I mean, even the Marriotts are "new" money, as the Boston Brahmin or the Vanderbilts would count these things. J.W. the patriarch started his empire with a root beer stand in DC in 1927, and was a Mormon to boot. Not old money by any stretch of the imagination.

It is... difficult, to amass wealth and/or power without comprimising ones principles. So, frequently wealth goes to those who are lacking them, or who are barely conversant with the idea of treating people well- and then once they have money all of their bad traits become amplified. After all, they've learned that bad behaviour is rewarded.

I know several people who have managed to amass 1 mil or more, without help from trust funds, etc. The trappings are a bit different before and after, but they are essentially the same people.

Only the obnoxious ones are flaunting it. But they were obnoxious before.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

The Marriots...well the Hilton sisters come to mind, but as an outstanding example of silliness. Now, is Mont Mall new or old money? I didn't really think of MM as upscale, are they?

My favorite mall to avoid is Pent City - the mix of big money and ghettotabulous scares and annoys me.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

The rags to riches people make it seem like anyone can, when for every person who makes it there were millions or thousands who tried and failed (or achieved modest success). I know people that have amassed, but even those that were wholly independent financially got good schooling and health from their parents, and again were able to take financial risks that us 100% poor cannot. A vast majority of my assests are set in retirement accounts - if I could invest this money rather than having to rely on it to retire, I could do very different things financially.

Amplifier - neat concept. It also goes into my perceptual bias, as they will be memorable and stand out, while the modest rich fly under the radar.

[syn09.livejournal.com]

Montgomery Mall is really just a huge clothing store with a few other shops thrown in for consumable diversity. There are a handful of upscale shops, the one I work part-time in is one of them. Overall, I'd say the Mall is a place for people to pretend they're rich because the genuinely wealthy sometimes go there.

[turbogrrl.livejournal.com]

A vast majority of my assests are set in retirement accounts - if I could invest this money rather than having to rely on it to retire, I could do very different things financially.

Ah, but you choose to rely on it to retire. You've identified a risk threshold and you're operating within it.

Which I completely understand. My childhood was spent worrying when/if we'd get kicked out of our home and carefully identifying just how many groceries could be bought without having the embarassment of having to put things back at the register. (My mom, coincidentally, is convinced that she "shielded" me from all of the angst- hahaha)

My risk threshold, therefor, is to not allow *any* risk in regard to funds I need to keep a roof over my head and food on the table.

Outside of that, however, my threshold goes to 11. It's disappointing to lose money. It sucks. I have some regrets. But it doesn't embitter me.

When I worked at Juniper, I was blissfully happy with what I was doing and what I was making. If Juniper had bombed, I still would have been happy. People hired a year after me took their jobs *assuming* they would clear 1 mil easy. They were *mad* at me for being hired first. They outspent their salary counting on stock options. They felt entitled.

Someone else might look at your safe 401k and think you a fool for being so conservative. In their mind, they don't need to plan for the future because they will able to take care of that with their windfall. But their needs are different. You are in equal parts providing for your retirement and providing for your *current* emotional needs for security. And _you_ are the only arbiter of that particular fund.