Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
About the numbers CET quoted: if what I think is going on here is correct, the numbers are utterly useless.
It looks like the book he quoted used a set standard of $10M net worth for defining wealth.
If that is indeed the case, one only has to take a quick look at the time period between the measurement of parents' net worth and that of their millionaire children. Let's put that at an average of 20 years, shall we?
The book he's talking about is from 1998, I believe, so let's say the parents' status of "wealthy" or not was based on their net worth in 1978, and that of the wealthy children on numbers from 1998.
$10M in 1998 has the same purchasing power as ~$4M in 1978. So, if you take $10M+ for the parents in 1978 as a standard of being "wealthy", you should use $25M+ as the standard for defining "wealthy" in 1998. Otherwise, equal or even diminished purchasing power combined with inflation will have created most of the "first generation wealthy".
This is just one possibility - although one that seems quite likely right now - but it clearly shows why most numbers from either side can't be taken for face value without knowing the research method and such.
|
How about you stop talking out of your ass and actually read the book instead of sitting around trying to shoot down something that you know nothing about. I quote a couple of statistics from it, you decide you don't like it and therefore it must be discredited. How about you get off your ass and GO READ IT! Only then will you be able to speak about it with ANY authority.
__________________
Alt Journals, Blogs for Perverts!
Fitness and nutrition writer, and UNIX/Linux Sys Ad in training
"Just as a man who has fallen into a heap of filth ought to seek the great pond of water covered with lotuses, which is near by: even so seek thou for the great deathless lake of Nirvana to wash off the defilement of wrong. If the lake is not sought, it is not the fault of the lake."