"ta" <padlrnc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:57dda773-3f97-4c1e-b54c-54e46e653dbb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 10, 1:48 pm, Ed <solon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 12:19 pm, ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > What is the most objective measure of an individual's wealth?
>>
>> Perhaps, the free market value of all of his disposable goods and
>> property.
>>
>> When he dies we auction everything and the proceeds are his wealth at
>> that moment.
>
> But for a living person, how would we determine, for example, that you
> are/are not wealthier today than say five years ago?
>
> I can see in retrospect that my initial question was poorly phrased
> (or perhaps too general).
>
> I'm trying to understand what the most objective way is to measure
> whether or not your average person is getting wealthier or poorer (or
> roughly staying the same).
>
> The term "real wages" is often used, and by looking at that data, it
> would seem we are less wealthy than in 1964, for example. (http://
>
www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits%3A+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29)
>
> Is there a better indicator than real wages?
Net Worth [ realizable assets less debts ] plus annual net income after
Tax
= pro****tionate wealth to others.
"personal wealth" as a concept is another matter entirely as it includes
such indefinables as intelligence, character, state of consciousness,
awareness, judgment etc.
IOW money is not everything, and is usually hardly anything of real value
in
life.
|
