On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:37:53 -0700, ta wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:43 am, ZerkonX <Z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:05 -0700, ta wrote:
>> > What is the most objective measure of an individual's wealth?
>>
>> Call in all debts immediately, then go from there.
>
> Poorly phrased question on my part.
>
> What I really meant was:
>
> If someone asks you if you are better off financially today than 10
> years ago, what is the most objective way to measure that?
>
> "Real wages" is the usual term that I have seen most, but I'm just
> wondering if that is universally accepted, or is there a different/
> better measure. "Real wages" make good sense to me, but not being an
> expert in economics, I'm just trying to learn if that is the best way.
I still think the answer applies.
Wages, money in hand and all assets should be counter balanced with debt
load. This gives a more objective bottom line, I think.
'Real wages' as a gage to a current financial state, I believe, can be
deceptive. Same with any 'asset'. What do you actually own. Not what can
you actually borrow or are borrowing. If wealth is to be measured in
terms of in hand money and the monetary value of assets owned, then
exactly who owns the assets, who actually holds the title or deed is the
first question. Otherwise wealth is just faith in the ability to pay
debt.
|
