"ZerkonX" <Z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:pan.2008.03.13.14.47.04@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
>
>
The above would generally apply to individual financial wealth. But is
that
all that should be considered? I don;t think so.
There is also national, natural, and lifestyle wealth/s. Such things
whilst
less definable in $ terms, nevertheless impact greatly on one's individual
wealth. The notion of what is "real" is also relevant.
How many simply "believe" an asset such as Shares means $X .... when in
reality, such shares are only nominal untill actualy sold for cash or
Kind.
National wealth in Assets also must include National [ shared ] Debts to
be
deducted from it.
Someone on $200k a year, who loses all health Insurance due to
unimployment,
may not be as "wealthy" as someone on $50k a year in another nation who
shares in the wealth of a Universal Health coverage that applies whether
they are working or not.
Two people of the same nominal $ wealth, where one lives in the
countryside
of Oregan, and the other down the street from Martin Luther King
Boulevarde
in Miami South enjoy a far different level of "true wealth" imho.
A millionaire living in Florida, is far more "wealthy" than a millionaire
living in the Sudan in the middle of a civil war.
A US soldier and his family fighting in Iraq for $100k a year, is nowhere
near as wealthy as Swedish soldier based in Stockholm earning only $60k a
year and with the same level of personal assets.
The nuances about "wealth" are many and varied I think. It depends on
one's
ideology, philosphy of life, and values.
|
