<royls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT), ta <padlrnc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 11, 1:41 pm, ro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:31:19 +0100, a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(PeterBP) wrote:
> >> >ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What is the most objective measure of an individual's wealth?
> >>
> >> >Assets.
> >>
> >> True, but I assumed he meant relative ("an individual's") wealth, not
> >> absolute wealth. I see now that he might also have meant absolute
> >> wealth.
> >
> >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?
>
> Net worth divided by local median wages.
>
> >"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.
>
> Real wages is a decent measure of how much people earn, but doesn't
> say much about their own financial condition. For example, a retiree
> or idle millionaire is in better shape if wages are low.
>
> -- Roy L
That, or the following:
If you look at income only, it's easy to appear "rich", if you earn, fx.
a million US$ a year. But if you, on closer scrutiny, have household
expenses of 950,000 US$/yr, then what?
Or if you are deeply indebted, say, you owe 10,000,000 US$ away?
Summa summarum, looking at income only is foolish, and people who judge
other on basis of yearly income (including those who wish to tax on
basis of income) and not assets, and call others "rich" are abusing the
word.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Wa****ngton D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
|
