Top One Percent? Half a Percent? Tenth of a Percent?

[MichaelB]

This is the exact opposite of what I experienced. I worked for the second largest company in Canada (a Bank) at a C-suite job and I can say that my colleagues were hard working, ethical, honest, team players. Otherwise would have been cause for dismissal. Extremely philanthropic as a group. I shudder to think that what you describe actually happened.

Good for you, and them. A very close friend has a senior position in a global European company, she reports something similar to your experience.

Were you a member of this cohort or an observer from outside?

Both. My experience, probably not representative of the norm, was that the US corporate exec management uses stock and options to reward results and were (are) uninterested in behaviour - they just didn't want people to get caught. I know good middle level people, with careers and family, fired in a harsh way just so their managers could show how tough they were. In one case I tried to intervene, and was told to STFU and Get TF Away - literally. I knew my time was up when I was instructed - in public - to do something that was a clear SEC violation. That was my sign it was time to pack my bags, and I did - without complaint.

The people that make it close to the top will make tens of $millions, and those that reach the very top $hundreds of millions. For that kind of reward people will do just about anything, which probably explains in part how US corporate profitability has reached, and stayed and historically high levels. But the environment is predatory and savage.

 

[audreyh1]

My experience from a successful startup was that there were no sharks and the founders who became extremely wealthy overnight did not change personality, and put their newfound wealth to work very creatively. The company did not suffer.

Therefore, I do not believe that becoming much more wealthy makes you less happy. In fact, I believe it enhances your quality of life and therefore tends to increase happiness.

From the personal experience of being able to retire very early due to the start-up success, and then having my net worth grow nicely during retirement, I can say I'm happier. It is certainly not a burden! I was delighted to gain FI and not to need to work anymore. And I've enjoyed the gradual upgrading of lifestyle over the years, as well as being able to gift more.

If someone is holding out for the private plane and mega-yacht (and associated bragging rights?) to be "happy" - well, that's a personality issue!

 

[travelover]

.............The people that make it close to the top will make tens of $millions, and those that reach the very top $hundreds of millions. For that kind of reward people will do just about anything, which probably explains in part how US corporate profitability has reached, and stayed and historically high levels. But the environment is predatory and savage.

I think the only way to truly know a person is to sell them your old work van.

 

[RobbieB]

I don't know any 1%er's, always worked at small Co's or small divisions of large Co's.

I know people richer than me and they seem like "regular folks".

 

[Markola]

+1. Generalizations about wealth and happiness don't seem to hold up. I work in philanthropy and know many people WAY richer than DW and me, several into the hundreds of millions in NW and a couple of billionaires. Some are relaxed and happy, others are uptight about their social status, some are family types and others have all kinds of issues, but even after 24 years in this profession, I can't honestly generalize anything about "the wealthy" any more than I can "people."

 

[petershk]

I always had a few problems with the 75k study numbers.

First it assumes a static and predictable income because it captures a certain moment. To me that's more like "after being able to spend 75k/year... spending more doesn't make you much happier."

That's TOTALLY different than earning 75k this year and hoping you will forever.

So... if I have 750k that's about 12-15 years of 75k and if I'm 70 years old... that's pretty safe... but if Inga 1.5m I'd feel WAY safer.

If I'm 40... having 2M is PRETTY safe... having 4 is WAY safer and so on.

So while I don't get happier by spending more I feel way safer having more and that safety translates to happiness... at least to me.

I can honestly say I don't think having a billion would change my PERSONAL spending much. It would probably significantly change my life because I have no idea how to even think about managing a billion. Buy I don't really want a bigger house or more cars or more vacations or not to clothes etc. Honestly we already spend quite a bit less than we can and that's not really trying hard.

So more money is just a bigger safety net... but I find tat relates to happiness pretty strongly.

The other factor is that contentment tends to be incredibly relative. At 75k you are "better off" than most people so it's likely that on average you feel richer than most people around you. If you lived in a crappy house in a Beverly Hills bringing in 75k I suspect the comparative dynamics would work against that happiness #. Thus I think it's wise to live in a slightly poorer neighbourhood than what you can afford (which is what I do) and that tends to both remind you how lucky you are as well as keep you from being too extravagant.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[LARS]

As this thread as morphed from "who" are the 1% to "what" are the 1% perhaps the best observation as to the "what" (certainly the most quoted anyway) was made by F. Scott Fitzgerald:

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different. ”


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Danmar]

As this thread as morphed from "who" are the 1% to "what" are the 1% perhaps the best observation as to the "what" (certainly the most quoted anyway) was made by F. Scott Fitzgerald:

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different. ”


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

The Great Gatsby was fiction though.

 

[LARS]

The Great Gatsby was fiction though.

Indeed. And the best writers of fiction, of which Fitzgerald is in the Pantheon, make the keenest of observations about real life.

That having been said, personally I think that people are people and there tends to be similar bell curves within segments. Still, as a generalization of the "very rich", Fitzgerald's observation has certainly passed the test of time.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Zathras]

Indeed. And the best writers of fiction, of which Fitzgerald is in the Pantheon, make the keenest of observations about real life.

That having been said, personally I think that people are people and there tends to be similar bell curves within segments. Still, as a generalization of the "very rich", Fitzgerald's observation has certainly passed the test of time.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

I would rephrase that.
The belief in the stereotype has lasted the test of time.

 

[Danmar]

I would rephrase that.
The belief in the stereotype has lasted the test of time.

Yes, agree.

 

[audreyh1]

As this thread as morphed from "who" are the 1% to "what" are the 1% perhaps the best observation as to the "what" (certainly the most quoted anyway) was made by F. Scott Fitzgerald:

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different. ”

Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

Agree with Danmar. Fitzgerald created his characters and celebrated the stereotype. And note he was specifically referring to the born rich (and multi-generational too), not the self-made/built wealth in their lifetime folks. The folks he was characterizing and stereotyping never retired, because they never worked!

And they are not the 1%! More like the top 0.1%.

I would rephrase that.
The belief in the stereotype has lasted the test of time.

Agreed.

 

[LARS]

I would rephrase that.

The belief in the stereotype has lasted the test of time.

You seem to be suggesting that there isn't a solid observation within the generalization. If so, I disagree with you.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[wren007]

We are not 1% but definitely have "more than enough" & live below our means. My husband has a physical disability and our wealth definitely makes us happier... It allows us to pay for experiences(think travel) & accommodations that would otherwise not be physically accessible to us as a family if we had less wealth. However it always startles us to hear of our neighbors / friends taking out loans for things like their backyard swimming pool. My difficulty with our net worth / wealth is not really having a peer group. I'm an introvert who's driven & have high expectations, but not interested in mass accumulation / consumerism. I sometimes have difficulty relating with people around me & that's NOT something you can buy.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[NW-Bound]

Dunno about being a centimillionaire or higher, but if I were to have a networth of $9M to join the 1%, besides business class seats, I would also treat myself to a $1,500 bottle of Cognac.

The most expensive Cognac my wife has ever bought for me was for $150. I wonder if the more expensive bottle would be any better or all hype. Or it could be that at this point my palate could not tell the difference. Still, if I have money to burn, why not spread it around, even to some French distillers.

 

[RobbieB]

I find my "tipping" value point of booze is around fifty bucks.

The more expensive stuff does taste better, but not that much better. The stuff half the price I won't even drink anymore.

 

[Zathras]

You seem to be suggesting that there isn't a solid observation within the generalization. If so, I disagree with you.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

No, I am not suggesting that at all.
I am arguing that this is a stereotype and that it is neither correct, nor fair, to attribute that description to all of the "very rich" or "born rich".

Applying negative stereotypes to every member of a class does not reflect poorly on that class, it reflects poorly on the person applying the stereotype.

 

[aja8888]

Dunno about being a centimillionaire or higher, but if I were to have a networth of $9M to join the 1%, besides business class seats, I would also treat myself to a $1,500 bottle of Cognac.

The most expensive Cognac my wife has ever bought for me was for $150. I wonder if the more expensive bottle would be any better or all hype. Or it could be that at this point my palate could not tell the difference. Still, if I have money to burn, why not spread it around, even to some French distillers.

It's not the taste of the contents of the $1500 bottle of Cognac that counts. It's about being able to display the bottle's label....

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson family fortune has some interesting documentaries on kids and families born rich - so rich they don't have to work: Born Rich and The One Percent. If you were not born rich, you can probably find both free for viewing on the Internet these days. I enjoyed both documentaries.

 

[Markola]

The more expensive stuff does taste better, but not that much better. .

A perfect example of what economists call decreasing marginal utility. Is there such a thing for money generally? It sounds like folks on this post have different inflection points toward decreasing marginal utility of money. And people here seem to have different utility curves for annual spending vs. financial security. For us, DW is more interested in maintaining the spending and I'm more interested in the financial security. I think both come into focus for us at around $100K spending and $2.5 net worth, probably in 6 years, so that's where I'm placing the target for us, and it has nothing to do with whether we're top 10%, etc. On the other hand, our utility curve seems malleable because I could be happy quitting right now and moving to Latin America, sipping rum drinks (I'd happily quit cognac!) and living on what we have. DW doesn't see the utility in that excellent plan, however so, for now, hi ho, hi ho...

 

[Meadbh]

I worked for the second largest company in Canada (a Bank) at a C-suite job and I can say that my colleagues were hard working, ethical, honest, team players. Otherwise would have been cause for dismissal. Extremely philanthropic as a group.

Im glad to hear that, because I think that's my bank!

 

[Meadbh]

I retired at 53 with a paid off house, no debt, and a modest COLA govt. pension (starting next year when I turn 55) that will easily cover my inexpensive lifestyle.

I may not be in the top 1% in North America, but I'm easily in the top 1% on the planet and also have things worth more than money...freedom, democracy, and civil rights. I was lucky to be born where I was and am very thankful for what I have.

Well said!

 

[UpAnchor]

It's not the taste of the contents of the $1500 bottle of Cognac that counts. It's about being able to display the bottle's label....

My crowd wouldn't know the difference. Just one more place I save money...

 

[NW-Bound]

Decades ago, at around Christmas time I saw a $1200 bottle at Sam's Club, but I do not remember the brand. Perhaps more people pay this much for booze than we think.

Recently, in Vail I saw a bottle of Louis XIII Cognac in a store window. Later, I looked on the Web out of curiosity, and found that there are many confusing grades of Louis XIII. Some are in a similar bottle to my XO cognac, but sell for a couple $K. Some are in really ornate bottles, like this one from the Web. These can go for $20K+. I guess if you have to ask the price, you cannot afford it.

If you cannot afford to drink a bottle that costs as much as your car, perhaps you can try a sample bottle of 50ml, the size that airlines serve to passengers. Here's one for a mere $600, good for one shot.

I dunno. When I was young, I tried American brandy once, and did not like it. I preferred even the lowest grade Courvoisier to that. But recently, I tried an inexpensive American brandy again, and whoa, it was not bad. I still do not know if American distillers got better, or that my palate has gotten dull.

No matter though. Drinking as little as I do, I can now imbibe for even less money. And that's something to drink about.

 

[kcowan]

Checked into The Hyatt Regency on The Rhine in Cologne yesterday and had a glorious dinner at a nearby beach club. Finished the meal with an Armagnac. This is something we do because we can. Not trying to impress anyone. Just enjoying our money.