«Rich man» — what does it mean at all?25 сентября, 2021 от fake Выкл
«Wealth is a good maid, but a bad lover.»
(c) Francis Bacon
Still, I am unfair to Kiyosaka, when I say that besides motivation, there is nothing sensible in his books. There is.
He will quite well argue about how to distinguish a rich man from not rich.
You say — what is it? What is the problem? Is it difficult to distinguish a rich man from the poor? Of course, I will answer you. Nowadays public loans — it is even difficult))
In fact, the whole thing is that people are often deceived by Mishuroy, external signs of wealth, and if they ask them «what is a rich man», they will begin to describe a person who leads a «luxurious lifestyle».
Here and lies the stumbling block. It is necessary to carry out the border between the «wealth» and «luxury» — it is worth establishing that these are two completely different concepts — and we immediately interfere in places.
After all, the luxurious lifestyle man can behave in debt and then such a lifestyle will not have anything in common with wealth, and maybe even on the contrary will lead him straight to poverty. And on the contrary — a converged investor can be a very rich man, while not spending money on status consumption.
And now Kiyosaki offers a fairly simple and reasonable criterion for defining a rich man: the rich in his understanding is that man to continue to continue to enter his current lifestyle, no need to go to work. That is, simply speaking a person who has passive incomes cover its current expenses.
The definition of Kiyosaki is slightly «debaned» in his mania of passive income. And yet the idea of His definition of a «rich» person — as a person independent of active income looks very sound, although the degree of «passiveness» of different types of income is always a question of discussion (to take the apartment — this is someone’s glance too troublesome, and at whose That is not. Or on the other hand, it seems to someone that the stock portfolio is passive income only if you bought it forever and never even carry out a rebalanses).
A little differently approached the question of the assessment of wealth. The authors of the book «Your neighbor is a millionaire». The authors watched how many years the family will be able to «hold out» spending accumulated capital and without reducing family spending. A little mechanistic approach, in my opinion. Well, in fact, the authors and there were tasks to compare accumulations than they did.
If we agree that a reasonable version of the definition of a «rich man» is a person who has passive income covers its current expenses.
The first and the main conclusion for me was — this is exactly the one I have already mentioned above — wealth is not equal to luxury.
For myself, I would define it like this:
Wealth, this is the achievement of the level of independence from money.
Luxury is to achieve the level of access to excesses.
The reverse correlation is very interesting.
There are people who earn huge money and seeking primarily to luxury — in this regard, the most indicative examples are athletes who earn millions of dollars a year. But also spend them as quickly as earning. They lead a fabulously luxurious lifestyle. But — almost all of them literally a few years after the end of the career — bankrupt.
Agree — it is not easy to call such people «rich.» Especially after we agreed on definitions))
Interestingly, the problem is much wider than the circles of professional athletes.
Could you think that this lack of good education prevents them from making savings and carefully invest your earned money? But statistics show quite another.
Stanley and Danko in the book about the neighbor of a millionaire scrupulously examined a huge number of families in the United States and came to curious conclusions — the problem of capital accumulation is not solved with an increase in education.
At least they did not find any positive correlation. Robotly noted even negative — when the uneducated dad, a modest businessman of the middle hand, was bluntfully postponed every penny (that is, every cents, of course), went on a cheap car and went to stop shoes, and son (a graduate of the best college) had to correspond to another social circle — Buy expensive costumes and premium cars. And accordingly, the son descends money to superconduct, instead of saving capital.
Consumption — or even supervolatility — the chances of wealth for very well earning people are burning on the root. I know a considerable number of people, many years earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year — and at the same time they have no accumulated millions. Often they have not only no accumulated millions — they also have mortgages not everyone is paid to huge «choirs.»
But what far behind the examples go? One famous actor recently flashes on the screens in advertising one famous bank. Although the actor himself admits that he is very dismissed in advertising. But — Mortgage forced, there was nowhere to go … And after all, the actor is super successful not the first ten years …
Here is the same trouble practically with all the earmaries of people. Money goes from them like sand between your fingers. And they do not turn into no moment from the «excellent earning person» in the «rich».
Because the «rich» man does not make how much money he earned, but how much money he was able to save, save, invest, invest. Rich make the money that start to work instead of you. Those money that turns into «capital».
Well, a separate problem is, of course, loans.
In the case of athletes or movie stars, we can say that they simply «confused» the order of actions — and before they created a reliable «wealth», stable capital from money, immediately began to lead a luxurious lifestyle.
But in the case of people who do not earn millions try to start living on Laksheri-style credit — this error looks fatal. If you get into loans once — it will have to get out of time and painfully. All that time, while you come out — you will not invest. Investments time — just as important as money. So taking any loan you yourself cut your wings and reduce your chances of becoming really rich ((
And by the way about «really rich.» The level of consumption is also important and here it is important to set some limits for yourself and your family — otherwise the adequacy of capital will be like the line of the horizon in the school textbook on nature — to move away as the approximation))
A simple example. My former chef at some point discovered that constant expenses (his family and his family) make up half a million dollars a year. And below this amount, well, there can be no horror. My spent is about ten times lower.
What follows from this? Very funny output. In the system of coordinates that we pounced above. It follows from this that my chef — earning much more than I — it does not have the opportunity to be considered a rich man. Because his capital does not allow him to live on passive income. But — the lifestyle he leads with it much more luxurious than me. Here is such a paradox.
A similar paradox is observed with savings.
The authors of the book «Your neighbor -Millioner» even introduced the classification of people whom they studied onb and the PNB — which meant excellent wealth drives and bad wealth drives. The meaning of this classification is briefly — there is a significant (normal) level of savings, which a person should make proportionately to his age and incomes that he received. Next, the authors checked — how many annual incomes were postponed from each of the studied and, accordingly, hung on it «Label».
And very often excellent wealth drives are not those who earn more, but those who are wiserfully spending.
And on the contrary — it is often an increase in salary for many acting a signal to take a loan to a new car or apartment (after all, it will now be easier to pay the loan), and not increase the level of savings.
In general, it is interesting that the savings culture knocks out of the heads of people. Since the times of Roosevelt, who declared the enemies of the nation of drives holding gold under mattresses and do not give the economy to develop, and until our time. The image of a man of neatly folding money and accumulating them looks somehow inconspicuous.
In principle, logical. The drive is useful only to its relatives. And the very «busy» — and the economy is useful and employers are comfortable.
Well, what, let’s bring some results?
Rich is not the one who rides in the most expensive car. At this expense, at all, I recently heard a good joke: «In our time of available loans to buy a dear car can anyone. But how much he wants to sleep — can only a very rich man. «
Rich — the one who can afford to continue to lead the current lifestyle into passive income.
Since in order to become rich required precisely passive income — you need to create capital.
No matter how much you earned actively — until you save part of the earned — you will not become rich.
The biggest part of you saved and invest — the faster you will become rich. And over time —