"The One Percent"

>>2052471
>1 out of a hundrd
>good chance
cool
also
are we forgetting
the only club that matters
>0.01%
why aren't you a billionaire yet /biz/?

>>2052664
Somebody hasn't read The One Percent doctrine and as I said that doesn't factor in intelligence and determination. Bertie the binman was never going to be a millionaire and he likely never aspired to be.

>>2052471
The one percent is there yes. People fall in and out of it and it's never truly a set of people like some organization.

but the top 1 percent of the percent......

OMG your right!!!

>>2052913
But money begets money. Getting into the one percent in the first place should theoretically be harder.

Keep in mind it's 1 in 100 when taking the US as a whole. So around business centers you're going to be running into a lot more 1%'ers than when you're MLK and Caesar Chavez Blvd

>>2052471
>1-in-100 people are in it

I truly believe I am one of those people.

>>2053468
>I truly believe I am one of those people.
Your wallet says otherwise. So does your IQ test.

>>2053451
The major population centers where most people live.

In your opinion. How does one get there? I think i could outsmart 50 people.

>>2052471

excellent point! ty for the refresher at this juncture

File: ap_17082556673260-068c3315c5701eb55a1bf0dd5bc7e31b95193fc9-s900-c85.jpg (128KB, 900x674px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 900x674px

>>2053513
Everyone has their own path but I think if there's a secret to it it's just never giving up. Accept and learn from your failures but never consign yourself to being one. If you keep trying one day chances are that at least one of your attempts is going to come good. Especially when 50% of the 50% that do try likely only try once.

>>2053621
>keep playing the lottery every day because chances are you'll win millions with at least one of your tickets
>t. enteral poorfag

Because poor people are generally more superstitious and lacking in critical thinking skills than their owners.

>>2053714
Not comparable at all.

>>2053435
>But money begets money
True. But top investors like Warren Buffet don't make SICK GAINZ. They make like 15% returns.
>Getting into the one percent in the first place should theoretically be harder.
Don't know about that one. I'm not saying that it's easy, but I think in theory, it's enough to be innovative and smart. Tech industry BTFO everyone else these past few decades just by being smarter.

>>2053714
well, it's about understanding probability and risk management.

what are your odds of hitting the jackpot? can you put your money somewhere else with better odds, where you can possibly even influence the odds?

>>2053857
>what are your odds of hitting the jackpot?
Bad logic. People who get rich do so by trading their talents and time for money. Not by selecting the best gamble.

What about inheritance? If I become a millionaire I'm still going to live a frugal live.

Pretty sure its like becoming a freemason....all you have to do is ask. I mean I started from foster Care and I make 6 figures now. I'm still about 150k a year from being a one precenter but that may change quickly since I'm picking up a multi unit rental and some of my investments are paying off well. I think within the next 5 years I may be in that elusive 1% club. I mean I can't believe how stupid some rich people I know are. I also can't believe the human trash the masons are letting in their club....now that I'm here its not nearly as impressive as I thought it would be.

Integers are easier to relate to for the kind of idiot the message is meant for.

>>2053894
You just refuted your own argument.

>>2053894
that's kind of what i meant dude

i think you are talking more about people who are successful in business, and i'm addressing it more from an investment perspective.

>t. i've known crackheads who talked about the piles of cash they've blown on scratchers as 'investments'

>>2053977
You don't really understand logic, huh?

>>2053994
This thread is about the "1%." Most of the 1% got there through their jobs -- not through gambles, not through investing, and not through inheritance. Their jobs, i.e., trading their talents and time for money.

>>2054017
Three years doing a degree for an industry you may not be suited to is as much of a gamble as starting a business is. Provided you bootstrap and take the risk seriously.

File: Le-bourgeois-gentilhomme.jpg (12KB, 170x287px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 170x287px

I'm a janitor at a crappy high school. I'm ever I going to reach the 1%?
I also smoke all my money away in weed. I voted for Trump, I waiting for the good times.

>>2052471
Ur rite op y r the 1/100 ppl called the 1% dat doesn't meak sens

>>2054047
Fair point, but not a strong analogy. While it's true that an investment in education or training is no guarantee of success, the real question is whether the individual has the underlying intelligence, skills, and talents that are highly valued in the market. In practice, people with these desirable traits tend to find the appropriate ways to exchange them for money. In a capitalistic society, such people are always valuable.

By contrast, starting a business involves risk externalities far beyond the control of the business owner. Success (or failure) often bears no correlation to talent or skill. In other words, you can do everything right and still fail. Every time.

>>2054100
With potentially bigger rewards but I take your point. If you have a marketable talent or skill and the qualifications to show for it that's definitely the more sensible path but it's definitely worth the risk if the alternative is being a 50 hour wage slave in a job you could do in your sleep.

>>2054357
Nope. Your premise seems to assumes that taking these risks has no cost, which is of course patently false. Investments have risk of loss, and starting a business costs capital and time. In most cases, that "50 hour wage slave" path is going to result in the highest return to the individual, which is what matters. Indeed, you're trying to color the discussion by using terms like "wage slave" in the first place.

You can't give financial advice on the basis of "you've got nothing to lose" when most people do, in fact, have something to lose.

>>2054455
But that 1-in-50 is just the times it pays off big. The times it just about allows you to break even are going to be greater again and I'm posting on 4chan so I'm assuming most people here don't have a family of five to feed.

>>2054472
>The times it just about allows you to break even are going to be greater again
Gambler's fallacy. You think it'll pay off because you want it to pay off. But there's no facts to support your wish.

>>2054472
>I'm assuming most people here don't have a family of five to feed.
most people in the top 1% DO have a family of five to feed.

so perhaps you should rethink.

>>2054486
A third of start ups survive 10 years:

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

>>2053714
>This is actually how poor people think

>>2054796
>A third of start ups survive 10 years
Doesn't mean they're profitable, let alone that the owners make more than if they pursued a conventional wage/salary position.

Besides, you were tossing out fake statistics about making it big. Suddenly you've changed to talking about "surviving." That's a big move of the goalposts.

>>2055049
How does it feel to smash someone's dreams, anon.
Did it feel good?

Chances are we're all in the top 5% of the world financially speaking. We're also human. just be thankful you're not living your life as a ring worm.

>>2055250
>How does it feel to smash someone's dreams, anon.
>Did it feel good?
Honestly, yes. It feels good to educate people that get-rich-quick schemes and cutting corners are not the way to get ahead in life. That there's no free lunches. That you have to work hard to get ahead.

Why you shitty little Millennials have to be told this stuff past the age of 12 is beyond me.

>>2055309
>Why you shitty little Millennials have to be told this stuff past the age of 12 is beyond me.

Because they think they're special snowflakes. This is what bad parenting does. When a person grows up without learning about personal responsibility and accountability, he/she will think adulthood will be like childhood where everything would be handed to them.

Remember,

If you are above the poverty line in the United States, you are in the 1% of the whole world. Just be happy you were born in a huge country with ridiculous high standard of living.

Even someone below the poverty line in the US lives in more square footage per person than the average European.

>>2055309
Where did I say anything about schemes or cutting corners? Just that it's not the impossible dream the liberal media paints it as. And it isnt't. There are literally millions of millionaires in the US alone.

>>2055406
>There are literally millions of millionaires in the US alone.
Yeah, and the vast majority of them got there due to their salary. Not their shitcoins. Not their home business. Not their meme stocks. Their salary.

>liberal media
You really are a deluded cunt, huh? Back to /pol/ faggot. We honestly don't want people like you here. Bye.

>>2054057
only smoke weed when you can truly afford it. Im assuming no degrees, so instead of weed, pay for a shitty online college degree. Its still a degree. Next, pirate pdfs online of various philosophical finances books or go to your book store and by used ones. I know you're not ready for nitty-gritty numbers books or macroeconomics, so just books that make you realize where you stand. I recommend Nassim Taleb. Good Luck pal

>>2055415
>vast majority of them got there due to their salary.
Over half of millionaires are still business owners.

you repeating your fantasy doesn't make it truth.

File: 1494105953353.jpg (100KB, 1024x653px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1024x653px

>>2055571
>you repeating your fantasy doesn't make it truth
Truth. You keep spouting bullshit, but business ownership is a meme. Only a tiny percentage of people get rich or stay rich by owning a business.

Most people do it with their jobs.

>>2053487
H-how do you know, though?

Why has nobody mentioned that fact that the top 1% does not equate to 1 in a 100 people?

There is a guesstimated global population of 7.5bn... therefore being in the top 1% is 1 in 75mn

This is why you still poor

>>2055702
you gave me aids. You are implying that there are only 100 people in the world in that 1 percent. There's 75 million in that 1 percent. I hope you are bait. I want to understand your train of thought so I can abuse dumbshits who think they are smarter than everyone else like you later on in life.

I am trans 1%. WITHIN TWO DECADES, DAMNIT.

>>2055741
Don't get triggered by facts... Stay poor wagie

File: 1465421984800.png (41KB, 393x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 393x400px

>>2055789

It's actually more like the 0.1% according to wagecuckery statistics. "the 1%" is just a meme to better understand what's happening.

>>2053435
>>Getting into the one percent in the first place should theoretically be harder.
A lot of the 1% are people who have a one-time windfall (probably the most common would be selling a house) which pushes their income up above the threshold for a single year.

>>2055642
the one percent are decamillionaires, moron.

File: 2017-04-04_060825-vert.jpg (93KB, 506x474px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 506x474px

>>2053513
>he doesnt know how to reach the top
>he will never be the top 1 percent of the 1 percent if the 1% of the 1%

I see the path to get there because i born chosen

Pretty much anyone living in a first world country is in the 1%

>>2055642
>No citations
>%'s don't add up to 100%
>semi-random bolding
>unknown what emerging affluent and mass affluent are defined as

Picture discarded

Also fuck anyone with a pension. Pyramid scheme bullshit.

>>2052471
having 1 million dollars does not make you a part of the 1%. people who are multimillionares are not 1 in 100.

>>2055931
>the one percent are decamillionaires, moron.
The 1% are millionaires. The 0.01% are decamillionaires.

Moron.

>>2055988
Nice that you're being skeptical, although a quick Google search and your questions would have been answered, dumbass. It's the Fidelity Millionaire Outlook Survey, which they conduct annually. The data collection methodology and terminology are explained in detail, so go have fun.

>>2053734
na, my mom is poor and she has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars screwing my cheating dad through child support. she is pretty smart.

>>2055996
>vague title will surely yield the source
>image search yields a bunch of shit
>forcing the reader to validate the existence of a source at all
>posting information that cant stand on its own

no

>>2053513
Make 6 figures. That simple

>>2055996
>The 1% are millionaires.
the cutoff was $8.4 million in 2007.
it's well over $10 million now.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/?_r=0

>The 0.01% are decamillionaires.
fuck you're retarded.

>>2056009
>vague title will surely yield the source
I literally gave you the name of the citation. I'd happily give you a link, but it's pretty clear that you're just here to be a sandy cunt, so fuck you.

>>2056013
>the cutoff was $8.4 million
Which is less than $10 million. Such persons would be in the "Millionaire" column.

Also, your math is bullshit. There's no official definition of the "1%" and never has been. You just make up facts to suit your agenda.

>>2053894

But...so investing "isnt" essentially gambling?

>>2056024
>Which is less than $10 million.
ten years ago.

>There's no official definition of the "1%" and never has been
literally cited the top 1% of net worth in Federal Reserve data for 2007.

and it's not "my" math, it's the New York Times and the US Federal Reserve.

>>2056024
>Which is less than $10 million
would you say everyone in the top one percent had exactly $8.4 million in 2007?

or would you guess that 99.9% of them actually had more than the minimum needed to make the top 1%?

I'm just curious how retarded people do math....

>>2056035
>so investing "isnt" essentially gambling?
Depends how you invest. If you put your money in cryptocoins or trade meme stocks, or if you day trade or play with forex, then you're most definitely gambling. But if you invest in highly-diversified equity and fixed income investments with a long-term perspective, it's not really gambling because you're actually banking on the inherent positive bias in the markets. You're betting on nationalistic factors, such a GDP growth and population growth, which positively influence local markets. Certain cultural changes also positively influence markets, such as women entering the workforce, trends towards longer working hours, and less vacations. Developments in legal and regulatory structures eliminate market inefficiencies, such as corruption, price manipulation, and insider trading. And lastly, technological advancement generally contributes to both demand and efficiency gains, providing a strong positive bias in affected markets. Long-term diversified buy-and-hold investing has risk, of course, but no, it's definitely not gambling.

>>2056036
>Federal Reserve data
Oh, so the world is limited to the United States?

Context matters, kid. When you get some education, like maybe after you get to college, you'll learn things like this. Hopefully.

The 1% are literally Jews

>>2056046
>Oh, so the world is limited to the United States?
google "Net worth of the 1%" and see.

>Context matters, kid.
I love how you start menstruating every time you get curb-stomped.

>>2053451
That's a literal intersection in the city I live...

>>2052471
bc the one percent actually means the 0.0001 percent you stupid peon. Your local car dealer business family man is a 1 percenter, eyes wide shut shit is the .0001 percent.

>>2056049
>The 1% are literally Jews

"A study done by the nonpartisan wealth research firm New World Wealth found that 56.2% of the 13.1 million millionaires in the world were Christians, while 6.5% were Muslims, 3.9% were Hindu, and 1.7% were Jewish; 31.7% were identified as adherents of "other" religions or "not religious"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion

Sorry polfag, there's more than twice as many Muslim millionaires than Jewish millionaire. You'll have to peddle your fake facts elsewhere.

>>2056053
Um, dumbass, you're the moron who claimed to cite stats from the U.S. Federal Reserve about U.S. population. Not me, you.

Don't get so butthurt. If it wasn't me pointing out how stupid you are, it'd be someone else. I just happened to be closest.

>Funny how you stopped making arguments after your first attempt got btfo. I guess your fight or flight switch got turned to flight pretty quickly . Kek.

>>2056071
>you're the moron who claimed to cite stats from the U.S. Federal Reserve about U.S. population. Not me, you.
>Fidelity Millionaire Outlook Survey is in US Dollars

please tell me you understand that much.

>>2056071
Jews are disproportionately overrepresented (to an extreme, in fact) among billionaires and among the power-brokers in the news media, Hollywood, high academia, and finance, at least here in the United States. Look up the long list of media executives and entertainment company owners who are Jews, for example.

I'm sure that the Jewish sociologists and economists whose work is referenced on (((Wikipedia))) are really credible.

>>2056071
>The Fidelity Millionaire Outlook is a primary research study among 542 U.S. millionaire investors
>U.S. millionaire investors
>U.S.

>>2056071
and what is the ratio of jews to wealthy jews, christians to wealthy christians, etc.?

>>2056091
>>2056104
I'm not the one who manufactured a statistic by self-selecting the dataset. I simply pointed out that there's no accepted definition of the "1%" -- which is true, and which you can't refute.

You've now splurged 3 or 4 posts about nothing. Time for a nap?

>>2056097
>>2056114
>>>/pol/

>>2056152
>I'm not the one who manufactured a statistic by self-selecting the dataset.
the top 1% of net worth in the US isn't some variable thing that I arbitrarily picked.

It's a real number and I cited it. Just like the numbers you cited for the same US population.

You're just sad you read the wrong column in your chart and now feel like an ass.

>>2056160
>the top 1% of net worth in the US isn't some variable thing that I arbitrarily picked
No, but it's an arbitrary dataset compared to all the other 1% definitions that you could have used. And since you specifically selected it in a misguided attempt to refute my argument, its perfectly valid for me to point out that you self-selected the definition to fit your narrow point.

>Just like the numbers you cited for the same US population.
Actually, the millionaire survey is a different dataset entirely. Unless you think that all Americans are millionaires?

You don't seem very lucid. Are you on medication, or perhaps English is not your first language? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I suspect you're just another dumbass, but I try not to leap to conclusions....

>>2056169
>it's an arbitrary dataset compared to all the other 1% definitions that you could have used.
it's exactly the same definition used by the survey you cited.

>>2056173
>it's exactly the same definition used by the survey you cited.
All Americans is the same dataset as Americans with a net worth of more than a million dollars?

Forget my earlier question. You're just another dumbass. Go to bed.

>>2056175
>All Americans is the same dataset as Americans with a net worth of more than a million dollars?
US decamillionaires is the same data set as US top 1% net worth.

>>2056180
>US decamillionaires is the same data set as US top 1% net worth.
According to you? Sorry faggot, but you're not a source. And you're wrong anyway.

According to the latest numbers from the Federal Reserve, the 1% in the U.S. by net worth is $7 million and up. Not $10 million, not decamillionaires.

Oh, and here's something that you can't do --
despite 12 posts in the thread -- a source:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp

Notice that my source is from 2017. April 2017, in fact. That's last month. Not 2007. Not data extrapolated inside your defective brain. April 2017.

>boom, headshot
>mic drop
>#rekt
>#btfo

Thanks for the chuckles, kiddo, but you've gotten boring. I think we're done here.

>>2056204
>Notice that my source is from 2017
your source doesn't cite any figures or a date for those numbers.

>$7mil is the cutoff for 1%
>so nobody in the top 1% has more than $7mil
this is how we know you didn't graduate high school.

>>2056204
>I think we're done here.
I finished you over an hour ago and we both know it.