giofranchi Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 http://www.visualcapitalist.com/habits-wealthiest-people/ Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian L Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Thanks for that. There is such a huge contrast in the reading habits between the reading habits of the poor and wealthy. I didn't expect there to be such a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Do they read 500 pages a day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilermaker75 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Do they read 500 pages a day? Just the billionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giofranchi Posted July 15, 2014 Author Share Posted July 15, 2014 Do they read 500 pages a day? Just the billionaires. ;) ;) Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSArbitrage Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Yeah, this can't be true. Only 4% of the poor believe good habits lead to opportunity? Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Zone Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Yeah, this can't be true. Only 4% of the poor believe good habits lead to opportunity? Get real. Yeah, some of those seemed very strange. The same goes for 9 % of poor people believing that bad habits have a negative impact. Still, I found the parts about passing knowledge on to your children and reading very interesting. Also about having concrete goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Yeah, this can't be true. Only 4% of the poor believe good habits lead to opportunity? Get real. Could depend in the interpretation of habits. Is it not possible that when a someone with lower income hears "bad habit" they think of biting their nails while a rich person thinks of something more related to success like beating themselves up for mistakes? It seems totally reasonable that if each has a different bar for what is considered a bad habit that you would get wide discrepancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Yeah, this can't be true. Only 4% of the poor believe good habits lead to opportunity? Get real. Could depend in the interpretation of habits. Is it not possible that when a someone with lower income hears "bad habit" they think of biting their nails while a rich person thinks of something more related to success like beating themselves up for mistakes? It seems totally reasonable that if each has a different bar for what is considered a bad habit that you would get wide discrepancies. You are also talking about the poorest of the poor. Income <$30K with < $5k in assets. I wonder if there would be much of a difference between the middle class (say $75K - $200K income with $200K-$1M in assets) vs. the billionaires? My habits are much closer to the billionaires in this graphic, yet I'm no billionaire. The poor are often poor for a reason, that isn't much of a surprise, but I don't think daily reading and setting goals for oneself is a surefire way to make you a billionaire. It hasn't happened to me anyway. (although I do read much less than 500 pages/day). EDIT: I just noticed that they define 'wealthy' as $160K/yr, $3.2M assets, not what I think of as wealthy and not necessarily billionaires, but my point still stands, the lower middle class probably has habits much closer to those in the "wealthy" category. This could just as easily be a chart of the difference between the habits of the poor and everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 http://www.richhabitsinstitute.com/about-rich-habits-thomas-corley-bio/ This is all from the book: http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Habits-Success-Wealthy-Individuals/dp/1934938939 Sample size: 233 rich people, 128 poor people. In interviews he's said he basically asked them questions, so these statistics are self reported. This was not a peer reviewed study done by a scientist or researcher. And the people he was asking are most likely his wealth advising clients, so the statistics are horribly biased. This is why so many of the stats look utterly strange. And many of the bad (good) habits are a result of being poor (rich), not the other way around. For example, it's well known amongst obesity researchers that lower income people in the US are generally heavier and consume more junk food, mainly because junk food is much cheaper. Raman noodles and a bag of Doritos are much cheaper than grilled salmon and kale. Being able to afford a gym membership, personal trainer, and a huge grocery bill at Whole Foods-these are not a cause of wealth, but an effect of having it. These statistics were compiled to sell books, not obtain truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 so the people of those occupy camp parties should read books while occupying. Pull the 1% down and pull yourself up at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giofranchi Posted July 15, 2014 Author Share Posted July 15, 2014 These statistics were compiled to sell books, not obtain truth. Maybe… It doesn’t change the fact I think we should be doing what these “statistics” seem to suggest! Even if we won't get rich! ;) Cheers, Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 And many of the bad (good) habits are a result of being poor (rich), not the other way around. I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they no longer need to watch reality TV. I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they can make to-do lists for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 And many of the bad (good) habits are a result of being poor (rich), not the other way around. I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they no longer need to watch reality TV. I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they can make to-do lists for themselves. How about the day when everyone has two married parents who can show them that a little bit of planning and a lot of hard work can get them wherever they want to go? It's remarkable how many inner-city youth are born out of wedlock (over 70% for blacks, not sure about others but it's bound to be similar). Irresponsibility breeds irresponsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskin212 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 It is a Forbes article! They could not have a headline with only $700 million in it - it had to be in the Billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turar Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Hey, here's another habit: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 And many of the bad (good) habits are a result of being poor (rich), not the other way around. I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they no longer need to watch reality TV. I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they can make to-do lists for themselves. How about the day when everyone has two married parents who can show them that a little bit of planning and a lot of hard work can get them wherever they want to go? It's remarkable how many inner-city youth are born out of wedlock (over 70% for blacks, not sure about others but it's bound to be similar). Irresponsibility breeds irresponsibility. Uncle Sam needs to stop subsidizing single motherhood for that to even begin to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Uncle Sam needs to stop subsidizing single motherhood for that to even begin to happen. Yeah, because all the single mothers I know do it for the money and life of leisure. If we made that life less attractive, maybe they would stop consciously choosing to become single mothers; heck, maybe it would even force them to stay in bad relationships and be financially dependent on abusive men, like in the good old days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Uncle Sam needs to stop subsidizing single motherhood for that to even begin to happen. Yeah, because all the single mothers I know do it for the money and life of leisure. If we made that life less attractive, maybe they would stop consciously choosing to become single mothers; heck, maybe it would even force them to stay in bad relationships and be financially dependent on abusive men, like in the good old days... LOL! Couldn't agree with you more Liberty. I don't think single mothers go out of their way to be single mothers, but more so because they are naive, run into loser men, not enough education, or never fully understood the consequences and repercussions. Not to say there may not be a certain niche that get pregnant simply for welfare payments, but I would say that percentage is far smaller than those simply falling into single motherhood due to circumstance, than making it a lifestyle choice. Buffett says that the children growing up today, will live better than his generation, and those after them will live even better. I'm not sure that isn't the case, regardless of the huge gap in wealth, income and opportunity. You have a black president in the United States today...how can that not be more advantageous for the millions of underprivileged black youth, than 50 years ago when segregation still existed! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Not to mention that there are a lot of single mothers because they will burn in hell for eternity if they would have an abortion. And the doctor risks being shot straight away by "pro-life" activists for performing one. We prefer to force them to become parents even if they are irresponsible. The joys of religion. .. Boom! Let the flaming commence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Not to mention that there are a lot of single mothers because they will burn in hell for eternity if they would have an abortion. And the doctor risks being shot straight away by "pro-life" activists for performing one. We prefer to force them to become parents even if they are irresponsible. The joys of religion. .. Boom! Let the flaming commence! LOL! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I don't deny there are plenty of crazy religious people out there but let's be real here, too. If atheism is the accurate world view, there is nothing objectively wrong with a doctor being shot by a "pro-life" activist. It's like saying there is something "wrong" with any other animal killing another one. If a lion kills another that's okay, right? The activist is simply, as Dawkins says, dancing to his DNA - just like a lion. Similarly, there is nothing "good" about charity. That's also a simply an evolutionary instinct. In some ways, it's "good" like eating a fat or sugar. It helped provide survival to the group but isn't really "good." Eating fat and sugar, in evolutionary times, also helped with survival. At least be rational here and not let one's emotions think for them. As Dawkins said, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 If atheism is the accurate world view, there is nothing objectively wrong with a doctor being shot by a "pro-life" activist. Not that poppycock again. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where people are ethical because they use reason to realize that it's the better course of action (empathy tells us most of what we nee to know) than live in a world where the only reason people are ethical is because they're afraid of a security camera in the sky threatening torture, and if that camera was to disappear, they would lie, cheat and steal in a heartbeat (is that really your case? that's what you imply). That's a depressing worldview. I know, I know. Best not to write about this stuff. But some strawmen need to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over? I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 If atheism is the accurate world view, there is nothing objectively wrong with a doctor being shot by a "pro-life" activist. Not that poppycock again. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where people are ethical because they use reason to realize that it's the better course of action (empathy tells us most of what we nee to know) than live in a world where the only reason people are ethical is because they're afraid of a security camera in the sky threatening torture, and if that camera was to disappear, they would lie, cheat and steal in a heartbeat (is that really your case? that's what you imply). That's a depressing worldview. I know, I know. Best not to write about this stuff. But some strawmen need to die. Liberty, this is not a strawman argument. I'm fairly well versed in secular ethics (for what it's worth). I think that's poppycock. If we look at things with reason, ie rationality, how is this incorrect? And no, I'm not referring to a "security camera in the sky." I'm simply saying that if we're animals we should, rationally, act like it. We shouldn't let emotions dictate rational decision making. If all we are is material beings, lying, cheating, and stealing doesn't mean much of anything - whether you'd like to live in that world or not. Indeed, perhaps life is better for the people who are lying and cheating. Why is your view more valid than theirs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now