On Mar 13, 7:54 pm, "Sean"
up_over.org.au> wrote:> "ZerkonX"
X.net> wrote in messagenews:pan.2008.03.13.14.47.04@X.net...>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:37:53 -0700, ta wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 12, 11:43 am, ZerkonX
X.net> wrote:>>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:05 -0700, ta wrote:
>>>>> What is the most objective measure of an individual's wealth?
>
>>>> Call in all debts immediately, then go from there.
>
>>> Poorly phrased question on my part.
>
>>> 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?
>
>>> "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.
>
>> I still think the answer applies.
>
>> Wages, money in hand and all assets should be counter balanced with debt
>> load. This gives a more objective bottom line, I think.
>
>> 'Real wages' as a gage to a current financial state, I believe, can be
>> deceptive. Same with any 'asset'. What do you actually own. Not what can
>> you actually borrow or are borrowing. If wealth is to be measured in
>> terms of in hand money and the monetary value of assets owned, then
>> exactly who owns the assets, who actually holds the title or deed is the
>> first question. Otherwise wealth is just faith in the ability to pay
>> debt.
>
> The above would generally apply to individual financial wealth. But is that
> all that should be considered? I don;t think so.
>
> There is also national, natural, and lifestyle wealth/s. Such things whilst
> less definable in $ terms, nevertheless impact greatly on one's individual
> wealth. The notion of what is "real" is also relevant.
>
> How many simply "believe" an asset such as Shares means $X .... when in
> reality, such shares are only nominal untill actualy sold for cash or Kind.
>
> National wealth in Assets also must include National [ shared ] Debts to be
> deducted from it.
>
> Someone on $200k a year, who loses all health Insurance due to unimployment,
How would they make $200K a year if they are unemployed? Also since
health care/insurance does not cost $150k a year, I would say he is
better off then the socialist dude.
> may not be as "wealthy" as someone on $50k a year in another nation who
Is this before or after their government take 50-75%% of their income
as taxes?
> shares in the wealth of a Universal Health coverage that applies whether
> they are working or not.
>
> Two people of the same nominal $ wealth, where one lives in the countryside
> of Oregan, and the other down the street from Martin Luther King Boulevarde
> in Miami South enjoy a far different level of "true wealth" imho.
>
> A millionaire living in Florida, is far more "wealthy" than a millionaire
> living in the Sudan in the middle of a civil war.
>
> A US soldier and his family fighting in Iraq for $100k a year, is nowhere
> near as wealthy as Swedish soldier based in Stockholm earning only $60k a
> year and with the same level of personal assets.
>
> The nuances about "wealth" are many and varied I think. It depends on one's
> ideology, philosphy of life, and values.
