PDA

View Full Version : How do escape middle class?!?!



Arhetton
17th October 07, 10:01 PM
So today in my spare time I was crunching some numbers through a little calculator I scripted (its shit so sue me) to look at savings, compound interest and inflation.

In Australia its compulsory to have a 'superannuations' account (a compulsory savings account you can't access until you are 65), and these usually return on investment at roughly 9% or higher depending on who you are with.

Normal bank accounts in Australia return about 5% or 6% (I'm talking about mainstream savings accounts with say Commonwealth Bank or ANZ etc).

Suppose you invest $50 a week ($2600 a year) into your retirement or savings. What happens?

Superannuation 9% p.a

Year 1, Savings 2834.00
Year 2, Savings 5923.06
Year 3, Savings 9290.14
Year 4, Savings 12960.25
Year 5, Savings 16960.67
Year 6, Savings 21321.13
Year 7, Savings 26074.03
Year 8, Savings 31254.69
Year 9, Savings 36901.62
Year 10, Savings 43056.76
Year 11, Savings 49765.87
Year 12, Savings 57078.80
Year 13, Savings 65049.89
Year 14, Savings 73738.38
Year 15, Savings 83208.84
Year 16, Savings 93531.63
Year 17, Savings 104783.48
Year 18, Savings 117047.99
Year 19, Savings 130416.31
Year 20, Savings 144987.78
Year 21, Savings 160870.68
Year 22, Savings 178183.04
Year 23, Savings 197053.51
Year 24, Savings 217622.33
Year 25, Savings 240042.34
Year 26, Savings 264480.15
Year 27, Savings 291117.36
Year 28, Savings 320151.93
Year 29, Savings 351799.60
Year 30, Savings 386295.56
Year 31, Savings 423896.17
Year 32, Savings 464880.82
Year 33, Savings 509554.09
Year 34, Savings 558247.96
Year 35, Savings 611324.28
Year 36, Savings 669177.46
Year 37, Savings 732237.44
Year 38, Savings 800972.80
Year 39, Savings 875894.36
Year 40, Savings 957558.85

Savings account 5% p.a

Year 1, Savings 2730.00
Year 2, Savings 5596.50
Year 3, Savings 8606.33
Year 4, Savings 11766.64
Year 5, Savings 15084.97
Year 6, Savings 18569.22
Year 7, Savings 22227.68
Year 8, Savings 26069.07
Year 9, Savings 30102.52
Year 10, Savings 34337.65
Year 11, Savings 38784.53
Year 12, Savings 43453.76
Year 13, Savings 48356.44
Year 14, Savings 53504.27
Year 15, Savings 58909.48
Year 16, Savings 64584.95
Year 17, Savings 70544.20
Year 18, Savings 76801.41
Year 19, Savings 83371.48
Year 20, Savings 90270.05
Year 21, Savings 97513.56
Year 22, Savings 105119.24
Year 23, Savings 113105.20
Year 24, Savings 121490.46
Year 25, Savings 130294.98
Year 26, Savings 139539.73
Year 27, Savings 149246.72
Year 28, Savings 159439.05
Year 29, Savings 170141.00
Year 30, Savings 181378.05
Year 31, Savings 193176.96
Year 32, Savings 205565.80
Year 33, Savings 218574.09
Year 34, Savings 232232.80
Year 35, Savings 246574.44
Year 36, Savings 261633.16
Year 37, Savings 277444.82
Year 38, Savings 294047.06
Year 39, Savings 311479.41
Year 40, Savings 329783.38

In both cases, $104000 was put into each account, but here comes the real kick in the teeth.

Inflation.

In the time it took you to save your 300-900K, the value of the dollar has been depreciating at a steady rate. Lets assume the Reserve Bank of Australia has been doing a good job and has managed to keep inflation at 3% p.a - this is after all, its mission statement.

Over 40 years, a dollar that was worth $1 today would be worth $0.3067 in 40 years time. Thats right

$3.26 of your old money is worth $1 of 40 years in the future money (FYITF$).

So we divide the totals of those accounts to show you how much money you really own

Superannuation

$ 293729.70

Savings

$ 101160.55

(thats right, somehow less than you initially invested, proving mandelbrots theory that I am in fact, some kind of mathematical retard [or that I made a mistake in my script somewhere...])

In principle what I am trying to show is hey, saving a little bit of money every year can actually give an okay return, but you have to consider that with inflation your money isn't worth as much as you thought it was and there is also 40 years of potential economic or financial crisis that could occure in that time period.

My conclusions: Saving money will not allow you to escape the middle class and become wealthy.

So my question is - Has anyone on the boards really busted out of the middle class (defintion: 1 house, few cars or a boat or something)? How did you do it?


Here are my scripts to any interested people

Compound interest

x = input('Desposits of x dollars once per week? (enter an amount)\n>>');
y = x*52 ;
interest = 1.05
for i = 1:40
initial = final + y ;
final = initial*interest;
fprintf(' Year %d, Savings %6.2f\n',i,final)
end

Inflation

dollar = 1
inflation = 1.03
for y = 1:40
dollar = dollar*inflation;
end

Mas
17th October 07, 10:17 PM
Protip:

You can't.

Arhetton
17th October 07, 10:18 PM
http://www.anaitgames.com/wp-content/darth_vader_nooo.jpeg

Steve
17th October 07, 10:22 PM
Props to you, Arhetton. You seem to have had that pic at the ready, nice work.

Mister X
17th October 07, 11:05 PM
LOL the American dream is a lie, thought up by teh man.

Oh and the the answer is to be born with wealth from the start, duh.

Sun Wukong
18th October 07, 03:15 AM
how to escape from middle class: instead of investing that 50 bucks a week in a retirement fund, invest it in lottery tickets. With spending habits like that there's no way you'll be middle class for very long.

bob
18th October 07, 03:22 AM
My father in law has spent his whole life trying to escape the middle class. He had a successful business and invested loads on property developments. When things came off, he bought overseas holidays and yachts. When things didn't come off, he bought overseas holidays and yachts and invested in ever more risky projects. Now he's at retirement age and he's made literally millions and lost pretty much all of it.

Here's the irony - the thing that helps you escape middle class is risk taking behaviour with money. It's also the thing that is most likely to make you end up on welfare.

Cullion
18th October 07, 03:23 AM
Almost, and have several good friends who have.

Start your own business or get a job where 7-figure bonuses are possible (e.g. Investment banking).

You'll have to work hard, so pick something you enjoy or you'll go nuts. Good luck.

Steve
18th October 07, 03:28 AM
You'll have to work hard, so pick something you enjoy or you'll go nuts. Good luck.

You mean I have to work hard to get out of being 'middle class'?

Forget it then.

Craigypooh
18th October 07, 04:53 AM
In both cases, $104000 was put into each account, but here comes the real kick in the teeth.

Inflation.

In the time it took you to save your 300-900K, the value of the dollar has been depreciating at a steady rate. Lets assume the Reserve Bank of Australia has been doing a good job and has managed to keep inflation at 3% p.a - this is after all, its mission statement.

Over 40 years, a dollar that was worth $1 today would be worth $0.3067 in 40 years time. Thats right

$3.26 of your old money is worth $1 of 40 years in the future money (FYITF$).

So we divide the totals of those accounts to show you how much money you really own

Superannuation

$ 293729.70

Savings

$ 101160.55

(thats right, somehow less than you initially invested, proving mandelbrots theory that I am in fact, some kind of mathematical retard [or that I made a mistake in my script somewhere...])



Did you want to know your mistake?

Arhetton
18th October 07, 06:11 AM
sure please point it out :)

I agree cullion that starting your own business is a path to escape the middle class. However the failure rate is high and many businesses pancake trying to go from small/medium to large.

Thanks for telling me about your F.I.T bornsceptic, I've heard similiar tales and I think your principle holds ture (for every success, 1000 failures!)

My father has his own business (small) and although hes had the opportunity to go larger he has never taken it.

Not afraid of hard work here - I earn my cash cleaning up poop and vomit, not exactly inspirational.

If people want to list funny ideas thats okay too (eg. start a religion) but I'd prefer to talk about saving, investment, business etc.

I'm a bit of a dreamer really. Today I was fantasizing about becoming a MMA star.
"Yeah I'll just hit the gym keep training eat alot of eggs - it will be like the movie ROCKY! Yeah fo' shizzle"
Then I googled it and I read the stories of failure, injury, pain etc. Thats right about when I started crunching numbers on saving and superannuation lol.

Cullion
18th October 07, 06:24 AM
The unpleasant reality is that by definition most people are not going to join the ranks of the unusually wealthy.

All activities which have the potential of making millions have high failure rates, except inheriting it, and unless you're prepared to become an insane gold-digger and marry for money, that's beyond your control.

You are guaranteed not to make millions if you don't engage in those activities however.

You can of course try and save 50 per week and gamble it on high risk financial instruments. That will also have a high failure rate.

Let's look at this another way. Do you view 'escaping the middle class' in terms of living a visibly 'millionaire' lifestyle, or do you view it as 'being wealthy enough not to need to work in order to live' ?

The latter is much easier to achieve from a normal middle class income, less-risky saving and investment combined with very dilligent frugality. Is that what you're looking for ?

Craigypooh
18th October 07, 06:29 AM
You're comparing the real value of your ultimate savings to the nominal value of the amount invested. The real value of the amount invested will be lower than than real value of the ultimate savings because the return you are achieving is higher than the rate of inflation.

The answer to (legally) escaping the middle classes has already been posted: be clever, get inspiration, take risks, work hard and be lucky.

I'm guessing your father has not taken the opportunity to go larger because of the risks involved. He prefers to remain in the middle classes than risk losing everything.

Even if you can get a job in investment banking you still need to take risks to make big money. You make big bets with your banks/clients if they work out you get rich if they don't you get fired.

Cullion
18th October 07, 07:36 AM
My father in law has spent his whole life trying to escape the middle class. He had a successful business and invested loads on property developments. When things came off, he bought overseas holidays and yachts. When things didn't come off, he bought overseas holidays and yachts and invested in ever more risky projects. Now he's at retirement age and he's made literally millions and lost pretty much all of it.

Here's the irony - the thing that helps you escape middle class is risk taking behaviour with money. It's also the thing that is most likely to make you end up on welfare.

Nah, substance abuse is the thing most likely to make you end up on welfare. I bet your Father in Law doesn't regret the way he's lived unlike the frustrated stiffs slowly dying inside most large, steady-job corporations.

Craigypooh
18th October 07, 07:59 AM
Nah, substance abuse is the thing most likely to make you end up on welfare. I bet your Father in Law doesn't regret the way he's lived unlike the frustrated stiffs slowly dying inside most large, steady-job corporations.

Some people like working in large steady-job corporations. It's safe, easy and allows them to explore other interests in life. It's all about your frame of mind - if you can't be with the one you love then love the one your with.

Cullion
18th October 07, 08:09 AM
Yes, you're right. Most people I know who've made it 'up' out of the middle class wouldn't actually survive long in a 'steady' corporate job because they'd get too bored and start dicking around to make it more exciting.

Craigypooh
18th October 07, 08:26 AM
And the worst case scenario is someone who hates their steady job, but is too risk averse to do what's needed to break out of that life! That tends to lead to chronic stress, a self-destructive life style and an early grave.

Cullion
18th October 07, 08:28 AM
I think that's incredibly common.

TM
18th October 07, 12:33 PM
In northern New England you have to work very hard to get into the middle class.

bob
18th October 07, 03:57 PM
Nah, substance abuse is the thing most likely to make you end up on welfare. I bet your Father in Law doesn't regret the way he's lived unlike the frustrated stiffs slowly dying inside most large, steady-job corporations.

The problem with my FIL is that if he wasn't so desperate to show people he'd escaped from the middle class, he could have escaped it fairly easily. He was lucky to be born in a time and place and with the right contacts where making money wasn't all that hard. All you had to do was put a few bucks down on some horrible beachside apartment complex and sit back and count the loot.

As to whether he regrets it, probably not. Yet. But he's going to die poor and spend the next twenty years poor when the creditors finally catch up with him. By his standards that = failed life.

Cullion
18th October 07, 06:17 PM
I wish him the best of luck.

BTW, if he can still lay his hands on 200k by the end of the month, boy do I have an awesome investment opportunity for him. Has to be by the end of the month though. The're beating down my door on this one.

SuperGuido
18th October 07, 10:53 PM
While interesting, that chart fails to address the flipside of Inflation.

Basically, increasing your income and saving an equal proportion.

To keep up with inflation, all you need to do is invest an equivalent percentage. Since most jobs have a yearly raise of 5% (minimum, and assumes you're a lazy ass or in your lifelong career where moving up isn't an option).

If I save $200 a month when I pull in $2000 a month (10% savings, not unreasonable), then I need to scale that amount up as I get better jobs/promotions. i.e. If I make $4k a month, then I save $400 a month.

Using static numbers makes the assumption that you will NEVER make more money, never get a raise, and never invest more than your initial investment.

WarPhalange
19th October 07, 12:54 AM
My dad doesn't get nearly a 5% increase per year.

Craigypooh
19th October 07, 04:48 AM
To keep up with inflation, all you need to do is invest an equivalent percentage. Since most jobs have a yearly raise of 5% (minimum, and assumes you're a lazy ass or in your lifelong career where moving up isn't an option).


Depends on your job and the stage you've reached in your career. National average earnings tend to increase at about inflation plus 1-2% per annum. So 4-5% is the average increase for the population as a whole. Younger workers tend to have higher increases then older workers.

Earnings increases have been on a reducing trend in recent years as jobs have been exported to China and India (known as the Chindia effect), leaving less room for switching jobs to increase your earnings potential.

bob
19th October 07, 04:52 AM
I wish him the best of luck.

BTW, if he can still lay his hands on 200k by the end of the month, boy do I have an awesome investment opportunity for him. Has to be by the end of the month though. The're beating down my door on this one.

If it's a yacht that's guaranteed to sink to the bottom of the ocean, I'm sure he'll scrape it together.

Craigypooh
19th October 07, 04:52 AM
To keep up with inflation, all you need to do is invest an equivalent percentage.

To keep up with inflation your savings need to earn a return in excess of inflation, irrespective of how much you invest.

Cullion
19th October 07, 05:36 AM
Paying off debt if you have it (including mortgage) makes more sense for most people , most of the time, than any form of saving or investment.

Craigypooh
19th October 07, 06:47 AM
Paying off debt if you have it (including mortgage) makes more sense for most people , most of the time, than any form of saving or investment.

Normally I would agree with you, however, as this thread is about escaping the middle classes, I would have to say gearing up is reasonable way to achieve that goal.

Finding an investment which will produce a better return than your borrowing cost is not difficult (equities have outperformed cash over most time periods in excess of 5 years) but it involves taking risk. You need to take risk in order to escape the middle classes.

You can find investment trusts which use gearing as part of their investment strategy and this is probably a safer (but still risky!) option than borrowing yourself. It's also probably more tax efficient.

Cullion
19th October 07, 09:42 AM
Oh absolutely you have to take risks to make the big bucks.

However, the risk is more tolerable once you've paid off your mortgage and other debts (in most countries. A detailed analysis depends on property taxes and your local welfare system). Having 0 debt makes the higher risk strategies much more tolerable.

In the UK at least it has made more sense to make overpayments on your mortgage than putting the same amount of cash in the highest interest savings account for most of the last 100 years. You pay tax on savings interest here, and if you're ever unemployed you'll be forced to spend savings above a certain level before you receive any assistance.

You aren't taxed on the interest you save by paying your mortgage off faster, and if you lose your job you'll receive assistance immediately rather than being expected to increase your borrowing.

Craigypooh
19th October 07, 10:34 AM
Oh absolutely you have to take risks to make the big bucks.

However, the risk is more tolerable once you've paid off your mortgage and other debts (in most countries. A detailed analysis depends on property taxes and your local welfare system). Having 0 debt makes the higher risk strategies much more tolerable.

In the UK at least it has made more sense to make overpayments on your mortgage than putting the same amount of cash in the highest interest savings account for most of the last 100 years. You pay tax on savings interest here, and if you're ever unemployed you'll be forced to spend savings above a certain level before you receive any assistance.

You aren't taxed on the interest you save by paying your mortgage off faster, and if you lose your job you'll receive assistance immediately rather than being expected to increase your borrowing.

The risk is more tolerable because you're taking less risk. Less risk = less return.

Definitely payoff your mortgage before putting money in any savings account (other than a contingency fund), but putting money in a savings account isn't considered a risky investment (even if it's Northern Rock). Risky investments normally have a more favourable tax treatment and a higher return.

When starting your own business banks will often want you to put up personal assets such as a house as collateral in any case.

Cullion
19th October 07, 10:52 AM
The risk is more tolerable because you're taking less risk. Less risk = less return.

I mean that taking risks on equities is more tolerable once you've taken away the risk of losing your house.



Definitely payoff your mortgage before putting money in any savings account (other than a contingency fund), but putting money in a savings account isn't considered a risky investment (even if it's Northern Rock). Risky investments normally have a more favourable tax treatment and a higher return.

In the UK paying money off against your mortgage is a better hedge against unemployment than cash savings because of the way our welfare system works, that's the main thing that makes it less risky than cash savings. The 'returns' are also more favourable because of the way the tax system works.


When starting your own business banks will often want you to put up personal assets such as a house as collateral in any case.

The answer is not to start a business requiring a bank loan.

Craigypooh
19th October 07, 11:19 AM
I mean that taking risks on equities is more tolerable once you've taken away the risk of losing your house.

But that's taking less risk and means you'll get rich slower and be less likely to escape the middle classes any time soon.

Some people think of their house as just another asset and a way of obtaining cheap finance. If you lose your job and your house then you'll need to find a new job and rent for a while. Going bankrupt isn't nice that's why it's a risk.


In the UK paying money off against your mortgage is a better hedge against unemployment than cash savings because of the way our welfare system works, that's the main thing that makes it less risky than cash savings. The 'returns' are also more favourable because of the way the tax system works.

Yes, I agreed paying off your mortgage is better than keeping cash savings. Paying off your mortage is the safe (less risky) option, but it's not going to help you escape the middle classes.


The answer is not to start a business requiring a bank loan.

But if you use bank finance to gear up your business it will grow more quickly and mean you're more likely to escape the middle classes.

bob
20th October 07, 12:14 AM
Have to agree with Cullion re. overpaying mortgages. Arhetton, the same applies in Australia. Buy a home that you can afford to pay off at least double the minimum repayment on. It may not get you out of the middle class but you'll own your own home outright before you're 30-35. After that you can afford to take a few more risks. I think it's a good mix of safety plus enterprise.

Either that or, if you're pretty handy and good at design and project management and/or have some tradesman mates, buy a home that you can add a lot of value to. It's surprisingly easy, especially if you start smallish, get some experience and gradually tackle bigger and bigger projects.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
20th October 07, 02:29 AM
you can enter the money cheat I think it was down down R1 R2 square square x

Cullion
20th October 07, 02:48 AM
But that's taking less risk and means you'll get rich slower and be less likely to escape the middle classes any time soon.

Umm, yes I know that.



Yes, I agreed paying off your mortgage is better than keeping cash savings. Paying off your mortage is the safe (less risky) option, but it's not going to help you escape the middle classes.

Yes it will.



But if you use bank finance to gear up your business it will grow more quickly and mean you're more likely to escape the middle classes.

Bank finance is for 'tards. Raise investment.

Arhetton
21st October 07, 02:53 AM
I'm not sure I like the idea of taking out a mortgage at all.

I think I would rent to live and investment wise maybe buy land in a less developed area (ie. real cheap) and that way there is still some 'hard asset' (real estate) standing behind me but I wouldn't have to go through the mortgage mess.

I mean out bush btw.

Rent in the city but buy in the bush.

Cullion
21st October 07, 12:13 PM
I'm not sure I like the idea of taking out a mortgage at all.

I think I would rent to live and investment wise maybe buy land in a less developed area (ie. real cheap) and that way there is still some 'hard asset' (real estate) standing behind me but I wouldn't have to go through the mortgage mess.

I mean out bush btw.

Rent in the city but buy in the bush.

That makes sense in a country like Australia I think. It wouldn't work somewhere like the UK.

It's still higher risk than having your own place owned outright in the sense that you're still dependent on your monthly income to maintain the roof over your head.

SuperGuido
21st October 07, 02:43 PM
I'm not sure I like the idea of taking out a mortgage at all.

I think I would rent to live and investment wise maybe buy land in a less developed area (ie. real cheap) and that way there is still some 'hard asset' (real estate) standing behind me but I wouldn't have to go through the mortgage mess.

I mean out bush btw.

Rent in the city but buy in the bush.

I used to think this, until you realize what you're losing.

$1700 a month for rent over 30 years equals $612,000.

You've just wadded up $612,000 and thrown it in the trash. It's gone. Poof.

If you were paying that into a mortgage, though, you're building home equity and may, after 30 years, no longer be required to pay monthly.

Besides, land is one of the only investments that is guaranteed to go up in value AT SOME POINT.

We humans keep breeding like cockroaches while the land mass stays the same...you might has well claim your chunk of land as soon as possible.

bob
21st October 07, 03:33 PM
The concept that land is guaranteed to go up in value only holds true in relative terms if the appreciation is enough to outstrip the interest you've paid to the bank.

Historically there is a greater and greater disparity between the value of urban and rural land in Australia (ie. urban land is growing in value far quicker than rural - unless you happen to buy by the sea in which case it won't be cheap). Remember that we're the most urbanised country in the world.

There are a few notable exceptions to this in that you'll find some land on urban fringes which is re-zoned and developed go up astronomically in value. There's massive plans for the south west of Sydney over the next 10 years or so (Picton, Oran Park etc.) - it's where the next 'sattelite city' is supposed to go. If you really want to buy rural I'd look somewhere like that.

Cullion
21st October 07, 03:54 PM
The reason for my earlier advice is that land is highly likely to go up in value in a country that doesn't have a saturated population density. By European standards, Australia is still a frontier.

Quikfeet509
21st October 07, 04:01 PM
So how much are we saying that we need to have [not get paid] to become lower upper class in our respective countries?


Like Arhetton, I also have to clean up poop on occasion [thank god most ICU pts defecate very infrequently]. But I would not have taken this job if I didn't have a plan.


ICU nurse [50-70K/ year] --> CRNA [140-180K/ year + full benefits].


Saddly enough, I doubt working as a CRNA for 30 years would put me into the upper class. The only was I possibly could would be to invest successfully during my spare-time - CRNA's work an average of 32-40 hours a week.

Cullion
21st October 07, 04:19 PM
So how much are we saying that we need to have [not get paid] to become lower upper class in our respective countries?


Like Arhetton, I also have to clean up poop on occasion [thank god most ICU pts defecate very infrequently]. But I would not have taken this job if I didn't have a plan.


ICU nurse [50-70K/ year] --> CRNA [140-180K/ year + full benefits].


Saddly enough, I doubt working as a CRNA for 30 years would put me into the upper class. The only was I possibly could would be to invest successfully during my spare-time - CRNA's work an average of 32-40 hours a week.

It's a good question. It depends on our highly subject view of what constitutes 'upper class'.

Here is my view of what constitutes 'upper-class' in the UK.

1) Owns a single family home on its own land with sufficient attached land to be self-sufficient for food. This is inclusive of the staff costs required to actively grow, harvest and store this food.

2) Can afford to educate all children at elite private schools. (about 20 gbp per child per year in the UK)

3) Doesn't need to sell one's labour/time in order to be able to fund this, has sufficient 'passive' income from bonds/stock/profits of owned businesses to fund this.

4) Traditionally in the UK 'upper class' is not mearly an economic consideration. It also includes considerations of ancestry, education, subtle cultural mores etc.. For the purposes of this conversation across oceans, we might as well ignore this.

I think at present this level, in the UK, would require a minimum amount of capital of about 10 million gbp available to invest in real-estate and passive income.

mrblackmagic
21st October 07, 04:32 PM
Same way as anybody else. Sell drugs.

Steve
22nd October 07, 03:52 AM
It's a good question. It depends on our highly subject view of what constitutes 'upper class'.

Here is my view of what constitutes 'upper-class' in the UK.

1) Owns a single family home on its own land with sufficient attached land to be self-sufficient for food. This is inclusive of the staff costs required to actively grow, harvest and store this food.

2) Can afford to educate all children at elite private schools. (about 20 gbp per child per year in the UK)

3) Doesn't need to sell one's labour/time in order to be able to fund this, has sufficient 'passive' income from bonds/stock/profits of owned businesses to fund this.

4) Traditionally in the UK 'upper class' is not mearly an economic consideration. It also includes considerations of ancestry, education, subtle cultural mores etc.. For the purposes of this conversation across oceans, we might as well ignore this.

I think at present this level, in the UK, would require a minimum amount of capital of about 10 million gbp available to invest in real-estate and passive income.

I'm glad that you didn't include the word 'happy' in your definition.

Us lesser folks win.

Arhetton
22nd October 07, 03:54 AM
this isn't "how do happiness?!?!"

:P

Shawarma
22nd October 07, 05:08 AM
In the UK, are the newly rich looked down upon by the old money with titles?

Cullion
22nd October 07, 05:17 AM
In the UK, are the newly rich looked down upon by the old money with titles?

Quite often. It depends on the 'blue blood' and the 'nouveau' involved and how the newly rich person behaves. The worst ostracism I've ever seen in such a situation involved the spoiled arsehole son of a 'newly rich' businessman who was doing his best to pretend he was from some blue-blooded old money family and being disparaging about 'peasants'. The blue blood in question was a nice down to earth guy who had several good friends from ordinary backgrounds and just ignored the poseur completely, basically pretending not to hear or changing the subject when the idiot spoke to him.

I have also (more rarely) seen it work the other way around where dumber, badly-raised drunken 'blue bloods' were being rude to some perfectly nice guy who's dad was 'self-made' at a society ball.

Seeing a 'nouveau' treat a true blue blood as his social inferior is something rarely seen, and which I have never seen happen in person.

Quite a lot the of 'old money' types I've met are actually suprisingly down to earth and friendly. The better adjusted ones are like this partly because their private education has included a strict grounding in good manners and how to socialise with people, and partly because they are actually aware that they got their position by good fortune rather than personal effort so they have no right to talk down to ordinary people.

The worst snobbery I've ever seen in the UK in person has always come from people who are trying to mimic the mores of the upper class because they think some political position or business success entitles them to act out how they imagine real aristocrats behave.

bob
22nd October 07, 05:30 AM
Ah, those crazy Brits.

When we lived in the UK, Mrs Sceptic used to work for a guy who was mates with Prince Charles. He was out of the office one day and his phone rang. As she was new she didn't know that nobody but him was allowed to answer that phone. Conversation went something like this:

"It's HRH the Prince of Wales. Can I speak to *****?"
"I'm sorry, HRH who?"
"His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales."
"Oh, right. That Prince of Wales. Umm, he's not in, can I take a message?"
"You're Australian aren't you?"

Shawarma
22nd October 07, 06:28 AM
Now I wanna be prince of something just to be able to introduce myself like that over the phone.

Craigypooh
24th October 07, 02:12 PM
I believe HRH Princess Beatrice and HRH Princess Eugenie are "on the market", if you want to be a member of the British Royal Family.

Wounded Ronin
25th October 07, 02:39 AM
Everybody knows that saving alone won't even prepare you for retirement. Pretty much everyone who isn't rich has got to invest.

It sucks and it makes me depressed, because it would be so much easier if I could just like like a pauper my whole life (i.e. only recreation = internet, 5 year old games from discount bins) and it would just boil down to self discipline. But that's not enough. You have to roll the dice with investments and you could get screwed over.

Craigypooh
25th October 07, 03:20 AM
If you're prepared to work for 45 years and invest around 25% of your salary, then you should be able to retire on 60%-80% of your final salary without taking much risk; i.e. a return of about 6% per annum.

But not many people would be prepared to do that for 45 years, hence the need to take risk in order to achieve a comfortable retirement. If you invest to achieve a 9% per annum return (pretty much 80%-100% equity) then you only need to save 20% of salary over 40 years to retire on around 70% of your final salary.

EDIT: This doen't get you out of the middle classes though!

Cullion
25th October 07, 04:52 AM
So is Zara Phillips (daughter of the Princess Royal, i.e. the Queen's only daughter), and she's much hotter:-

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/01/efzara.jpg

Lady Gabriella Windsor's not bad either, but you can't inherit the throne through marrying her because her mother's a catholic.

http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/royals/images/ella19.jpg

DAYoung
25th October 07, 04:59 AM
Pfft.

She looks like just another desperate Pommie backpacker, yearning for authentic Aussie virility.

Cullion
25th October 07, 05:30 AM
Pfft.

She looks like just another desperate Pommie backpacker, yearning for authentic Aussie virility.

Zara likes men who are good on horseback. Can you ride a horse ?

Craigypooh
25th October 07, 05:52 AM
I don't think Zara has the title HRH though, and is dating Mike Tindell so there's competition to fend off.

DAYoung
25th October 07, 06:03 AM
Zara likes men who are good on horseback. Can you ride a horse ?



I've ridden a horse.

Anna Kovacs
25th October 07, 08:25 AM
My plan is to be poor right now but get by on my own means. Thus far this has established a good reputation as an independent adult who rarely asks for help from my pretty decently rich family.

Eventually I figure some of the green will roll down hill and if I continue to live relatively frugally and invest what does roll down hill decently, I should be relatively set for life without ever really having to work hard for anything.

Since it's extremely unlikely that I will ever have any kids then I have no responsibility to leave anything behind and that should make the last part of my life at least as much fun as the first part.

Zendetta
25th October 07, 07:41 PM
Since it's extremely unlikely that I will ever have any kids then I have no responsibility to leave anything behind and that should make the last part of my life at least as much fun as the first part.

And people wonder where homophobia comes from.

Anna Kovacs
25th October 07, 07:49 PM
Jealousy, clearly.

Zendetta
25th October 07, 07:56 PM
Pretty much. THe newspaper asked people out here if they were for or against Gay Marriage. One lady's response was "Of course it should be legal. Why shouldn't they suffer along with the rest of us?"

I asked a gay friend of mine why he did NOT support Gay Marriage.

His answer was: Gay Divorce.

Sun Wukong
25th October 07, 08:22 PM
As bad as divorce is, the person you love the most should be entitled to the same support by marital relation as everybody else, hetero or otherwise.

If I were gay and hospitalized, I'd want my loved ones to be able to be admitted to see me, whereas the family only doctrine of many hospitals doesn't allow for it. As well, I'd want to be able to provide medical insurance to my family regardless of heterosexual relationships. It's just fucking ugly.

A long time friend (and cousin of mine) recently came out of the closet to me, and it pretty much drove the issue home even more. Of course, she knew my sympathies were already present towards gay and lesbian rights (read, equal rights) but it's not fair to me that her partner isn't entitled to the benefits of marriage and they probably won't be able to adopt children. I mean, holy shit, I can't imagine a more responsible or qualified person (she's a pediatric nurse) to raise a child. This is a stable, responsible sober, extremely intelligent adult who has never harmed anyone in a committed relationship to another stable responsible adult and they deserve the same protections and allowances as everyone else.

Ironically, she doesn't want children, but if she did, why the hell shouldn't she be entitled to them?

Zendetta
25th October 07, 08:30 PM
oh, for sure. There are some horror stories of not being allowed to weigh in on medical decisions, or even see the sick partner.

Adding insult to injury, in some of these cases the person is estranged from their family too, due to homophobia/disownment/"my son can't be gay" kind of stuff - literally no next of kin will come forth, or the retarded bigotted family's wishes, decisions, and legal rights are honored, but the longterm loving partner's are not.

Even if I despised gays and lesbians I'd think that was inhuman.

WarPhalange
25th October 07, 08:58 PM
Seeing a 'nouveau' treat a true blue blood as his social inferior is something rarely seen, and which I have never seen happen in person.

Just you wait until I get there. You'll be seeing it a lot more.

Sun Wukong
25th October 07, 09:40 PM
oh, for sure. There are some horror stories of not being allowed to weigh in on medical decisions, or even see the sick partner.

Adding insult to injury, in some of these cases the person is estranged from their family too, due to homophobia/disownment/"my son can't be gay" kind of stuff - literally no next of kin will come forth, or the retarded bigotted family's wishes, decisions, and legal rights are honored, but the longterm loving partner's are not.

Even if I despised gays and lesbians I'd think that was inhuman.

Dude, you have no idea. Her family (read, my extended family) are some of the most back water redneck bigots on the planet. Her brother's a meth addict, and her dad's picture is in the dictionary next to the definition of "retarded redneck jerk". God forbid those fuckers get any say in her relationship were something bad to happen.

WarPhalange
25th October 07, 09:46 PM
Pretty much. THe newspaper asked people out here if they were for or against Gay Marriage. One lady's response was "Of course it should be legal. Why shouldn't they suffer along with the rest of us?"

I asked a gay friend of mine why he did NOT support Gay Marriage.

His answer was: Gay Divorce.

I remember on the Howard Stern show when Arnold didn't want to make a law for gay marriage etc., they were "defending" him by taking on his accent and saying he wanted to keep gay relationships hot and not kill them with marriage.

I guess you had to be there.

They also said "de peepl" in his accent.

DAYoung
26th October 07, 05:15 AM
Quite often. It depends on the 'blue blood' and the 'nouveau' involved and how the newly rich person behaves. The worst ostracism I've ever seen in such a situation involved the spoiled arsehole son of a 'newly rich' businessman who was doing his best to pretend he was from some blue-blooded old money family and being disparaging about 'peasants'. The blue blood in question was a nice down to earth guy who had several good friends from ordinary backgrounds and just ignored the poseur completely, basically pretending not to hear or changing the subject when the idiot spoke to him.

I have also (more rarely) seen it work the other way around where dumber, badly-raised drunken 'blue bloods' were being rude to some perfectly nice guy who's dad was 'self-made' at a society ball.

Seeing a 'nouveau' treat a true blue blood as his social inferior is something rarely seen, and which I have never seen happen in person.

Quite a lot the of 'old money' types I've met are actually suprisingly down to earth and friendly. The better adjusted ones are like this partly because their private education has included a strict grounding in good manners and how to socialise with people, and partly because they are actually aware that they got their position by good fortune rather than personal effort so they have no right to talk down to ordinary people.

The worst snobbery I've ever seen in the UK in person has always come from people who are trying to mimic the mores of the upper class because they think some political position or business success entitles them to act out how they imagine real aristocrats behave.

This is all classic Bourdieu, and you win a cookie.

What's your accent, Cullion?

Cullion
26th October 07, 05:25 AM
This is all classic Bourdieu, and you win a cookie.

What's your accent, Cullion?

Mostly RP grammar and phrasing spoken with an east-midlands country boy accent.
(I have the accent but don't use all the slang and contractions because my dad was a school teacher).

DAYoung
26th October 07, 05:28 AM
OK. That's all fairly standard, though I can't place 'east' (as opposed to west). Who's an example?

Cullion
26th October 07, 05:49 AM
OK. That's all fairly standard, though I can't place 'east' (as opposed to west). Who's an example?

This is the closest match I can find
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6WL95loMLQ

He's from the city of Leicester. I was raised in a small village about 30 miles away. People where I grew up talk like this but perhaps a little slower (more rustic) and use the occasional odd phrase or piece of slang.

Cullion
26th October 07, 05:53 AM
Just you wait until I get there. You'll be seeing it a lot more.

You are unlikely to get to meet any.

DAYoung
26th October 07, 05:56 AM
Right. So I often sound more stereotypically 'posh' than you.

Cullion
26th October 07, 06:03 AM
Right. So I often sound more stereotypically 'posh' than you.

It's quite possible. I'm not blue blooded and I made no attempt to self-consciously change my accent when I came up to Oxford like some kids from ordinary backgrounds do.

DAYoung
26th October 07, 06:10 AM
I'm sure you're right. Though my accent's quite boringly middle-class (in Australia).

I think it has more to do with our assumptions about English regionality, e.g. Midlands being less prestigious than the South. Even though you might be an Oxonian, I've not got the Midland (or country) accent, so I sound more 'posh'.

I do admit that my accent changes very quickly depending on company, though. I'm very susceptible to accents (particularly British). If I spent a year in the Midlands, it'd start to creep into my voice.

Cullion
26th October 07, 06:26 AM
I think it has more to do with our assumptions about English regionality, e.g. Midlands being less prestigious than the South. Even though you might be an Oxonian, I've not got the Midland (or country) accent, so I sound more 'posh'.

The south tends to be more expensive and have lower rates of unemployment but the real upper crust types come from all over the country. The kind of upper crust british accent you're thinking of is a product of private boarding school education (and the old famous boarding schools are found in all parts of the UK) rather than where your parents' home is. Working class Londoners don't sound any more 'posh' than working class Brummies or Yorkshiremen.

What you think of as 'sounding Oxonian' came about because, in the past, most people who went to Oxford already sounded like that. About 50% of the intake is of people from more modest backgrounds now. A small proportion of these people do actually suddenly start speaking in a more upper-crust accent when they arrive, but it's an affectation.

DAYoung
26th October 07, 06:32 AM
Yes.

My point was that I sound more posh, not that I am (or that the Midlands or North don't have wealthy or landed folk).

This was why I spoke of stereotypes.

Cullion
26th October 07, 06:34 AM
You're right, of course. My point was that I sound more posh, not that I am (or that the Midlands or North don't have wealthy or landed folk).

Lots of Americans, Canadians and Australians speak in clearer, more grammatically correct English than a working class Brit with a strong regional accent would.

Come to think of it, so do most Dutch and Danes.

DAYoung
26th October 07, 06:42 AM
Lots of Americans, Canadians and Australians speak in clearer, more grammatically correct English than a working class Brit with a strong regional accent would.

My grandfather was Cockney, and unashamedly spoke like one. It's funny how quickly that can disappear and reappear. My father came here after the war, and is basically Australian. Like me, he speaks in 'clearer, more grammatically correct English.' But when he spoke to his father (my grandfather), the grammar and pronunciation changed immediately. And I slip into it easily as well, though more in accent and rhythm than in grammar.

bob
26th October 07, 03:56 PM
This is the closest match I can find
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6WL95loMLQ

He's from the city of Leicester. I was raised in a small village about 30 miles away. People where I grew up talk like this but perhaps a little slower (more rustic) and use the occasional odd phrase or piece of slang.

Somehow I imagined Chris Moyles.

Zendetta
26th October 07, 04:08 PM
This was why I spoke of stereotypes.

English accent? Thats means you are the Classy Villain.

Cullion
26th October 07, 04:09 PM
Somehow I imagined Chris Moyles.

Fuck off.

Zendetta
26th October 07, 04:10 PM
It's funny how quickly that can disappear and reappear.

Blimey, Guv'nor!

It takes me about a week in South Carolina over the holidays to start sounding like a proper Neck of Color.

bob
26th October 07, 04:17 PM
Fuck off.

I never felt more like I was in an alien culture in Britain than when I encountered widespread admiration for that man.

Cullion
26th October 07, 04:23 PM
I never felt more like I was in an alien culture in Britain than when I encountered widespread admiration for that man.

I see him as a sort of grinning demagogue of our accelerating de-civilisation.

I rarely watch British TV or listen to the radio any more, it's too depressing.

I don't see it as a 'we're doomed like the Romans just before the fall' though. I see it as part of a cycle,
the British have had one of their periods of order and achievement and we're now slipping back into one of our 'Merry Englande' eras, like we had during the Stuart reign, or during Hogarth's time.

SpringHeeledJack
26th October 07, 05:08 PM
Blimey, Guv'nor!

It takes me about a week in South Carolina over the holidays to start sounding like a proper Neck of Color.Next time you're around, hit me up and I can probably speed things up a bit. We'll have some (homemade) scuppernong wine.

bob
26th October 07, 05:17 PM
I see him as a sort of grinning demagogue of our accelerating de-civilisation.

I rarely watch British TV or listen to the radio any more, it's too depressing.

I don't see it as a 'we're doomed like the Romans just before the fall' though. I see it as part of a cycle,
the British have had one of their periods of order and achievement and we're now slipping back into one of our 'Merry Englande' eras, like we had during the Stuart reign, or during Hogarth's time.

I see it as a pan global culture of idiocy. Some nations are net exporters, some are net importers but the currency is the same.

Zendetta
26th October 07, 06:01 PM
Next time you're around, hit me up and I can probably speed things up a bit. We'll have some (homemade) scuppernong wine.

Hayall Yayeh, Bo!

Quikfeet509
29th October 07, 02:32 AM
oh, for sure. There are some horror stories of not being allowed to weigh in on medical decisions, or even see the sick partner.

Adding insult to injury, in some of these cases the person is estranged from their family too, due to homophobia/disownment/"my son can't be gay" kind of stuff - literally no next of kin will come forth, or the retarded bigotted family's wishes, decisions, and legal rights are honored, but the longterm loving partner's are not.

Even if I despised gays and lesbians I'd think that was inhuman.


I've heard of that happening, usually in the context of a religious family that hasn't spoken to their gay offspring in a decade but now are making medical decisions over the objection of their child's "life partner". I've also heard of a family in that situation requesting the "life partner" not be allowed to visit because they are not family and Jesus will not heal their child if they continue to display sin in the hospital.


Seriously.


But there is a very simple solution: medical power of attorney.


If you are gay and are fairly sure that you and your gay lover will be together forever and ever, and one of you is estranged from their biological family, make your lover your medical power of attorney. That way you can help carry out their wishes without being circumvented by their biological family.

Cullion
29th October 07, 07:21 AM
Jesus will not heal their child if they continue to display sin in the hospital.

If Jesus will heal a tax collector, surely he'd heal a poof ?

Craigypooh
29th October 07, 08:21 AM
If Jesus will heal a tax collector, surely he'd heal a poof ?

I had a quick skim through the bible and apparently he won't.

Cullion
29th October 07, 09:06 AM
I don't recall Jesus meeting any gays in the Bible.

Craigypooh
29th October 07, 12:09 PM
It was implied be there not being any stories of him curing a gay man. Must be true, otherwise 100's of years of the church demonising gay people would have been pointless. Oh hold on, it was pointless wasn't it.

Cullion
29th October 07, 12:45 PM
Perhaps Jeebus thought they were beyond help ? or that being gay was a sin rather than a disease, like it says in the old testerment?

Craigypooh
29th October 07, 03:53 PM
Although this doesn't seem to square with him being an all knowing, all powerful, loving and forgiving God, who was, afterall, meant to be responsible for how we all turned out.

Cullion
29th October 07, 04:02 PM
That's not how most systems of Christian theology work (there's one for each denomination pretty much). Christians who believe being homosexual is wrong (not all Christians do) believe that :-

a) Being homosexual is a choice.

b) Being homosexual is a sin, like adultery or stealing.

Your parallel is a bit like saying that Christian theology is inconsistent because serial killers exist. You argument against Christian theology here boils down to 'but God allows people to exist who don't follow his commandments'. Unless you're talking about Calvinists or something like that, you've basically ignored the whole Christian belief in free-will.

Jesus forgave sinners, but he didn't cure them. The idea behind most Christian theologies is that you will be forgiven for your sins, if you atone, but you have to make every effort not to repeat them (mostly with the assistance of prayer and the company of other christians).

Shawarma
29th October 07, 04:06 PM
What, exactly, is the point of the "Homosexuality is a choice!" shit that people are talking about? Is it something they believe so they don't have to feel like assholes for discriminating against people with odd sexual preferences over which they have no control?

I think I'll accept that as my personal philosophy. From now on, I'll justify my hatred of negroes because of blackness being a choice too and of cripples because disability also being a choice.

Cullion
29th October 07, 04:27 PM
What, exactly, is the point of the "Homosexuality is a choice!" shit that people are talking about? Is it something they believe so they don't have to feel like assholes for discriminating against people with odd sexual preferences over which they have no control?

I think I'll accept that as my personal philosophy. From now on, I'll justify my hatred of negroes because of blackness being a choice too and of cripples because disability also being a choice.

Yes, Christians tend not to accept genetic determinism and the ones who consider homosexuality a sin would not accept that a gay person was simply 'born that way' with no power to control their impulses.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:51 PM
Although there is some kind of 'choice' in the celebration of queer sexuality, i.e. 'gay pride', and so on.

A good Christian would make a choice against demonic urges, and not laud them so wickedly.

Eldarbong
29th October 07, 06:24 PM
So basically the money that I am saving now, plus the interest it gains, means that when I finally spend it, inflation will nullify the gains I made from saving and interest?

Cullion
29th October 07, 07:17 PM
So basically the money that I am saving now, plus the interest it gains, means that when I finally spend it, inflation will nullify the gains I made from saving and interest?

It depends on several things:-

1) Tax rates on savings (signigficant in the UK once your savings grow beyond a certain level)

2) Interest rates (change over time. It's 0.5% here and there in the news every few months, but if you look at them over decades, the range has been from a couple of % up to 10%+ in a lot of Western countries).

3) The rate of inflation (has varied as much, if not moreso, than interest rates if you look at timescales in decades)

4) How exactly you measure inflation (the way in which central banks and governments calculate the 'official' inflation rate has changed somewhat over time), and different schools of economics argue over the best way to do so.

All of these things tend not to change in dramatic ways in advanced economies over 1-5 year timescales (except very briefly during economic crises, like when the UK was forced to leave the ERM in the 90s), but they can change substantially over the kind of timescales we're talking about when most of us talk about 'saving for our retirement'.

The financial market record since WWII suggests that just saving cash has been pretty bad, because inflation+tax on savings interest hasn't allowed deposit account to keep up with inflation very well. A low-management fee fund of all top 100 bluechip stocks on the London or New York stock exchanges held for decades would've worked out better. Most 'pension funds' only falsely appear to be more attractive than buying your own low-overhead 'Fortune 100' or 'FTSE 100' fund because our governments tax us on money we try and invest ourselves from our paychecks, but give us back the tax for money we agree to invest with large investment funds running govt. approved pension funds.

Yes, I think it stinks of protectionism/subsidy for investment bankers.

Craigypooh
30th October 07, 03:14 AM
So basically the money that I am saving now, plus the interest it gains, means that when I finally spend it, inflation will nullify the gains I made from saving and interest?

If you can earn a net of tax return in excess of inflation then your savings will grow in real terms (ie will not be entirely nullified by inflation).

The problem with the calculation in the original post is that it compared the real value of the accumulated assets to the nominal value of the contributions paid.

There are two main methods to increase your net of tax return:

a) invest in a more tax efficient way - eg pension funds, index-linked bonds, geared investment vehicles, paying off debts

b) take more risk - eg equity investment, geared investment, derivative investments, concentrated investments, investing in your own business venture

Craigypooh
30th October 07, 03:26 AM
Yes, I think it stinks of protectionism/subsidy for investment bankers.

I think you'll find that most investment banks aren't reliant on the "state subsidy" provided by pension funds! The companies who make the most money from pension funds are insurance companies and independent investment managers.

The much simpler explanation for the existence of pension funds is to encourage people to save for there old age and so be less reliant on state support once they retire. A bit dull really isn't it?

Cullion
30th October 07, 08:10 AM
I think you'll find that most investment banks aren't reliant on the "state subsidy" provided by pension funds! The companies who make the most money from pension funds are insurance companies and independent investment managers.

Sorry, I should have said 'the financial services industry'.



The much simpler explanation for the existence of pension funds is to encourage people to save for there old age and so be less reliant on state support once they retire. A bit dull really isn't it?

The tax system (at least in the UK) still means that you get taxed more on investments you want to manage yourself without paying a management fee.

Craigypooh
30th October 07, 10:09 AM
Sorry, I should have said 'the financial services industry'.

Even so, a pretty small percentage of total profit comes from the average man in the street's pension fund.


The tax system (at least in the UK) still means that you get taxed more on investments you want to manage yourself without paying a management fee.

You'll be wanting one of these then: http://sipps.taxworld.org/

Cullion
30th October 07, 10:46 AM
Even so, a pretty small percentage of total profit comes from the average man in the street's pension fund.

Really? I thought a pretty high proportion of UK funds under management originated from pension funds.



You'll be wanting one of these then: http://sipps.taxworld.org/

There are still fees (I'm still being told 'pay a fee to the financial services industry or we'll take even more from you in taxation' ) and caps on the amount you can put in.

I'd rather just have a designated pension account where all money inbound from my salary had the tax returned, and I could invest in what I wanted but wasn't allowed to withdraw from it for consumption.

Craigypooh
30th October 07, 11:27 AM
Really? I thought a pretty high proportion of UK funds under management originated from pension funds.

There's about 1.5trillion of pension fund assets in the UK, however, most (over 80%) of this is in respect of defined benefit company pension schemes, which is pretty low margin business. Personal pension schemes are pretty small by comparison.

Profits in the financial services industry are dominated by the money made by banks. Hence HSBC, Barclays, RBS and Lloyds TSB are all in the top ten UK companies but have very little exposure to profits from pension funds.


There are still fees (I'm still being told 'pay a fee to the financial services industry or we'll take even more from you in taxation' ) and caps on the amount you can put in.

Yes, but it is quite difficult to invest without paying some sort of brokerage/administration/custody/accounting fees to someone along the line. SIPPs are pretty low cost alternative. There are firms that charge no management fees and only a pretty small fee per transaction (10-20).


I'd rather just have a designated pension account where all money inbound from my salary had the tax returned, and I could invest in what I wanted but wasn't allowed to withdraw from it for consumption.

That's not far off the definition of a SIPP. The problem is that most (more than 95%) of the population have no idea how to choose good investments and are probably better off having their money invested for them by a professional investor. Systems are always going to be designed wth the majority in mind.