|
|
|
|
Add it up, Doug!
Captain Joe Redcloud wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:27:00 -0500, DSK wrote:
At 5% annually since 1957, it would have just passed the 1 million mark
last year, looking at (substitute dollar for pound sign, which I can't
find) $1,092,283.81
See now that's not so much, is it 
Captain Joe Redcloud wrote:
During several prolonged periods between 1957 and now, you could have been
making a LOT better than 5% without a lot of risk. Then there is compounding...
That was compounding, stupid. It's that math thing.
I mentioned compounding, toothless one. I also mentioned what you obviously
didn't know. Your 5% figure was borne of ignorance.
That 100k could be a LOTTA moola by now.
And I suppose 1,092,283.81 is not?
Not compared to what thay money probably would have earned by now. Are you
really this unsophisticated, or is it an act?
I'm fairly certain that even my gardener has a net worth of over a million
dollars. He'd have to. Starter homes near here (1000 square foot ranch on 1/4
acre) routinely go for about 600k. There's nothing less than that. Median house
price is well over a million.
Look up the definition of net worth. Then get back to us.
My gardener has owned his own home, which is by no means a starter home, for
over 30 years. It's paid off. He OWNS it. My guess is that it would sell for
somewhere around 1.2 million. He also has been running a successful landscaping
company all that time, and has a waiting list of people who wish he could be
THEIR gardener too. Like I said earlier, he drives around in an 80,000 dollar
car with a custom trailer. Paint matched, rims matched... You get the picture.
Or maybe, since you are from a comparatively depressed and uneducated part of
the country, you don't.
Around here, you would barely qualify as middle class... maybe.
Commodore Joe Redcloud
|