"Real" Income - Page 2

War.mongeR1 · 05-31-2007, 08:54 PM

I for one live a very mediocre life, drive an economical car, going through a divorce, getting rid of my house to live with my brother in a small 2-bedroom condo, live on a very tight budget, and don't make jack after taxes due to being self-employed. BUT I feel that I have no real reason to complain. Life is still pretty good. I have a nice computer, a Nintendo Wii, my car may be econo, but is still way nicer than any car 30 years ago, and I have great friends and family.

I remember the national recession when I was a kid in the 80's. My dad was unemployed for a while, my mom was a seamstress to make ends meet, not many people I knew had automatic driers. We had a washing machine, but line-dried the clothes. We could only afford the black and white labeled generic food at the grocery store. Heck, there used to be a whole aisle dedicated to generic food! And that was with both of my parents being highly educated. I don't know about you, but for me these times are way more prosperous. It's not the governments fault that people don't realize how good we have it. It's time to turn off the cell phones, quit dedicating ourselves too much to work and not enough to family, and start enjoying life already. My neighbor at my old house is a car mechanic at Carmax and does quite well for himself. Nice house, supports a family, has a big-screen HDTV, etc. etc. Things really aren't so bad when we have the opportunity to hang out and drink beer whenever we want. Yup. Life is good. Take a day off and enjoy it.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-31-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Your definition 2a is the one most commonly used in modern English. And that definition correlates very strongly with increased availability of material goods. If our economy produces more stuff, and we buy more stuff, then we are more prosperous.

I agree. And that one is "successes or economic well-being". And I say neither of those have anything to do with the amount or quality of stuff. Especially the "economic well-being" one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

But more on topic: The cost of living today isn't much higher than it was 30 years ago, at least not by the standard that inflation figures would suggest. Cost of living is higher primarily because we expect to have a higher standard of living than people did 30 years ago, and that higher standard of living costs money. If you were content to live on the average standard of living from 30 years ago, you could do it very cheaply. But aside from people so broke that they don't have a choice, people aren't content with that lifestyle anymore. They demand more, and they get more.

I don't think you are correct in that I don't think that people expect a "higher standard of living." Unless, of course, you are talking about "stuff". Do we expect our stuff to be more advanced and look a certain way. Aesthetics have changed for sure. But what is the difference between a Sony walkman and an iPod? Nothing in a practical sense. And they probably cost about the same when adjusting for inflation. Yes, the iPod is better. But does an iPod contribute to "economic well being"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

So where's the argument that we are poorer now than 30 years ago? Is it just based on the perception that someone else is getting richer than you are? Thats a very unhealthy way to look at life. Say for the sake of example, you work at a job where you get paid $10 and your boss gets paid $30. After a while the business is making more money and everyone gets a big raise. You are now making $25, and your boss is making $150. Are you going to be happy with your 150% raise, or are you going to complain because the boss got a 400% raise? Are you going to happy you can afford a bigger house, or are you going to complain that your mortgage payments are higher now that you bought a house twice as big as you used to have? If you want a boss's salary, then you'd better figure out how to become a boss. But if you're gonna sit there being an employee, then be happy that your making more than twice what you used to make.

The pew report doesn't say we are poorer from what I understand. It says we are about the same. My argument is that the author says simply because our stuff is better it doesn't matter that we are about the same. If you take the strict material consumption point of view the author could be mostly correct. My argument is that the strict material consumption point of view is the wrong point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

The price of cigs has nothing to do with inflation and everything to do with punitive tobacco taxes. The government makes far more money off tobacco than the actual tobacco companies do.

That new house is 2 to 3 times as big as the old one, giving a real inflation rate closer to 2 or 3 hundred percent, not 6 hundred. Thats slower than your stated wage growth.

I can still get a can of soda for 30 cents as long as I buy them at the grocery store instead of a restaurant. That yields inflation of 50% or less.

You can get a new car for $10-12 thousand if you look, not to mention cars today have a dozen different features which were not available on cars 30 years ago. A/C anyone?

In short: selective statistics can "prove" whatever you want them to.

Home ownership rates haven't gone up much in the past 30 years. If you can't afford a house who cares if it twice as large? Maybe it would be better if they where the same size but cost less in "Real" dollars? And I am not sure your statement is correct at any rate. In Oklahoma City (one of the cheapest housing markets in the nation) a new 1,500 sq ft house costs from 120,000 to 200,000 dollars and the yard is tiny. Thirty years ago that house was about 30,000 with a much, much bigger yard. It is true that you can buy those 30 year old home for 80-100k. But you are buying a 30 year old house for 2-3 times what it went for originally! If you don't mind living in the "bad" part of town you can get a decent house for 70k. Not in very good shape and still twice what you would pay 30 years ago.

And even my very, very poor family had A/C 25 years ago. So A/C in both cars and homes is not that big a deal. Mabey it is in some of the more temperate climates where it is not REALLY needed, but in the truly hot portions of the nation it has always been pretty common.

We all know that health care is way more expensive that it was 30 years ago. Is health care any better? I don't know but I don't think it is for the "average" person. I know that advanced medical care has become much better. But really, for most ailments it is about the same even though we pay much more than we did 30 years ago.

Thirty years ago many Americans could at least believe that they would have some money saved up for retirement through their companies retirement plan. This was a pipe dream in many cases (because of the greed of the company in most those cases). Today many I know are very afraid what is going to happen when they retire. There is not even a dream. Their 401K is not what it needs to be. During the bubble burst some lost a huge percent of their savings. Maybe if they are lucky they can gain it back in the next 20 years. Maybe. But because they are just "keeping even" they can't dump more into it even though they know they should.

And all you showed is that the average American has gained nothing except some gizmos and shininess. I am not saying this is a bad thing. And some countries would love to stay even. But I can't see how anybody can say this country is advancing as a whole when most only gain the superficial parts of the "Abundance" the author writes about.

My question to those that agree with the author of the article is.. What "success or economic well-being" has the average person gained in the last 30 years?

xTYBALTx · 05-31-2007, 09:50 PM

The Pew Report took a strict material point of view.

The author is refuting the Pew Report.

The author uses a strict material point of view.

If you disagree with the relevance of that point of view, that's fine.

Kerostasis · 05-31-2007, 09:54 PM

My parents grew up in that "30 years ago" time. Both of them grew up in the south, where its Damn Hot™, and both of them started with cars that did not have A/C included. Air conditioning meant either "driving at night", or "driving with all the windows down". I bought my first car for $800 and its got fully functional A/C. I consider that an improved standard of living.

When my parents got their first home, they didn't even have phone service. If they wanted to call someone, they had to find a payphone. As a part-time worker putting myself through college, I can still afford to pay the bills on a cellphone which lets me contact anyone at any time. I consider that an improved standard of living.

My parents were not low-skilled workers or anything. They both had college degrees before they married, and my father got a graduate degree shortly thereafter. Yet I have things now they could not have dreamed about then. Standard of living has definately increased over the last 30 years.

**Tempus** · 05-31-2007, 10:00 PM

If you were willing to still only watch 4 channels on TV, not have a cell-phone, don't pay for internet access, buy a car without power windows and such, then you can say that we're making more money today than before.

But these nice things we take for granted are luxuries. We spend money on these luxuries. We fly all over the world on vacations (another luxury), where our parents used to drive everywhere.

So, I'd say that our standard of living today is better than it was.... unless you consider that women back then did not have to work in order to help pay for the expenses on the house, car, child-rearing, etc. In that case, the argument can be made that we're worse off, since now it takes twice the labor to afford things.

Judge_Leo · 05-31-2007, 10:41 PM

"I lived in California for a few years. That was fun. We bought a very roomy house (I think around 2800 Sq ft) for about $208,000 and held on to it for 3 years. Then we sold it for $380,000 and moved to Florida, and the profit was enough that we didn't even have to take out a mortgage for the new house. We just bought it outright."

I think what you experienced was inflation, glad you made a buck off the house. I think that is what poor people call "the rich getting richer".

I was just posting costs for things as I remember them costing, many of them are things people still buy today.

Of course you can argue that you can seek out cheap soda DUH! I was referring to vending machine prices, sorry for confusing anyone that either didn't get that - or didn't want to get it.

I was talking about a new Buick Century that my mother bought in 1976, had A/C was a nice car in that day, and it was made in the U.S. Of course you can get a small car for less but that's not an accurate comparison.

The house price is accurate on a sq. foot basis for this area. I realize housing prices vary greatly by region, I'm not quite as old and stupid as you may think.

Of course the cigs are inflated because of taxes and tobacco lawsuits but that is what people that smoke are paying for them.

Here's something you young guys may want to consider. Instead of pissing away 50 or 60 bucks a month on gee whiz cell phones and another 50 or more on gotta have it plastic landfill fodder. Save that cash and invest in a good stock then forget about that money for 30 years or so. If I had done that 30 years ago and bought 25 shares of Johnson and Johnson stock, it would have cost me $3750. Today that stock would be worth $227,700 not including the dividend growth which would increase that amount by at least $50,000. Do that now and continue investing in your future and one day you will be one of those "rich people" that everyone blames for their problems.

**deathknight** · 05-31-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempus

If you were willing to still only watch 4 channels on TV, not have a cell-phone, don't pay for internet access, buy a car without power windows and such, then you can say that we're making more money today than before.

But these nice things we take for granted are luxuries. We spend money on these luxuries. We fly all over the world on vacations (another luxury), where our parents used to drive everywhere.

So, I'd say that our standard of living today is better than it was.... unless you consider that women back then did not have to work in order to help pay for the expenses on the house, car, child-rearing, etc. In that case, the argument can be made that we're worse off, since now it takes twice the labor to afford things.

I agree materially we are better off but i think financially we are worse off

I would think, and I don't have proof but maybe somebody can find out whether i am right or not, that the average american are deeper in debt now than the average american 30 years ago

xTYBALTx · 05-31-2007, 10:53 PM

People have a choice over how much debt they carry. Some people prefer more debt, others prefer less debt. However, I think that everyone can agree that we all want more income. Additionally, a group's median income is taken by many as a general indicator of how well that group is doing. That is why the argument over median income today vs. median income at X time is taken so seriously and fought over so much.

Aspie · 05-31-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Are you saying that people in Tokyo don't "live well"?

I'm saying that the cost of living in Tokyo is extremely high. While the Japanese live extremely well and are among the healthiest of all nations, urban living is extremely confined. Spacious, family-friendly apartments (by American standards) require far more lucrative professions.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-31-2007, 10:59 PM

I am posting this seperatly because it is a seperate issue but related issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Is it just based on the perception that someone else is getting richer than you are? Thats a very unhealthy way to look at life.

If they where only a little bit richer than me you would be correct. Or if they where only a couple of them that had this vast wealth.

But we are not talking about a couple of percentage points richer. We are talking about orders of magnitude richer. And I am not talking about the difference between the poorest and the richest. I am talking about the difference between the upper middle class and the richest. And it isn't just a few mega rich, it is a sizable portion of the population that has become mega rich. And it isn't a faceless corporation that posses said wealth, it is individuals and their families that have this wealth.

There are two aspects to this.

The first is the power aspect. More money = more power. At the same time more money = different perspective on living thus different perceived problems that need attention. So if you have vastly more money you have vastly different perspective.

So the questions are:
1. Will the power possessed by that group of mega-rich exceed the power possessed by the rest of the population?
2. If "yes" will the power possessed by the mega-rich class be used to solve the problems of the average person or will it be used to solve the problems of the mega-rich? (Of course solving the problems of the mega-rich may magically solve the average persons problems.)

I know that there has always been the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Forbes and Gates of America. There is also no doubt that they where very powerful and wielded this power in ways that benefited and harmed the average American. But we know these names because they where so exceptional. They achieved notoriety due to the fact they achieved a certain fairytale level of wealth. They also can be generally associated with a particular industry that they either created or revolutionized. So many Americans felt, and still feel, (me among them) that these people should not be faulted for what they have gained. That even their sometimes faulty use of power could be excused because what they contributed outweighed the harm caused.

But even with this power they really couldn't completely control the agenda. These individuals where just that, individuals. They had their own goals and the other individuals with same wealth where in direct competition. They kind of canceled each other out when it came to long term policy decisions made by the government. Or a new individual would override/modify the old individual. And during all this the unwashed masses still had a certain amount of balancing power. (And there is the fact mass-media was so un-mass like and inefective as compared to today.)

But today there is a large number of mega-rich that are not exceptional in any way outside their vast wealth. They seem to have the wealth factor in common and not much else.

I admit the fear I have is the primarily the fear of the un-known. Is this group permanent? Is it even human? What do they think of? Are they all like Paris Hilton? Do they know what Wal-Mart even is? (Shudder)

But there have been some happenings that take my fear from "un-known" to "oh-crap".

The reduction of taxes to the wealthy. The subsidies given to energy companies during human history high profits. The success of the whole "death tax" marketing campaign. The accelerated policy changes with regard to off-shoring of jobs and allowing corporations to keep American protections while they move their corporate offices to other countries.

…

The second aspect deals with basic human emotions. I think there is a problem when people discount envy and jealousy. These are real human emotions that have driven societal development since the very beginning. Discounting these emotions will gain nothing and may even hasten the fall of things we claim to cherish.

Now if it was perceived that the mega-rich was living on the edge. That at any time they may fall from grace and enter the world of the common man the envy would be maintainable. Or if the common man could say to themselves "I could do that if I really wanted to. But I am pretty happy where I am." It might not be such a big deal.

Honestly at this point and time it is not a big deal. Most of us are pretty happy. Most of us can get a job without too much effort. The majority of us can be distracted with pretty baubles. A nice car is enough to induce contentment. The middle class doesn't suffer much despite being heavily in debt. Those that truly suffer are pretty small in numbers and don't have much of a voice at any rate. And the occasional Dateline allows us to appreciate how good we got it compared to those suckers.

But what happens if a real world wide down-turn happens? (Yea, I know the rich will tell you as long as they can keep getting richer this simply will not happen. They will trickle down enough.) Will America end up looking like one of South American countries? Where there is a rich ruling elite that protects their own no matter what? Are their enough mega-rich to form a power group that can identify with each other based on wealth levels alone, such that they would band together during a time of crisis? Are the laws good enough to ensure they retain their wealth no matter what happens. Even to the extent that they harm the country and America as an ideal? If so could there be a populist movement such as in Venezuela that is as cancerous to future prosperity as can be imagined?

This all ties back to the original post and the question raised. If the average American was actually gaining in "REAL" prosperity these worries I have would be unhealthy. They wouldn't make any sense because everybody would be gaining.

But everybody isn't gaining. Most are simply maintaining. Their children are not gaining, they are simply trying to get to the levels their parents achieved.

And if you count in average individual debt?

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-31-2007, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempus

If you were willing to still only watch 4 channels on TV, not have a cell-phone, don't pay for internet access, buy a car without power windows and such, then you can say that we're making more money today than before.

At the time we were not "willing" to watch 4 channels nor where we willing to deprive ourselves of a cell phone.

Those things did not exist. There was no choice.

Are you willing to deprive yourself of vacation to Mars? Or a genetic treatment to make you four inches taller?

You don't have a choice. And we didn't have the choice of internet access 30 years ago.

These things have very little to do with prosperity.

These things make our lives more pleasurable to be sure. But more prosperous?

Nahhh

xTYBALTx · 05-31-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gringo

But what happens if a real world wide down-turn happens?

This is why the high classes never flaunt their wealth with the exception of low-key benefaction. They remember what almost happened during the Great Depression.

And just so you know, wealthy families lose out because weak links blow their fortunes. Not from taxes.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-31-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

This is why the high classes never flaunt their wealth with the exception of low-key benefaction. They remember what almost happened during the Great Depression.

And just so you know, wealthy families lose out because weak links blow their fortunes. Not from taxes.

I agree with what you say completely. The flaunting you see is restricted primarily to the movie star and hip-hop types. ie new money. They haven't learned the lessons thus they get all the attention, both positive and negative.

And what you say about wealthy families is mostly correct. Individual members of a family can squander a fortune in short order. Reduced taxes may only increase the amount of squandering allowed.

But reduced taxes may also allow a larger percent, even if small, to remain mega-rich over time. (Ideally this means eventually everyone will be mega-rich eventually if all goes perfectly and nothing adverse happens and everybody is gaining. But as has been said, not everybody is gaining.)

So my point is that there are now enough mega-rich such that a certain percentage of drop outs may not affect that groups collective goals.

xTYBALTx · 05-31-2007, 11:42 PM

Well I don't share your interest in destroying other people's wealth.

Politically and morally speaking, I enjoy seeing people enjoying themselves. To some people this means amassing huge sums of wealth and to other people it means other things.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-01-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Well I don't share your interest in destroying other people's wealth. I see more people amassing huge sums of money as a positive.

The more you make the more you benefit from this country. You benefit because many others have died to protect it. Most of them not nearly as wealthy as the wealthiest. You benefit because of the laws enforced by the taxpayers. You benefit because of the infrastructure paid for and built by the populace.

A poor person benefits some from public roads because they can now get to and from work via public transport. But a poor person would find it difficult to work a better paying job two towns away because the chances of public transportation to that town is pretty slim. However the rich (who hires the poor person at low wages) benefits more because the persons choices are limited thus can limit the wages. And the rich also benefit because the labor pool is expanded just enough through public transportation to satisfy labor needs.

A middle class person benefits from public roads because they can offer their skills to a much wider audience. This allows them to increase their income potential by going to the highest bidder for their skills. Of course the rich also want this labor and need to be able to tell the local savant "yea, you are good but so is Joe in the next town. So you will only get x dollars." Or be able to pick up and go to town "y" in state "z" because labor is cheaper there. This allows the rich to keep the middle class in check. If they get to uppity they simply move. All this is supported by the federal government which is supported, mainly, by the middle class and below.

And if all the skilled labor wants to much money? Well the rich push for H1B visas to bring in cheap labor or simply offshore. Again the government enables this. Since the rich can do these things because of the government should the rich pay for this privilege? Yes the poor and middle class can also pick up and move to another state but they usually pay more overall for the privilege. And of course if they move over seas they loose much while a company off shoring keeps much.

Yes, the middle class and poor benefit from government programs but the rich also benefit and in almost all cases they benefit more.

Shouldn't they thus pay more?

As far as the estate tax goes. All you are doing is taking away money from a dead person. The children of the dead person did not earn this money. The dead person already benefited from our great country and all the people that make it great. Should a person gain simply from the act of being borne? What did they do to earn that money? If they worked for it then the estate tax does not effect them at all. They already have the money before their parent dies. They didn't earn anything before their parent dies? Welcome to the real world, punk. Get on the bus.

So a fair tax system does not destroy wealth. Likewise a fair tax system does not preserve wealth. Only the work performed actually destroys or preserves wealth. A fair tax system allows all to work to wards gaining wealth through smart work. And I hope it is actual, real work. Not some scam. It allows both failure and gain. It also provides a cushion for mistakes made.

Just my opinion, of course.

05-31-2007, 08:54 PM	#16 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,212	Re: "Real" Income I for one live a very mediocre life, drive an economical car, going through a divorce, getting rid of my house to live with my brother in a small 2-bedroom condo, live on a very tight budget, and don't make jack after taxes due to being self-employed. BUT I feel that I have no real reason to complain. Life is still pretty good. I have a nice computer, a Nintendo Wii, my car may be econo, but is still way nicer than any car 30 years ago, and I have great friends and family. I remember the national recession when I was a kid in the 80's. My dad was unemployed for a while, my mom was a seamstress to make ends meet, not many people I knew had automatic driers. We had a washing machine, but line-dried the clothes. We could only afford the black and white labeled generic food at the grocery store. Heck, there used to be a whole aisle dedicated to generic food! And that was with both of my parents being highly educated. I don't know about you, but for me these times are way more prosperous. It's not the governments fault that people don't realize how good we have it. It's time to turn off the cell phones, quit dedicating ourselves too much to work and not enough to family, and start enjoying life already. My neighbor at my old house is a car mechanic at Carmax and does quite well for himself. Nice house, supports a family, has a big-screen HDTV, etc. etc. Things really aren't so bad when we have the opportunity to hang out and drink beer whenever we want. Yup. Life is good. Take a day off and enjoy it. __________________ "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

05-31-2007, 09:50 PM	#18 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,762	Re: "Real" Income The Pew Report took a strict material point of view. The author is refuting the Pew Report. The author uses a strict material point of view. If you disagree with the relevance of that point of view, that's fine. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

05-31-2007, 10:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
Tempus Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Age: 38 Posts: 8,103	Re: "Real" Income If you were willing to still only watch 4 channels on TV, not have a cell-phone, don't pay for internet access, buy a car without power windows and such, then you can say that we're making more money today than before. But these nice things we take for granted are luxuries. We spend money on these luxuries. We fly all over the world on vacations (another luxury), where our parents used to drive everywhere. So, I'd say that our standard of living today is better than it was.... unless you consider that women back then did not have to work in order to help pay for the expenses on the house, car, child-rearing, etc. In that case, the argument can be made that we're worse off, since now it takes twice the labor to afford things. __________________ Battlefield 2/2142 Game Officer Contact me with server/player/admin issues. -- Suits are what you wear when doing things you shouldn’t want to do anyway. FROM THE TACTICAL GAMER PRIMER. 3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

05-31-2007, 10:41 PM	#21 (permalink)
Judge_Leo Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Northern Minnesota Age: 48 Posts: 83	Re: "Real" Income "I lived in California for a few years. That was fun. We bought a very roomy house (I think around 2800 Sq ft) for about $208,000 and held on to it for 3 years. Then we sold it for $380,000 and moved to Florida, and the profit was enough that we didn't even have to take out a mortgage for the new house. We just bought it outright." I think what you experienced was inflation, glad you made a buck off the house. I think that is what poor people call "the rich getting richer". I was just posting costs for things as I remember them costing, many of them are things people still buy today. Of course you can argue that you can seek out cheap soda DUH! I was referring to vending machine prices, sorry for confusing anyone that either didn't get that - or didn't want to get it. I was talking about a new Buick Century that my mother bought in 1976, had A/C was a nice car in that day, and it was made in the U.S. Of course you can get a small car for less but that's not an accurate comparison. The house price is accurate on a sq. foot basis for this area. I realize housing prices vary greatly by region, I'm not quite as old and stupid as you may think. Of course the cigs are inflated because of taxes and tobacco lawsuits but that is what people that smoke are paying for them. Here's something you young guys may want to consider. Instead of pissing away 50 or 60 bucks a month on gee whiz cell phones and another 50 or more on gotta have it plastic landfill fodder. Save that cash and invest in a good stock then forget about that money for 30 years or so. If I had done that 30 years ago and bought 25 shares of Johnson and Johnson stock, it would have cost me $3750. Today that stock would be worth $227,700 not including the dividend growth which would increase that amount by at least $50,000. Do that now and continue investing in your future and one day you will be one of those "rich people" that everyone blames for their problems.

05-31-2007, 10:53 PM	#23 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,762	Re: "Real" Income People have a choice over how much debt they carry. Some people prefer more debt, others prefer less debt. However, I think that everyone can agree that we all want more income. Additionally, a group's median income is taken by many as a general indicator of how well that group is doing. That is why the argument over median income today vs. median income at X time is taken so seriously and fought over so much. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

05-31-2007, 11:42 PM	#29 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,762	Re: "Real" Income Well I don't share your interest in destroying other people's wealth. Politically and morally speaking, I enjoy seeing people enjoying themselves. To some people this means amassing huge sums of wealth and to other people it means other things. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links