Haha. I am very amused by those drivers who think they are better than the average drivers. I'm more amused when they "empathize" with those lousy drivers whom they think should improve on their driving skills. If everyone is a good driver, then everyone will be an average driver. Likewise, if everyone has enough to retire, no one gets to retire.
(11-04-2013, 09:43 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ]Haha. I am very amused by those drivers who think they are better than the average drivers. I'm more amused when they "empathize" with those lousy drivers whom they think should improve on their driving skills. If everyone is a good driver, then everyone will be an average driver. Likewise, if everyone has enough to retire, no one gets to retire.
Normal (Gaussian) distribution curve always there, only the mean will shift...
The issue is we might not know where we are
(11-04-2013, 09:43 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ]Haha. I am very amused by those drivers who think they are better than the average drivers. I'm more amused when they "empathize" with those lousy drivers whom they think should improve on their driving skills. If everyone is a good driver, then everyone will be an average driver. Likewise, if everyone has enough to retire, no one gets to retire.
Ah... Relativity.
There is no absolute frame of reference in this world.
You are rich because others are poor.
and yi shan you yi shan gao. so most imptly is ur own comfort level. healthy n happinesd still precede wealth.
(11-04-2013, 09:55 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 09:43 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ]Haha. I am very amused by those drivers who think they are better than the average drivers. I'm more amused when they "empathize" with those lousy drivers whom they think should improve on their driving skills. If everyone is a good driver, then everyone will be an average driver. Likewise, if everyone has enough to retire, no one gets to retire.
Normal (Gaussian) distribution curve always there, only the mean will shift... The issue is we might not know where we are
In my experience, for investing, it may be even worse than that because of the Dunning–Kruger effect i.e. a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average whereas actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. I am especially reminded of this effect whenever I chance upon an opportunity to try to have an intelligent conversation with a "financial expert"
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect for more details.
Cheers!
(11-04-2013, 01:04 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:53 AM)smallcaps Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:34 AM)mobo Wrote: [ -> ]TBH I'm getting quite confused over all these conflicting so called research provided by finance companies.
On one hand I read stuides saying that SG has higher percentage of millionaires (think it was ~15% IIRC) not even including primary residence.
There are also numerous studies the latest one is from Citi claiming there are many people with saving substantial amounts of money. Salary reports from those HR consultancies also point to so many jobs making >150k annually.
Anecdotal and personal observations on average SG consumption habits tend to support this affluent view as well. Mass market shopping malls are always crowded and average SGs seem to have no qualms eating in restaurants twice a week while splurging on the latest gadgets and fashion statements.
Then on the other hand we have other studies claiming most SGs do not have enough for retirement, heavily in debt, earning lousy wages etc.
It is of course easy to dismiss all these inconsistencies as rich-poor divide, but even then how can many of these supposedly population wide broad based studies reach conclusions that seem at the opposite sides of each spectrum???
Correct mah...
High income + high spending = not enough money for retirement.
High income + moderate spending + put money in bank + high inflation = not enough money for retirement.
Low income = can hardly survive now, much less talk about retirement
Only valuebuddies have enough for retirement
Hi smallcaps,
I had divided people into 4 groups,
1. High income and not willing to spend,
2. Low income and not willing to spend,
3. High income and willing to spend,
4. Low income and willing to spend.
To me, that will be the order of which who will be able to retire with ease.
HA! HA!
All the mathematical combinations is very "cheem" leh.
i use to believe and still do believe as long as you don't have to spend your money, even with the little you have, you are "rich' already. Pray that you don't need too much visits to doctors or specialists when you are old is already make you quite "rich".
(12-04-2013, 06:19 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 01:04 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:53 AM)smallcaps Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:34 AM)mobo Wrote: [ -> ]TBH I'm getting quite confused over all these conflicting so called research provided by finance companies.
On one hand I read stuides saying that SG has higher percentage of millionaires (think it was ~15% IIRC) not even including primary residence.
There are also numerous studies the latest one is from Citi claiming there are many people with saving substantial amounts of money. Salary reports from those HR consultancies also point to so many jobs making >150k annually.
Anecdotal and personal observations on average SG consumption habits tend to support this affluent view as well. Mass market shopping malls are always crowded and average SGs seem to have no qualms eating in restaurants twice a week while splurging on the latest gadgets and fashion statements.
Then on the other hand we have other studies claiming most SGs do not have enough for retirement, heavily in debt, earning lousy wages etc.
It is of course easy to dismiss all these inconsistencies as rich-poor divide, but even then how can many of these supposedly population wide broad based studies reach conclusions that seem at the opposite sides of each spectrum???
Correct mah...
High income + high spending = not enough money for retirement.
High income + moderate spending + put money in bank + high inflation = not enough money for retirement.
Low income = can hardly survive now, much less talk about retirement
Only valuebuddies have enough for retirement
Hi smallcaps,
I had divided people into 4 groups,
1. High income and not willing to spend,
2. Low income and not willing to spend,
3. High income and willing to spend,
4. Low income and willing to spend.
To me, that will be the order of which who will be able to retire with ease.
HA! HA!
All the mathematical combinations is very "cheem" leh.
i use to believe and still do believe as long as you don't have to spend your money, even with the little you have, you are "rich' already. Pray that you don't need too much visits to doctors or specialists when you are old is already make you quite "rich".
Alternatively you can have friends who are doctors. My preference is to exercise, watch my diet, think positive and be happy.
(11-04-2013, 10:46 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 09:43 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ]Haha. I am very amused by those drivers who think they are better than the average drivers. I'm more amused when they "empathize" with those lousy drivers whom they think should improve on their driving skills. If everyone is a good driver, then everyone will be an average driver. Likewise, if everyone has enough to retire, no one gets to retire.
Ah... Relativity.
There is no absolute frame of reference in this world.
You are rich because others are poor.
Exactly. You can't outrun the lion (haha
lion city) but that's ok. You just have to outrun the other guy.
(12-04-2013, 06:19 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 01:04 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:53 AM)smallcaps Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:34 AM)mobo Wrote: [ -> ]TBH I'm getting quite confused over all these conflicting so called research provided by finance companies.
On one hand I read stuides saying that SG has higher percentage of millionaires (think it was ~15% IIRC) not even including primary residence.
There are also numerous studies the latest one is from Citi claiming there are many people with saving substantial amounts of money. Salary reports from those HR consultancies also point to so many jobs making >150k annually.
Anecdotal and personal observations on average SG consumption habits tend to support this affluent view as well. Mass market shopping malls are always crowded and average SGs seem to have no qualms eating in restaurants twice a week while splurging on the latest gadgets and fashion statements.
Then on the other hand we have other studies claiming most SGs do not have enough for retirement, heavily in debt, earning lousy wages etc.
It is of course easy to dismiss all these inconsistencies as rich-poor divide, but even then how can many of these supposedly population wide broad based studies reach conclusions that seem at the opposite sides of each spectrum???
Correct mah...
High income + high spending = not enough money for retirement.
High income + moderate spending + put money in bank + high inflation = not enough money for retirement.
Low income = can hardly survive now, much less talk about retirement
Only valuebuddies have enough for retirement
Hi smallcaps,
I had divided people into 4 groups,
1. High income and not willing to spend,
2. Low income and not willing to spend,
3. High income and willing to spend,
4. Low income and willing to spend.
To me, that will be the order of which who will be able to retire with ease.
HA! HA!
All the mathematical combinations is very "cheem" leh.
i use to believe and still do believe as long as you don't have to spend your money, even with the little you have, you are "rich' already. Pray that you don't need too much visits to doctors or specialists when you are old is already make you quite "rich".
There's nothing mathematical about it.
Anyway based on your definition, one can either (i) very rich ($$$ sense) to generate sufficient revenue for all expenses, or (ii) live off charity, or (iii) dead, to be considered "rich". Visiting doctors or specialists (except those free charity clinics) at any age will definitely set back any accumulation program. So pray hard that we don't fall too sick too often.
(12-04-2013, 10:28 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2013, 06:19 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 01:04 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:53 AM)smallcaps Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2013, 11:34 AM)mobo Wrote: [ -> ]TBH I'm getting quite confused over all these conflicting so called research provided by finance companies.
On one hand I read stuides saying that SG has higher percentage of millionaires (think it was ~15% IIRC) not even including primary residence.
There are also numerous studies the latest one is from Citi claiming there are many people with saving substantial amounts of money. Salary reports from those HR consultancies also point to so many jobs making >150k annually.
Anecdotal and personal observations on average SG consumption habits tend to support this affluent view as well. Mass market shopping malls are always crowded and average SGs seem to have no qualms eating in restaurants twice a week while splurging on the latest gadgets and fashion statements.
Then on the other hand we have other studies claiming most SGs do not have enough for retirement, heavily in debt, earning lousy wages etc.
It is of course easy to dismiss all these inconsistencies as rich-poor divide, but even then how can many of these supposedly population wide broad based studies reach conclusions that seem at the opposite sides of each spectrum???
Correct mah...
High income + high spending = not enough money for retirement.
High income + moderate spending + put money in bank + high inflation = not enough money for retirement.
Low income = can hardly survive now, much less talk about retirement
Only valuebuddies have enough for retirement
Hi smallcaps,
I had divided people into 4 groups,
1. High income and not willing to spend,
2. Low income and not willing to spend,
3. High income and willing to spend,
4. Low income and willing to spend.
To me, that will be the order of which who will be able to retire with ease.
HA! HA!
All the mathematical combinations is very "cheem" leh.
i use to believe and still do believe as long as you don't have to spend your money, even with the little you have, you are "rich' already. Pray that you don't need too much visits to doctors or specialists when you are old is already make you quite "rich".
There's nothing mathematical about it.
Anyway based on your definition, one can either (i) very rich ($$$ sense) to generate sufficient revenue for all expenses, or (ii) live off charity, or (iii) dead, to be considered "rich". Visiting doctors or specialists (except those free charity clinics) at any age will definitely set back any accumulation program. So pray hard that we don't fall too sick too often.
No ,that's not what i mean from 1 to 3. i mean exactly that if you
don't need to spend your money on anything except the basics for living (aka food & lodging & ?), you are rich already.
Another way of putting it, suppose you are a millionaire living in a very remote mountainous region but you have all the necessities for living where there is nothing for your money to buy, then what?