Yeah, that article seemed...odd.

Today, you can't spit in the street without hitting a millionaire and oftentimes it is simple wages that got him or her to that point.

I mean, what?

And then the out-of-nowhere reference to Goethe. Weird.

Yeah, I don't know that I buy a lot of what that guy was saying -- people suddenly discover at 44 they'll never make tenure and head off to be high school teachers? -- but it was interesting at least.

and oftentimes it is simple wages that got him or her to that point.

I find this statement extremely dubious. I suspect it is the rare specimen indeed that got to be a millionaire on simple wages alone.

There are plenty of people living in million-dollar homes that they bought with wages, don't you think?

PR: OMG is Daniel totally crashing and burning? Is Santino winning? Good LORD.

There are plenty of people living in million-dollar homes that they bought with wages, don't you think?

Hmm... I suppose. I guess I forgot you include assets when figuring a person's worth, which would make million dollar home owners technically millionaires, provided they've fully, or even mostly paid off the loan.

I still find the statement a little... off somehow. It's not like people who got their million dollar home through wages alone are living the high life, millionaire style. Plus, I'm still getting stuck on the word "oftentimes," as it makes it sound like a significant minority, or even a mojority of millionaires got there through wages alone, and I still find that hard to believe. Even the people who got there mostly through wages probably also managed some good investment moves to get over the hump. And wouldn't those count as not just "wages alone"? For that matter, if someone is technically a millionaire because of the value of of their home, doesn't that mean they became millionaires through real estate investement, particularly if their home appreciated in value, even if the original home loan was obtained and paid off through "wages alone"?

I guess the statement is just striking me as too vague and broad to actually contain the meaning it seems to want to impart.

The Constant Gardener is a good film, but I think the film's title got lost in the book to film translation.

I guess the statement is just striking me as too vague and broad to actually contain the meaning it seems to want to impart.

But the whole thing is like that, not just that sentence.

Good news! We're supposed to have "snow, possibly mixing with sleet" starting late tomorrow morning. I have to take the cat to the vet at 2. Granted, it's not far, but farther than I would have chosen to walk carrying a large wiggly container in the snow/sleet.

I still find the statement a little... off somehow. It's not like people who got their million dollar home through wages alone are living the high life, millionaire style. Plus, I'm still getting stuck on the word "oftentimes," as it makes it sound like a significant minority, or even a mojority of millionaires got there through wages alone, and I still find that hard to believe. Even the people who got there mostly through wages probably also managed some good investment moves to get over the hump. And wouldn't those count as not just "wages alone"? For that matter, if someone is technically a millionaire because of the value of of their home, doesn't that mean they became millionaires through real estate investement, particularly if their home appreciated in value, even if the original home loan was obtained and paid off through "wages alone"?

I recall a study that found that most millionaires had basically got there through being small business owners, and winding up being somewhat larger business owners. Not particularly high flyers as such. But this was back in the early 90s, and I think there have since been changes in the high-net-worth composition.

I will also note that my older brother apparently thinks that I am a millionaire, because
a) He has been smoking the good crack (no, really), and
2. He belongs to a Papuan tribe whose counting system runs "One, two, three, many".

But the whole thing is like that, not just that sentence.

Fair point. I don't know why I fixated on that particular clause in the piece. I just did.