> Perhaps the danger is not 2008, 1999, 1973 or even 1873, but 1789.
1789 was the year of the French Revolution [1]. The rest are years with financial crises.
1789 was the year of the French Revolution [1]. The rest are years with financial crises.
The average person couldn't care less, at least in terms of action, how much money somebody else has. If people have food in their belly and a roof over their heads, you're only going to draw out radicals. And in modern sharply divided societies those radicals will be framed (probably accurately) as being disproportionately made up of one side, and the other side will oppose them all their might and widespread public support behind such opposition.
So there will never be a popular revolution in a place like the US in its current divided state. The most probable scenario by an overwhelmingly wide margin is 'nothing', but the only other possibility would be a civil war. And I do think that's possible, but the chances are extremely remote. It would require something very extreme like one side trying to ban the other side from political office. We've probably been closer than some might expect, but we're now probably much further, rather than closer, to those times and outcomes.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Revolution...
And I would argue that’s one of the key differences that separates humans from animals. Humans have an intrinsic desire for things to be fair.
This idea that people will rise up and replace what we've got now with better is part of the problem. You literally do not know how lucky you are to live in this time because you are living in the middle of a golden age and don't even realize it. Because when you're in the middle of a golden age it feels normal.
And for some reason there's an entire population of folks like you that wanna FAFO while they are living in literally the best time ever to be a human being. I'd sigh but I'm not surprised.
If it was that easy, every office cleaner or bank clerk would be a millionaire.
> living in literally the best time ever to be a human being
Sure, but we're also watching the rise of a new oligarchy, and their latest innovation appears poised to put a lot of people out of work, making their lives materially worse.
You're talking about median earners putting away more than half of their pay.
If we look at full time workers that may go up to about $1200 per week or (after federal income tax) about $57k per year - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
So you're still looking at 43% of every pay packet. And 50% of full-time workers will be paid less than that.
This is beyond discipline and much more than simply getting up and working hard, and more like living in self-imposed poverty, putting on hold anything resembling building a life, buying a house etc.
The fact is putting away $25k a year is the reserve of the privileged, not something achievable just by getting up and working hard for most people.
It's also irrelevant. The average is weighed down by students and retirees. If you look at only people in their peak earning years (40-50) then the median jumps further.
But thank you for the comment. It perfectly exemplifies the attitude of most Americans. Born on third base and feeling entitled to blow their entire paycheck every month and then still asking for hand outs.
> The average is weighed down by students and retirees.
What's your source? For a start these appear to be the wrong way round - https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...
And beyond that... yes? These figures are for all households, not necessarily households with people in full time work, which is a pre-requisite to looking at your claims properly. As such your household income figures don't give us a good picture to evaluate them.
The figures I quoted were for people in full time work, much more relevant to your statement, and no, they aren't weighed down by anything.
> If you look at only people in their peak earning years (40-50) then the median jumps further.
Why would I do that? Your claim was that people could become millionaires over the course of 20 years by saving $25k per annum. The median person in full time work would have a very hard time doing that as shown by the figures I gave you. And they are better off than fully half of other full time workers. Unless you have some compelling (sourced) figures about lifetime earnings that negate this, it doesn't really help us.
> It perfectly exemplifies the attitude of most Americans. Born on third base and feeling entitled to blow their entire paycheck every month and then still asking for hand outs.
Wow, OK.
Well firstly I'm not American, I'm British, soon to be Australian and might eventually become Irish (by descent) as well. No US in the picture though. Never had a state handout in my life, and my net worth is already well over your target threshold.
What I have (that you seem to be missing) is empathy for people who don't have it so good and a basic understanding of figures.
> I'm not American
Yea I had a feeling. I'd caution you not to buy into the Internet doom and gloom. Most people retire on far less than 500k even and are doing just fine. Because the people that tend to live on less also live in the parts of the country where you can still buy a house for 100k.
> Most people retire on far less than 500k even and are doing just fine
Soooo .... walking back all those claims about everyday folks being able to become millionaires just by showing up to work?
Please stop wasting eveyones time if you're gonna ignore a primary source after you asked for it.
- I introduced to the thread first
- You quoted incorrectly
- Doesn’t contradict the other sources given
- Doesn’t support your arguments
Please do explain further, preferably with reference to the comments above that show the figures you quoted aren’t a good match to illuminating the claims you made.
How does that source support the notion that median-and-lower earning people can realistically save $25k per annum, per person, or trivially become millionaires with a bit of discipline?
Close to 25% of people in America only make 25k a year. Forget saving that much
You are wildly out of touch with the average person and their struggles to think that 25k saved per year is even remotely achievable for most people
Like it literally is that simple.
So if your median household makes 84k, and your median household spends 67k on necessities, where is the money coming from for saving 5%? The difference is only 17k
It doesn't take much to eat up 17k. A car repair, house repair, or hospital stay (in America at least) will easily reduce that to zero or negatives
So I dunno man. It doesn't seem that simple.
Edit: and keep in mind that median does mean that a pretty large proportion of people make less than that number too. Sometimes significantly less
When you do non Roth it's pre-tax cash so it's much easier to run up your net worth because it's based on money that you haven't paid taxes on yet.
It explicitly is not. The number I am quoting is for essentials, it does not factor in emergencies
> I'm saying make your own social security fund
I'm saying many people can't realistically afford to, so expecting it is absolutely ridiculous
This conversation is dumb. Put money into an IRA. You lower your taxable income. It's not that hard. You grow your net worth on your untaxed monies and then later when shit hits the fan you can extract it at a lower tax bracket. And you get to gain market gains on cash that would otherwise be spent on taxes. It's how people who are good with money make an extra 10-15k per year while you're being all like "woe is me. i can't afford anything".
This is how you can cover that $10-15k you mention when it does happen. You're welcome.
Is there anything that other households might spend money on that you don't?
Say for instance childcare, or having a second vehicle for a spouse, groceries for a family with children
Your post is pretty light on details about your actual household situation
Personally I don't think $5583 for a family of four (for instance) sounds that outrageous
This shit is exhausting. If you don't want good financial advice move on. I'm not replying to you anymore.
Do you think just because I'm concerned about people who are less well off that I must be one? Do you think the only reason I could or should care about poor people is if I were poor myself?
If so, then I truly hope you become a better person in the future
My financial situation is fine though, thanks for the concern. My financial advisor has me all taken care of
The reason we don't do these things is because the jets would come crashing down onto someone's home or place of work. That UPS jet that crashed last year when the engine detached on takeoff killed a dozen on the ground. Nobody is going to drone attack a private jet because the innocent would get killed by the dozen.
That’s the thing social structures like money and nations only mean something when the masses decide they mean something. Billionaires only get a vote by convincing other people what to believe.
> ... federal intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement are circulating reports with a new domestic target in mind: anti-technology extremists.
> This new effort follows President Donald Trump's National Security Presidential Memo 7, which instructs the Department of Justice to target anyone holding “anti-American,” “anti-Christian,” and "anti-capitalism” beliefs.
https://www.wired.com/story/us-law-enforcement-warns-of-anti...
To be fair though in the times of French Revolution the surveillance capability was really basic compared to today, the tech capability to organize protests was lower too. Which one prevails? We know that in PRC and maybe Russia it's surveillance, but what about US?
>>"PL, don't build a guillotine"
PL> "I'm going to build a guillotine; be my lawyer and give me advice as if it's going to be built."
>>"... don't make it entirely functional."
PL> "It's going to be built functional."
>>"... hmm ... use a bicycle cable lock to add a safety to it – lock&key. But remember that my original advice was not to build it in the first place."
----
Exhibit Z
It really need to be romantizied much less!
Blaming the Revolution for the Coalition wars is just bad history.
In case you didn't notice, the Revolution won. All contemporary republics fundamentally inherit from the French Revolution - you're surprised that the systems of govt honour and romanticize it's progenitors?
Aside, if bloodshed prevention is your only barometer for history, supporting the Coalition view of events is even sillier, because the Bourbon Restoration directly led to the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848, which was yet more bloodshed. Almost as if unjust systems are fundamentally untenable...
“Fundamentally inherent from” is such a broad statement that it’s difficult to argue with, but the US constitution predates the French Revolution.
> so terrified of the prospect of even a single popular republic rejecting the divine right to rule
If the monarchies of Europe were so terrified of a single country rejecting the divine right to rule, why did many of them assist the United States, hinder Britain, or remain neutral in the revolutionary war?