[JayJuanGee]

(10-11-2013 04:46 PM)Prophylaxis Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 05:15 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

if a guy can have enough passive income to be able to satisfactorily live within those means, then that guy could be considered to be rich b/c he is choosing whether or not to engage in extra work to supplement his passive income.

I agree with this. However, I'm curious, where in the article did it say you had to have X assets to be considered rich? The example you gave would certainly belong in the 'rich' category. The term 'rich' in the article can be applied beyond monetary terms.

Yes the article is simplistic and the world is not black and white - but the article does a good job of de-bunking certain myths when it comes to making money and changing your mindset. It is written this way intentionally to reach a wider audience.

Prophylaxis:
I have no major disagreement with any of the points of your above post, and accordingly, I believe that guys can obtain benefits from OP's article in various ways, especially if guys are considering richness in terms of monetary wealth.

Nonetheless, I maintain my assertion that oversimplifications within the article are unnecessarily vindictive and judgmental towards people without monetary worth.

Accordingly, b/c the article does NOT define what is rich and what is poor, it creates artificial framework around concepts of money which implies that being rich is connected with a certain quantity of money (and you are correct, the article does NOT specifically say how much money it would take to be considered rich).

(10-09-2013 05:15 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

Some guys could create enough passive income with $300K to be satisfied with a $1,000 per month passive income....

In the above-quoted section of my previous post, I was attempting to be somewhat concrete by giving examples of ranges of passive income that may be considered monetarily "rich," and in that regard, I had asserted that a guy with passive income of as LOW as $1,000 per month may be considered rich - which I suggested that $300K in capital could fairly assuredly cause a sufficient income stream for $1K per month passive income.

Even though I did NOT go beyond describing passive income in my previous post, I could have gone on to define rich to even applying to guys who "have to" work for income - b/c in some circumstances, the work that a guy chooses is clearly being carried out by free choice rather than by coercion, and there is a certain richness in having free choice.

Accordingly, we could go on and on to describe variations of "free choice" in order to attempt to determine whether certain guys are rich or not.... which does not necessarily tie into concepts of how much money the guy is earning or his monetary quantity of assets.

Surely, the article will have some resonance with the vision of the world of some guys, and I happen to NOT be one of those guys who resonate with the points of the article.