August 5, 2005
CHUMP CHANGE (via M Ali Choudhury):
Faery Gold: I’m a millionaire? (John Derbyshire, 8/04/05, National Review)
Who wants to be a millionaire? Well, I have no principled objections. And now I find that in fact, yes! — I am a millionaire, or, at least, one half of a millionaire couple. My house — a modest three-bedroom colonial, 80 years old, on a sixth of an acre — is worth, in realtor’s jargon, “north of five”; which is to say, over $500,000. I have a sheaf of mutual funds, most left over from 401K plans back in the days when I used to do honest work in big corporations, and the bottom line on their market values is, er, north of six. Since this is all in my name, or my wife’s, and we don’t carry any debt, we are millionaires! And then some! Wooo-hooo! Break out the bubbly!
Well, no, wait a minute, hold the bubbly. That million dollars is all faery gold, the sort that looks dazzling to the eye, but melts into thin air if you try to touch it. We need a house to live in. If we sold this one, we’d have to buy another one, and they don’t come much smaller or older than this. As for all those bulging mutual funds: I am reliably informed that if I were to actually attempt to cash in any of that “money,” Uncle Sam would come down on me like a wolf on the fold — aye, and Uncle George, too — so I had best not even think of doing so. It’s all faery gold. I must continue to drive a 12-year-old car, my garage is never going to get that makeover it needs, and if my kids are to go to college, I shall have to work till I drop.What a strange, artificial business it is, this illusion of middle-class wealth. Look, I’m not complaining. I live far better than any of my ancestors, better than 98 percent of the world’s population; in the cosmic scheme of things, way better than I deserve, since I have no extraordinary talents, have never worked very hard, nor even stuck to one line of work for very long, and am clueless about investing. I’m fine with my situation. It just seems a bit… bogus.
Mr. Derbyshire captures an essential truth here: we are living in greater affluence than any group of people in history yet feel put upon. The wealth isn't the illusion. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2005 5:04 PM
Well don't leave us hanging, spell it out man!
Posted by: Scof at August 5, 2005 6:42 PMSorry, thought it was obvious. Mr. Derbyshire refers to the "illusion of middle-class wealth." The wealth is real--the notion that an American with a million dollars is in any historical or global sense middle class is delusional. We are wealthy.
Posted by: oj at August 5, 2005 6:47 PMDidn't Gregg Easterbrook write a book about this?
Posted by: b at August 5, 2005 7:03 PMWealth is real estate is not only not fungible, it isn't very reliable.
If your million-dollar abode happens to be in a city that depends on a large industrial corporation and that corporation has been targeted for extinction by the Administration, then your house may very well be unsalable at any price.
In Houston in the mid-1980s -- mid-Reagan prosperity -- people were walking out of their houses and leaving the doors open, because they were worthless.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 5, 2005 7:18 PMDerbyshire makes Eeyore look manic, he's a notorious hangdog.
Posted by: joe shropshire at August 5, 2005 7:22 PMHarry and Derb are just two of the latest to prove why if there is a letdown in housing prices, it won't be much of one: Too many folks mouthing off about a bust in housing, as if to over-compensate for not fully seeing NASDAQ crater.
And tell me more about those worthless Houston real-estate prices, Harry. My home metro area of Denver saw, in the late '80s, newly-built condo complexes in the burbs get torn down. Only to have McMansions on 1.5-acre lots be built in their place a decade later.
Posted by: Brad S at August 5, 2005 8:49 PMHarry:
You should have walked into one--dislocations in outdated industries last a remarkably short time. Of course, if you measure everything by the seconds of your own life you'll always be making such mistakes.
Posted by: oj at August 5, 2005 9:05 PMyou've never been to houston. i did go out during the crash there but didn't buy because the place is hideous. very high cancer rates too. denver is starting to crash again. nice city, shame the economy is so volatile.
Posted by: cjm at August 5, 2005 9:23 PMPodhoretz actually called Derbyshire Eeyore on the NRO Corner for a while. I assume K-Lo made him knock it off. Meanwhile, Lowry shredded Derbyshire's comments about Iraq, and other NRO writers have dissed him hard for just about everything else he writes.
So Derbyshire seems to be feeling even worse than usual. A guy with a million-plus net worth is down in the dumps. Breaks my heart.
Posted by: Casey Abell at August 6, 2005 12:17 AMOrrin:
About the larger point, I firmly agree; we do live in greater affluence than any group of people in history.
However, both the wealth and the sense of hardship are illusions.
The natural state of an American is to be middle class - although a middle class American is a rich person by the global standard, and lives as a minor noble did from any past eras.
From the July 11, '05 issue of The Daily Reckoning:
"In California, the typical person lives in a box with neither grace nor charm. But it is worth $522,000, according to the latest figures. [...] Home ownership has reached a record 69% in the U.S. Trouble is, the homeowners don't own much. Most houses are heavily mortgaged. As many as one in ten "homeowners" have no financial stake in their houses. A typical mortgage payment for a typical California house is over $3,000 a month. You would need an income of $122,000 per year to get a conventional loan for that amount. Not many people earn that much; it's more than twice as much as the median family income. That's why many people are spending half their income on shelter. But as long as prices rise, they don't worry about it.
It's when prices stop rising that real values show up. Then, the homeowner has only the expenses...and the debt...to think about. Then he begins to wonder what it's really worth to him to live there.
How much? We don't know. But the value of the typical California house is probably much less than today's asking prices."
[Emph. add.]
Casey Abell:
The point of Mr. Derbyshire's essay seems to be that he DOESN'T have a net worth of a million, despite having a stated GROSS worth of maybe $ 1.2 million.
Nonetheless, like you, I am dry-eyed.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 6, 2005 5:02 AMMichael:
That's just silly. There are 6 billion people on Earth and m ore than that have lived and died. What % would not swap their hovel for that California home? Nevermind all the other manifestations of our extraordinary wealth.
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 9:05 AMoj:
As I noted.
However, having a lovely but middle class home is not "wealth" by American standards - and the point of the excerpt is that the market value of the homes of which you speak will not hold.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 6, 2005 10:05 AMwe are a very affluent society. for some their position is very secure and they can enjoy the bounty without worry. for others, things are tenuous. even though no one in this country would ever experience anything truly bad (compared to the poor souls in darfur, for example) it's all a relative thing. people will commit suicide rather than "fall back" too far. take two men, one with $0 and one with $10m. give the first man $1m and take away $9m from the second. both now have $1m. the first man is ecstatic, and the second is inconsolable.
nietzsche said that what doesn't kill us makes us stronger; the corollary is "but sometimes you get killed". america was built on struggle and sacrifice, and it's no different today. except for all the tax eaters adding to the effort required to stay afloat.
Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 10:07 AMNo we won't and no he isn't. You just get another job and soon you pass him. The idea that losing the house you're in and having to move to the apartment down the way represents a catastrophe comparable to living in Darfur is risible.
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 10:22 AMi explicitly said it isn't comparable to darfur, how can you have possibly misread that ? one of my neighbors in colorado in fact committed suicide because of the prospect of losing his home and all that would follow. it's an extreme reaction, but it happens, and many other people experience extreme anxiety without going so far. it's nice that your own situation affords you a pollyana perspective on the american experience. there is a cheever story in there somewhere, maybe a couple of them.
Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 10:55 AMIt happens to the suicidal.
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 10:59 AMare you going to acknowledge that you miread what i posted regarding darfur ?
Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 12:03 PMYes, the point is the home will.
But not necessarily with the same family in it.
And, in the process of changing hands, two parties may well get dinged: The leaving family and the mortgage holder.
Both of whom will be living in homes more luxurious than an y monarchs ever had.
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 6:27 PMcjm:
Yes, your suggestiuon was that moving to an American apartment or smaller house was just short of living in Darfur, not identical. Mea culpa.
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 6:32 PM"even though no one in this country would ever experience anything truly bad (compared to the poor souls in darfur, for example)"
better let the wife handle the kids' homework, because you have serious comprehension problems.
Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 7:30 PMthat's right, darfur is truly bad, in absolute and inarguable terms. so how do you get to "your suggestiuon was that moving to an American apartment or smaller house was just short of living in Darfur" from anything i posted ?
Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 9:42 PM"even though no one in this country would ever experience anything truly bad (compared to the poor souls in darfur, for example)"
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 9:52 PM"no one in this country would ever experience anyhting truly bad" does not equate to "just short of living in darfur".
Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 9:59 PMNo, but "even though no one in this country would ever experience anything truly bad (compared to the poor souls in darfur, for example)" does.
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 10:03 PMno, it doesn't. have someone in the english department parse the sentence. if they agree with you i will donate $50 to a darfur charity.
Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 10:15 PMGive it to an American who just had to move to...shudder...a condo...
Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 10:55 PMMost people are about as happy as they are going to be. Sudden good fortune doesn't change this. Lottery winners are initially euphoric, then they adjust. Sudden tragedy doesn't change it either. Quadriplegics are initially despondent, and then they adjust also. On the other hand...
Almost nobody believes this. Everybody believes that becoming wealthy will make them happy. So when large numbers of people actually do become wealthy and they aren't any happier, how do they square things? They convince themselves they're not really wealthy, of course. Q.E.D.
It's too bad none of you have my rigorous grounding in cheap pop psychology, this should have been an easy one. Some days it seems like I have to do everything around this place.
Posted by: joe shropshire at August 6, 2005 11:13 PMJoe: Everyone believes that their life would be perfect if they only made about 20% more.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 7, 2005 10:06 AMwhen karma comes visitng, think of me laughing.
Even after capital gains taxes and the penalty for cashing in 401-K funds early, Derbyshire could have a better house and at least three-quarters of a million dollars in green money.
And he poor-mouths himself. What a joke.
Posted by: Casey Abell at August 7, 2005 5:12 PM