So that's the latest excuse? Bad financial management?

Most American households don't have disposable income, and even the ones that do it is modest. This whole "pull your bootstraps up!" talk about what is essentially under $6K/year of disposable income is pretty unrealistic.

And why shouldn't middle America enjoy creature comforts? The upper classes certainly do and aren't exactly great at financial planner either with their lifestyle often meeting their income.

The reality is that people at the top are taking a larger and larger piece of the pie since de-unionisation, and the middle class has almost vanished as a direct result.

I understand what I'm saying is easily conflated with what no-empathy libertarian/conservatives say. I'm a Pikkety-reading progressive who absolutely thinks the U.S. government has to consider a wealth tax, increase top marginal tax rates (and add brackets), etc. This does not mean people have 0 responsibility for their finances. Most people can and should do better.

> Most American households don't have disposable income

This is consistent with what I've said: much of their income could be spent much more efficiently. Transportation and food alone are two areas where a normal American could easily save $10k+/year without any real drop in quality of life.

> This whole "pull your bootstraps up!" talk about what is essentially under $6K/year of disposable income is pretty unrealistic.

1. Where'd $6k/year come from?

2. Even $6k/year invested at 7% annually nets $1.3M over a normal career.

> And why shouldn't middle America enjoy creature comforts?

Nobody's saying they shouldn't. Just they should be aware of their cost. At the end of the day, you trade your time for money. It's important to respect that money, and not frit it away on "creature comforts" that don't really bring you any joy.

> The reality is that people at the top are taking a larger and larger piece of the pie since de-unionisation, and the middle class has almost vanished as a direct result.

Hear hear! I'm with you. Again: this isn't an either-or situation. When you buy expensive high-margin things, you're voluntarily donating your money to the 1%ers. Don't do that.

Yes but those 10% rich people didn't necessarily get there by avoiding unnecessary crap like coffee or cell phone bills. They most likely got there from legacy or pre-existing accumulated wealth.

Source?

From what i gather, most millionaires (not super wealthy) had relatively common jobs or business and became wealthy through savings.

Those that inherited their massive wealth aren’t that common.

> From what i gather, most millionaires (not super wealthy) had relatively common jobs or business and became wealthy through savings.

Source?

I happen to be reading "The Millionaire Next Door" [1], and this has some truth to it (statistical excerpts [2]). Most "working class" Millionaires own a small business and are very frugal, continuing to live below their means after obtaining their wealth. Frugality alone will not help you attain the quoted wealth level, but it is a component (along with a healthy income and/or equity/asset ownership).

With reference to "common jobs", that would be limited to high income professions, such as doctors and attorneys.

[1] https://smile.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Am...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/c...

There's also ways to inherit wealth that isn't directly just receiving cash. It can be inheriting your parents' house, car, antiques, or simply inheriting a life that didn't begin in the slums or ghettos.

So you can either spend money on useless junk that is advertised to you, or you can buy stocks in the companies that are producing the junk and the ads. What a choice!

Or buy bonds, or real estate, or start a business, or a nuclear bomb shelter, or build a house, or donate to charity, or whatever. These are hardly the only two options.

Ah, there it is, the condescension that brings down civilizations

You're right that most Americans have a poor grasp of finance and capitalism - they don't teach it in school. Maybe if more people learned what the game is then they'd play it.

Huge citation needed, if for no other reason than this is consistently used to justify cutting welfare programs for people who actually can’t afford things like health insurance or food. “The poor can’t manage money” has been a popular method of keeping people poor for hundreds of years.