Should people over 40 or 50 buy expensive audio equipment?

[wgscott]

Huh?

 

 

Source: Linkie-pew

[sandyk]

Perhaps the "Baby Boomers" no longer feel the need to spend so much on Booze and drugs ?

Are regular hangovers really worth it ?

[wgscott]

Perhaps the "Baby Boomers" no longer feel the need to spend so much on Booze and drugs ?

Are regular hangovers really worth it ?

 

No, they now drop anti-acid and main-line viagra.

[Snowmonkey]

 

Source: Linkie-pew

"There's nothing surer

The rich get rich and the poor get laid off

In the meantime,

In between time

Ain't we got fun?"

[bluesman]

No, they now drop anti-acid and main-line viagra.

Right - and our biggest problem is finding that "anti-acid" when we drop it.

 

You might want to look at the data and their source before reacting to them. That graph comes from the Pew Research Center, but I couldn't find any details on data acquisition so I don't know who or what they surveyed. All I can tell you is that they also say that "real net worth per household stands at $652,449 as of June 30, 2013", and I strongly doubt that many American families have a net worth of over half a million dollars. It's the tiny group with disproportionately high net worth that skews the mean. They should report the median value, which is less sensitive to outliers. And the mean is most useful as a measure of central tendency for normally distributed values - net worth is far from normally distributed. We just ain't that rich, kids!

 

So bash away, you silly whippersnappers. Just try to find a few minutes between tirades against boomers to save some money so you don't have to listen to mp3s when the jitter in your hands is worse than the jitter in your audio.

 

[Bunny]

Hiro got me thinking -- since hearing declines with age, is there really any point in spending good money on an audio system after age 40 or so? Should 60 year olds even be allowed to manage their own audio finances, or should the rest home be in charge? Wouldn't the world be better off if rich Baby Boomers donated to charity or purchased expensive audio equipment for 25 year old aspiring audiophiles?

Young people (age from 10~ 30) don't have their brain developed for taste in music for sound qualities. Usually majority of these folks want quantity over quality. For example, very overpowering bass. The bass dominates all frequencies so you couldn't hear the fine qualities of textures and details in the mid to higher frequencies. People brag about their systems because they can show "powerful bass". This may be OK for parties for young folks in the teens. When I was young, I dig for bass. I also listened to a lot of rap songs and play Playstation I with my friends all night every weekend. Don't get me wrong, there are a small percentage of this group that may appreciate for quality rather than volume.

 

The older you get, the more brain develops for sound. It's similar to maturity and experience in life.

 

It's not necessarily true that hearing worsens over age. Hearing can be maintained, or become a superman with a full-time Vegan diet.

 

 

bunny

[wgscott]

Right - and our biggest problem is finding that "anti-acid" when we drop it.

 

You might want to look at the data and their source before reacting to them. That graph comes from the Pew Research Center, but I couldn't find any details on data acquisition so I don't know who or what they surveyed. All I can tell you is that they also say that "real net worth per household stands at $652,449 as of June 30, 2013", and I strongly doubt that many American families have a net worth of over half a million dollars. It's the tiny group with disproportionately high net worth that skews the mean. They should report the median value, which is less sensitive to outliers. And the mean is most useful as a measure of central tendency for normally distributed values - net worth is far from normally distributed. We just ain't that rich, kids!

 

So bash away, you silly whippersnappers. Just try to find a few minutes between tirades against boomers to save some money so you don't have to listen to mp3s when the jitter in your hands is worse than the jitter in your audio.

 

 

... uhh, I just turned 51.

 

If you think the PEW foundation isn't reliable, feel free to use any metric you choose. I agree the median would be a more robust statistic, but on the other hand, what fraction of "The 1%" is under 50?

 

Perhaps the more telling statistics are what percentage of those aged 21-30 are employed, and of those, employed in a sustainable job that would give them disposable income to buy an audiophile-grade stereo system, and compare that to 25 or 30 years ago.

[mav52]

... uhh, I just turned 51.

 

If you think the PEW foundation isn't reliable, feel free to use any metric you choose. I agree the median would be a more robust statistic, but on the other hand, what fraction of "The 1%" is under 50?

 

Perhaps the more telling statistics are what percentage of those aged 21-30 are employed, and of those, employed in a sustainable job that would give them disposable income to buy an audiophile-grade stereo system, and compare that to 25 or 30 years ago.

 

here is a "chart that shows the median American’s net worth as compared to other countries

 

 

 

Not to mention these facts from the US Census http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20Highlights%202011.pdf I know its from 2011 but it does have some interesting data. see Figure 3

[bluesman]

... uhh, I just turned 51.

 

If you think the PEW foundation isn't reliable, feel free to use any metric you choose.

It's not that Pew's unreliable - those numbers simply do not measure real liquid worth. The data do not reflect what they're claimed to reflect and the rationale used by Pew, WSJ and everyone else projecting such metrics is specious. The net worth of an average household is calculated by dividing the capital asset value of the stock market plus the market value of all privately owned homes in the US by the number of "households". In 2010 (the last year for which I can get this stat in 30 seconds), the census bureau says there were 114,800,000 households and the combined asset value of the stock market and residential real estate was $60 trillion, which yields a mean net worth per household of $522,648. So what's wrong with this picture? Ignoring the gross disparity in distribution, the aggregate "worth" is not a real-world value. It cannot be spent and it cannot be tucked into 114,800,000 mattresses. One hundred million families simply cannot go out and spend half a million dollars each because they don't really have it to spend. Even the 1% who actually have disproportionate wealth have it on paper and could not realize the full market value of their holdings if they tried to cash out rapidly.

 

First, all those stocks and homes are only "worth" that much money if they're held (or borrowed against) - if sold simultaneously, their actual cash value would be far less. Although converting that asset base to cash in any short time frame would be impossible, assume that every stock owner and/or every home owner decided to cash out on the same day. The first few to hit the market would bring market value, but the prices would rapidly begin to drop faster than a boomer's hearing sensitivity under any kind of continuous selling pressure. And there'd be no buyers left long before there'd be no unsold assets.

 

Second, the actual number of "households" in the US is higher than that reported by the census because many actively refuse to participate (~5%), don't respond (~9%), or cannot be contacted (~2.5%). Regardless of income and worth, those missing 16.5% would reduce the mean net worth if included in the denominator - but they're not because they're not in the household count of the census. And changes in the response rate will artificially change the mean net worth figure independent of asset value. Blanket metrics like "the net worth of the average American household" are abstract concepts of little practical value.

 

The'84-to-'09 drop in "worth" of those under 35 is the result of many independent factors, e.g. the high school dropout fell from 15% to 6.6% from 1980 to 2014; less than 50% went to college after graduating from HS in 1980 and over 65% did so last year. Those high school dropouts and graduates who went to work had a higher net worth than college students, and the early disparity takes years to even out. I calculated that if I'd gone to work out of college, it would have taken me about 15 years to "break even" on having gone to medical school and done 5 years of residency. At age 50, I was better off financially, but at 35 I was 6 figures behind my friends who got jobs out of college.

 

It just ain't that simple.

[bluesman]

... uhh, I just turned 51.

...and I didn't say "young whippersnappers" - I said "silly whippersnappers".

 

Best regards -

 

David

[bluesman]

here is a "chart that shows the median American’s net worth as compared to other countries...I know its from 2011 but it does have some interesting data. see Figure 3

Interesting indeed! The dramatic difference between mean and median shows the huge influence of outliers on the mean. Our median is only 15% of our mean, while Japan's is 54%. Brazil, China, India and Jamaica have similar numbers to ours. The disparity in distribution of wealth among our population looks more like that of an emerging or 3rd world country than a stable world power with well developed social programs and support systems.

 

But to those looking for a blameworthy demographic, I will speak for my fellow boomers by saying...

[bobbmd]

That is because most of milleniums(sic?) have 'add' or just ingested too much wacky tobacco etoh or combo of those substances(and others). I am an 66yo and can hear as well as i did 40 years ago after dead concerts,'the band' concerts, pp&m concerts stones concerts in my 40's and 50's dylan's voice and his horrible concerts in my 50's early 60's and syracuse's sam and the twisters at red dog saloon and at my sigma chi fraternity house at st lawrence university( like right in front of them). I can tell the difference between horrible streaming of pandora, spotify compared to mog and now beats music and 16 bits/44.1 lossless flac from qobuz all on 10+year old semi hi-end equipment with a schiit audio gungnir dac and magi headphone amp in between. So i agree with you 100%.i could care less about mp3 lossy streams- i have found as good as sound gets with qobuz ie lossless flac and my own dvd audios and scads. No body cares about us old farts all they want to do is 'curate' our music for us(bm had an intro to the dead and didn't even include ripple!) and send to us to listen to sound like teeny boppers and gangstas listen to as well as my childrens generations does-128kbps or mp3 quality or worse. My kids grew up with someone who cares about sound quality and they pay attention to it but they still can't keep their fingers of their i-devices either.

[bobbmd]

Absolutely take it from someone who is at the ass-end of ombamacare caring for those who signed up for it

[InfernoSTi]

Interesting indeed! The dramatic difference between mean and median shows the huge influence of outliers on the mean. Our median is only 15% of our mean, while Japan's is 54%. Brazil, China, India and Jamaica have similar numbers to ours. The disparity in distribution of wealth among our population looks more like that of an emerging or 3rd world country than a stable world power with well developed social programs and support systems.

 

While I generally agree with you, the most similar country to the US is Sweden with nearly identical numbers:

 

US: $262,000 and $38,000

Sweden: $237,000 and $41,000

 

Sweden isn't an "emerging or 3rd world country" and is often held up as having "well developed social programs and support systems" so it seems the logic you are applying, while good rhetoric, fails to correlate well with the way things actually are.

 

Best,

John

[Paul R]

I find this confusing - by the chart, the US is one of countries with the best distributed wealth around. A very small minority in the > $1M column, and relatively even distribution in the other three distribution columns. Given our relatively high population count, that would tend to suggest people "move up" the economic ladder pretty steadily over their lifetimes. Unless of course, I am totally misreading this.

 

-Paul

 

 

here is a "chart that shows the median American’s net worth as compared to other countries

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12226[/ATTACH]

 

 

Not to mention these facts from the US Census http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20Highlights%202011.pdf I know its from 2011 but it does have some interesting data. see Figure 3

[firedog]

That chart on it's own with its 4 columns of wealth data doesn't mean much, and is misleading.

 

I don't think comparing the US to very downtrodden emerging (or not) economies makes much sense. Compare the US to members of the OECD and the like.

 

I don't really see how $10K and $100K belong in the same category - in real life the 2 would have a very different existence.

 

If you look at generally accepted calculations of income distribution like the Gini index, the US is generally ranked as the most unequal of the developed economies. Again, that's not a perfect statistic but it tells you something.

 

Wealth distribution is a different stat, but even here the US is one of the more unequal countries by Gini index, especially when compared to other developed economies.

 

Sweden and Denmark are at the top as having among the most equal distributions of income.

 

Not trying to make a value judgement here, just trying to point out that the above chart isn't very helpful.

[NOMBEDES]

Keep your hands offa my stack Jack.

 

~Pink Floyd.

[bluesman]

While I generally agree with you, the most similar country to the US is Sweden with nearly identical numbers

Sweden's only similarity to us is in the raw distribution of net worth - it's very different from the US in two important and contributory ways. First, there's still a tiny (0.2% of the population) and very wealthy nobility in Sweden, and the income inequality they perpetuate is transferred from generation to generation. Fully 2/3 of the richest Swedes inherited their wealth, while only 1/3 of the richest Americans did so. There's much less entrepreneurship in Sweden and there's much less drive to accumulate wealth. The outliers in Sweden are the holders of old money - there are few nouveau riche Swedes. So Sven that's got is Sven that keeps, and them that's not don't care or try as hard to change it as Americans do.

 

The second difference explains why. The strong social safety net in Sweden makes it less necessary or desirable to save and invest. Viewed as insurance, personal wealth is less necessary with strong social resources so plentiful and available. As a result, people feel freer to spend their money, instead of saving it for emergencies or for retirement. So fewer Swedes than Americans care about or strive to amass personal wealth.

 

And those social resources are paid for by incredibly high taxes. Look at the difference in tax revenue as % of GDP:

Yes, Sweden and the US look similar in terms of the absolute inequality of wealth. But add the above context and we're worlds apart.

[bluesman]

Sweden and Denmark are at the top as having among the most equal distributions of income

...but not of wealth.

[Paul R]

That chart on it's own with its 4 columns of wealth data doesn't mean much, and is misleading.

 

I don't think comparing the US to very downtrodden emerging (or not) economies makes much sense. Compare the US to members of the OECD and the like.

 

I don't really see how $10K and $100K belong in the same category - in real life the 2 would have a very different existence.

 

If you look at generally accepted calculations of income distribution like the Gini index, the US is generally ranked as the most unequal of the developed economies. Again, that's not a perfect statistic but it tells you something.

 

Wealth distribution is a different stat, but even here the US is one of the more unequal countries by Gini index, especially when compared to other developed economies.

 

Sweden and Denmark are at the top as having among the most equal distributions of income.

 

Not trying to make a value judgement here, just trying to point out that the above chart isn't very helpful.

 

I looked at the GINI section of the World Bank website, and in the brief few minutes I had to spare, was unable to get it to display any meaningful data. I was interested to see how they calculated their rigid mean, which would almost certainly skew the results some. Part of the problem is the US, or any "first world" country, has so much wealth that it invariably skews the whole subject.

 

I find it a little crazy that people with a mortgage, two car payments, and $50K in credit card debt worry about the "1%" taking control of the country.

[mav52]

 

I find it a little crazy that people with a mortgage, two car payments, and $50K in credit card debt worry about the "1%" taking control of the country.

That is crazy, almost like people worrying about what a person can hear and can't. It sure is a weird world.

[bluesman]

I find it a little crazy that people with a mortgage, two car payments, and $50K in credit card debt worry about the "1%" taking control of the country.

Think how Swede it would be if they didn't, Paul!

 

David

[InfernoSTi]

Sweden's only similarity to us is in the raw distribution of net worth - it's very different from the US in two important and contributory ways. First, there's still a tiny (0.2% of the population) and very wealthy nobility in Sweden, and the income inequality they perpetuate is transferred from generation to generation. Fully 2/3 of the richest Swedes inherited their wealth, while only 1/3 of the richest Americans did so. There's much less entrepreneurship in Sweden and there's much less drive to accumulate wealth. The outliers in Sweden are the holders of old money - there are few nouveau riche Swedes. So Sven that's got is Sven that keeps, and them that's not don't care or try as hard to change it as Americans do.

 

The second difference explains why. The strong social safety net in Sweden makes it less necessary or desirable to save and invest. Viewed as insurance, personal wealth is less necessary with strong social resources so plentiful and available. As a result, people feel freer to spend their money, instead of saving it for emergencies or for retirement. So fewer Swedes than Americans care about or strive to amass personal wealth.

 

And those social resources are paid for by incredibly high taxes. Look at the difference in tax revenue as % of GDP:

Yes, Sweden and the US look similar in terms of the absolute inequality of wealth. But add the above context and we're worlds apart.

 

The dramatic difference between mean and median shows the huge influence of outliers on the mean. Our median is only 15% of our mean, while Japan's is 54%. Brazil, China, India and Jamaica have similar numbers to ours. The disparity in distribution of wealth among our population looks more like that of an emerging or 3rd world country than a stable world power with well developed social programs and support systems.

 

So you are saying your previous post of 15% isn't really an indicator but if you consider other data not on the table you can draw similar conclusions as you stated previously?

 

Again, I stated I generally agreed with you but the rhetoric was just that as the data presented didn't correlate with the conclusion you drew (obviously from other data). I am also wondering why the US and Sweden both have 4.7% of their population with more than $1,000,000 in wealth? That sounds very similar to me.

 

One big issue is the absolute level of poverty country to country. Being in the top 25% of some countries is much worse that being in the bottom 25% of other countries in absolute levels.

 

A second big issue is that in the US, the opportunity to work hard and move up based on your individual effort is higher than nearly anywhere else in the world. This is a significant factor in the consideration of equity: does one have a chance to change one's current condition with the means available? Right here in Texas, our current Secretary of State Berry arrived from India with $200 to her name at the age of 21. While a bit of a advantaged person in that she had a degree from India indicating she was not impoverished, it is still a remarkable story of hard work being rewarded. Micro loans and education has been making a dent in the issue with third world and emerging countries but much more effort is needed.

 

John