This is a continuation of this post. 98% of the population is dead or deadbroke by the age of 65. Only 2% are financially free. In that last post I talked about how doing the exact opposite of what 98% of people do will allow you to be unusually successful. I mainly focused on the heard mentality that is looking for the stable secure job. However, many people know that 98% to 95% of business fail during their first 5 years. So if you look at my last post you would think that everyone starting businesses must belong in the 2% category. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You see a 2 precenter has nothing to do with what you do and everything to do with how you think.
For example, a person starting a business thinking like a 98 precenter may say something like this. "Let me get started and spend as little as possible to just try it out. I don't want to risk too much" I assure you if you are "trying" anything you will fail. Comments like that already show that you don't expect to succeed.
Many people get started in our business with that same sort of a mindset. Dani Johnson, calls it a lottery mentality and that is exactly what it is. "Let me spend alittle and just see if it will take off". People start working from home and think because they bought into some business that they are going to have instant overnight success. It just doesn't work that way. Here is another one, they hear about some training, seminars, or even college courses they may help them learn how to succeed in their chosen business and they say this, "When I make money I am going to get that training or take those courses". Another great example of why people with the heard mentality of the 98 precenter fails in business. Don't they realize that sounds alot like the guy that says, "I am going to start doing surgery and when I get paid, I am going to go to school and learn to do it". According to Dunn and Bradstreet, "98% of business fail due to a lack of knowledge and skill on the part of the business owner" meaning you have to get the knowledge and skill before you start making money with your business. What makes us think that we were born knowing how to succeed in business?
If you want to be a 2 precenter, you have to do the exact opposite of the 98% that are failing.
1) Make a decision to succeed in business.
2) Find a proven business model, this is any business that other people have had a track record of succeeding with. It can be any business that has a complete business model you can follow. This model should include how to get your products and services at wholesale, how to get complete comprehensive training on each stage of your business, how to cost effectively generate new clients or customers, and how to systematically grow your business. These models can be found in any business a mom and pop business, franchise, or even a home based business.
3) Follow that proven model to a "T" and do not deviate from it until you have had success to the level that it has been proven.
4) Find a mentor and follow everything they do. For me this is Dani Johnson.
All the best,
Jackie O'Quinn
1-800-620-3019
Get info about my business
P.S. Tomorrow I will show you the only definitive way to know if you are a 98 percenter or 2 precenter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The headline slaps your eyeballs: “98% of the population is dead or dead broke by the age of 65, only 2% are financially free.”
This is one of those silly “facts” circulated by promoters who love “statistics” that support their promotional style.
You can do like I did. Check out the U.S. Census – www.census.gov.
First, 27% percent of Americans die before reaching 65. If we substract those from the 98%, that leaves us 71% who are supposedly “Dead Broke.”
Of course, if we are inclusive, then we’d say that 98% are dead and/or dead broke. That’s because the way the headline states it, all groups are included. So, those who died “dead broke” before age 65 must be included in that 98%. If we count them, then those who are dead, plus those who died dead-broke, plus those who are dead-broke but living, add up to 125%. Which means that, from the standpoint of the I.R.S, we definitely have a taxation problem!
But let’s be concrete. According to the Census of 2000, only 17% of the population aged 65-74 were below the poverty level, which was set in 2005 at $10,210 for one person, $13,640 for a household of two. If a retired person has his house paid for, as most do, plus medicare, he could get by and is certainly not “dead broke.” In fact, the net worth of this age group is the highest of all age groups, including those in their 30s and 40s. Why do you think all those “investment experts” especially target them with their schemes? (They are excellent prospects for a part-time business with high integrity and rewards. But, because of their years of experience, they can often zero in on any silly statements. I guess I'm in that group.)
Here are less glowing statistics, according to a March 8, 2005, report from Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
“WESTPORT, Conn. -- The MetLife Mature Market Institute Demographic Profile of Americans 65+ shows an aging population of 36 million people, some with few assets and relatively low income; 10 million live below the poverty line [that’s 27%]. The publication reports the segment of the population between 65 and 69 has a median net worth of $114,000, including the equity in their homes, but $27,588 without it. For those between 65 and 74, the average before-tax income is $35,118 with most coming from Social Security. Of the entire 65+ population, 80% own their own homes and 20% are renters.”
An income of a retired household of $35,118 is not exactly “dead broke.” And of this segment, about 80% own and live in their own homes. I think that’s enviable and a tribute to these people who, for 40 or more years, put in much hard work and careful planning. Please – don’t demean this respectable group with your put-down of the “dead broke” label.
This blogger attributes the “fact” to Dani Johnson – it always helps to attribute your “facts” to someone famous in her own right. The blogger writes, “Our coach, Dani Johnson teaches this concept. However, this is a perfect example of how you can hear something over and over again but still not completely get it. Learning is without question a process and this just proves that point over and over again. -- [Dani] teaches that 98% of the population is dead or dead broke by the age of 65, only 2% are financially free.”
To me, this goes to show that we can hear mis-facts over and over again without questioning them because they serves our goals. Often, we will even ignore common sense because some "fact" quoted by an authority figure seems to bolster our objective. Our goal should be truth -- and not trying to convince prospects that they ought to join our system because "98%...etc."
We should question more of what we read and hear, especially if our observations don’t seem to support a certain statement.
We don’t build any credibility in network marketing, or any other field, by repeating silly statistics that must have originated from the Wonderland of Alice.
Robert,
I greatly appreciate your comment and your analytical style. However, this article was not meant to be some sort of a sales pitch or anything else. If you take the time to read my blog from start to finish you will realise the vast majority is simily a journal of my entrepreneurial endearvors. I often write articles based off of concepts that I have learned and I attribute to my success. If my readers gain encouragement and insight at all then I would consider this blog a success. I am uncertain if your comment was suppose to be some sort of attack or simply constructive? For my readers' sake there are a couple of things I need to clarify on your comment.
First you stated,"First, 27% percent of Americans die before reaching 65. If we substract those from the 98%, that leaves us 71% who are supposedly “Dead Broke.”
Of course, if we are inclusive, then we’d say that 98% are dead and/or dead broke. That’s because the way the headline states it, all groups are included. So, those who died “dead broke” before age 65 must be included in that 98%. If we count them, then those who are dead, plus those who died dead-broke, plus those who are dead-broke but living, add up to 125%. Which means that, from the standpoint of the I.R.S, we definitely have a taxation problem!"
This is mearly a play on words. The statement read plainly, "98% of the population is dead or deadbroke by the age of 65" Since most people clearly understand that stats have to be based off of 100% then you can deduce that the 98% included people who are either not living (regardless of their financial status) or deadbroke".
You also stated,"But let’s be concrete. According to the Census of 2000, only 17% of the population aged 65-74 were below the poverty level, which was set in 2005 at $10,210 for one person, $13,640 for a household of two. If a retired person has his house paid for, as most do, plus medicare, he could get by and is certainly not “dead broke.” "
It's difficult to argue that you are going to be "concrete" when you are discussing an abstract term such as "deadbroke". Deadbroke, has no objective measurement and is simply used to express to the reader that 98% of the poplulation is NOT doing well financially by the age of 65 years old.
Also your data is clearly just misguided. You are using US Census data. That statement is meant to reflect a worldwide condition not just the US.
Also you mentioned in that last comment that most people over 65% had their homes paid for! That's just absurd. Since you didn't include facts to back up that statment then I took the liberty to looks some facts up for you.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=763126
You also said that "with medicare" most could "get by". You unknowingly proved that complete stated completely true. The full statement which I abbreviated says," 98% of the population is dead or deadbroke by the age of 65, depending on friends, family, or the government to help them get by. After working for close to 50 years who in the right mind would only want to be in a position to "get by'.
You went on to say,
"In fact, the net worth of this age group is the highest of all age groups, including those in their 30s and 40s. Why do you think all those “investment experts” especially target them with their schemes?"
There are many wealthy individuals in this age range. Over 65 has more per capita millionaires than other groups they also have more per capita that are strugglig financially.
These groups are targeted by 3 major groups. Legit investment groups, Investment scams, and Reverse mortgage companies.
Legit investment companies target individuals of higher network in this group primarily because of their networth and their need to make retirement changes and estate planning.
Investment scams, target their fear espeically of the masses that don't have a high networth. Often times people over 65 are looking for ways to make money or to pay off bills but are unable to work or get the high paying jobs they once did before.
Reverse Mortgage companies target this group almost primarily. Although they are not illegal their ethics is definitely questionable. With a reverse mortgage home owners often get a certain cash settlement for the equity in their home. They do not have to repay this settlment but the poperty will default to the reverse mortgage company once the elderly person passes on. This industry would not be such big business if so many people could "get by" as you stated Robert.
You also said, "An income of a retired household of $35,118 is not exactly “dead broke.” And of this segment, about 80% own and live in their own homes. I think that’s enviable and a tribute to these people who, for 40 or more years, put in much hard work and careful planning."
After 40 years of hard working only to retire with a income of $35,000. I very scary and sad. It is absolutely sadding to realize that my grandparents and many in their generation ended up with such low incomes in their later years. I would suspect since that is a median income that the vast majority are below that $35,000 mark since some of the world highest networth individuals in the world are also in the over the age 65 category.
80% are homeowners but just as with some of the other statistics I linked to earlier many still owe own their home. Does it not seem sad that after 40 years of working one has been unable to pay off their home?
" Please – don’t demean this respectable group with your put-down of the “dead broke” label."
I almost wonder if this is what spurred your comment. Nothing was meant as a put down. I respect the elderly, I was very close to my grandparents who fall in this "deadbroke" catagory. In fact my grandfather, who was like a father to me when my own passed away at 9 yrs old, was probably the first person I ever heard use the phrase "deadbroke".
It is very clear that the overwhelming majority of people who reach the age of 65 years old simply are not doing very well. I don't blame them they came through the great depression, several recessions, and several wars. I pray that through education, future generation are able to plan better, and save better so that we will have a elderly population that can spend more time sharing their wisdom and less time looking for ways to pay their bills.
" This blogger attributes the “fact” to Dani Johnson – it always helps to attribute your “facts” to someone famous in her own right. The blogger writes, “Our coach, Dani Johnson teaches this concept. However, this is a perfect example of how you can hear something over and over again but still not completely get it. Learning is without question a process and this just proves that point over and over again. -- [Dani] teaches that 98% of the population is dead or dead broke by the age of 65, only 2% are financially free.”
Of course I attributed that statement to Dani? Who else would I attribute it to other than the source of where I learned it. It's not my statement, it's one I heard from several of her seminars.
"To me, this goes to show that we can hear mis-facts over and over again without questioning them because they serves our goals. Often, we will even ignore common sense because some "fact" quoted by an authority figure seems to bolster our objective."
I wonder what objective you feel I am bolstering other than the fact that you need to be making better decisions and choices to ensure you are financially free by the age of 65? Why would you even consider discrediting such an objective?
"Our goal should be truth -- and not trying to convince prospects that they ought to join our system because "98%...etc."
Again, there is no blatant sales pitch in this document. I am using my blog to share what I am learning. I have to date got a whopping 3 potential leads from this blog. So clearly my goal is primarly education and journaling my own journey.
"We should question more of what we read and hear, especially if our observations don’t seem to support a certain statement."
I couldn't agree with you more!
"We don’t build any credibility in network marketing, or any other field, by repeating silly statistics that must have originated from the Wonderland of Alice."
I agree again, in fact I would take it even a step further. You don't build credibility stating any facts. There is only one way to build true credibility and that is with results.
If I may ask, what are your results Mr. Robert?
Jackie O'Quinn
Post a Comment