Not to infer that solvency is an issue, but the decisive factor in the total flow of spending is central to investment expenditures, for this is the highly dynamic element in the national economy. In the periodic ups and downs of economic activity it is generally the volume of investment expenditures which controls the swings in total activity.

Government Spending In the Economy

Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution and author of the Century Foundation paper,  points out, correctly, that both trust fund and personal account financing could create narrow, but not broad, pre-funding if extra saving through the pension system were offset by lack of saving elsewhere. Individuals could reduce contributions to non–Social Security investment accounts or the government could increase spending or lower taxes elsewhere in the budget.

Social Security investment accounts would make every worker a stockowner, the old, senseless division between labor and capital would be eroded. Every laborer would become a capitalist. The socialist dream of the nation's workers owning its businesses and industries would be effectively achieved. At the same time, as the nation's workers became capitalists, support for free-market, pro-growth economic policies would increase in all sectors of society.

In addition, with average- and low-wage workers accumulating large sums in their own investment accounts, the distribution of wealth throughout society would become far broader than it is today. That would occur, not through the redistribution of existing wealth, but through the creation of new wealth, far more equally held.

More Money Invested

Some form of individual accounts remains one of the primary options for restructuring the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program, more commonly known as Social Security. The President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security recommended adding an individual accounts component as a partial opt-out in the Social Security system, although they suggested several options rather than a single proposal. Individual accounts pose a number of important and complex design and implementation issues, however.

Sweden has one of the oldest and most comprehensive public pension systems in the world. The state is clearly the dominant pension provider: in 1991, Swedes aged 66 and older received an average of 84.1 percent of their pension income from the state pension system, compared with only 13.5 percent from an occupational pension and 2.3 percent from a private pension. The pension system is the largest government spending program. Pension spending increased from 4.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1965 to 12.2 percent in 1992.

The Swedish public pension system enjoyed widespread popularity. By the 1980s, however, several problems with the system were becoming evident, including increasing funding deficits in the universal and earnings-related pension tiers, a low (and price-indexed) benefit ceiling in the earnings-related pension that was gradually compressing benefits as real earnings rose, and a benefit structure that disproportionately benefited workers with rising earnings profiles and relatively short work histories, because it was based on the best 15 years of earnings.

Domestically, opponents of this citizen investment package have advanced a number of unpersuasive objections. First is the claim that there is no Social Security problem in the first place. The program has a "trust fund" that will remain solvent until 2040. But the "trust fund" contains only IOUs from the government. Redeeming them will require tax hikes or benefit cuts. So money still has to be found, starting as soon as we start trying to redeem those IOUs-which, in the next 15 years, not 35. The main alternative solution, a hefty tax increase, would make Social Security a worse deal for the young while impoverishing everyone.

The second main objection is that creating the personal accounts would involve increasing the federal debt burden. But increasing debt now in order to reduce our costs over the long run makes sense. The capital markets already reflect an understanding that the government has large unfunded obligations to meet in the future. If presented with a credible plan to cut future costs while also increasing short-term debt, the markets may not drive interest rates much higher.

Personal accounts would also, over time, increase both the public's financial sophistication and its receptivity to proposals to increase the returns to capital. It might make them a bit more skeptical of government spending, and a bit more likely to support difficult reforms reining in Medicare and the like. Providing the security of ownership, and reducing dependence on Washington, is a worthy goal in its own right. After listening to the doubters, we still think the president's concept is a good one. It is certainly better than the alternatives.

Another form of public spending before the 1930's was the borrowing activities of the State and local governments. From 1920 to 1929 the States and their political subdivisions borrowed 12.5 billion dollars. The bulk of this borrowing was for the purpose of public investment in schools, public buildings, and highway facilities.  The excess of expenditures over receipts represented by this borrowing accounted for a not insignificant proportion of the total of investment on which the high level of activity in the 1920's depended.  

Our position is that government must consider adopting the expansionist proposal should finance the proposed spending increases with taxes. Not to mean that we should immediately balance the budget, however it does mean that the increased spending should be matched by increased tax receipts.

Persons and institutions dependent upon income from this source obviously are hard-pressed. Only part of the responsibility, however, rests with the spending policy. From the standpoint of the total economy low interest rates are beneficial.

Government Spending People’s Money for Them

The traditional function of increasing interest rates, i.e., limitation of the demand for funds, is a clumsy means of allocation; clumsy because it affects all types of demand indiscriminately. In the interest of full employment it might be argued that low rates, dictated by fiscal policy or by other considerations, are desirable, with allocation determined by other means. In short, to the extent that fiscal policy has depressed interest rates, the criticism is valid in terms of immediate personal interests; but in terms of national policy it has dubious merit.

“Invisible Hand”

The government's policy towards public expenditure reflects its wish to limit the economic role of the state and enhance that of markets and individuals. This broad objective impinges on public expenditure from different angles. First and foremost, public spending has to be financed by either taxation or borrowing. The government attaches high priority to limiting the weight of taxation (especially direct personal taxation), partly because of the distorting effects it is alleged to have on work incentives, and partly because it interferes with individual freedom of choice. The government attaches correspondingly less importance to the redistributive role of taxation and public expenditure in favor of the poor.

This situation is wittily evoked in Adam Smith Goes to Moscow ( Adams and Brock, 1993), in which a skeptical prime minister of a 'newly independent country' confesses to his American adviser that he finds it improbable that independent agriculture producers would 'miraculously make the right decisions' to supply the food market. He is promptly told that he does not understand the 'fundamental principles according to which markets coordinate the decisions of free individuals--the process Adam Smith called the hidden hand.

The invisible hand illustrates how those who seek wealth by following their individual self-interest inadvertently stimulate the economy and assist society as a whole.  In capitalism, an individual pursuing his own good tends also to promote the good of his community, through a principle that he called “the invisible hand” of the market, which ensures that those activities most beneficial and efficient will naturally be those most that are profitable.

The adviser then provides a version of Smith's argument to the effect that the unintended outcome of the free but just application of the market mechanism is to channel self-interest (not greed) into consumer satisfaction and profit, hence incentive, for the producer. The biography provides a historical perspective on such invocations of Smith by indicating what the ‘invisible hand’ concept meant in his system.

Typical of 'resistance' arguments claim that support for welfare programs will decline as economic recession produces falling real disposable income for wage earners. Although varying in severity, economic recession is a common experience in West European countries; indeed, an important factor in the growth of welfare expenditure. Rose and Peters predict common trends of reduced support for the expansion of public spending in every West European country, with opposition being most prominent where economic stagnation has been most apparent, as in Britain, or where taxation levels have been most extravagant, as in the Scandinavian countries.

In turn, on wealth power, monopoly power, employer power, and political power is the end play. It should be kept in mind that, as a practical matter, the categories often overlap in Smith's argument, and power in one arena can be used to extend power in another. For example, a wealthy employer, by definition, exercises both wealth power and employer power.

The main conclusion is that the Federal Government in the face of deficits indicates that the deficits were not large enough. Fiscal thinking is too closely wedded to the past despite the fact that to many it seemed as though the limits of prodigality were being reached.

A further thought emerges from the last century spending experience: Spending programs have operated on a hand-to-mouth basis. There has never been any substantial assurance of continuation of the policy until the objectives had been attained. Many appropriations have been made for only a few months; deficiency appropriations have been necessary. The result has been uncertainty, confusion. Spending programs have been started and soon stopped

The final position resides firmly on the basis of different theories that perceptions of government spending without a visionary outlook is certain to be problematic in the approaching fiscal years.  

To take a page from historical UK, the most "extravagant" component of the mercantile system by Great Britain is its policies toward its colonies in the Western Hemisphere. A great empire has been established for the sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers...obliged to buy from the shops, all the goods with which these could supply them. For the sake of that little enhancement of price which this monopoly might afford our producers, the home-consumers have been burdened with the whole expense of maintaining and defending that empire.

The three of them are all billionaires and started building their large fortunes from scratch. How did they do it? All of them built their wealth by investing. Warren Buffet buys stocks, shares and whole companies. Soros became a billionaire by making huge leverage trades in stocks and currencies. Cahl Icahn buys controlling stakes in public companies.

In May 1999, Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft and one of the richest men in the world today, became the world’s first $100-billion man.  Financial experts believe that Gates, who became a billionaire around his 31^st birthday, will continue to grow richer and richer.  Why? Because his fortune is tied up in the over 8.7 stake he owns in the Microsoft software company, which is growing every day. Financial reporters say if his wealth continues to grow at its current rate he would become the world first trillionaire before the year 2020.

Many people think the only way to accumulate wealth is to work hard and earn large sums of money, spend it all and start all over again.  I have seen people who made great fortunes and lost them within a space of three years.  How?  They did not set long-term financial goals.  They did not know how to multiply their wealth to be able to grow your wealth you must be very intelligent to spend less than you earn and save or invest the difference.  It is only when your income becomes more than your expenditure that you must learn to save and spend less money like a wise man.

Rich people who do not develop spending plans lose their wealth in no time.  People who grow richer are people who buy shares in other companies and invest in bonds, stocks and fixed deposits in reputable financial houses.  One of the wisest ways to build safe and secured fortunes is to invest and reinvest your earnings.  The rich spend less and reinvest their earnings to compound their wealth. 

Most people do not know anything about the advantages of investing in financial houses and banking institutions.  To multiply your wealth, you must also learn to invest in bank deposits, company shares, mutual funds, stocks and government bonds.  This is one of the ways to let your money work for you.  This is one of the major secrets of great economics kingpins like the Warren Buffets, George Solos’, Ross Perots, Richard Bransons, Bruce Kovners, Phillip Anschultzs, Paul Allens, Oprah Winfreys, A.L. Williams’, S.B. Fullers, J.P. Morgans, J.C. Penneys, Robert Kiyosakis, Michael Dells and the rest. 

It is not the wise to be a financial kingpin today and become a beggar tomorrow.  This could be the result of lack of financial planning. Change your strategy. Find ways to build wealth out of your present income. You can begin by investing in other people’s success stories. Buy shares or stocks in other people’s successful corporations. Invest in mutual funds or hedge funds. Invest in gold and commodities.

No matter your present financial situation, you can begin your journey towards financial freedom. It is never too late to start planning for your financial future. Find ways to let your money work for you. It will take some few years to see your small investments grow to become great wealth. Learn to make little sacrifices. The old adage says, “It is little drops of water that makes a mighty ocean.” It takes a person of 20 years an investment of $157 a month at an investment rate of 10% to become a millionaire at the age of 60. The 30-year old who wants to become a millionaire at the age of 60 must invest $439 every month. Let me illustrate with the table below.

Ben Graham is the father of two basic stock market disciplines: security analysis, and value investing.

Graham believed that stock market prices were often wrong, because of the emotional factors involved. He developed the concept of "Mr. Market", an emotional and unstable character, to explain fluctuations in the market.

Mr. Market appears every day in your office, and offers to sell you some stock. One day, he might be hysterical with glee, and the next he's morose and hopeless. The intrinsic value of the stock doesn't change, but the price varies with the moods of Mr. Market.

Graham acquired his wealth by targeting undervalued companies. He looked for companies whose stock prices were temporarily down, but whose fundamentals were sound for the long run.

Ben Graham is the mentor of investment guru Warren Buffett, and has influenced several generations of stock market investors.

Warren Buffett b.1930

Also known as the "Oracle of Omaha", Warren Buffett is the world's richest man in 2008. He uses a value investing strategy influenced by Ben Graham.

Buffett buys companies as long-term investments, at a discount to their intrinsic value. He stresses the importance of research, and looks for companies with strong management, good potential for long-term return, and an attractive price.

His investment strategy involves discipline, patience and value. While he claims no investment favorites, Buffett is currently interested in family-owned businesses in Europe, and predicts hard times for newspapers.

Buffett owns Berkshire Hathaway, whose first-quarter profit plunged 64% this year, with $991 million in investment losses. In July, Berkshire Hathaway offset the loss by announcing the sale of Anheuser-Busch to a Belgian company for $2.49 billion, earning a profit from the purchase price of 1.9 billion in 2005.

The world's richest man pays himself a salary of $100,000 a year. It's a figure that hasn't changed in twenty-seven years.

Peter Lynch b.1944

Peter Lynch bought into Automatic Data Processing (ADP) and Yum! Brands' (YUM) Taco Bell, before Wall Street noticed their existence.

Peter Lynch uses a bottom-up approach and concentrates on a company's fundamentals, instead of listening to market chatter. He invests for the long run, and pays little attention to short-term market fluctuations.

His chameleon investment style adapts with the times, but he relies on core principles. He believes that no one can predict economic fluctuations. Lynch advocates research, and warns against long shots for building wealth.

Kirk Kerkorian b.1917

Kirk Kerkorian turned 91 this year, and has a net worth of $16 billion. Known as the father of the mega-resort in Las Vegas, Kerkorian is a self-made man, who started earning money for his family at age nine. As a young man he learned to box. Under his brother's tutelage, Rifle-Right Kerkorian fought his way to the Pacific amateur welterweight championship.

In World War II, Kerkorian learned to fly with the Royal Air Force. After the war, he bought a Cessna and began flying wealthy passengers into the small railway town of Las Vegas.

He quickly saw the potential of Vegas. In 1947, Kerkorian gave up gambling, bought a local airline for $60,000, and renamed it Trans International. He operated the airline for twenty-one years, then sold to Transamerica for $104 million.

His most famous success was a piece of Vegas land, purchased for just over $960,000, in 1962. He leased the land to Caesar's Palace for four million, and sold it to them six years later, for five million more.

His fortune comes from shares in DaimlerChrysler, MGM Mirage (MGG) and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM). He has a talent for identifying opportunities early. Kerkorian will buy, sell and then return to a company. He twice sold MGM, then took it over for a third time in 1996.

Kerkorian's recent investment in Ford Motor Co. kept stock trading at its highest levels in almost six months.

Jesse Livermore 1870-1940

Jesse Livermore made and lost millions, and once declared bankruptcy. He was notorious for short selling during the stock market crashes in 1907 and 1929, to the point that JP Morgan asked him to stop.

Livermore focused on markets as a whole, instead of on individual stocks. He would adopt a buy-and-hold strategy in a bull market, and sell when it lost momentum.

His fluctuating fortunes came from breaking two of his own rules: never listen to stock tips; and, always cut losses short.

Livermore always had an exit strategy. He committed suicide in 1940, owing more than a million dollars.

Edward Lampert b.1962

Lampert is Chairman of Sears Holdings Corporation (SHLD) and the founder of ESL Investments, Inc. Lampert created ESL at the age of twenty-five, in 1988. The company's returns average 29% a year, and Lampert is number sixty-eight on the Forbes list of 2008.

He looks for a mature business that is easy to understand, and has a strong cash flow. He targets companies with the potential to generate a large cash flow over the long run. Lampert is less focused on the management team, and willing to bring about changes in the company structure to realize a profit.

His numerous investments in the retail sector include Home Depot (HD). Other investments include CIT Group (CIT) and AutoNation, Inc. (AN).

George Soros b.1930

George Soros is a Hungarian-born American investor, speculator, philanthropist and political activist.

He's infamously known for breaking the bank of England on Black Wednesday, 1992, by selling short more than $10 billion worth of pounds.

His investment strategy revolves around the knowledge that financial markets are chaotic, and prices depend on the human beings who buy and sell. Often, buyers and sellers act out of emotion, rather than cool logic.

Soros looks for opportunities by studying value and market price of assets. He follows a theory of reflexivity, based on the idea that investor bias affects market transactions.

These days, Soros prefers philanthropy over speculation. By 2003 he had given away more than four billion dollars to help the underprivileged, in nations such as South Africa, Central Europe and Russia. In 2007 he gave $100 million to fund internet access in Russian universities.

George Soros holds shares in BUCY - Bucyrus International Inc.; ANR - Alpha Natural Resources Inc. and WIND - Wind River Systems Inc.

Carl Icahn b.1936

Icahn made headlines in 1985 with his hostile takeover of TWA. He's known as a tough negotiator and clever market strategist.

Icahn takes minority stakes in public companies and pushes for change. He does not believe in following trends. Icahn says, "... consensus thinking is generally wrong. If you go with a trend, the momentum always falls apart on you. So I buy companies that are not glamorous and usually out of favor. It's even better if the whole industry is out of favor."

In May, Carl Icahn took on internet giant Yahoo (YHOO). Icahn bought as many as 50 million shares, preparing for a proxy fight to remove Yahoo's Board of Directors. On July 21, 2008, he agreed to join the Board of Directors and end the hostilities ... at least for now.

Philip Fisher 1907-2004

Fisher was a formative thinker in the growth stock school of investing. His book, "Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits", is a standard for investors. Fisher believed in investing for the long haul, and wrote that the best time to sell a stock was "almost never".

Fisher did extensive research to help build his wealth, and preferred the technique he called "scuttlebutt" or the business grapevine, to seek out information.

Fisher bought Motorola in 1955, when it was a radio manufacturer. He held onto it until his death in 2004.

William J. O'Neil

At the age of 30, O'Neil was the youngest ever to have a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. He's the founder of Investor's Business Daily, and author of two successful books.

O'Neil uses a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies in his investing approach.

His investment style is to seek out the growth stocks that have the highest profit potential and will show a swift price rise. He coined the acronym CANSLIM to identify such stocks.

Bill O'Neil's motto is "buy the strong, sell the weak." He seeks out companies that perform as leaders, with something new to offer, and a proven rise in current and annual earnings.

Every great investment guru has an individual approach, but all follow the same basic rules: know the company and the market; never listen to market gossip; and always keep a cool head.

Yesterday I read a blog about the Government passing a bill that allows them to seize land from July 2008. This means that property owners are at risk of losing their houses to a price determined by the government. This also affects people in the estate agency business and the bond origination business. This means a whole pile of people that will be out of work in time to come. I have a peer on a well know business networking site that says you should not be a jack of all trades and master of none. This is contrary to my philosophy of multiple streams of income. I am a bond originator and whilst the prospect of losing income from that source does not excite me at all, I am comfortable in the knowledge that I have surrounded myself with multiple streams of income producing activities.

The economic situation is such these days that no one can afford the luxury of depending on one source of income. Not even employed people, take the above situations into consideration. Anyone working for an estate agent or bond originator is at huge of risk of losing their bread and butter. The time is now to embrace change or suffer the consequences. If you are employed find yourself a second income stream, be frugal and use that income to squash all your debt, pay your bond off and get debt free. Look to develop other income streams so that you can insure yourself against lack and poverty. Try to get involved in something that allows you to assist someone else, pay it forward if you will. Together we can all overcome the illusion of lack and poverty.

Buying property is usually a good investment. The important thing to remember however is to buy in the correct area and at the right price. For example if you purchase a property with the view to renting it, the relevance of location can not be stressed enough and being situated close to a tube, preferably within walking distance usually will result in not having too much difficulty in renting the property.

There is of course the issue of achieving a sufficient rental income to cover the costs of mortgage re payments and also service charges on certain properties. Property prices usually increase around £10,000 per year, therefore purchasing a property with just a return of mortgage re payments will also achieve a profit.

Usually investors begin with one property and once purchased will immediately endeavour to apply for a second mortgage on the property to enable them to use the funds as a deposit to purchase a separate property. It sounds simple and indeed it is.

The positive side to buying property has to be that your investment grows with every month that goes by. The negatives are possible problems that you may have with tenants, however there is an insurance that can be taken out that will protect you from tenants that do not pay their rent. The insurance will cover any missed payments and will also cover court costs if this course of action needed to be taken.

It is a well known fact that most people find dealing with Estate Agents an un-pleasant experience, but this too can be avoided by releasing your property to a local borough that will take responsibility of renting the property and will offer a guaranteed rent. A contract for an optional rental period of between 1 and five years is signed by both landlord and local borough and will include a section that informs the landlord that it will return the property in the order in which it was given.

Not all Estate Agents however are untrustworthy. Once you have found an agent that has dealt with the sale, purchase or rental of your property satisfactorily it is crucial to retain the services of that agent. As it is the case when choosing a builder, the sensible thing is to choose one that comes recommended, it is also the case that a recommended Estate Agent is usually the safest bet.

Our Property is a very informative site that obtains prices achieved for properties sold in the previous two years and up to the present time of any given area. Having this information will equip you with relevant knowledge when choosing to purchase a property. Information by this web site is obtained from Land Registry.

All in all property investors are mainly wealthy people and as their investment grows without any effort from themselves, I personally can not think of a better way to achieve wealth.

What then are those things that these few wealthy people do that the ordinary individual are not doing? It has been said that doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is insanity.

The followings are some of the attitudes that I have observed in my search for the things that made wealthy people who and what they are today and I believe that if we can also apply these things to our lives we can also achieve their level of wealth. It will require you to be disciplined but what more would you want if not for result after your endeavor?

You must develop that mentality for investment in every area of your life. How then can you develop this investment mentality? Follow the following steps and you are surely on your way to becoming wealthy:

1. Destroy Consumer Mentality

   many are basically consumers; they consume every amount of money that comes through their hand and later complain that they are not rich. I used to be like this until I understand that part of whatever money that comes to you is meant for investment. You must learn to save a percentage of whatever cash you get for investment sake. Your investment is what makes you wealthy not your spendings.Get rid of the consumer mentality and develop in yourself the mentality of a creator and an investor. It is this mentality that makes farmers one of the richest groups of people all over the world. Make sure that a percentage of your earnings go into savings towards investment.

2. Get Rid of Nomadic Mentality
   

    nomads are known to always be on the move; never stable in a particular lace as such they are never identified with a particular location. They are usually what you can refer to as wanderers. Look back to your life's journey and check how many business you have changed into. Are you the type that changes careers at every prompting? I know of a lady who has changed her career more than five times. She started out as a secretary, then she went to study nursing, less than two years into that she went to another job as a marketer, now she changed again less than six months to do hair dressing etc.from the illustration above there is a pattern of instability, now no one will ever take you serious if you are of an unstable nature in your career. Learn to stay long enough in a profession to build a reputation. Moving and changing careers r business every now and then will not help instead it destroys your chances of success in life.

3. Salary Mentality

    Many don't see themselves beyond their current salary regime. In actual fact salary means wages and in the virginal Greek word wages is what is paid to slaves. A person addicted to just the salary level is therefore not so different from the slave, as their mind is programmed to 30 days make one pay, such that he can't think outside the box. To become wealthy in life you need to think outside the box beyond the level of your salary. A salary earner is more of a collector and not a creator. You can kill this mentality and become a creator. What happens when a machine is created to replace what you do at work? That means you have lost your job and ultimately your salary. Move away from this point to the level of a creator. Creators find ways of becoming employers and not remaining employees. No man ever gets wealthy working for another.

4. Destroy The Victim Mentality
   

    always believing someone is victimizing you or someone is responsible for your problem will only block your ability to get creative and get out of poverty in life. A man without investment mentality will become poor in less than a year even if he wins $1m as he only knows how to spend and not how to invest. A man with victim mentality can never develop investment mentality as he is always having an excuse for remaining stagnant .Victim mentality is a limiting factor to development and progress.

5. Success Mentality

   A man who is hungry for success will always look out for ways to succeed and move from the present level to another. When you search for means to succeed opportunities will always be presented to you at every stage of your life.

6. Asset Acquisition

   Develop a mindset that is committed to Asset acquisition and not liability. An asset is anything you purchase with money which has every tendency to appreciate in value over a period of time and puts money in your pocket. This is the principle of making your making your money work for you. It puts money in your bank account without any extra effort on your part; your money becomes the effort in this case. An example is a house you purchase and renovated for the purpose of lease or rent which gives you money every month or annually. It is not the money you have in your hand now that makes you wealthy but the money you invest for multiplication that brings you wealth eventually.

7. You Must Learn
   

   To be successful you must learn and copy those things that made others succeed. There is really no need to reinvent the wheels follow what has been done and is working probably with a little innovation and you are well on your way to wealth. Every new product is just a little innovation away from the old product.

In conclusion,wealth creation is not as difficult as many viewed it but can be achieved by all who will just discipline themselves and allow a little bit of patience of some years .You don't achieve wealth in just a year but wealth is what is built up over time and multiplication of your investment will get you there quickly.

I hope you will follow the steps above and succeed as you follow them.

1. Chemical Engineering- $54,000-$70,000
2. If you work for a Company- $50,000-$75,000
3. Computer Engineer- $75,000-$102,000
4. Police man- $42,000-$80,000
5. Garbage Man- $31,000-$85,000

Jobs that pay well already

1. University Professor- $106,000
2. Lawyer- $126,000
3. Business owner/CEO of small company- $150,000
4. Accounting Consultant- $60 an hour(about)
5. Anesthesiologist- $216,000

Anyway you slice it, getting and giving respect are ingrained formalities in American culture. Some people demand respect, some people never get respect, other people give respect. Many different opinions exist regarding the importance of “respect;” however, you personality, work ethic, and motivation will dictate whether you believe “respect” to be important.

Do you care if you get respect? Do you need to give respect to get ahead? Is respect important to your success? These questions have haunted many entrepreneurs during their journey towards success; however, the most important question you need to answer is, “does respect equal success?”

You will meet many different people during your entrepreneurial journeys. All of these people will have different beliefs about business, management, and experience. Some of these people will question your abilities due to your age (young, old, or middle-aged), your appearance, and/or your gender.

Some people will never give you the “respect” you feel you deserve, and some people will simply not “respect” you. In order to overcome these obstacles, you have to believe that your success is dictated by your efforts and your abilities and not on the opinions of others. You have to KNOW that YOU control your situation.

Does this mean that you should be disrespectful to anybody who you feel is disrespectful to you? Think about it like this; are you in this game to get revenge? Does the negative attitudes of a few affect you so much that you will put your goals on hold to extract a slight feeling of power by “getting back” at somebody? Hopefully, you answered NO! Know that you are running this race to achieve your version of success. If you stay true to yourself, respect will come. Do not try to change who you are to appease the disrespectful few. Stay yourself, stay in control, and stay motivated, and you will get the “respect” for which some of you so direly yearn.

So, is respect a two way street? Do you have to give respect before you can get respect? Respect the people who deserve your respect. If you want to “brown nose” to get ahead, entrepreneurialism is the wrong career choice for you. Entrepreneurs are the renegades. We are the outcasts who refuse to work from nine to five in a small cubicle for peanuts. We are the people that are willing to risk much in order to gain more. Keep this mentality, keep your motivation, and most importantly, keep your “respect” and success will follow.

So many of us are afraid to manifest abundance because we were told that money is the root of all evil, and consciously or subconsciously we may think God will be upset if we are interested in money Actually, it isn't the root of all evil. It is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil. I don't love money so much that I would scam anyone or hurt anyone for it. But I do believe that we were meant to have abundance and to experience all joy and happiness instead of using all of our time just to keep up on the bills.

Job Security Has Changed. You Could Be OUTTA THERE in A Moment!

In the past, when a company hired you, you would probably have a chance to retire with them. Now that kind of job security is scarce. Even with qualifications, experience, and degrees, you may end up working in retail or food service. So there's a choice: we can be insecure and risk our good credit ratings at the whim of others or we can choose to start developing our own means of income separate from work. There's a recent trend toward multiple streams of income. This, actually, is a much better concept than working for one boss. If that one boss fires you or lays you off without warning, you are in trouble, and especially now, in this age where most of us spend all of the money we make and then some.

So We Must Change Our Way of Thinking Too

I've been developing multiple streams of income, and it lends to a much greater feeling of security. My work is client-based and I get paid for the hours with clients, and also for mileage and training. So, I can add clients or just as easily decide to replace a client (and they can decide to replace me). One person taking a dislike to me doesn't mean the end of my income. As I develop more and more streams of income even outside this work, I get a taste of the freedom that it would be, to spend my time honing my streams, and only replacing some when others fail or change.

Feeling of Freedom

My hours have been short at work lately because I've decided that I've had enough of working with chronic complainers, people who are never happy no matter what you do - people whose moods hit one deeply in the gut. The feeling of freedom to know that I can make up some of the income loss till I get replacement clients by writing articles for Associated Content and investing money with Prosper, as well as contributing to a paid to post forum mylot.com (no, you won't get rich there), and publishing the same non-exclusive articles that I published on AC also on Helium.com and Triond.com as well for paid per view or shared revenue income. No, I'm not the complete expert on multiple streams of income yet, and this takes time to develop to get to the point where you can lean on it, but I have the need to rebel against the rat race…a rat race that demands that I work with high levels of stress but not doing something that reflects my best self and being told what to do, and basically many expenses in my budget wouldn't be there if I didn't have to work outside the home.

Conclusion

So many people feel guilty in dealing with money. But there is no benefit in my remaining stressed, vulnerable, and unempowered. The importance of this journey of multiple streams of income for me is that I will be happier, healthier, full of bliss and joy, and be able to help others achieve the same goals.