California had a per capita income of $29,906 during the five-year period comprising years 2010 through 2014. About every third county and every third place in California had per capita incomes above the state average. Though somewhat counterintuitive, this implies that counties and places with per capita incomes even slightly exceeding that of the state can be classified as "high income" given the natural division of places into a top third (high), middle third (medium), and lower third (low) when ranked by per capita income. Hence, the upper third of all places in this ranking have a per capita income with a lower bound roughly equal to that of the state, about $30,000. The median place and county in California had a per capita income of roughly $25,000, and the lower third of both types of geographies had per capita incomes with an upper bound of about $20,000. Places and counties with the highest per capita income were concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area, which has a relatively high cost of living. Those with the lowest per capita incomes were concentrated in the Central Valley, an economy in which agriculture assumes a primary role.
Roosevelt saw the economic Bill of Rights as something that would at least initially be implemented by legislation, but that did not exclude either the Supreme Court's development of constitutional jurisprudence or amendments to the Constitution. Roosevelt's model assumed that federal government would take the lead, but that did not prevent states improving their own legislative or constitutional framework beyond the federal minimum. Much of the groundwork had been laid before and during the New Deal, but left many of the Second Bill of Rights' aspirations incomplete. Internationally, the same economic and social rights were written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
Whether you take a “distribution” (aka free-cash-flow) in the form of a dividend, interest payment, capital gain, maturing ladder of a CD, etc, you are still taking the same amount of cash out of your portfolio. Don’t fall for the trap of sub optimizing your overall portfolio’s performance because your chasing some unimportant trait called “income”.
My personal finance blogs were started with $100, but you can start a blog with $20 if you buy hosting on a monthly basis. That’s 4 Starbucks coffees or 4 packs of cigarettes many paycheck to paycheck people do find a way to buy. After six months of HARD work, my first site started generating $2,000 a month, and today, those three sites generate over $5,000 a month, while all I have put in was hosting for $100-ish every year each, and a website redesign for under $1,000 after three years. Freelance writing and translation jobs are also a sizable part of my income that did not require any upfront investment. Investing $10 a month in index funds is also a realistic way for many to build yet another income stream.
The bottom line is, it’s smart to have multiple income streams no matter who you are. Why? Because the more ways you can earn money without compromising your integrity, the better off you’ll be. And if you’re self-employed, having multiple income streams is almost essential. Not only will you enjoy a higher income, but you won’t go broke if one stream ends out of the blue.
What spurred this blog post was an idea put forth by my friend at ESI Money in which he talks about how the first million is the hardest. ESI shares how his net worth growth has accelerated. The first million took 19 years of work (the clock starts when he started working, not at birth!) but the 2nd million took just 4 years and 9 months. J Money took this same idea and started at $100k, which took him 7yrs 11mos. Each of the next $100k milestones took close to 18 months each to reach.
Stocks (shares) paying dividends are typically a reliable source of income but they have higher risk of capital losses than cash and bonds. So, it’s wise not to chase yield indiscriminately. The 10 highest yielding stocks on the ASX 200 (the 200 largest companies in Australia) are shown in the table below. But their share price performance on average over the last year has been underwhelming, as shown in the far right column: