Thanks, Michael!

> For the last few days I've led you on a
> merry chase. Trying to get you to THINK -
> use your noggin - about why a migrant has a
> tendency to succeed more oft than a native
> born citizen.

> I could've just come out and said it. You
> would have nodded your head and gone on your
> way. Far better if you discover it for
> yourself. Because then you own it... it
> becomes an epiphany. The kind that
> Archimedes had when he sat in his bath and
> it overflowed.

> Let me thank all of you who took part in
> that thread... and the many who read along
> without posting. Some of you "got
> it" right away. Some of you skirted
> around the edge. And some decided it would
> be better to hit me with a sock full of
> pennies.

> Before telling you what it is (oh my, I
> sound like Morpheus talking to Neo in The
> Matrix... would you like to know what...
> it... is?), let me relate a story which has
> the necessary ingredients - though hidden as
> usual...

> Joe - not his real name - arrived in the US
> with some clothes and a few spare bucks. He
> could not speak English.

> He got himself a minimum wage job - the kind
> people who cannot speak English get because
> they don't really have any other choice -
> and a place to stay.

> He worked during the day and took English
> lessons at night. Once he had learned
> English he saved up enough money to buy a
> welder and some metal (he loved welding). He
> then set about welding security bars for
> windows and selling them to the people who
> lived around him.

> He now has a very large business selling
> security devices for windows, hires only
> migrants who cannot speak much English and
> pays for their English lessons himself. He
> also donates $250,000 per year to
> "bodies" that teach English to
> newcomers who cannot speak English.

> His story is typical of migrants.

> Now let me quote some of the posts that
> "got it right". (All bold added by
> me.)

> First there is Tam's post... the first
> person to get it...
> Having nothing (especially debt ) can be
> very liberating. Think about it, many
> imigrants come from extremely poor countries
> looking for a better life and don't take for
> granted all that we do. Instead of spending
> their earnings to pay debt (for items that
> could be considered luxeries) or keep up
> with the Joneses, they invest in themselves
> and the basics. There are so many things
> people think they need simply because the
> have always had it or becuase someone else
> has it.

> Here's an example of the difference. A kid
> moves out of his parents home to live on his
> own. He gets cable, an entertainment center,
> new car, eats out, etc. and goes into debt
> - why? Because that is what his parents did
> but what he doesn't consider that either
> they are carrying a lot of debt (and that
> money could be spent elsewhere) or that they
> slowly worked up to the point where they
> were able to afford the extras. Then he sees
> other people have things and he thinks he
> needs them to.

> An imigrant comes to this country with
> nothing (and usually not having had all
> these extras) and worries about the basics.
> He then invests in himself. Next to get it
> was Chris H
> WHY are they able to survive on the
> minimum

> ... have no debt and stay out of debt.

> When they enter their new home, they
> (presumably) have no debts... Steve
> Rollison also got it (pretty well) in a
> round about way...

> Immigrants--most of them, anyway--arrive
> without any "stuff" (as the great
> philosopher and observer-of-life, George
> Carlin, puts it). Consequently, they don't
> have to divert any of their meager incomes
> to "maintaining and upgrading"
> their stuff.

> Example: If I drove a beat-up wreck of a
> car, I'd "have to" spend money on
> repairs to keep it running... or buy a newer
> car ( probably on credit ).

> Without having to spend money on maintaining
> any "stuff," (going into debt -
> MR) immigrants are able to invest their
> meager incomes in themselves (e.g.
> education) and in their dreams (e.g.
> entrepreneurial undertakings or
> savings/investment accounts).

> Such investment becomes habit... which leads
> to long term financial success.

> In a similar vein, many "native"
> citizens come to the conclusion late in life
> that they need to invest in
> themselves--instead of buying more stuff--if
> they are going to be able to enjoy
> comfortable retirements.

> Unfortunately, most of them reach this
> conclusion with too few years left to be
> able to turn their "spend, spend,
> spend" lives around. Steve, like Tam,
> expanded on the reasoning. Showing how it
> matched the criteria I hinted at.

> They arrive in the country debt free ! They
> are adults with all the usual adult
> knowledge but without debt . With no
> credit history or the other items Simon
> mentioned in his post, they can't even get
> into debt if they wanted to. They are forced
> to live within their means. As their means
> are very little, a minimum wage job does see
> them get by. The excess (savings) is spent
> in self-investment or business pursuits. By
> the time they "qualify" for the
> opportunity to get into debt, they have the
> habit of living without debt.

> People spend their whole lives trying to get
> out of debt. They want instant riches - to
> pay off their debt. Bankruptcy is viewed as
> debt relief. Look at all the "debt
> relief" ads in your local newspapers.
> They start their adult life in debt - from
> university fees, etc. Then immediately get
> into more debt right away - car loan, home
> loan (got to have the American, UK,
> Australian, whatever country you live in,
> dream), hire-purchase, rent-to-own, lease to
> own, pre-approved credit cards, and so on.
> As long as they can make the payments they
> think they are fine.

> Reality check. Sell off all your do-dads to
> pay off your debt. Are you debt free? The
> answer is probably NO! So, you have a
> negative net worth. (Scarey thought.)

> The migrant with just $1 in their pocket and
> no debt has a positive net worth. They start
> out infront of where most people are today.

> Sure they have less "stuff". They
> have NO DEBT though. So they aren't going to
> spend the next 25 years paying for something
> that has long outlived its usefulness, and
> may even be thrown out with the trash.

> Amber also...

> ...save part of their earnings... and can
> then, much easier, take advantage of an
> opportunity than if they are encumbered with
> debt... And Alexander too...

> Immigrants have cultivated a THINKING
> PROCESS/HABIT of living on essentials with
> the money they have back in their country.
> When they arrive in the 'better' new
> country, not only they have no debt , they
> CAN live on 'minimum wages' (minimum wages
> IN THE NEW COUNTRY - could be MAXIMUM back
> in their country) because that's what they
> have been doing. To expand... and not just
> from a poor-to-rich country example, but
> from a western country to another western
> country example...

> It costs money to go live in another
> country. Airfare. How much? At least $1,000
> one way, per person, from Australia.

> But that other country won't just let you in
> with a passport. They want to see: proof you
> can support yourself, proof of job offer,
> proof of the half a million to one million
> dollars you are bringing with you.
> (Depending on which type of Visa you want to
> enter on.)

> To do this... have enough money to live on
> and enough money to get over there in the
> first place... usually means you have to
> save it up. Very hard to save when you are
> in mountains of debt.

> Also, the moment you leave you will most
> likely have sold off everything else you
> own. Clearing your debt in one hit.

> You arrive as a debt free adult with a
> life's worth of knowledge - and hopefully -
> wisdom.

> Most people in the country you move to will
> be in debt. They will only get out of debt
> when they retire and their
> "payout" pays off their debt. But
> at 65+ years, this is too late for most
> people to increase their wealth. And
> besides, they still do not have the "no
> debt" habit.

> But you, with no "history" in that
> country, are forced to live a debt free
> life. Without debt tremendous amounts of
> money can be saved and then invested - which
> will make more money.

> The Richest Man in Babylon tells the story
> of the camel trader who got no-where until
> he paid off his debt.

> THINK. Lenders will lend an amount of money
> that could be serviced with about 30% of
> your income. In other words... if you earn
> $3,000 a month, they will lend you an amount
> that would require monthly repayments of
> $1,000.

> If you did not take on this debt, you would
> have $1,000 a month spare money to spend.

> It also means... with such a debt you could
> actually live on $1,000 less per month -
> after all, with the debt you don't see that
> money anyway.

> I mentioned Karol's post... in that post his
> parents arrived with about $400. Including
> whatever else they had (clothes etc.) they
> may have had a positive net worth of $500
> and no debt.

> In that situation they are forced to spend
> wisely and can't get into debt even if they
> want to. The no-debt habit forms, they end
> up not ever needing debt. And certainly not
> using it to buy do-dads.

> So there you have it... the plain &
> simple (and yet ellusive) advantage migrants
> have - and why they often become more of a
> success than a native born citizen.

> Thank you all for your input. Please feel
> free to add to this.

> Michael Ross