OMG is this really Michael Jordans house?

Pretty amazing. Must be nice to be Mike.

This is the part of wealth the freaks me out, when you shoot right past "living as well as any human being could possibly want" to "insane ostentation for its own sake".

Like he sat down and said "Hell, I'm Michael Friggin Jordan, livin' large ain't gonna cut it, I gotta live freakin' humongous.

I remember going to see the gate back in 1999 when I was visiting a friend in Chicago... very impressive. I found this pic of the front gate. It was taken by a Taiwanese tourist!

http://taiwan543.com/cello/personal/200305-8.jpg

Makes you wonder about that "size" thing, doesn't it?

Originally posted by e1618978
People in need require less than ever, as poverty is at an all time low in the US.

Back to MJ's house, it looks like he had an indoor basketball court, and then replaced it with an outdoor one to improve the view from his house. Makes sense as basketball is no longer a full-year thing for him now.

At 29,000 square feet, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that he has both and outdoor courts. The winters (and summers) can be brutal in northern Illinois.

BTW it is actually in Highland Park, IL:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.201374,-87.838247&spn=0.005045,0.007532&t=k&hl=en

There are over 200 mature 40' pine trees ringing his property that MJ reportedly purchased from others and had transplanted for a cost of up to $10,000 each.

The guy spent more than most people will earn in a lifetime just moving trees around.

Yeah, wealth never trickles down.:lol:

It isn't just that Jordan is mega-rich. How many people are getting rich building that darn house.

Dude, I'm a retired multimillionaire.

Really what did you do?

I landscaped Jordan's house.

Nick

Interestingly, contrast the size of his home with this chicagoland billionaire's home ( http://www.cityofevanston.org/CountyPhotos/05/05354010020000.jpg)

Being that close to the street would seem like a security risk for a billionaire.

I don't really like either house - I would build a medium sized stone house on 100 acres, personally.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Buffet?

Warren Buffet lives in Omaha, with a vacation home in California.

Then again, maybe we should just have the front photo. My post has been edited.

Originally posted by e1618978
Your google skills surpass mine. Oprah maybe?

94 H Ty Warner 61 5.0 United States United States , IL , Chicago
122 William Wrigley Jr 41 4.3 United States United States , IL , Lake Forest
144 Lester Crown & family 79 3.8 United States United States , IL , Wilmette
292 John Calamos 65 2.2 United States United States , IL , Naperville
292 Samuel Zell 63 2.2 United States United States , IL , Chicago
321 Matthew Bucksbaum & family 79 2.0 United States United States , IL , Chicago
387 Thomas Pritzker 54 1.7 United States United States , IL , Chicago
413 Michael Krasny 51 1.6 United States United States , IL , Highland Park
413 Penny Pritzker 45 1.6 United States United States , IL , Chicago
437 James Pritzker 53 1.5 United States United States , IL , Chicago
437 Jay Robert (JB) Pritzker 40 1.5 United States United States , IL , Evanston
437 Jean (Gigi) Pritzker 43 1.5 United States United States , IL , Chicago
507 Oprah Winfrey 51 1.3 United States United States , IL , Chicago
584 Marvin Herb 68 1.1 United States United States , IL , Chicago
584 Nicholas Pritzker II 61 1.1 United States United States , IL , Chicago
620 Neil Bluhm 67 1.0 United States United States , IL , Chicago
620 Gary Comer 77 1.0 United States United States , IL , Chicago

Jay Pritzker...founder of Hyatt hotels...dead now (I think).

Originally posted by Splinemodel
Whatever. He clearly put a lot of money back into the domestic AND local community by have all that built and maintained.

It is like of like buying an Aston Martin car.

Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.

But the people who made the car are employeed because you bought it, and it keeps a piece of British culture alive. If everyone bought Toyotas, the world would be a gray place.

You can't make quite the same culture argument for a large house, but it does keep a lot of people employed. Michael Jordon is providing for a lot of college educations when the money finally runs all the way downhill.

People that do landscaping don't make more just because there is a lot of landscaping to do. Only the 1 guy who owns the business makes more.

That isn't true. When there is more landscaping to do, the demand for landscapers rises and so do wages. If the spike in demand is big enough, those landscapers quit and form their own businesses, and they also make big money.

For example, after hurricane Fran ran through Carolina in 1996, many landscapers formed their own cleanup businesses and went from dead broke to millionaires in two years.

Gosh, thanks everybody for the lessons in dumb-fuck economics.

Now, if only we could concentrate more wealth into even fewer hands, then the rest of us would be sitting pretty, what with all the house-cleaning and pool vacuuming and grounds keeping and brass polishing gigs.

Obviously, the only way to get money into the hands of the average American is to make sure that very wealthiest among us get to live like medieval kings, so that they might be obliged to dribble some of their largess on the peasantry.

It tell you, 1850 is shaping up to be a banner year!

Don't blame the rich people for spending their own money, instead blame the people that gives them tax reductions they don't need, when the state (deficit...), and the people in need could use the money more than ever.

And who put you in charge of deciding who needs what tax cuts?

Jordan got rich of the all poor dumbshits who pay silly money to go see him dribble the ball and buy sneakers simply because there is his logo on them.

It is like of like buying an Aston Martin car.
Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.

Really? You pay some through your ass to get the same underengineered, low quality Ford parts that you can get on a $15k Focus.

Originally posted by kscherer
Makes you wonder about that "size" thing, doesn't it?

Sounds like compensation to me.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally posted by mynamehere
Aston martin is owned by FORD...hmm...

They are still wonderful, hand built cars.

Are you going to reject the best Rolls-Royce ever made because it is now owned by BMW? The best Bentley because it is VW? The best Jaguar XJ because it is owned by Ford?

The only manufacturer that has not dramatically improved via this buying spree is Volvo, because it was already perfect, and Ford is throwing out all its old designs and re-branding Volvos as Fords (Ford 500, next years Focus, etc)

As far as I am concerned, Michael Jordan can have whatever he wants. I am against the imposition of any system, by any official or government department, or law, or whatever else, that says that he (or anyone else) can't.

What is disappointing however, considering Michael Jordan's well-deserved status as a public figure for his extraordinary achievements in basketball, is that he is yet another in an endless string of the super-wealthy who are making highly visible and public statements that ostentation and gross overconsuption are at least OK, or even laudable. Many people (including millions of naive kids) who look to this man as a rolemodel of almost godly proportions now have one more cause to buy into the myth that materialism (this time in the form of gross opulence and overblown consumption) is concurrent with all the things that are actually important as regards being a human.

Is Michael Jordan any better off (in the ways that count) for owning a property the size of a small town? Hell, the poor soul probably needs GPS to find his way between the bedroom and the kitchen. It's tough to imagine how the hell can anyone could regard such a palatial establishment as "home". But there again, I have only lived in standard-size homes which fit 5 people in comfort, rather than 500.

Michael Jordan is free to own whatever house he wants... but what a shame its something so... absurd!

Originally posted by skatman
Hmm... that was exactly my point. If you're buying an Astin Martin (anything besides an old DB5 which actually appreciates in price), you're a sucker. Simple as that. Because as far as car qualities go, it sucks for the price. Your pay for the badge.

You've obviously never owned one.

No - I have never owned one. But the new AMV8 vantage looks wonderful - I don't know what you are all complaining about:

http://www.fast-autos.net/astonmartin/astonmartinamv8.html

If people stopped buying aston martins (or pick some other car manufacturer if you don't like aston martins), then they will all be gone in 50 years. You mentioned buying a used DB5 - you only have that option because some rich guy bought it first 40 years ago. If you have no rich people, you lose ALL high end stuff, and you can no longer buy it, even used. All you get is Toyota.

But forget I was talking about cars - pertend I talked about owning a $100,000 pices of sculpture. or a $100,000 stereo.
Without rich people, you lose most of the funding for the arts and for high-end audio.

My point was that there were benefits to society in addition to the benefits to yourself when you buy an expensive thing like that. The artists benefit physically, and society benefits by having more cool stuff in it.

And it goes way beyond that as well. Any skilled trade that only rich people can afford (custom woodwork, cabinetry, stonework, etc) would go away if the rich did not exist.

Most importantly to this forum - anything that requires rich early adopters (such as the Macintosh) early in its history would never get have gotten started. This includes stereos, computers, and commercial space flight. Do you think that the mac mini would be available today if it were not for a bunch of rich people buying the original Macintosh, which was a very expensive toy?

of course, everyone here is probably in the world richest 1%. We have a whole lot of unnecessary and wasteful things and habits compared to the vast majority of people in the world.

Chris, could you change that link? thanks

The point of private messaging is so we don't have to derail a thread.

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If you are directing this to me...I don't have PM enabled.

I will be happy that you edit your thread the way Giant want.
The owner of the house should not be happy to have the adress of his house displayed on internet.
Thanks for your understanding.

Originally posted by addabox
Gosh, thanks everybody for the lessons in dumb-fuck economics.

Now, if only we could concentrate more wealth into even fewer hands, then the rest of us would be sitting pretty, what with all the house-cleaning and pool vacuuming and grounds keeping and brass polishing gigs.

Obviously, the only way to get money into the hands of the average American is to make sure that very wealthiest among us get to live like medieval kings, so that they might be obliged to dribble some of their largess on the peasantry.

It tell you, 1850 is shaping up to be a banner year!

The more free people are in their actions, the greater the distribution of outcomes.

i.e. If you are free to do whatever you want, some people will fail to become rich, or will choose to do something that is guarenteed to not make them rich.

The Gini coefficient represents this mathematically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

The higher the gini coefficient, the greater the dispairity between rich and poor (and this coefficient has risen slightly in the US over time).

But the Gini coefficient does not only measure inequality. In the absense of government corruption and crime (which is largely the case in a democracy), it also measures freedom (because freedom gives you the chance to become rich or to fail and lose your wealth more readily). As long as we do not have an oppressive government, the higher the gini coefficient the better, because that means that we are all the most free to reach our potential.

It seems to me that the people who are bitter about the disparity between rich and poor fall into the following categories:

1. Rich people who are guilty of their wealth
2. Poor young people who are pessimistic about their ability to become rich through their own efforts.
3. Poor middle-aged or old people, who resent the success of others.

The bitterness that I see is all individual psychology - no amount of taxation can fix #1 and #3 - but #2 can be counteracted by a strong social security system (so young people feel safe to grow old), and by abundant education choices.

The reality is that we live in an abundant society, and fears about poverty, homelessness and starvation (which is what you are really worried about when you are worried about the differences between rich and poor) are non-rational. Unless you are so insane that you can't get to the welfare office, our social safety net covers you.

Originally posted by e1618978
It seems to me that the people who are bitter about the disparity between rich and poor fall into the following categories:

1. Rich people who are guilty of their wealth
2. Poor young people who are pessimistic about their ability to become rich through their own efforts.
3. Poor middle-aged or old people, who resent the success of others.

You should also make sure to draw a distinction between "bitterness" and genuine concern about wealth disparity (especially if it is growing). Concern and bitterness are different things. The concern may be legitimate and can raise valid questions for a society to think about.

Self sufficient living really isn't an option for those born into modern society.

Unfortunately, those living in poverty would be better off in a non-industrialized/info-age society. For them, quality of life isn't improved by being a member of the "system". Instead, they work mind numbing jobs and suffer from a wide variety of environmentally caused mental illnessess. Most would be better off in just about any socio/economic system than which they are currently living.

People like us have greatly benefitted from the current economic system and the society spawned from it. However, less successful humans, those less adept at valuable rolls in modern society, have actually been hurt. It is for this reason that I am in favor of structuring our tax code such that everyone bennefits from huge conglomerates and multinational corporations. Membership in the system isn't optional. The successful amoung us shouldn't have absolute free reign to capitalize on the work of less successful humans.

The current inequitable distribution of wealth is the type of thing that makes the average joe eventual rise up and break the system from which they have little to gain.

Originally posted by skatman
It's public info anyway. Why does it matter?

The house is a private property. I will never give a pic of my house with the adress.

We work more hours per week than just about any society in history and spend the very little time with family and lifelong friends. Elderly are now required to work well past the age where they are truly efficient. It used to be that grandma lived at home and helped mom with providing an enjoyable household for the extended family. These were pleasant times even without electricity and clean sheets.

We are working longer and harder than ever and have less time for living. Granted, we can't realistically return to ages past. But I'm not wearing rose colored glasses here. Modern life isn't all that great unless you're good at playing the current economic "game". Those who aren't are getting screwed.

Why doesn't he have a regulation b-ball court?

Originally posted by Power Apple
Well, good for Michael Jordan. If he likes to buy and live in that mansion I see nothing wrong with that! Now, the tax cuts that Bush gave to the richest americans, that's an all together different discussion. Don't blame the rich people for spending their own money, instead blame the people that gives them tax reductions they don't need, when the state (deficit...), and the people in need could use the money more than ever.

I'm nodding my head up and down. Couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I'm nodding my head up and down. Couldn't agree more.

C'mon with all that whining about how much somebody has crap. Theres no reason to blame Bush and his evil tax cuts. Back to big ass over the top houses that can live 120 people but instead house 6 (including the maid).