4 ms·

While it's good to critically revise such concepts, there are a few things worth nothing: 1. there is a spectrum of wealth. of course it's better to have milli

While it's good to critically revise such concepts, there are a few things worth nothing: 1. there is a spectrum of wealth. of course it's better to have millions rather than spiderwebs in the bank, but it's inappriate to use as reference, in reasoning, the exact opposite. 2. quite subtle: everybody has a boss. even if you're the CEO, it may be the board; or it's the clients (don't think that because you have a very successful product, the market demand aligns with your wishes); or it's even the managing position itself (what will happen two weeks after completely disconnecting from your ten thousands people company?). 3. people's standards increase with the salary, therefore everybody has to work to mantain such standards. you won't see a millionaire living in an 80 sqm apartment in the suburbs or moving around with bike (so to speak); therefore, even a millionaire will have to work. there are so many other small subtle misconceptions, but I think 2. and 3. are very important to keep in mind. don't get me wrong, it's been said and studied that a (minimum) position of middle/upper middle class relieves from many of the problems of the likeness you reference, while at the same time giving enough freedom in one's choices, but I think it's wise to separate the ability to prepare/make life choices which give freedom, from the perceiving wealth as the source of freedom. All IMHO!

dsp1234 10y ago
have him struggle to pay for rising rents with kids to clothe and feed, and put him in a job that he can't afford to quit and where he has to struggle every day with a shitty boss but it's inappriate to use as reference, in reasoning, the exact opposite. Note that it's not powerful argument because it's the 'opposite'. It's powerful because this is the reality for the many/most of Americans. The argument isn't 'take away everything', it's 'put him in the same position as most people'.
scoot 10y ago
> there are a few things worth nothing Freudian slip?
randomdata 10y ago
> you won't see a millionaire living in an 80 sqm apartment in the suburbs or moving around with bike (so to speak) I would have thought you'd be more likely to see a millionaire living in those conditions. You don't get rich by living extravagantly, you get rich by living on the bare minimum and investing the rest. Granted, a detached house could have been a good buy in the right market over the past while.
vibrato 10y ago
There's another way. One can find peace in a more minimal existence, and retire with less than a million dollars (and some youth!). For software engineers, this is a realistic goal.

dsp1234 10y ago

have him struggle to pay for rising rents with kids to clothe and feed, and put him in a job that he can't afford to quit and where he has to struggle every day with a shitty boss but it's inappriate to use as reference, in reasoning, the exact opposite. Note that it's not powerful argument because it's the 'opposite'. It's powerful because this is the reality for the many/most of Americans. The argument isn't 'take away everything', it's 'put him in the same position as most people'.

scoot 10y ago

> there are a few things worth nothing Freudian slip?

randomdata 10y ago

> you won't see a millionaire living in an 80 sqm apartment in the suburbs or moving around with bike (so to speak) I would have thought you'd be more likely to see a millionaire living in those conditions. You don't get rich by living extravagantly, you get rich by living on the bare minimum and investing the rest. Granted, a detached house could have been a good buy in the right market over the past while.

vibrato 10y ago

There's another way. One can find peace in a more minimal existence, and retire with less than a million dollars (and some youth!). For software engineers, this is a realistic goal.