3 ms·

Many people around the world would say the same thing about the lifestyle enjoyed by the average commenter on this forum, but most of us don't think of our inco

by dsacco 10y ago

Many people around the world would say the same thing about the lifestyle enjoyed by the average commenter on this forum, but most of us don't think of our incomes that way. The average American does not need to live in the home size that has become desirable; they do it because they can. You can't set an arbitrary limit on when money ceases to be motivating. At $100M in net worth, you no longer need to compromise on a lot of things that people with a $1M net worth have to. But at a $1M net worth, you also do not have to compromise on a lot of things that people with a $100k net worth have to, and so on and so forth. If I had a net worth of over $100M, I'd probably still do things that increase it. That doesn't seem any more inherently greedy than my seeking to increase my net worth now, when it's orders of magnitude lower. I'd do it because it's what I know to do, and because more resources is rationally better than fewer resources.

tps5 10y ago
Here's Keynes with another perspective: > When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.
- dsacco 10y ago
  I like that quote, but I disagree with it. I don't think "love of money as a possession" is a good thing, but I think it's pretty rare compared to the "love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life." One of the most life-changing experiences I've ever had was swimming in a bioluminescent bay in Puerto Rico. I've never seen so many stars overhead in contrast to absolute darkness (you have to be in remote darkness to enjoy the bioluminescence). The sky was absolutely clear and every sensory detail felt enhanced and euphoric. That vacation was a relatively expensive week for me. It didn't have to be as expensive as it was, but it couldn't have been significantly cheaper either. With $100M, I could fly down to Puerto Rico and do that every weekend, weather permitting. But here's the thing - I'm sure that experience can be had (in principle, not exact detail) in every country in the world. With $20,000, you can carefully plan a backpacking trip through Europe. With $100M, you can have virtually any experience in Europe with instant gratification. Have you ever looked at Myspace Tom's Instagram? All the man does is travel around the world to interesting places taking photos. He doesn't necessarily do things people can't do with significantly less wealth, but he 1) doesn't have to choose which things to do and 2) does them casually, because he is virtually immune to financial catastrophe. Money is freedom, because you can (in limited effect) trade it for time. I think most people love money because they love the time it can buy them, not because it is an end in of itself.
  - chx 10y ago
    But the discussion is about why do you need more than $100M. All you are describing is well within the realm of $100m. Even low ten millions is plenty -- let's say you arrive to 20M when you are 30 years old and expect to live another 60 years. This means that if you set aside 5M for safety etc you still can have a $20k "salary" every month if the money is invested in a way that it keeps up with inflation. That's a $5k plane ticket, 200 USD/night hotel room and 300 USD/day on food and such. Forever. And that's just 20M.
    - snitko 10y ago
      One simple reason why I think it may make sense to want more money is to do interesting important things. If you earn more money, the market obviously thinks you're good at producing things that sell. It's not perfect as sometimes the market (e.g. the people) prefers something rather stupid. However, in general, I think entrepreneurs are the ultimate redistributors of money in the society. I don't believe government is effecient at doing the same job: it doesn't care whether it wastes it, it always knows it will get its share (taxation is not voluntary) and it's filled with people who have no idea how to actually make a useful product. An entrepreneur earned his money by people voluntarily giving it to him for something they want. He knows what a failure is. So yeah, I think wanting to earn a lot of money is great and no one should feel ashamed of wanting that.
  - tps5 10y ago
    If "love of money as a possession" is so rare, then how come so many people who have huge amounts of money don't spend it? Anyway, the general point here is that as you acquire more dollars, the relative value (to you) of a dollar diminishes. That's all the parent post was saying. It does seems somewhat bizarre to see someone so successful still behave so ruthlessly in order to make money. Of course, that's my snap judgement. Levandowski may not be motivated by money at all. Although I doubt he's motivated by weekend trips to Puerto Rico either.
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    "Money is freedom, because you can (in limited effect) trade it for time. I think most people love money because they love the time it can buy them, not because it is an end in of itself." 1. I live in one of the richest counties in the United States. My neighbors are very wealthy. That said, they don't seem to do much with their free time. They take, usually a couple of two week vacations, usually to touristy places. They come home, and seem like they can't wait to get back to work. You look in their garages, and you don't see much besides a few nice cars. Maybe a bicycle--that's never ridden. They don't seem to have any hobbies. If the have a boat, it just sits in Sausalito. My point is they don't seem to relish the free time they could have. It's almost like they think they will live forever? Money can buy freedom, but if your determined, and don't have a lot of responsibilities (basically kids); I think the average person, with an average income can live a pretty adventurous life. I really think it's more about just doing it? You don't want to end up homless though. We all read about the fabiolous lives some new tech legend lives, but in my county, the wealthy just don't seem to do much. It doesn't make sence. Actually, it does. If you young, and make millions in tech in a few years; it's different than spending 20 years building up a business. I'm not knocking the huge amounts of money some guys make seemingly overnight. I just think the average multimillionaire is a workaholic, and even though they could retire early, and climb Everest; they are so used to their daily grind--they live seemingly boring lives? Not boring, but not how I would live, if I had that money. They do have problems, but they, and their kids, don't have the stress poor/middle people have. Even with the added stress of being poor/middle class in a rich county; the people I see at the beach, mountians, actually sailing are not the wealthy ones. Antidotal---yes! Maybe I'm missing something?
Arizhel 10y ago
>Many people around the world would say the same thing about the lifestyle enjoyed by the average commenter on this forum, but most of us don't think of our incomes that way. The average American does not need to live in the home size that has become desirable; they do it because they can. This really isn't true. Middle-class Americans who don't make enough money to sustain their current situation are at significant risk: 1) they can lose their ability to keep paying their mortgage, and then lose their home to foreclosure, or their car to repossession. Their car is what enables their lifestyle, their career, etc. Their home is where they live. They could downsize some of this stuff, but only so much: if you go too cheap on housing, you're now living in a bad neighborhood, which can be extremely dangerous. If you don't have enough money for good health insurance, your health is now at risk. Medicaid usually isn't available to poor adults who are able-bodied, and many healthcare providers refuse to accept it. There's a reason many people have as their long-term goal to pay off their house ASAP, and to get out of debt, because that means that they're now in a position to afford their current lifestyle but with a significantly lower income, which reduces their risk immensely. People who are millionaires and up do not have these concerns in the slightest. Going from a $20M mansion to a $750K house is not going to affect your personal safety in the slightest, but going from that to a $500 house in Detroit definitely will.

by dsacco 10y ago

tps5 10y ago

Here's Keynes with another perspective: > When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

dsacco 10y ago
I like that quote, but I disagree with it. I don't think "love of money as a possession" is a good thing, but I think it's pretty rare compared to the "love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life." One of the most life-changing experiences I've ever had was swimming in a bioluminescent bay in Puerto Rico. I've never seen so many stars overhead in contrast to absolute darkness (you have to be in remote darkness to enjoy the bioluminescence). The sky was absolutely clear and every sensory detail felt enhanced and euphoric. That vacation was a relatively expensive week for me. It didn't have to be as expensive as it was, but it couldn't have been significantly cheaper either. With $100M, I could fly down to Puerto Rico and do that every weekend, weather permitting. But here's the thing - I'm sure that experience can be had (in principle, not exact detail) in every country in the world. With $20,000, you can carefully plan a backpacking trip through Europe. With $100M, you can have virtually any experience in Europe with instant gratification. Have you ever looked at Myspace Tom's Instagram? All the man does is travel around the world to interesting places taking photos. He doesn't necessarily do things people can't do with significantly less wealth, but he 1) doesn't have to choose which things to do and 2) does them casually, because he is virtually immune to financial catastrophe. Money is freedom, because you can (in limited effect) trade it for time. I think most people love money because they love the time it can buy them, not because it is an end in of itself.
- chx 10y ago
  But the discussion is about why do you need more than $100M. All you are describing is well within the realm of $100m. Even low ten millions is plenty -- let's say you arrive to 20M when you are 30 years old and expect to live another 60 years. This means that if you set aside 5M for safety etc you still can have a $20k "salary" every month if the money is invested in a way that it keeps up with inflation. That's a $5k plane ticket, 200 USD/night hotel room and 300 USD/day on food and such. Forever. And that's just 20M.
  - snitko 10y ago
    One simple reason why I think it may make sense to want more money is to do interesting important things. If you earn more money, the market obviously thinks you're good at producing things that sell. It's not perfect as sometimes the market (e.g. the people) prefers something rather stupid. However, in general, I think entrepreneurs are the ultimate redistributors of money in the society. I don't believe government is effecient at doing the same job: it doesn't care whether it wastes it, it always knows it will get its share (taxation is not voluntary) and it's filled with people who have no idea how to actually make a useful product. An entrepreneur earned his money by people voluntarily giving it to him for something they want. He knows what a failure is. So yeah, I think wanting to earn a lot of money is great and no one should feel ashamed of wanting that.
- tps5 10y ago
  If "love of money as a possession" is so rare, then how come so many people who have huge amounts of money don't spend it? Anyway, the general point here is that as you acquire more dollars, the relative value (to you) of a dollar diminishes. That's all the parent post was saying. It does seems somewhat bizarre to see someone so successful still behave so ruthlessly in order to make money. Of course, that's my snap judgement. Levandowski may not be motivated by money at all. Although I doubt he's motivated by weekend trips to Puerto Rico either.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  "Money is freedom, because you can (in limited effect) trade it for time. I think most people love money because they love the time it can buy them, not because it is an end in of itself." 1. I live in one of the richest counties in the United States. My neighbors are very wealthy. That said, they don't seem to do much with their free time. They take, usually a couple of two week vacations, usually to touristy places. They come home, and seem like they can't wait to get back to work. You look in their garages, and you don't see much besides a few nice cars. Maybe a bicycle--that's never ridden. They don't seem to have any hobbies. If the have a boat, it just sits in Sausalito. My point is they don't seem to relish the free time they could have. It's almost like they think they will live forever? Money can buy freedom, but if your determined, and don't have a lot of responsibilities (basically kids); I think the average person, with an average income can live a pretty adventurous life. I really think it's more about just doing it? You don't want to end up homless though. We all read about the fabiolous lives some new tech legend lives, but in my county, the wealthy just don't seem to do much. It doesn't make sence. Actually, it does. If you young, and make millions in tech in a few years; it's different than spending 20 years building up a business. I'm not knocking the huge amounts of money some guys make seemingly overnight. I just think the average multimillionaire is a workaholic, and even though they could retire early, and climb Everest; they are so used to their daily grind--they live seemingly boring lives? Not boring, but not how I would live, if I had that money. They do have problems, but they, and their kids, don't have the stress poor/middle people have. Even with the added stress of being poor/middle class in a rich county; the people I see at the beach, mountians, actually sailing are not the wealthy ones. Antidotal---yes! Maybe I'm missing something?

Arizhel 10y ago

>Many people around the world would say the same thing about the lifestyle enjoyed by the average commenter on this forum, but most of us don't think of our incomes that way. The average American does not need to live in the home size that has become desirable; they do it because they can. This really isn't true. Middle-class Americans who don't make enough money to sustain their current situation are at significant risk: 1) they can lose their ability to keep paying their mortgage, and then lose their home to foreclosure, or their car to repossession. Their car is what enables their lifestyle, their career, etc. Their home is where they live. They could downsize some of this stuff, but only so much: if you go too cheap on housing, you're now living in a bad neighborhood, which can be extremely dangerous. If you don't have enough money for good health insurance, your health is now at risk. Medicaid usually isn't available to poor adults who are able-bodied, and many healthcare providers refuse to accept it. There's a reason many people have as their long-term goal to pay off their house ASAP, and to get out of debt, because that means that they're now in a position to afford their current lifestyle but with a significantly lower income, which reduces their risk immensely. People who are millionaires and up do not have these concerns in the slightest. Going from a $20M mansion to a $750K house is not going to affect your personal safety in the slightest, but going from that to a $500 house in Detroit definitely will.