12 ms·

What It’s Like to Grow Up with More Money Than You’ll Ever Spend

197 points by kaboro 8y ago

cgoecknerwald 8y ago
> I keep trying to tell [my kids] that money is morally neutral. It does not, in and of itself, make you a bad person. It also does not, in and of itself, makes you a good person. Being rich individually might not be morally bad, but inequality probably hurts society overall. "No drop is responsible for the flood" yada yada. > Within a couple of years I was giving away more money than my parents, who had much more money that I had, which they told me was embarrassing to them... I really considered giving it all away at a certain point in my 20s, and I know people who did that. And I wish I could tell you that it was courage that kept me from doing that, but it was mortal fear. I didn’t think I would be able to survive. I was afraid I was a hothouse flower. I didn’t know if I could live on my own. I think I have experienced this on a much smaller scale - the fear of committing to a career change (out of SWE) due to financial insecurities. Going backwards, financially, is incredibly difficult - it's so easy to get locked into a lifestyle that you simply can't relinquish it up voluntarily. > I’ve spent a lot of time earning things like post graduate degrees that make me feel legitimate. And those feelings have started to go away. But that’s outsourcing your sense of self. She's not the only one!
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  > inequality probably hurts society overall This suggests that if I find a gold nugget while hiking, somehow that hurts society? Inequality benefits society overall. It provides a motivator for people to improve their lot, thereby indirectly improving the lot of many others. (For example, in the 90's the newspaper reported that Microsoft had created 10,000 millionaires in the Seattle area, exclusive of home ownership.) Edit: I think it's ineffably sad that whenever I post that people can better themselves, that life isn't totally random, one has choices, I get a strong negative reaction.
  - jowiar 8y ago
    The problem with this mentality is feedback loops. If money flows to those who own things more easily/readily than those who do things, society will be heavily stratified despite any individual efforts to improve one’s lot.
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      Easy fix. Earn money by doing things(wages), then buy things that make you money (retirement account, etc).
      - throwaway2048 8y ago
        Except the people that have lots of money already will always outearn you on average.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        Most people in Germany lost everything in WW2, I mean everything. They were reduced to beggars. But it wasn't long after the war ended that the people who had money before the war had money again, and the people who didn't before, didn't again. I.e. some people know how to make money. They make their own luck.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - tathougies 8y ago
      Well, I mean the government insists on only allowing rich people to invest and prevent poor people from doing the same, so the claim that his mentality is what's concentrating wealth while the government's own policies get away scot free is rather silly.
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        Anyone can invest. At robinhood.com, you can even buy just one share of stock for no commission. I know a person who scrimps enough to be able to buy one share of stock per month.
- BucketSort 8y ago
  > but inequality probably hurts society overall. The innovative pressure produced by inequality is something that should not be unappreciated. Although it's a sore spot for many, so is any type of discipline or system that is necessarily harsh for it to work. HOWEVER, inequality that is so stark and dramatic hurts society. My position is that everyone should have the right to the basic necessities of life (as FDR was a proponent of [1]). As a person from the lower classes, I'm fine that people live like kings and I don't. If I really want that life, I should have to work very very hard for it. What I'm not cool with and despise is having the fear of homelessness and hunger held over my head so that I am forced to dance for my rich masters. In an age of exorbitant wealth and excess, this is getting ridiculous. At the rate we are going, in the future we will have people owning planets with colonies of robots and still have starving people. At what point do we say enough is enough? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
  - darawk 8y ago
    I agree so much with this. I really find the focus on inequality weird and sort of childish. Complaining about inequality strikes me mostly as an attempt to sublimate envy into a politically palatable narrative. What we really ought to focus on is not reducing "inequality", by pulling the ceiling down...but raising the minimum standard of living by pulling the floor up. I think UBI is an excellent way of doing that, but there are many.
    - Retra 8y ago
      Wealth inequality is the main cause of power inequality, and is thus a major reason why something like UBI won't happen just because it benefits poor people. You can't make the world better if you are powerless, and you are powerless so long as you can be overruled by those with more wealth than you.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > Wealth inequality is the main cause of power inequality, and is thus a major reason why something like UBI won't happen just because it benefits poor people. Poor people seem pretty powerful to me. In a world where rich people are infinitely powerful...what percentage of tax revenue do you think they'd be paying? 0%? 10%? The top 3% if earners paid over 50% of income tax in the US in 2016 [1]. That doesn't seem particularly powerful to me. Or, if it is, that power isn't wielded especially self-interestedly. > You can't make the world better if you are powerless, and you are powerless so long as you can be overruled by those with more wealth than you. Your inferences are correct, but your premises are wrong. And if you're worried about money influencing politics, well, i've got news for you: reducing wealth inequality is just going to make the influence of that money even less transparent than it is now. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rvn1045 8y ago
  > inequality probably hurts society overall Inequality does not hurt society, lack of social mobility hurts society. If we had a society as equal/unequal as we have today, but had perfect social mobility inequality wouldn't be a problem. Politically this is a very hot topic and people are becoming increasing hostile towards rich people. I don't think there should be a problem with people getting rewarded by outsized sums if they create a business or add value in whichever way. I do think there should be limits to the amount of money someone can inherit - should it be possible for someone to inherit 10 billion dollars? that just seems too much.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gringoDan 8y ago
She seems to be very thoughtful about this. Main takeaway is what I've read elsewhere: money amplifies your character. If you were an asshole when you didn't have money, you'll be even worse with it - you can pay enough to not be around anyone who will call you on your B.S. Conversely, if you were charitable before, you'll be able to do a lot of good with a larger checking account.
- mud_dauber 8y ago
  “Money amplifies your character.” I really like that. Thanks.
- Tactic 8y ago
  I hope you don't mind if I appropriate that phrase. Although for comedic effect I may change it to: money, like alcohol, amplifies your character. ;)
moocowtruck 8y ago
cool how about you pay off my adoption loan debts :D
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I grew up with little, and it was always more than I needed. So does that count?
ticmasta 8y ago
>> In some cases, all I have to do is not be a huge asshole Man, you can get sooooo far in life with this low bar, yet lots of people fail to clear it....
- teekert 8y ago
  Haha when I read it a distant bell chimed somehere in my head and your remark makes me think: "Yes, indeed."
- analyst74 8y ago
  It's easy to think not being an asshole is simple. But if you look more closely, what defines an asshole is subjective. For example, does not offering water to your guest make you an asshole? In some circles it does, in some it does not. What about offering food? On top of that, one also should not be TOO nice, it raises suspicion, make you a doormat, and most likely make your social interactions more difficult. So when the goal is walking along a subjective line of being reasonably nice, you'll see why so many people cross to the asshole side, according to one person's standard.
wallflower 8y ago
For the less altruistic angle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_insanely_wealthy_people_buy_that_ordinary/cnnmca8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_i...
- LouisSayers 8y ago
  Wow, thanks for posting!
  - spectrum1234 8y ago
    That first answer is so good. These are those needle in a haystack gems on Reddit these days.
- shafyy 8y ago
  Wow. This is an excellent thought experiment to picture being super rich: > PERSPECTIVE. The wealthiest person I have spent time with makes about $400mm/year. i couldn't get my mind around that until I did this: OK--let's compare it with someone who makes $40,000/year. It is 10,000x more. Now let's look at prices the way he might. A new Lambo--$235,000 becaome $23.50. First class ticket internationally? $10,000 becomes $1. A full time executive level helper? $8,000/month becomes $0.80/month. A $10mm piece of art you love? $1000. Expensive, so you have to plan a bit. A suite at the best hotel in NYC $10,000/night is $1/night. A $50million home in the Hamptons? $5,000.
  - alexpetralia 8y ago
    Who makes 400mm _per year_? This feels similar to converting 1 day of revenue into an "MRR" number. [Edit] To be fair, these people probably exist, but they are very, very few (far higher than any banker or celebrity).
    - lazyjones 8y ago
      > Who makes 400mm _per year_? People who own > $8b, so a few 100, plus some more whose businesses are doing really well.
skookumchuck 8y ago
When you have a lot of money, you can do something great with it. Like reinvent the rocket industry. Or rid the world of polio. Or buy up land and create nature conservancies. Or buy a bunch of WW2 wrecks, restore them to flying condition, and make a wonderful museum for them.
- izzydata 8y ago
  Reminds me of the movie about the person who built the Getty Center in LA. W https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty
JonasJSchreiber 8y ago
> So that’s what you need to know about money, right? If that is your primary measure of success or value in life, then good luck with that, because it will never feel good. This has the sound of a subject matter expert speaking with authority. And it makes me feel like my adult life so far has been a waste
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  Do you measure your self worth primarily on the amount of money in your bank account?
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Having no money in your bank account can definitely impact your feeling of self worth. It can make a lot of other people angry at you, like landlords, power companies, etc...
    - 50656E6973 8y ago
      Agreed. I think the important thing is to recognize the diminishing returns of money on genuine human needs
  - as1mov 8y ago
    Money is a pretty objective assessment what's a person's worth. It's an actual measurable quantity, it's meaning doesn't vary from person to person like it does other indicators of worth (i.e looks, personality, altruism etc.)
    - kjeetgill 8y ago
      I'm not sure anything about the question at hand, a person's worth, is objective. Money is easy enough to measure and compare though, and I think that's part of it's appeal as a measure. It's precise even if it's not accurate.
munificent 8y ago
Man, this has to be the most intelligent self-aware interview I've ever read. Her insight into her own character is really sharp.
randomacct3847 8y ago
From my personal experience money’s main function is to give you more options to do whatever, which has nothing to do with happiness and given the “paradox of choice” can actually make you more unhappy with every decision because you’re always thinking about the opportunity cost of decision 1 vs decision 10000.
- modernthumb 8y ago
  I can definitely see that point of view at a certain amount of wealth however I see its primary function as security and stability. It really does buy peace of mind when you know that no one is going to take your shelter away, your car isn't going to break down in the middle of the night, you can keep the heat on, and you'll be able to stay afloat in an emergency.
  - rofo1 8y ago
    Other than these reasons (which should be considered basic, but I am aware they are not), I don't think I'll ever need money more than that. To me, money is what you use to buy food, shelter, transportation, pay bills. If you can afford more than that, you are golden (in my book). If you have that, and you still have savings, what's the difference between you and a billionaire ? All the rich people I know (I don't know many) are deeply unhappy. So, I know for a fact it doesn't buy happiness directly. I live frugally, well below my means (except that I take vacations sometimes), and have a huge safety net; also, I never discuss my finances and I don't like to form opinions about someone based solely on (or heavily influenced by) their money. I cannot see the joy of having things as a status symbol, it just doesn't make sense to me. People that buy things primarily to show to others that they can afford them, just screams self-worth issues to me. I guess it depends on the way you value yourself.
alexashka 8y ago
The interesting bit for me is how she doesn't say a single interesting thing. What has she actually done in her life, other than writing cheques that total 70 million? I don't know, and I've read the entire interview. We really have a crisis of imagination, both on the behalf of the poor and the rich. The poor want to be rich, the rich go to restaurants, buy shoes and write cheques. This is the sad bit about rich people - they just can't seem to figure out that you can't make someone interesting, by sending them to Oxford, Harvard, etc. They're just bored, or maybe it's just me, bored and grumpy, of reading HackerNews :)
- rococode 8y ago
  You're right that she doesn't say much about what she's done, but I think that wasn't the point of the interview. The interview was intended to explore the lifestyle of someone who grew up in a super rich family, and the questions are clearly worded to get at that. None of the questions ask about her accomplishments, so of course she doesn't talk about them.
- onychomys 8y ago
  I count writing checks to charity as doing something with your life. If she wanted to do nothing at all except sit in her undies on the couch watching netflix and also give $70M away, that's a life well lived.
- joefourier 8y ago
  Now would be a good time for the return of the "gentleman scientist" of the 19th century. Not just passively giving money away to worthy organizations, but educating yourself enough to be an authority in that field. Wealth on the order of hundreds of millions affords your own private research team with a good enough budget for many fields, the possibility of pursuing high-risk basic research with no expectation of immediate financial gain and the ability to sidestep the trappings of the academic environment. It will be impossible to have more money than you can spend in that scenario - the capital demands of global scientific research far exceed the liquid net worth of any single human individual.
  - 8y ago
geophile 8y ago
When I was in college, I knew one of the more remote heirs to the Seagram's fortune. I don't know if his father was a billionaire, but they were extremely rich. This guy turned out OK professionally. He didn't have to work, but he found something he wanted to do, and it fulfilled him. I think the company he started did well financially, too. But his brother. This guy could not attach himself to anything. On one hand, he really hungered for something to absorb him. On the other hand, he seemed to think: what's the point? I'll never earn a zillionth of a percent of what I'm inheriting. He asked me about what I did, and I explained software development. He was immediately very interested, asked lots of questions, asked if he should retrace my steps (BASIC, punch cards, ... -- this conversation was many years ago). And then he never followed up. Years later I heard that he married a vegan (many years before that was a thing), and became quite zealous about veganism.
- Balgair 8y ago
  I've been going through some German history recently, specifically Prussia and the Junker class. One theme that really sticks out, relative to our modern times, is the relations between the nobility and the military. Time was, the scions were always in the chain of command. Throughout post-Roman European history, the 2nd and 3rd sons of landed nobility would commonly be in the officer classes. The 1st Crusade was mostly lead by these 2nd and 3rd sons trying to grab some land for themselves. The flag of South Carolina has a crescent in the corner, possibly due to all the 2nd and 3rd sons that came to the Americas (a crescent is common in the personal heraldry of such nobles and kinda became a 'thing'). The military was one outlet for these men that had the upbringing, the education, the nutrition, and the cache, but were unfortunate in the order they came out of some woman's womb. ROTC at the Ivies has been effectively excommunicated since 1970 or so [0]. Though we no longer have these primogeniture issues, we still have all these young men and women, these scions of industry and politics, that haven't a chance at making fortunes like their parents have. They can't be 'normalized' into their 'family offices' and fortunes. It's very similar to the issues the Europeans faced with their children and the issues about land and money. Maybe some of the issues that we have today could be ameliorated via a stronger use of the military as a place where these scions could be, well, dumped. Bring back ROTC at Princeton? Yes, I know, you can't have them anywhere near the actual command of people. But you could dump them into 1st Lieutenants and have them shit-n-stink with the regular people of our country. Get them roughed up, dirty, and friendly with the regular citizen. Get that gold leaf rubbed off them. Look at Donny's kids, for example. They've taken to hunting and big game very well. It's not too dissimilar to military life. [0] Actually, as usual, it's complicated : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_ROTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_ROTC EDIT: Another good example are Princes Harry and William. Though they are actual nobility, they do provide a good example for the current era.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
This is a very level headed person, this Abigail.
thorwasdfasdf 8y ago
that last little statistic she dropped was misleading. Money does buy happiness, for most people. Think about it. Would you be less happier if you made half your current salary? Before you answer the question, think about all the life changes that would occur, should this happen: maybe you have to move into a bad neighborhood in a smaller apartment, no more eating out, no more vacations, no more dental procedures, etc. Okay, sure there is a threshold, perhaps at 800K or more your happiness wouldn't increase greatly. The point is, the vast majority of people are below that threshold. And, I've seen a number of happiness survey that show there's a pretty good correlation between happiness and earnings both at a macro level (comparing countires with high gdp per capita to low gdp per capita) and individual levels as well.
- mcv 8y ago
  Money buys happiness up to a certain point. I believe it was around $70,000 per year; at that point, you live a comfortable life where you don't have to worry about basic necessities and have some money left over for fun stuff (obviously this depends on the basic cost of living where you live; it's likely to be higher in Silicon Valley than in Thailand).
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    In his book, Joe Dominguez called this point, "enough." https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/27/us/joe-dominguez-58-championed-a-simple-and-frugal-life-style.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/27/us/joe-dominguez-58-champ...
  - mercutio2 8y ago
    I believe this study has been pretty thoroughly debunked. There is no known (statistical) upper bound to how much more money helps people’s happiness. It’s just that it increases happiness logarithmically, and people are bad at reasoning about logarithmic growth. Individual people may feel like they have enough, and not wish for more money, and that’s great. But when you look at happiness and satisfaction statistics (notably, not the same thing), the greater your windfall, the greater your long term happiness.
hutzlibu 8y ago
Interesting interview, but about the title: I really cannot imagine having more money than ways to spend, as there are so many things to do and get, like my new space telescope and moonstation and I heard those things are really, really expensive.
JabavuAdams 8y ago
I started this article annoyed by the title, and expecting to be disappointed, but it was actually quite an interesting read.
pmoriarty 8y ago
There's a fascinating documentary called Born Rich[1], which was made by the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, where he interviewed his friends who were also born in to incredibly wealthy families. It was interesting to see how differently they all reacted to it, some embracing their wealth and partying like mad, others rejecting it and trying to live a normal life. Highly recommended. The documentary's director and some of the participants in this film and its sequel, The One Percent[2] (which was not nearly as good), got in a lot of trouble for talking about their family's wealth, presumably because the ultra-rich families really don't want a lot of attention. The blowback included lawsuits, and, if I'm remembering correctly, an adopted daughter of Warren Buffett's got disowned by him after her own participation in The One Percent, where she talked about him and what it was like for her to be part of his family. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Born-Rich/70008257 https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Born-Rich/70008257 [2] - https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-One-Percent/70092779 https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-One-Percent/70092779
- kkarakk 8y ago
  "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin" - warren buffet deals with family matters in exactly the scrooge mcduck like way i thought he would
jopsen 8y ago
> Money is morally neutral. It does not, in and of itself, make you a bad person. Money is opportunities, in the Bible Jesus says to invest our talents, and to give away our money. Having money is having opportunities, wasting that and not making something of it couldn't that be morally reprehensible? I'm no saint, and I'm certainly guilty of hording more money than I need (even if I'm far from super rich). But I'm not under some illusion that I couldn't help more than I do. Or that not giving away money is a neutral choice. Note. I did give away around 5% of income after taxes last year (I'm just a regular overpaid nerd, so not comparable to the author -- but still privileged like most people here). My cousin taunted me a few years that the Bible says you should pay 10% to charity after taxes and living expenses. I don't think I'm quite there, well, maybe if you do some creative a accounting, hehe :) For me picking a number to donate was mostly about ensuring that it was high enough that I felt like I had said it like I meant it! But maybe my savings could be smaller maybe I could help more people -- hording money certainly doesn't seem like a morally neutral thing to do.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Good for you! Incidentally, there's a group that actually did pick 10% as a nice round number. (I'm not doing that either, yet, but I think about it.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can
  - jopsen 8y ago
    There is a bunch of movements around giving away just 1%.. Again, that's pretty good, if those movements were to pickup momentum. Note. I'm by no means a saint, for many years I weren't giving anything away..
RickJWagner 8y ago
Good for her. She seems like a remarkably good person.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
> If I were queen of the world, I would pass a law against private jets, because they enable you to get around a certain reality. You don’t have to go through an airport terminal, you don’t have to interact, you don’t have to be patient, you don’t have to be uncomfortable. These are the things that remind us we’re human. > It wasn’t just the plane, but it’s not a small thing when you don’t have to be patient or be around other people. It creates this notion that you’re a little bit better than they are. And for the past 40 years, everything in American culture has been reinforcing that belief. We say, “Job creators, entrepreneurs, these are the people who make America great.” So there are people walking around with substantial wealth who think that they have it because they’re better. It’s fundamental to remember that you’re just a member of the human race, like everybody else, and there’s nothing about your money that makes you better than anyone else. If you don’t know that and you have money, it’s the road to hell, no matter how much stuff you have around you. Wow. I'm very impressed with her. So many great quotes here.

197 points by kaboro 8y ago

> I keep trying to tell [my kids] that money is morally neutral. It does not, in and of itself, make you a bad person. It also does not, in and of itself, makes you a good person. Being rich individually might not be morally bad, but inequality probably hurts society overall. "No drop is responsible for the flood" yada yada. > Within a couple of years I was giving away more money than my parents, who had much more money that I had, which they told me was embarrassing to them... I really considered giving it all away at a certain point in my 20s, and I know people who did that. And I wish I could tell you that it was courage that kept me from doing that, but it was mortal fear. I didn’t think I would be able to survive. I was afraid I was a hothouse flower. I didn’t know if I could live on my own. I think I have experienced this on a much smaller scale - the fear of committing to a career change (out of SWE) due to financial insecurities. Going backwards, financially, is incredibly difficult - it's so easy to get locked into a lifestyle that you simply can't relinquish it up voluntarily. > I’ve spent a lot of time earning things like post graduate degrees that make me feel legitimate. And those feelings have started to go away. But that’s outsourcing your sense of self. She's not the only one!

skookumchuck 8y ago
> inequality probably hurts society overall This suggests that if I find a gold nugget while hiking, somehow that hurts society? Inequality benefits society overall. It provides a motivator for people to improve their lot, thereby indirectly improving the lot of many others. (For example, in the 90's the newspaper reported that Microsoft had created 10,000 millionaires in the Seattle area, exclusive of home ownership.) Edit: I think it's ineffably sad that whenever I post that people can better themselves, that life isn't totally random, one has choices, I get a strong negative reaction.
- jowiar 8y ago
  The problem with this mentality is feedback loops. If money flows to those who own things more easily/readily than those who do things, society will be heavily stratified despite any individual efforts to improve one’s lot.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    Easy fix. Earn money by doing things(wages), then buy things that make you money (retirement account, etc).
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      Except the people that have lots of money already will always outearn you on average.
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        Most people in Germany lost everything in WW2, I mean everything. They were reduced to beggars. But it wasn't long after the war ended that the people who had money before the war had money again, and the people who didn't before, didn't again. I.e. some people know how to make money. They make their own luck.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Well, I mean the government insists on only allowing rich people to invest and prevent poor people from doing the same, so the claim that his mentality is what's concentrating wealth while the government's own policies get away scot free is rather silly.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      Anyone can invest. At robinhood.com, you can even buy just one share of stock for no commission. I know a person who scrimps enough to be able to buy one share of stock per month.
BucketSort 8y ago
> but inequality probably hurts society overall. The innovative pressure produced by inequality is something that should not be unappreciated. Although it's a sore spot for many, so is any type of discipline or system that is necessarily harsh for it to work. HOWEVER, inequality that is so stark and dramatic hurts society. My position is that everyone should have the right to the basic necessities of life (as FDR was a proponent of [1]). As a person from the lower classes, I'm fine that people live like kings and I don't. If I really want that life, I should have to work very very hard for it. What I'm not cool with and despise is having the fear of homelessness and hunger held over my head so that I am forced to dance for my rich masters. In an age of exorbitant wealth and excess, this is getting ridiculous. At the rate we are going, in the future we will have people owning planets with colonies of robots and still have starving people. At what point do we say enough is enough? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
- darawk 8y ago
  I agree so much with this. I really find the focus on inequality weird and sort of childish. Complaining about inequality strikes me mostly as an attempt to sublimate envy into a politically palatable narrative. What we really ought to focus on is not reducing "inequality", by pulling the ceiling down...but raising the minimum standard of living by pulling the floor up. I think UBI is an excellent way of doing that, but there are many.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Wealth inequality is the main cause of power inequality, and is thus a major reason why something like UBI won't happen just because it benefits poor people. You can't make the world better if you are powerless, and you are powerless so long as you can be overruled by those with more wealth than you.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > Wealth inequality is the main cause of power inequality, and is thus a major reason why something like UBI won't happen just because it benefits poor people. Poor people seem pretty powerful to me. In a world where rich people are infinitely powerful...what percentage of tax revenue do you think they'd be paying? 0%? 10%? The top 3% if earners paid over 50% of income tax in the US in 2016 [1]. That doesn't seem particularly powerful to me. Or, if it is, that power isn't wielded especially self-interestedly. > You can't make the world better if you are powerless, and you are powerless so long as you can be overruled by those with more wealth than you. Your inferences are correct, but your premises are wrong. And if you're worried about money influencing politics, well, i've got news for you: reducing wealth inequality is just going to make the influence of that money even less transparent than it is now. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rvn1045 8y ago
> inequality probably hurts society overall Inequality does not hurt society, lack of social mobility hurts society. If we had a society as equal/unequal as we have today, but had perfect social mobility inequality wouldn't be a problem. Politically this is a very hot topic and people are becoming increasing hostile towards rich people. I don't think there should be a problem with people getting rewarded by outsized sums if they create a business or add value in whichever way. I do think there should be limits to the amount of money someone can inherit - should it be possible for someone to inherit 10 billion dollars? that just seems too much.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gringoDan 8y ago

She seems to be very thoughtful about this. Main takeaway is what I've read elsewhere: money amplifies your character. If you were an asshole when you didn't have money, you'll be even worse with it - you can pay enough to not be around anyone who will call you on your B.S. Conversely, if you were charitable before, you'll be able to do a lot of good with a larger checking account.

mud_dauber 8y ago
“Money amplifies your character.” I really like that. Thanks.
Tactic 8y ago
I hope you don't mind if I appropriate that phrase. Although for comedic effect I may change it to: money, like alcohol, amplifies your character. ;)

moocowtruck 8y ago

cool how about you pay off my adoption loan debts :D

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

I grew up with little, and it was always more than I needed. So does that count?

ticmasta 8y ago

>> In some cases, all I have to do is not be a huge asshole Man, you can get sooooo far in life with this low bar, yet lots of people fail to clear it....

teekert 8y ago
Haha when I read it a distant bell chimed somehere in my head and your remark makes me think: "Yes, indeed."
analyst74 8y ago
It's easy to think not being an asshole is simple. But if you look more closely, what defines an asshole is subjective. For example, does not offering water to your guest make you an asshole? In some circles it does, in some it does not. What about offering food? On top of that, one also should not be TOO nice, it raises suspicion, make you a doormat, and most likely make your social interactions more difficult. So when the goal is walking along a subjective line of being reasonably nice, you'll see why so many people cross to the asshole side, according to one person's standard.

wallflower 8y ago

For the less altruistic angle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_insanely_wealthy_people_buy_that_ordinary/cnnmca8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_i...

LouisSayers 8y ago
Wow, thanks for posting!
- spectrum1234 8y ago
  That first answer is so good. These are those needle in a haystack gems on Reddit these days.
shafyy 8y ago
Wow. This is an excellent thought experiment to picture being super rich: > PERSPECTIVE. The wealthiest person I have spent time with makes about $400mm/year. i couldn't get my mind around that until I did this: OK--let's compare it with someone who makes $40,000/year. It is 10,000x more. Now let's look at prices the way he might. A new Lambo--$235,000 becaome $23.50. First class ticket internationally? $10,000 becomes $1. A full time executive level helper? $8,000/month becomes $0.80/month. A $10mm piece of art you love? $1000. Expensive, so you have to plan a bit. A suite at the best hotel in NYC $10,000/night is $1/night. A $50million home in the Hamptons? $5,000.
- alexpetralia 8y ago
  Who makes 400mm _per year_? This feels similar to converting 1 day of revenue into an "MRR" number. [Edit] To be fair, these people probably exist, but they are very, very few (far higher than any banker or celebrity).
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > Who makes 400mm _per year_? People who own > $8b, so a few 100, plus some more whose businesses are doing really well.

skookumchuck 8y ago

When you have a lot of money, you can do something great with it. Like reinvent the rocket industry. Or rid the world of polio. Or buy up land and create nature conservancies. Or buy a bunch of WW2 wrecks, restore them to flying condition, and make a wonderful museum for them.

izzydata 8y ago
Reminds me of the movie about the person who built the Getty Center in LA. W https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty

JonasJSchreiber 8y ago

> So that’s what you need to know about money, right? If that is your primary measure of success or value in life, then good luck with that, because it will never feel good. This has the sound of a subject matter expert speaking with authority. And it makes me feel like my adult life so far has been a waste

50656E6973 8y ago
Do you measure your self worth primarily on the amount of money in your bank account?
- jandrese 8y ago
  Having no money in your bank account can definitely impact your feeling of self worth. It can make a lot of other people angry at you, like landlords, power companies, etc...
  - 50656E6973 8y ago
    Agreed. I think the important thing is to recognize the diminishing returns of money on genuine human needs
- as1mov 8y ago
  Money is a pretty objective assessment what's a person's worth. It's an actual measurable quantity, it's meaning doesn't vary from person to person like it does other indicators of worth (i.e looks, personality, altruism etc.)
  - kjeetgill 8y ago
    I'm not sure anything about the question at hand, a person's worth, is objective. Money is easy enough to measure and compare though, and I think that's part of it's appeal as a measure. It's precise even if it's not accurate.

munificent 8y ago

Man, this has to be the most intelligent self-aware interview I've ever read. Her insight into her own character is really sharp.

randomacct3847 8y ago

From my personal experience money’s main function is to give you more options to do whatever, which has nothing to do with happiness and given the “paradox of choice” can actually make you more unhappy with every decision because you’re always thinking about the opportunity cost of decision 1 vs decision 10000.

modernthumb 8y ago
I can definitely see that point of view at a certain amount of wealth however I see its primary function as security and stability. It really does buy peace of mind when you know that no one is going to take your shelter away, your car isn't going to break down in the middle of the night, you can keep the heat on, and you'll be able to stay afloat in an emergency.
- rofo1 8y ago
  Other than these reasons (which should be considered basic, but I am aware they are not), I don't think I'll ever need money more than that. To me, money is what you use to buy food, shelter, transportation, pay bills. If you can afford more than that, you are golden (in my book). If you have that, and you still have savings, what's the difference between you and a billionaire ? All the rich people I know (I don't know many) are deeply unhappy. So, I know for a fact it doesn't buy happiness directly. I live frugally, well below my means (except that I take vacations sometimes), and have a huge safety net; also, I never discuss my finances and I don't like to form opinions about someone based solely on (or heavily influenced by) their money. I cannot see the joy of having things as a status symbol, it just doesn't make sense to me. People that buy things primarily to show to others that they can afford them, just screams self-worth issues to me. I guess it depends on the way you value yourself.

alexashka 8y ago

The interesting bit for me is how she doesn't say a single interesting thing. What has she actually done in her life, other than writing cheques that total 70 million? I don't know, and I've read the entire interview. We really have a crisis of imagination, both on the behalf of the poor and the rich. The poor want to be rich, the rich go to restaurants, buy shoes and write cheques. This is the sad bit about rich people - they just can't seem to figure out that you can't make someone interesting, by sending them to Oxford, Harvard, etc. They're just bored, or maybe it's just me, bored and grumpy, of reading HackerNews :)

rococode 8y ago
You're right that she doesn't say much about what she's done, but I think that wasn't the point of the interview. The interview was intended to explore the lifestyle of someone who grew up in a super rich family, and the questions are clearly worded to get at that. None of the questions ask about her accomplishments, so of course she doesn't talk about them.
onychomys 8y ago
I count writing checks to charity as doing something with your life. If she wanted to do nothing at all except sit in her undies on the couch watching netflix and also give $70M away, that's a life well lived.
joefourier 8y ago
Now would be a good time for the return of the "gentleman scientist" of the 19th century. Not just passively giving money away to worthy organizations, but educating yourself enough to be an authority in that field. Wealth on the order of hundreds of millions affords your own private research team with a good enough budget for many fields, the possibility of pursuing high-risk basic research with no expectation of immediate financial gain and the ability to sidestep the trappings of the academic environment. It will be impossible to have more money than you can spend in that scenario - the capital demands of global scientific research far exceed the liquid net worth of any single human individual.
- 8y ago

geophile 8y ago

When I was in college, I knew one of the more remote heirs to the Seagram's fortune. I don't know if his father was a billionaire, but they were extremely rich. This guy turned out OK professionally. He didn't have to work, but he found something he wanted to do, and it fulfilled him. I think the company he started did well financially, too. But his brother. This guy could not attach himself to anything. On one hand, he really hungered for something to absorb him. On the other hand, he seemed to think: what's the point? I'll never earn a zillionth of a percent of what I'm inheriting. He asked me about what I did, and I explained software development. He was immediately very interested, asked lots of questions, asked if he should retrace my steps (BASIC, punch cards, ... -- this conversation was many years ago). And then he never followed up. Years later I heard that he married a vegan (many years before that was a thing), and became quite zealous about veganism.

Balgair 8y ago
I've been going through some German history recently, specifically Prussia and the Junker class. One theme that really sticks out, relative to our modern times, is the relations between the nobility and the military. Time was, the scions were always in the chain of command. Throughout post-Roman European history, the 2nd and 3rd sons of landed nobility would commonly be in the officer classes. The 1st Crusade was mostly lead by these 2nd and 3rd sons trying to grab some land for themselves. The flag of South Carolina has a crescent in the corner, possibly due to all the 2nd and 3rd sons that came to the Americas (a crescent is common in the personal heraldry of such nobles and kinda became a 'thing'). The military was one outlet for these men that had the upbringing, the education, the nutrition, and the cache, but were unfortunate in the order they came out of some woman's womb. ROTC at the Ivies has been effectively excommunicated since 1970 or so [0]. Though we no longer have these primogeniture issues, we still have all these young men and women, these scions of industry and politics, that haven't a chance at making fortunes like their parents have. They can't be 'normalized' into their 'family offices' and fortunes. It's very similar to the issues the Europeans faced with their children and the issues about land and money. Maybe some of the issues that we have today could be ameliorated via a stronger use of the military as a place where these scions could be, well, dumped. Bring back ROTC at Princeton? Yes, I know, you can't have them anywhere near the actual command of people. But you could dump them into 1st Lieutenants and have them shit-n-stink with the regular people of our country. Get them roughed up, dirty, and friendly with the regular citizen. Get that gold leaf rubbed off them. Look at Donny's kids, for example. They've taken to hunting and big game very well. It's not too dissimilar to military life. [0] Actually, as usual, it's complicated : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_ROTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_ROTC EDIT: Another good example are Princes Harry and William. Though they are actual nobility, they do provide a good example for the current era.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

This is a very level headed person, this Abigail.

thorwasdfasdf 8y ago

that last little statistic she dropped was misleading. Money does buy happiness, for most people. Think about it. Would you be less happier if you made half your current salary? Before you answer the question, think about all the life changes that would occur, should this happen: maybe you have to move into a bad neighborhood in a smaller apartment, no more eating out, no more vacations, no more dental procedures, etc. Okay, sure there is a threshold, perhaps at 800K or more your happiness wouldn't increase greatly. The point is, the vast majority of people are below that threshold. And, I've seen a number of happiness survey that show there's a pretty good correlation between happiness and earnings both at a macro level (comparing countires with high gdp per capita to low gdp per capita) and individual levels as well.

mcv 8y ago
Money buys happiness up to a certain point. I believe it was around $70,000 per year; at that point, you live a comfortable life where you don't have to worry about basic necessities and have some money left over for fun stuff (obviously this depends on the basic cost of living where you live; it's likely to be higher in Silicon Valley than in Thailand).
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  In his book, Joe Dominguez called this point, "enough." https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/27/us/joe-dominguez-58-championed-a-simple-and-frugal-life-style.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/27/us/joe-dominguez-58-champ...
- mercutio2 8y ago
  I believe this study has been pretty thoroughly debunked. There is no known (statistical) upper bound to how much more money helps people’s happiness. It’s just that it increases happiness logarithmically, and people are bad at reasoning about logarithmic growth. Individual people may feel like they have enough, and not wish for more money, and that’s great. But when you look at happiness and satisfaction statistics (notably, not the same thing), the greater your windfall, the greater your long term happiness.

hutzlibu 8y ago

Interesting interview, but about the title: I really cannot imagine having more money than ways to spend, as there are so many things to do and get, like my new space telescope and moonstation and I heard those things are really, really expensive.

JabavuAdams 8y ago

I started this article annoyed by the title, and expecting to be disappointed, but it was actually quite an interesting read.

pmoriarty 8y ago

There's a fascinating documentary called Born Rich[1], which was made by the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, where he interviewed his friends who were also born in to incredibly wealthy families. It was interesting to see how differently they all reacted to it, some embracing their wealth and partying like mad, others rejecting it and trying to live a normal life. Highly recommended. The documentary's director and some of the participants in this film and its sequel, The One Percent[2] (which was not nearly as good), got in a lot of trouble for talking about their family's wealth, presumably because the ultra-rich families really don't want a lot of attention. The blowback included lawsuits, and, if I'm remembering correctly, an adopted daughter of Warren Buffett's got disowned by him after her own participation in The One Percent, where she talked about him and what it was like for her to be part of his family. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Born-Rich/70008257 https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Born-Rich/70008257 [2] - https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-One-Percent/70092779 https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-One-Percent/70092779

kkarakk 8y ago
"I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin" - warren buffet deals with family matters in exactly the scrooge mcduck like way i thought he would

jopsen 8y ago

> Money is morally neutral. It does not, in and of itself, make you a bad person. Money is opportunities, in the Bible Jesus says to invest our talents, and to give away our money. Having money is having opportunities, wasting that and not making something of it couldn't that be morally reprehensible? I'm no saint, and I'm certainly guilty of hording more money than I need (even if I'm far from super rich). But I'm not under some illusion that I couldn't help more than I do. Or that not giving away money is a neutral choice. Note. I did give away around 5% of income after taxes last year (I'm just a regular overpaid nerd, so not comparable to the author -- but still privileged like most people here). My cousin taunted me a few years that the Bible says you should pay 10% to charity after taxes and living expenses. I don't think I'm quite there, well, maybe if you do some creative a accounting, hehe :) For me picking a number to donate was mostly about ensuring that it was high enough that I felt like I had said it like I meant it! But maybe my savings could be smaller maybe I could help more people -- hording money certainly doesn't seem like a morally neutral thing to do.

skybrian 8y ago
Good for you! Incidentally, there's a group that actually did pick 10% as a nice round number. (I'm not doing that either, yet, but I think about it.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can
- jopsen 8y ago
  There is a bunch of movements around giving away just 1%.. Again, that's pretty good, if those movements were to pickup momentum. Note. I'm by no means a saint, for many years I weren't giving anything away..

RickJWagner 8y ago

Good for her. She seems like a remarkably good person.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

> If I were queen of the world, I would pass a law against private jets, because they enable you to get around a certain reality. You don’t have to go through an airport terminal, you don’t have to interact, you don’t have to be patient, you don’t have to be uncomfortable. These are the things that remind us we’re human. > It wasn’t just the plane, but it’s not a small thing when you don’t have to be patient or be around other people. It creates this notion that you’re a little bit better than they are. And for the past 40 years, everything in American culture has been reinforcing that belief. We say, “Job creators, entrepreneurs, these are the people who make America great.” So there are people walking around with substantial wealth who think that they have it because they’re better. It’s fundamental to remember that you’re just a member of the human race, like everybody else, and there’s nothing about your money that makes you better than anyone else. If you don’t know that and you have money, it’s the road to hell, no matter how much stuff you have around you. Wow. I'm very impressed with her. So many great quotes here.