3 ms·

I think you're overthinking this. The article examples maybe aren't descriptive enough. #4 would mean I don't price shop Airbnb, hotels, and plane tickets so m

I think you're overthinking this. The article examples maybe aren't descriptive enough. #4 would mean I don't price shop Airbnb, hotels, and plane tickets so much. Or maybe I just take first class everywhere. Either way, you're talking spending amounts in the $10k+ range. #5 means you can buy whatever size house you want within limits. That's more a $1M+ decision (although, amortized out long term) #6 means Bill Gates level philanthropy. Not saying whatever donations you're giving away aren't meaningful, but I doubt you're getting wings in hospitals named after you.

hirako2000 7y ago
That's why we don't call small donations acts as philanthropy. It surprises me how philanthropic individuals are sold as benefactors who are a solution to solving problems linked to lack of resources, for those in needs around the world. I think it rather servers themselves instead, an effective PR routine that comes with decent guilt therapy. It's one of those things like "expat" sounding all so good compared to those job stealing "immigrants". Maybe we should all give a portion of our monetary power to those in needs, displacing what we would normally give to Unilever-like producers. It would skip the inefficient intermediary.. I digress.. The scale ain't right, but the idea is spot on.
esotericn 7y ago
No, they're dependent on preferences in what you want. Your preferences differ from mine here. Either that, or you're assuming that the reasonable benchmark for comparison is close to the absolute most expensive example within a specific sector, which doesn't really match how I spend money. Thinking about it more, I'd probably say I even hit #4 before #3. Why? a) I don't really care that much about eating out, so despite being able to theoretically afford "Super Fancy Meals" I still think about it because I could just give someone else that money instead. b) First class flights and fancy hotels I find ridiculous, they don't factor into my purchasing decisions. I far prefer a cabin in the woods or going hiking or something like that to some constructed notion of luxury. I'd sooner give $10k to charity before I take a first class flight - in fact I'm on track to do that this year, and hope to increase it. If you don't count anything below $millions as being philanthropic then of course you've defined level 6 as being the top, that doesn't make sense to me.
- ThaJay 7y ago
  You have completely missed the point. The fact that you could does not mean you shoud or even would. Wanting a cabin in the woods and being able to afford it does not make you "House freedom level". That level is being able to buy any house you could want without second thought. The fact that you would not choose such a house is completely irrelevant to this train of thought. Some things you have to plan out and some things are just not worth to consider for even a second.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    The cabin was referring to the travel level, not housing. I don't think "any X I could want" is meaningful. You're taking it presumably to mean the most expensive offering that exists in the world, but I _could_ want something akin to Buckingham Palace and no amount of money would get me that, or I could want some generic massive palace that would cost $50bn which obviously is above the philanthropy level by any metric, or maybe I genuinely do just want a bog standard terrace because I'd rather give my money away than 'elevate' myself into a weird Hollywood lifestyle. It makes far more sense to think about what I actually _do_ want, and in that view the levels can be ordered differently depending on the person. The point I am making is that to some extent these levels are individual choice, they're not cast in stone.
    - Kirby64 7y ago
      To some extent they are, but really there's strong limits on this and they can't be broken. At the end of the day, vacations cost more than food and housing costs more than vacations. Full stop. Your example of saying you don't care about fancy meals... well, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that your price sensitivity to a restaurant is going to be much lower than a vacation. If your end goal is to give a bunch to charity, then scrimping on a vacation too would be a better decision ultimately. It's really hard to spend more than say, $1k on a meal. Even 3 star Michelin restaurants don't charge that much unless you include alcohol. Comparatively, it's EASY to spend $1k on a vacation. Incredibly easy.
      - 7y ago
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
But see, I've done my dream vacation several times. It means driving out into the Mojave Desert, by myself, and car camping. It basically costs the gas to get there and back. Dropping $10K on a vacation without thinking about it? No, I'm not there. Taking the vacation I want without thinking about the cost? Easy - I just don't want that kind of vacation.

hirako2000 7y ago

That's why we don't call small donations acts as philanthropy. It surprises me how philanthropic individuals are sold as benefactors who are a solution to solving problems linked to lack of resources, for those in needs around the world. I think it rather servers themselves instead, an effective PR routine that comes with decent guilt therapy. It's one of those things like "expat" sounding all so good compared to those job stealing "immigrants". Maybe we should all give a portion of our monetary power to those in needs, displacing what we would normally give to Unilever-like producers. It would skip the inefficient intermediary.. I digress.. The scale ain't right, but the idea is spot on.

esotericn 7y ago

No, they're dependent on preferences in what you want. Your preferences differ from mine here. Either that, or you're assuming that the reasonable benchmark for comparison is close to the absolute most expensive example within a specific sector, which doesn't really match how I spend money. Thinking about it more, I'd probably say I even hit #4 before #3. Why? a) I don't really care that much about eating out, so despite being able to theoretically afford "Super Fancy Meals" I still think about it because I could just give someone else that money instead. b) First class flights and fancy hotels I find ridiculous, they don't factor into my purchasing decisions. I far prefer a cabin in the woods or going hiking or something like that to some constructed notion of luxury. I'd sooner give $10k to charity before I take a first class flight - in fact I'm on track to do that this year, and hope to increase it. If you don't count anything below $millions as being philanthropic then of course you've defined level 6 as being the top, that doesn't make sense to me.

ThaJay 7y ago
You have completely missed the point. The fact that you could does not mean you shoud or even would. Wanting a cabin in the woods and being able to afford it does not make you "House freedom level". That level is being able to buy any house you could want without second thought. The fact that you would not choose such a house is completely irrelevant to this train of thought. Some things you have to plan out and some things are just not worth to consider for even a second.
- esotericn 7y ago
  The cabin was referring to the travel level, not housing. I don't think "any X I could want" is meaningful. You're taking it presumably to mean the most expensive offering that exists in the world, but I _could_ want something akin to Buckingham Palace and no amount of money would get me that, or I could want some generic massive palace that would cost $50bn which obviously is above the philanthropy level by any metric, or maybe I genuinely do just want a bog standard terrace because I'd rather give my money away than 'elevate' myself into a weird Hollywood lifestyle. It makes far more sense to think about what I actually _do_ want, and in that view the levels can be ordered differently depending on the person. The point I am making is that to some extent these levels are individual choice, they're not cast in stone.
  - Kirby64 7y ago
    To some extent they are, but really there's strong limits on this and they can't be broken. At the end of the day, vacations cost more than food and housing costs more than vacations. Full stop. Your example of saying you don't care about fancy meals... well, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that your price sensitivity to a restaurant is going to be much lower than a vacation. If your end goal is to give a bunch to charity, then scrimping on a vacation too would be a better decision ultimately. It's really hard to spend more than say, $1k on a meal. Even 3 star Michelin restaurants don't charge that much unless you include alcohol. Comparatively, it's EASY to spend $1k on a vacation. Incredibly easy.
    - 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

But see, I've done my dream vacation several times. It means driving out into the Mojave Desert, by myself, and car camping. It basically costs the gas to get there and back. Dropping $10K on a vacation without thinking about it? No, I'm not there. Taking the vacation I want without thinking about the cost? Easy - I just don't want that kind of vacation.