10 ms·
I think the labels are not very helpful, but tying each level to 0.01% of an individuals net worth is. For example, I still don't flinch at paying 1 or 2 dollar
by jetpackjoe 7y ago
I think the labels are not very helpful, but tying each level to 0.01% of an individuals net worth is. For example, I still don't flinch at paying 1 or 2 dollars more for items at the grocery store, but I do for paying 10-20 dollars more for items at a restaurant.
"Travel" can mean grey hounds and motels, or first-class flights and luxury hotels. Philanthropy can be donating $100,000 or giving a buck to a guy on the street.
The key take away from the article, at least for me, is how much you flinch at extra costs, and that being about 0.01% of what you have in the bank.
- esotericn 7y agoI agree with the concept of the levels, I disagree with the ordering - particularly the final one, because philanthropy is something that almost everyone can practice, it's an individual choice. The idea that you must first have your entire life laid out with a massive house and first class flights and stuff before you start helping others is deeply wrong IMO.
- svachalek 7y agoI think it boils down to the definition of "philanthropy", to a lot of people (self included) that's something billionaires do, the rest of us can try "charity". Kind of like the old saw about only the poor are "crazy", with enough money you become "eccentric".