4 ms·

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 fo

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.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      I disagree with most of this; but let's just say we inhabit different worlds, and leave it at that. I figure we just take different vacations and go to different restaurants. :)

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.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    I disagree with most of this; but let's just say we inhabit different worlds, and leave it at that. I figure we just take different vacations and go to different restaurants. :)