3 ms·
It wouldn't be worth pointing out if: A. It wasn't so much. B. They weren't trying to police the habits of others. This post is bizarre in the context of tha
by kick 7y ago
It wouldn't be worth pointing out if:
A. It wasn't so much.
B. They weren't trying to police the habits of others.
This post is bizarre in the context of that: it's telling people to do the opposite of what the author does.
Giving money isn't even exclusively a bad financial decision. In a lot of cases, it makes sense. I don't think it does here.
- saagarjha 7y agoYou’ll notice they stopped donating when they couldn’t afford to. The author can clearly handle giving away half their income here.
- cldellow 7y agoI don't think the author is trying to police the habits of others. He's stating his prediction about how factors may change, and what one should do if they agree. Others can agree or not. As to telling people to do the opposite of what the author does, do you have evidence that the author doesn't live on a fraction of what he takes home? By definition, he does. He lives on no more than 50%, since he donates the other half. Per a recent post, he doesn't own a car, and has 19 lbs of butter, purchased on sale, in the freezer. Even if he's living on a meagre $200k/yr after his donations, he's probably still able to save aggressively. And lead a fulfilling life with his wife, children, and hobbies.