4 ms·

200x median annual income is "enough". That's 5x median to live on, and 1x median for a fiduciary manager to make sure it lasts forever. 5x median is enough t

200x median annual income is "enough". That's 5x median to live on, and 1x median for a fiduciary manager to make sure it lasts forever. 5x median is enough to not worry about money, ever, yet also not so much that one can afford to waste any of it. It lets you have nice things, but not stupidly decadent things. It's still conceivable to spend all that in one year, just on ordinary consumer purchases, services, and travel. Measuring in terms of median incomes is also a good proxy for how many full-time servants one can afford to hire and employ indefinitely without disgruntlement. At 5x, that's enough for a 2.5x lifestyle, plus a 1.1x personal assistant, and a 1.4x property manager. That kind of enough is "enough". So no, he should not have given up after his first million. He should have stopped at around $12M instead. It's fine if he keeps working, but really, after that, it's more of a benefit to others if he spends the excess rather than investing it.

shawnz 7y ago
But that leaves nothing left for philanthropic efforts, that's what I'm saying. How would that have been better?
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I think you may overestimate the impact of philanthropic efforts. Everything he put into philanthropy could have been spent into the economy by other means. Such as higher employee wages. I take it as axiomatic that a person with a plethora of money cannot understand the problems of a person with a dearth of money well enough to implement effective solutions.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    And I think you're underestimating it. What's your basis for implying that higher wages would always necessarily do more good for the world than philanthropy? > I take it as axiomatic that a person with a plethora of money cannot understand the problems of a person with a dearth of money well enough to implement effective solutions. Maybe. First of all, not everyone who has money now has always had money. Secondly, not every problem in the world requires an understanding of poverty in order to solve it.

shawnz 7y ago

But that leaves nothing left for philanthropic efforts, that's what I'm saying. How would that have been better?

logfromblammo 7y ago
I think you may overestimate the impact of philanthropic efforts. Everything he put into philanthropy could have been spent into the economy by other means. Such as higher employee wages. I take it as axiomatic that a person with a plethora of money cannot understand the problems of a person with a dearth of money well enough to implement effective solutions.
- shawnz 7y ago
  And I think you're underestimating it. What's your basis for implying that higher wages would always necessarily do more good for the world than philanthropy? > I take it as axiomatic that a person with a plethora of money cannot understand the problems of a person with a dearth of money well enough to implement effective solutions. Maybe. First of all, not everyone who has money now has always had money. Secondly, not every problem in the world requires an understanding of poverty in order to solve it.