2 ms·

I live smack dab in the middle of Manhattan, and $250,000 would let me keep up a modest lifestyle for about four years without any job at all. The other $250,00

I live smack dab in the middle of Manhattan, and $250,000 would let me keep up a modest lifestyle for about four years without any job at all. The other $250,000 could save the lives of thousands. Downmod me for being self-righteous, but don't downmod me for being wrong.

Tichy 18y ago
I didn't downmod you (can't, anyway). However, by your logic, you should really move out of Manhattan to somewhere where you can live for 50000$ and donate the remaining 200000$ to save the lives of thousands. Ultimately, by your logic, none of us in the western world has the right to live, because any money we spend could be used to save lots of people (supposedly). Also who is to say that a safety net of 4 years is enough? If you are too old to work, you might still live another 30 years (say you quit work life at 65 and live to 95). So with your numbers, you need to save about 2000000$ (8*250000, where 8 =~ 30/4) to feel safe enough. Not counting inflation, either, so in reality you need even more.
- iron_ball 18y ago
  I don't pursue it to the "ultimately" stage -- it's a moderate belief, that only holds true within certain boundaries. I have no plan to skate off the edge of the slippery slope. What's more, my opinion rests on further subjective opinions like what constitutes "well-off", what constitutes "a good lifestyle", and dozens of other terms which could each spawn a debate. That said, I think most people would agree that there is a degree of wealth at which some amount of it can safely be considered superfluous to the needs -- including the entire hierarchy, unless one must self-actualize as an airplane collector -- of one person. At that point, I submit that sizeable charitable donations are in order. (The utility of such donations is, of course, yet another debate.)
  - Tichy 18y ago
    So how much money do you reckon is necessary? Don't you agree with the 2000000$? There is a huge difference depending on your age, too. At a younger age you might not be aware how much money you really need. You still have infinite opportunities to earn money. Once you get older, they fade away, and you might have an increasing number of health problems. I think it is OK to worry about saving enough for retirement first, and worry about saving the world later.
    - iron_ball 18y ago
      Nah, I'm well aware of the sums necessary to secure, say, 20 years of retirement at $80,000 a year. I see that "what's your number" ad on TV and laugh at anyone carrying around less than a million. It just seems to me that if you're in a position where failing and being fired nets you half a million in a stainless steel case, retirement is just never going to be a topic of concern ... if you're willing to adopt a middle-class lifestyle, of course.

Tichy 18y ago

I didn't downmod you (can't, anyway). However, by your logic, you should really move out of Manhattan to somewhere where you can live for 50000$ and donate the remaining 200000$ to save the lives of thousands. Ultimately, by your logic, none of us in the western world has the right to live, because any money we spend could be used to save lots of people (supposedly). Also who is to say that a safety net of 4 years is enough? If you are too old to work, you might still live another 30 years (say you quit work life at 65 and live to 95). So with your numbers, you need to save about 2000000$ (8*250000, where 8 =~ 30/4) to feel safe enough. Not counting inflation, either, so in reality you need even more.

iron_ball 18y ago
I don't pursue it to the "ultimately" stage -- it's a moderate belief, that only holds true within certain boundaries. I have no plan to skate off the edge of the slippery slope. What's more, my opinion rests on further subjective opinions like what constitutes "well-off", what constitutes "a good lifestyle", and dozens of other terms which could each spawn a debate. That said, I think most people would agree that there is a degree of wealth at which some amount of it can safely be considered superfluous to the needs -- including the entire hierarchy, unless one must self-actualize as an airplane collector -- of one person. At that point, I submit that sizeable charitable donations are in order. (The utility of such donations is, of course, yet another debate.)
- Tichy 18y ago
  So how much money do you reckon is necessary? Don't you agree with the 2000000$? There is a huge difference depending on your age, too. At a younger age you might not be aware how much money you really need. You still have infinite opportunities to earn money. Once you get older, they fade away, and you might have an increasing number of health problems. I think it is OK to worry about saving enough for retirement first, and worry about saving the world later.
  - iron_ball 18y ago
    Nah, I'm well aware of the sums necessary to secure, say, 20 years of retirement at $80,000 a year. I see that "what's your number" ad on TV and laugh at anyone carrying around less than a million. It just seems to me that if you're in a position where failing and being fired nets you half a million in a stainless steel case, retirement is just never going to be a topic of concern ... if you're willing to adopt a middle-class lifestyle, of course.