3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoSo 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 agoNah, 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.