8 ms·
In 1949, Charlie Munger was 25 years old. He was hired at the law firm of Wright & Garrett for $3,300 per year, or $42,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. A few
by missedthecue 3y ago
In 1949, Charlie Munger was 25 years old. He was hired at the law firm of Wright & Garrett for $3,300 per year, or $42,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars.
A few years later, in 1953, Charlie was 29 years old when he and his wife divorced. He had been married since he was 21. Charlie lost everything in the divorce, his wife keeping the family home in South Pasadena. Munger moved into “dreadful” conditions at the University Club and drove a terrible yellow Pontiac, which his children said had a horrible paint job. According to the biography written by Janet Lowe, Molly Munger asked her father, “Daddy, this car is just awful, a mess. Why do you drive it?” The broke Munger replied: “To discourage gold diggers.”
Shortly after the divorce, Charlie learned that his son, Teddy, had leukemia. In those days, there was no health insurance, you just paid everything out of pocket and the death rate was near 100% since there was nothing doctors could do. Rick Guerin, Charlie’s friend, said Munger would go into the hospital, hold his young son, and then walk the streets of Pasadena crying.
One year after the diagnosis, in 1955, Teddy Munger died. Charlie was 31 years old, divorced, broke, and burying his 9 year old son. Later in life, he faced a horrific operation that left him blind in one eye with pain so terrible that he eventually had his eye removed.
But by the time he was 69 years old, he had become one of the richest 400 people in the world, been married to his second wife for 35+ years, had eight children, and countless grandchildren.
Beyond investing and business, Charlie teaches us about resilience, dignity, and life well lived. Rest in peace to a legend.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- talldatethrow 3y agoIs this a copy paste of a blogger that wrote an article about why you shouldnt give up, because charlie didn't either. Are you the author? It feels weird to take 95% of someones article and just post it. https://www.joshuakennon.com/if-charlie-munger-didnt-quit-when-he-was-divorced-broke-and-burying-his-9-year-old-son-you-have-no-excuse/ https://www.joshuakennon.com/if-charlie-munger-didnt-quit-wh...
- harryVic 3y agoIt's just a comment, they're not stealing someone's original research. I for one appreciate that they shared the story. Rip charlie munger
- totaldude87 3y agoCitation is important when you are not writing a single word on your own , credit where it's due
- bobobob420 3y ago[flagged]
- pixelatedindex 3y agoAs the world moves to one that is more connected, credit is even more important.
- dirtyhippiefree 3y agoYou’re rubbing elbows with the people actually doing things in some of these news stories. Credibility matters…bro…
- jyunwai 3y agoAgreed. Writing a reference is not just a matter of respect for the author who put in the work, but also a matter of material importance, as the practice can help both the author and the reader. For the author, a reference to their original work can help the rest of their work (such as their website) become better-known. Their corpus of work (whether a book series or a website) can be a source of income. In this case, it appears that the author is able to use his blog to gain clients for his company—he describes his background, clientele, and company below the article, and includes a method of contact via the menu. For the reader, a reference to the source material helps them find similar content by the author that may be relevant and interesting, as well as possibly a way to subscribe to notifications for future work released by the author. Though online discussions don't require linked references—unlike more formal environments such as in academia or in ethical journalism—it's a good habit to link to references whenever possible (especially when quoting word-by-word): it can only help both the author and the reader.
- gumballindie 3y agoWow. I never knew all this about Charlie Munger, thanks for sharing. It’s rare gems like him that give me confidence that sometimes against all odds one can succeed. Also I appreciate his love for his family. That’s by far the most valuable asset one posses - if not the only.
- monero-xmr 3y agoFamily first, followed by friends. It is sad to me that so many young people are voluntarily choosing not to have children. They are the ultimate - the reason we exist, the mechanism for leaving a legacy, the most beautiful thing on earth. Family is everything
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago> It is sad to me that so many young people are voluntarily choosing not to have children. I think many people feel they are incapable of taking care of offspring. Better not to bring into this world children you cannot care properly for.
- monero-xmr 3y agoThe people who think they are incapable of caring for children, and then choose not to, are by and large people who are thoughtful and deliberative, who are the exact people who would be good at raising children.
- rdm_blackhole 3y agoThat's your opinion. The reason I exist is because my parents made me. That doesn't mean I have to create a life to give my own life meaning. The reason people choose to have less and less kids is because raising a child is a thankless/tough job and despite all the progress that has been made on the social aspect of raising kids, more often than not, it is still the woman's job to do the rearing and raising of the kids. Family is not everything, I know countless people who were born in terrible families. Leaving a legacy is so overrated, why do you feel like you need to do so? What is so important and so unique about you that if your family line were to end today, the world would be missing? Please don't confuse your opinion with facts.
- jay_kyburz 3y agoIt's the American dream writ large.
- keepamovin 3y agoThis is great, thanks for the write up on this sad news and the life of a laudable man. Where did you pull that from by the way?
- paul7986 3y agoChat GPT where else ;-)
- yellow_lead 3y agohttps://twitter.com/kevg1412/status/1729632415742906370?s=20 https://twitter.com/kevg1412/status/1729632415742906370?s=20
- keepamovin 3y agoWow nice find! :) good research skills :) i mean it's hard to pin down exact text in a deluge of recent news about similar or the same! :D xx ;p ;) xx;p
- yellow_lead 3y agoGoogle does wonders :)
- paulpauper 3y agoIn 1949, Charlie Munger was 25 years old. He was hired at the law firm of Wright & Garrett for $3,300 per year, or $42,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. This shows how much white collar salaries have really exploded over the past few decades, especially since 2010 after financial crisis bottom. White collar work is more lucrative than ever even accounting for inflation and student loan debt. The media and ppl on Twitter complain about young people going into debt to get degrees; well, those same ppl getting those fat six-figure jobs too. If lawyers and doctors earned what they earned in the 40s, i am sure student loan debt crisis would miraculously go away.
- lofsigma 3y agomeh, $3,300 ≈ 45% median house price of the time, you'd need to be making ~200k today just to be even.
- marcus_holmes 3y agoAlso remember that he was able to support a stay-at-home wife and family and buy a house on that salary. The direct comparison of inflation ignores that the relative cost of things also changes. Our cost of living is much higher than it was post-war. But we get to have decent sanitation, phones and computers, better medicine, etc.
- pfannkuchen 3y agoI’m not sure what you mean by direct comparison here. I believe the official government inflation stats do consider the relative cost of things, otherwise they would be totally nonsensical for the reason you mentioned.
- marcus_holmes 3y agoWell then they're clearly getting it wrong, as this shows; you cannot support a family and buy a house on a single $42K income in 2023. Any statistics that suggest you can are just plain wrong.
- corethree 3y ago[flagged]
- steve_adams_86 3y agoThe women in my life have all played a significant role in my ability to build my career. For some, like my mother and my kids mom, this incurred some cost to their careers. I wouldn’t be where I am without them, therefore in a sense yes, they did work for my income. Often in hidden and yet incredibly important, valuable ways. My mom died, but if she were still around I wouldn’t think twice about taking care of her. As for my wife, whether things go well or not, she has undoubtedly carried me at times just as I’ve carried her, through the most crucial parts of our children’s lives. If that’s not a person who deserves my support, no one is. It might not always seem fair. Sometimes it actually isn’t. But it’s exceedingly unlikely that his wife didn’t facilitate his success in some way over the better part of a decade.
- whywhywouldyou 3y agoWhat, exactly, are you talking about? The OP is referencing the fact that the wife got _everything_ in the divorce. I'd be curious to understand why "facilitat[ing] his success in some way over the better part of a decade" entitles her to everything he ever made.
- kamaal 3y agoYour parent comment argument is a flawed argument, of course. By definition everything that ever happens, happens from cause-effect conditions. So if you end up winning, everything that happened that led to it, in some way is responsible. But that's splitting hairs. I have seen these situations even in other relationships. There are these cousins, or uncles who would have dropped you to an interview, or lent you some money to get there. You work hard and are fairly successful a few years later. Now they think they are responsible for the whole thing, and you owe a great deal of things to them. If you are not relatively old(and 30s goes as young as adults can), you should be responsible for yourself, your finances and your decisions. Pension guarantees, and handing over whole life's work and savings because they other person wanted out feels not only excessive, but also devoid of any logical sense.
- kamaal 3y ago>>Charlie was 29 years old when he and his wife divorced. >>But by the time he was 69 years old, he had become one of the richest 400 people in the world, been married to his second wife for 35+ years, had eight children, and countless grandchildren. Some times there is a Ronald Wayne moment in relationships, if there could ever be something that could come close to it, this would.
- sdo72 3y agoWhat a legend, thanks for the summary!
- zubairq 3y agoRIP Charlie