3 ms·

From what I hear, wealth above $50M-$100M is really only useful for status or power. Once you've hit that level you're able to buy pretty much anything materia

From what I hear, wealth above $50M-$100M is really only useful for status or power. Once you've hit that level you're able to buy pretty much anything material that makes life nicer: a second house, a yacht, servants, a private jet, et cetera. People have identified the private jet as the most expensive thing a person can buy that substantially improves your life. Beyond that point it's more of a status game than real improvement. Yes, a 200ft yacht is nicer than a 50ft yacht, but the difference is marginal. The 7th house isn't adding much.

dzhiurgis 3y ago
> 200ft yacht is nicer than a 50ft yacht, but the difference is marginal Boats scale in ^3 - you'll get a lot more space (volume) in 200ft yacht. 50ft sailing yacht is near minimum for comfortable world cruising. At this size you'd still be crewing and fixing shit yourself.
delichon 3y ago
Musk cares about colonizing Mars a lot more than houses, and that's a goal that requires much more than $50M-$100M. I agree that it's a critical goal and believe that it would be much delayed if removed from private decision makers by a wealth ceiling.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  In some ways it's the other way around. Musk (currently holding assets of ~195B) is able to spend billions by selling his ownership in SpaceX (currently valued at $180B) and Tesla (currently valued at ~$550B). Musk doesn't need to sell billions for SpaceX to go to Mars or Tesla to make a new car if he never cashes out in the first place. That's why the hard part is (usually, outside of ideological effort) "then why would they bother to keep doing all the work if they don't get anything out of it?". It's also a reason wealth is a hard thing to really track when you want to limit it. Is that corporate jet 1/5th the CEO's because he is 1 of 5 that uses it or is it not part of the CEO's wealth at all? There's not really a clean way to cut this sort of thing that I've seen that doesn't either lop off things that aren't personal wealth by accident or allow squirreling away personal wealth in ways it doesn't get counted. That's the hardest part of this kind of thing IMO.

dzhiurgis 3y ago

> 200ft yacht is nicer than a 50ft yacht, but the difference is marginal Boats scale in ^3 - you'll get a lot more space (volume) in 200ft yacht. 50ft sailing yacht is near minimum for comfortable world cruising. At this size you'd still be crewing and fixing shit yourself.

delichon 3y ago

Musk cares about colonizing Mars a lot more than houses, and that's a goal that requires much more than $50M-$100M. I agree that it's a critical goal and believe that it would be much delayed if removed from private decision makers by a wealth ceiling.

zamadatix 3y ago
In some ways it's the other way around. Musk (currently holding assets of ~195B) is able to spend billions by selling his ownership in SpaceX (currently valued at $180B) and Tesla (currently valued at ~$550B). Musk doesn't need to sell billions for SpaceX to go to Mars or Tesla to make a new car if he never cashes out in the first place. That's why the hard part is (usually, outside of ideological effort) "then why would they bother to keep doing all the work if they don't get anything out of it?". It's also a reason wealth is a hard thing to really track when you want to limit it. Is that corporate jet 1/5th the CEO's because he is 1 of 5 that uses it or is it not part of the CEO's wealth at all? There's not really a clean way to cut this sort of thing that I've seen that doesn't either lop off things that aren't personal wealth by accident or allow squirreling away personal wealth in ways it doesn't get counted. That's the hardest part of this kind of thing IMO.