5 ms·

So that you have security for the rest of your life and your children have security for the rest of theirs. And likely their children as well. Not everthing bo

by afavour 10mo ago

So that you have security for the rest of your life and your children have security for the rest of theirs. And likely their children as well. Not everthing bought with money is superficial. Certainly a lot is less superficial than dedicating your life to “in app payments made easy”. Turning down generational wealth so you can continue to pursue your dream of being a tech CEO seems like a wildly selfish decision to me. Just start a new company!

ryandrake 10mo ago
I just don't understand the mentality of the author. 9 figures is generational wealth, potentially perpetually with good multi-generational money management plan. With that kind of money invested, you have beaten the game, and can literally do any side quest you want to do, forever. This is the biggest no-brainer ever. What the fuck are you waiting for? Similarly, I don't understand why the CxOs in my current (BigTech) company still work. You're done. You can do anything you want and yet you voluntarily continue to amass more?
- jonas21 10mo ago
  > Similarly, I don't understand why the CxOs in my current (BigTech) company still work. You're done. You can do anything you want Has it occurred to you that perhaps what they want is to be the CxO of a big tech company? There’s a lot of power, prestige, and impact on society that you can’t easily have if you quit. Maybe they really enjoy the work itself too.
  - scubbo 10mo ago
    You can just say "sociopath", it's faster.
  - objektif 10mo ago
    Yeah what he is not understanding is they are already doing what they wanted in life.
- fragmede 10mo ago
  Because it's genuinely not about the money for them. It's hard to believe, but some people really do want to make the world better in their way, with whatever tools they have that their disposal.
  - scubbo 10mo ago
    Companies do not make the world better.
    - stoneforger 10mo ago
      The Kool Aid is strong, remember this is the forum of an incubator. One has to believe to drink the whole cup.
    - skrebbel 10mo ago
      The company that made my robot vacuum cleaner definitely made my world better.
      - scubbo 10mo ago
        No, your robot vaccuum cleaner itself made _your_ life better. The _company_ made _the_ world worse, by over-charging, exploiting, and polluting. The fact that they happened to create a product that you personally enjoy does not negate the overall negative effect.
        ryandrake 10mo ago
        If the consumer thinks of himself as the center of the world, The Main Character so to speak, then the robot vacuum cleaner "made the world better."
    - zbentley 10mo ago
      Individuals can use their roles at companies to make the world better (whatever that means to them). Also, companies are not the only kind of group someone can join (for money or not) with the goal of improving the world.
riazrizvi 10mo ago
Anyone can have security by living very safely within their means, by learning how to be satisfied. What people really mean when they say what you are proposing, is “guarantee a certain future lifestyle”. But the appeal of future lifestyles depends on not obtaining them. Without an ability to be satisfied, acquisition is always disappointing. It’s why a pay raise in a job that doesn’t address your needs, loses its shine after a month or so.
- afavour 10mo ago
  As someone who has experienced family adversity in my life (health, disability) I couldn’t disagree with you more. Things happen. Expensive things. The security to be able to afford expansive cancer care without worry, to pay for therapy and specialized schooling for your child… these are huge, huge things and they happen to you (or your children, or your children’s children) no matter what you do or don’t do. This isn’t just about being happy to be frugal.
  - riazrizvi 10mo ago
    Things happen, it’s true. And in the world there are many enterprises that spring up to present solutions as long as you fork over all your cash, and here in the USA, based on the market, that means lots and lots of cash. That’s just a perspective on hardship, it’s not the only way. People deal with hardships with many many tools. My favorite tools are dignity, grace, courage, personal strength, and ingenuity. Money is another tool, yes, but it tends to prevent mastery of the others. Elsewhere in the comments there was talk about legacy. You can give your kids a bank account, and the examples that you had money to pay off problems. Or you can give them something else through your example. I choose the latter.
    - afavour 10mo ago
      With respect, those words feel very empty. Face the prospect of, say, chemotherapy you can’t afford or death. See how you feel about dignity and grace then.
bcantrill 10mo ago
I know from the outside this seems very simple, but it's more complicated than that. Certainly, if the objective is (merely) security for one's children, that can be secured with much (much) less money (and likely was secured in the secondary that the author makes reference to); having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated. To appreciate this dynamic, read Graeme Wood's outstanding 2011 piece in The Atlantic, "The Secret Fears of the Super-Rich"[0]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20190422235813/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190422235813/https://www.theat...
- afavour 10mo ago
  > having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated Sure, but I’m pretty sure if you asked those parents if they’d rather lose all their money to make parenting easier their answer would be a resounding “no”.
  - bcantrill 10mo ago
    Those aren't the choices. You don't understand how the poster passed on nine figures -- but if the secondary sale netted 7 figures (likely), the choice is in fact between having enough wealth to have total security for one's family versus having so much wealth that the wealth itself creates anxiety.
    - afavour 10mo ago
      Then have someone manage the money away from you. Put it in a lifetime trust, whatever. The idea that you’d turn down that sum of money because of the anxiety it would cause you is simply not logical.
    - ridruejo 10mo ago
      Correct. The secondary provides the safety net to confidently swing for the fences.
rapidfl 10mo ago
If he had children, the decision would have been influenced by that. So that was my first guess, he probably has no kids. Will accept, I have no idea about his personal situation. Also feel the HN crowd may downvote my comment because it is not phrased correctly.

by afavour 10mo ago

ryandrake 10mo ago

I just don't understand the mentality of the author. 9 figures is generational wealth, potentially perpetually with good multi-generational money management plan. With that kind of money invested, you have beaten the game, and can literally do any side quest you want to do, forever. This is the biggest no-brainer ever. What the fuck are you waiting for? Similarly, I don't understand why the CxOs in my current (BigTech) company still work. You're done. You can do anything you want and yet you voluntarily continue to amass more?

jonas21 10mo ago
> Similarly, I don't understand why the CxOs in my current (BigTech) company still work. You're done. You can do anything you want Has it occurred to you that perhaps what they want is to be the CxO of a big tech company? There’s a lot of power, prestige, and impact on society that you can’t easily have if you quit. Maybe they really enjoy the work itself too.
- scubbo 10mo ago
  You can just say "sociopath", it's faster.
- objektif 10mo ago
  Yeah what he is not understanding is they are already doing what they wanted in life.
fragmede 10mo ago
Because it's genuinely not about the money for them. It's hard to believe, but some people really do want to make the world better in their way, with whatever tools they have that their disposal.
- scubbo 10mo ago
  Companies do not make the world better.
  - stoneforger 10mo ago
    The Kool Aid is strong, remember this is the forum of an incubator. One has to believe to drink the whole cup.
  - skrebbel 10mo ago
    The company that made my robot vacuum cleaner definitely made my world better.
    - scubbo 10mo ago
      No, your robot vaccuum cleaner itself made _your_ life better. The _company_ made _the_ world worse, by over-charging, exploiting, and polluting. The fact that they happened to create a product that you personally enjoy does not negate the overall negative effect.
      - ryandrake 10mo ago
        If the consumer thinks of himself as the center of the world, The Main Character so to speak, then the robot vacuum cleaner "made the world better."
  - zbentley 10mo ago
    Individuals can use their roles at companies to make the world better (whatever that means to them). Also, companies are not the only kind of group someone can join (for money or not) with the goal of improving the world.

riazrizvi 10mo ago

Anyone can have security by living very safely within their means, by learning how to be satisfied. What people really mean when they say what you are proposing, is “guarantee a certain future lifestyle”. But the appeal of future lifestyles depends on not obtaining them. Without an ability to be satisfied, acquisition is always disappointing. It’s why a pay raise in a job that doesn’t address your needs, loses its shine after a month or so.

afavour 10mo ago
As someone who has experienced family adversity in my life (health, disability) I couldn’t disagree with you more. Things happen. Expensive things. The security to be able to afford expansive cancer care without worry, to pay for therapy and specialized schooling for your child… these are huge, huge things and they happen to you (or your children, or your children’s children) no matter what you do or don’t do. This isn’t just about being happy to be frugal.
- riazrizvi 10mo ago
  Things happen, it’s true. And in the world there are many enterprises that spring up to present solutions as long as you fork over all your cash, and here in the USA, based on the market, that means lots and lots of cash. That’s just a perspective on hardship, it’s not the only way. People deal with hardships with many many tools. My favorite tools are dignity, grace, courage, personal strength, and ingenuity. Money is another tool, yes, but it tends to prevent mastery of the others. Elsewhere in the comments there was talk about legacy. You can give your kids a bank account, and the examples that you had money to pay off problems. Or you can give them something else through your example. I choose the latter.
  - afavour 10mo ago
    With respect, those words feel very empty. Face the prospect of, say, chemotherapy you can’t afford or death. See how you feel about dignity and grace then.

bcantrill 10mo ago

I know from the outside this seems very simple, but it's more complicated than that. Certainly, if the objective is (merely) security for one's children, that can be secured with much (much) less money (and likely was secured in the secondary that the author makes reference to); having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated. To appreciate this dynamic, read Graeme Wood's outstanding 2011 piece in The Atlantic, "The Secret Fears of the Super-Rich"[0]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20190422235813/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190422235813/https://www.theat...

afavour 10mo ago
> having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated Sure, but I’m pretty sure if you asked those parents if they’d rather lose all their money to make parenting easier their answer would be a resounding “no”.
- bcantrill 10mo ago
  Those aren't the choices. You don't understand how the poster passed on nine figures -- but if the secondary sale netted 7 figures (likely), the choice is in fact between having enough wealth to have total security for one's family versus having so much wealth that the wealth itself creates anxiety.
  - afavour 10mo ago
    Then have someone manage the money away from you. Put it in a lifetime trust, whatever. The idea that you’d turn down that sum of money because of the anxiety it would cause you is simply not logical.
  - ridruejo 10mo ago
    Correct. The secondary provides the safety net to confidently swing for the fences.

rapidfl 10mo ago

If he had children, the decision would have been influenced by that. So that was my first guess, he probably has no kids. Will accept, I have no idea about his personal situation. Also feel the HN crowd may downvote my comment because it is not phrased correctly.