Interesting writeup, but I find in a lot of these "millionaire by age X" stories the ego is far bigger than the bank account. It's nice to think a 500k income is fuck-you money but it's not, you're still beholden to a lot of people. If you have to stress about money (claiming being rich is a full-time job sounds like stressing), you don't have fuck-you money.
I'm not talking down to writer, but having a proper money manager (not the same as a stock broker) would alleviate a lot of the downsides of being rich that he listed. Fortunately managers that used to only take enormously wealthy clients are branching into lower wealth ones, so it's easier than ever to get sound investment advice.
Not sure there's anything of great substance to take away from it.
IMO if you have a net worth under $10M, you don't need materially different financial advice than a middle class worker saving in their 401(k): use low-cost index funds. Consider a lazy 3-fund portfolio: U.S. Stocks, International Stocks, and Bonds. Hold those in proportions that match your risk profile (young = more stocks, near retirement = shift into bonds, etc).
I know this is tangental, but it fascinates me that you could hold a stock that pays <5% dividend yield whereas the bulk of the economic impact is wages, salaries, business with other companies, etc.
The assumption that your stock price necessarily should go up I think is an assumption that will change somewhat in the next 50 or 100 years. In this sense, the rich, those with pension funds, but largely the financial managers dictate a lot of what happens in the economy.
I would disagree. With a net worth in the millions (but still under 10) you should consider investing in property and perhaps even art. These are things middle class workers are not looking into as much. Index funds can't match the potential returns that being a property investor does. It also allows you to turn your wealth into an asset that can be leveraged for further investment. Stocks are how you keep your wealth steadily increasing instead of stagnating, property is how you turn that 5 million into 20. Money managers will help you with this, even getting a trusted real estate agent that is your go-to would be helpful.
You're less likely to make seasoned choices with property. When you buy an index fund, you get everything -- the winners and the losers.
Let's say you have $10M and want to put 20% into real estate. $2M will only get so many properties (a handful?) -- they could depreciate, they're highly illiquid, and you could end up buying in the wrong neighborhood (though, say, adjacent neighborhood appreciated much more).
It's kind of like throwing darts. No real estate agent 40 years ago would've told you that $300k lots with homes are now worth millions, but a mile away those same sized lots are now worth $500k (this is actually true in my area).
The opportunity cost is too high, that you'll make the wrong choice, picking property that appreciates poorly, and had you just stuck with an index fund, you would've done better.
The evidence is against you. Rich people don't just wack money in the holy index fund of stable returns. Investing in properties is more complicated than buying, waiting, and flipping. With 2 million dollars cash you could probably buy 7 or 8 apartments (leverage is pretty useful), you would rent these out and hope they appreciate, or depreciate by less than the income from rent. It's a very reasonable investment, it just takes capital to begin with, the risk is lower than you think because as I mentioned, you can rent the property which hedges against depreciation. And even in the case of depreciation it can be favourable for tax purposes, you make money through renting and you reduce your taxable income through selling for a loss, it's still a net positive investment.
The index fund is the greatest thing to ever happen to casual investors, but with millions of dollars at your disposal you should no longer consider yourself part of that group. They're also not infallible, in the long run they're up but in the short run you can lose a lot of money in them, just like any investment.
When I made $45k I had fuck you money. I could (and did) quit my job and spend two years not working if I wanted to. I wasn't beholden to anybody at $45k, I had my own apartment, health insurance, car, and no debt. You may not be completely financially independent after one year at $500k, but you have the human capital to make a minimum of $50k for the rest of your life, so you can say fuck you to any job, any time.
My landlord is just a trading partner, he has no leverage over me because I can say "Fuck you, I'll rent somewhere else". You're right about the health insurance, I guess.
Interestingly, even fuck-you money didn't help me with landlords. They didn't trust someone with no job and a big pile of cash. I ended up living with someone else but not able to get on their lease.
You clearly didn't have fuck-you money. You could only quit your job for 2 years before presumably having to come back to work. I don't mean that in a rude way, it's just clear.
Your last sentence is a little confusing, if you're implying you could use your human capital and work, you're clearly going to be beholden to other people, and can't say fuck you to "any job, any time". In addition to that, we're back to the idea that 50k a year is fuck-you money, which it's not.
Long tangent incoming.
Fuck-you money is getting confused with a comfortable level of money. Most people will never ever get close to fuck-you money. Fuck-you money is black cards and reservations almost anywhere because you tip ludicrous amounts. It's being told the plane is full so you just upgrade to first class (if you weren't in there to begin with). It's being able to turn down any job because you could easily live at the same comfort level without it. It's only working because the work brings in stupid amounts more cash (that you probably can't figure out where to spend) or it offers you more than that (influence, stimulation). Just being able to say no to a job is not the same as that.
The expression refers to having enough money to not be beholden in the future, not just the present.
There is a big difference between having enough money to quit one's job for a year or two (and good for you!) and having enough money to quit working forever.
I think the term "financial independence" is better for that. I want to say fuck you to a particular boss, source of stress, or living situation. Why would I say fuck you to the concept of ever working again, when it could be in Hawaii as a mattress tester or something?
Would you say you have to have a big ego to actually post anything online? I am still grateful that people share info for free online regardless whether they have an ego or not.
By the way, do you think you have to have some minimal ego to live i.e. that ego is biological necessity?
I think you can post without a big ego, there are tutorials or articles that you can't feel the ego in, but this just wasn't one of them. And yes, a sense of self importance (not an enormously inflated one though) would be necessary to take care of yourself in my opinion.
Having money just gives you more choices. The paradox of choice, however, is very real (at least speaking for myself) and often when you do find yourself in a situation where you have a lot of choices you can easily end up confused, anxious, and overthinking things.
An overwhelming number of options or choices can actually be a source of anxiety, rather than giving you freedom to choose.
Imagine walking into a foreign supermarket, and having 100 different brands of peanut butter, none of which you recognise. If you have a lot of money, all options are available. If money is a factor, your choices are limited and making the choice is actually easier.
Consider giving to nonprofits - it doesn’t change the world but nonprofits are actually pretty used to working w wealthy people so it can sometimes be a more straightforward relationship.
Check out nonprofit in person and if you like what they do give unrestricted funds.
If you want to engage more show up at their events
If you start giving plan to give the same amount or more for five years. Ask for an annual report at most - no special reports or use of funds.
>I learned another big lesson from this. I now never help people who don’t ask me for help, and even then I only help them to the extent that they ask. I also look for ways that I can help that don’t compromise my own position, and that require the least outlay of my money, time, and effort.
Okay. Had a bad experience = never help people unless they beg me for it. And later, of course, he mentions how troubling it can be to have people ask rich people for money.
The kind of people who make money often don't seem to be the kind of self-aware, self-growth oriented kinds of people. They're workers, to put it bluntly. They're people who work, and that's what they're born to do. Once they have money they kind of lose their minds, because suddenly they don't have to work, and no one is telling them what to do anymore.
Do you like how he listed his beautiful wife as one of the things he gained from his wealthy life? And the woman who walked up to him and asked him what he did, and left when he said he was a student. Male shallowness is aesthetic, but female shallowness is financial? If so, I have to ask, from a purely ethical standpoint - which is worse?
That was really great, I could relate to a lot of that and I think it is important people understand this while they feel trapped and aspire for luxury
Or before they outright say they aren't motivated by money as if more enlightened than their peers
There arent real solution presented by this, just a timeless tale we can all learn from
27 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 71.8 ms ] threadI'm not talking down to writer, but having a proper money manager (not the same as a stock broker) would alleviate a lot of the downsides of being rich that he listed. Fortunately managers that used to only take enormously wealthy clients are branching into lower wealth ones, so it's easier than ever to get sound investment advice.
Not sure there's anything of great substance to take away from it.
The assumption that your stock price necessarily should go up I think is an assumption that will change somewhat in the next 50 or 100 years. In this sense, the rich, those with pension funds, but largely the financial managers dictate a lot of what happens in the economy.
Let's say you have $10M and want to put 20% into real estate. $2M will only get so many properties (a handful?) -- they could depreciate, they're highly illiquid, and you could end up buying in the wrong neighborhood (though, say, adjacent neighborhood appreciated much more).
It's kind of like throwing darts. No real estate agent 40 years ago would've told you that $300k lots with homes are now worth millions, but a mile away those same sized lots are now worth $500k (this is actually true in my area).
The opportunity cost is too high, that you'll make the wrong choice, picking property that appreciates poorly, and had you just stuck with an index fund, you would've done better.
The index fund is the greatest thing to ever happen to casual investors, but with millions of dollars at your disposal you should no longer consider yourself part of that group. They're also not infallible, in the long run they're up but in the short run you can lose a lot of money in them, just like any investment.
Interestingly, even fuck-you money didn't help me with landlords. They didn't trust someone with no job and a big pile of cash. I ended up living with someone else but not able to get on their lease.
Your last sentence is a little confusing, if you're implying you could use your human capital and work, you're clearly going to be beholden to other people, and can't say fuck you to "any job, any time". In addition to that, we're back to the idea that 50k a year is fuck-you money, which it's not.
Long tangent incoming.
Fuck-you money is getting confused with a comfortable level of money. Most people will never ever get close to fuck-you money. Fuck-you money is black cards and reservations almost anywhere because you tip ludicrous amounts. It's being told the plane is full so you just upgrade to first class (if you weren't in there to begin with). It's being able to turn down any job because you could easily live at the same comfort level without it. It's only working because the work brings in stupid amounts more cash (that you probably can't figure out where to spend) or it offers you more than that (influence, stimulation). Just being able to say no to a job is not the same as that.
"The exact amount of money required in order to tell an individual or organization to go fuck themselves without facing repercussions."
Keep the term confined to what it literally suggests and use "financial independence" for never having to work again.
(I could have gone jobless another ten years or so, but that would be dumb since I wasn't financially independent and would miss out on compounding.)
There is a big difference between having enough money to quit one's job for a year or two (and good for you!) and having enough money to quit working forever.
By the way, do you think you have to have some minimal ego to live i.e. that ego is biological necessity?
What do you mean by that?
Imagine walking into a foreign supermarket, and having 100 different brands of peanut butter, none of which you recognise. If you have a lot of money, all options are available. If money is a factor, your choices are limited and making the choice is actually easier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
Check out nonprofit in person and if you like what they do give unrestricted funds.
If you want to engage more show up at their events
If you start giving plan to give the same amount or more for five years. Ask for an annual report at most - no special reports or use of funds.
Okay. Had a bad experience = never help people unless they beg me for it. And later, of course, he mentions how troubling it can be to have people ask rich people for money.
The kind of people who make money often don't seem to be the kind of self-aware, self-growth oriented kinds of people. They're workers, to put it bluntly. They're people who work, and that's what they're born to do. Once they have money they kind of lose their minds, because suddenly they don't have to work, and no one is telling them what to do anymore.
Do you like how he listed his beautiful wife as one of the things he gained from his wealthy life? And the woman who walked up to him and asked him what he did, and left when he said he was a student. Male shallowness is aesthetic, but female shallowness is financial? If so, I have to ask, from a purely ethical standpoint - which is worse?
Or before they outright say they aren't motivated by money as if more enlightened than their peers
There arent real solution presented by this, just a timeless tale we can all learn from