I made a significant amount of money at once. It ended up destroying a few long term friendships. In hindsight, maybe that was my fault. But human nature is a funny thing, and rapid changes in social status will reap havoc on social equilibriums built over decades
It happened to me at much lower $. I grew up poor, all my friends are solidly blue collar middle class. I live in one of the nicer areas in my city, one tier down from the where the people live whose name you would know.
When you're poor, getting some extra $ means maybe you boost your 401k or something. But once you are doing the max, or maybe you make so much you can't legally put money in 401k, it's very confusing. My lifestyle didn't even change but I asked one of my friends for advice, if they had any family or something who had some money and I immediately lost that friend.
Well, it's probably hard to not let sufficiently large differences in wealth not affect the type of activities you want to do and some attitudes. Sure, you might still like to cook a lot of your own meals and go on cheap roadtrips. But absent money as a real consideration you're very possibly also going to want to do things that a person with a lot less money just can't reasonably afford--and while you can pick up a night out here and there it's not something that it's going to be comfortable to do all the time in general.
There are a lot of things you can’t eat, but are very important tools to help you get food. Words, ideas, friendships, jobs. None of them are edible, but very useful. Money is another one.
Disappointed they landed on the hero worship bus of “there’s no way a billion dollars at 18 would have stopped Bill Gates.” Yes, it absolutely would have. Inflation-adjusted that would be nearly $10 B in cash. He might not have gone and rested on an island but he almost certainly would have done something like pump wild amounts of money into Traf-O-Data and spin out before Microsoft could become a thing.
Ugh. All these articles conflate the idea of “getting rich” with the kind of wealth that most people don’t know what to do with, eg billions of dollars. What about just reaching the point where you never need to work again? Can we talk about how that’s a reasonable goal for people to push for rather than accumulating the net worth of a small country?
Then it will sound like there’s a continuum of wealth, rather than the black-and-white, soapy-journalism-primed “haves and have-nots” that modern media can’t stop talking about
I personally believe that true contentment in life is if you can do something meaningful to help others. The human connection is such a basic thing in life. We want love, not just sex.
You might think that getting lots of money would make other people like you more but I think that is the opposite. Billionaires really aren't that "likable" are they?
Right but I think they know it themselves, so they cannot be sure whether people really like them for other things besides money. The point I was trying to make was that people want to get rich really because they want to be truly liked and appreciated by others.
Whether we suck up to a billionaire or try to perhaps con them somehow WE know that we don't "like" them very much.
But really I don't know any billionaires, I've only seen them on TV, so I may be wrong.
> Billionaires really aren't that "likable" are they?
I'm sure that billionaires are constantly approached by people wanting to be their new best friend. That would make any billionaire rather standoffish and close with any friendship reciprocation.
> reaching the point where you never need to work again?
You don't want to reach that point. You want to stay below that point, because what brings satisfaction and happiness in life is something called the "power process". The Unabomber explained it well [1]. The Unabomber unfortunately used bad methods to spread his ideas, but the ideas themselves were good.
There are many goals you can set and achieve that require effort but don't relate to needing to work to make money.
Maybe I'm somehow crazy on a forum of tech "entrepreneurs"... but, I like to do stuff like learn to sing and play the guitar, speak new languages, get better at drawing and painting, or plunge ever deeper into the worlds of math and physics... all of which seems eminently compatible with this "power process" thesis and which are all much more pleasant when you don't simultaneously have to work.
Those are surrogate activities, and according to the article, they are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (see last paragraph). The point is that when you have to work for a living, and you are successful at that, that is much more satisfying than being successful at a hobby. That sounds about right to me!
I didn't really get that from the last paragraph. Though I suppose it partly depends if you got a windfall at 30 or if you're just retiring early at 50.
> 9. No one is going to remember you in 100 years. So you might as well focus on what’s going to make you happy now, instead of what money might buy you in the future. There is a Scottish proverb: Be happy while you are living, for you are a long time dead.
That sounds like the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Many of those don't need anywhere close to "never need to work again" money, only "2-3 years savings, or a willingness to half-ass your job". You just need the courage to make it a priority.
It's entirely possible to do most of those as a hobby. If you do need to go full-time on it, you can usually accomplish a lot in 2-3 years, and then jump back into the workforce when you get bored with your hobbies.
> You just need the courage to make it a priority.
And money. Living modestly and pursue hobbies is much, much harder to accomplish financially than it seems for most people. I don’t want to make this a conversation about healthcare, but that’s a huge part.
Many (most?) people do like to "do something." But my observation is that many--especially later career--with a reasonable pile of money are pretty happy to travel, read, write, volunteer, watch live or other entertainment, putter around the house, etc. They may do things but don't necessarily really work in the sense that they have a lot of obligations and deliverables.
> Maybe I'm somehow crazy on a forum of tech "entrepreneurs"... but, I like to do stuff like learn to sing and play the guitar, speak new languages, get better at drawing and painting, or plunge ever deeper into the worlds of math and physics... all of which seems eminently compatible with this "power process" thesis and which are all much more pleasant when you don't simultaneously have to work
i think if you reached the point where you solved the thesis, don't have to work, and you're doing all those things...
you're not coming back to post about it on a forum of tech "entrepreneurs" :^)
There are dozens of reasons to want to have enough money that, no matter what happens, you know you won't end up homeless and destitute.
And unfortunately, in America today, that's a lot of money, due to our for-profit healthcare system making medical emergencies sometimes cost millions of dollars.
If I were handed enough money tomorrow that it would guarantee I and my family would never have to work another day in our lives, I don't think any of us would choose not to work. Instead, we'd be free to choose work that we want to do, rather than worrying about what will pay well enough to keep us fed and housed.
I believe I would stop working for money but work for me. examples, helping people rewild their yards, start a vista reclamation project for a few mountain tops that are overgrown with trees, start a B-corp for electrifying low income housing and developing appliances for same. build virtual power plants by distributing batteries in neighborhoods and building microgrids.
There are 13 divorces among the 10 richest men in the world. Seven of the top ten have been divorced at least once.
and over how long of a time period? compared to national average? so what
Money is good for solving problem which have a price tag. Is this all problems? No, but its's a lot. Fun fact: Medicare and Medicaid exclude a lot of things, like teeth implants, hearing aids, glasses, elective procedures. having money helps in that regard.
3. The richer you become, the less likely people around you are to tell you when you’re wrong, crazy, mean, or oblivious.
Hmm..elon musk? People are always telling him how crazy he is. But maybe not the people close to him, who should have talked him out of buying Twitter for $44 billion, which was dumb.
“Because if you don’t give them the money they’ll hate you,” Charlie said.
lol Munger so old his kids gonna die before he does, so I guess that solves that problem
This is especially true when what made you rich was some form of advertising your success in a way that made others want to help and support you. When admiration turns to envy, that support dwindles, and people’s tolerance for your errors shrinks. If a no-name journalist wrote a book obliquely defending Sam Bankman-Fried, no one would care – they may have actually congratulated the author. But since Michael Lewis did, the pitchforks came out.
The pitchforks came out not because of a low-tolerance for errors, but his trying to whitewash an obvious fraud and general lack of basic understanding and rewriting of history of the FTX scam.
this is it. the fact people who are successful have to constantly downplay money has stuck me as odd. Except for that Sky Mall guy, afik exactly zero very wealthy people have voluntarily relinquished all or most of their money while alive.
I remember reading an article* a few years ago about how the world’s richest men, including Gates and Bezos, all had very stable marriages. That take didn’t age too well.
> When the benefits of money are so obvious but the downsides are so subtle, the downsides you didn’t anticipate can be more jarring than the benefits you expected.
This is a really important aspect of seeking wealth that many people don’t understand. The jump from poverty to no longer missing bills is much more significant than the jump from middle class to upper class. It’s the reason why so many studies exist showing that past $75,000 per year (not inflation adjusted, so try $120k or so), more money doesn’t tend to make you happier. Instead, you trade freedom and happiness for the money you thought would bring you freedom and happiness. Also, trying to become a billionaire is most definitely a lonely and sad path.
A somewhat healthier goal would be to become “financially free,” whatever that means to you. No longer needing to work, allows you to do the work you actually love.
I'd caution against saying one study was "debunked" because another one disagrees with it. Later does not necessarily mean better.
However, in this particular case, the author of the $75k study (Daniel Kahneman, one of the founders of the field of behavioral economics) did an "adversarial collaboration" with the author of the later paper, and found that emotional well-being did continue to rise with income - except for the least happy 20% of people. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120
That sort of makes intuitive sense. Some percentage of people have relationship problems that more money doesn't necessarily help past some point--or even worsens--personal and family health issues that money can only do so much to solve, etc. But especially in HCOL areas, it seems logical that something over $75K inflation-adjusted makes various life decisions and other things easier which would reasonably correlate to happiness at some level. But which is presumably a decreasing utility function at some point for most people.
People that is trying to be “rich” will fantasize and will always look at all the positives of having “lots” of money but cannot imagine it’s unavoidable downsides if you don’t prepare your mind for it.
In point 1 where Will Smith is quoted reminded me of about the year after I graduated college. I wasn't anywhere close to rich, but I had just achieved every goal I had set for myself: I got hired by the company I was hoping for, was living in a reasonably nice place and was in a relationship with my future (ex) wife.
I was in a good place, but also slightly lost while I figured out my next set of goals.
54 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] threadWhen you're poor, getting some extra $ means maybe you boost your 401k or something. But once you are doing the max, or maybe you make so much you can't legally put money in 401k, it's very confusing. My lifestyle didn't even change but I asked one of my friends for advice, if they had any family or something who had some money and I immediately lost that friend.
no one knows which drink will turn you into an alcoholic… it could be your next one
same with money your next or first million might the thing that will disconnect you from all that you hold dear
some ppl blow it, but that is a choice in the end
I personally believe that true contentment in life is if you can do something meaningful to help others. The human connection is such a basic thing in life. We want love, not just sex.
You might think that getting lots of money would make other people like you more but I think that is the opposite. Billionaires really aren't that "likable" are they?
Whether we suck up to a billionaire or try to perhaps con them somehow WE know that we don't "like" them very much.
But really I don't know any billionaires, I've only seen them on TV, so I may be wrong.
I'm sure that billionaires are constantly approached by people wanting to be their new best friend. That would make any billionaire rather standoffish and close with any friendship reciprocation.
For example, as I get older, I hear more and more first-person stories about families falling apart because of probate shenanigans.
You don't want to reach that point. You want to stay below that point, because what brings satisfaction and happiness in life is something called the "power process". The Unabomber explained it well [1]. The Unabomber unfortunately used bad methods to spread his ideas, but the ideas themselves were good.
[1] https://medium.com/chris-messina/surrogate-activities-the-po...
Maybe I'm somehow crazy on a forum of tech "entrepreneurs"... but, I like to do stuff like learn to sing and play the guitar, speak new languages, get better at drawing and painting, or plunge ever deeper into the worlds of math and physics... all of which seems eminently compatible with this "power process" thesis and which are all much more pleasant when you don't simultaneously have to work.
That sounds like the exact opposite of what you're saying.
It's entirely possible to do most of those as a hobby. If you do need to go full-time on it, you can usually accomplish a lot in 2-3 years, and then jump back into the workforce when you get bored with your hobbies.
And money. Living modestly and pursue hobbies is much, much harder to accomplish financially than it seems for most people. I don’t want to make this a conversation about healthcare, but that’s a huge part.
i think if you reached the point where you solved the thesis, don't have to work, and you're doing all those things...
you're not coming back to post about it on a forum of tech "entrepreneurs" :^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave#Return_to...
There are dozens of reasons to want to have enough money that, no matter what happens, you know you won't end up homeless and destitute.
And unfortunately, in America today, that's a lot of money, due to our for-profit healthcare system making medical emergencies sometimes cost millions of dollars.
If I were handed enough money tomorrow that it would guarantee I and my family would never have to work another day in our lives, I don't think any of us would choose not to work. Instead, we'd be free to choose work that we want to do, rather than worrying about what will pay well enough to keep us fed and housed.
and over how long of a time period? compared to national average? so what
Money is good for solving problem which have a price tag. Is this all problems? No, but its's a lot. Fun fact: Medicare and Medicaid exclude a lot of things, like teeth implants, hearing aids, glasses, elective procedures. having money helps in that regard.
3. The richer you become, the less likely people around you are to tell you when you’re wrong, crazy, mean, or oblivious.
Hmm..elon musk? People are always telling him how crazy he is. But maybe not the people close to him, who should have talked him out of buying Twitter for $44 billion, which was dumb.
“Because if you don’t give them the money they’ll hate you,” Charlie said.
lol Munger so old his kids gonna die before he does, so I guess that solves that problem
This is especially true when what made you rich was some form of advertising your success in a way that made others want to help and support you. When admiration turns to envy, that support dwindles, and people’s tolerance for your errors shrinks. If a no-name journalist wrote a book obliquely defending Sam Bankman-Fried, no one would care – they may have actually congratulated the author. But since Michael Lewis did, the pitchforks came out.
The pitchforks came out not because of a low-tolerance for errors, but his trying to whitewash an obvious fraud and general lack of basic understanding and rewriting of history of the FTX scam.
* this isn’t the article I read but it’s similar https://www.ft.com/content/13cf5fc2-e9cb-11e4-ae1c-00144feab...
This is a really important aspect of seeking wealth that many people don’t understand. The jump from poverty to no longer missing bills is much more significant than the jump from middle class to upper class. It’s the reason why so many studies exist showing that past $75,000 per year (not inflation adjusted, so try $120k or so), more money doesn’t tend to make you happier. Instead, you trade freedom and happiness for the money you thought would bring you freedom and happiness. Also, trying to become a billionaire is most definitely a lonely and sad path.
A somewhat healthier goal would be to become “financially free,” whatever that means to you. No longer needing to work, allows you to do the work you actually love.
I believe this was debunked
https://www.verywellmind.com/happiness-doesn-t-top-out-at-us...
However, in this particular case, the author of the $75k study (Daniel Kahneman, one of the founders of the field of behavioral economics) did an "adversarial collaboration" with the author of the later paper, and found that emotional well-being did continue to rise with income - except for the least happy 20% of people. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120
One point hinted at but missed is that joy is a theistic proposition.
Nothing wrong or right about money as such; one's attitude toward it is key.
I was in a good place, but also slightly lost while I figured out my next set of goals.