Paywall removed https://archive.is/WGWDo

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 69 points 1 year ago (52 children)

Motherfucking $4MM total is enough to live on with a return like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 152 points 1 year ago (44 children)

    Sure, but choosing to live on $160k/yr would be a bit much when you're starting with $1.6B. I can't fault him for still wanting to enjoy being wealthy instead of upper-middle-class and definitely don't think it's reasonable to complain that giving away 95% of his wealth is somehow not enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Even if it still feels a bit wrong, I can somehow reason with there being wealthy people and the motivation of potential lavish life, since some seem to really need it to make any effort in society. It’s somewhat understandable at least. Talking about tens of millions, with a bit of stretch hundreds - okay, I can stomach it even if it still seems extremely excess.

    But billions… that’s already ten times more than that. How anyone can stomach that, I don’t get.

    While my heart disagrees, my brain can get, with some effort, behind what this guy says. It kind of makes sense at least. Retaining your humanity and giving up such an inconceivable amount of money for that, really sounds pretty good in this world we’ve been living in lately. Sounds fucking weird to feel good about someone still having such excess in comparison to all the people struggling with next to nothing, but at least there’s some amount of backbone and clear thought involved.

    Not sure what to think still. Like someone else commented, better reserve outright okaying this until we know how the money was given away.

    But if it turns out to be sensible and humane, I can honestly say I’m fine with the kind of millionaire this one is. It’s not ideal, but it’s tolerable and in some niche sense, justifiable. If it’s all good, I even wish all the millionaires were like this… if we have to have them, as a compromise with the part of people who need all that, the “dream” to strive for, for whatever reason, at least let them be sensible and moral in some way, such as this…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't think the premise that you can "make it" is wrong, and being somewhat wealthy is definitely motivation for many great things. If you're running a tech start-up you're probably putting in 60-80 hours a week and have to cope with a great level of stress. Of course being passionate about your product is a very important factor but without the allure of living very well afterwards I think it'd deter a lot of innovation, sports talents, musicians and whatnot.

    I don't blame this dude for still wanting to live his life while being quite ethical; hate the game, not the player (in this case at least). This is about how fiscally conservative I can be. Billionaires shouldn't exist - and especially these insanely wealthy individuals taking over the world with tech, but I don't think you can take it away completely. In an ideal world there wouldn't even be millionaires but people are gonna be people and sociopaths and narcissists are always gonna exist and trying to rig the system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Right. The goal isn't to make it so no one has more than anyone else, it's to ensure that everyone has enough and no one has so much more than anyone else that they can mess up society on a whim, and that people aren't being exploited.

    You want there to be a reward for hard work, creativity, innovation and all that. Just actually proportional to the value being added as opposed to what they can get away with.

    I don't begrudge a person who has worked hard and had something they started become successful a more-than-comfortable and early retirement. It's when they just had money and used it to make more money, or showed up did little and got fired with millions of compensation that I'm really bothered.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (41 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sadly, not necessarily true. In the US, all it takes is one family member with a severe chronic illness tovery quickly erode that to the point that you are back at work. I think $10MM is the magic number but $100MM is a really good number to ensure that you and.your loved ones are taken care of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To add to this, this also probably goes to something that seems to have been largely lost between the Baby Boomers and the next generations: the concept of passing on generational wealth. I know my parents have flat out said that they're planning on using all the money they saved working.

    Keeping enough money not just to ensure that your family is taken care of today but in the future for possibly generations to come is the kind of thing I can only wish to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    To add to this, this also probably goes to something that seems to have been largely lost between the Baby Boomers and the next generations: the concept of passing on generational wealth.

    As a young gen-Xer, I remember seeing a book title (aimed squarely at boomers, much like nearly everything was marketed my entire life. Well, until the culture essentially skipped to marketing aiming nearly everything at Gen Y, lol.) that was about saving for and spending all of your money and leaving your offspring essentially nothing.

    I remember being kind of taken aback by the brazen "me generation" pitch - enough to pick it up and read the back and a bit of the intro to see if it was really what the book was about...I wish I could remember what book it was.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It doesn't make any sense to keep just enough, because then you may have to worry about weathering any economic storms in the future.

    I think the amount he kept is reasonable, especially when they are pretty much one of a kind for doing this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, I was thinking about fluctuating interest rates alone. If we are assuming 4% return on 4M and that's where 160K/year comes from....that's essentially a fixed income, risking all kinds of problems in the future, including very low interest rates and doesn't even begin to get into problems like inflation spiking again or unexpected healthcare bills...

  • source
  • parent