Why don’t the rich stop working?

[bacchi]

Totally agree, I'm one of these boring 0.1%'ers who retired, but actually still earns a little money through part time consulting customers who's products are listed all over the "stupid stuff I'm lusting after post" in another forum section.  It is actually a ton of fun to work a few hours a week with interesting people and projects at my leisure, and hell it is cool to make $50k one week doing something you'd have done for fun anyway helping design a product that will be in most of your homes in a few years.

It cracks me up all of these people living such fulfilling awesome lives because they quit work at 30-35 and are "happy" living on $25-40K a year.   Trust me, watching YouTube videos of people doing cool stuff isn't the same as doing it yourself, don't let somebody convince you its not, and I'm sorry you can't do it on $25k a year.  Winning is not just about stopping working, people who are winning are ones that have the three areas covered; finances, health, and relationships.

$50k in a week? Shit, I make that in a day. I feel sad for those who waste time making $50k in a week when they can make it in a day like I do. No offense but, trust me, those people just feel like they're living. Winning is winning, amirite?

[undercover]

[Ichabod]

If you're rich from working, you're probably good at what you do.
If you're good at what you do, you probably have lots of autonomy.
If you have autonomy and are good at what you do, you may well enjoy what you do.

Work and compensation is a parabola. If you don't make much, you need to work a lot to get by. If you make a moderate amount, you're only giving up a moderate amount to stop working. If you make a lot, you're giving up more to stop working. The OMY threads are mostly by people who are well-compensated. If an additional year of work increases your stash by 10 or 20%, that's really tempting. If one more year only nets your stash 1 or 2%, what's the point?

I'm sure loss of identity and difficulty envisioning other options are also major factors. But if you're well-compensated and enjoy what you're doing, there's not much of an impetus to contemplate alternatives.

[talltexan]

to defend @ol1970 , you guys did want to hear from a genuine rich person.

[Metalcat]

to defend @ol1970 , you guys did want to hear from a genuine rich person.

It is true that a lot of wealthy people who continue to work do deeply malign the kind of life that a modest spend provides.

Never have I tried to say that all or even most people who don't want to retire are solely motivated by the joy of the work. I know plenty of wealthy folks who can't put down the cash hose because the thought of a lower standard of living is downright repugnant.

My point is that you really can't assume someone's motivations. It's gross to generalize either way.

[markbike528CBX]

gonna  PTF.

[ol1970]

to defend @ol1970 , you guys did want to hear from a genuine rich person.

Only if it justifies their point of view. 

It's a lot like politics...people decide what they believe and never change even when they hear factual information from somebody actually in a position to communicate about it.  Sorry for offending the posters here for having a talent I actually enjoy using that brings me joy after no longer needing the money it earns. 

[nereo]

It's a lot like politics...people decide what they believe and never change even when they hear factual information from somebody actually in a position to communicate about it.  Sorry for offending the posters here for having a talent I actually enjoy using that brings me joy after no longer needing the money it earns.

Is the talent trolling?  It's gotta be trolling...
:-P

[bigblock440]

It's a lot like politics...people decide what they believe and never change even when they hear factual information from somebody actually in a position to communicate about it.  Sorry for offending the posters here for having a talent I actually enjoy using that brings me joy after no longer needing the money it earns.

Is the talent trolling?  It's gotta be trolling...
:-P

I've heard they pay people for that.

[talltexan]

There are trolls on this forum (as there are on others).

But--shielded by the anonymity--there's also a chance that actual wealthy people are here, particularly given that the values of Mustachianism can often cause people to become stealth-wealthy.

[RWD]

There are trolls on this forum (as there are on others).

But--shielded by the anonymity--there's also a chance that actual wealthy people are here, particularly given that the values of Mustachianism can often cause people to become stealth-wealthy.

And sometimes the actually wealthy forum members are also trolls...

[LWYRUP]

I have to say, I read somewhere here on this forum that the top 1% in wealth started at over $10 million in the USA.  I thought I had a pretty good handle on finances but it floored me that this was so high. 

I live in one of the richer (high cost) parts of the country and so where I live there's probably a greater percentage of people with that amount... maybe 2-5%?

It's crazy to think that any large intersection I pull up at there's probably 1 person there with over $10 million.

Relates to this conversation because it makes me think that plenty of people keep working when they don't need to.  Which means they must like their jobs.  I think because when you get to that level your job is more fun and involves more deciding and ordering people do to things and less doing of boring things.  Shit rolls downhill and all. 

Anyways, maybe that's cynical but it sort of explains why working as a junior attorney was so awful but yet there are so many people with wads of cash still showing up to the office. 

[Freedomin5]

to defend @ol1970 , you guys did want to hear from a genuine rich person.

Only if it justifies their point of view. 

It's a lot like politics...people decide what they believe and never change even when they hear factual information from somebody actually in a position to communicate about it.  Sorry for offending the posters here for having a talent I actually enjoy using that brings me joy after no longer needing the money it earns.

I don’t think anyone has a problem with you having and using a talent that brings you joy.  MMM even has a term for people like you and me — SWAMI - Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual.

I think people have a problem with you denigrating people who have not made the same choices regarding spending as you, specifically the following statement:

It cracks me up all of these people living such fulfilling awesome lives because they quit work at 30-35 and are "happy" living on $25-40K a year.   Trust me, watching YouTube videos of people doing cool stuff isn't the same as doing it yourself, don't let somebody convince you its not, and I'm sorry you can't do it on $25k a year.

[nereo]

Or the obnoxious humble-brag about earning $50k in a week working a couple of hours...

It is actually a ton of fun to work a few hours a week with interesting people and projects at my leisure, and hell it is cool to make $50k one week doing something you'd have done for fun anyway

[Metalcat]

Or the obnoxious humble-brag about earning $50k in a week working a couple of hours...

It is actually a ton of fun to work a few hours a week with interesting people and projects at my leisure, and hell it is cool to make $50k one week doing something you'd have done for fun anyway

Personally, that part doesn't bother me at all, but that's because I'm not bothered by bragging in the least. What I can't understand is why come to an FI site if you fundamentally think the FI folks are idiots?

Anyone worth 8 figures has plenty of like minded folk to chat with. Why the hell waste your time on a forum like this?

I don't go to the long hair forum and talk about how much better having a shaved head is compared to the massive hassle of maintaining knee length hair. Likewise I don't go to the purse forum and condescend about how carrying a backpack is so much more practical than carrying a purse that comes with its own rain coat because it shouldn't get wet.

I get sharing a different perspective, but that's a far cry from maligning the fundamental basis of a community and its members.

[ixtap]

Or the obnoxious humble-brag about earning $50k in a week working a couple of hours...

It is actually a ton of fun to work a few hours a week with interesting people and projects at my leisure, and hell it is cool to make $50k one week doing something you'd have done for fun anyway

Personally, that part doesn't bother me at all, but that's because I'm not bothered by bragging in the least. What I can't understand is why come to an FI site if you fundamentally think the FI folks are idiots?

Anyone worth 8 figures has plenty of like minded folk to chat with. Why the hell waste your time on a forum like this?

I don't go to the long hair forum and talk about how much better having a shaved head is compared to the massive hassle of maintaining knee length hair. Likewise I don't go to the purse forum and condescend about how carrying a backpack is so much more practical than carrying a purse that comes with its own rain coat because it shouldn't get wet.

I get sharing a different perspective, but that's a far cry from maligning the fundamental basis of a community and its members.

We aren't at that level of rich, but I started reading and posting here because it was the first time I found like minded people regarding lifestyle choices. I know very few people in real life that choose not to live up to their means. Most of our friends aren't crazy in debt or anything, they just can't conceive of keeping their car a a few more years just because it isn't broken, or choosing to have a roommate just because you don't have a use for the second bedroom.

[Fish Sweet]

It cracks me up all of these people living such fulfilling awesome lives because they quit work at 30-35 and are "happy" living on $25-40K a year.   Trust me, watching YouTube videos of people doing cool stuff isn't the same as doing it yourself, don't let somebody convince you its not, and I'm sorry you can't do it on $25k a year.  Winning is not just about stopping working, people who are winning are ones that have the three areas covered; finances, health, and relationships.

What's baffling is the idea that people who live on 25-40k a year live SARCASTIC QUOTATION MARKS "happy" lives and aren't able to do cool stuff.   Setting aside that what constitutes a "happy life" differs wildly from person to person, I spent five years spending less than 25k and every single one of those years I still managed to swing stereotypical rich people "cool stuff" like luxurious international travel, cross-country visits to theme parks, high end fancy dining, and brand name purchases without breaking either a sweat or the bank.  Envy-watching youtube videos are unnecessary (except during this pandemic, I suppose.)

Having money is great, but you don't have to spend $$$ to "win" or to do cool things or be happy.  Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

[Buffaloski Boris]

It occurs to me that we don’t ask “why don’t you stop” to athletes or actors who have clearly made it to the top of their game. Why should the wealthy be any different? If their “thing” is to work and create wealth, then why should they stop? It’s not up to me to determine what makes other people happy.

I think we probably need to differentiate some of these extremely high net worth individuals from the more garden variety of folks who are in the lower 7 digits of NW. It is possible for someone who is of relatively moderate means to save and invest wisely and get into the lower 7 digits of NW.

[Metalcat]

It occurs to me that we don’t ask “why don’t you stop” to athletes or actors who have clearly made it to the top of their game. Why should the wealthy be any different? If their “thing” is to work and create wealth, then why should they stop? It’s not up to me to determine what makes other people happy.

I think we probably need to differentiate some of these extremely high net worth individuals from the more garden variety of folks who are in the lower 7 digits of NW. It is possible for someone who is of relatively moderate means to save and invest wisely and get into the lower 7 digits of NW.

There are certain types of work that people can easily grasp being enjoyable, like sports or acting, which is funny because those are two incredibly brutal industries that I would personally never want to work in.

We also generally give more leeway to anyone who doesn't work a MegaCorp office job. We're pretty tolerant of farmers, chefs, doctors, writers, dog breeders, restaurant or shop owners, tailors, politicians, therapists, librarians, archeologists, religious leaders, woodworkers, wilderness guides, professors, designers, etc, etc, etc, who enjoy their work and continue on into their senior years.

What's particularly funny is that this is on MMM's website, the guy who is the poster child for continuing to do work and make tons of money despite having absolutely no need for it. Except in his case, we call it FIRE because he made a career change at 30.

Meanwhile, someone who just stays within their own industry and continues to make more money than they need, they're somehow by default all about the money?

It's an absolutely arbitrary categorization. You can't know any person's relationship with work and money unless they show you what it is. Someone continuing to work despite having wealth says absolutely nothing other than that they have *some* reason to continue working.

[LWYRUP]

We also generally give more leeway to anyone who doesn't work a MegaCorp office job. We're pretty tolerant of farmers, chefs, doctors, writers, dog breeders, restaurant or shop owners, tailors, politicians, therapists, librarians, archeologists, religious leaders, woodworkers, wilderness guides, professors, designers, etc, etc, etc, who enjoy their work and continue on into their senior years.

Ok, while I generally am in agreement with the "let people make their own choices in this matter and don't interject your opinion unless they are asking for it camp" when you are talking about assessing any individual person, from a sociological standpoint I can't help but wonder...

Is it because people on average are able to identify certain things about these jobs you are listing that seem to be inherently enriching, while at the same time identify certain things about mega corp jobs that seem to be inherently soul sucking? 

I understand certain people within a mega corp structure may be fulfilled and love their jobs, but I think we can reasonably classify the structure as a whole as soul-sucking and I know a whole lot of people who dedicated their whole lives to them that would agree with me.  There is a certain feeling in those places, one where you feel like the implicit expectations for 99.99% of the workforce is just to STFU and produce your narrow task and not have any ideas, and that the corporation as a whole only gives a crap about what maybe 0.01% of people think about anything.  Now certain corporations can try to fight against that tendency, but I wonder if it is just inherent in their systems.  And if you are in such a system, most people would not do it except for one single reason -- high ROI on a dollar per hour basis.

There are certain things that people just don't like.  The combination of high stress plus low autonomy seems to be particularly unpleasant.  Add to that job requirements to produce a large volume of tasks that are rote but also involve an incredible amount of attention to detail so that one cannot really coast, and a system in which it is expected that people can sort of monotonously produce with only a 0.5 hour lunch break (while checking e-mail!) for 8-12 hours a day for 40 years?  That is not all mega corp jobs but it is an awful lot of the ones in the middle. 

I would never criticize an individual poster for continuing to work at a mega corp after FI.  But I do think when we are having a general discussion about society we can make these sort of generalizations while understanding that individual circumstances may differ.

[nereo]

It occurs to me that we don’t ask “why don’t you stop” to athletes or actors who have clearly made it to the top of their game. Why should the wealthy be any different? If their “thing” is to work and create wealth, then why should they stop? It’s not up to me to determine what makes other people happy.

Maybe you don't read and listen to the same things I do.
Athletes are constantly asked about retirement - and it seems the most accute for future Hall-of-Famers.  Tom Brady is the poster-child right now... "why didn't het just retire at/near the top of his game as a NE Patriot?"  Well, while he might not be as sharp as he was 6-8 years ago, he's still a top-30 NFL quarterback, easily.  Brett Favre and Payton Manning endured the "when will you retire" before Brady (note:  Manning won the superbowl his last game... his performance may not have been steller but he still exited with the championship). 
Certainly not just American Football.  Pick a sport and you'll find superstars that people wish would have retired years earlier.  Nolan Ryan. Babe Ruth. Michael Jordan.  Shaq. Pele.  Arnold Palmer.  George Foreman. Gordie Howe.  Every one made boatloads of money doing what they loved but were just average (for their sport) the final couple of years that they played.  And the press and fans were critical that they continued to play, and urged them to hang up their cleats/skates/spikes/gloves.

Actors I'm not as versed in, but I do know that there's rampant sexism with female actors -- many talanted A-listers are snubbed once they can no longer pass for a 20-something bombshell.  Maybe not the same thing, but previous few make the transition from 'sexy female lead' to '40/50/60-something female lead', and its not (always) for a lack of acting chops.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Ok, while I generally am in agreement with the "let people make their own choices in this matter and don't interject your opinion unless they are asking for it camp" when you are talking about assessing any individual person, from a sociological standpoint I can't help but wonder...

Is it because people on average are able to identify certain things about these jobs you are listing that seem to be inherently enriching, while at the same time identify certain things about mega corp jobs that seem to be inherently soul sucking? 

I understand certain people within a mega corp structure may be fulfilled and love their jobs, but I think we can reasonably classify the structure as a whole as soul-sucking and I know a whole lot of people who dedicated their whole lives to them that would agree with me.  There is a certain feeling in those places, one where you feel like the implicit expectations for 99.99% of the workforce is just to STFU and produce your narrow task and not have any ideas, and that the corporation as a whole only gives a crap about what maybe 0.01% of people think about anything.  Now certain corporations can try to fight against that tendency, but I wonder if it is just inherent in their systems.  And if you are in such a system, most people would not do it except for one single reason -- high ROI on a dollar per hour basis.

There are certain things that people just don't like.  The combination of high stress plus low autonomy seems to be particularly unpleasant.  Add to that job requirements to produce a large volume of tasks that are rote but also involve an incredible amount of attention to detail so that one cannot really coast, and a system in which it is expected that people can sort of monotonously produce with only a 0.5 hour lunch break (while checking e-mail!) for 8-12 hours a day for 40 years?  That is not all mega corp jobs but it is an awful lot of the ones in the middle. 

I would never criticize an individual poster for continuing to work at a mega corp after FI.  But I do think when we are having a general discussion about society we can make these sort of generalizations while understanding that individual circumstances may differ.

I don't think the generalizations much help.  It really isn't my or our place to determine what makes other people happy.  There are some people who are perfectly happy and fulfilled doing jobs that I would consider a sheer living hell.  Where I think we help, and where FI has cultural relevance is by suggesting to those that ARE unhappy is that FI is a "get out of jail" card.  And more broadly it provides a stick to jamoke employers. The ability to give the middle finger, even when used sparingly, is extremely empowering. 

Contrary to what the neo Maoists of late are pushing, the road to freedom is not in revolutionary destruction of the social order but in self-awareness and self-sufficiency.       

[nereo]

Neo Maoists?

[Metalcat]

We also generally give more leeway to anyone who doesn't work a MegaCorp office job. We're pretty tolerant of farmers, chefs, doctors, writers, dog breeders, restaurant or shop owners, tailors, politicians, therapists, librarians, archeologists, religious leaders, woodworkers, wilderness guides, professors, designers, etc, etc, etc, who enjoy their work and continue on into their senior years.

Ok, while I generally am in agreement with the "let people make their own choices in this matter and don't interject your opinion unless they are asking for it camp" when you are talking about assessing any individual person, from a sociological standpoint I can't help but wonder...

Is it because people on average are able to identify certain things about these jobs you are listing that seem to be inherently enriching, while at the same time identify certain things about mega corp jobs that seem to be inherently soul sucking? 

I understand certain people within a mega corp structure may be fulfilled and love their jobs, but I think we can reasonably classify the structure as a whole as soul-sucking and I know a whole lot of people who dedicated their whole lives to them that would agree with me.  There is a certain feeling in those places, one where you feel like the implicit expectations for 99.99% of the workforce is just to STFU and produce your narrow task and not have any ideas, and that the corporation as a whole only gives a crap about what maybe 0.01% of people think about anything.  Now certain corporations can try to fight against that tendency, but I wonder if it is just inherent in their systems.  And if you are in such a system, most people would not do it except for one single reason -- high ROI on a dollar per hour basis.

There are certain things that people just don't like.  The combination of high stress plus low autonomy seems to be particularly unpleasant.  Add to that job requirements to produce a large volume of tasks that are rote but also involve an incredible amount of attention to detail so that one cannot really coast, and a system in which it is expected that people can sort of monotonously produce with only a 0.5 hour lunch break (while checking e-mail!) for 8-12 hours a day for 40 years?  That is not all mega corp jobs but it is an awful lot of the ones in the middle. 

I would never criticize an individual poster for continuing to work at a mega corp after FI.  But I do think when we are having a general discussion about society we can make these sort of generalizations while understanding that individual circumstances may differ.

Yeah, but the question is "why don't the rich stop working?"

The stressed out MegaCorp folks who don't have autonomy will mostly self -select themselves out of the population of rich folks who continue to work. I gave the example of people assuming MegaCorp employees aren't happy by default because, yes, on average, they aren't happy. However, that doesn't mean that you can assume that the minority who have plenty of money and continue working aren't happy, just because of the fact they work for MegaCorp.

See the difference?

The MegaCorp folks who get to the point of being rich AND choose to continue working are probably the rare ones with a lot of autonomy, and might actually enjoy their jobs.

Of the senior corporate types I know who continue to work despite having no need for more money, they're majority low stress, high autonomy, pretty happy with their work life kind of people. Where I see a lot more stressed out work despite being rich is in business owners who failed in succession planning and feel trapped by their sense of responsibility despite being burnt out and bored.

[LWYRUP]

@Malcat

I get what you are saying.  Perhaps we are thinking of different levels of rich, where you are looking at people who have totally blown through any societal expectation of needing to accumulate more (the literal 1%, 10 million and up) while others are thinking of middle-management at megacorp with $3 million but who need to keep working to afford the country club dues but hate their job.  Of which there are a number.

It's an issue I think about a lot because I am not FIRE based on current expenses but comfortably FIRE based on a different subset of expenses (mainly, moving to another state and not sending kids to parochial school), and I also fully realize this, and continue to work, so ergo I must consider the total benefits to exceed the total costs.  Which is accurate.  (I don't work at mega corp  though.)

Probably we should say that rich comprises a wide degree of income, wealth and expenses and people along that spectrum continue working or not for a variety of reasons.  But that's too vague.

There are some people who are rich who don't like their job but need it to fund their lifestyle. 
There are others who have engineered situations in which their job is largely enjoyable.
There are some with a compulsion (literally, addition to working even though they seem stressed and unhappy -- it can be quite an adrenaline to be on these deals with lots of zeros and get to boss around people lower than you even if you get dumped on from above).
There are some that simply need or want some sort of formal engagement with the world so they can justify themselves to their social circle (I'm Frank and I'm an endocrinologist). 

Sometimes, it's a combination of all four factors, competing together all at once. 

[Metalcat]

I'm actually mostly referring to people who have more than they need to support their preferred lifestyle.

If someone has 3M and can't afford their country club membership, then they don't have enough to support their preferred lifestyle.

As to the rest of your post, yes, I agree that there are multiple reasons why people continue working. At no point did I say that the majority of those who continue working despite being rich (whatever definition you use) are doing it because they love their job.

The only thing I'm saying is that you can't assume to know why someone continues to work even when they don't financially have to. I think there are even more factors than your list of four.

Careers are a huge part of people's lives, and there are countless reasons not to be eager to abandon them.

[2sk22]

The only thing I'm saying is that you can't assume to know why someone continues to work even when they don't financially have to. I think there are even more factors than your list of four.

Careers are a huge part of people's lives, and there are countless reasons not to be eager to abandon them.

As @Malcat says, there are a million individual reasons why people with a high net worth keep working. I think about this a lot - I've posted my net worth in another thread.

So why am I still working (hopefully, not for long though)?

• I was well paid throughout my career but now, mainly due to luck, it turns out that I have some of the most lucrative credentials currently (machine learning). I'm paid a ridiculous amount - basically for knowing some linear algebra and the chain rule in calculus :-)
• I have a lot of autonomy
• I feel obliged to help the small startup where I am working secure their next round of VC funding. Financially, I could walk away any time I want but several people's livelihood depends on this work. It feels a bit like a puppy that followed me home.

For a while, the venture capital scene looked bleak earlier this year. But money has started to flow again so I think the funding will go through.

[undercover]

It cracks me up all of these people living such fulfilling awesome lives because they quit work at 30-35 and are "happy" living on $25-40K a year.   Trust me, watching YouTube videos of people doing cool stuff isn't the same as doing it yourself, don't let somebody convince you its not, and I'm sorry you can't do it on $25k a year.  Winning is not just about stopping working, people who are winning are ones that have the three areas covered; finances, health, and relationships.

Doing cool stuff yourself and watching others doing cool stuff isn’t mutually exclusive. You’re allowed to do both. Also, if living the typical lifestyle of the 1% was necessary for happiness, there’d be a lot more suicides.

There are so many things one can do that requires little to no money but are very enjoyable ways to spend time. Doing artistic things, reading literature, learning new skills, riding a bike, hanging out and cooking with friends, etc, are just some of them. I mean sure if you have a firehose of cash hitting you in the face constantly and spending it will do you no harm, go right ahead. But international travel and constant luxury dining aren’t necessary to be happy and fulfilled so I don’t think aiming to be in the 1% is going to make a fundamental difference to most people’s lives.

[RogerOS]

Successful people are often successful because they are good at what they do. They often become good at what they do because they enjoy it, have a need for recognition and are competitive. These needs and characteristics don't change when you become rich.

[nereo]

Successful people are often successful because they are good at what they do. They often become good at what they do because they enjoy it, have a need for recognition and are competitive. These needs and characteristics don't change when you become rich.

Or they are born affluent and white.  At least in United States,...

[MDM]

Or they are born affluent and white.  At least in United States,...

Fortunately, both of those attributes are neither necessary nor sufficient.

[Metalcat]

Or they are born affluent and white.  At least in United States,...

Fortunately, both of those attributes are neither necessary nor sufficient.

Yeah, I happen to know a lot of white kids from affluent families who are far, far, faaaaar from successful.

It's a HUGE leg up, but it's often woefully inefficient for actual success.

[nereo]

Or they are born affluent and white.  At least in United States,...

Fortunately, both of those attributes are neither necessary nor sufficient.

Yeah, I happen to know a lot of white kids from affluent families who are far, far, faaaaar from successful.

It's a HUGE leg up, but it's often woefully inefficient for actual success.

True.  Children of rich white parents can wind up poor while those from hard-working, lower-class minority backgrounds can become wildly successful.  However, I was providing additional context to RogerOS’s statement that successful people are often successful because they are good at what they do.
The sad truth is that in the United States your parent’s economic status is one of the strongest predictors of your lifetime earning potential.  Race remains another strong predictor.  That runs contrary to this narrative that we are the ‘Land of Economic Mobility and Opportunity”.

[Metalcat]

Or they are born affluent and white.  At least in United States,...

Fortunately, both of those attributes are neither necessary nor sufficient.

Yeah, I happen to know a lot of white kids from affluent families who are far, far, faaaaar from successful.

It's a HUGE leg up, but it's often woefully inefficient for actual success.

True.  Children of rich white parents can wind up poor while those from hard-working, lower-class minority backgrounds can become wildly successful.  However, I was providing additional context to RogerOS’s statement that successful people are often successful because they are good at what they do.
The sad truth is that in the United States your parent’s economic status is one of the strongest predictors of your lifetime earning potential.  Race remains another strong predictor.  That runs contrary to this narrative that we are the ‘Land of Economic Mobility and Opportunity”.

Yeah, that's absolutely true, but I think their original point was that of the population that becomes particularly successful, regardless of what non talent factors contribute to that success, chances are that the person is good at what they do, which often correlates with enjoying it, not always, but often. I think it was more of an observation about why people stay in successfil positions as opposed to why they're successful.

[albireo13]

There is no winning. 
Either you are happy in life or not. 
You are the prime example of material excess. 
Congratulations that you own more boats than your neighbor. 
LOL

[MikePolo4]

These people are addicted to the power more than the money. It's their own mini house of cards inside corporate America. It's really sad really for them (to not be satisfied with all that monetary security) and sad for the rest of us who have to work under their thumbs.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

[bmjohnson35]

These people are addicted to the power more than the money. It's their own mini house of cards inside corporate America. It's really sad really for them (to not be satisfied with all that monetary security) and sad for the rest of us who have to work under their thumbs.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

This is another generalization.  I have worked with the type you describe and you are very much spot on for those who fall into this category.  I have worked with 1st level supervisors who let a little power go to their head and I have worked with a corporate president of North America who was easy going and very much down to earth.  I was in middle management for years.  I have no interest managing or being responsible for other people ever again.  I don't look down on the former personality type just because it doesn't align with mine.  There are many reasons why people continue to work, whether they are multi-millionaires or simply have adequate retirement wealth/income.  Just because you can't relate doesn't mean you should judge.