Becoming the 1%

[AJ]

So let's say if in your life span, you consume X amount and produces X amount, you have just.... lived by not burdening anyone else.

But let's say if you consumed X amount, but produced Y amount and Y-X is much greater than zero and you contributed to .. well, not on yourself, be it your offspring, your community, whatever... You just made your life much more meaningful.

This equation is only correct if the only things of value are those that are monetarily compensated. This is (IMO) not the case. I don't think that what I do (programming) contributes more to society than a teacher, yet I am compensated much more than most teachers. To say nothing of homemakers...

Now, if you are really good at making money, and not very skilled at other things like teaching or parenting, then your highest and best use to society may very well be working as long as possible and amassing a fortune. I don't think this applies to most people, but I agree it is worth considering.

[grantmeaname]

So let's say if in your life span, you consume X amount and produces X amount, you have just.... lived by not burdening anyone else.

This equation is only correct if the only things of value are those that are monetarily compensated.

I'd go even further. If you do anything of moral value other than make money and spend money, the equation totally misses it. What about the social worker who spends all his pay minus just enough to get him through retirement? Just as much goes into his life as comes out of it, yet clearly he's done more with his life than merely 'not burden' other people.

[mechanic baird]

So let's say if in your life span, you consume X amount and produces X amount, you have just.... lived by not burdening anyone else.

But let's say if you consumed X amount, but produced Y amount and Y-X is much greater than zero and you contributed to .. well, not on yourself, be it your offspring, your community, whatever... You just made your life much more meaningful.

This equation is only correct if the only things of value are those that are monetarily compensated. This is (IMO) not the case. I don't think that what I do (programming) contributes more to society than a teacher, yet I am compensated much more than most teachers. To say nothing of homemakers...

Now, if you are really good at making money, and not very skilled at other things like teaching or parenting, then your highest and best use to society may very well be working as long as possible and amassing a fortune. I don't think this applies to most people, but I agree it is worth considering.

I probably should clarify the XY values are not meant to be jut monetary values. My original thought was to be "resources", whether it is human resources or earth resources. If you consumed X amount of earth resources and other people's labor/services, but you have produced, through your work a much greater resources/labor/services back into the community, I think that's a pretty good life you have lived..

[jbhernandez]

The Buffets of the world are giving their vast fortune to charity, but they are not letting their children twist in the wind, either.  They still provided a home for those kids, and health insurance.  I assure you that if every one of Buffet's kids got AIDS, he would pay for the drugs to keep them all alive rather than sit back and watch them die slow horrible deaths just because they couldn't afford the treatments.

Speaking about Warren Buffett ONLY here: I loved the guy at one point, read some of his biography's, sent away for Berkshire Hathaway's annual reports, etc. However, he's a cold hearted man, going as far as disowned one of his grandchildren because she was interviewed for the documentary The One Percent https://signup.netflix.com/movie/The-One-Percent/70092779

He warned her, not to interview for the documentary, but she went ahead anyway.