If 1M is good, is 10M better?

[NorthernIkigai]

The discussion of the downsides of life being too easy ring very true to me. Much of our social malaise these days comes from living in a world of abundance. This includes the social disconnection, which is partially driven by it being too comfortable and entertaining to sit around alone looking at an abundance of free and addictive entertainment, instead of needing to go out into the world and hang out with people for entertainment.

Some of the quibbling with the notion that some people are more driven than others seems a little reflexively ideological. I think it should be fairly uncontroversial to state that the uneven distribution of conscientiousness/drive/grit/hard-working-ness, like most other human traits, comes from both nature and nurture. Of course there's a meaningful genetic component. Some people can be provided all the loving support in the world, and still just be dispositionally lazier.

The genetic lottery is not fair. Some people are just born with traits that make them "better" than others in various ways. We can strive to make a society that gives people the best opportunities it can within their genetic limitations, and treats the genetically unluckiest people with dignity and respect. But to my mind, the notion that humans are infinitely mutable is faulty and does a lot of harm. Lots of people simply can not ever "learn to code." Lots of people cannot pass the marshmallow test. And lots of people are lazy. It is what it is.

I agree with you in general, but it's funny that you should mention the marshmallow test! This is because this is literally something that was taught to me at university 20+ years ago, and which has now been cast into a lot of doubt as scientists have tried to replicate it and considered other confounding variables (such as household income and cognitive ability). If a kid grows up in an environment where adults make promises they can't or don't keep, why would they trust the promise of the researcher of another marshmallow?

[Metalcat]

The discussion of the downsides of life being too easy ring very true to me. Much of our social malaise these days comes from living in a world of abundance. This includes the social disconnection, which is partially driven by it being too comfortable and entertaining to sit around alone looking at an abundance of free and addictive entertainment, instead of needing to go out into the world and hang out with people for entertainment.

Some of the quibbling with the notion that some people are more driven than others seems a little reflexively ideological. I think it should be fairly uncontroversial to state that the uneven distribution of conscientiousness/drive/grit/hard-working-ness, like most other human traits, comes from both nature and nurture. Of course there's a meaningful genetic component. Some people can be provided all the loving support in the world, and still just be dispositionally lazier.

The genetic lottery is not fair. Some people are just born with traits that make them "better" than others in various ways. We can strive to make a society that gives people the best opportunities it can within their genetic limitations, and treats the genetically unluckiest people with dignity and respect. But to my mind, the notion that humans are infinitely mutable is faulty and does a lot of harm. Lots of people simply can not ever "learn to code." Lots of people cannot pass the marshmallow test. And lots of people are lazy. It is what it is.

I agree with you in general, but it's funny that you should mention the marshmallow test! This is because this is literally something that was taught to me at university 20+ years ago, and which has now been cast into a lot of doubt as scientists have tried to replicate it and considered other confounding variables (such as household income and cognitive ability). If a kid grows up in an environment where adults make promises they can't or don't keep, why would they trust the promise of the researcher of another marshmallow?

There's a great book called The Quick Fix that covers the absolute nonsense of psych research and how most of what people cite as fact because of highly publicized psych research has largely been debunked, that just doesn't get reported widely.

I'm in no way disagreeing that there are fundamental genetic and congenital factors that contribute to various traits that make people successful in life.

But resilience and happiness are very complex things. Absolutely no one is resilient and happy in the face of life's challenges *just* because they were born that way. That is an absolutely absurd notion.

That's also why I said "appropriate" supports. Different people need different supports throughout their development. That's why fraternal twins can have wildly different outcomes. Different genes create different starting points, which create different needs, and different interactions within their environment.

That doesn't mean the genes determined the outcome. Put those same fraternal twins with a different family and the outcomes could be reversed.

I see people at their absolute worst and most dysfunctional, and the process of deconstructing why and how they're not functioning well is extremely enlightening and it's remarkable how radically a person's outcomes can change when some of their foundational dysfunction is resolved.

People's behaviour is exquisitely changeable with the right supports. Figuring out what those supports are is the challenge, especially in a world filled with miserable people who aren't great models for health and thriving.

[twinstudy]

I agree with you in general, but it's funny that you should mention the marshmallow test! This is because this is literally something that was taught to me at university 20+ years ago, and which has now been cast into a lot of doubt as scientists have tried to replicate it and considered other confounding variables (such as household income and cognitive ability). If a kid grows up in an environment where adults make promises they can't or don't keep, why would they trust the promise of the researcher of another marshmallow?

The subsequent studies have still, mostly, replicated the correlations; but there does not seem to be a strong correlation independent of other factors such as cognitive ability or family background, as you said. This doesn't mean that willpower isn't important though - it could simply be that there are multiple correlated variables, of which willpower is one, which have a convergent effect on adult outcomes.

[Ron Scott]

The discussion of the downsides of life being too easy ring very true to me. Much of our social malaise these days comes from living in a world of abundance. This includes the social disconnection, which is partially driven by it being too comfortable and entertaining to sit around alone looking at an abundance of free and addictive entertainment, instead of needing to go out into the world and hang out with people for entertainment.

Some of the quibbling with the notion that some people are more driven than others seems a little reflexively ideological. I think it should be fairly uncontroversial to state that the uneven distribution of conscientiousness/drive/grit/hard-working-ness, like most other human traits, comes from both nature and nurture. Of course there's a meaningful genetic component. Some people can be provided all the loving support in the world, and still just be dispositionally lazier.

The genetic lottery is not fair. Some people are just born with traits that make them "better" than others in various ways. We can strive to make a society that gives people the best opportunities it can within their genetic limitations, and treats the genetically unluckiest people with dignity and respect. But to my mind, the notion that humans are infinitely mutable is faulty and does a lot of harm. Lots of people simply can not ever "learn to code." Lots of people cannot pass the marshmallow test. And lots of people are lazy. It is what it is.

Can we simply stipulate that people fall on many measures unequally? That inequality is a fact of human existence?

If a democracy can agree on laws to curtail the effects of inequality for whatever reason, than it may do so. But laws don’t change the state of nature, do they?

[Log]

The discussion of the downsides of life being too easy ring very true to me. Much of our social malaise these days comes from living in a world of abundance. This includes the social disconnection, which is partially driven by it being too comfortable and entertaining to sit around alone looking at an abundance of free and addictive entertainment, instead of needing to go out into the world and hang out with people for entertainment.

Some of the quibbling with the notion that some people are more driven than others seems a little reflexively ideological. I think it should be fairly uncontroversial to state that the uneven distribution of conscientiousness/drive/grit/hard-working-ness, like most other human traits, comes from both nature and nurture. Of course there's a meaningful genetic component. Some people can be provided all the loving support in the world, and still just be dispositionally lazier.

The genetic lottery is not fair. Some people are just born with traits that make them "better" than others in various ways. We can strive to make a society that gives people the best opportunities it can within their genetic limitations, and treats the genetically unluckiest people with dignity and respect. But to my mind, the notion that humans are infinitely mutable is faulty and does a lot of harm. Lots of people simply can not ever "learn to code." Lots of people cannot pass the marshmallow test. And lots of people are lazy. It is what it is.

Can we simply stipulate that people fall on many measures unequally? That inequality is a fact of human existence?

If a democracy can agree on laws to curtail the effects of inequality for whatever reason, than it may do so. But laws don’t change the state of nature, do they?

100%

Re: marshmallow test, I brought it up more metaphorically. The study being debunked is pretty irrelevant to the general observation that people vary in their capacity to delay gratification, and this has significant implications for one’s life outcomes. I’m sure lots of impulsive children grow up to gain self-control, and vice-versa. The point stands that all of us participating here on this forum and talking about early retirement are highly privileged with the intelligence and disposition that enable us to consider trade-offs and execute these long-term plans.

[NorthernIkigai]

You know what they say about correlations…

Yes, I get that marshmallows are not the issue here and that Mustachians are pretty much by definition if not so much able to delay gratification at least very much able to make the best of the situation they are in and plan for where they want to end up. (I, for one, don’t feel I’m delaying anything — I’m just living my best life now and that will make me be able to do so in the future as well.)

That’s the situation for us here on this board. But I do think that what makes some children/adults/people in general be able to think and act long-term is hugely relevant, both for the kids in our lives and for kids in general. If we can help humanity think more long-term, why say “oh well, some people just can and it’s not relevant to figure out why”?

[Metalcat]

You know what they say about correlations…

Yes, I get that marshmallows are not the issue here and that Mustachians are pretty much by definition if not so much able to delay gratification at least very much able to make the best of the situation they are in and plan for where they want to end up. (I, for one, don’t feel I’m delaying anything — I’m just living my best life now and that will make me be able to do so in the future as well.)

That’s the situation for us here on this board. But I do think that what makes some children/adults/people in general be able to think and act long-term is hugely relevant, both for the kids in our lives and for kids in general. If we can help humanity think more long-term, why say “oh well, some people just can and it’s not relevant to figure out why”?

I mean, yeah, as someone whose job it is to change the way people think about things, it *is* kind of important to understand why they think/behave the way they do and how to change that.

[Ron Scott]

I understand the value in being about to delay gratification as a strategy to achieve a better, longer-term goal. But don’t let it become a nutty obsession.

To my mind, a better approach is twofold:

1. Develop a deep understanding of your goal and the plan you’ve developed to achieve it. Reevaluate often and don’t feel a need to maintain internal consistency if you see benefit in making changes to the goal or plan. Overvaluing consistency and sticking to a highly specific goal-plan is suboptimal and borderline neurotic.

This is certainly true for those with FIRE goals. Having an aggressive plan for FI and living in a state of delayed gratification on a number of fronts to achieve it is probably fine for some and awful for others. You certainly do not NEED to stick to a plan for years if you realize you don’t like it. You can modify it or toss it. There is no value in simply sticking to the original goal/plan if your life experience isn’t reinforcing it. Changing your outlook, goals, and plans, based on your ongoing experience is natural and healthy.

2. Identify and weed-out the SHOULDS and MUSTS in your life. Most things we feel we should do are perfectly fine being treated as options. Musts can be scary. Many people trap themselves in a crappy headspace by setting up way too many life rules and trying to live up to it all. Ditch that baggage. Relax more.

[obstinate]

Food quality and quantity seems to be worse.  Public health care seems to be worse.  Gas is much more expensive.

I dunno - doesn't seem radically more luxurious.

Travel is much less expensive than it was then. Food is also, on an inflation-adjusted basis. Healthcare is dramatically better than it was then -- we can now cure cancers that were then fatal, we have ozempic, and RNA cancer destroyers are in second stage trials.

If you're not living more luxuriously than in '99, that is a fine stance, but it is an uncommon one.

[2sk22]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

[Tasse]

I mentioned the book Uneasy Street on page 1 of this thread, but it's a similar story. Tons of people spending 7 figures consider their lifestyles to be "not luxurious, just comfortable upper-middle-class."

[Metalcat]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

Just from the part you quoted, he's spot on.

This is a point I made earlier, and is the point that MMM has been making all along: the spending ceiling on a middle-class lifestyle is enormously high.

I learned in my years of living among rather wealthy folks that they all feel "middle class" because they are all essentially spending a fortune to live pretty much a middle class lifestyle with a lot of spendy details.

The level of wealth you need to break into a truly higher standard of living, not just a middle-class lifestyle with expensive details is astronomical.

Middle class spending is basically a heat-sink. You can escalate your spending several times over in every single category and still just have a marginally nicer version of the exact same life.

I've mentioned this many times before, but my experience living among very wealthy folks was that across the board, luxury rarely delivered an increase proportional to the additional cost, meaning, the more you spend, the less value you get for your money.

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

A tasty, hole in the wall, ethnic restaurant can have great food in a simple setting, while a high end restaurant will have a nicer venue, better service, and use more premium ingredients. The experience is definitely nicer, but not ten times nicer. It's still just eating food that someone else made in a room outside your house.

I have perpetually felt disappointed by what I can get by spending enormous sums of money in most areas of life.

There's a ceiling on how much spending on luxury can add to essentially the exact same experience, but there's almost no ceiling on the cost of that added luxury.

Everyone feels middle class because we're all essentially getting the same middle class experience, just with different small details that drastically alter the cost.

Sometimes the details really matter. For each person, there are certain small details that are truly a priority. A skilled musician might *really* care about the small detail differences of instruments and amps. I deeply care about the small differences between different types of extremely expensive crutches.

We all have our things where the small details matter, but the more of those things that we decide matter, the more and more and more we have to spend just to maintain essentially the same middle class lifestyle.

But if you try to inflate everything, you will find that it takes SO much money to just hit the top level of middle class luxury, almost no one can even afford that.

You don't really start leaving the essentially middle class lifestyle experience until you have multiple live-in staff so that you are relieved of a lot of domestic tasks. That's really where money starts significantly impacting your basic day-to-day way of living.

Everything else is just truffles and gold leaf on an already delicious steak.

[elysianfields]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

Yeah, cry me a fucking river dude, you’ve got $10 M/M.

Many Foreign Service folks hire household help when serving overseas in less-developed countries.  It’s great not to have to mop or iron, but after managing staff all day, sometimes one has to come home to manage more staff, this gets irksome and tiring.  Yeah, I know, cry me a fucking river…

[Ron Scott]

I mentioned the book Uneasy Street on page 1 of this thread, but it's a similar story. Tons of people spending 7 figures consider their lifestyles to be "not luxurious, just comfortable upper-middle-class."

In my experience, most people are fascinated with the financial situation of others. In some ways I get it, in some I don’t.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I don't know if I'd classify the situation overall as better or worse, but I find myself managing money more as NW approaches 10M vs. when I was at 1M and had a simple portfolio and tax situation.

I can already hear everyone saying I could just as easily have 10M of index funds as 1M, problem solved, and that theory is correct.  But there are so many options available to me that promise diversification, better returns, and being uncorrelated with the S&P500.  I have my majority of NW still in index funds and two bond funds, but beyond the core FI investments, I have some private equity, hard lending, individual stocks, and I like to trade short term options when I see an opportunity...  I have a CPA to unload the added tax filing burden for the K1's, inherited IRA distributions, and trust fund management but there's undeniably more work.  Don't get me wrong, the investing 'work' I do is much more interesting and pays better than W-2 labor so I'm not complaining, just pointing out one more area where 10M might be considered worse for people who don't like these things but don't want to unload it all to an advisor (we are Mustachians after all, and money managers typically charge 1% or more (factoring in trading fees, etc.) and you need to keep an eye on them)...

There are also more spending decisions to be made if you want to make the most of having a higher NW, but that is something you have discretion over.  It can still be a hassle though, especially trying not to feel ripped off while also minimizing wasted effort to save twenty bucks on the small stuff.

In summary, having more money becomes a full time job in and of itself unless you unload it to expensive investment advisors.  Spending also becomes a job unless you stop caring about being ripped off.

[GilesMM]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

That person's view of a luxury life is more like $1million/yr in spending and possibly a great deal more depending on how many homes are involved, their location, and cost of staff them.  The life described is more like a CEO or rock star than some peon with just $10 million.

[twinstudy]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

Just from the part you quoted, he's spot on.

This is a point I made earlier, and is the point that MMM has been making all along: the spending ceiling on a middle-class lifestyle is enormously high.

I learned in my years of living among rather wealthy folks that they all feel "middle class" because they are all essentially spending a fortune to live pretty much a middle class lifestyle with a lot of spendy details.

The level of wealth you need to break into a truly higher standard of living, not just a middle-class lifestyle with expensive details is astronomical.

Middle class spending is basically a heat-sink. You can escalate your spending several times over in every single category and still just have a marginally nicer version of the exact same life.

I've mentioned this many times before, but my experience living among very wealthy folks was that across the board, luxury rarely delivered an increase proportional to the additional cost, meaning, the more you spend, the less value you get for your money.

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

A tasty, hole in the wall, ethnic restaurant can have great food in a simple setting, while a high end restaurant will have a nicer venue, better service, and use more premium ingredients. The experience is definitely nicer, but not ten times nicer. It's still just eating food that someone else made in a room outside your house.

I have perpetually felt disappointed by what I can get by spending enormous sums of money in most areas of life.

There's a ceiling on how much spending on luxury can add to essentially the exact same experience, but there's almost no ceiling on the cost of that added luxury.

Everyone feels middle class because we're all essentially getting the same middle class experience, just with different small details that drastically alter the cost.

Sometimes the details really matter. For each person, there are certain small details that are truly a priority. A skilled musician might *really* care about the small detail differences of instruments and amps. I deeply care about the small differences between different types of extremely expensive crutches.

We all have our things where the small details matter, but the more of those things that we decide matter, the more and more and more we have to spend just to maintain essentially the same middle class lifestyle.

But if you try to inflate everything, you will find that it takes SO much money to just hit the top level of middle class luxury, almost no one can even afford that.

You don't really start leaving the essentially middle class lifestyle experience until you have multiple live-in staff so that you are relieved of a lot of domestic tasks. That's really where money starts significantly impacting your basic day-to-day way of living.

Everything else is just truffles and gold leaf on an already delicious steak.

As you said, a 'middle class' life (in terms of most aesthetic/sensory parameters) is already very luxurious. A $50 meal is a 8.5/10 already. A $300 meal might be 10/10 but you are getting marginal gains, obviously. And food is actually one of the best value propositions out there: there's no such thing as a 'Veblen good' when it comes to food (because the best restaurants just make it hard to book a table: they're not expensive in the scheme of things). Once you start getting into luxury bags, cars, watches, homes, you could easily drop $1m or $10m and still only go from a 9.3 to a 9.4 out of 10.

So I think it's important to let yourself indulge in a couple of categories - whether that's food, cars, travel, homeware - but otherwise stick to an upper middle class 8/10 level. That's the difference between $100k a year in spending and $1m a year in spending.

Humans are wired to try to minmax and chase the ceiling, but you can do that in other areas of accomplishment besides lifestyle. You can minmax your relationship or your family life or your friends or your career. Don't minmax consumerism, obviously.

One easy way I sometimes put myself off luxury purchases is by examining the people who buy them. I was at an Hermes shop the other day because I wanted to buy a nice tie for a relative, and I didn't mind splashing $400 on it. The store made me line up for 15+ minutes just to get in - this was on a lazy sunday - and most of the others in line were young students who were obviously spending daddy's money. The thought of being like them turned me off completely. Hermes as a brand makes some nice things but I now can't shake the thought that most of its customers are (1) poor people trying to look rich or (2) rich kids who will be poor in 1-2 generations. Yuck.

[Laura33]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

OK, that guy's version of a "rich" lifestyle is like royalty-level.  His list is populated with the kinds of things a hugely successful venture capitalist does -- but he is missing the reality that the VC is bringing in $10M per year, because he's still working.  He's not trying to live on $10M for the rest of his life.

It reminds me of the poor people who think that winning a $1M lottery means they're rich -- the monetary target is less of a real number than it is some unattainable wish that will solve all problems.  And then they get there, and they discover that there's a whole other world of issues and considerations and concerns that they didn't have any clue about, and in fact they're still really far away from whatever that dream was.

Really, the math of what he's talking about is self-evident.  $10M in VHCOL, and he wants multiple homes to start with.  That's going to take half your money right there (if you're looking for "rich"-level homes).  So how are you going to fit in everything else on that list for $5M? 

As with everything else, you can have a bunch of stuff on that list with $10M.  You just can't have all of it.  But really, do you even have the time/desire to fly airplanes, play polo, get your kids lacrosse coaches and into all the competitive travel teams, visit your multiple homes, go to every concert, drive your multiple fancy cars regularly (in VHCOL traffic??), and hang out at the country club every weekend?  My God that sounds exhausting.

From what I've learned, you get more happy for your money if you focus your spending in two areas:  (1) things that relieve anxiety/fears, provide a cushion against life's hardships, etc.; and (2) areas that are significantly meaningful to you in particular, vs. just focusing on having All The Things that all the other Rich People have.

1.  By far the best thing money provides IMO is a safety net against bad shit.  At $10M, you can afford excellent medical insurance -- and you've got cash to deal with anything that isn't covered and fight insurance about it later.  You can afford to pay for daycare for your kids, or to have/be a SAHP, and to pay for college.  You can afford good, safe housing that is convenient to wherever you want to be.  If you're in a VHCOL area in the US, those are the three major areas of insecurity.  So how freaking awesome is it that you don't have to worry about that ever again??? 

Along those lines, what parts of life do you just really, really hate?  Cleaning?  Grocery shopping?  Yard work?  Cooking?  Guess what:  you don't have to do that ever again.  At $10M, you can hire someone to do it for you.  If I'm lucky, I will never have to clean my own house ever again.  And it makes me happy happy happy every time the cleaning lady shows up to know that that is one bit of drudgery that I can afford not to have to do myself. 

2.  No one can have everything.  So you can't make "everything" your goal for happiness.  You need to define the specific things that make you happy and target your spending there, and then spend less on areas that don't really matter to you.  Like: do you have one favorite vacation spot, or do you want to travel the world?  At $10M, you can afford a vacation home in your favorite spot, or multiple trips to different places; you just can't do both.  So pick the thing that matters most, and enjoy the hell out of doing that.  And if that gets old, pick something else, and enjoy the hell out of that.

But like everything else, it is all a matter of perspective.  For ex., we didn't have money for stuff like concerts growing up, and even when I had a job and could "afford" concert tix, I couldn't get over the prices.  So I missed a whole bunch of events that I regret.  So when I discovered this year that John Fogerty was playing 3 hours away, and I was able to immediately buy tickets and get a hotel without even thinking twice about it, it felt like a huge thing -- just knowing I was able to go to a concert without thinking about the cost made me very very happy, even before the concert itself.  OTOH, if my life expectations for 30 years had been "I get to go to any concert I want," then I'd likely have been disappointed that I had to drive 3 hrs and stay at a low-end hotel.   

IOW, that guy needs to get off Reddit and get him some MMM.  He clearly feels guilty for being disappointed with how far away he still is from the lifestyle he expected -- and yet he is disappointed.  And you can't talk yourself out of being disappointed.  The only thing that will work is to re-set your thinking, where your baseline is basically nothing except basic needs, and anything above that is a luxury instead of an expectation.  That's the best way I know to be happy with less than royalty-level wealth.

[GuitarStv]

His list is populated with the kinds of things a hugely successful venture capitalist does -- but he is missing the reality that the VC is bringing in $10M per year, because he's still working.

Don't VCs just give money to other people to do work and then skim off the top?

[Ron Scott]

In summary, having more money becomes a full time job in and of itself unless you unload it to expensive investment advisors.  Spending also becomes a job unless you stop caring about being ripped off.

I recommend a set-and-forget investment strategy, meeting with your tax accountant once a year to review your plan, and stop toying with the idea that expensive investment advisors are the key to anything of value. No need to get ripped off with this advice.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

In summary, having more money becomes a full time job in and of itself unless you unload it to expensive investment advisors.  Spending also becomes a job unless you stop caring about being ripped off.

I recommend a set-and-forget investment strategy, meeting with your tax accountant once a year to review your plan, and stop toying with the idea that expensive investment advisors are the key to anything of value. No need to get ripped off with this advice.

I've had a lot of success with Private Equity and stock options.  In my experience, more hands on = better returns.  It's like this for practically everything I've added now that I have my FI covered by Indexing...

If I were fully retired, I'd probably sell covered calls like Karsten (Early Retirement Now) does - He Earned a Million Dollars Trading This Option Strategy

[bluecollarmusician]

I have perpetually felt disappointed by what I can get by spending enormous sums of money in most areas of life.

Exactly this.

In summary, having more money becomes a full time job in and of itself unless you unload it to expensive investment advisors.  Spending also becomes a job unless you stop caring about being ripped off.

Also this. 

[Telecaster]

In summary, having more money becomes a full time job in and of itself unless you unload it to expensive investment advisors.  Spending also becomes a job unless you stop caring about being ripped off.

Having more money becomes a full time job...if and only if you desire higher returns/more diversification than you can get by owning a simple portfolio.   I don't have $10 million, but if I did, I'm fairy certain my investments would be nearly identical to what they are right now.   

As my net worth/income has increased, my spending has gotten easier and takes less time.   I don't want or need more stuff than I used to, but now I just buy the thing I want instead of always looking for the low cost solution or compromising on quality.   Or I can just write a check for a car instead of financing, for example.   Or if the car needs maintenance I can take care of it right away instead of waiting until next month when I have more money, and so on. 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

Just from the part you quoted, he's spot on.

This is a point I made earlier, and is the point that MMM has been making all along: the spending ceiling on a middle-class lifestyle is enormously high.

I learned in my years of living among rather wealthy folks that they all feel "middle class" because they are all essentially spending a fortune to live pretty much a middle class lifestyle with a lot of spendy details.

The level of wealth you need to break into a truly higher standard of living, not just a middle-class lifestyle with expensive details is astronomical.

Middle class spending is basically a heat-sink. You can escalate your spending several times over in every single category and still just have a marginally nicer version of the exact same life.

I've mentioned this many times before, but my experience living among very wealthy folks was that across the board, luxury rarely delivered an increase proportional to the additional cost, meaning, the more you spend, the less value you get for your money.

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

A tasty, hole in the wall, ethnic restaurant can have great food in a simple setting, while a high end restaurant will have a nicer venue, better service, and use more premium ingredients. The experience is definitely nicer, but not ten times nicer. It's still just eating food that someone else made in a room outside your house.

I have perpetually felt disappointed by what I can get by spending enormous sums of money in most areas of life.

There's a ceiling on how much spending on luxury can add to essentially the exact same experience, but there's almost no ceiling on the cost of that added luxury.

Everyone feels middle class because we're all essentially getting the same middle class experience, just with different small details that drastically alter the cost.

Sometimes the details really matter. For each person, there are certain small details that are truly a priority. A skilled musician might *really* care about the small detail differences of instruments and amps. I deeply care about the small differences between different types of extremely expensive crutches.

We all have our things where the small details matter, but the more of those things that we decide matter, the more and more and more we have to spend just to maintain essentially the same middle class lifestyle.

But if you try to inflate everything, you will find that it takes SO much money to just hit the top level of middle class luxury, almost no one can even afford that.

You don't really start leaving the essentially middle class lifestyle experience until you have multiple live-in staff so that you are relieved of a lot of domestic tasks. That's really where money starts significantly impacting your basic day-to-day way of living.

Everything else is just truffles and gold leaf on an already delicious steak.

*claps*

Although, as you said, MMM talked about this, I think this perspective is the most important MMM point and is not emphasized enough.

You can spend insane levels of money for marginal gain. That's why our "sacrifices" as MMM people don't seem like sacrifices to us.

[bluecollarmusician]

Having more money becomes a full time job...if and only if you desire higher returns/more diversification than you can get by owning a simple portfolio.   I don't have $10 million, but if I did, I'm fairy certain my investments would be nearly identical to what they are right now.   

I understand your point, but I believe projection bias plays a significant role in distorting our perception of such scenarios. Many people claim, 'If I won the lottery, I wouldn’t change a thing,' yet the reality often proves otherwise when it actually happens. While there are always exceptions, most people make decisions based on the best options available to them in their current circumstances—or at least, what they perceive to be the best options. When those options change dramatically, as they often do with a windfall, behavior tends to shift as well. For instance, if you suddenly had a substantial increase in wealth, a more conservative investment approach might make more sense, or you might gain access to unique investment opportunities that aren’t available to typical retail investors. In essence, increased optionality often leads to different choices, highlighting how our perspectives and actions can change when our circumstances do.

As my net worth/income has increased, my spending has gotten easier and takes less time.   I don't want or need more stuff than I used to, but now I just buy the thing I want instead of always looking for the low cost solution or compromising on quality.   Or I can just write a check for a car instead of financing, for example.   Or if the car needs maintenance I can take care of it right away instead of waiting until next month when I have more money, and so on. 

However, the increase in quality of life that comes with more wealth follows a bell curve. At a certain point, additional capital doesn’t provide more utility; it simply accumulates. Once your basic needs and desires are met—your car is fixed, you’re eating well, traveling freely, and no longer worry about your simple investment portfolio (indentical to the on you use now!)—you reach a state where you have all the money you need, and more. As the snowball continues to grow, you may find yourself with far more than you could ever spend. The question then becomes: how do you deploy this surplus capital intelligently and meaningfully? Sure, you could leave it all to your kids, and that’s perfectly valid, but that tends to be more of an exception than the rule. Most individuals who have built a substantial nest egg feel a strong pull to ensure that their wealth is used thoughtfully, whether it's through impactful investments, philanthropy, or initiatives that leave a legacy beyond mere accumulation.  Although, I suppose you could just pay someone to do that for you, too...

[Telecaster]

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

It is interesting to look at the financial statements of luxury companies like Ferrari and LVMH.  Their margins are wildly higher than their non-luxury counterparts.   They are definitely not competing on price. 

[Log]

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

It is interesting to look at the financial statements of luxury companies like Ferrari and LVMH.  Their margins are wildly higher than their non-luxury counterparts.   They are definitely not competing on price.

This is one thing that is abundantly clear from listening to Tim Ferriss interview various rich business/marketing people on his podcast. It is such a constant through-line: raise prices, sell to rich people, market exclusivity. Make it prestigious to be the ~kind of person~ who buys your product.

The same applies to selling yourself on the labor market. Charge more. Sell your rare and valuable skills to rich institutions.

In my own field: The difference in pay between a regional orchestra and the best orchestras is massive. Because the business model of orchestras (don’t be fooled that they’re not businesses because they’re “non-profits”) are selling a luxury product to the rich: big donors get to feel like they’re in the club. And it’s way more prestigious to be in the club of people who support a world-class orchestra than a little part-time orchestra, because at the major orchestras, everyone in the club has to donate a lot more.

[twinstudy]

Those are Veblen goods and services. It pays to sell a luxury good, and in particular it pays to go past "normal" luxury (think Mercedes, Omega, etc) into "high luxury" (Rolex, Ferrari, Hermes). People buying the former still want a good deal; people buying the latter don't mind paying a luxury tax, and will happily revel in paying a greater amount if they think it leads to exclusivity.

As the poster above suggested, you can price your own labour this way too, within reason. I've put up my professional hourly rate by a cumulative 59% in the 4-5 years since Covid-19. I still have no shortage of work. Inflationary pressures ('Covid inflation') plus clients' willingness to pay a premium for premium service mean that it's easy these days to charge more, and everyone should be doing it. There is no reason to ever compete on value, as you will just cheapskates for clients/customers.

[Metalcat]

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

It is interesting to look at the financial statements of luxury companies like Ferrari and LVMH.  Their margins are wildly higher than their non-luxury counterparts.   They are definitely not competing on price.

Well yeah, a Supreme T-shirt is just a cotton T-shirt with a logo that looks like a convenience store chain logo, and yet people pay hundreds to thousands for them:

https://stockx.com/supreme-x-louis-vuitton-box-logo-tee-white?country=CA&currencyCode=CAD&size=XXL

When it comes to what people will spend to feel rich, the sky is essentially the limit while barely moving the needle in terms of what the good or service actually does for overall quality of life.

[GuitarStv]

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

It is interesting to look at the financial statements of luxury companies like Ferrari and LVMH.  Their margins are wildly higher than their non-luxury counterparts.   They are definitely not competing on price.

Well yeah, a Supreme T-shirt is just a cotton T-shirt with a logo that looks like a convenience store chain logo, and yet people pay hundreds to thousands for them:

https://stockx.com/supreme-x-louis-vuitton-box-logo-tee-white?country=CA&currencyCode=CAD&size=XXL

When it comes to what people will spend to feel rich, the sky is essentially the limit while barely moving the needle in terms of what the good or service actually does for overall quality of life.

I stumbled across a youtube video a while back that was describing how illogically people value things.  Like if you were looking at creating a logical competitor for Coke you would probably brainstorm that to make the product competitive you would want a great tasting drink, maybe in a larger volume, that sells for less money.  But the biggest competition for Coke in the past 20 years is actually Red Bull . . . a drink that sells for five times as much, comes in very small volumes, and tastes objectively terrible.

:P

[Metalcat]

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

It is interesting to look at the financial statements of luxury companies like Ferrari and LVMH.  Their margins are wildly higher than their non-luxury counterparts.   They are definitely not competing on price.

Well yeah, a Supreme T-shirt is just a cotton T-shirt with a logo that looks like a convenience store chain logo, and yet people pay hundreds to thousands for them:

https://stockx.com/supreme-x-louis-vuitton-box-logo-tee-white?country=CA&currencyCode=CAD&size=XXL

When it comes to what people will spend to feel rich, the sky is essentially the limit while barely moving the needle in terms of what the good or service actually does for overall quality of life.

I stumbled across a youtube video a while back that was describing how illogically people value things.  Like if you were looking at creating a logical competitor for Coke you would probably brainstorm that to make the product competitive you would want a great tasting drink, maybe in a larger volume, that sells for less money.  But the biggest competition for Coke in the past 20 years is actually Red Bull . . . a drink that sells for five times as much, comes in very small volumes, and tastes objectively terrible.

:P

Yep. Human behaviour simply does not follow the systems of reasoning that we tend to think it does. It always makes sense, it's just that the frameworks for the systems of reasoning are quite complex and take a lot to understand.

[Psychstache]

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

It is interesting to look at the financial statements of luxury companies like Ferrari and LVMH.  Their margins are wildly higher than their non-luxury counterparts.   They are definitely not competing on price.

Well yeah, a Supreme T-shirt is just a cotton T-shirt with a logo that looks like a convenience store chain logo, and yet people pay hundreds to thousands for them:

https://stockx.com/supreme-x-louis-vuitton-box-logo-tee-white?country=CA&currencyCode=CAD&size=XXL

When it comes to what people will spend to feel rich, the sky is essentially the limit while barely moving the needle in terms of what the good or service actually does for overall quality of life.

One of my favorite examples of this was the I Am Rich App from the very early days of the iPhone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

On a per hour basis, Armin Heinrich did pretty good since it looks like he made about $4k for what I can only assume was roughly 15 seconds of work (didn't even proofread).

[LoanShark]

Here's an entertaining post on the FATFire subreddit by a guy who has apparently discovered that $10M is not quite enough for his planned spending :-)

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/1fnax5w/wow_i_was_off/

The reality appears to be that although $10M unlocks security, comfort and a good life anywhere in the world (which is more than enough!) it doesn't seem to unlock lower-end rich life luxury.

Just from the part you quoted, he's spot on.

This is a point I made earlier, and is the point that MMM has been making all along: the spending ceiling on a middle-class lifestyle is enormously high.

I learned in my years of living among rather wealthy folks that they all feel "middle class" because they are all essentially spending a fortune to live pretty much a middle class lifestyle with a lot of spendy details.

The level of wealth you need to break into a truly higher standard of living, not just a middle-class lifestyle with expensive details is astronomical.

Middle class spending is basically a heat-sink. You can escalate your spending several times over in every single category and still just have a marginally nicer version of the exact same life.

I've mentioned this many times before, but my experience living among very wealthy folks was that across the board, luxury rarely delivered an increase proportional to the additional cost, meaning, the more you spend, the less value you get for your money.

I found we often had to pay several times as much for around 20% more quality. Like, a concert ticket would be good, and a VIP concert ticket would be around 20-40% better of an experience, but cost 5X.

A tasty, hole in the wall, ethnic restaurant can have great food in a simple setting, while a high end restaurant will have a nicer venue, better service, and use more premium ingredients. The experience is definitely nicer, but not ten times nicer. It's still just eating food that someone else made in a room outside your house.

I have perpetually felt disappointed by what I can get by spending enormous sums of money in most areas of life.

There's a ceiling on how much spending on luxury can add to essentially the exact same experience, but there's almost no ceiling on the cost of that added luxury.

Everyone feels middle class because we're all essentially getting the same middle class experience, just with different small details that drastically alter the cost.

Sometimes the details really matter. For each person, there are certain small details that are truly a priority. A skilled musician might *really* care about the small detail differences of instruments and amps. I deeply care about the small differences between different types of extremely expensive crutches.

We all have our things where the small details matter, but the more of those things that we decide matter, the more and more and more we have to spend just to maintain essentially the same middle class lifestyle.

But if you try to inflate everything, you will find that it takes SO much money to just hit the top level of middle class luxury, almost no one can even afford that.

You don't really start leaving the essentially middle class lifestyle experience until you have multiple live-in staff so that you are relieved of a lot of domestic tasks. That's really where money starts significantly impacting your basic day-to-day way of living.

Everything else is just truffles and gold leaf on an already delicious steak.

This is spot on in my experience.

[obstinate]

I think there are some rich people goods and services that are really worth it. If I could afford a personal assistant, that would be nice. Being a member of a country club can be a true moving of the life quality needle if you like doing country club things. If you love flying airplanes, there's really no substitute.

The thing is, as long as you're heavily utilizing that expensive thing that you bought, you probably won't have that much time to need tobuy a bunch of other expensive things. if you're a country club member, you oughta be over there playing golf and squash, working out at the gym, swimming at the pool, and sometimes eating at the restaurant. You don't need a second house as well! You're too busy at the club.

It's when you try to have all these nice things at once you can get into trouble, at least on the type of wealth normal people save. If this guy wants that he should use the freedom he purchased with his first venture to build another startup. Then you can really go into the stratosphere. Or just work a normal job for five more years and let the investment returns push you into a higher orbit.

[Metalcat]

I think there are some rich people goods and services that are really worth it. If I could afford a personal assistant, that would be nice. Being a member of a country club can be a true moving of the life quality needle if you like doing country club things. If you love flying airplanes, there's really no substitute.

The thing is, as long as you're heavily utilizing that expensive thing that you bought, you probably won't have that much time to need tobuy a bunch of other expensive things. if you're a country club member, you oughta be over there playing golf and squash, working out at the gym, swimming at the pool, and sometimes eating at the restaurant. You don't need a second house as well! You're too busy at the club.

It's when you try to have all these nice things at once you can get into trouble, at least on the type of wealth normal people save. If this guy wants that he should use the freedom he purchased with his first venture to build another startup. Then you can really go into the stratosphere. Or just work a normal job for five more years and let the investment returns push you into a higher orbit.

That really was part of my point though, that some luxuries are worth the premium, but across the board they aren't, and if you buy into the benefit of all luxuries, you will be stuck chasing an expensive dragon that will generally leave you feeling like you can never spend enough, see Financial Samurai and his nonsense over the past few years.

Of course come luxuries are worth it to some people, that's really the entire point. But each person is highly individual and what matters needs to have a solid reason to matter in order to be worth it.

Even your example, I have zero need for a personal assistant or a country club, those would be HUGE wastes of money for me. But I do have a personal cook and a second home, and those are everything to me.

Granted my second home and personal cook combined cost less than some people's middle class car payments, but still. Those have enormous value to me for my personal reasons. But the majority of categories in my life don't really benefit from much in the way of luxury spending.

This is why I always say I'm not cheap, I'm a snob about spending. A luxury good or service needs to out perform the premium I have to pay for it, and that's a very, very high bar to clear when it's mostly just going to keep me in the same middle class quality of life.

[ROF Expat]

Many Foreign Service folks hire household help when serving overseas in less-developed countries.  It’s great not to have to mop or iron, but after managing staff all day, sometimes one has to come home to manage more staff, this gets irksome and tiring.  Yeah, I know, cry me a fucking river…

Having household staff is nice.  Having a house manager to take care of all the details that come with having a household staff is another level entirely. 

[Ron Scott]

I think there are some rich people goods and services that are really worth it. If I could afford a personal assistant, that would be nice. Being a member of a country club can be a true moving of the life quality needle if you like doing country club things. If you love flying airplanes, there's really no substitute.

The thing is, as long as you're heavily utilizing that expensive thing that you bought, you probably won't have that much time to need tobuy a bunch of other expensive things. if you're a country club member, you oughta be over there playing golf and squash, working out at the gym, swimming at the pool, and sometimes eating at the restaurant. You don't need a second house as well! You're too busy at the club.

It's when you try to have all these nice things at once you can get into trouble, at least on the type of wealth normal people save. If this guy wants that he should use the freedom he purchased with his first venture to build another startup. Then you can really go into the stratosphere. Or just work a normal job for five more years and let the investment returns push you into a higher orbit.

It’s really not all about the money…especially for those who have it.

I’ve known quite a few very wealthy people who earned what they had by working and while there was the country club thing and other luxuries, most of these people got their jollies from building and accomplishing. NONE of them FIREd. Many continued to work through ad hoc consulting, serving on boards, etc. after retiring at a traditional age.

They had valuable skill sets and put themselves in situations where their abilities were recognized and where they had the opportunity to accomplish even more. This is a HUGE driver for these people.

[mistymoney]

I think there are some rich people goods and services that are really worth it. If I could afford a personal assistant, that would be nice. Being a member of a country club can be a true moving of the life quality needle if you like doing country club things. If you love flying airplanes, there's really no substitute.

The thing is, as long as you're heavily utilizing that expensive thing that you bought, you probably won't have that much time to need tobuy a bunch of other expensive things. if you're a country club member, you oughta be over there playing golf and squash, working out at the gym, swimming at the pool, and sometimes eating at the restaurant. You don't need a second house as well! You're too busy at the club.

It's when you try to have all these nice things at once you can get into trouble, at least on the type of wealth normal people save. If this guy wants that he should use the freedom he purchased with his first venture to build another startup. Then you can really go into the stratosphere. Or just work a normal job for five more years and let the investment returns push you into a higher orbit.

It’s really not all about the money…especially for those who have it.

I’ve known quite a few very wealthy people who earned what they had by working and while there was the country club thing and other luxuries, most of these people got their jollies from building and accomplishing. NONE of them FIREd. Many continued to work through ad hoc consulting, serving on boards, etc. after retiring at a traditional age.

They had valuable skill sets and put themselves in situations where their abilities were recognized and where they had the opportunity to accomplish even more. This is a HUGE driver for these people.

yeah - and they should have their own message board somewhere I think.....

[Ron Scott]

I think there are some rich people goods and services that are really worth it. If I could afford a personal assistant, that would be nice. Being a member of a country club can be a true moving of the life quality needle if you like doing country club things. If you love flying airplanes, there's really no substitute.

The thing is, as long as you're heavily utilizing that expensive thing that you bought, you probably won't have that much time to need tobuy a bunch of other expensive things. if you're a country club member, you oughta be over there playing golf and squash, working out at the gym, swimming at the pool, and sometimes eating at the restaurant. You don't need a second house as well! You're too busy at the club.

It's when you try to have all these nice things at once you can get into trouble, at least on the type of wealth normal people save. If this guy wants that he should use the freedom he purchased with his first venture to build another startup. Then you can really go into the stratosphere. Or just work a normal job for five more years and let the investment returns push you into a higher orbit.

It’s really not all about the money…especially for those who have it.

I’ve known quite a few very wealthy people who earned what they had by working and while there was the country club thing and other luxuries, most of these people got their jollies from building and accomplishing. NONE of them FIREd. Many continued to work through ad hoc consulting, serving on boards, etc. after retiring at a traditional age.

They had valuable skill sets and put themselves in situations where their abilities were recognized and where they had the opportunity to accomplish even more. This is a HUGE driver for these people.

yeah - and they should have their own message board somewhere I think.....

I doubt it. Most of them are just as interested in the same-old as everyone else. Like the saying goes, the rich are different: they have more money. (Period)

[elysianfields]

Many Foreign Service folks hire household help when serving overseas in less-developed countries.  It’s great not to have to mop or iron, but after managing staff all day, sometimes one has to come home to manage more staff, this gets irksome and tiring.  Yeah, I know, cry me a fucking river…

Having household staff is nice.  Having a house manager to take care of all the details that come with having a household staff is another level entirely.

Yes, I've often joked that we need to hire a butler to manage the household staff.

[2sk22]

More comedy gold from Reddit . So apparently $10M puts you in a weird bucket 😂

I was watching a video the other day about the differences between retiring with a $1M, $5M and $10M net worth. The financial advisor in the video made what I consider to be an interesting observation about those with $10M. He commented that these people are either the richest of the modestly wealthy or they are the poorest of the truly wealthy class. They don’t actually fit in anywhere.

This resonates with me as we’re retired with a net worth of between $12M and $13M and have friends with either considerably higher or lower net worths.

We easily live a very enviable and comfortable lifestyle but can’t afford to fly in a private jet, own a serious yacht or stay in $5K a night ultra exclusive luxury hotels, for a month at a time. I agree we’re in something of a rich persons economic no man’s land.

I think there is this large lifestyle gap between a net worth of between $10M and $50M, at which point there are few if any limits as to what you can do in retirement.

Yes, these are extremely high class problems but I had never really stopped to think about what it takes to be genuinely wealthy. I’ve decided it’s a really big number.

[NorthernIkigai]

The violins above this text are so tiny you can only see with with a (really expensive) microscope...

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The violins above this text are so tiny you can only see with with a (really expensive) microscope...

Look, until you've walked a mile in their Gucci shoes and sat on their gold plated toilet, dreaming of flying in a private jet, who are you too criticize?

[GilesMM]

More comedy gold from Reddit . So apparently $10M puts you in a weird bucket 😂

I was watching a video the other day about the differences between retiring with a $1M, $5M and $10M net worth. The financial advisor in the video made what I consider to be an interesting observation about those with $10M. He commented that these people are either the richest of the modestly wealthy or they are the poorest of the truly wealthy class. They don’t actually fit in anywhere.

This resonates with me as we’re retired with a net worth of between $12M and $13M and have friends with either considerably higher or lower net worths.

We easily live a very enviable and comfortable lifestyle but can’t afford to fly in a private jet, own a serious yacht or stay in $5K a night ultra exclusive luxury hotels, for a month at a time. I agree we’re in something of a rich persons economic no man’s land.

I think there is this large lifestyle gap between a net worth of between $10M and $50M, at which point there are few if any limits as to what you can do in retirement.

Yes, these are extremely high class problems but I had never really stopped to think about what it takes to be genuinely wealthy. I’ve decided it’s a really big number.

This is the genius of NetJets - it bridges the gap between the hoi polloi and the rich.  $100 million net worth is the entry point to own and operate a proper jet, such as a Gulfstream.  With NetJets you can get all the convenience of flying private for around $300k/yr (assuming you don't fly too much).  That leaves $500k/yr to live on (assuming $20 million saved and 4% SWR).

[GuitarStv]

I hate when you can't afford a serious yacht.  Such a deprivation.

[Metalcat]

The violins above this text are so tiny you can only see with with a (really expensive) microscope...

Look, until you've walked a mile in their Gucci shoes and sat on their gold plated toilet, dreaming of flying in a private jet, who are you too criticize?

IDK, I think there's something really valid to the existential crisis of living your entire life around earning, getting to a massive net worth, and having really nothing to show for it in terms of quality of life or happiness.

I've had enough long, depressing conversations with older, very wealthy people to recognize an addiction pattern when I see one. Some folks become addicted to the pursuit of wealth and influence, often at the expense of many other very important health and happiness metrics in their lives.

I legitimately feel bad for anyone who works their ass off for something only to come to the realization that it never mattered nearly as much as they believed it would.

If someone got wealthy doing fun work they really enjoyed and the lifestyle it buys them suits them really well and their biggest challenge is figuring out which charities to donate to, then yay for them.

But if they're in their 50s, 60s, 70s, sitting on a giant heap of wealth and reflecting back thinking "what did I even bother?" Then that to me is profoundly sad.

[twinstudy]

The violins above this text are so tiny you can only see with with a (really expensive) microscope...

Look, until you've walked a mile in their Gucci shoes and sat on their gold plated toilet, dreaming of flying in a private jet, who are you too criticize?

IDK, I think there's something really valid to the existential crisis of living your entire life around earning, getting to a massive net worth, and having really nothing to show for it in terms of quality of life or happiness.

I've had enough long, depressing conversations with older, very wealthy people to recognize an addiction pattern when I see one. Some folks become addicted to the pursuit of wealth and influence, often at the expense of many other very important health and happiness metrics in their lives.

I legitimately feel bad for anyone who works their ass off for something only to come to the realization that it never mattered nearly as much as they believed it would.

If someone got wealthy doing fun work they really enjoyed and the lifestyle it buys them suits them really well and their biggest challenge is figuring out which charities to donate to, then yay for them.

But if they're in their 50s, 60s, 70s, sitting on a giant heap of wealth and reflecting back thinking "what did I even bother?" Then that to me is profoundly sad.

Don't get me wrong - I love min-maxing - but at some point (probably in the ~$10m range) even I get put off a little. Because I think once you get to a certain line, money goes from "fun way of keeping score" to "yucky and gauche affectation". I was thinking about this when I was lining up for a little Hermes trinket and most of the people I saw in the shop were just young 20 year olds spending daddy's money. I thought "yuck" and I left. And I think at some stage the private jet crowd is the same. Just a little gauche.

I think $5m-$10m is actually the sweet spot. You have enough money to afford anything you want, within reason, plus some genuinely luxurious stuff. But not so much money that you have to hang around wannabes all the time. And not so much money that you're entirely alienated.

All the good stuff in life is cheap. You can have 3 Michelin star meals for $800 a day and with $10m in the bank you can easily afford that a few times a week. That's living!

[deborah]

The violins above this text are so tiny you can only see with with a (really expensive) microscope...

Look, until you've walked a mile in their Gucci shoes and sat on their gold plated toilet, dreaming of flying in a private jet, who are you too criticize?

IDK, I think there's something really valid to the existential crisis of living your entire life around earning, getting to a massive net worth, and having really nothing to show for it in terms of quality of life or happiness.

I've had enough long, depressing conversations with older, very wealthy people to recognize an addiction pattern when I see one. Some folks become addicted to the pursuit of wealth and influence, often at the expense of many other very important health and happiness metrics in their lives.

I legitimately feel bad for anyone who works their ass off for something only to come to the realization that it never mattered nearly as much as they believed it would.

If someone got wealthy doing fun work they really enjoyed and the lifestyle it buys them suits them really well and their biggest challenge is figuring out which charities to donate to, then yay for them.

But if they're in their 50s, 60s, 70s, sitting on a giant heap of wealth and reflecting back thinking "what did I even bother?" Then that to me is profoundly sad.

Don't get me wrong - I love min-maxing - but at some point (probably in the ~$10m range) even I get put off a little. Because I think once you get to a certain line, money goes from "fun way of keeping score" to "yucky and gauche affectation". I was thinking about this when I was lining up for a little Hermes trinket and most of the people I saw in the shop were just young 20 year olds spending daddy's money. I thought "yuck" and I left. And I think at some stage the private jet crowd is the same. Just a little gauche.

I think $5m-$10m is actually the sweet spot. You have enough money to afford anything you want, within reason, plus some genuinely luxurious stuff. But not so much money that you have to hang around wannabes all the time. And not so much money that you're entirely alienated.

All the good stuff in life is cheap. You can have 3 Michelin star meals for $800 a day and with $10m in the bank you can easily afford that a few times a week. That's living!

It’s probably encouraging you to die early!

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The violins above this text are so tiny you can only see with with a (really expensive) microscope...

Look, until you've walked a mile in their Gucci shoes and sat on their gold plated toilet, dreaming of flying in a private jet, who are you too criticize?

IDK, I think there's something really valid to the existential crisis of living your entire life around earning, getting to a massive net worth, and having really nothing to show for it in terms of quality of life or happiness.

I've had enough long, depressing conversations with older, very wealthy people to recognize an addiction pattern when I see one. Some folks become addicted to the pursuit of wealth and influence, often at the expense of many other very important health and happiness metrics in their lives.

I legitimately feel bad for anyone who works their ass off for something only to come to the realization that it never mattered nearly as much as they believed it would.

If someone got wealthy doing fun work they really enjoyed and the lifestyle it buys them suits them really well and their biggest challenge is figuring out which charities to donate to, then yay for them.

But if they're in their 50s, 60s, 70s, sitting on a giant heap of wealth and reflecting back thinking "what did I even bother?" Then that to me is profoundly sad.

I agree that if people are looking back viewing their life like that, that's really sad. That didn't seem to be the tone of the comment as I read it.

 It seemed a little existential crisis ish but at some part still envy of others, so it didn't seem like they were truly regretting time water as much as they were simply upset they didn't earn more. I definitely could be reading into it.

[Metalcat]

The violins above this text are so tiny you can only see with with a (really expensive) microscope...

Look, until you've walked a mile in their Gucci shoes and sat on their gold plated toilet, dreaming of flying in a private jet, who are you too criticize?

IDK, I think there's something really valid to the existential crisis of living your entire life around earning, getting to a massive net worth, and having really nothing to show for it in terms of quality of life or happiness.

I've had enough long, depressing conversations with older, very wealthy people to recognize an addiction pattern when I see one. Some folks become addicted to the pursuit of wealth and influence, often at the expense of many other very important health and happiness metrics in their lives.

I legitimately feel bad for anyone who works their ass off for something only to come to the realization that it never mattered nearly as much as they believed it would.

If someone got wealthy doing fun work they really enjoyed and the lifestyle it buys them suits them really well and their biggest challenge is figuring out which charities to donate to, then yay for them.

But if they're in their 50s, 60s, 70s, sitting on a giant heap of wealth and reflecting back thinking "what did I even bother?" Then that to me is profoundly sad.

I agree that if people are looking back viewing their life like that, that's really sad. That didn't seem to be the tone of the comment as I read it.

 It seemed a little existential crisis ish but at some part still envy of others, so it didn't seem like they were truly regretting time water as much as they were simply upset they didn't earn more. I definitely could be reading into it.

To be fair, that's kind of the same thing though, it's still looking back on a life of enormous work to accrue wealth and feeling disappointed in the result. Whether the person gains insight about how they needed more than money to be happier or not, it's still really bloody sad to me, especially if their takeaway is "damn it, if only I had been able to make even MORE money."

To have one of your greatest accomplishments feel kind of "m'eh" is pretty awful.