Author Topic: If 1M is good, is 10M better?  (Read 30378 times)

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #350 on: October 11, 2024, 12:31:08 PM »



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.

That's a very compassionate perspective. I like it. I know I am thankful for the MMM perspective not just for saving money but for valuing what is valuable to me. I think I'll try to adopt more if your perspective on this

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20521
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #351 on: October 11, 2024, 04:51:46 PM »
That's a very compassionate perspective. I like it. I know I am thankful for the MMM perspective not just for saving money but for valuing what is valuable to me. I think I'll try to adopt more if your perspective on this

It always strikes me how open to different perspectives you are. It's something I've noticed over many years here.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #352 on: October 12, 2024, 08:00:32 AM »
That's a very compassionate perspective. I like it. I know I am thankful for the MMM perspective not just for saving money but for valuing what is valuable to me. I think I'll try to adopt more if your perspective on this

It always strikes me how open to different perspectives you are. It's something I've noticed over many years here.

Thanks! It's something I really strive for. I went through a fairly dramatic paradigm shift in my teen years that I feel was definitely for the good, and I've tried to be always open to change in my viewpoints.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4945
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #353 on: October 12, 2024, 11:24:12 AM »
Somebody did a Reddit post about what different levels of wealth open up, going up to $1 billion and up.  Once you start getting upwards of $10 million, though, you have most bases covered ;-)

I'd say that more money = more options at any given level.  For example, I got stuck in the Crowdstrike/Microsoft morass and had multiple flights cancelled on me and was looking at another 3 days before getting a seat on a flight home, but I was able to come up with $400 to pay for a second ticket on a different airline, not knowing if I'd ever be reimbursed for it by the original airline.  If I had saved $1 million and was FIREd with no additional income, I might not have felt like I had the room in the budget for the extra expense and might still be sitting in the airport.  If I had $100 million, I might have been tempted to get a charter instead of that Spirit Air seat!
Do you have a link to that?  I'd be curious to read it.

jeroly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #354 on: October 12, 2024, 11:16:01 PM »
Somebody did a Reddit post about what different levels of wealth open up, going up to $1 billion and up.  Once you start getting upwards of $10 million, though, you have most bases covered ;-)

I'd say that more money = more options at any given level.  For example, I got stuck in the Crowdstrike/Microsoft morass and had multiple flights cancelled on me and was looking at another 3 days before getting a seat on a flight home, but I was able to come up with $400 to pay for a second ticket on a different airline, not knowing if I'd ever be reimbursed for it by the original airline.  If I had saved $1 million and was FIREd with no additional income, I might not have felt like I had the room in the budget for the extra expense and might still be sitting in the airport.  If I had $100 million, I might have been tempted to get a charter instead of that Spirit Air seat!
Do you have a link to that?  I'd be curious to read it.

I think this was it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/s/igi06CV01B

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #355 on: October 13, 2024, 04:26:12 AM »
I think that reddit post is mostly BS.

I mean, here's what it says for up to $100m in wealth:

Quote
At this point, you start playing with the big boys. You can fly private (though you normally charter a flight or own a jet fractionally through Net Jets or the like), You stay at 5 star hotels, you have multiple residences, you vacation in prime time (you rent a ski-in, ski-out villa in Aspen for Christmas week or go to Monaco for the grand Prix, or Canne for the Film Festival--for what its worth, rent on these places can run $5k-20k+ per NIGHT.), you run or have a controlling interest in a big company, you socialize with Congressmen, Senators and community leaders, and you are an extremely well respected member in any community outside the world's great cities. (In Beverly Hills, you are a minor player at $80 million. Unless you really throw your weight around and pay out the nose, you might not get a table at the city's hottest restaurant). You can buy any car you want. You have personal assistants and are starting to have 'people' that others have to talk to to get to you. You can travel ANYWHERE in any style. You can buy pretty much anything that normal people think of as 'rich people stuff'

You can fly private a long time before you hit $100m.

And for the rest of it - a power couple (say a law firm equity partner + a surgeon; on $1.5m-$2m a year) can accomplish all the rest. And their net worth might be only a few million, if they're still in their 30s, for example. It's an order of magnitude's difference from the $30m to $100m quoted.

Including the controlling interest in a company thing, the politicians thing, and having a personal assistant (the latter being actually incredibly cheap, even an executive assistant).






Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3914
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #356 on: October 14, 2024, 08:55:00 AM »
More comedy gold from Reddit . So apparently $10M puts you in a weird bucket 😂

Quote
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.

There's a very simple answer here:  hang out with the "modestly wealthy" instead of the "truly wealthy."  We are all Sneetches, and so it is very very natural to compare yourself to the people around you -- often when you don't even notice you're doing it and believe very strongly that doing so is negative and damaging.  (AMHIK) 

Example:  hanging out with people who take private jets everywhere would make me feel like crap; I really like to travel, and I don't do jet lag well, and so watching my friends do what I'd dearly love to do would constantly make me aware that I won't ever be able to do that.  OTOH, I can occasionally fly business class when I go abroad, which helps me sleep and so combat the jet lag.  The vast majority of people can't do that.  Hanging out with those people reminds me to be grateful of the incredible luxury I have of (a) being able to travel abroad at all, and (b) being able to do so in a relatively comfy, lie-flat seat. 

In fact, I am now seriously grateful (in that "whew, so lucky I avoided THAT trap" way) that we chose the UMC neighborhood with pretty damn good schools instead of the uber-wealthy, lily-white neighborhoods with the "best" schools that are about 20 minutes in either direction.  The idea of my kids going through school caring about designer purses and new phones and all that -- of having to decide how much money to spend on unnecessary showboating crap to give them protective coloration vs. what level is encouraging keeping-up-with-Joneses -- actually nauseates me.  When my kids were in school, every time there was a problem, I wondered if I was doing them a disservice by not choosing the "best" neighborhood when we could have afforded it.  Now that they've graduated and I have a little distance, all I feel is relief.

That comment about "genuinely wealthy," however, is total bullshit.  You'll never feel like a success if you're always defining "genuine wealth" as some level above whatever you have now.  If you have a net worth of $12-13M, you are genuinely wealthy in just about any part of the globe (I have noticeably less than that and definitely consider myself genuinely wealthy).  Happiness comes from changing your perspective to being grateful for all of the overwhelming luxury you have, instead of fixating on all of the things that someone else has that you don't.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20521
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #357 on: October 14, 2024, 01:28:08 PM »
More comedy gold from Reddit . So apparently $10M puts you in a weird bucket 😂

Quote
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.

There's a very simple answer here:  hang out with the "modestly wealthy" instead of the "truly wealthy."  We are all Sneetches, and so it is very very natural to compare yourself to the people around you -- often when you don't even notice you're doing it and believe very strongly that doing so is negative and damaging.  (AMHIK) 

Example:  hanging out with people who take private jets everywhere would make me feel like crap; I really like to travel, and I don't do jet lag well, and so watching my friends do what I'd dearly love to do would constantly make me aware that I won't ever be able to do that.  OTOH, I can occasionally fly business class when I go abroad, which helps me sleep and so combat the jet lag.  The vast majority of people can't do that.  Hanging out with those people reminds me to be grateful of the incredible luxury I have of (a) being able to travel abroad at all, and (b) being able to do so in a relatively comfy, lie-flat seat. 

In fact, I am now seriously grateful (in that "whew, so lucky I avoided THAT trap" way) that we chose the UMC neighborhood with pretty damn good schools instead of the uber-wealthy, lily-white neighborhoods with the "best" schools that are about 20 minutes in either direction.  The idea of my kids going through school caring about designer purses and new phones and all that -- of having to decide how much money to spend on unnecessary showboating crap to give them protective coloration vs. what level is encouraging keeping-up-with-Joneses -- actually nauseates me.  When my kids were in school, every time there was a problem, I wondered if I was doing them a disservice by not choosing the "best" neighborhood when we could have afforded it.  Now that they've graduated and I have a little distance, all I feel is relief.

That comment about "genuinely wealthy," however, is total bullshit.  You'll never feel like a success if you're always defining "genuine wealth" as some level above whatever you have now.  If you have a net worth of $12-13M, you are genuinely wealthy in just about any part of the globe (I have noticeably less than that and definitely consider myself genuinely wealthy).  Happiness comes from changing your perspective to being grateful for all of the overwhelming luxury you have, instead of fixating on all of the things that someone else has that you don't.

Exactly. No one ever feels rich just from having a lot of money.

2sk22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #358 on: October 14, 2024, 01:59:22 PM »
@Laura33 Since you mentioned the "genuinely wealthy", I just saw this article in the financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/b677d2f1-fe7d-4716-a5ec-b23424331d10

Quote
David Gibson-Moore, president of consultancy Gulf Analytica, says the traditional $30mn level “allows for significant investments across multiple asset classes — stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity” — while also furnishing luxuries such as private-jet travel. But, over time, as the financial world has expanded and the accumulation of wealth has accelerated in certain sectors, particularly technology, “the bar for what it means to be ultra-wealthy has risen” he observes. “The $30mn threshold . . . doesn’t carry the same weight or exclusivity it once did. In today’s world, $30mn might secure you a luxurious lifestyle but, in the realms of the ultra-rich, it’s increasingly viewed as just the starting point,” Gibson-Moore adds.

“The ultra-rich today are being measured by new standards, with some financial commentators now suggesting $100mn is the new yardstick for anyone who wants to keep their head held high at private equity parties.”

I'm not sure I really need to "hold my head high" at private equity parties. Also, just to be clear, I'm not actively looking for these articles about the wealthy - I just seem to stumbling on them by happenstance :-)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25468
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #359 on: October 14, 2024, 03:35:34 PM »
If you're the kind of person who goes to a private equity party I'm not sure we would be friends to begin with.

Morning Glory

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5350
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #360 on: October 14, 2024, 04:09:24 PM »
@Laura33 Since you mentioned the "genuinely wealthy", I just saw this article in the financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/b677d2f1-fe7d-4716-a5ec-b23424331d10

Quote
David Gibson-Moore, president of consultancy Gulf Analytica, says the traditional $30mn level “allows for significant investments across multiple asset classes — stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity” — while also furnishing luxuries such as private-jet travel. But, over time, as the financial world has expanded and the accumulation of wealth has accelerated in certain sectors, particularly technology, “the bar for what it means to be ultra-wealthy has risen” he observes. “The $30mn threshold . . . doesn’t carry the same weight or exclusivity it once did. In today’s world, $30mn might secure you a luxurious lifestyle but, in the realms of the ultra-rich, it’s increasingly viewed as just the starting point,” Gibson-Moore adds.

“The ultra-rich today are being measured by new standards, with some financial commentators now suggesting $100mn is the new yardstick for anyone who wants to keep their head held high at private equity parties.”

I'm not sure I really need to "hold my head high" at private equity parties. Also, just to be clear, I'm not actively looking for these articles about the wealthy - I just seem to stumbling on them by happenstance :-)

It's the algo. I've seen a lot of articles on my news feed about topics similar to one's I've posted in on the forum.

obstinate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #361 on: October 14, 2024, 04:38:27 PM »
If you're the kind of person who goes to a private equity party I'm not sure we would be friends to begin with.
I'm sure most of those folks are just fine, just like most folks period. I see plenty of snarky internet comments about people who have my own level of income and wealth, and I know them to mostly be untrue, just looking at myself and my friends around this level. I assume the same difference between commentary and reality exists at higher extremes of wealth.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25468
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #362 on: October 14, 2024, 07:54:00 PM »
If you're the kind of person who goes to a private equity party I'm not sure we would be friends to begin with.
I'm sure most of those folks are just fine, just like most folks period. I see plenty of snarky internet comments about people who have my own level of income and wealth, and I know them to mostly be untrue, just looking at myself and my friends around this level. I assume the same difference between commentary and reality exists at higher extremes of wealth.

Nothing to do with wealth.  The idea of thinking it would be fun to have a party about/related to private equity makes me think we would have radically different ideas of the definition of fun.

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #363 on: October 14, 2024, 08:30:30 PM »
If you're the kind of person who goes to a private equity party I'm not sure we would be friends to begin with.
I'm sure most of those folks are just fine, just like most folks period. I see plenty of snarky internet comments about people who have my own level of income and wealth, and I know them to mostly be untrue, just looking at myself and my friends around this level. I assume the same difference between commentary and reality exists at higher extremes of wealth.

Nothing to do with wealth.  The idea of thinking it would be fun to have a party about/related to private equity makes me think we would have radically different ideas of the definition of fun.

I think the only relation would be that everyone in there is rich and/or connected enough to be there. If you think about it, many parties/conventions are run on this premise (just with different parameters concerning the exclusion variable).

The only thing that worries me about certain levels of wealth (say >$20m) is that it's not possible to achieve them in a lifetime of normal work. I'm confident in saying that someone with $30m or $40m has had a generational leg-up, and my experience is that there are many different values between self-made and inherited rich.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20521
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #364 on: October 14, 2024, 09:51:48 PM »
If you're the kind of person who goes to a private equity party I'm not sure we would be friends to begin with.
I'm sure most of those folks are just fine, just like most folks period. I see plenty of snarky internet comments about people who have my own level of income and wealth, and I know them to mostly be untrue, just looking at myself and my friends around this level. I assume the same difference between commentary and reality exists at higher extremes of wealth.

Nothing to do with wealth.  The idea of thinking it would be fun to have a party about/related to private equity makes me think we would have radically different ideas of the definition of fun.

I think the only relation would be that everyone in there is rich and/or connected enough to be there. If you think about it, many parties/conventions are run on this premise (just with different parameters concerning the exclusion variable).

The only thing that worries me about certain levels of wealth (say >$20m) is that it's not possible to achieve them in a lifetime of normal work. I'm confident in saying that someone with $30m or $40m has had a generational leg-up, and my experience is that there are many different values between self-made and inherited rich.

IIRC aren't you or your spouse a surgeon?

You mean to tell me you don't know any mid 8.figure NW surgeons?

I would say that half of the mid 8 figure NW folks I know are self made medical professionals who started group practices that became fairly large, invested in commercial real estate for their clinics, made a few million a year, and then sold for low 8 figures.

Someone who makes a few million a year and builds equity in a growing company can very easily get to mid 8.figures if they're frugal and don't retire early.

There are tons and tons of senior executives out there making plenty of millions who aren't coming from family money. 3 of my relatives were presidents of major corporations. One the son of poor immigrants who didn't speak English, one the daughter of a single mother who abandoned her as a teen, the other the son of a regular middle class family whose father worked for a utility company.

There's a certain breed of high earning executive who come from humble.roota and never feel comfortable inflating their lifestyle, there's another breed who are just cheap as fuck because they're addicted to money. I'm related to both.

But they're really not uncommon in the mid 8 figure NW population. It is most certainly not just filled with generational wealth.

Nor are self-made mid 8 figure NW folks universally more pleasant than generational wealth folks in the same bracket. In fact, gun to my head and I'll attend a party of dilettantes over bootstrappers in that wealth bracket any day. They're a lot more fun at a party IME...well, they certainly party a lot more that's for sure.

obstinate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #365 on: October 14, 2024, 10:59:38 PM »
I think the only relation would be that everyone in there is rich and/or connected enough to be there. If you think about it, many parties/conventions are run on this premise (just with different parameters concerning the exclusion variable).

The only thing that worries me about certain levels of wealth (say >$20m) is that it's not possible to achieve them in a lifetime of normal work. I'm confident in saying that someone with $30m or $40m has had a generational leg-up, and my experience is that there are many different values between self-made and inherited rich.
I'm planning to stop in the next year or so, but if I kept going for another ten, especially if I were going full throttle, I fully expect I'd pass 20M, inflation adjusted (I'd be 50). No generational leg up, besides having college paid for (i.e. no pre-inheritance, no help buying our house, etc.). I don't even have anything crazy like a business or anything -- I'm just a software engineer. I know people who have vastly out-earned me with no help from their parents other than what any child is entitled to.

Anyway, even if it were true that the only way to make more than 20M were to inherit it, why should that be a worry? Any reasonable person should be very well satisfied on half as much. So it's not important that the number isn't achievable via normal work.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2024, 11:03:27 PM by obstinate »

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #366 on: October 14, 2024, 11:05:18 PM »
My spouse is a surgeon, yes, but we are in our 30s so we (and our colleagues) have only been earning proper money for 5 or 6 years. The real ramp up comes in your 40s or 50s, if you choose to keep working. Even then, if your family income is say $1.5m ($0.8m after tax here in Australia) you are not going to get anywhere near $30m unless you work to your 50s or 60s and invest assiduously the whole time, when I would have long-ago hit the fatfire trigger.

I do know a few surgeons a generation older who got rich off commercial property. That ship has sailed though I suspect.


Quote
Nor are self-made mid 8 figure NW folks universally more pleasant than generational wealth folks in the same bracket. In fact, gun to my head and I'll attend a party of dilettantes over bootstrappers in that wealth bracket any day. They're a lot more fun at a party IME...well, they certainly party a lot more that's for sure.

Yes - I agree with you there. It's a lot easier to spend money when it's not your own.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2024, 11:10:24 PM by twinstudy »

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #367 on: October 14, 2024, 11:09:05 PM »
I think the only relation would be that everyone in there is rich and/or connected enough to be there. If you think about it, many parties/conventions are run on this premise (just with different parameters concerning the exclusion variable).

The only thing that worries me about certain levels of wealth (say >$20m) is that it's not possible to achieve them in a lifetime of normal work. I'm confident in saying that someone with $30m or $40m has had a generational leg-up, and my experience is that there are many different values between self-made and inherited rich.
I'm planning to stop in the next year or so, but if I kept going for another ten, especially if I were going full throttle, I fully expect I'd pass 20M, inflation adjusted (I'd be 50). No generational leg up, besides having college paid for (i.e. no pre-inheritance, no help buying our house, etc.). I don't even have anything crazy like a business or anything -- I'm just a software engineer. I know people who have vastly out-earned me with no help from their parents other than what any child is entitled to.

Anyway, even if it were true that the only way to make more than 20M were to inherit it, why should that be a worry? Any reasonable person should be very well satisfied on half as much. So it's not important that the number isn't achievable via normal work.

Yeah, I got the figure wrong - a lifetime (say late 20s to retirement in late 60s) of normal work for a 1% household gets you well into the 40m range and that's with conservative investment returns. My net worth figures were incorrect because I keep doing calculations based on a 15 year earning window (age 30 to age 45) because of the FIRE mindset.

In terms of the distinction I drew, my experience has been that self-made people who made their own money, and people who mostly inherited it, have very different worldviews, perspectives and priorities - not just for themselves but also for their children.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20521
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #368 on: October 15, 2024, 03:37:24 AM »
My spouse is a surgeon, yes, but we are in our 30s so we (and our colleagues) have only been earning proper money for 5 or 6 years. The real ramp up comes in your 40s or 50s, if you choose to keep working. Even then, if your family income is say $1.5m ($0.8m after tax here in Australia) you are not going to get anywhere near $30m unless you work to your 50s or 60s and invest assiduously the whole time, when I would have long-ago hit the fatfire trigger.

I do know a few surgeons a generation older who got rich off commercial property. That ship has sailed though I suspect.


Quote
Nor are self-made mid 8 figure NW folks universally more pleasant than generational wealth folks in the same bracket. In fact, gun to my head and I'll attend a party of dilettantes over bootstrappers in that wealth bracket any day. They're a lot more fun at a party IME...well, they certainly party a lot more that's for sure.

Yes - I agree with you there. It's a lot easier to spend money when it's not your own.

Okay, that's you, but you folks aren't large group practice owners and by your own admission would retire before getting to that level of wealth. I didn't say all surgeons make that much or work that long but some do. So I was surprised to hear that generalization that mid 8 figure NW worth must come from generational wealth, since you and/or your spouse must personal know or know of multiple older surgeons in exactly that wealth range.

It's just a really surprising generalization to make.

There are plenty of self-made folks out there with multi-million base comp, plus bonuses, plus equity who can easily accrue multiple tens of millions over the course of a multi-decades long career. It's not at all unrealistic. Uncommon, sure, comps that high are uncommon period, but not unrealistic at all without generational wealth.

GilesMM

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Location: PNW
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #369 on: October 15, 2024, 06:40:14 AM »
I think the only relation would be that everyone in there is rich and/or connected enough to be there. If you think about it, many parties/conventions are run on this premise (just with different parameters concerning the exclusion variable).

The only thing that worries me about certain levels of wealth (say >$20m) is that it's not possible to achieve them in a lifetime of normal work. I'm confident in saying that someone with $30m or $40m has had a generational leg-up, and my experience is that there are many different values between self-made and inherited rich.
I'm planning to stop in the next year or so, but if I kept going for another ten, especially if I were going full throttle, I fully expect I'd pass 20M, inflation adjusted (I'd be 50). No generational leg up, besides having college paid for (i.e. no pre-inheritance, no help buying our house, etc.). I don't even have anything crazy like a business or anything -- I'm just a software engineer. I know people who have vastly out-earned me with no help from their parents other than what any child is entitled to.

Anyway, even if it were true that the only way to make more than 20M were to inherit it, why should that be a worry? Any reasonable person should be very well satisfied on half as much. So it's not important that the number isn't achievable via normal work.

Yeah, I got the figure wrong - a lifetime (say late 20s to retirement in late 60s) of normal work for a 1% household gets you well into the 40m range and that's with conservative investment returns. My net worth figures were incorrect because I keep doing calculations based on a 15 year earning window (age 30 to age 45) because of the FIRE mindset.

In terms of the distinction I drew, my experience has been that self-made people who made their own money, and people who mostly inherited it, have very different worldviews, perspectives and priorities - not just for themselves but also for their children.


Certainly plenty of worker bee software engineers who worked for the right company at the right time (eg. Google, Apple, Facebook) or the right series of startups which IPOd and made it to $20 million within 15 years just by doing their computer day job.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #370 on: October 15, 2024, 09:40:48 AM »
I think the only relation would be that everyone in there is rich and/or connected enough to be there. If you think about it, many parties/conventions are run on this premise (just with different parameters concerning the exclusion variable).

The only thing that worries me about certain levels of wealth (say >$20m) is that it's not possible to achieve them in a lifetime of normal work. I'm confident in saying that someone with $30m or $40m has had a generational leg-up, and my experience is that there are many different values between self-made and inherited rich.
I'm planning to stop in the next year or so, but if I kept going for another ten, especially if I were going full throttle, I fully expect I'd pass 20M, inflation adjusted (I'd be 50). No generational leg up, besides having college paid for (i.e. no pre-inheritance, no help buying our house, etc.). I don't even have anything crazy like a business or anything -- I'm just a software engineer. I know people who have vastly out-earned me with no help from their parents other than what any child is entitled to.

Anyway, even if it were true that the only way to make more than 20M were to inherit it, why should that be a worry? Any reasonable person should be very well satisfied on half as much. So it's not important that the number isn't achievable via normal work.

Yeah, I got the figure wrong - a lifetime (say late 20s to retirement in late 60s) of normal work for a 1% household gets you well into the 40m range and that's with conservative investment returns. My net worth figures were incorrect because I keep doing calculations based on a 15 year earning window (age 30 to age 45) because of the FIRE mindset.

In terms of the distinction I drew, my experience has been that self-made people who made their own money, and people who mostly inherited it, have very different worldviews, perspectives and priorities - not just for themselves but also for their children.


Certainly plenty of worker bee software engineers who worked for the right company at the right time (eg. Google, Apple, Facebook) or the right series of startups which IPOd and made it to $20 million within 15 years just by doing their computer day job.

Yeah, I know a lot of people who are pulling in > $1M total comp per year and they're just middle management at megacap software companies. So getting to $30M+ wouldn't be that hard if you slog it out.

RWD

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Arizona
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #371 on: October 15, 2024, 10:05:07 AM »
I think the only relation would be that everyone in there is rich and/or connected enough to be there. If you think about it, many parties/conventions are run on this premise (just with different parameters concerning the exclusion variable).

The only thing that worries me about certain levels of wealth (say >$20m) is that it's not possible to achieve them in a lifetime of normal work. I'm confident in saying that someone with $30m or $40m has had a generational leg-up, and my experience is that there are many different values between self-made and inherited rich.
I'm planning to stop in the next year or so, but if I kept going for another ten, especially if I were going full throttle, I fully expect I'd pass 20M, inflation adjusted (I'd be 50). No generational leg up, besides having college paid for (i.e. no pre-inheritance, no help buying our house, etc.). I don't even have anything crazy like a business or anything -- I'm just a software engineer. I know people who have vastly out-earned me with no help from their parents other than what any child is entitled to.

Anyway, even if it were true that the only way to make more than 20M were to inherit it, why should that be a worry? Any reasonable person should be very well satisfied on half as much. So it's not important that the number isn't achievable via normal work.

Yeah, I got the figure wrong - a lifetime (say late 20s to retirement in late 60s) of normal work for a 1% household gets you well into the 40m range and that's with conservative investment returns. My net worth figures were incorrect because I keep doing calculations based on a 15 year earning window (age 30 to age 45) because of the FIRE mindset.

In terms of the distinction I drew, my experience has been that self-made people who made their own money, and people who mostly inherited it, have very different worldviews, perspectives and priorities - not just for themselves but also for their children.


Certainly plenty of worker bee software engineers who worked for the right company at the right time (eg. Google, Apple, Facebook) or the right series of startups which IPOd and made it to $20 million within 15 years just by doing their computer day job.

Yeah, I know a lot of people who are pulling in > $1M total comp per year and they're just middle management at megacap software companies. So getting to $30M+ wouldn't be that hard if you slog it out.

Assuming invested at 7% returns... contributing $500k/year over 30 years gets you to $50M. Or you could save just $150k/year for 30 years and then compounding alone will bring you over $30M over the next decade and change. Really not unfathomable numbers with the power of compounding and a full working career timeline.

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3914
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #372 on: October 15, 2024, 10:06:38 AM »
My spouse is a surgeon, yes, but we are in our 30s so we (and our colleagues) have only been earning proper money for 5 or 6 years. The real ramp up comes in your 40s or 50s, if you choose to keep working. Even then, if your family income is say $1.5m ($0.8m after tax here in Australia) you are not going to get anywhere near $30m unless you work to your 50s or 60s and invest assiduously the whole time, when I would have long-ago hit the fatfire trigger.

I do know a few surgeons a generation older who got rich off commercial property. That ship has sailed though I suspect.


Quote
Nor are self-made mid 8 figure NW folks universally more pleasant than generational wealth folks in the same bracket. In fact, gun to my head and I'll attend a party of dilettantes over bootstrappers in that wealth bracket any day. They're a lot more fun at a party IME...well, they certainly party a lot more that's for sure.

Yes - I agree with you there. It's a lot easier to spend money when it's not your own.

Okay, that's you, but you folks aren't large group practice owners and by your own admission would retire before getting to that level of wealth. I didn't say all surgeons make that much or work that long but some do. So I was surprised to hear that generalization that mid 8 figure NW worth must come from generational wealth, since you and/or your spouse must personal know or know of multiple older surgeons in exactly that wealth range.

It's just a really surprising generalization to make.

There are plenty of self-made folks out there with multi-million base comp, plus bonuses, plus equity who can easily accrue multiple tens of millions over the course of a multi-decades long career. It's not at all unrealistic. Uncommon, sure, comps that high are uncommon period, but not unrealistic at all without generational wealth.

Exactly.

We could easily have hit the $20M+ figure -- I'm a lawyer, and even at my own smaller firm, some of the senior folks bill out at $1000/hr.  Plus my DH is an engineer, and we've always had two professional careers.  If we had chosen to maximize those careers, we'd probably be close to the $20M mark now, with at least another 10-15 years of high-paid work ahead of us if we wanted to take that path.* 

That's all normal work stuff, not "I happened to be the third employee at Facebook" stuff, or "my dad got me an internship at a prestigious hedge fund" stuff.  It is very achievable without a silver spoon -- particularly given what the stock market has done since we both started our careers c. 1990.  It's certainly not easy, and you do need certain advantages -- primarily intelligence and the means to get a good education.  But if you have those things, it's largely hard work, delayed gratification, and luck.  A trust fund would make the early parts easier, but it's not necessary to get there in the end.


*We just chose to prioritize lifestyle over massive wealth -- I went part-time for most of my career to have a reasonable life, DH chose the "interesting tech" path over the "I want to be VP/GM" path.  And we both chose the "I want to live somewhere I can afford a decent house and send my kids to public schools" path, instead of the maximize-wealth-move-to-SF/Silicon-Valley path.

Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 903
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #373 on: October 17, 2024, 11:53:03 AM »
...the "millionaire next door."...

This didn't seem worth starting a new thread for, so I just used the forum search to find a recent active thread that mentioned this book so I could drop a fun fact: from the original publication of "The Millionaire Next Door" in 1996, official inflation numbers now peg 1 million 1996 dollars at just over 2 million 2024 dollars. So the level of wealth discussed in that book should now be understood to be at least $2million.

crocheted_stache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Location: NorCal
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #374 on: October 20, 2024, 04:26:33 PM »
I'm squarely in the "beyond" cohort and, barring major calamity, likely to hit the upper end of this range sometime in the next 10 years, just by not drastically inflating my lifestyle and letting my little green employees recruit more of their friends.

There's a recurring theme earlier in this thread of "Silicon Valley would mess up all of this for an ordinary worker." Silicon Valley's housing prices are outrageous precisely because so many people here can make enough to afford houses this expensive. Yes, there is too little supply, and it's gotten worse in that respect in the last decade. Yes, we have a lot to answer for when it comes to the gaping wealth inequality. That's already a few other threads, mostly in Off Topic.

For us, though, living in Silicon Valley is how we've been this successful, not why we need to be.

Our net worth in this VHCOL area is roughly divided in three, between a paid-off house (bought a little over 20 years ago for something like 1/3 to 1/4 of what I might be able to get for it with the right upgrades), the amount we've saved and invested from our two engineering salaries, and the value of some well-timed stock compensation in what has turned out to be a successful company.

We're both still a bit under 50 and both born mustachians, if there is such a thing. I haven't done the numbers in a few years, but I think our baseline burn rate in years when nothing special is happening is somewhere in the $30–$40k range. House upgrades or a new car will change that number, of course, but with a little care the upgrades should last for many years, while the bills will be one-and-done.

After I pointed out that the job market had heated up during the years I stayed at the same job, a long-ago manager delivered the largest percentage raise I've ever gotten, with a comment, "I suppose we shouldn't expect you to live like a college student forever." I think DH and I both like it that way, though. We still ride our bikes most places. We cook food from the store and the garden, making extra for leftovers for the next day's lunch. I don't generally wear it to work, but I have apparel older than some of my coworkers. We still make active use of our library cards.

DH and I started pondering our next overseas trip, and I looked up what an upgrade would cost. An $800 plane ticket seems to turn into a ~$4500 business class ticket, and even though he could certainly do with the additional legroom, neither of us cares that much. We will spend an extra few hundred on airfare to reduce logistics. We'll opt for a direct flight instead of layovers that are too long or too short or that add hours on a plane to go through a hub that's not really on the way. We'll pay a little more to avoid arrivals and departures in the wee hours when nobody, including ourselves, is awake and open for business. It's still a modern miracle that we can, if we want, pay some money, spend a day trudging through airports, and wake up in Copenhagen tomorrow.

What @Metalcat said about 5x the price not resulting in 5x the value is an understanding that seems to be built into us. It probably helps that DH and I are introverts with little to no interest in status.* The eventual car upgrade will come when the old one ceases to meet our needs or to be economical to maintain, not when we're the only ones on our street with a car that old.

Maybe it's because we're engineers, but the $6000 smart fridge just looks like a mess of unnecessary electronics that add nothing to the basic task of keeping food cold. They also pose a security risk, and they're sure to be obsolete in something less than the 20 years we've had our current fridge so far.

The frugality also seems to help with stealth wealth. Some of my friends are struggling to varying degrees, and "I could spend circles around you" is not something they need to be reminded of, even if they kind of already know. I suspect the older car helps communicate that there's nothing too fancy inside to steal, either.

The one place it's visible is to the institutions. We have whatever the executive status is at a major brokerage, and they'd just love to help us manage our money. I've gotten cold emails from someone offering investment opportunities in some kind of early stage VC fund. I presume they either figured that anyone who's been at my company a certain length of time is likely to have enough stock to qualify as an accredited investor, or they paid for a high-NW mailing list from someone who did. That kind of stuff feels icky, but it's easy to ignore email.

Another thing @Metalcat got very right, earlier in the thread, is that philanthropy gets more challenging when the numbers start to get bigger. Somewhere between the odd change that you drop in the fishbowl and numbers with commas, it starts to be worth asking if an organization is delivering the results it promises and if that result is actually worth advancing.

House the homeless? Yes, great! House the homeless with a bunch of condescending religious values that are enforced by separating them from their partners as a condition of that housing? And then blame them for not accepting the "help"? No, isn't there someone else who doesn't do that? How do you tell?

See also: reforestation efforts that plant a monoculture of the wrong trees in the wrong places, use up scarce water, fail to keep them alive, and/or sell carbon offsets to polluters for mitigations that look good on paper but mean nothing in real life. If you decide to let Givewell or somebody else curate and vet, do you trust the reviewers?

That eighth and leftmost digit, if/when it happens for us, will likely happen due to compounding and momentum more than any further additions from earned income. So what's it all for? I don't entirely know. RE, yes, probably, although I can't claim to know why yet. It feels pretty weird to think about, and neither of us is sure what we'll do with our time. Maybe that's the kind of thing we'll have to live to find out.

To circle back to the topic of this thread, is $10M better? It's certainly better than any version of having to decide what basic things to do without to scrape by. I may have some exploring to do, to figure out what really feels like purpose to me. I'm fairly sure neither golf nor boat ownership will be involved in the chapters of my story still to come.

*At least not traditional, economic status. Nerd status may be another matter.

2sk22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #375 on: October 21, 2024, 06:16:27 AM »
We are in a similar situation. After thirty plus years of
- Good salaries
- Living on one income
- Maxing out retirement accounts and brokerage
we could hit the $10M mark just in investments (excluding house and pensions) in the near future.

I found myself nodding in agreement about most of what you wrote except this:

DH and I started pondering our next overseas trip, and I looked up what an upgrade would cost. An $800 plane ticket seems to turn into a ~$4500 business class ticket, and even though he could certainly do with the additional legroom, neither of us cares that much. We will spend an extra few hundred on airfare to reduce logistics. We'll opt for a direct flight instead of layovers that are too long or too short or that add hours on a plane to go through a hub that's not really on the way. We'll pay a little more to avoid arrivals and departures in the wee hours when nobody, including ourselves, is awake and open for business. It's still a modern miracle that we can, if we want, pay some money, spend a day trudging through airports, and wake up in Copenhagen tomorrow.

After ten years of not traveling at all due to work pressures and caring for ailing family, my wife and I have resumed traveling for pleasure. Nowadays we only travel at the front of the plane and stay in good hotels. We eat in nice restaurants and hire local guides to show us around. We feel no guilt and really enjoy ourselves.

It's a matter of choosing to spend on what really gives you pleasure. We have come to the conclusion that we really enjoy luxury travel.

Mind you when we're not traveling, we don't really spend a lot: we don't eat out at all. We happily drive a couple of completely anonymous cars. Our modest house doesn't stand out in any way. We don't own a boat or a second home.

crocheted_stache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Location: NorCal
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #376 on: October 21, 2024, 08:02:39 PM »

After ten years of not traveling at all due to work pressures and caring for ailing family, my wife and I have resumed traveling for pleasure. Nowadays we only travel at the front of the plane and stay in good hotels. We eat in nice restaurants and hire local guides to show us around. We feel no guilt and really enjoy ourselves.

It's a matter of choosing to spend on what really gives you pleasure. We have come to the conclusion that we really enjoy luxury travel.

Mind you when we're not traveling, we don't really spend a lot: we don't eat out at all. We happily drive a couple of completely anonymous cars. Our modest house doesn't stand out in any way. We don't own a boat or a second home.

I approve wholeheartedly of your choices. In our view, the flight is not the trip. Maybe we'll try it someday, but at the moment, it isn't our thing. Once basic needs are well in hand, choosing what's valuable to you is the whole point, and if that's memorable travel and forgettable cars, I applaud you for recognizing that.

crocheted_stache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Location: NorCal
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #377 on: October 31, 2024, 10:19:22 PM »
I'm now about 2/3 of the way through the book Uneasy Street, per the apt suggestion from @Tasse up-thread. I do and do not see myself in that book. The author states clearly that she spoke to a small and not particularly random sample, but I don't think I see mustachians in the mix. They're more in the mode of having housekeepers, chefs and nannies, and maybe feeling guilty about it.

I certainly see the part about worrying about looking like a snob and feeling bad that some people have so much less. I have a preferred list of charities, both local and global, and I'm making an effort to distribute the funds in my DAF, but I still wonder about the best uses.

I particularly don't see myself and DH in the chapter I'm now reading about how rich people relationship money dynamics tend to work. We both earn and we both don't spend money.

We both cook and bake and do laundry, and so far, we have not chosen to outsource anything beyond the occasional restaurant visit. I don't have a housekeeper or gardener. I think most of my neighbors do. At this point, I'll call a plumber not to have to spend hours rolling around under a sink, but not to replace a shower head or toilet valve.

If I ask DH what a charge on the credit card was, it's purely to confirm that something I didn't recognize really happened. I'm the "CFO," mainly because I'm the nerd about that topic and I'm also the native in the financial system here. I've made some efforts to include him in the household finances, to educate him about US-specific money topics (he is native to Europe) and generally make him able to take over if ever I'm not able to. He knows the whole picture.

We aren't always decisive about non-routine purchases, but that's more a matter of knowing that we'll be living with a particular choice for some time, rather than anything to do with price or affordability.

I'm not convinced either of us is doing much of the "lifestyle labor" the book describes. It's just not a priority to have things decorated and coordinated or otherwise to keep up appearances.

Tasse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4064
  • Age: 31
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #378 on: November 01, 2024, 08:35:50 AM »
Where I really saw Mustachians/myself reflected in that book was the tendency to say "What I have isn't REALLY rich, REALLY rich is one level above me..."

crocheted_stache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Location: NorCal
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #379 on: November 01, 2024, 09:23:20 PM »
Where I really saw Mustachians/myself reflected in that book was the tendency to say "What I have isn't REALLY rich, REALLY rich is one level above me..."

I'm aware that people richer than me exist. Some are my neighbors, coworkers, etc. I have no aspiration to become them. I don't think I'd ever be comfortable just blowing through money, even if I had 10x or 100x as much. I just don't see the point of adding to my environmental footprint when I'm already well equipped. But I still boggle at how much I have. I certainly have enough.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25468
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: If 1M is good, is 10M better?
« Reply #380 on: November 01, 2024, 09:23:51 PM »
I'm rich as fuck.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!