[mistermister]

i'm absolutely floored by how many of you believe that the rich are not self made, have "stolen" their wealth, don't provide any value to society etc. attitudes

i consider the men on this board to be the most industrious in the world. i mean if you guys think like this what do the masses think.

i'm an entrepreneur. early 30s. i own companies operating in established industries and taking my turn at a start-up company. i've worked with other entrepreneurs and mentors who've been in the game much longer than i have. (i started when i was 25). everything on this list resonates with me and my observations of high net worth individuals that i work closely with and have a relationship with.

[Bad Hussar]

(03-20-2013 12:34 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 09:48 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

Slave morality is looking at the rich, the beautiful, the successful, and being jealous, and concluding that they are oppressing everybody else and got their illegitimately. In other words, envy. It is your beta schlub roommate saying that "you are just lucky to get girls, and I can't lose weight because of my genes, and I'm perfectly content with my life as it is thank you very much." The master morality is quitting the shitty job, trying new looks, adding language skills, traveling and figuring out how to get ahead and live comfortably.

This is sort of an ad hominem, feminine argument. "You're only saying rich people are thieves because you're jealous."

Some people are rich because they have delivered value, by offering products that people valued, like Henry Ford or Mark Zuckerberg. At the other extreme, you have people that have set up the system so that they get rich without really providing proportionate value.

Many rich people are rich because circumstances shield them from true, open competition. This is often because of government intervention, or industrial collusion in one form or another. Any industry or job position where barriers to entry are low, profits or wages are nothing to write home about. That's basic economic theory - where there is perfect competition, profits are small or non-existent in the long run. For practically any high paying profession, there are significant barriers to entry that aren't necessarily needed, and if removed would significantly reduce pay. And even for people like Zuckerberg or Ford, they weren't necessarily much better than their competition, but the nature of their markets was that only a few men would survive the competition, and they would emerge immensely rich.

More broadly, a lot of rich people are rich because they have some hustle that got them there, that doesn't necessarily provide great social value. I suppose you can respect them as great tacticians, but I wouldn't elect them as role models.

Here's an essay about what I'm getting at: http://intellectual-detox.com/2012/01/01...e-economy/

I'm just saying have a realistic view of how the value that rich people actually provide. I also have a personal bias, in that the people I've met most obsessed with money are inevitably the biggest tools obsessed with impressing other people.

As far as professional barriers to entry are concerned:
Professions like Law, Public Accounting, Medicine and the like where you need artificially limited certification to practice pay well, but I wouldn't describe even relatively successful lawyers and CPA's as "rich". Well-off would be a better description. Maybe over a lifetime, and with good investment advice, a medical specialist could become genuinely rich.

As far as "crony capitalism" is concerned:
Sure, there are individuals and industry groups leaning on the government to protect them. But every Tom, Dick and Harry wants the government to protect them. Actually succeeding at it would hardly be easy. To pay for the lobbyists, groom politicians for years/decades etc. It'l likely be as difficult as making the money in the open market anyway.

Opportunity:
In any event market inefficiency in the form of government protection represents a massive opportunity for others to develop sly ways to undercut the lazy and entrenched companies. Legally or not so legally. And not just theoretically, but in practice. Do you think that a company like Air BnB cares that what they do is likely against all manner of municipal ordinances all over the world? They don't give a rats ass and are still raking in dough. There are so many opportunities for "disruption" in so many industries. Mainly because of the artificial protection you mention. Don't complain about it, find a way to profit from it.

[MikeCF]

(03-20-2013 04:30 AM)mistermister Wrote:  

i'm absolutely floored by how many of you believe that the rich are not self made, have "stolen" their wealth, don't provide any value to society etc. attitudes

When you decide to wear khakis and drink starbucks at your state farm job, it's easier when looking at your fat girlfriend and shitty apartment to say the rich guy is a crook than to say you made the right decisions in life and need to take action and own your own life.

[Giovonny]

Wow!

This is going up on my refrigerator!

Beautiful stuff. Very true.

[AneroidOcean]

(03-20-2013 02:19 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 04:30 AM)mistermister Wrote:  

i'm absolutely floored by how many of you believe that the rich are not self made, have "stolen" their wealth, don't provide any value to society etc. attitudes

When you decide to wear khakis and drink starbucks at your state farm job, it's easier when looking at your fat girlfriend and shitty apartment to say the rich guy is a crook than to say you made the right decisions in life and need to take action and own your own life.

Yeah, I mean if this was a conversation about people being successful in just about anything else there would be so much less hate. Are there people who were born into being rich or who had significant advantages? Sure, but that's like hating on all guys who get laid a lot because some of them were born with height and good looks.

Tom Leykis runs a money primer on how to get more money and spend less every Monday, I highly recommend people listen in. He's got great Red Pill advice for game too. The Tom Leykis Show used to be a highly successful radio show that he's now taken to the internet to put his money where his mouth is with regards to normal format radio being a dinosaur that's going to go extinct. Dude started in a poor family and worked his way into radio the hard way.

http://www.blowmeuptom.com/

[TheRookie]

Basil, I am not saying there is no such thing as crony capitalists and crooked rich people. It's just that in a market economy, most wealth is created by entrepreneurs, hustlers, movers and shakers.

For example, GM got a bailout and robbed the taxpayer blind. This is wrong. But it is undeniable that at one point GM was the cream of the crop as far as automobile manufacturers are concerned.

I am up on the research and theories about how businesses work with government to restrain competition. This still does not negate my point that it is better to act and make things happen than harbor a blanket resentment of the beautiful, rich, famous, courageous, strong, etc.

In a backwards, autocratic country usually only the government and its friends are rich. Look at most African countries. Like Confucius said, “In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.”

America and the West may be moving in the direction of a banana republic, but most wealth in these countries still is created by entrepreneurs, hustlers, movers and shakers.

(03-20-2013 12:34 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 09:48 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

Slave morality is looking at the rich, the beautiful, the successful, and being jealous, and concluding that they are oppressing everybody else and got their illegitimately. In other words, envy. It is your beta schlub roommate saying that "you are just lucky to get girls, and I can't lose weight because of my genes, and I'm perfectly content with my life as it is thank you very much." The master morality is quitting the shitty job, trying new looks, adding language skills, traveling and figuring out how to get ahead and live comfortably.

This is sort of an ad hominem, feminine argument. "You're only saying rich people are thieves because you're jealous."

Some people are rich because they have delivered value, by offering products that people valued, like Henry Ford or Mark Zuckerberg. At the other extreme, you have people that have set up the system so that they get rich without really providing proportionate value.

Many rich people are rich because circumstances shield them from true, open competition. This is often because of government intervention, or industrial collusion in one form or another. Any industry or job position where barriers to entry are low, profits or wages are nothing to write home about. That's basic economic theory - where there is perfect competition, profits are small or non-existent in the long run. For practically any high paying profession, there are significant barriers to entry that aren't necessarily needed, and if removed would significantly reduce pay. And even for people like Zuckerberg or Ford, they weren't necessarily much better than their competition, but the nature of their markets was that only a few men would survive the competition, and they would emerge immensely rich.

More broadly, a lot of rich people are rich because they have some hustle that got them there, that doesn't necessarily provide great social value. I suppose you can respect them as great tacticians, but I wouldn't elect them as role models.

Here's an essay about what I'm getting at: http://intellectual-detox.com/2012/01/01...e-economy/

I'm just saying have a realistic view of how the value that rich people actually provide. I also have a personal bias, in that the people I've met most obsessed with money are inevitably the biggest tools obsessed with impressing other people.

[temujin]

According to Wikipedia, I'm a "High Net Worth Individual" about to enter into "Very High Net Worth Individual" territory.

Yet I don't really feel rich.

I still fly economy (although I do beg for the emergency seat).

I still refuse to spend more than 200 euros a night on lodging. In fact, I'll never pay daily rates and always try to negotiate a private apartment for 1 week or 1 month deals.

And if I have to rent a car, it's almost always the smallest one I can get at a discount.

The car I drive is still the same one I've had since 2001.

I could go on.

But despite the frugality, I feel like I enjoy a very high quality of life.

Personally, I think a lot of people waste money on useless things like a fancy car; an overpriced shit hole in a metropole; or worst of all, spending their money to vacation in North America.

[Vitriol]

(03-20-2013 02:19 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

When you decide to wear khakis and drink starbucks at your state farm job, it's easier when looking at your fat girlfriend and shitty apartment to say the rich guy is a crook than to say you made the right decisions in life and need to take action and own your own life.

I agree totally with what you're saying because I know a lot of lazy blue-pill guys who are exactly like that. They just refuse to challenge themselves and take responsibility for their own successes and fuck-ups.

However, the original article is still a shit laden fluff piece. "Be willing to take risks so you can be rich." Yeah... no shit. Sell me a $39.95 making money package through a 1-800 number that tells me the same bullshit.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-20-2013 12:46 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

As far as professional barriers to entry are concerned:
Professions like Law, Public Accounting, Medicine and the like where you need artificially limited certification to practice pay well, but I wouldn't describe even relatively successful lawyers and CPA's as "rich". Well-off would be a better description. Maybe over a lifetime, and with good investment advice, a medical specialist could become genuinely rich.

Semantics, sure. "Affluent" then. Yeah, I see what you're saying when it comes to entrepreneurs, and I somewhat agree.

I do feel like I'm talking past people though. Take Coca Cola. Imagine you were the founder, and you became a Bill Gates sized billionaire... by getting the country addicted to a drink that makes them fat and rots their teeth. Should I respect you and look up to you? Fuck no. Or what about if you were one of those chicks who wrote The Rules? Should I respect you then? Hey, if you managed to halve the price of grass fed beef without compromising on its quality, I *would* have tremendous respect. Money in and of itself is not my measure.

And sure, if you're a billionaire, you don't give a fuck what I think.

(03-20-2013 12:46 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

As far as "crony capitalism" is concerned:
Sure, there are individuals and industry groups leaning on the government to protect them. But every Tom, Dick and Harry wants the government to protect them. Actually succeeding at it would hardly be easy. To pay for the lobbyists, groom politicians for years/decades etc. It'l likely be as difficult as making the money in the open market anyway.

You make it sound like it almost never happens. As anyone will tell you, local politics is rife with gladhanding and backroom deals. I've known people who work in federal contracting, same shit - I scratch my back, you scratch mine.

(03-20-2013 12:46 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

Opportunity:
In any event market inefficiency in the form of government protection represents a massive opportunity for others to develop sly ways to undercut the lazy and entrenched companies. Legally or not so legally. And not just theoretically, but in practice. Do you think that a company like Air BnB cares that what they do is likely against all manner of municipal ordinances all over the world? They don't give a rats ass and are still raking in dough. There are so many opportunities for "disruption" in so many industries. Mainly because of the artificial protection you mention. Don't complain about it, find a way to profit from it.

Depends on the barriers to entry. If a company's got monopoly power backed up by the government one way or another, and it's not cheap to cut in, it's got huge staying power. Ma Bell, case in point.

Groupon is collapsing, because it's super-simple to replicate, plus it doesn't even help merchants much.

Quote:

Like Confucius said, “In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.”

Ha, great quote.

It's funny, I didn't see anyone 'hating' on rich people here. Presumably, you're referring to me among others. I was basically saying, be skeptical, and don't automatically respect someone because they have a fat bankroll. In my universe, there are other considerations when it comes to sizing up your character.

Tupac:

• You gotta operate the easy way
  "I made a G today" but you made it in a sleazy way
  Selling crack to the kids, "I gotta get paid!"
  Well hey, but that's the way it is
  
  We gotta make a change

[Brosemite]

(03-21-2013 06:33 PM)temujin Wrote:  

According to Wikipedia, I'm a "High Net Worth Individual" about to enter into "Very High Net Worth Individual" territory.

Yet I don't really feel rich.

I still fly economy (although I do beg for the emergency seat).

I still refuse to spend more than 200 euros a night on lodging. In fact, I'll never pay daily rates and always try to negotiate a private apartment for 1 week or 1 month deals.

And if I have to rent a car, it's almost always the smallest one I can get at a discount.

The car I drive is still the same one I've had since 2001.

I could go on.

But despite the frugality, I feel like I enjoy a very high quality of life.

Personally, I think a lot of people waste money on useless things like a fancy car; an overpriced shit hole in a metropole; or worst of all, spending their money to vacation in North America.

In Dallas, rent on an overpriced apartment in a "trendy" metropole easily eats up half of one's salary (or more) for entry level employees that are absolutely clueless about their futures or long-term career path...and that doesn't even figure in car repairs, car payments, car insurance, savings, gas, bills and taxes...not to mention "trendy" metropole is prone to home intrusions all the time according to my friends that live there.

Since 2008, I've been lucky enough to sublease half a town home from an older mentor who owned one being a good 10-15 minute drive from "trendy" metropole so that helped out with regards to saving money and being able to travel internationally while being semi-socially active on a domestic basis since that time.

Outside of New York City, the worst thing about living in overpriced "trendy" Metropole is that you still need a car to maneuver all over town despite being situated in close proximity to the "hip" spots on weekends.

[Hooligan Harry]

This right here sums up why some guys will just NEVER get it.

The original list the OP posted is so close to true its not funny. Its is simplicity in mindset that the average guy just does not get. Instead, he reverts into the safety of his shell as he hates on everything he will never have the confidence/intelligence/balls to achieve. Its a defense mechanism as much as it is a case of frustration.

(03-21-2013 11:40 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Semantics, sure. "Affluent" then. Yeah, I see what you're saying when it comes to entrepreneurs, and I somewhat agree.

I do feel like I'm talking past people though. Take Coca Cola. Imagine you were the founder, and you became a Bill Gates sized billionaire... by getting the country addicted to a drink that makes them fat and rots their teeth. Should I respect you and look up to you? Fuck no. Or what about if you were one of those chicks who wrote The Rules? Should I respect you then? Hey, if you managed to halve the price of grass fed beef without compromising on its quality, I *would* have tremendous respect. Money in and of itself is not my measure.

Rotten teeth in exchange for hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. I wonder how many people have been educated, fed and clothed as a result of the entire industry that sprung up around Coca Cola. I wonder how many civil servants have had their salaries paid for by tax paying employees of Coca Cola, and Cokes taxes itself. I wonder how much infrastructure has indirectly come from Coca Cola's activities.

See this is the thing. You hate on a company like Coke for its minute bad, while you completely ignore the positive benefits they brought. You do this because YOU TAKE FOR GRANTED the positive impact trade has on an entire system, failing to see past the basic transaction that you did not benefit from.

Its a selfish, simple minded perspective that has zero understanding of industry and trade.

That you cannot think of this for yourself and you need someone to explain this to you is why you cannot relate to people who do create and build something. Its probably why you will end up working till you die, either for someone else or as a consultant/one man business of some sort exchanging time for money.

Not trying to be nasty, just calling it as I see it.

If you want to go through all 21 points, Ill be happy to do so. That goes for anyone in this thread. IE this example:

Vitirol Wrote:

However, the original article is still a shit laden fluff piece. "Be willing to take risks so you can be rich." Yeah... no shit. Sell me a $39.95 making money package through a 1-800 number that tells me the same bullshit.

People think taking a risk is taking out second mortgage and throwing it into the establishment of a business. Or building something on the side while they enjoy the comforts of a stable salary. This is shit you can come back from. This is not risk, its having a punt.

Real risk is not financial, its personal. It encompasses everything. Its putting your entire network on the line. Going so deep into something that you risk credit ratings, personal health, relationships as you fall of the radar. Chasing something with no certainty of reward at all. While everyone else is buying homes, having families, going on holiday or enjoying their weekends off, you are working without any certainty of success at all. You whole life comes to a standstill and you could lose 2-3 years of your life for nothing. Some guys go over a decade.

That is risk. 99% of the people you come across will not have the balls to take risks like this.

I have no doubt someone is going scream about the wealthy bankers who generate their wealth risking other peoples money, and you would be right. But those guys are being given a TINY PROPORTION of the money the real wealthy motherfuckers have to play with. The people who really do well are building something or creating something. And if you are one of these guys who constantly resorts to calling all bankers easy money deadbeats, then you need to ask yourself why the hell you are not an easy money deadbeat yourself if its all so simple. Those guys tend to be the best in their trades and they are a highly skilled minority.

And it is a simple thing. Its a simple statement that holds so much truth, yet like so much of that article, is so misunderstood because people have no idea of how to actually relate to it at all.

I dunno, maybe each point is worth a thread of its own.

[poutsara]

I think we could replace "rich" with "entrepreneurial" in the list and it would make more sense.

[Vitriol]

[WestCoast]

"And if you are one of these guys who constantly resorts to calling all bankers easy money deadbeats, then you need to ask yourself why the hell you are not an easy money deadbeat yourself if its all so simple. Those guys tend to be the best in their trades and they are a highly skilled minority"

Good god this guy gets it. Agree with every single point Harry made.

[Greek kamaki]

All this is irrelevant.Most rich people are now incompetent heirs with hamster IQ.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-22-2013 02:41 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 11:40 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Semantics, sure. "Affluent" then. Yeah, I see what you're saying when it comes to entrepreneurs, and I somewhat agree.

I do feel like I'm talking past people though. Take Coca Cola. Imagine you were the founder, and you became a Bill Gates sized billionaire... by getting the country addicted to a drink that makes them fat and rots their teeth. Should I respect you and look up to you? Fuck no. Or what about if you were one of those chicks who wrote The Rules? Should I respect you then? Hey, if you managed to halve the price of grass fed beef without compromising on its quality, I *would* have tremendous respect. Money in and of itself is not my measure.

Rotten teeth in exchange for hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. I wonder how many people have been educated, fed and clothed as a result of the entire industry that sprung up around Coca Cola. I wonder how many civil servants have had their salaries paid for by tax paying employees of Coca Cola, and Cokes taxes itself. I wonder how much infrastructure has indirectly come from Coca Cola's activities.

See this is the thing. You hate on a company like Coke for its minute bad, while you completely ignore the positive benefits they brought. You do this because YOU TAKE FOR GRANTED the positive impact trade has on an entire system, failing to see past the basic transaction that you did not benefit from.

Its a selfish, simple minded perspective that has zero understanding of industry and trade.

That you cannot think of this for yourself and you need someone to explain this to you is why you cannot relate to people who do create and build something. Its probably why you will end up working till you die, either for someone else or as a consultant/one man business of some sort exchanging time for money.

Not trying to be nasty, just calling it as I see it.

If you want to go through all 21 points, Ill be happy to do so. That goes for anyone in this thread. IE this example:

The money you see going to Coca Cola is just money sloshing around the economy. If Coke didn't exist, the money would have gone elsewhere. It's a little like saying hurricanes create jobs, because of all the rebuilding.

See the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_...ken_window

Just because people are buying it, it doesn't mean it's materially a good thing, or that they're benefiting from it. This is fundamentally a paternalistic argument - basic economics assumes that man is rational, and only does things that enhance is utility; but in reality, as even economists agree, man often does things that harm him.

I could've cited the example of cigarettes, same deal. Here's an economist making my point about cigarettes:

• The myth in the tobacco industry's economic importance argument is that a significant economic presence necessarily implies significant economic dependence. Implicit in the industry's argument (occasionally explicit) is the notion that a decline in tobacco economic activity will entail a comparable decline in the economy of the country in question. In point of fact, when resources are no longer devoted (at all or as much) to a given economic activity, they do not simply disappear into thin air—the implication of the industry's argument. Rather, they are redirected to other economic functions. If a person ceases to smoke, for example, the money that individual would have spent on cigarettes does not evaporate. Rather, the person spends it on something else. The new spending will generate employment in other industries, just as the spending on cigarettes generated employment in the tobacco industry. Studies by non-industry economists in several countries have confirmed that reallocation of spending by consumers quitting smoking would not reduce employment or otherwise significantly damage the countries' economies.
  
  The industry understands this reality. Pressed by a journalist, a US Tobacco Institute vice-president concurred that declining spending on tobacco would not necessarily mean that overall economic activity would be adversely affected.14 The industry's own economic consultants clearly perceive this truth, acknowledging it in their reports to the industry.15 16 However, no industry public relations document has ever mentioned that alternative economic activity would replace declining tobacco activity.
  
  The industry's retort to dismissal of its principal economic argument is to appeal to concerns about the high transition costs that declining consumption might create, focusing on tobacco industry workers thrown out of jobs. A particularly poignant image is that of poor tobacco farmers, their livelihood constantly in jeopardy because of the public health assault on tobacco. Certainly, any rapid decline in tobacco consumption could create transitional problems, for example brief periods of unemployment for cigarette plant manufacturing workers before they found new jobs, some in the industries that expand because of the reallocation of consumers' spending. However, the types of declines in tobacco consumption witnessed in the major industrialised nations are so gradual that they create few transitional problems of any consequence. As economist Thomas Schelling has observed, the principal effect of such diminution in tobacco use is not that tobacco farmers will be thrown out of work, but rather that the children of tobacco farmers will be less likely to go into tobacco farming than were their parents.17 This stands in stark contrast to the transitional problems that have accompanied many far more rapid shifts in industrial activity, such as the decline in the steel and shoe industries in the US.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/9/1/78.full

Haha, that said, keep up the bluster, it's inspiring.

Historically, America's gotten richer through productivity growth. A few nations are fortunate enough to become wealthy through natural resources.

[WestCoast]

^^ you think there is no expansion for productivity efficiency in the USA?

Have you been to Japan?

Tokyo makes NYC look like a suburb.

[Soma]

(03-22-2013 09:57 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

The money you see going to Coca Cola is just money sloshing around the economy. If Coke didn't exist, the money would have gone elsewhere. It's a little like saying hurricanes create jobs, because of all the rebuilding.

If Coke didn't exist there would be decreased competition in the beverage industry, whence decreased total economic surplus and a less efficient allocation of resources. Ceteris parabis, if Coke didn't exist, the economy and everyone in it would be worse off.

[AneroidOcean]

(03-21-2013 11:40 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

I do feel like I'm talking past people though. Take Coca Cola. Imagine you were the founder, and you became a Bill Gates sized billionaire... by getting the country addicted to a drink that makes them fat and rots their teeth. Should I respect you and look up to you? Fuck no. Or what about if you were one of those chicks who wrote The Rules? Should I respect you then? Hey, if you managed to halve the price of grass fed beef without compromising on its quality, I *would* have tremendous respect. Money in and of itself is not my measure.

While I understand what you're trying to say, your holier than thou, close-minded attitude is what people are taking issue with.

Coca Cola? You just pidgeon-holed a company into one of their THOUSANDS of products.

http://www.coca-colacompany.com/brands/all#TCCC

[Ensam]

I think part of the problem is that there's a very loose definition of what rich means.

You can do very well if you accurately identify a valuable skill set and work hard to obtain it and deliver. No doubt. You can probably accumulate $5-10 million in assets during your lifetime. I consider that to be upper-middle class. That's not real wealth. The interest off of that capital is enough to live a modest lifestyle indefinitely.

Real wealth is accumulating $20+ million. That's when the interest off of your capital is enough to live a lavish lifestyle indefinitely. The people I know in that bracket work very hard but they're willing to ignore laws and ethical conventions that don't suit them.

[el mechanico]

(03-22-2013 03:29 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

I think part of the problem is that there's a very loose definition of what rich means.

You can do very well if you accurately identify a valuable skill set and work hard to obtain it and deliver. No doubt. You can probably accumulate $5-10 million in assets during your lifetime. I consider that to be upper-middle class. That's not real wealth. The interest off of that capital is enough to live a modest lifestyle indefinitely.

Real wealth is accumulating $20+ million. That's when the interest off of your capital is enough to live a lavish lifestyle indefinitely. The people I know in that bracket work very hard but they're willing to ignore laws and ethical conventions that don't suit them.

10 mil isn't rich huh? New Prius every other year and modest living?

[Ensam]

It depends on where you live. I'm talking that kind of money in a Tier 1 US metropolitan area. New York, LA, San Francisco, etc. And that's total asset accumulation during your working life, not cash on hand.

[el mechanico]

(03-22-2013 03:45 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

It depends on where you live. I'm talking that kind of money in a Tier 1 US metropolitan area. New York, LA, San Francisco, etc. And that's total asset accumulation during your working life, not cash on hand.

What does that even mean? You can sell assets to live better if you want it's still 10 million dollars. That's 300+ gs a year to blow even with no interest for 30 years. I come from that Tier 1 and most don't have that kind of cash or assets. 300+ a year is 6k a week. At 30 you could live like a king traveling top shelf for life.

[Ensam]

Maybe that's the real difference. I was always taught to focus on building capital and then putting it to work rather than drawing it down. If you just want to draw it down then you can live very well and leave nothing behind on significantly less.

[worldwidetraveler]

(03-22-2013 04:17 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

Maybe that's the real difference. I was always taught to focus on building capital and then putting it to work rather than drawing it down. If you just want to draw it down then you can live very well and leave nothing behind on significantly less.

So you die never touching the 10 million in assets?