What amount of money would it take to solve my biggest problems?
Here are my biggest problems:
1. My father had a massive stroke and died. I miss him.
2. My mother has severe dementia and now acts like a toddler. I miss her too, in a strange way.
3. In the past 8 years, I have lost 5 close friends and family members including the cousin I grew up with who died very young of pancreatic cancer. I miss them all.
4. I have 3 loved ones with significant health problems. I wish there was more I could do to help. Better yet, I wish the would all just get well.
5. I love to build software and would like to build more, better, and faster.
6. The Pittsburgh Steelers (American football) lost yesterday. I'm crushed.
I have struggled with how more money could help (or have helped) with numbers 1 through 4, but I'm not quite sure how.
If I had more money, I could hire a bunch of people to help me with #5, but I think we're all learning that the correlation between having a lot of money and building lots of great software is becoming a very loose one.
I need a billion dollars to buy the Steelers and run them the way they should be run. I need another billion to pay the referees. In the meantime, I'll just sit and suffer on Mondays like this.
Well for #2, I can think of one solution having dealt with it myself. Generally for every person suffering dementia there is a family member taking care of them that is under a massive amount of stres. Sometimes having someone else to lend a hand, for even a few hours a week, is a huge difference. That person could either be a volunteer or paid, but having $$$ would always help the situation. If you find the organizations near you and donate to them, that would be a good use of (a portion of) a million dollars to help other people currently going through #2.
Why don't you apply to work for a software company that intersects with the health industry. I really think they need all the help they can get from smart tech people.
Not a whole lot of information about it online. Could you recommand other interesting companies mixing healthcare and software? I'm thinking about going to HIMSS conf in Florida this february to see who's doing cool stuff and looking for help.
I really disagree with this. Far from being more than anybody needs, a million dollars is actually not enough to secure a dignified existence in the US. Sure... a "trip to Thailand" doesn't require a million dollars, but what if you want:
Not to face bankruptcy if a major health problem arises?
Not to worry about the cost of college for your children?
To own a small home in NYC or SF?
To afford competent legal representation if the need arises?
And that doesn't even touch the reasons people want to be rich - like private jets and angel investing and art collecting and space tourism, etc. Have some imagination!
Not to face bankruptcy if a major health problem arises?
Health insurance isn't that expensive unless you have a pre-existing condition [1]. I won't talk about the college and home ownership questions other than to say that families have figured out how to live happy, healthy lives on far, far less. Go to a good state school, get some scholarships, don't live in Manhattan.
And you're only making my point: you don't really want the money. You want the things that you think only an abnormally large amount of money can buy. Sorry, but that just seems like lazy thinking to me.
1. And my sincere condolences to those that do. Seriously, that sucks and we need to fix the system somehow.
I won't talk about the college and home ownership questions other than to say that families have figured out how to live happy, healthy lives on far, far less. Go to a good state school, get some scholarships, don't live in Manhattan.
This is a poor answer. Just because other people are happy with something doesn't mean everyone is. What do you mean "don't live in Mahnattan"? I want to live in Manhattan. Who are you to say which of my desires are valid and invalid?
He didn't say that, he said that you don't need to live in Manhattan to have a dignified life.
Nobody contests that a million dollars can buy you a lot of very nice things. The point is that too many people spend too much time fretting about going to Thailand when they get a million dollars, while completely missing the fact that a trip to Thailand is maybe $1000. It's mostly a question of priorities, and if you make your whole life about getting a million dollars, guess what happens once you get there? You're likely to start obsessing about five million, rather than retire to that beach in Thailand.
Maybe, but his thesis that most people say that want a million dollars but don't actually want the things that cost a million dollars is unsupported. I was playing devil's advocate (I probably don't want to live in Manhattan) but the idea is that none of us really know how many people actually want things that cost a million dollars and how many people just want what he terms "freedom."
Your dreams and desires have nothing to do with living a fulfilling "dignified" life. His answer is so full of truth. You don't need to live in Manhattan to be happy, the same way you don't need to be in the bay area to start a successful startup. If you think that the only way to be happy (in your case) is to live in Manhattan, then you have bigger problems with your priorities than the amount of money you need to live comfortably.
I've love to buy a sporty Jaguar coupe which costs around 110k over here, but since I don't have that kind of money to spend on a car I make due with my 1998 truck. I'm happy. I'll probably buy a 370z in the next six months. It's not a Jaguar, but I will still be happy and live a free and dignified life.
Probably. Happiness does not (more like shouldn't, but that's another topic) have a direct correlation to the amount of money or luxury possessions a person owns. But even if having the Jag would make me happier, that's not the issue at hand. I don't need to live in Manhattan, drive a Jaguar, own a million dollar apartment, and date Emmanuelle Chiriqui to be happy. Granted those things might make me happier... the same way I might be less happy because I have to fight horrific traffic in Manhattan, the car is actually too expensive on the maintenance side and under performs, I make a bunch of improvements to the apartment but then realize that because of the market it's now undervalued, and Emmanuelle Chiriqui is actually cheating on me with an Irish midget.
So yeah... Having a Jaguar, might make me happy. Having a Jaguar might also make me unhappy. The real question is if I need the Jaguar to be happy, and I can truthfully answer that I don't really need it to feel I have a fulfilling life. Once again, if you NEED to have the - enter whatever costly material possession here - to be happy, you're doing something wrong.
The cost of raising a kid right now if you want them to have a typical upper middle class upbringing is somewhere between 800k - 1.6M (2007 dollars) from birth to age 17. The exact figure depends on whether you want to send them to private school, whether you are feeding them all organic food, and a couple other things. Even the most basic middle class (no after school sports, summer camp, etc.) upbringing costs $500,000 - $635,000 from birth through college, with the range mostly depending on whether they go to a public or private university.
Your article doesn't really support your position: "The government says families in the top-third income bracket will spend $279,450 to raise a child born in 2005 through age 17 -- or about $16,000 a year. "
Also from the article:
"Add in extras like private school, a nanny and a flat-screen TV set in a kid's bedroom, and that figure climbs to $1.6 million."
"In San Diego, Jacqueline Jones recently rang in her fifth year with a $1,000 mermaid-theme party. The fête, held at a community pool, included a piñata, pizza, cake, juice boxes, customized goodie bags for 20 and a former beauty queen who arrived dressed head to toe as Ariel, the Disney princess."
"...toddlers in $800 strollers to 10-year-olds with cellphones. But for many families, drawing the line between attentive parenting and extravagance is a tough call;..."
"School itself is just the beginning. It might mean paying $16,500 in annual property taxes in an area with top public schools like Millburn, N.J., ..." (Note: Millburn has a median house price of $1 million, and a median income of $150k/year.)
[edit, in response to your edit: the USDA comes up with $11-13k for two-parent families with income of $57-98k/year. That's about $230k/child over 18 years, for a group of families all of whom are richer than average.]
We spent a lot on food (I goof around with cooking) and there is no way it is costing us $32,000 to raise both our children. Even if you normalized for the premium we pay on our mortgage to be in a neighborhood with good public schools, I don't think we're in that ballpark.
I wonder how much of this is just people sending their kids to absurd private schools.
If we accept that raising a child is a "full time job" (in reality it is more hours... not sure on the effort though), for their first five years, then all of the food of that full time parent eats, etc. adds in to that cost ;-P
You can argue that they would have eaten that themselves, however if they weren't full time caring, they would be out, earning. So one way or another you need to include child care costs: food and necessities for the primary carer, or day care/nanny costs.
I think that a lot of parents end up spending more than they need to with their children because they pander to their food requests. Learn to cook food that your children will eat, that is a simplified version of what you will eat (like my parents did)!
That said, I must learn to fix my own eating habits, then work on those of my girlfriend with her... then we might actually stand a chance at that last one if we get to that stage :-P
"The government says families in the top-third income bracket will spend $279,450 to raise a child born in 2005 through age 17 -- or about $16,000 a year."
The reason that the government figures are wrong is that, to quote Parenting, Inc. again, they don't include the cost of "maternity clothes, new home purchases and moving expenses, childbirth education and newborn classes, prenatal vitamins and extra fruits and vegetables, of Glider breastfeeding armchairs; of 'babymoon' vacations and bumblee-themed baby showers.
When the Wall Street Journal looked at the suspect government figures in an effort to make them somewhat realistic, it added costs such as sporting equipment and tutoring (which is no longer just for the wealthy-- the average income of a family seeking tutoring for a child is between $50,000 and $70,000) and came up with a total cost of raising a child to age seventeen that rangeed from $800,000 to 1.6 million."
To quote the WSJ directly, "We placed all these expenses on a spectrum, from those that parents and experts say are the most common, up to more unusual -- and costly -- frills. At the lowest end, our estimates came in at about $800,000 (in 2007 dollars) through the age of 17."
So the $800,000 figure is based on a survey of parents to figure out what they most commonly spend on various things.
Very true. Government figures don't include the cost of vacations that parents take before the baby is born (I had to google just to figure out WTF a "babymoon" is). They also leave out the cost of booze to lower the mother-to-be's inhibitions and the cost of the backseat of the car where conception occurred!
Alex, do you have any idea how the bottom 95% live?
"Alex, do you have any idea how the bottom 95% live?"
Statistically or qualitatively?
In all seriousness though, I have no aspirations of living the elite-NYC-preschool lifestyle. That being said, life is about tradeoffs and while some of the expenses might seem patently absurd, others seem like things that anyone might reasonably want for their children: to play sports, go to summer camp, to be able to get a chemistry tutor if they needed one, etc.
That's not to say that all of these expenses are necessary or that your kids can't have just as good of a childhood without them, but at some level enough of these expenses do have merit that there is a tradeoff.
Ever notice how many of the highest performing athletes in the world tend to come from exactly the kind of environments where parents don't have a lot of money to spend on things like sports?
So, maybe it's possible to play sports without spending a ton of money?
My kids play sports but not because I realistically think they are ever going to earn a living at it. It'd be nice if they could get a college scholarship, but even that is a long shot. The main reasons I have them in sports is that it's activity that keeps them fit, it's a social opportunity that allows them to make friends, and it helps them learn an important part of American culture.
There are definitely many low income kids who thrive at Grid iron football. Lots of poor Latin American kids play baseball.
The sports that require alot of money to play are mainly ways for upper class white kids to avoid having to compete against the black kids and still feel like they are good athletes. At least in the US.
Not to mention rowing, cycling, biathlon, triathlon, sailing, equestrian, mountaineering, etc. I don't know the exact numbers offhand, but it seems like the vast majority of elite athletes come from wealthy families and go through colleges like Yale and Stanford. The only sports that have even nominal representation from low-SES backgrounds are made-for-TV sports, but if you look at the overall picture it's not nearly as egalitarian.
That figure is laughable. Whatever survey it came from is also laughable. You are not laughable. But those factoids? Laughable. This is a silly argument.
Good to hear, because frankly I find it terrifying even though I'm still several years from having kids. That said some of the expenses from their infographic don't look entirely unreasonable. A decade worth of footwear might not cost $1000, but I bet it costs at least $800 when you take into account soccer cleats, penny loafers, etc.
Here, let me help you: DON'T buy your child 5 years of babyGap wardrobe. DON'T buy your child a decade's worth of Nike sneakers. DON'T buy your child a $4000 designer handbag, or 4 $1000 handbags once a year. DON'T build a swimming pool in your backyard (they kill more children than guns). DON'T take your child out to $32/person meals twice a month (that's "middle" expensive?). DON'T get bottled water delivery. DON'T buy a $2000 bed from Pottery Barn (that's "low" expensive?). DON'T take your kid on a $10,000 trip to Europe. DON'T spend $11,700 on "child therapy". DON'T buy your kid a $23,000 new car for their 16th birthday. DON'T send your kid to private school.
Whatever jackass made this infographic ought to be smacked upside the head with a dirty diaper.
It's the vacation you take shortly before the baby arrives. The wife and I took one (though I refuse to call it that). For the record, we probably spent about $250 on the whole trip (including fuel, lodging, food, etc).
It does not cost us anything resembling $66,000/yr (no, wait: 2 kids - $120k/year [?!]) to provide two school-age children with an absurdly privileged upbringing. I suspect college tuition is queering those numbers.
Four years of full tuition at an Ivy League school is $200k, so that doesn't even explain the absurd numbers. (And at Princeton, for instance, less than half of the students pay full price.)
Why is college tuition even considered an expense that parents have to shoulder? If you're rich enough and you want to pay the tuition, then that's just great, but is it really so bad to imagine that someone hovering around 20 would work for something useful for themselves? Sure, it's nice to have rich parents who will pay your expenses so you can "focus on school" (heh), but it's by no means a requirement.
IT'S NOT. You're not supposed to pay into your kids college fund until you've fully funded your own retirement. There are college loans. There aren't retirement loans.
there's also the opportunity cost of spending the money on child-rearing for 17 years and not letting it sit and accrue interest somewhere. great use of "queering", by the way.
True, but take a more reasonable number like $20k/year/kid, factor in the time value of money and you can quite reasonably hit a future value of half a million or more to get a single kid to college (let alone through it).
In other words, what would you have if you invested the cost of children for 17 years? a shitton of money.
(Granted, $20k/year is a hefty spend on a kid where I come from).
Can you post some sources? I'm extremely skeptical. If you have three kids in America, you're telling me that parents need to make $100k / yr just to cover the cost of the kids, not to mention their own costs? And triple that for an "upper middle class" upbringing?
Yeah, I'm really skeptical. The median household income in America is way, way less than that and I don't think most kids in America are living in the abject poverty these numbers would suggest.
it's not that absurd when you consider opportunity costs. even if your actual expenses are only 10k/yr, at a 7% avg rate of return, after 17 years you're down 170k plus ~140k in lost interest. at 20k/yr you hit 340k plus ~280k in lost interest.
This presumes people who don't have kids save the money instead, which quite frankly isn't at all true. People who don't have kids in large part just never learn to tighten their budget the way parents do, they live a higher cost of living lifestyle; in short, they act like single people. Now you could say "oh but I'd live broke like parents do and save the money" but frankly I wouldn't believe anyone who said that for a second.
In fact, I'd bring up the opportunity cost of maturity that having children brings you that you'd otherwise be missing out on by not having them. Maturity that quite frankly, probably saves you more money than you'd lose by having the child.
Of course you want things money can buy - that's implicit when someone says they want money. Because we all know that money has no intrinsic value, and saying we want money is a little easier than saying we want a magic genie that will give us things for free.
Suppose you're 30 say and expect to live till you're 80 and to spend US median income (50K/yr) on your survival, then you expect to spend 2.5 million in your remaining lifetime.
Having an extra-million to spend on consumption would put you at the ~70K/year level. That's something like a move from middle to barely-upper-middle class consumption levels.
So 1 million doesn't give you an abnormal amount of money to spend unless you spend it all in one place or something.
And your article on "how to retire..." isn't about how to retire at all but how to work with a million dollars and make a fair income, which is fine and good as long as you acknowledge that the person has to ... A) be moderately competent, B) be willing to accept some risks and discomforts (living Texas for example...) C) be willing to keep working (sure, maybe not that hard but still it involves effort, it's not friggin "retirement" in the normal sense).
We did fix that problem. Everyone will have to buy health insurance, and insurers will in large part be prevented from rejecting people for preexisting conditions.
No opinion I can give about this will result in anything less than 48 comments of pointless political argument about the Commerce Clause and health care and moral hazard and libertarianism and how someone's mom was totally able to haggle perfectly good health care out of a hospitals for pennies on the dollar and it's all the fault of people who consume HFCS and let's just bypass all that.
"pre-existing condition" what does it mean? And how can old people avoid having pre-existing condition? Does that mean one has to be insured continuously to make sure no pre-existing condition arises in-between insurance gap?
I'm new in the States and I hear this term is mentioned a lot.
Insurance is based on statistics. The insurance company is making a bet across a large number of people that the people will pay them more than they'll have to pay out.
If you're already afflicted with some illness (a 'preexisting condition') then the insurance company has a pretty good idea of what you'll cost them: more than someone like me, who's young and relatively healthy. So naturally, the rate for someone like this is significantly higher.
This becomes a problem when people think of 'insurance' as something that's a prerequisite for life rather than what it is, insurance. This is partially because as more and more people received insurance, the price kept rising and rising, because the individuals don't see them: they only see the deductible. By now, costs are getting to be so high that it's become a reality: you pretty much have to have insurance, because if you don't, and you get seriously ill, you're pretty fucked. Like, "will be owing money the rest of your life."
You hear "pre-existing condition" a lot because it became a political buzzword used to explain why Republicans want to kill your grandma.
People get all worked up about pre-existing conditions but how many people expect to be able to buy collision insurance after they've run their car into a tree? Home insurance after their house has burned to the ground? That's not insurance... that's a bail-out.
If you look at the history of health care, it didn't start out that way. Before World War II, people generally paid out of pocket for most medical expenses, but also carried health insurance for cataclysmic events.
In WWII, the US government imposed wage caps in an attempt to stop inflation.
Stuck offering the same wages, companies had to offer other perks to their employees to attract and retain the best and brightest, and often chose health insurance as one of said perks. As health insurance became too common to be considered a perk, and was just thought of as part of the standard package, companies expanded what they covered.
Eventually we got to a place where something as routine and expected as an annual checkup at the doctor's must be bargained down to a $5 copay.
The evolution of health care absolutely fascinates me. There is a pretty common thread of government intervention having far-reaching and often unseen implications.
Medical licensing, for example, is another reason why health care is so expensive. In Ye Olden Times, someone who wanted to set bones would apprentice, learn the art, and then set about it. If you broke a bone, you went to him. After medical licencing, and the expensive schooling it entails, you go to the emergency room, with all the associated costs.
Now, the obvious bright side is that a well-rounded, licensed doctor in an emergency room may recognize a secondary affliction that a bone-setter would have missed. Being forced to go to a doctor for something that's been done by tradesmen for ages probably saves lives.
But, it removes choice, and it raises costs.
How you're willing to balance those three is largely ideological.
I live very simply, avoiding all unnecessary luxuries. I prefer to make my bicycle my main means of transportation and I prefer to cook my own food (being one of the best cook I know helps...).
Yet I entirely agree with your statement.
A million dollars is "not enough to secure a dignified existence in the US" because...
... Human beings require a community for a dignified existence.
Yes, a million won't guard against a health emergency... human beings indeed sometimes suddenly need the full-time attention of a dozen other people for a long time and if that attention comes from only money, it has to be a lot of it.
If you're counting on only money to secure your dignified existence, you're going to need a awful lot of it, enough to secure the mere existence of maybe a dozen people...
Not to face bankruptcy if a major health problem arises? Not to worry about the cost of college for your children? To own a small home in NYC or SF? To afford competent legal representation if the need arises?
Surely this isn't the definition of "a dignified existence in the US", is it?
On the first level, you can retire, buy health insurance and not have any worries. A million would be enough. I would live on a diving boat cruising over coral reefs and code games between dives. (I'd also hire my gf to cook.)
>>And that doesn't even touch the reasons people want to be rich - like private jets and angel investing and art collecting and space tourism, etc.
On the second level, you can get what is high status among the really cool and rich nerds -- your own space program. (-: Well, some people without taste waste that opportunity on curing diseases that kill millions a year, sigh. :-)
On the first level, you can retire, buy health insurance and not have any worries. A million would be enough. I would live on a diving boat cruising over coral reefs and code games between dives. (I'd also hire my gf to cook.)
This also contradicts the claim that someone wanting a million dollars is wanting "an usual amount of money". With a million dollars you can either:
A. Not work and live on pitance but in the location of your choosing.
B. Add your labor to the money and make whatever income your business skill allows you to make.
These both might be fine activities but neither is activity beyond one's wildest dreams.
One 10million, one can live an upper-middle class America lifestyle anyplace in the world. That would indeed be great but it pretty close to "merely" moving to the next income bracket if one raised median income in the US.
My attempted point was that my dreams are small. :-)
I'd still write code, but with better weather that allows some othet hobbies -- and no stress. Maybe I would hire a few people and start a business. Not a big difference, really.
To get real change in what I do, I'd need a bilion so I could emulate Musk. I doubt I'd be good at it.
I think Ryan misses the point for most people. I do want a "million" dollars for freedom, but it's not just to go to Thailand. In fact I don't really like traveling, but I'd pay a lot if you could teleport me instantly.
I want the freedom to work on what I want to work on AND to buy what I want. I'm tired of saying, "I won't get that TV now, because in 12 months that TV is coming out". Or "lets wait 8 months for the price to drop on that car". Or "do we really need a view?"
It's not that I need less stuff. I'm fairly certain I want more new stuff (and I'll happy donate my old stuff). And it's not like I want to hike barefoot through rainforests. I generally want to spend time doing things like trying to build a new tablet OS. Or playing a full season of Madden as the Vikings. Or doing Sunday Times puzzles in less than five minutes. Or spend a month completely rewiring my houses to have incredible home automation.
I frankly don't see how you do that stuff w/o money. I guess a "million" dollars or the ability to create things by thinking them up.
What? Building an OS is just the cost of a laptop and test device (~$1000 at most), playing Madden costs you $60 + $200 console, the puzzle is just the cost of the newspaper, and depending on what you mean by "rewiring" and your level of know-how, that project shouldn't be out-of-this-world expensive either. Not anything like a million dollars, or even $15k for that matter.
To be honest, I think your post illustrates the premise of the article. You can do these things without a vast sum of money just as easily as if you had a big wad of cash.
And if your point is that being able to do those projects and ALSO "buy what you want" (e.g. nicer TV and car) will give you much greater satisfaction from your life, you are clueless about human nature. You might get a thrill from these items in the short term, but eventually you'll just want more and better ones. You'll be in the same place (psychologically) as where you started.
The things I want to do aren't expensive, but they weren't supposed to be. But they're things that would prevent me from making money, which means that I need some other way to pay for the other things that I'm paying for now that I want.
And while you argue that I'm clueless about human nature, I'd argue that you are. It's human nature to want more, even if it is only temporary. In fact most things I want to do provide only short-term satisfaction. I know that and I'm fine with that. The things that give long-term satisfaction are generally free, but those aren't the things I want money for.
> And if your point is that being able to do those projects and ALSO "buy what you want" (e.g. nicer TV and car) will give you much greater satisfaction from your life, you are clueless about human nature. You might get a thrill from these items in the short term, but eventually you'll just want more and better ones. You'll be in the same place (psychologically) as where you started.
You make a mistake in your point. The mistake is that you assume that he wants to achieve happiness by acquiring these material possessions like that new TV, an expensive car, etc. He won't, and he knows that. What he'll achieve is pleasure. Short term pleasure, maybe, but so what? Desire for pleasure is natural, and being in a position to get all the toys you want will satisfy that, and keep satisfying it.
It won't fill any holes in your soul or give you long-term happiness, but it's not supposed to. That burning desire to live better is what drives human progress. Look around and see how comfortable our existence is today compared to a thousand years ago. Cars, electricity, phones, heating, plumbing--so much convenience. None of that is necessary to exist, but it's something that makes living our lives much more pleasant. That new TV or car isn't going to give our lives more meaning, but it will make them more interesting and satisfying.
I have to disagree with your last paragraph. To an extent, there is a threshold below which adding more luxury will make one happier. For example, I am much happier with my new car than my old one, even though it's actually older (1994 vs 1998) and despite it costing me more.
While I don't subscribe to your outlook, I at least applaud you for being honest. When this topic comes up, most people veil their desire for material things or a more luxurious lifestyle as "freedom".
I'd like luxurious lifestyle (not showy, just high quality) and freedom, but I think they're mutually exclusive. I find it challenging to keep expensive lifestyle from chewing up too much money, which then limits my freedom.
I think you're also missing some of the point though. You don't need a million dollars for any or all of those things you just listed.
Add it all up and you're barely breaking a few thousand dollars.
Sure you need money. He's not saying you don't need money. The point is that when people say they need to be arbitrarily wealthy because they want to eventually do Y, they can usually do Y for much, much less money than they think. In fact it is usually within their current means.
So stop agonizing about not being rich and figure out how much you really need already.
Honestly, what I want is a lot more than a million dollars. Any one thing may not cost a million dollars (although there are a lot of things I didn't list that I'd like, like a private piloted jet, in-home maid staff, private chefs, production and guest appearances from folks like Jay-Z for a record I'd like to produce, etc...).
I've learned to settle to do things I generally "mostly" like. Like, while I like to do software development, I've decided to not start another startup. While I made decent money, most of my time wasn't spent writing code. And honestly, most of the type of code I like to write isn't like Facebook. It's stuff that I get personal enjoyment out of -- deploying to millions of people is mostly of interest to investors.
I don't even think about the Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport, not because I don't want one, but I've learned to set my expectations lower than what I absolutely want.
I think most people do the same, although some delude themselves that all they really want is a Honda Civic.
See, you don't want to have a private jet or have a Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport. You want to fly in a private jet and drive a Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport. Both are quite a bit more affordable than owning either.
People charter private jets all the time. People of very ordinary means lease and even learn to fly jets.
I haven't looked into it, but I'd bet there is somewhere in Europe that will rent and insure you a Bugatti that you can drive down the Autobahn for a few thousand. Heck, I know for certain you can drive an F1-style open wheeled race car around a track for a couple thousand. You won't even want to go as fast as it can go.
You can get a custom meal by a top ranked chef for one or two hundred dollars. You can't do that every day, but there's the law of dimishing returns on that stuff anyway.
Maid services can be had for several hundred dollars a year. Unless you have a palatial estate (tens of thousands of square feet) you don't need live in help.
I'm not trying to come down on you. I'm just trying to say doing even these extravagant things are not out of reach at all.
You're right about the private jet. I probably just need one chartered for two round trips per month. But regarding the Bugatti, I want to own it. I want to go to Safeway in it. I want to drive down the freeway and just think in it. I have no interest in driving the Autobahn. But for probably a year, I want this to be mine main solo car. Next year, probably a new car. So maybe leasing a Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport. Still at least $100k/year.
I don't want a meal by a top ranked chef. I actually want a private chef. I have a couple of friends that have them and they are very different, in the sense that you have very specialized meals. While I can probably charter Mario Batali for a custom meal for $500 to $1000 a couple of times. Having him staff for two to five meals per day probably costs a fair bit.
For a reasonably-sized house decent maid service will start at $1000/year, and that's just for something like 12 cleanings per year. For live in service, expect a fair bit more.
And again, part of what I want is not having to figure out the optimal way to get a good. I don't want to spend 20 minutes price shopping online for best rates on an alarm system. My time is my non-replenishable asset and you seem to be asking me to trade it in to get a sub-optimal service that only superficially looks like what I really want.
Another thing, I want a full scale gym in my house. I hate commuting to the gym (although made slightly better with a Bugatti). I want a bigger yard, but don't want to move my primary residence. Would be nice to just buy the houses around us.
I'd like to own the Lakers and the Dodgers.
There's a lot of things, and I haven't even really thought about it, largely because its not really in play today.
I hope that is the case, and I hope your posts aren't indicative of your mindset and worldview, because you come across as very whimsical and insecure--two qualities that I can assure you are not conducive to actually generating the kind of wealth you apparently desire.
What is this, amateur psychology hour? Aside from reading a couple paragraphs on HN you know pretty much nothing about him/her or his/her life. As far as how conducive his or her philosophy is to generating wealth, do you have statistics on this? Do you even have anecdotal evidence? Are you a HNWI or just talking out your ass?
One of the hardest parts of just hopping on a plane to some exotic destination is figuring out what to do with your "stuff" back home. People think that with a million dollars they'll pay off the house, car, quit their jobs and travel the world. Instead, they should consider selling the car and house (or renting it out) and living abroad instead of traveling. I have stayed in the Philippines for months at a time for far less money than a weekend in New York or Vegas. If you don't have to pay $1000 a month for a car (loan, insurance, gas, maintenance), and $2000 for housing in the US (including gas, electricity, phone, Internet, etc.) traveling becomes much cheaper. Even better if you can do some freelancing remotely or have a small business that generates a few hundred bucks a month.
I bet that 9 times out of 10, "I need more money" should really be rephrased as "I need less stuff"
I agree that a lot of people need less stuff. But the lifestyle you describe is minimalism for one. Minimalism for two is exponentially different, and minimalism for four is exponentially different to that. I need to keep my kids in one place for nine months out of the year, supply transport to conflicting events, and eventually secure them a decent post-secondary education. A million dollars would come in awfully handy.
I personally don't have much stuff because I think hoarding is a disease. But we're moving into an era where the fulfillment we used to get from stuff is being provided virtually. I don't claim this is bad, but it requires monthly contractual obligations (for internet access and cellphone data plans). We value these experiences so highly that we are still willing to shell out a lot of cash, even though we no longer get anything physical in return, and it would all disappear in an instant if we stopped paying our bills. I don't think the appeal of a sudden windfall of a million dollars is going to disappear anytime soon.
I was about to post something similar but with less kindness. I really hate this self-righteous posts from people that have no kids and essentially no real responsibility except themselves. It's the height of arrogance to preach to other people from such a position.
I arrogantly procreated in my bid for total world domination until I was defeated by my arch nemesis, The Urologist. We're all condemned to preach from our own unique positions.
some of us have the ability to recognize this and realize that our position is not everyones, or even most peoples, or even realize that one day we might have kids too, and all those older people that say that life is completely different post kids might be right.
I was referring specifically to people who want to just hop on a plane but talk themselves out of it because they need more money. People with families will have other reasons to not sell the house and jump on a plane.
Who knows, you could probably take the kids along and home school them from abroad. It would be interesting to learn about history and language while visiting the actual countries. World War 2 looks a lot different in Japan or the Philippines.
Har, har. We did the homeschooling-while-abroad thing. It's a mixed blessing. Your kids probably won't thank you for making them the odd ones out when they're teens. Younger ones, sure, that works. But along about 12 to 15 depending on gender and personality, you'd better pick a spot and stay there for a few years. More years if you have overlapping kids.
In late 2007, my wife and I sold our car, quit our jobs, put our valuables and personal records in a storage space, sublet our apartment (for roughly what our rent cost), and then spent three months trekking around Asia. It's really not that hard if you don't have pets or kids.
> It's really not that hard if you don't have pets or kids.
Which is a fucking enormous if. I'd bet at least half the people reading the post do have kids. Fuck, it's having kids that makes many dream of dropping everything and running away halfway around the world in the first place!
I have no idea how doable it is or isn't with kids. I don't have kids, but I know that a lot of families have jumped off the ledge and managed to be just fine. I hope I have the courage to show my kids a life without boundaries.
The deal is they have to be a certain age. I'm thinking around 6 years old. Old enough to not require 100% upkeep, but young enough to not have much else going on.
Kids pre-teen or older would rather be hanging out with their friends than accompanying their parents on their budget travel fantasy.
Of course it depends on the kids, but don't forget that at a certain age, spending a lot of time trapped with parents is the last thing a kid wants to do, even if (especially if?) it's on a bus across Laos, or whatever.
I have a collapsible table, inflatable mattress, laptop, and 24" monitor. Everything I own can fit in my car. I need more money. Sleeping on the floor was not fun.
I have money, I'm just kind of uber frugal. It's a nice air mattress, though.
Right on the money...The fact that Public Storage was only founded in 1972 is a testament to the fact that we are accumulating more stuff. I have a rule that if I haven't touched it in a year, I get rid of it. It will be easier to buy a new one than find the old one buried in a storage shed or closet.
I'm really tired of anti-money meme. Why is it so difficult for people to admit that many things in life come down to money?
This isn't about being Gordon Gekko. You could have the purest heart, but it still takes cash to care.
Some are fine with minimalism. More power to them. But I don't want to exist. I want to thrive.
I'm 24. I realized a few years ago that my highest value in life is autonomy. I want to be able to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, I've never been to Sweden," and just hop on a plane, without worrying about a small matter called rent.
What if your boss made you miserable every day, but you can't quit because of the mortgage. Is that any way to live? Me? I think I'd rather die.
Albert Camus said it best: It is spiritual arrogance to believe that one can be happy without money. And I'm a pastor's son; so I should know.
I like money. I want lots of it. A million dollars? Pftha! That isn't even what Felix Dennis called comfortably poor...
I'm 24. I realized a few years ago that my highest value in life is autonomy. I want to be able to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, I've never been to Sweden," and just hop on a plane, without worrying about a small matter called rent.
I'm 28, and I could do that today if I wanted to. And surprise, surprise, I don't have a million dollars. That's my point. Figure out what you want and make it a priority. Don't spend your life working for a big payoff so you can then figure out what you want. You'll never get there.
I want more things out of life than can be easily prioritized. A million dollars would go a long way towards making it so I wouldn't have to make just one thing my priority.
I don't intend to spend my life working for the big payoff. I like PG's concept of 'compressing your working life down to a few years.' Like I said to a work colleague, "Who wants to retire at 65, when you're old and geriatric, with barely any lead left in your pencil?"
At 30, I'd like to have my own music studio. But rather than simply making do with an M-Box and a cheap mic, I'd like a RME Hammerfall and Shure SM-58s. All thing being equal, money makes life easier.
It's like the old argument about bootstrapping vs VC. How many founders wouldn't want a longer runway while they iterate?
Thought so.
Admit this much: Up to a point, money simply makes life easier. And I suspect that point is WAY past 1 million.
In closing, allow me to post an unfinished poem I began writing a few months ago, as a repsonse to the 'wealth deniers.':
"I'm 28, and I could do that today if I wanted to. And surprise, surprise, I don't have a million dollars. That's my point. Figure out what you want and make it a priority. Don't spend your life working for a big payoff so you can then figure out what you want. You'll never get there."
I don't want to work for anyone again. Do I need a million dollars? probably not, but I'm going to need a business that has enough income coming in to support my (and possibly anyone that works for me).
I'm sorry, but you are so naive about your own nature. Allowing yourself to focus on getting money, and even worse, fantasizing about what you will do with it, just ingrains this habit deeper in your consciousness. If you keep doing this, and you are as much a slave to money as you come across as in this post, I suspect one of two things will happen to you...
One: you'll somehow get all this money you want, start spending it, and eventually wonder at how you don't feel any different, and somehow still crave even more money, fame, success, etc. Whatever insecurities you had before still subsist--you're still the same you. And whatever respect you think you have earned from the world for being successful feels hollow, if you perceive it at all (because honestly no one respects people just for being financially successful--they are either merely envious or just don't care--and why should they?).
Or two: things go a different way and you realize you don't have a path to making a lot of money (or the path you thought you had closed up), at which point you get extremely depressed and increasingly indignant at how others are "doing so much better" than you, despite how much mental energy you had put into fantasizing about your future wealth and devising ways to acquire it.
I agree that autonomy is a good value. I think for you the best starting point for acquiring that autonomy would be to stop being chained to the idea that having money will give it to you.
I definitely respect people for being financially successful if they added value to the world doing so (wealth creation). Also, my own life experiences do go against what you're saying - as I've made more money, I've always become more satisfied with my life, and don't see why that would change in the future.
What else has changed in your life as you've made more money? Correlation does not imply causation. Are you sure it's the money that has made you more satisfied?
As a counterpoint I have more money now than I've ever had, and am at an all-time low in satisfaction with my life.
"What if your boss made you miserable every day, but you can't quit because of the mortgage."
This situation and others like it are more common with people who put too much importance on money. You can't ignore money, but giving it more weight than its due can actually get you into situations where you're held hostage by it.
Autonomy comes from taking control of your life, not from a certain income. An autonomous person can make the income happen. I know people who make far, FAR more that I but they are shackled to their jobs in exactly the way you describe in the quote above. Does that make me smart and them stupid? Well, yes, it does. Or maybe not stupid, but so lazy they can't be bothered to think about how to get what they really want, which is autonomy.
I do. From the extremely rich, I heard something along these lines: "When you have money, money is not an issue."
If you want to have, try, or do something NOW, money can make it happen. No waiting. Life is short. In exchange for money, I would have time. I would be liberated to pursue other things, to answer the call of other motivations. I picture it much like Maslow's Hierarchy: pierce the resource barrier, and you have ventured into the next level. The acquisition of resources and services in general is no longer an issue. Now we are in the realm of the rare, and our internal motivations/desires guide us more.
No need to worry about what kind of insurance you have. No need to pause to ask if you can afford to take an ambulance. No need to decide between this or that. No more dreaming about taking a rocket to the moon.
This is another way to say "freedom", but a general "freedom" is incorrect. There is always the next problem, the next desire. Remove money as a block, and many issues are resolved, while new issues enter the picture.
Of course, a million dollars does not buy all that, but it could sure get me out of my debts and bolster my current investments! Yes, I really want a million dollars. A million dollars buys me time, my most precious resource, time I did not have to spend making that million.
One time I was watching HGTV with my sister. A couple bought a new house because they wanted a kitchen witha view of the ocean. She was incredulous, but I told her that's the very point of money-doing whatever you want to do.
The "HN Users, please upvote this" banner at the bottom is disconcerting. If HN is becoming a place people are desperate to get their stories voted up on, I fear the quality is going to start decreasing dramatically in the coming months.
That's a Wordpress plugin called "WP Greet Box" [1] and this message is only shown to users coming from HN, not everyone. Also, you'll be happy to know that I get grief for it every time one of my posts lands on the homepage :)
I understand your concern, but it's really just a reminder to vote the article up if you enjoyed it. I frequently read good articles and then forget to vote them up because something else catches my attention. I really doubt anyone is swayed to upvote an article they didn't think worthy because of this message. Just the opposite: some hacker types get worked up because they seem to be allergic to promotion of any kind, and thus won't upvote the article, even though they would have otherwise. But I'm betting that the balance of people who upvote because they liked the article AND because they were reminded outweighs the anti-promotion crowd. Either way, I don't think it's a big deal. Sorry if it offended you.
For what it's worth - Every time i click on an HN story I also open the comment page (in two new tabs - I use the fabulous Tree Style Tab firefox extension to stop that becoming as insane as it sounds).
That way after I read the story, even if I go away, the comment page is still open so I can upvote it when I am clearing up later. In that way I rarely if ever forget to upvote a story I liked.
I don't particularly like having my upvote solicited because it makes the thing seem too much like a popularity contest - the people who lobby end up getting more than the equally worthy ones that don't.
Funny. I also always open the comment page and the article at the same time (no tree plugin though). And yet, I very often forget to upvote the article, since I'm usually eager to dive into the comments.
Interestingly, in this case, I saw the "please upvote" message, said to myself "ok let's go upvote on the comment page I have open", and still forgot to do it because I started reading comments.
Agreed. I wont vote a story up because of this. Same as tweets with "Please RT". stfu, I will RT if I think it's worth spreading, not because you tell me to
> Hello there, fellow HN user! If you like this post, I'd really appreciate an upvote.
That has been there for a while, I thought he might of changed that to what you wrote but as it is now, it is just asking if you like it to upvote it which is how hacker news works. You don't get this if you don't come from hacker news either.
"A young man without power or money is completely free. He has nothing, but he also has everything. He can travel, he can drift. He can make new acquaintances every day, and try to soak up the infinite variety of life. He can seduce and be seduced, start an enterprise and abandon it, join an army or flee a nation, fight to preserve an existing system or plot a revolution. He can reinvent himself daily, according to the discoveries he makes about the world and himself. But if he prospers through the choices he makes, if he acquires a wife, children, wealth, land, and power, his options gradually and inevitably diminish. Responsibility and commitment limit his moves. One might think that the most powerful man has the most choices, but in reality he has the fewest. Too much depends on his every move."
A million bucks, moderately levered and invested in rental property = cash flow for life. You won't live rich, but you'll sure cover your health insurance and some travel budget.
I appreciate what the author is saying, but his thesis isn't really well supported:
> Here’s the reality: if you’re not the type of person who can create freedom without a million dollars, you probably aren’t the kind of person who will get a million dollars.
... What? I'd be willing to guess that most people with a million dollars (which isn't really all that much money these days) probably have not put money second and freedom first. I know plenty of doctors and lawyers that are worth as much and work very hard. I don't know anyone who travels around free-spiritedly and is amassing large sums of money.
I was really responding to the claim that you can't retire on $1m in that post, whereas the post I wrote today is more about the idea that you might not need to "retire" at all...
I have to agree. Knowing that you have enough money to not worry about money would be incredibly liberating, even if I only maintained my current standard of living and changed nothing about what I actually do. Even if I never exercised the options, having that kind of money would give you options you wouldn't have otherwise.
Well you know what? I'm 27, I have lived in 9 countries for long periods of time (more than 3 months for 2 of them, more than 1 year for the rest), I've traveled around to a few other countries and, well now that I want to settle down I do want a million dollar.
While it's not the only reason why I'm creating my own business, money is a big part of the motivation. Of course I love most of what I do [1], wasting my life doing something that I hate to earn money is also not a smart move. But, yes money is definitely something I want...
For example, I want to be able to have my house, a place of my own that I can modify how I want it, not a place owned by some landlord who places a lot of restrictions on what I can do... I want to be able to go to the expensive 3 stars restaurants, stay at nice 5 stars hotels instead of cheap youth hostels... I want to enjoy luxuries..
[1] Unfortunately growing my business means having employees and delegating some of the fun part along with the boring parts. And managing is not my favorite part of the job.
I find it rich (no pun intended) that a bunch of single folk can somehow assume it's easy to live these type of lifestyles if you have a wife and 2 kids.
I would like to have a million. Two, if I could get it... three I wouldn't turn down either.
I have defined two very specific and (not too horribly) lavish goals: have $0.00 month-to-month debt and to own a house with some acreage in the American Rockies.
But, more money can be put to use: collage scholarships, investing, hobbies, putting away for family, charities -
If one is not wedded to the urban jet-set lifestyle, one can really stretch the money.
Of course there is no point in having a million bucks as a single person. Yes, you'd probably just blow it.
With a family? Million dollars to have a comfortable home mostly paid for, college tuition sorted, no concerns about healthcare costs. If I got a million dollars tomorrow, almost nothing would change. Because most of it would go into securing the future and giving me more time with the kids.
Travelling on a shoe string budget is possible for people on modest incomes but it's not exactly living comfortably is it?
People want a million dollars so they can live a comfortable life rather than trudging through life and then going to the grave.
Yes, you could blow the lot on a car, house, long holiday etc but they're short term gains that won't really change your life that much. After all buying an expensive house will land you with expensive upkeep/running costs.
A sensible person (here in the UK anyway) could pay themselves a healthy wage (£35k p/year tax free) for 20+ years and they can save the rest for retirement.
The downside to this though is, once you've done a trip to Thailand and so on, I think boredom would probably set in so you'd want to spend the time after that doing something meaningful like working for a charity
My biggest problem with most of the "I just need $1m" people I have met is twofold.
One, most of them would have no idea how to use that million in a sustainable way. Take a look at all the lottery winners that end up broke. The article does touch on this ... you don't need a million dollars to do half the things that many people feel they will do when they miraculously land that million.
Secondly, most people are not prepared to put in the kind of work that leads to a million dollar payoff. No, playing the lotto does not count. Getting a big payoff takes hard work, luck, and more hard & smart work.
Far too many people are not prepared to pay the price of success.
I think tech people take for granted that other people can be as mobile as us. If you're currently working for minimum wage at a convenience store, you probably have very little in the way of skills or education, and there are so many barriers to just getting out from under your bills. Even traveling very cheap requires some savings, and most people have $0 in savings and many thousands of dollars in debt.
Not to retire on, but to remove the need to work to provide a roof and food. So I can risk working on all the things that interest me and them tanking big time.
I think that a lot of people are missing the main point of this article. And Ryan could have stated it a little more clearly. Here's my take on it:
Some things cost money, but others don't. Many things that people, including me, want to change about their life require an investment in time, effort and thought. However, the first things that come to mind could be fixed with more money, even if those things are really symptoms of something deeper than cannot be fixed with money. Money problems are easy to think about, so we think about them more and see the solution quickly. Enough of that and we put money as a proxy for all solutions.
If you really take a good look at your life and at your hopes and dreams, many things can be accomplished without that million dollars, and other things...can't. Having made that separation, there are things you can do to improve your life without the million dollars. Fixing some of those things may actually make it possible for you to make that million dollars rather than wasting your life by wishing to win the lottery.
From kenjackson in this discussion: "I want the freedom to work on what I want to work on AND to buy what I want."
Oh? And until that happens? What if you rearrange your life so that you can work on what you want, and then figure out a way to make lots of money from that? Isn't that how it happens in startups?
Good article, but I thought that the title / headline was slightly misleading. I think a better wording of it would've been, "You don't really need a million dollars." The impression that I got from it, before reading it, was that it was yet another instance of someone winning a large sum of money through a lottery or other contest, and completely blowing it all away due to lack of proper financial foresight / other bad habits(or even being worse off because of lavish lifestyles; e.g. Lenny Dykstra).
That said, I agree with some parts of the post. If you can make it work, working for yourself in this field will give you the flexibility to live the kind of life you want if you make the proper adjustments. Once you do, seeing the world isn't as expensive as people may believe if you do the right research and strike a few good deals.
It's not for everyone, though. While a couple of my friends, who work in health care(married with kids; one is an RN, the other a radiologist), can certainly try to make lifestyle changes to save more money so that they can travel, I don't know how they would be able to work for themselves.
I've just been skimming through all the comments here and I really think that a lot of you are missing the point of this article because you're focussing on that fact that you know just what you would do with $1,000,000 and how much of a positive effect all these things would have on your life.
You're focussing on finding edge cases of people who genuinely need exactly $1,000,000 to pay off a bunch of things that are holding them back that are to the value of $1,000,000 (but even then, there's plenty of places you can abscond to if you want to escape debt - you just may not be welcome to return :)
The essential message in this article is lateral thinking. It's about looking at the mountain in front of you and noticing that there is a way around it instead of having to climb all the way up to the top and go back down the other side.
Of course there are people and situations where this doesn't apply. The title of the article "YOU don't really want a million dollars" naturally invites these comments because he's addressing a large audience of people, many of whom may have legitimate needs for that amount of money.
If it were me writing it I would have maybe phrased it as "Do you really want a million dollars?" and focused on the fact that the question is addressed specifically to the guy at the store who wanted a million to solve "all his problems" in some abstract way.
That million dollars that will solve everything IS lazy thinking. It allows you to say "unless I have that million, I can't possibly solve my problems" without ever giving any real thought, or doing any real research, into whether or not there is an alternative way to solve your problems other than "getting a million dollars" which for most people is an impossibility.
I personally think that the author could have done a better job with this article because although I came to agree with it's premise after reading it twice then reviewing the comments, I was also initially thrown off the scent by listing all of the things I'd do with a million dollars if I had it.
I'd have no problem finding productive things to do with a million dollars. I wouldn't sit around wasting away either. If a million dollars fell into my lap, my biggest problem would be maintaining a straight face when everyone rushes to me with a sad story... Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely be charitable, but the hardest part in hanging on to money is preventing yourself from giving most of it away after that point.
That being said, I don't believe in any sense of lottery providing opportunities for winning money. I don't trust the lottery system in any shape or form. And wishes of winning large sums of money only serves to set your ambition back in life, so I generally avoid it, unless powerball/megamils is above 200m, that is a thing worth gambling on.
And wishes of winning large sums of money only serves to set your ambition back in life, so I generally avoid it, unless powerball/megamils is above 200m, that is a thing worth gambling on.
The first part of this sentence is so true, and the second part so false...
This is more or less a question of lifestyle or philosophy and not a question about whether you need a million or not.
I know i don't need a million bucks, but I'd sure like more than that.
A friend of mine never cared about his money and is as happy as he can be. Right now he's travelling across the states with next to nothing. I envy the people who can enjoy what's truly necessary in our lives, but saying outright that those people who live this still have this ingenuity, discipline and proactivity to be successful is wrong.
Forcing yourself to live a minimal lifestyle is different actually living it.
Not to nitpick, but not everybody wants "a million dollars" to leave everything behind and travel. There's a lot of things one can do with "a million dollars"; and yeah, I want some of that too.
Since scaling my life back and tackling startup debt I've really managed to scale down my outgoings. Furthermore I've simultaneously lost my lust for new tech and become the worst guy I know to buy presents for.
I don't really need a million dollars, but if I had it I'm fairly certain I'd get quite far with it.
I kind of look at it differently. I don't feel the need to own a ton of stuff(even though myself and my fiance recently bought a small home) my main monetary goal is to eventually have enough money so that I never have to worry about having money :)
Sounds kind of weird, but I don't spend my money on much stuff, but I like to travel once or twice a year and eat out with my fiance a couple of times a month. However much money it is that I can pay for my current place to live and do those things and never have to worry about it, then thats the right amount of money.
When I make a list of the things I'd like to do, but aren't, money is never the main barrier. It's things like... well... courage, faith, trust.
I've actually had enough money at one point to retire (living on passive income), and it didn't make me happy at all. In fact, I stepped back from life a little, and it made me less happy. For me, in my present level of "spiritual wisdom" (for want of a better term), needing money seems to be a helpful motivation.
I also observe what so many people do who make a lot of money do: keep on doing whatever it was they were doing.
What's that line from the movie DISCLOSURE? "Give a man a hundred million dollars and you make a frustrated billionaire. "
Seriously, though...so what if having money doesn't satisfy you and leaves you wanting more? Why is it taken as a given that being satisfied is a good thing?
I agree with the general point but.. I actually do want a million dollars for something specific ;-)
My family wants to move to the US (from the UK) and I want to continue working solely for myself. I could come up with a clever investment using the E-2 visa but that'd realistically take a cpl hundred thousand and then involve renewing/funding a business/etc. Or I could spend $500k-$1m on an EB-5 depending on locality. Beyond that, we'd need extra money to cover how expensive the US is. So, yeah, we could do with a million <g>
Very few people want, need, or are even wishing for exactly one million dollars, and zero cents. '1 million dollars' is just a placeholder for 'enough money' that originated in a time long past.
It's a bias that's not hard to detect. If I examine my own thoughts, I find that 'millionaire' is almost synonymous with 'arbitrarily wealthy' while 'billionaire' and 'trillionaire' don't really hold meaning beyond the literal definition.
tl;dr - I agree with the article. Get shit done to make yourself happy.
When reading a few responses here, I'm taken back with the comment "It's easy for you to preach, you don't have kids". In real life, I heard similar sentiments.
I'm having a hard time trying to understand the feeling when people said such things. Having kids is a choice, no? The same thing with living über-minimalistic life. People who don't have kids may have serious problems too.
Me and my wife, we don't have kids. But what we do have in terms of problems:
1. Selfish, arrogant, and wasteful parents. We helped them a lot and never received a single thanks. They love to have elaborate parties even though they are broke.
2. A 14 years old sister. Amazingly selfish little brat, complete disconnect between what she wants and what our parents could provide. Fucking android for 14 years old, what for? I cannot imagine her coding up some android app.
I don't have a million dollar and far from it. When I was 26, I swallowed the "American Dream" Kool-aid bottoms up and really needed that 1 million dollar:
We bought a big house, with .25 acre land. We owned 3 cars. I did all the stupid things that can only happen if you own a house: upgrading HVAC, kitchen, etc. etc.
Only 1 thing I did that wasn't stupid: paying for wife's school.
Now, we don't own TV, 1 car, 1 couch, < 700 sqft apartment, 2 cats, and 0-10 minutes commute.
When we went through the transformation, crazy things happen. My sisters respect me a lot more. When they want superfluous things and I said no, they listen far more than they ever did. Crazy things happen with the parents too. They listened, twice, when I told them about the elaborate parties.
Not needing money empowered me far more than money ever did. And I'm quite sure that I'm not unique in that regard.
My future kids won't have lawn to run around or the latest apple gadgets to pimp around. Their life won't be govern by money. This plan may or may not work, my real life friends would be the judge of that.
To drive my points further, unrelated to my life story, several tech co-founders have told me directly. "The best time to raise money, is when you don't need money".
Extra brownie point: To buy freedom into United States (the easy way), you really need a million dollar. http://bit.ly/9RItQM
"You don't want a million dollars, you just want to be happy and if you're resourceful you can do that without it. Unless you do want a million dollars in which case you're too stupid to get it or to rearrange your life to be happy without it. Sucks to be you I guess. Did I tell you about all that time I spent freelance travelling yet?"
What amount of money would it take to solve my biggest problems?
Here are my biggest problems:
1. My father had a massive stroke and died. I miss him.
2. My mother has severe dementia and now acts like a toddler. I miss her too, in a strange way.
3. In the past 8 years, I have lost 5 close friends and family members including the cousin I grew up with who died very young of pancreatic cancer. I miss them all.
4. I have 3 loved ones with significant health problems. I wish there was more I could do to help. Better yet, I wish the would all just get well.
5. I love to build software and would like to build more, better, and faster.
6. The Pittsburgh Steelers (American football) lost yesterday. I'm crushed.
I have struggled with how more money could help (or have helped) with numbers 1 through 4, but I'm not quite sure how.
If I had more money, I could hire a bunch of people to help me with #5, but I think we're all learning that the correlation between having a lot of money and building lots of great software is becoming a very loose one.
I need a billion dollars to buy the Steelers and run them the way they should be run. I need another billion to pay the referees. In the meantime, I'll just sit and suffer on Mondays like this.