This is a generally short-sighted article, that looks inward but not at the bigger picture. I want to make a lot of money because I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available. Not to be spoiled, but simply to have a good life. And that's just the start.
I want to make money so I can help people. To be able to invest in things which might cure diseases, solve hunger, produce cleaner cheaper energy. Things which might have an opportunity to drive humanity forward.
I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity. Things that might drive us closer to a star-trek-esque free-energy economy.
This is what people don't understand about money. Some people want it because it has the power to do a lot of things. It is a measure of value, and you can use that value to create more value. It might spiral so high that you don't even know what to do with it anymore; and that's okay, because all it means is that you've produced value and created something real. If I have billions of dollars when I die, I won't care if I lose it. The real reward was the creation of which it was an accidental result.
Travel? Nice things? Acceptance? Popularity? You think that's why people want money? Child's play, all of them.
I noticed you have this on your first list: "create the biggest impact possible?"
But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
I get your view and it is not an uncommon, in fact it is quite a predictable reply ... except this part ...
>Travel? Nice things? Acceptance? Popularity? You think that's why people want money? Child's play, all of them.
You've got to be kidding me. These are billion dollar industries and people certainly do work and commit crimes for such things. To dismiss that as child's play is to live in a fantasy world and to have, plainly, a tenuous grip on reality. Just being honest.
>But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
Maybe for you but come on, let's be serious. You act as if it is silly to think there exist entrepreneur for whom the sole goal isn't ending world hunger or creating world peace. I'm flummoxed by that.
> But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
From the article: Starting a multi-national company is only one way to achieve impact that a small subset of people can accomplish.
In other words, if your rationale is "I'm going to start Tumblr for Cats, and turn it into a multi-billion enterprise, and then I'm going to go all Bill Gates and become a philanthropist!", you're probably deluding yourself. (1) It's probably not going to happen. (2) Even if it happens, many people never end up following through with their plan. The money might be tied up in a trust fund on the British Virgin Islands, or there are other investment opportunity coming up. "Just one more billion, then I have enough to donate!"
If you're honest with your goals, a better way to make an impact would be to join a biotech or clean energy company, or even start one yourself (not a contradiction with the article, because your primary motivation would not be to make huge amounts of money).
> I want to make a lot of money because I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available.
That's the short-sighted part. Money doesn't buy a great life. Sure, a good one. But it's no guarantee of a great life. (think of all the rich people who have committed suicide, for example)
If you want to give your family a great life then experience life with them instead of building a life for them. And that simply does not always require a lot money. Key words being "a lot". Sure, trips to Disney World require money but not "Oh my God I just sold my useless social network for a billion dollars!" money.
> I want to make money so I can help people.
Sorry, not buying it. This can be done on a daily basis for free.
> I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity.
You mean like how Woz invented the PC when he was a broke (by comparison) college dropout working at HP?
>I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available. Not to be spoiled, but simply to have a good life.
This... does not always work out how you think it will.
I'm the oldest of six. (Divorced/remarried parents, 3 kids each). I'm dramatically more successful than any of my siblings, adjusted for age. According to the tests, I'm not any smarter than them; according to in-school performance, well, I'm about the worst of the bunch, academically.
Now part of this was just plain luck; I graduated from highschool in like 97-98, and had a solid sysadmin/programming job within months. If I had gone to college? There's no way I would have been able to do as well looking for work in 2002.
But, I think a lot of it was that when I was growing up? money wasn't a given. I mean, my parents weren't dirt poor or anything; they owned a house, etc... But, I watched as they moved up from renting crappy places to buying their first house. Clothing often came from goodwill. They loaned me money to get a cheap car when I got out of high school, but I was expected to pay them back. If I worked hard and got good grades and scholarships, there'd probably have been some help for college, but it certainly wasn't a given.
By the time my siblings came of age? my parents were in much better shape.
Now, I mean, when I say I'm more successful, I mean financially, maybe they are happier, I don't know. It's quite possible; I certainly wouldn't call myself well-adjusted. And certainly, that can be more important than money; but I'm pretty much the only one here that wouldn't be in trouble if our parental safety net went away, and that's kindof a big thing, I think.
But, my point is? more money does not always mean more successful children. Children look at what you do, not what you say, so if you are optimizing for successful children, it's probably best to have them watch you /become/ successful, not watch how you act after you have become successful, and have time to enjoy the fruits of that effort.
I can see how this is true when you compare poor vs. non-poor families. But the article is about staying middle class vs. pursuing riches by founding a successful company. It's probably true that the children of millionaires will be financially better off than children of middle class families, but that leads back to the point of the article: Will that affluence make them happy and more fulfilled?
I was going to complain about the same thing, but it turns out that @lsc said "more money does not always mean more successful children". Perhaps it was a poor choice of words and he really meant "happier" instead of "more successful".
I was talking about financial success, of course. I'm not qualified to speak of 'self-actualization' or what have you. I specifically said:
>Now, I mean, when I say I'm more successful, I mean financially, maybe they are happier, I don't know. It's quite possible; I certainly wouldn't call myself well-adjusted. And certainly, that can be more important than money; but I'm pretty much the only one here that wouldn't be in trouble if our parental safety net went away, and that's kindof a big thing, I think.
so yeah. it's quite possible my siblings are happier than I am. I don't know, but I am fairly certain that they would be happier than they are now if they had more money (or rather, had more independent earning power.)
I mean, sure, money doesn't buy happiness... but, at least until you have 'enough'? it makes a pretty big difference; I've had 'enough' I think, by that standard, pretty much since I reached the age of majority, and it gives me a huge degree of freedom that my siblings mostly don't have.
(that said, I probably would be a lot happier if I focused less on money and more on the other stuff. I mean, right now I'm putting a lot of effort into running a business when I could live fairly well just contracting for other people maybe one third of the time, and instead focus on other things.)
The actual data exists but is not that strong. IIRC, it says that 40% of people born in the bottom quintile remain in the bottom quintile, but 60% dont. The same goes for the top quintile.
I am just recalling these numbers from a potentially faulty memory, but if you want to see for yourself, search for "intergenerational economic mobility"
Totally agree, lots of great points there. I had much the same experience (except for the college experience) and hope to take it into account. I love the last bit about how children watch what you do, not what you say. Completely agree.
This is a great article. Looking inward is the bigger picture. When you are not impeccable about your intent, then much of your subconscious awareness is being diverted towards those hidden agendas rather than the outward goal. You come off as inauthentic, your ability to draw like-minded people to your goals are splintered.
You can get those hidden agendas directly. Why make a lot of money to change the world? Change the world. Money is a means by which one changes the world.
If it happens that your inward goals are to make a lot money, then you're much more likely to get what you need. If you're not impeccable, you're more likely to wander around lost and confused.
You've got a lot of good points there, but I think the worst problem with the article is that it oversimplifies everything. It's fundamentally wrong about a whole lot of things.
For example, it assumes that there's only one reason for wanting a lot of money. What if I want a "total autonomy over my time" and "nice things", at the same time?
As @dragonwriter said elsewhere in this thread, money is one of the means of obtaining power. That's why nearly everyone would like to make a lot of money: they want power. Power to do what? That depends on each person and cannot be oversimplified the way this article does.
Wanting to start a family and having a family to support are two different things. I imagine the goal of a ton of people without families is to generate the capital necessary to start a family.
I really thought this was a glaring hole in the article. It's not as if those without families will never be in the set of those with families. It was a bit odd for me as well.
Having started a family a year ago, I wonder what kind of capital is necessary to start a family is? For diapers? Or do people really want to save up for college when they have barely left college themselves?
Until age 3, a child doesn't even need a dedicated room, so basically any apt suitable for 2 people will do.
Disclaimer: I'm in Austria, maybe it's easier here.
Its almost certainly easier there, since you guys have, socialized medicine, cheaper education, affordable housing, etc. All of the things we're terrible at here in the US basically. Most people want to own a home, which in the SF area will be 500k or so just for a reasonable place. Then you have to pay a ton of money for health insurance, then you pay a ton to educate them, have a babysitter, etc.
Not sure about the affordable housing. From what I've read, in many parts of Europe (for example in Germany), life-long renting is very common. In many other places (where the rental market isn't as developed or where people believe that they "must" own the property they live in), for many it takes a 30-year mortgage to buy a flat.
Having said that, I don't know how the situation looks in Austria in particular.
I think it is easier in Austria (my mother was born there). In Vienna, with a reasonable flat and public transportation, you probably don't have a lot of extra costs. I'm not sure what the Austrian parental leave policy is... one year? How much salary do they cover?
Sources of capital expense for US/Canada:
- Parental leave. Most social insurance systems do not pay full salary if you make over a certain amount of money (say, $40,000 annually). If your lifestyle is higher than that, you need to save the excess. In Canada, parental leave is usually up to 1 year. In the USA, it is often 2 to 3 months (though some insurance plans allow for longer).
- If you're both working, daycare can cost $600 to upwards of $1500 monthly, depending on quality & city.
- Depending on the child, if you want to actually sleep at night it helps for the child to have their own room by age 1 to 1.5 or so, which may entail a larger flat or house. Other children are not restless sleepers and can be tolerable in a shared room.
- Otherwise, the usual expenditure, depending on your desired lifestyle and travel needs: car seats ($500+), booster seats ($200+), clothes, toys, diapers, child-proof cupboard door clips, strollers (upwards of $1000 if you're getting a multi-purpose Chariot-type carrier)
So I'd say, a middle class family would often be advised to save at least $10,000 before having a child. An upper class / affluent family that wants some level of dual parental leave, or a nanny, likely $100,000 or more.
There's also the dark side of having a child, and that's the astronomical costs of separation, assuming you want shared custody (or are fighting for primary custody). In the US or Canada, legal costs are usually at least $10,000 to get to a custody agreement and divorce filing, and more likely $20,000 to 50,000 for minor contentions. Major custody battles can cost upwards of $500,000 (each). Legal aid can help, but only if you fall below a certain income threshold. Whereas I've seen couples split with no kids for under $5,000 each.
source: many friends with children, I have a 3 year old, also too many friends with bad divorces
It depends on how much time you want to spend with your family. For example, if both parents want to stay at home to take care of the kids (admittedly rare), it'd take quite a bit of capital for a middle-class or higher lifestyle.
But now you are getting so far flung away from either the point of the article or even any serious criticisms of it. No one would deny helping humanity is a noble goal but, and I don't intend this in a mean way, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
*Edit: Okay, sorry, "children" is a little harsh. You get what I mean. Of course we all want financial independence, security, and the means to not have to worry about where we eat for dinner every night. Great.
You can have that, and do more also. Look at pg—in addition to I'm certain a comfortable life, he also invests in all of you and helps create things of value.
Look at what Elon Musk is doing: SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity—they're all a means to advance civilization in leaps and bounds. Fucking awesome. Will he make a lot of money in the process? Probably, if he's successful at it. But I guarantee you that's not why he's doing it (incidentally I think that's a huge reason he might be successful, also).
If you're not doing big things like that, you can. Why not? You need a bankroll to do big things. You don't get there by vilifying money and just wanting small things for yourself—even deep things like happiness or self-respect or spirituality. I feel that is a somewhat childish self-centered idea. You're saying "what can money do for me?" The answer in this article is "You don't need money to get those things you want for yourself." Well, buster, it's not for me: it's for the world, it's for advancement, it's for creation. Money gives me no great desire in itself, but the advancement of society certainly does, and it clearly does for others too, and that's a good thing.
"Child's play" usually connotes a sense of ease that, uh, isn't actually available to everyone. If you were correct, then everyone over the age of 20 would have a completely fulfilled life and would only care about money for the sake of making the world a better place.
You might be shocked to discover that not everyone is like you. Not everyone feels sufficiently fulfilled in their own life. Indeed, some people feel that their fulfillment may come from "the advancement of society", oddly enough. But are they chasing the advancement of society for its own sake, or are they chasing it for their own self-esteem?
I'd personally like to refactor the entirety of society. But, you know, that's childish and it's also just me.
The difference here is, that all your needs can be fulfilled by doing a job. When it comes to dreams, you enter into entrepreneurship. Your day job might be enough to support you, your family, travels and still leave some savings. But dreams, that translate into huge impacts need switching to entrepreneurship.
Now the question remains, what you dream about. Is it just money that you want, that you'll do great deeds with, when you have it? That's a dream you don't want to have. There is a saying for it: The dreamer is one who can look beyond what is immediately around him, family, kids and loved ones.
>This is a generally short-sighted article, that looks inward but not at the bigger picture. I want to make a lot of money because I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available. Not to be spoiled, but simply to have a good life.
People have been doing that with 100K a year -- and much less.
>I want to make money so I can help people. To be able to invest in things which might cure diseases, solve hunger, produce cleaner cheaper energy. Things which might have an opportunity to drive humanity forward.
I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity. Things that might drive us closer to a star-trek-esque free-energy economy.
Those sound like very peripheral things people want to make money for... Perhaps you mean it, but in most cases those are Miss USA style BS.
I agree with most of the things you said. In fact there are two major reasons why I want to start a company. Number 1 being that I want to be able to get my kids a great education and the other is that I want to innovate something that will help everyones life, I want to majorly contribuite to society.
The prospect of a good exit, or a successful company which would basically allow you to be "set for life" would do this. Being able to select freely where to live, what schools to go to, and what colleges to have as options will greatly affect the education prospects of your children.
So then, a good exit is the means by which you want good prospects for your children. If that so, wouldn't it make sense to have several different other methods to achieve that end?
Fact:
If you think that everyone who wants money wants it in order to "create the biggest impact possible," you are either incorrect or have an unusual definition of "biggest impact possible."
Opinion:
It's almost nice and idealist for you to think this, but you ruined it by being generally sour (on my interpretation).
Spot on. Money is a conflation of two social processes or decisions:
a. Who gets to have private jets and get into hot nightclubs.
b. Who gets to build things of importance to the world.
Most of us are smart enough to have limited interest in (a)-- if that's what you're into, you'll never have enough-- but have an obsessive, sometimes anger-inducing and debilitating, focus on (b).
> Money is a conflation of two social processes or decisions:
> a. Who gets to have private jets and get into hot nightclubs.
> b. Who gets to build things of importance to the world.
No, its not. Those two are two of the many aspects of the one thing that money is a determinant for: power. Or, "who gets to do what they want to do".
"Have private jets and get into hot nightclubs" is just one of things people might want to do.
"Build things of [or, that they think of as having] importance to the world" is another of the things people might want to do.
People with money can do it if they want to. Other people have to try real hard. Want to have a nightclub lifestyle - become a bouncer/dancer. Want to live on private yatch - get a job on a somebody else's yatch(and imagine you are living your dream). Want to change the world - become a scientist and hope you get work on your topic of interest( or make the work that you get your topic of interest).
I want to make money so I can help people. To be able to invest in things which might cure diseases, solve hunger, produce cleaner cheaper energy. Things which might have an opportunity to drive humanity forward.
I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity. Things that might drive us closer to a star-trek-esque free-energy economy.
This is what people don't understand about money. Some people want it because it has the power to do a lot of things. It is a measure of value, and you can use that value to create more value. It might spiral so high that you don't even know what to do with it anymore; and that's okay, because all it means is that you've produced value and created something real. If I have billions of dollars when I die, I won't care if I lose it. The real reward was the creation of which it was an accidental result.
Travel? Nice things? Acceptance? Popularity? You think that's why people want money? Child's play, all of them.
I noticed you have this on your first list: "create the biggest impact possible?"
But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.