It is not so much wanting to be rich that is the problem; it is the motivation to be rich for wealth's sake. In some study conducted by Forbes, it was discovered that there is no significant difference in degrees of happiness between the rich and the poor. See below: "On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means 'not at all satisfied with my life' and 7 means 'completely satisfied,' the people on Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans average 5.8--the same as the Inuit people in Greenland and the cattle-herding Masai of Kenya, who live in dung huts with no electricity or running water. Calcutta's slum dwellers score only a little lower, at 4.6." My impression is that the illusion that is provided by wealth, i.e., the magical thinking that associates money and instant happiness, is the result of the widespread non-existence of a true existential/spiritual ground in certain strata of society. We all feel at a loss when it comes to assessing our existence in terms of happiness-- i.e., how do we define it? we don't know how; so instead we replace it with quantififcation. It's almost as though there is a cognitive deficiency in seeking wealth for wealth's sake. Yet, prosperity is not to be seen as "bad" in itself. Who can argue that, really? It makes no sense. But to seek it as a way of covering up, compensating for an existential or, to be flakey, spiritual decay, can lead nowhere. When the 19th c. thinker spoke of God dying, he wasn't kidding... But what do I know....
One day you must go to Asia. The majority of people there are simply dirt broke. The Philippines and Cambodia are shining examples. Women prostitute themselves for tens of dollars. People live in the street. It is a very depressing situation. However, its not only over in Asia. Just a few miles away from Wall Street is the Bronx and Harlem. There are housing projects there that the police patrol in packs of 10 or more. I would say that there are few places either in the Bronx or Harlem that I would regard as an acceptable place to live. Every person has an obligation to save and make as much money as possible. The reason behind this is not to buy a new lexus, but so that their future generations can enjoy an acceptable life. Its worthy to mention that many very wealthy people indeed had humble beginnings. The CEO of Starbucks grew up in a housing project on Staten Island during a rough time. The Google guys once worked out of a house garage. Sam Walton's first job was at Penny's and his family was dirt poor. Michael Dell was just another guy going to a state university. My simple point is this. A lack of money is the root of all evil. Walk through a poor village in the Philippines and this can be plainly seen. Walk through the worst parts of the Bronx and you can also get a great example. Invest your money aggressively, invest it wisely and do it as early as possible.
Ntforest....If the distribution of happy/unhappy people is somewhat similar between wealthy and poor....then wouldn't you rather be unhappy and rich than unhappy and poor assuming the same level of unhappiness?
Yeah, like Riverdale! Seriously, you have to stop watching TV shows from the 70s and go to these places. There are some great places in both and they are a lot different from the public perception. Sure, it looks bad if you're a guy from the NJ suburbs looking for some weed; dealers tend not to live in the best neighborhoods. But there's a lot more going on in both places. As for the various comments on the thread bemoaning the Wall Street lifestyle, a lot of people are not willing to put up with what it takes; others relish it. For those that do, you can get a lot of responsibility and with that comes a lot of stress. But being in a job that doesn 't challenge is even more stressful (after all it's postal clerks who shoot up the office, not Wall St. execs). It is one industry where you will definitely not be doing 5 years from now what you are doing today. How many people in insurance or accounting can say that?
Oh no, its still plenty bad above 96th Street. When I drive through the city, I start relaxing after I pass 96th Street. Im in NYC all the time and I know well enough when things look a little bit sketchy. Its not that hard to tell your in a place that you dont belong. My place is not with drug dealers on the corner and street prostitutes.
You seem a little obsessed with prostitutes; you've mentioned them twice. Anything you want to share?
Hah, it won't happen. You think you'll be out at 35, but you find that all the toys - BMW M5, loft appartment, weekend place in the Hamptons, exotic holidays (but only two weeks a year remember) - cost a lot more than you realised and you're not saving that much. By the time you're in your early to mid-30s the average person is married or thinking about it, and starting to think about kids, which naturally leads to considering how much they and their education are going to cost you. At this point you realise that you're used to the good life and that if you retire at 40, you (and your partner) will be able to get by but you'll have to go back to a relatively modest lifestyle. No holidays in super-luxury resorts in SE Asia, no Mercedes S500 traded in every three years, no costly private education for the kids. And a lot of your friends are in the business as well, which makes it difficult to walk away because like most people you want to keep up with the neighbours. And so before you know it you're 50 and you've been working 12 hour days for 25 years. Yeah, you've earned and spent a lot, but frankly you've spent a lot of time being stressed, tired and (of all things) worried about how much you earn. I see this all the time. Of course, if you do make it big - let's somewhat arbitrarily say that would be accumulating $5-10m US in cash before you're 35 - then you could afford to leave the industry. Most people I know with that kind of money don't actually do it though. Can't seem to drag themselves away. Note that I am not arguing that it's a mistake to work in a well-paid and challenging job, just observing that the "early retirement" goal is a dream held by many in the industry and achieved by very few. Suss
But clearly that is not happening. The savings rate in the US (and the UK) is negative and in very few countries is the environment - in which our kids will have to live - being protected effectively. So it looks to me like there is something fundamentally wrong with the direction our societies have taken over the past couple of decades. I agree that a certain minimum amount of money is vital for personal wellbeing, but this relentless focus in the media on high incomes, prolific spending and the bling lifestyle (for want of a better phrase) feels like a really, really bad idea. Wonder if this means I am approaching middle age Suss
Sure it's a bad idea for people that want to live a luxurious lifestyle when they don't save money. I laugh everytime I see a 50 thousand dollar Escalade with all the bells and whistles parked in a low-income neighborhood where most homes aren't worth 50 grand. If people are comfortable living a lifestyle where they accumulate tons of debt in order to portray themselves as wealthy then it doesn't effect me one bit. And the fact that you're nearing middle age helps me understand why you were offended by my "retire early" comment. That is not even my intention, I was simply responding to someone who asked what one would do with so much money when they didn't have free time to spend it. I thought that's what most people wanted to do...retire early...not really my thing.