Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by leeoniya | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

leeoniya

title seems somewhat editorialized to make one wonder how a social worker had $11M to give.

> He said Naiman received a sizable inheritance when his father died, which added to his fortune

how much of it can be attributed to frugalness remains questionable.

a great deed, nevertheless.

View on HN

> how much of it can be attributed to frugalness remains questionable.

All of it. Most people that luck into wealth spend it all if they are not schooled in the arts of finance. A couple of shopping sprees, a bad investment here and there, a bad fund manager and it's all gone.

I mean, the guy had a career in banking, he's not someone off the street who won the lottery. He could also have inherited $30M, then lost most of it. The title makes it seem like he was clipping coupons and eating ramen.

"Banker-turned-social-worker leaves $11M to children's charities" would be a more honest headline.

Yes, but given that the publishers live by the number of people that visit the websites clickbait should be assumed. It's rare that a title downplays the content of the article, and if this is a lie it is a pretty subtle one and one by omission. I'd give them a pass.

> have inherited $30M, then lost most of it. The title makes it seem like he was clipping coupons and eating ramen.

He was doing that. He was also working multiple jobs. He also had an inheritance. It was all of these things.

Yet there are many frugal people in the world who have never been millionaires.

Sure. It's necessary, not sufficient. The only way to get and stay rich is to not spend all of your money. It may seem obvious, but it's a step that many high earners seem to forget.

One necessary step is to have a source of money. If you don’t have money in the first place you can’t waste it.

Spot on. Spending less than you earn is a prerequisite to accumulated wealth. Going the opposite direction is a formula for poverty. In both cases, it works without regard for the level of income.

So if you work at Walgreens, and save all your extra money, which amounts to $37 a week...

{citation needed}

Rather than "most", I reckon there are very few people who spend that much wealth, and they all have articles written about them.

around 70% of lottery winners end up filing bankruptcy. Lots of professional athletes go broke as well. The rich don't always get richer, most people will revert to mean if they essentially got lucky

https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/why_do_...

Always worth it to delve into how a statistic was computed. In this case, the organization cited as the source of the 70% figure itself disclaims it:

""" Over the past couple of years several news organizations have attributed a statistic to the National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) stating that 70 percent of lottery winners end up bankrupt in just a few years after receiving a large financial windfall. This statistic is not backed by research from NEFE, nor can it be confirmed by the organization. Frequent reporting—without validation from NEFE—has allowed this “stat” to survive online in perpetuity. """

(https://www.nefe.org/Press-Room/News/Research-Statistic-on-F...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com