Hacker News Reader

I think you're overthinking this. The article examples maybe aren't descriptive enough.

#4 would mean I don't price shop Airbnb, hotels, and plane tickets so much. Or maybe I just take first class everywhere. Either way, you're talking spending amounts in the $10k+ range.

#5 means you can buy whatever size house you want within limits. That's more a $1M+ decision (although, amortized out long term)

#6 means Bill Gates level philanthropy. Not saying whatever donations you're giving away aren't meaningful, but I doubt you're getting wings in hospitals named after you.

That's why we don't call small donations acts as philanthropy.

It surprises me how philanthropic individuals are sold as benefactors who are a solution to solving problems linked to lack of resources, for those in needs around the world. I think it rather servers themselves instead, an effective PR routine that comes with decent guilt therapy.

It's one of those things like "expat" sounding all so good compared to those job stealing "immigrants".

Maybe we should all give a portion of our monetary power to those in needs, displacing what we would normally give to Unilever-like producers. It would skip the inefficient intermediary.. I digress.. The scale ain't right, but the idea is spot on.

No, they're dependent on preferences in what you want. Your preferences differ from mine here.

Either that, or you're assuming that the reasonable benchmark for comparison is close to the absolute most expensive example within a specific sector, which doesn't really match how I spend money.

Thinking about it more, I'd probably say I even hit #4 before #3. Why?

a) I don't really care that much about eating out, so despite being able to theoretically afford "Super Fancy Meals" I still think about it because I could just give someone else that money instead.

b) First class flights and fancy hotels I find ridiculous, they don't factor into my purchasing decisions. I far prefer a cabin in the woods or going hiking or something like that to some constructed notion of luxury.

I'd sooner give $10k to charity before I take a first class flight - in fact I'm on track to do that this year, and hope to increase it. If you don't count anything below $millions as being philanthropic then of course you've defined level 6 as being the top, that doesn't make sense to me.

You have completely missed the point. The fact that you could does not mean you shoud or even would.

Wanting a cabin in the woods and being able to afford it does not make you "House freedom level". That level is being able to buy any house you could want without second thought.

The fact that you would not choose such a house is completely irrelevant to this train of thought. Some things you have to plan out and some things are just not worth to consider for even a second.

The cabin was referring to the travel level, not housing.

I don't think "any X I could want" is meaningful.

You're taking it presumably to mean the most expensive offering that exists in the world, but I _could_ want something akin to Buckingham Palace and no amount of money would get me that, or I could want some generic massive palace that would cost $50bn which obviously is above the philanthropy level by any metric, or maybe I genuinely do just want a bog standard terrace because I'd rather give my money away than 'elevate' myself into a weird Hollywood lifestyle.

It makes far more sense to think about what I actually _do_ want, and in that view the levels can be ordered differently depending on the person.

The point I am making is that to some extent these levels are individual choice, they're not cast in stone.

To some extent they are, but really there's strong limits on this and they can't be broken. At the end of the day, vacations cost more than food and housing costs more than vacations. Full stop.

Your example of saying you don't care about fancy meals... well, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that your price sensitivity to a restaurant is going to be much lower than a vacation. If your end goal is to give a bunch to charity, then scrimping on a vacation too would be a better decision ultimately.

It's really hard to spend more than say, $1k on a meal. Even 3 star Michelin restaurants don't charge that much unless you include alcohol.

Comparatively, it's EASY to spend $1k on a vacation. Incredibly easy.

I disagree with most of this; but let's just say we inhabit different worlds, and leave it at that. I figure we just take different vacations and go to different restaurants. :)

But see, I've done my dream vacation several times. It means driving out into the Mojave Desert, by myself, and car camping. It basically costs the gas to get there and back.

Dropping $10K on a vacation without thinking about it? No, I'm not there. Taking the vacation I want without thinking about the cost? Easy - I just don't want that kind of vacation.

I think the labels are not very helpful, but tying each level to 0.01% of an individuals net worth is. For example, I still don't flinch at paying 1 or 2 dollars more for items at the grocery store, but I do for paying 10-20 dollars more for items at a restaurant.

"Travel" can mean grey hounds and motels, or first-class flights and luxury hotels. Philanthropy can be donating $100,000 or giving a buck to a guy on the street.

The key take away from the article, at least for me, is how much you flinch at extra costs, and that being about 0.01% of what you have in the bank.

I agree with the concept of the levels, I disagree with the ordering - particularly the final one, because philanthropy is something that almost everyone can practice, it's an individual choice.

The idea that you must first have your entire life laid out with a massive house and first class flights and stuff before you start helping others is deeply wrong IMO.

I think it boils down to the definition of "philanthropy", to a lot of people (self included) that's something billionaires do, the rest of us can try "charity".

Kind of like the old saw about only the poor are "crazy", with enough money you become "eccentric".

> And #4 doesn't even interest me (I actively don't _want_ to have a private jet or whatever).

I don't believe his intent was "private jet" it was "you can pick first class without concern and you don't have to look at the hotel/rental home prices."

That doesn't change my point.

House freedom is way below that.

There's an inbuilt assumption that you desire extravagance, which inevitably places philanthropy last. My point is that it's a choice.