What's with that obsession about "billionaires"? If somebody can make a nice living with their business, isn't that good enough? Personally I think we are perfectly fine without billionaires.
-> https://www.ycombinator.com/
->
> Y Combinator created a new model for funding early stage startups.
> Twice a year we invest $500,000 per company in a large number of startups.
> We work intensively with the companies for three months, to get them into the best possible shape and refine their pitch to investors. Each cycle culminates in Demo Day, when the startups present their companies to a carefully selected, invite-only audience.
-> https://www.ycombinator.com/topcompanies/public
Sometimes I guess we just forget where we are :-)
So I guess yes, it's the wannabes.
I'm sure I'm years behind the curve on that idea, though.
Worth noting: Not all companies can or should target this trajectory -- which just means VC might not be the right funding source.
I think the allure of being a billionaire is it's "one and done". As in, once you achieve it, you can live the craziest life possible filled with lots of grandeur and not need to run any kind of business whatsoever after.
It's mainly a fantasy for people who are tired, overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated (which is like 85% of America I'm guessing).
"Wouldn't it be nice..."
I feel like this accelerates class segregation. like, going from talking about the new condo in a nice neighborhood changes from "must be nice" to "my friend lives there and says the Tesla charging stations are broken but I'll talk to the leasing office about it tomorrow", just immediately more depth that some groups of people can't contribute to and are dismissive about.
Hell, one can support the median household income at a reasonable SWR on ~ 2M.
Underlying all of this seems to be paulg's assertion that billionaire founders 'deserve' their wealth and therefore our inequality and their relatively small contribution to the public purse is justified.
I have no problem with founders being rich, but once you're earning 1%er income? You should be paying a hefty amount of taxes to support social spending. Think ~ 2/3rds, like it used to be before the regans and thatchers of the world gutted the social contract in the 80s.
$10M does get you a nice time, and you would never have to say no to any reasonable expense, but it's also definitely possible to overspend. There's some higher threshold where you really can be 'wild and crazy' and the only way to run out of money would be through bad investments.
There's a difference between always flying first class, always flying on a jetshare, and always having your plane fueled up and ready to go. Also, between driving yourself to the airport, taking a car service, having your driver take you, or having your helicopter pick you up.
I think maybe you're missing the perspectives of ...almost everyone outside of a very select few in VHCOL locations.
Tech workers in SF don’t.
While I wouldn't mind being very well off, I have a visceral gut reaction to any of the sort of flashy spending that draws attention to myself. I also find that it isolates you from the experience of the common man, and life is lonely enough as it is.
After I hit my 'retirement number', if I can find a job that will give me the flexibility I want in retirement, I plan on continuing to work 2-3 days a week and donating half my salary to charity.
God knows local charities can use my money far more than they can use me as a volunteer. I like coding, and if I get paid and do good in the world, so much the better.
for anybody not familiar
safe-withdrawl rate
typically 1% of portfolio value a quarter = 4% a year i am guessing?
theory is if your portfolio is invested in funds (mutual or ETF) tracking a broad-market index (S&P500) aka equities, and these equities go up 8-10% a year (return before inflation) on average over the long term
and if you have a $2m portfolio basically 100% in equities
sell off 4% = $80k/yr worth pre-tax (only taxes would be... long-term capital gains?)
because your portfolio is appreciating 8-10% a year, it'll stay at $2m despite you sell off $80k/year because it's tracking the US stock market/"economy" which is supposed to be growing 8-10% a year and they "offset each other"
with $10m this becomes $10m * 0.04 = $400k/yr pre-tax
i too would like to have $10m so that I could live off $400k/yr and not need to work :)
heck, i might even settle for $5m!
Of course you can always spend more money. However I have known rich people who decided their mansion was too large and so they downsized (their master bedroom after the downsize was the size of my whole house!) Eventually what you need is time to enjoy what you have not more luxury. Fly coach or have a private jet on call - end the end you get there, and the jet only saves you a bit of time at the airport.
I don’t have a Twitter account but almost went to sign up to reply “billionaires whose wealth is based on mathematical inference not possession of tens of billions of real dollars.”
I say let’s automate away book smart, street stupid easily deluded normal humans who end up optimizing for themselves while roleplaying something more egalitarian is afoot with their games.
Letting a minority monopolize agency is not a greater good as there are no greater goods. It’s typical political corruption.
Automate away politicians, VCs, C*O level; organizing life in line with religious traditions is not sacrosanct. Why is organizing life under the prior 60-70 years so special? Ooh right; cause that cohort is where all the wealth is captured. Silly me.
Looks like it’s time to revisit Reagan’s policy of expropriating retirement for the youth to invest.