
What It Feels Like to Be Rich - jaltucher
http://www.jamesaltucher.com/?p=828
======
rauljara
The piece of insight that I think was missing from the post is this: If you
can get to $10 million and still not feel secure, there's something very wrong
with the way you are living your life. $10 million, with a 1% annual return on
investment will give you an income of $100,000. There are people earning far,
far less than that who are doing just fine in terms of security /
contentedness. At a certain point, you have to cut back on your idea of how
much money your should have. Your income will always be limited by the world
you live in, but your idea of how much you should have isn't so firmly held
back by reality. If you always feel like you should have more, then you will
always feel like you should have more, no matter how many billions you
acquire.

He almost gets there, but he closes by saying he didn't appreciate money
enough. That wasn't the problem. I wonder what stops him from connecting the
dots.

~~~
michaelochurch
Money has a sort of Maslovian pyramid: Survival, Leisure, Comfort, Status,
then Power. Most middle-class Americans are in the second level (Leisure)
while the Koch brothers' ambitions exemplify the fifth (Power). Most upper-
class people are in the fourth (Status). A lot of people think they'll "get
off" at the Comfort level, but few people do.

The Survival level is met when one's basic needs are met. This doesn't mean
the risk of insulting inconveniences (such as having to move under adverse
conditions) go away, but one isn't at risk of starvation or homelessness once
it is achieved. Leisure is the level of most middle-class people: buying TVs,
going on longer and nicer vacations. Comfort is having cleaning services and
getting to fly business or first class when traveling: essentially having a
life with as few annoyances as possible.

Most normal, man-on-the-street types will admit they want to be rich enough to
max out the Comfort level, while frowning upon those who care about Status and
Power. The problem is that one doesn't max out the Comfort level until over
$500,000 per year. Most people think they'd be happy to "get off" at that
point, but it's really hard to keep that kind of income, steadily, unless
either (1) you have $30 million net worth or so, and most people at that point
feel like they're entitled to more than a lower-upper-income lifestyle, or (2)
more commonly, you get some sort of job paying that much income. You simply
don't get the latter unless you convince people that you're "special". This is
what draws rich people into the idiotic status obsessions-- the need to
socially climb in order to continually prove themselves to be worth those
kinds of salaries and favors-- and that game is pretty much never-ending. It's
gambling: spending money in ways that seem ludicrous on high-end art, real
estate, club memberships, and alcoholic beverages simply _because_ they are
exclusive and expensive in the hope of improving one's social status and,
therefore, future income. As with any gamble, some people lose everything.
Rich people are no exception.

~~~
rskar
Up-voting this because I learned about the Maslovian pyramid; and otherwise it
has a ring of truth. Thanks for an idea to think about!

------
dools
_"Everyone has 10 million dollars"_

I got a good idea of what it feels like to be rich by going to a third world
country. Even though I'm just barely scraping in at average in Australia, I
was seriously freaking loaded by an order of magnitude compared to most people
in Ghana and could afford to take the nicest cars (taxis) buy beer regularly
and eat at "real" restaurants rather than roadside vendors. I was able to buy
5 or 10 dollar mobile recharge cards whilst most of the population purchased
their recharges in 50 cent increments from street vendors.

I'm sad to say that my biggest reaction was frustration. Everyone I met was
trying to get my money somehow. It seemed like every conversation would turn
into some sort of scam opportunity or even just wanting to get my help
somehow.

I thought "I can't help you people! I'm just normal, I don't have that much
money!". It wasn't until I was actually on the plane home that I realised that
I'd just experienced being rich. It seems as though it's all relative - that
the "rich folks" don't see themselves as rich because when you're rich, you
just get bigger expenses.

Of course your standard of living improves, but it must be hard to ever feel
so rich that you're happy just giving money away to everyone who asks (and I'm
sure that you get asked a LOT).

~~~
joshu
For some people, it's not enough to win. Others must lose.

~~~
davidmathers
Apropos:

 _The saying "It is not sufficient that I succeed. Everyone else must fail"
has been associated with Larry Ellison so often that most people think it
originated with him.

Actually, it came centuries ago with Genghis Khan. Ellison has referred to the
quote in conversations, then laughed rather unconvincingly and tried to
distance himself from the sentiment. But it sticks nonetheless._

<http://www.forbes.com/2003/11/26/1126southwick.html>

------
acangiano
James, in my head I read all your articles in Ted Mosby's voice. On a more
serious note, I think that safety, among with freedom, is the number one
reason I'd like to increase my income by an order of magnitude. And by safety
I mean the safety net that money can provide. It doesn't make you immortal or
immune to disease, but it can help in several ways. If you are in any type of
legal trouble, you can hire an awesome lawyer who'll increase your chances of
remaining free. If you are sick and need a surgery right away, you can go to
the States and pay for it, and so on.

~~~
brianobush
you can get safety by just setting aside an emergency fund for 6 months of
expenses. it works.

~~~
michaelochurch
Safety has degrees. In functioning economies, a competent person will pretty
much never be involuntarily unemployed for more than 6 months, but the 2008
financial crisis almost got us into long-lasting economic dysfunction. That
mess could have been a lot worse and lasted a lot longer, and because of the
lax regulation and immense corruption (I know it's fashionable on HN to focus
on a tiny corner of capitalism where people are decent and things actually
work, but trust me that there's a lot of incompetence and malevolence out
there) the next recession is likely to be worse. So, while 6 months of savings
might be enough to handle sudden job loss in 2007 or 2011, I can't guarantee
the same about, say, 2018.

Six months of savings means you're okay as long as (1) the economy doesn't
utterly tank, which it almost did in 2008 and probably will do before 2020
because of the assholes running it, and (2) you don't have any major health
problems. It means that as long as the option for talented people people to
reliably sell labor to the market at a fair price exists, and as long as you
don't develop health problems that render you unable to make this exchange
(i.e. hold down a job) then you don't need to worry about events like layoffs.
Fair, I'll grant you that, but there's a great deal of difference between the
single-9 security offered by being smart and prudent while having an emergency
fund and the triple-9 security offered by millions of dollars and elite social
connections.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_In functioning economies, a competent person will pretty much never be
involuntarily unemployed for more than 6 months, but the 2008 financial crisis
almost got us into long-lasting economic dysfunction._

By that definition, our current economy seems to be functioning quite well.
There seem to be a lot of long term unemployed people, but total
production/consumption/etc has pretty much recovered [1]. This strongly
suggests that the people currently unemployed were not productive when they
had work.

Of course, I'm assuming "competent" and "productive" are roughly the same
thing. I can see reasonable distinctions to be made between them under some
circumstances, e.g. a competent buggy whip maker.

By the way, if you develop health problems that render you unable to hold down
any job, you are eligible for SS disability benefits. So your losses always
have a lower bound.

[1] I link to data here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2240468>

~~~
michaelochurch
I think our economy has pockets of dysfunction interspersed with a few places
(e.g. Silicon Valley) where it functions well. On the whole, I'd call it
pretty mediocre. We've had great productivity gains since 1975, but all of the
benefits have gone to 1% of the population, and only the small fraction of
that 1 percent who worked directly in technology could even be argued to
deserve it. Still, I'll grant you that we have a good _economy_ ; what we have
as well in the U.S. is an absolutely shitty society. Far more important than
whether an economy is capitalist or socialist is whether it has good people in
charge, and corporatism pretty much guarantees that it won't. For whatever
reason, Europeans are (now) better at making sure utterly terrible ideas (like
Arizona's immigration law, private health insurance, Citizens United,
Proposition 8) rarely get into implementation, and that good ones (universal
healthcare, federal vacation floor, available higher education) do. I think
that that's because the Europeans (and Japanese) had a front-row seat, middle
of last century, for what happens when people who think like U.S. Republicans
end up in power.

 _By the way, if you develop health problems that render you unable to hold
down any job, you are eligible for SS disability benefits. So your losses
always have a lower bound._

What if you develop health problems that render you unable to hold a decent
job? (Then there is the problem of defining "decent", but I'm not even going
there.) The worst jobs in the U.S. to not pay enough for a person to live on.
Besides, for someone like an engineer to end up in retail would be such a
waste of talent that he or she might as well not work.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_We've had great productivity gains since 1975, but all of the benefits have
gone to 1% of the population..._

This is simply false. Standard of living has increased dramatically since the
70's. Houses are a LOT bigger:
[http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope...](http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument)

Unlike 1970, the bottom 11% have flush toilets:
[http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cf...](http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=372)

The benefits of increased productivity have helped everyone consume more. It's
only increases to CPI-adjusted _income_ (which wildly overstates inflation
<http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html> ) which is concentrated at
the top.

I won't address your complaints about American vs European values, or what I
think (but I'm not completely sure) is an attempt to invoke Godwin's law by
comparing Republicans to Nazis (or Communists?). Not sure if "middle of last
century" refers to the 40's, 50's or 60's.

------
joshu
Another one he forgot: you can use Rich Guy solutions to problems that
wouldn't normally be available.

Hiring a personal assistant, maid service, hiring people to do work for you
directly, having a lawyer on retainer, that sort of thing. (Now I know why
rich people are always threatening to sue.) Chartering jets, too.

My favorite Rich Guy solution: Throw away all your mismatched socks, buy all
identical tube socks from Walmart, and never spend time pairing your socks
again. This actually only costs like $30.

~~~
nostrademons
Yeah, a bunch of those are very much accessible to middle-class people. I
think I stopped worrying about mismatched socks and just went all-white when I
was around 6. A bunch of Googlers (even ordinary SWEs hired post-IPO) use maid
services, because their time is worth more than the money it costs to hire
them. A few even frequent outsourcing websites for personal-assistant sort of
things like researching major purchases.

~~~
joshu
I find it easier to just laze out of major purchases entirely.

~~~
rdl
Except for (pieces of) startups?

------
chopsueyar
"What It Feels Like to Have to Read this Drivel"

------
joshu
He left out that people will ask you for money all the time.

~~~
rokhayakebe
And they feel entitled to it. My friend usually tells me if I ever earn
millions I would morally owe him 7 digits because, well, he has been my friend
for years. The guy is dead serious too.

~~~
michaeldhopkins
I'm guessing he isn't dead serious or he means it in a mutual way.

~~~
rokhayakebe
He is but you are right, he also says he would owe me 7 digits.

------
rradu
> _My feelings of safety and immortality quickly gave way to scarcity. After
> all, I thought, if I could make 10 million dollars then it must be too easy.
> In fact, I honestly thought, everyone else had probably already made 11
> million dollars. So then I felt poor again. I now needed 100 million dollars
> to be happy._

Reminds me of this article -
[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/why-so-many-
ric...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/why-so-many-rich-people-
dont-feel-very-rich/)

------
freshfunk
Recently I had a physical with a doctor in the area (bay area) who said he
knew the personal doctors of senior management at Google. Apparently, many of
them are "hypochondriacs." I guess it makes sense that once you no longer
worry about money, you worry about your health obsessively.

------
joshu
Another one: It's very hard to resist the urge to spend Way Too Much on
something you already liked. Like spending $100k on a Crestron control system
for your A/V network if you like gaming and media. Or a Ferrari if you like
cars.

If you fail to resist, you end up on the hedonic treadmill pretty quickly.

(My vice: investing in startups. I guess that's better for the ecosystem, at
least.)

------
16s
If I were rich, the only thing I would do differently is to tell people what I
really think _(when asked for an opinion)_ rather than tell them what I think
they want to hear.

~~~
bmelton
What exactly stops you from doing that now?

~~~
Eliezer
The reality of being dependent on other people. It's not cowardice if that's
where your next meal comes from. Try a bit of sympathy here?

~~~
bmelton
There's nothing wrong with being civil, at any income. Being a dick just
because you can makes you (wait for it) -- a dick. I mean, if that's your
ambition, by all means, go for it.

The reason I asked though, is that I personally wouldn't want to work with
someone who told me 'what I wanted to hear' just because they were dependent
on me. You should be able to express your thoughts at any income level, but
yeah, there's an art to how that message can be delivered.

"I think we need to rewrite module x. It's too slow."

"Fuck you boss man. Rewrite your own damn module. I'm going to rewrite module
Y, which is REALLY the slow one." - makes you a dick.

"We'd probably get more bang for the buck by rewriting module Y first. I think
that's where the performance issues really are. After that, why don't we see
where we stand?" - is an honest answer, and scores you points.

"Yes sir master boss man sir. I will rewrite module X all day long." is 'what
they want to hear', and also, a completely worthless answer.

The point being, having a valid opinion isn't a luxury of the rich. Being able
to say 'fuck off' might be, but unless you're independently wealthy, you
likely still have customers, or board executives, or SOMEbody that warrants
being civil to. There's no value in being a dick for the sake of it.

If it seems like I'm coming down hard on you, don't. I'm just saying what I
feel. Also, I'm not even remotely rich. I could have misinterpreted the
situation entirely.

------
dr_
This from a person who questions climate change and is an advocate of insider
trading.

~~~
laut
Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Except that
it's not PC.

~~~
gnaritas
> Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories?

Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're
not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a
clue what they're talking about, then yes, there's something wrong with it and
you're very likely both wrong and a quack.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand
you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are
haven't a clue what they're talking about,_

So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders
and outside criticism is forbidden?

FYI, most serious skeptics don't claim the specialists "haven't a clue". They
claim that the certainty in our current conclusions is overstated. It's also
important to note that many AGW proponents make the exact same claim when
geoengineering is discussed.

~~~
gnaritas
> So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select
> insiders and outside criticism is forbidden?

Let me rephrase that for you to more reflect reality...

The scientific process is limited to those educated on the subject and
criticism from the uneducated isn't taken seriously nor should it be.

So, if you're not a climate scientist, and your position on climate science is
in opposition to 99% of actual climate scientists, it's very likely that you
don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored
by any rational person.

~~~
yummyfajitas
So, if you're not a homeopath and your position on homeopathy is in opposition
to 99% of actual homeopaths, it's very likely that you don't know what the
fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational
person?

FYI, I'm a former scientist, so I have some idea of the scientific process.
It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless.
The only other fields I'm aware of which try to do this are math ed, labor
economics, and psychometrics of race/gender.

I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate
scientist with being uneducated. That's simply ridiculous.

~~~
gnaritas
Homeopathy is not a valid field of science, rational people already ignore it.

> It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless.

You're the one that keeps bringing up the word worthless. I said people who
hold strong opinions on topics in which they aren't educated should be ignored
because they have a high probably of not knowing what the fuck they're talking
about. That's a fact!

Perhaps you're confused about the difference between _outside opinion_ and
_uneducated opinion_ or perhaps you just want to setup a straw man to
demolish.

> I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate
> scientist with being uneducated.

I'm not, you're projecting; but it tells me plenty about you.

------
jimboyoungblood
I can't empathize with anything in this article. Guess I must not be rich.

~~~
mberning
Same here. The 'I don't really have a need or use for money' theme comes up
often. I don't know if there is a singular and/or correct definition of a
'healthy relationship with money', but it does seem that the rich often have
an unhealthy relationship with it.

------
Gibbon
This is also relevant: Fears of the Super Rich:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-
fears-of-the-super-rich/8419/)

~~~
michaelochurch
Interesting article. I'm basically a socialist and see everything through a
Marxist lens, but it seems like _everyone_ loses-- rich and poor-- when money
is such a dominating factor in peoples' lives. Living in a stratified, money-
centered society sucks no matter who or where you are.

What we should do is make society more like college, where people have a lot
of choice in what they work on, and where successful people help the less
successful people but one's level of success isn't seen as an important thing
about oneself. I was "successful" in college (3.9 math major) and it wouldn't
have been weird or awkward to sit at the same table as someone with a 2.7. I
didn't even know what my friends' GPAs were, and I didn't care when I did
know. Yet we live in a world where most people don't even have a single friend
outside of their social class.

------
JonnieCache
_My feelings of safety and immortality quickly gave way to scarcity. After
all, I thought, if I could make 10 million dollars then it must be too easy.
In fact, I honestly thought, everyone else had probably already made 11
million dollars. So then I felt poor again. I now needed 100 million dollars
to be happy. I drove in a car with a friend of mine and his wife. I said,
“everyone has 10 million dollars now.” She quickly said, “not everyone”._

If you need to pay someone to explain this shit to you, well... words fail me.
Jesus.

This is why it's important to leave the ivory tower occasionally guys. Or in
some cases, at all.

EDIT: In retrospect this is unnecessarily vitriolic. I obviously wish you the
best, and I recognise that unhappiness is relative. Those were just my honest
first thoughts on reading the article.

------
BobKabob
Anybody losing $1M PER WEEK makes you question how the fool and his money got
together in the first place.

Good to see at least a little justice in this world. I wouldn't wish bad
things to happen to anybody, but if it has to happen to someone, well, the guy
who is so foolish with his money would be tops on my list.

~~~
thrill
Why?

~~~
BobKabob
I think there's a Biblical parable that probably fits here - the one with the
"talents".

I just believe that those who are blessed in life shouldn't flush it down the
toilet. A million dollars a week? Think of how many people could have been
fed, or how many jobs could have been created!

------
nazgulnarsil
I just want enough money that I can sleep when I feel tired. :/

------
michaelochurch
What would appeal to me about being rich is unconditional autonomy regarding
work: being able to work when I want, on what I choose. In other words, having
the right to decide the best use of my talents instead of having it decided
"for" (against?) me. Even founders of some small companies I know ended up as
clients' bitches and lost autonomy, because they knew a single client could
sink them. It's also pretty much impossible to bring your A game if you feel
like a subordinate. That doesn't mean you can't be a subordinate in title and
have a boss and still do great work, but once a person loses a sense of
autonomy, the quality of work goes to zero. When you're rich, you can avoid
this situation completely and, as soon as you lose autonomy or the ability to
excel, move on.

People romanticize the "starving artist" whose work becomes famous after his
death, but I'd wager that 4/5 of the people who really moved humanity forward
were wealthy people, not because they're any better (they aren't) but because
they had the time and autonomy to follow their interests. Sociologically, the
most effective people tend to come from the fringes of the elite (cf. Jobs,
Gates): people who don't have their life and work clogged up by common burdens
(distractions, stress and fear, subordination) but who also aren't in the
"golden prison"-- the elite's conservative, status-obsessed core-- which is
just as disabling a place to be, for a person wanting to do something good
with his life, as reeking poverty.

My guess at how I would react if I suddenly became rich is that I'd have an
hour of euphoria, then 3 days of anxiety, then 6 months of a "this is nice"
celebratory mood, and then spend the rest of my life marginally happier but a
lot more productive than I'd otherwise be. What appeals to me most about
making lots of money isn't some false promise about being super-happy (that'll
wear off) but the thought of actually being able to contribute to this world,
and maybe make it better so that when I pass on into whatever comes after this
place, I do so with a sense of completion and good karma.

~~~
nostrademons
This is perhaps one of the best things you learn by founding a startup,
whether it succeeds or not. You have this freedom. You don't need to be rich
to get it. You just need to be willing to go without income until you can find
your next source of income.

Say my boss really hated me and fired me. So what? I would be in exactly the
same place as when I took the job, except with several thousand dollars more
in the bank, a lot more useful skills, and a few tangible accomplishments that
I could use to get my next clients. I've been meaning to found another startup
for a while now; this would be just the kick in the pants needed to actually
make it happen.

After all, I went without an income for a year the last time I founded a
startup, and _nothing bad happened_. There were plenty of jobs waiting when I
folded it up (even though it was the dark days of late 2008 when everybody
thought the economy was ending), I didn't go bankrupt or have to pay back
massive debts, and people didn't look at me like a failure.

Immigrants have this same advantage, as long as they have that green card. If
someone fires them, then they end up without a job, possibly without money,
without anything but the skills in their head - which is generally exactly how
they came to this country. If they made it before, they can make it again. The
only problem is that many immigrants _don't_ have that green card, so getting
fired means getting deported, which sets them back all the way past their
start point.

------
bauderjoshua
Amazing article I think a lot of people have a misconception of what it means
to rich.

~~~
dtby
I suspect that if you think this article was "amazing" you still have a huge
misconception of what it means to be rich.

~~~
michaelcampbell
I have no conception of it, and after having read this article, even less. Not
sure what that says about me.

~~~
dtby
I'd start by not worrying about what it might say about you. You've already
lost if you're worrying about validation from Joe Random Internet User.

------
chopsueyar
_My friend and I sat there while Shlomo (not his real name, but you get the
drift)_

WTF?

<http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php>

