
What It’s Like to Grow Up with More Money Than You’ll Ever Spend - kaboro
https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/abigail-disney-has-more-money-than-shell-ever-spend.html
======
cgoecknerwald
> I keep trying to tell [my kids] that money is morally neutral. It does not,
> in and of itself, make you a bad person. It also does not, in and of itself,
> makes you a good person.

Being rich individually might not be morally bad, but inequality probably
hurts society overall. "No drop is responsible for the flood" yada yada.

> Within a couple of years I was giving away more money than my parents, who
> had much more money that I had, which they told me was embarrassing to
> them... I really considered giving it all away at a certain point in my 20s,
> and I know people who did that. And I wish I could tell you that it was
> courage that kept me from doing that, but it was mortal fear. I didn’t think
> I would be able to survive. I was afraid I was a hothouse flower. I didn’t
> know if I could live on my own.

I think I have experienced this on a much smaller scale - the fear of
committing to a career change (out of SWE) due to financial insecurities.
Going backwards, financially, is incredibly difficult - it's so easy to get
locked into a lifestyle that you simply can't relinquish it up voluntarily.

> I’ve spent a lot of time earning things like post graduate degrees that make
> me feel legitimate. And those feelings have started to go away. But that’s
> outsourcing your sense of self.

She's not the only one!

~~~
skookumchuck
> inequality probably hurts society overall

This suggests that if I find a gold nugget while hiking, somehow that hurts
society?

Inequality benefits society overall. It provides a motivator for people to
improve their lot, thereby indirectly improving the lot of many others. (For
example, in the 90's the newspaper reported that Microsoft had created 10,000
millionaires in the Seattle area, exclusive of home ownership.)

Edit: I think it's ineffably sad that whenever I post that people can better
themselves, that life isn't totally random, one has choices, I get a strong
negative reaction.

~~~
jowiar
The problem with this mentality is feedback loops. If money flows to those who
own things more easily/readily than those who do things, society will be
heavily stratified despite any individual efforts to improve one’s lot.

~~~
r_smart
The Pareto Principle is a bitch. There's no way to remove inequality without
trampling on the rights of the few lucky people.

|If money flows to those who own things more easily/readily than those who do
things

The vast majority of people with a lot of money are doing things. They are not
idle, and it is not through idleness they wound up in their position. At least
in the US.

This is doubly true for their money. It's not in a big swimming pool for them
to paddle around in Scrooge McDuck style. Well, at least, most of it isn't.

~~~
zdw
Is luck a good criteria for some people having more and other less?

At the very high end (top 10, 1, 0.1 percent of incomes), is progressive
taxation on income a tax on lucky breaks more than any other factors?

(other factors = intelligence, hard work, lack of bad luck like disasters,
unexpected medical bills, etc.)

~~~
r_smart
|other factors = intelligence, hard work, lack of bad luck like disasters,
unexpected medical bills, etc

How many of those can you attribute to luck? Winning the genetic lottery is
one of the best things you can hope for. You have no control over it, and it
greatly influences your outcomes. Born stupid and ugly? Tough luck, maybe in
another life.

~~~
skookumchuck
If you want to be the best cyclist in the world, training for it isn't enough,
you need that extra 1% advantage genetics.

But for most everything else in life, you can be plenty good at what you want
to do if you're willing to train for it. You don't have to be the best
programmer in the world to make quite a good living by programming. It's
hardly necessary to be the best businessman ever to run a good business. Etc.

Oh, and on the internet, you can be ugly as a mud brick and it won't have one
iota of influence over your success or failure.

Maybe take inventory and look at what you can do, rather than obsessing about
not looking like Keanu Reeves. Even so, Peter Dinklage, Danny DeVito, Kathy
Bates, Bette Davis, are not the beautiful people. I've met a few movie actors
in person, and without the makeup, lighting, and director, they look like
ordinary schmucks.

~~~
r_smart
I think you missed the point my post. I'm not one of the people on this board
that like to decry success as just being a principle of luck, like it's some
kind of lottery.

We're specifically talking about the wealthiest people in the world. The
people who got that 1% advantage. I apparently made a mistake in describing
those people as lucky (just meaning that there are only a handful of people
that will sit at the top, so being one of those people is lucky; it's against
the odds).

My whole argument is you can't just take their shit because you want it, and
them having a lot of shit isn't a sign that they've done something wrong that
allows you to trample on their rights. I think people concerned about
inequality have lost the plot. Instead of helping people pull themselves up,
they focus on taking from those at the top. Granted, we'll all be more equal
financially, but it's hardly a utopian outcome, and no one's lot will be
improved, only worsened.

------
gringoDan
She seems to be very thoughtful about this. Main takeaway is what I've read
elsewhere: money amplifies your character.

If you were an asshole when you didn't have money, you'll be even worse with
it - you can pay enough to not be around anyone who will call you on your B.S.
Conversely, if you were charitable before, you'll be able to do a lot of good
with a larger checking account.

~~~
mud_dauber
“Money amplifies your character.” I really like that. Thanks.

------
wallflower
For the less altruistic angle:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_i...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_insanely_wealthy_people_buy_that_ordinary/cnnmca8/)

~~~
shafyy
Wow. This is an excellent thought experiment to picture being super rich:

> _PERSPECTIVE. The wealthiest person I have spent time with makes about
> $400mm /year. i couldn't get my mind around that until I did this: OK--let's
> compare it with someone who makes $40,000/year. It is 10,000x more. Now
> let's look at prices the way he might. A new Lambo--$235,000 becaome $23.50.
> First class ticket internationally? $10,000 becomes $1. A full time
> executive level helper? $8,000/month becomes $0.80/month. A $10mm piece of
> art you love? $1000. Expensive, so you have to plan a bit. A suite at the
> best hotel in NYC $10,000/night is $1/night. A $50million home in the
> Hamptons? $5,000._

~~~
alexpetralia
Who makes 400mm _per year_? This feels similar to converting 1 day of revenue
into an "MRR" number.

[Edit] To be fair, these people probably exist, but they are very, very few
(far higher than any banker or celebrity).

~~~
lazyjones
> Who makes 400mm _per year_?

People who own > $8b, so a few 100, plus some more whose businesses are doing
really well.

------
geophile
When I was in college, I knew one of the more remote heirs to the Seagram's
fortune. I don't know if his father was a billionaire, but they were extremely
rich. This guy turned out OK professionally. He didn't have to work, but he
found something he wanted to do, and it fulfilled him. I think the company he
started did well financially, too.

But his brother. This guy could not attach himself to anything. On one hand,
he really hungered for something to absorb him. On the other hand, he seemed
to think: what's the point? I'll never earn a zillionth of a percent of what
I'm inheriting. He asked me about what I did, and I explained software
development. He was immediately very interested, asked lots of questions,
asked if he should retrace my steps (BASIC, punch cards, ... -- this
conversation was many years ago). And then he never followed up. Years later I
heard that he married a vegan (many years before that was a thing), and became
quite zealous about veganism.

~~~
Balgair
I've been going through some German history recently, specifically Prussia and
the Junker class. One theme that really sticks out, relative to our modern
times, is the relations between the nobility and the military. Time was, the
scions were always in the chain of command. Throughout post-Roman European
history, the 2nd and 3rd sons of landed nobility would commonly be in the
officer classes. The 1st Crusade was mostly lead by these 2nd and 3rd sons
trying to grab some land for themselves. The flag of South Carolina has a
crescent in the corner, possibly due to all the 2nd and 3rd sons that came to
the Americas (a crescent is common in the personal heraldry of such nobles and
kinda became a 'thing'). The military was one outlet for these men that had
the upbringing, the education, the nutrition, and the cache, but were
unfortunate in the order they came out of some woman's womb.

ROTC at the Ivies has been effectively excommunicated since 1970 or so [0].
Though we no longer have these primogeniture issues, we still have all these
young men and women, these scions of industry and politics, that haven't a
chance at making fortunes like their parents have. They can't be 'normalized'
into their 'family offices' and fortunes. It's very similar to the issues the
Europeans faced with their children and the issues about land and money.

Maybe some of the issues that we have today could be ameliorated via a
stronger use of the military as a place where these scions could be, well,
dumped. Bring back ROTC at Princeton? Yes, I know, you can't have them
anywhere near the actual command of people. But you _could_ dump them into 1st
Lieutenants and have them shit-n-stink with the regular people of our country.
Get them roughed up, dirty, and friendly with the regular citizen. Get that
gold leaf rubbed off them. Look at Donny's kids, for example. They've taken to
hunting and big game very well. It's not too dissimilar to military life.

[0] Actually, as usual, it's complicated :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_ROTC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_ROTC)

EDIT: Another good example are Princes Harry and William. Though they are
actual nobility, they do provide a good example for the current era.

~~~
hkmurakami
10 years ago Princeton had ROTC. Had a few friends going through it.

~~~
Balgair
Managed to find some data on ROTC programs in the Ivies:

> There were 122 Navy ROTC midshipmen spread across six Ivy League campuses in
> 2016, compared to 53 at three Ivy League schools in 2011, according to Navy
> data. There were 42 Air Force ROTC cadets in the Ivy League in 2016,
> compared to 28 in 2011, according to Air Force data. The class of 2016 at
> Yale includes 10 Navy midshipmen and four Air Force cadets out of 1,300
> graduates. [0]

Lets assume that the growth in ROTC members will carry forward at this rate.
That means that the Ivy class of 2023 will have about 300 ROTC members across
8 schools, or about 35 per school. At about 1300 students per school, that's
~1 in every 40 students, give or take. So, about 1 in every other classroom.

In looking at other universities, that's about the same. It's hard to find
numbers, but it's easy to find pictures. Most of the formation photos have
about 30 or more people in them (per service branch).

So, though the current batch of scions in power isn't the most ROTC and
military active, it does seem that these Ivies are getting to parity with the
rest of the country, in terms of service.

[0][https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/ivy-
league/rotc-...](https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/ivy-league/rotc-
in-the-ivy-league/)

------
munificent
Man, this has to be the most intelligent self-aware interview I've ever read.
Her insight into her own character is really sharp.

------
JonasJSchreiber
> So that’s what you need to know about money, right? If that is your primary
> measure of success or value in life, then good luck with that, because it
> will never feel good.

This has the sound of a subject matter expert speaking with authority. And it
makes me feel like my adult life so far has been a waste

~~~
50656E6973
Do you measure your self worth primarily on the amount of money in your bank
account?

~~~
jandrese
Having no money in your bank account can definitely impact your feeling of
self worth. It can make a lot of other people angry at you, like landlords,
power companies, etc...

~~~
50656E6973
Agreed. I think the important thing is to recognize the diminishing returns of
money on genuine human needs

------
pmoriarty
There's a fascinating documentary called _Born Rich_ [1], which was made by
the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, where he interviewed his friends
who were also born in to incredibly wealthy families. It was interesting to
see how differently they all reacted to it, some embracing their wealth and
partying like mad, others rejecting it and trying to live a normal life.
Highly recommended.

The documentary's director and some of the participants in this film and its
sequel, _The One Percent_ [2] (which was not nearly as good), got in a lot of
trouble for talking about their family's wealth, presumably because the ultra-
rich families really don't want a lot of attention. The blowback included
lawsuits, and, if I'm remembering correctly, an adopted daughter of Warren
Buffett's got disowned by him after her own participation in _The One Percent_
, where she talked about him and what it was like for her to be part of his
family.

[1] - [https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Born-
Rich/70008257](https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Born-Rich/70008257)

[2] - [https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-One-
Percent/70092779](https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-One-Percent/70092779)

~~~
kkarakk
"I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the
rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin" \- warren buffet deals
with family matters in exactly the scrooge mcduck like way i thought he would

------
ticmasta
>> In some cases, all I have to do is not be a huge asshole

Man, you can get sooooo far in life with this low bar, yet lots of people fail
to clear it....

~~~
analyst74
It's easy to think not being an asshole is simple. But if you look more
closely, what defines an asshole is subjective. For example, does not offering
water to your guest make you an asshole? In some circles it does, in some it
does not. What about offering food?

On top of that, one also should not be TOO nice, it raises suspicion, make you
a doormat, and most likely make your social interactions more difficult.

So when the goal is walking along a subjective line of being reasonably nice,
you'll see why so many people cross to the asshole side, according to one
person's standard.

------
randomacct3847
From my personal experience money’s main function is to give you more options
to do whatever, which has nothing to do with happiness and given the “paradox
of choice” can actually make you more unhappy with every decision because
you’re always thinking about the opportunity cost of decision 1 vs decision
10000.

~~~
modernthumb
I can definitely see that point of view at a certain amount of wealth however
I see its primary function as security and stability. It really does buy peace
of mind when you know that no one is going to take your shelter away, your car
isn't going to break down in the middle of the night, you can keep the heat
on, and you'll be able to stay afloat in an emergency.

~~~
rofo1
Other than these reasons (which should be considered basic, but I am aware
they are not), I don't think I'll ever need money more than that.

To me, money is what you use to buy food, shelter, transportation, pay bills.
If you can afford more than that, you are golden (in my book).

If you have that, and you still have savings, what's the difference between
you and a billionaire ? All the rich people I know (I don't know many) are
deeply unhappy. So, I know for a fact it doesn't buy happiness directly.

I live frugally, well below my means (except that I take vacations sometimes),
and have a huge safety net; also, I never discuss my finances and I don't like
to form opinions about someone based solely on (or heavily influenced by)
their money. I cannot see the joy of having things as a status symbol, it just
doesn't make sense to me.

People that buy things primarily to show to others that they can afford them,
just screams self-worth issues to me. I guess it depends on the way you value
yourself.

------
JabavuAdams
I started this article annoyed by the title, and expecting to be disappointed,
but it was actually quite an interesting read.

------
JustSomeNobody
> If I were queen of the world, I would pass a law against private jets,
> because they enable you to get around a certain reality. You don’t have to
> go through an airport terminal, you don’t have to interact, you don’t have
> to be patient, you don’t have to be uncomfortable. These are the things that
> remind us we’re human.

> It wasn’t just the plane, but it’s not a small thing when you don’t have to
> be patient or be around other people. It creates this notion that you’re a
> little bit better than they are. And for the past 40 years, everything in
> American culture has been reinforcing that belief. We say, “Job creators,
> entrepreneurs, these are the people who make America great.” So there are
> people walking around with substantial wealth who think that they have it
> because they’re better. It’s fundamental to remember that you’re just a
> member of the human race, like everybody else, and there’s nothing about
> your money that makes you better than anyone else. If you don’t know that
> and you have money, it’s the road to hell, no matter how much stuff you have
> around you.

Wow. I'm very impressed with her. So many great quotes here.

------
jopsen
> Money is morally neutral. It does not, in and of itself, make you a bad
> person.

Money is opportunities, in the Bible Jesus says to invest our talents, and to
give away our money.

Having money is having opportunities, wasting that and not making something of
it couldn't that be morally reprehensible?

I'm no saint, and I'm certainly guilty of hording more money than I need (even
if I'm far from super rich). But I'm not under some illusion that I couldn't
help more than I do. Or that not giving away money is a neutral choice.

Note. I did give away around 5% of income after taxes last year (I'm just a
regular overpaid nerd, so not comparable to the author -- but still privileged
like most people here). My cousin taunted me a few years that the Bible says
you should pay 10% to charity after taxes and living expenses. I don't think
I'm quite there, well, maybe if you do some creative a accounting, hehe :)

For me picking a number to donate was mostly about ensuring that it was high
enough that I felt like I had said it like I meant it!

But maybe my savings could be smaller maybe I could help more people --
hording money certainly doesn't seem like a morally neutral thing to do.

~~~
skybrian
Good for you! Incidentally, there's a group that actually did pick 10% as a
nice round number.

(I'm not doing that either, yet, but I think about it.)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can)

~~~
jopsen
There is a bunch of movements around giving away just 1%..

Again, that's pretty good, if those movements were to pickup momentum.

Note. I'm by no means a saint, for many years I weren't giving anything away..

------
thorwasdfasdf
that last little statistic she dropped was misleading.

Money does buy happiness, for most people. Think about it. Would you be less
happier if you made half your current salary? Before you answer the question,
think about all the life changes that would occur, should this happen: maybe
you have to move into a bad neighborhood in a smaller apartment, no more
eating out, no more vacations, no more dental procedures, etc.

Okay, sure there is a threshold, perhaps at 800K or more your happiness
wouldn't increase greatly. The point is, the vast majority of people are below
that threshold.

And, I've seen a number of happiness survey that show there's a pretty good
correlation between happiness and earnings both at a macro level (comparing
countires with high gdp per capita to low gdp per capita) and individual
levels as well.

~~~
mcv
Money buys happiness up to a certain point. I believe it was around $70,000
per year; at that point, you live a comfortable life where you don't have to
worry about basic necessities and have some money left over for fun stuff
(obviously this depends on the basic cost of living where you live; it's
likely to be higher in Silicon Valley than in Thailand).

~~~
kkarakk
>Money buys happiness up to a certain point

There are whole industries built around making money buy happiness beyond that
point. Humans aren't ideal creatures - once you make a ludicrous amount of
money you start REALLY indulging in whatever crazy indulgences you fetishize

~~~
rofo1
> There are whole industries built around making money buy happiness beyond
> that point. Humans aren't ideal creatures - once you make a ludicrous amount
> of money you start REALLY indulging in whatever crazy indulgences you
> fetishize

Yes, but that's up to you. That has nothing to do with money directly, cause
presumably you were already into insane things that you could afford prior to
making obscene amount of money.

------
hutzlibu
Interesting interview, but about the title: I really cannot imagine having
more money than ways to spend, as there are so many things to do and get, like
my new space telescope and moonstation and I heard those things are really,
really expensive.

------
JoeAltmaier
I grew up with little, and it was always more than I needed. So does that
count?

------
RickJWagner
Good for her. She seems like a remarkably good person.

------
sonnyblarney
This is a very level headed person, this Abigail.

------
skookumchuck
When you have a lot of money, you can do something great with it. Like
reinvent the rocket industry. Or rid the world of polio. Or buy up land and
create nature conservancies. Or buy a bunch of WW2 wrecks, restore them to
flying condition, and make a wonderful museum for them.

~~~
izzydata
Reminds me of the movie about the person who built the Getty Center in LA. W

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty)

------
alexashka
The interesting bit for me is how she doesn't say a single interesting thing.

What has she actually done in her life, other than writing cheques that total
70 million?

I don't know, and I've read the entire interview.

We really have a crisis of imagination, both on the behalf of the poor and the
rich. The poor want to be rich, the rich go to restaurants, buy shoes and
write cheques.

This is the sad bit about rich people - they just can't seem to figure out
that you can't make someone interesting, by sending them to Oxford, Harvard,
etc. They're just bored, or maybe it's just me, bored and grumpy, of reading
HackerNews :)

~~~
joefourier
Now would be a good time for the return of the "gentleman scientist" of the
19th century. Not just passively giving money away to worthy organizations,
but educating yourself enough to be an authority in that field. Wealth on the
order of hundreds of millions affords your own private research team with a
good enough budget for many fields, the possibility of pursuing high-risk
basic research with no expectation of immediate financial gain and the ability
to sidestep the trappings of the academic environment.

It will be impossible to have more money than you can spend in that scenario -
the capital demands of global scientific research far exceed the liquid net
worth of any single human individual.

~~~
philipkglass
David E. Shaw is living the dream:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Shaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Shaw)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._E._Shaw_Research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._E._Shaw_Research)

