
What I’m Teaching my Son about Money - edward
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/05/20/what-im-teaching-my-son-about-money/
======
dcre
This line stands out to me:

> Income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you
> based on a rigged system. It is a something you generate yourself. It is the
> byproduct of your hard work, combined with learning and mastering the system
> itself. Even the system itself is subject to your control if you choose.

It's easy to interpret this as a positive statement about the way things
simply _are_ , but I don't think the author quite intends it that way. When
pressed, he might say it is a positive statement, but the clearly intended
ethical significance of the statement—the fact that it has deep consequences
for the way his son _should_ act—suggests we can look deeper.

Specifically, it's important to understand the normative dimension of the
statement: that when "income is not something that employers or the government
ration out to you based on a rigged system", that is a good thing. And most
importantly, it's possible for things not to be that way—whether because the
laws or government of your country are not set up the right way, or because
you yourself have the wrong attitude about your work.

The attitude interpretation is probably what the piece is focusing on (and
what most readers will take away), because obviously the author can't teach
his son to solve problems outside of his control. But the author is thinking
about systems too.

When he says "the system itself is subject to your control if you choose" it's
clear that there are plenty of systems where this is not the case, where the
system is so huge or arbitary or irrational that "learning and mastering" it
is not possible. Examples might include oppressive dictatorships, bloated
bureaucracies, or sweatshops (especially to a child).

\------------

The point I'm trying to make is that we have a responsibility not just for our
own attitudes and actions, but also to shape our world in such a way that it
is _possible_ for the right attitude to pay off.

Edit: the author's point about how the son's savings account enables him to be
generous is a great example of this. This is called "moral luck" by
philosophers--the idea that certain conditions need to obtain before a person
can be virtuous. The idea goes back all the way to Aristotle.

~~~
Dewie3
In a wider social- and group-context it is sometimes best to maintain the view
that you are a victim being manipulated by outside forces.

In a strictly _personal_ context it is often better to maintain the view that
you are a fully empowered actor.

~~~
fredkbloggs
It's really quite important to maintain both.

Becoming wealthy without manipulating the system (or, put another way,
becoming wealthy while creating a similar amount of value) requires both
prudence and either a great deal of luck or a lot of hard work and reasonably
good luck. Many people work hard; most do not become wealthy. Sometimes that's
due to their own choices, but not always. It's something of a disservice to
teach a child that he or she is a fully empowered actor; the reality is very
different.

In the real world, you are competent, professional, and hardworking but your
employer goes under during a bust. During the 2 years you're out of work, you
drain your savings and have to start over from scratch. 5 to 10 years of
earning, saving, and investing go down the crapper.

In the real world, you work hard, draw good pay, and invest wisely.
Unfortunately, due to monetary policy established by unelected officials, you
are faced with a choice of losing money to inflation every day or paying
wildly inflated prices for any asset available to you. As a result, you never
achieve financial independence no matter what you do.

In the real world, you may be faced with a choice between working a job that
will never enable you to become financially independent and engaging a crooked
physician to help you collect disability benefits from the government for the
rest of your life. You find it impossible to accept that you should have to
work for what others are given for nothing.

A child who grows up believing he or she is fully empowered is likely to
respond poorly when encountering these situations later in life. It would be
reasonable to interpret them (incorrectly, of course) as evidence of one's own
failure, inadequacy, or even bad character. The reality is that the game is
rigged, and badly so. The industrious good behavior the Calvinist work ethic
endorses makes success a little more likely, but it's nothing close to a
guarantee. Better to learn these lessons young, even if it encourages
"cheating" later in life. Sadly, cheaters usually do prosper; the choice to be
"honest" or not should be made from moral principles, not a misguided belief
that it will lead to success/happiness/financial independence.

~~~
WalterBright
Read the book "The Millionaire Next Door". It is entire possible, and in fact
commonplace, to become wealthy by quite ordinary and predictable means.

It isn't really about working hard, either. That's a myth. It's about working
effectively, and making prudent, common sense choices about what to do with
your income.

Of course, life can hand you a lot of bad luck that can derail your plans. But
this is simply not the usual experience.

~~~
mistermann
The "Millionaire's Next Door" in that book were working in an environment
different than the current, that's a fact. Now whether the current environment
is "less honest and merit-based" (as I happen to believe), or not, it is
certainly different.

Bubbles come and go, some are long, some are short, some are consequential,
some are not. For example, real estate bubbles: these are most dangerous
because it is usually the most substantial asset purchase an individual ever
makes, and it is typically 90% leverage. If you fall ass-backwards into the
right spot on the development curve, you can literally turn $50k (down
payment) into a million++ dollars - if you guess wrong, you're bankrupt and
you pray that you have a non-recourse loan.

~~~
raintrees
But your description sounds like a home the buyer lives in. That is not an
investment, from an investor's point of view.

Instead, for a specific example, consider a 4-plex my wife and I bought for
$65K down ($215K total - it is in an economically depressed area). Rents, when
fully occupied (not always the case, we see about a 5% vacancy rate) are $700
a month over all expenses, including debt service.

Plus, we put close to 20% down but get 100% of the depreciation. End of the
year: $7000 in our pockets, a legal tax loss of $800. And that is assuming no
change in value of the asset. If someone offers to buy us out at %200 of the
purchase price I would definitely consider it, but until then, I pocket the
proceeds.

For me, doing the due diligence up front reduced the luck factor, my preferred
way of obtaining my goals, when possible.

~~~
gamblor956
Your math does not add up. If your rental profits are $700/month (total for
all 4 units), then your annual rental profits should be $8,400. For a property
purchased for a total of $215,000, the depreciation should only be
approximately $7800/year (straight line, 27.5 year recovery period), meaning
that you should have annual taxable rental income of roughly $600.

Moreover, the amount of depreciation you can take (in total) does not increase
with a change in the value of the asset; it's based on your "cost basis" in
the asset. It only goes up if your costs in the asset increase, such as for
property taxes paid, improvements, etc.

Finally, and this is a big one--the value of the land is excluded from the
depreciation calculation--only the building and improvements to the property
can be depreciated. So $215,000 is an upper bound on the recoverable amount--
the properly depreciable amount is less than that, meaning that your annual
depreciation should actually be less than $7800/year and that you should
actually have more than $600/year in net rental income.

You need to talk to an accountant soon, because if you get audited _you almost
certainly will be paying back taxes and penalties._

~~~
raintrees
Sorry, I was rounding conservatively, and my tax returns were prepared by a
conservative, professional firm that I hold in high regards, so I am not
concerned there, but thanks.

To be more accurate, we do get a bit more, but we withhold for repairs,
replacement costs, wear and tear, new appliances, etc. So our income is
higher, but I have trained myself not to count it, as the odds tell me I am
going to have to pay for repairs. The $700 is what we get to hold onto most
often, unless we are saving towards big repairs like new roof, outside paint,
etc. And (crucially) I left out that we had enough first year expenses to
legitimately lower that perceived income, as well as the interest that we get
to deduct (interest being far higher at first in a mortgage payment). Next tax
year will have different numbers, since we will have had different expenses
and different occupancy (unfortunately they do not stay 100% occupied).

I am just trying to get out round numbers that show that it can work.

Most people have this concept that their house is their biggest asset, when a
residence is really a liability for the person who lives in it.

I should not have taken the shortcuts in my math, but regardless, we do well.
We have used the profits to invest in more education, and have recently
purchased another unit in Florida that will start cash flowing in about two
more months. Well, actually it cash flows now, but we had to pay for some new
appliances, so in my head, we are negative for two more months, then we start
paying off ourselves for the down payment. Again, I am more conservative.

So it is a slow path to wealth, but a valid path, nonetheless.

~~~
raintrees
And I should have put this in the first comment I made: This is not legal
advice, nor is it financial advice. Please seek professional guidance for
specific situations. This only serves as an example of one specific deal I am
involved in. And even I get the numbers slightly wrong sometimes - H/T to
gamblor956 for reminding me to state this.

------
BjoernKW
I love his blog because he not just tries to educate people about personal
finance or money as an end to itself but about money with a purpose.

An attitude like his can almost be considered subversive today. If it wasn't
for 'keeping up with the Joneses' the world could be a much better place and
more people could live the lives they actually want to live.

~~~
cushychicken
Money (and it's alternate form, stuff) too often ends up being read like a
scorecard, when it's really a means to an end. I love MMM for the exact same
reason as you do - he gets that money is what lets you do things that you find
enjoyable or rewarding, not something you flout around as a status symbol.

Thank god MMM is a subversive, because his is one of the only revolutions I
could see myself subscribing to.

------
jparishy
There's an active subreddit for discussing Financial Independence (FI) that
often links to MMM and recommends his blog to people interested in learning
about the topic.

If you liked the article, you might find the community there interesting:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence](http://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence)

~~~
jessedhillon
Suppose that there are, broadly-speaking, two levers on a person's financial
independence function: money brought in, and money spent. The FI subreddit and
MMM focus, IMO, almost exclusively on reducing money spent.

I subscribed to the FI sub hoping to find a lot of discussion about efforts to
bring money in. Instead, I find a lot of people angling for a definition of
financial independence that includes wearing the same clothes for seven years,
barely ever eating out, and vacations that resemble nothing I'd call travel.
Whatever discussion around increasing income does take place is usually
centered around picking up another job. For me, as long as the income earned
is a linear function of time invested, it's a losing proposition. There's a
reason why "work 10 jobs" isn't commonly suggested as a way to get rich.

I know this sounds snobby, there's not any way around that.

My definition of FI is not having to deliberate, rationalize and bargain with
myself when it comes to purchasing something I _want_. Yes, reducing wants is
a major factor in happiness, but finally there will always be _something_ that
I want, despite pursuing a life of frugality and parsimony. The FI/MMM
approach leans _way too far_ towards ascetism for my tastes.

Are there any communities, besides HN, which focus discussion more on
strategies for increasing income and less on lifestyle amputation?

~~~
charlesdm
I actually had a conversation like this with a freelancer a few weeks ago. He
was cutting back expenses to achieve financial independence (you know, 10-20
years from now).

When I asked him why he didn't just increase his (seemingly low to me)
freelancing rates by 10-20%, he said that was impossible. Little did he know I
charge nearly triple his rate for sort of similar work, and spend about 50%
less time than him working.

You don't build wealth by saving on small purchases, you do it by earning.

~~~
Nadya
Charging more can increase sales without changing the quality of your product,
assuming the product is already "good" or marketable. An increased price adds
a perceived 'quality' or 'prestige' and you'll get bigger spenders, although
fewer spenders. This is because of the bad reasoning that "more expensive =
better".

My mother did this with her home business by slowly increasing her prices. The
product she delivers hasn't changed in the slightest - but she now makes 5x
more than she was before!

People fall into the trap of _lowering their cost_ to _increase buyers_
without paying attention to how much they are working. They see an increase of
price "would ruin them financially" because they would get less clients.

Of course, finding the balance is important.

There was a story on HN where someone was setting up custom sites for $75.
They quickly realized this was more work than they expected and began charging
$2,000 a site (after charging more and more per site, from $200->$500->$1000).

People were still purchasing. Same work. $75 --> $2,000.

~~~
charlesdm
Absolutely. I live by this.

In contracting or consulting, you want to find critically important projects
to work on and then almost shock people by what you're charging. Then
overdeliver.

~~~
Nadya
>Then overdeliver.

I feel this brings up another important thing. Set _realistic expectations_.
Always set the bar at what they expect while remaining near the bare minimum
of what you can realistically deliver...then do everything you can do deliver
past that.

1) If you overpromise and underdeliver you give yourself a bad rep and have an
unhappy client.

2) If you promise reasonably and overdeliver your client will be happy. Happy
clients often lead to more clients.

Assuming in 1 and 2 you _did the same amount of work_ and the only difference
was you didn't promise them the world and a field of kittens to boot.
Marketing for 1 might land you the sale; but that's incredibly shortsighted. 2
will almost always do better for your business.

You will likely lose some sales if you market with #2 in mind. However are
those the types of sales you want to begin with?

------
the_economist
Mr. Money Mustache really helped me with life as I ran my startups, because he
taught me that I could live a great life with almost no money. Therefore, even
if I failed, life could be great. This simple bit of wisdom massively reduced
my anxiety, once I internalized it.

------
matb33
With my 6 (almost 7) year old I've been giving him 2% daily interest on
whatever is in his chequing account. He's aware I'll scale it back when it
gets out of hand :) But so far he spends enough on nerf equipment that it
hasn't posed a problem yet! Now he wants to keep more of his money in the bank
to see it grow, and I didn't have to say that specifically, which was the
entire point.

A rule I did have to institute later though is that if he forgets to ask for
his interest that evening, he doesn't get paid.

We also have to rely on his last bank receipt to calculate the amount owed
because it appears impossible (at least here in Canada) to open an online
account for a child his age.

~~~
developer1
You make your kid ask you... every. single. night... to please give him his
2%? You are warping that child's mind with your mind games.

~~~
sokoloff
Disagree. The point is to get the child to internalize the value of savings
and investing. Silent accumulation of wealth (the point of investing as a
adult) is useless from an educational point of view (the point the parent is
making for their child). It also teaches the value of speaking up for what is
due. Hats-off to matb for it, IMO.

We give our kids an allowance of sorts for chores above the basics. We also
allow them to blow this money on "stupid crap". We once let them split a pack
of candy at an ice rink, but they didn't have the money yet (we were
traveling). Once everyone agreed that they'd buy it with their allowance, I
bought it with them understanding that they needed to pay me back.

Later that weekend, it came time to pay their allowance. We could have easily
paid them $2 each (the net), but it was far more effective to pay them $3 each
and then make them physically pay us back the $1 each, even though it resulted
in significant frustration and a more than a few tears now that the candy was
gone.

That's education, not a mind game.

------
defenestration
Great article, it gives me some new ideas like the excel bankaccount with
monthly interest. I value the curiosity that our son has. He likes to ask
about how we make money with our own company, what taxes are and why you have
to pay them. He's really happy when he can buy us an ice cream from his own
money and have a good time together.

~~~
burritofanatic
Agreed! This particular quote: "Income is not something that employers or the
government ration out to you based on a rigged system. It is a something you
generate yourself. It is the byproduct of your hard work, combined with
learning and mastering the system itself. Even the system itself is subject to
your control if you choose."

------
tempestn
I liked this line:

> To me, raising kids to feel pressure and fear so they can be COMPETITORS is
> bullshit. Life is not a competition. It’s a gigantic collaboration, and the
> world welcomes and rewards people who see it that way.

Life is not a competition; it's a collaboration.

------
ChuckMcM
I like the idea of a spreadsheet. I suppose its ok to give your kids a 10%
ARR, too bad we can't get that on anything as close to secure as "Dad's
checkbook" :-).

But the key message which I really like is spending is your choice, and if you
can't afford something you want to buy it may be because you chose to spend
the money to buy it on something else instead. Recognizing that is what you
are doing when you "spontaneously" buy that over priced beer at the ball game
is a good life skill.

~~~
fsk
The stock market will, on average, do better than 10%/year. There will be some
-50% years along the way, though.

To get 10% with zero volatility, you have to invest with Bernard Madoff.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Well I've only been really fully diversified since 2001 but over 2001 to 2015
it hasn't done 10% year over year, closer to 7.8% :-) And that included the
tight clench in 2007 - 2009 which is why 'security' and 'return' are inversely
related.

And I see the S&P has done slightly better (8.3% [1]) over 10 years so I
should probably kick myself to having anything in a stock or fund other than
SPY :-)

[1]
[http://quicktake.morningstar.com/index/IndexCharts.aspx?Symb...](http://quicktake.morningstar.com/index/IndexCharts.aspx?Symbol=SPX)

------
hkmurakami
I agree with the general premise of the article, but there are a few points
that struck me as somewhat misleading.

 _> On the other hand, having crossed the threshold of having more than enough
money for a good life almost a decade ago, I cannot even imagine my son not
earning a plentiful and permanent surplus very early on in his adult life. _

If I remember correctly, the author's net worth was greatly boosted by the
stock and real estate market bull market of the 90's. During that era, making
an earnest living and investing aggressively in these two markets would
handsomely reward you. To automatically believe that the same is true in the
current era or any other future era is a dangerous assumption.

In regions with the biggest opportunities from employment, employees are
increasingly priced out of the real estate rally and the tax savings home
ownership affords you. Similarly, there are no guarantees on how much longer
the current 5 year bull market run in the public equities market will last,
and how sharp and long lasting an eventual correction will be. While it is
possible for informed individuals to navigate times of volatility in the
markets, it is a matter easier said than done, particularly for a young
professional who has not experienced market turmoil first hand.

 _> And yet consider the stunning case study of the children of the nation’s
uber-wealthy enclaves like Palo Alto, California. Despite incredible wealth
and some of the best educational institutions money can buy, kids there are
more stressed, less happy, and more likely to commit suicide than others who
live with a fraction of their privilege.

The problem arises when high-achieving parents assume that their kids need to
be pushed to achieve more themselves, to beat out the other high achievers and
gain access to the most elite schools, in order to compete in this incredibly
challenging modern world._

It's worth examining "why" these parents behave this way -- what their
underlying motivations are. I'm going to simplify the situation and focus on
what I believe is the largest slice of the hypercompetitive student
population: the children of successful immigrants (this classification is very
representative of the Palo Alto and Cupertino school districts).

The immigrant parents who are sending their children to High School now
overwhelmingly came from modest means and worked their way to financial and
social well being and stability. As immigrants, their situation was highly
volatile, both with respect to employment and residence status. As the author
himself notes, parents want their children to have it better than them. The
worst part about being an immigrant? The fear of not knowing what will happen
to you tomorrow. The fear of losing your job and getting deported was a very
real possibility. What they want for their children is first and foremost,
stability. More than pure financial EV, they wish to maximize the
predictability and stability of their children's employment prospects. Status
and financial returns are secondary.

Anecdotally, even self made millionaire behave this way. Read "The Millionaire
Next Door," (a book primarily about small business owners with prudent
spending habits who saved their way to 7 figures) and you will find that most
of these self made entrepreneurs want their children to become doctors and
lawyers so that they won't have to endure the volatility that the parents
suffered.

How do you maximize professional stability? The narrative of "go to the best
school and study a technical, skill based discipline" is actually not
misguided. The problem if any is that you quickly hit precipitously decreasing
marginal returns on any additional academic competitive effort. But from the
parents' perspective, even "poor marginal returns" looks like a no brainer.
After all, they would have _loved_ to have that opportunity to increase their
employment stability before being subjected to the economic forces themselves.
The stress in children is a result of wildly differing perspectives and
experiences between the immigrant parents and the child born to safety and
prosperity. The parents truly want the best for their children, informed by
their own experiences and difficulties. Sadly, even "the correct decision" for
any person is hardly ever the correct decision for another.

~~~
branchless
Attaboy - this is what I thought when I read this. Land prices for the boomers
made them. For their kids unless they are bequeathed land they will have to
pay a vast chunk of their salary to rentiers.

Things have changed from the 1990s. The expansion of the money supply has
detached asset prices from wages. Older people rode that wave and loved it.
The price? Their kids are going to be farmed forever via the financialisation
of housing.

Fantasy land. I work hard and I'm well paid, in a high percentile. My
financial security is way below someone who went balls deep into debt in 2000
on housing. They could have done a low stress, low pay job and they'd have
more equity than me as I've had to spend a tonne on rent.

ps in fact on his "about" section he has this:

"very boring conservative Vanguard index funds and a __rental house or two__."

The first time I heard about the compound interest for kids was this "bank of
dad":

[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/05/owen_on_parenti.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/05/owen_on_parenti.html)

Itself it's totally unrealistic now thanks to QE which itself of course is
pumping asset prices which is great if you have "a rental house or two".

Retired in his 30s to have a family. Must be nice especially if you have a
family slaving away in your rental houses for you so you can capture all their
labour.

~~~
tsotha
>Retired in his 30s to have a family. Must be nice especially if you have a
family slaving away in your rental houses for you so you can capture all their
labour.

I will never understand this kind of thinking. A rental agreement is
beneficial to both parties - otherwise it would never have existed. You're no
more "capture[ing] all their labour" than they are "squatting on your
property".

~~~
duckingtest
Land is special because it can't be made. Imagine that you land on some
planet, with no way to go back. You can work remotely using the intergalactic
internet. It turns out you're the second guy there, the first guy now legally
owns all the land. He agrees to rent you some land for living, at the maximum
price you are capable of paying. Isn't he capturing your labor?

It's still 'beneficial' to both parties, because if you don't pay you will get
legally killed for trespassing by police robots.

That's the situation on Earth, except 'the guy' is 'older generations' and the
homeless are generally allowed to sleep rough on public land in most
countries. Also no intergalactic internet.

~~~
dragontamer
On Earth, you can turn away and choose someone else.

If someone is renting too high of a price, then you go somewhere else.

------
formulaT
I really liked the compassion and care that MMM shows for his kid. In too many
articles like this, it's clear that the author cares more that the child
adopts the parent's ideology than that the child is actually happy. The goals
and methods were moderate: earning one's own money (at an appropriate age),
learning to control one's own life (I would add "to the extent possible") and
not over or undervaluing wealth.

My only reservation was the artificial 10% interest rate. The current interest
rate is 0%. Over the last 100 years interest rates averaged 5%. This is a
concern to me because people on the Right tend to fetishize compound interest
rates, while MMM seems to focus on true fundamentals.

------
euphoria83
I am one of those people who followed the path (and was told to) of "study
hard, get a good job, work hard till retirement, spend wisely, ...". A few
years back, I realized that one important thing nobody taught me during my
childhood is that a very important part of everyone's life is to provide value
to others in exchange for money that you live by.

At that time, I decided to teach my children about this. One of the ways I
have thought of doing this is to ask my children to start earning a small
amount of money early in life by providing value to others in ethical ways. I
am glad to read that the author, who can be considered an expert at managing
personal money, is being successful at a similar experiment.

~~~
antisuji
This connection—between earning money and providing value to others—is
something that sounds obvious, but I only really internalized it recently,
after reading Kevin Simler's Congolese Trading Window thought experiment[1].

It would be easy to take this line of reasoning into dangerous territory and
suppose that earning money is equivalent to being morally virtuous, but this
neglects externalities and the sometimes fundamental difficulty of accurately
pricing certain kinds of goods (subjective wellbeing, community, a sense of
meaning, etc.). Money is, at best, a very rough proxy measure for human value.

[1] [http://www.meltingasphalt.com/wealth-the-toxic-
byproduct/](http://www.meltingasphalt.com/wealth-the-toxic-byproduct/)

~~~
sukilot
That's a good article. It has a long introduction that resembles libertarian
twaddle, but then Section V brings it home to tie the knot in a way most econ
101 libertarians ignore.

~~~
formulaT
Actually the article is completely wrong.

If you make money "squarely" as described in I-IV, then you have created some
value. Cashing out in section V is simply consuming that value.

All we can say (given the assumptions in I-IV) is that the person was a net
positive (or zero) for the Congolese economy.

The technical mistake that the author makes is not realizing that adding value
to the Congolese economy means increasing the total amount of _physical_
wealth in the economy. When the person cashes out their yacht, they are simply
exchanging cash for the physical wealth they helped create.

I don't think you can logically say that I-IV are "libertarian twaddle" and
that V "brings it home", because V is predicated on I-IV being true. If you're
interested in the theoretical basis behind "econ 101" I suggest you look into
general equilibrium theory.

------
Havoc
While I don't have kids myself these types of experiments aimed at pushing
kids in a certain beneficial direction. e.g. My dad had a policy that he'd
cover the cost of all bookstore purchases. All other entertainment expenses
get funded via allowance.

I wouldn't be surprised if small nudges like that have far reaching effects
much later in life.

~~~
dionidium
_I wouldn 't be surprised if small nudges like that have far reaching effects
much later in life._

I suspect that having a nudger around who cares enough to do that kind of
nudging is what really matters.

~~~
Havoc
>I suspect that having a nudger around who cares enough to do that kind of
nudging is what really matters.

That too. I'm proud to say that my dad was a true class act - he swore both
his kids would walk into life with a varsity education and no debt come hell
or high water.

That being said I still think its the small practical things that count. All
those small things accumulate towards one massive social edge that is hard to
quantify. Suppose you need to pick an engineer to build a bridge...the one
grew up with legos the other grew up without. Who do you pick? Trivial
childhood detail?

------
dataker
Great article! It's funny to think how our kids are overwhelmed by useless
subjects and have no background on personal finance.

On the long-term, it's fundamental for building wealth and a future for
oneself.

------
lloydde
> more likely to commit suicide than others who live with a fraction of their
> privilege.

data that supports this?

------
brc
Mr money mustache needs to spend some of that dosh on a properly scalable
server, I think.

------
bcheung
I love the fact that you guys are using that spreadsheet.

------
tempestn
Can I please deposit some money in the Bank of MMM?

------
CADBOT
I'm glad to see MMM here on hacker news!

------
MichaelCrawford
If your kid asks for something, don't just tell them it's too expensive. If
you don't want them to have it find some good reason, but not always "it's too
expensive". The kid will get a distorted idea of the value of things.

A few years ago I finally figured out that the reason my mother always says
things are too expensive is that her father committed suicide when she was
just seven years old.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>The kid will get a distorted idea of the value of things. //

Are you equating price with value here? Just because something is expensive
doesn't mean it is valuable.

~~~
Domenic_S
Not to speak for OP, but my mother used to do that too, used 'too expensive'
as a reason when she didn't want me to have something. That video game rental
was 'too expensive' or those hideous velcro shoes were 'too expensive' and
what have you. It was really confusing to hear that McDonalds was 'too
expensive' and then have delicious grilled steaks for dinner that night.

