
96-Year-Old Secretary Quietly Amasses Fortune, Then Donates $8.2M - dsr12
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/06/nyregion/secretary-fortune-donates.html
======
e19293001
Stoics believe that this is more impressive than the lifestyles of rich
people. José Mujica was once the president of Uruguay gave 90% of his
presidential salary to the charity and driving a very old car. Stuffs like
this is more impressive because not everyone can do that.

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica)

~~~
godelmachine
Obama was known to donate 70% of his salary towards charity.

~~~
KillerRabbitt
Trump also donated/is donating his salary.

~~~
tudorconstantin
I wonder how comes that a comment about Obama has positive kharma, while
exactly the same comment about Trump has negative kharma. On this forum, where
people seem to appreciate objectivity and correct thinking more than anything.
And where it takes 500 kharma to be able to downvote something.

~~~
melling
“home come”

I said “home comes” for way too long.

Politics is a minefield. In general, people are narrow-minded assholes. HN is
no different.

“Politics is the art of marshalling hatred” Charlie Munger

~~~
dahart
That’s so sadly cynical & pessimistic. I’m glad there are politicians who
don’t feel this way, and have optimism and energy to try to build a better
future. If everyone gave up, things would be awful compared to what we have
now.

Politics is very difficult because people are different and myopic and
concerned for themselves, that is true. But that doesn’t mean people are
assholes or full of hate, we just have different points of view. We’re
physically incapable of not being self-centered, we don’t have a shared
consciousness, so that will never change. Politics is the art of navigating
many many legitimate and different and opposing points of view. If that turns
into meting out hatred, then please please get out of politics.

BTW, here’s one actual study suggesting that people in general prefer optimism
in politics. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/08/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/08/01/do-u-s-voters-prefer-optimistic-politicians-heres-what-we-
found/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.80214e6cd768)

~~~
sah2ed
Optimism is a good outlook to maintain in life, but lets not kid ourselves as
to the real purpose served by politicking.

 _" Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."_ \- Ambrose Bierce (The
Devil's Dictionary, 1911)

No need to look further than the $50m of political spending in 2017 by FAAG
[0] for regulations that would serve their interests like tax reforms, with
Google leading the pack with $18m.

[0] [https://www.recode.net/2018/1/23/16919424/apple-amazon-
faceb...](https://www.recode.net/2018/1/23/16919424/apple-amazon-facebook-
google-uber-trump-white-house-lobbying-immigration-russia)

~~~
dahart
> lets not kid ourselves as to the real purpose served by politicking.

The “real” purpose served by politicking? There’s no government at all without
politics. Do you want no government, no shared values or resources, no
services, no infrastructure, no community? What’s your ideal, and why is your
ideal good for anyone other than you? (BTW, _any_ answer to that question is
political.)

“Politics is a multifaceted word. It has a set of fairly specific meanings
that are descriptive and nonjudgmental (such as "the art or science of
government" and "political principles"), but often does carry a connotation of
dishonest malpractice.”
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics)

I have no doubt you can cherry pick some examples of bad politics. That’s
irrelevant and uninteresting. I have no doubt you can find more examples of
rich or famous people saying pessimistic things. Also uninteresting. There are
plenty of optimistic quotes as well, and plenty of examples of expenditure on
things that help people and generally do good. We spend a lot more than $50m
on hospitals and roads and libraries and schools, just to name a few.

“We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or
religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of
understanding what makes us strong.” - Barack Obama

“When you get together in a group, it becomes like a family, with the
different personalities and the politics that comes with being in a band. It’s
different than bringing something in by yourself.” - Albert Hammond Jr.

“Man is by nature a political animal” - Aristotle

“One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is you end up
being governed by your inferiors” - Plato

“To err is human. To blame someone else is politics” - Hubert Humphrey

“I like to see myself as a bridge builder, that is me building bridges between
people, between races, between cultures, between politics, trying to find
common ground.” - T. D. Jakes

~~~
sah2ed
> There’s no government at all without politics.

That's a pretty loaded statement that I disagree with because it presupposes
that man has only being organizing his affairs for centuries when we both know
that mankind has existed for thousands of years.

Anyway, there's a real risk of talking past each other, so I'll be upfront by
saying that government can be totally independent of politics -- politics is
merely a means to an end and that end is governance.

How did mankind manage its affairs prior to politicking and modern-day
electoral contests (democracy)?

Monarchies [0]. What I believe you are arguing for via politicking is
representative leadership [1], which only became a thing in the 17th century.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_the_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_the_world)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)

~~~
dahart
> That's a pretty loaded statement that I disagree with because it presupposes
> that man has only being organizing his affairs for centuries when we both
> know that mankind has existed for thousands of years.

I'm not sure what assumptions you're making here. Governance and politics have
both existed for many many millennia, roughly as long as language has existed
I'd wager.

> I'll be upfront by saying that government can be totally independent of
> politics

I disagree completely. The _definition_ of the word politics is activities
associated with governance. That was my point above. You're choosing to focus
on a narrow and negative interpretation, and not the primary meaning of the
word.

politics:noun

the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area

the activities of governments concerning the political relations between
countries.

the academic study of government and the state.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=politics](https://www.google.com/search?q=politics)

> How did mankind manage its affairs prior to politicking?

There is no such thing, and there never was. Politicking is the word for
persuading others to join together to achieve things not possible as
individuals.

I acknowledge that politicking is sometimes also used to mean grift and power
grabbing and other things. But using it that way is a choice, and it doesn't
represent all possible politics. In my opinion, it also doesn't represent
anything close to a majority of politics either. Most politics that occur are
necessary and benign or good, and only a minority are the type you're worried
about.

------
aaronharnly
What this shows to me is that a life can have a profound impact through long,
careful and modest dedication; rhetoric of disruption and youthful riches can
be profound too, but we shouldn’t lose sight of other possibilities.

~~~
wpietri
Absolutely. I love this bit:

> Just before she retired, Mr. Hyams said he saw the 96-year-old Ms. Bloom
> trudging out of the subway and headed to work in the middle of a fierce
> snowstorm. “I said, ‘What are you doing here?’ and she said, ‘Why, where
> should I be?’” he recalled.

It reminds me of a favorite bit from "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones":

> Hyakujo, the Chinese Zen master, used to labor with his pupils even at the
> age of eighty, trimming the gardens, cleaning the grounds, and pruning the
> trees.

> The pupils felt sorry to see the old teacher working so hard, but they knew
> he would not listen to their advice to stop, so they hid away his tools.

> That day the master did not eat. The next day he did not eat, nor the next.
> "He may be angry because we have hidden his tools," the pupils surmised. "We
> had better put them back."

> The day they did, the teacher worked and ate the same as before. In the
> evening he instructed them: "No work, no food."

~~~
chii
> ... The day they did, the teacher worked and ate the same as before. In the
> evening he instructed them: "No work, no food."

Isn't this very contrary to the belief that people shouldn't have to work for
their basic necessities?

~~~
marcoperaza
That's a very controversial belief. Most traditional value systems disagree.
"He who does not work, shall not eat".

There is also a long-running train of thought that work is essential to the
human character and that without it we decay into aimlessness.

~~~
oblio
I think _activity_ is essential to the human character. We are not far from a
point where we don't have to work for food and other basic necessities
(though, as usual, the future is here but it's not evenly distributed).

We can sort of see it with very rich people. They do stuff even though for
many of them their activity adds peanuts to their existing fortune. I'm not
talking about the hyper-active, super-ambitious types.

~~~
AstralStorm
Pity they do not do enough of the right things with their influence.

We have enough major world wide problems they could tackle. And I am not just
talking about charity - that is just passing the buck at most.

------
zhyder
Dilemma for those of us considering donating:

1\. Donate (50) years from now: our investments will grow substantially on a
compounded basis, and we'll give much more in dollars, even after adjusting
for inflation

2\. Donate now: we'll give much less, but -if donated to the right causes- the
beneficiaries will see compounded benefits. E.g. this lady helped educate
beneficiaries via college scholarships, and these beneficiaries will benefit
from that education throughout their lifetime, from today till (50) years from
now, with increased pay. (If a college scholarship seems to necessitate only
big donations, and you can't imagine fractional scholarships being useful,
imagine smaller donations for buying books for poor kids, etc)

I don't know the answer myself, and sincerely could use debate here.

~~~
bo0tzz
I think a nuance here is that #2 will still hold later, say the 50 years from
now that you mention in #1. It will just be other beneficiaries.

~~~
zhyder
True. One can make nuanced arguments around #1 as well. What if we were
talking about saving kids from preventable fatal diseases by donating vaccines
(or donating to research efforts that are developing non-profitable vaccines);
those kids won't even be alive in 50 years. Or what if it was something that'd
make kids more literate; in 50 years (hopefully!) literacy won't be a problem
anymore, and higher education might be massively disrupted by MOOCs, etc.

~~~
hundt
I also think that, when I think of the beneficiaries of the giving as real
people and not abstract "lives improved/saved," then "donate now" seems more
compelling.

Certainly I could not tell a potential beneficiary to their face that I'm
saving the money for the unlikely possibility that I need it myself, but it's
fine because if it is too late for them by the time I donate I will probably
be able to help someone else just as much or more at that time.

Along that same line of thinking: if my siblings desperately needed financial
help and I could afford to give it to them, I would surely not keep the money
out of a desire to have more later that I could give to my nieces and nephews.

------
flashman
Compare and contrast with Jeff Bezos: "The only way that I can see to deploy
this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space
travel."

A stunning failure of imagination.

~~~
nostrademons
Donating $130B to Henry Street Settlement would probably destroy them. When
you have that much money, you don't care about deploying it efficiently, you
just want to deploy it. You often _can 't_ deploy it efficiently without
distorting markets. Rather than more stuff getting done, everything just gets
done less efficiently, with everyone along the value chain becoming a highly-
paid consultant of dubious value.

It really is _a lot_ easier to deploy $10M in capital than $100B. $10M means
that organizations that do good work and otherwise couldn't exist now can
exist. $100B just means that everyone working in an area tangentially related
to the benefactor's interests takes home fat salaries.

(My wife manages about $180M for a foundation, which is just about the sweet
spot: enough to fund several organizations that wouldn't otherwise exist, but
not enough to distort markets or incentivize people towards bureaucracy.)

~~~
jv22222
> A stunning failure of imagination.

I think the OP meant that $130B could be given to a lot of good causes in
small chunks rather than all 130B to one small org.

~~~
nostrademons
It can't, really, without creating the bureaucracy that leads to all that
waste in the first place.

$130B is 13,000 $10M chunks. No single person can find, vet, decide upon, and
measure progress for 13,000 small organizations. That means you have to hire a
staff to manage and give away the money. A staff means that a.) it's not your
imagination that matters b.) money is allocated via horse-trading among the
people who have been hired to manage the money and c.) suddenly you have a
strong incentive for potential recipients to game the system and focus on
making things _look good for donors_ rather than _providing the services to
the ultimate beneficiaries_. Organizations that previously were all about the
mission become focused on the money, because there's a lot of it available and
they're competing with lots of other organizations for it.

~~~
ascorbic
If he wants to deploy it efficiently, without needing to build a bureaucracy
around it, he could do what Buffett is doing: donate it to the Gates
Foundation. It's not great if you want vanity projects, but if he really wants
to do good then it's hard to think of a better way.

~~~
sametmax
Having worked in a mission financed by the Gates foundation I can tell you
that a LOT of money leaves between the moment it's donated and the moment it's
used in the field.

------
IkmoIkmo
Anyone inspired by this should look into the Giving what we can idea:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can)

It's far from easy but they propose to give 10% of earnings. A lot of people
who intend to give 'once they're rich' end up with lifestyle creep and never
end up giving much and ultimately find it very difficult to make large cuts in
their spending. Whereas those who grow up with it and only consider 90% of the
extra earnings from promotions of their own, do much better.

~~~
psaniko
They have a calculator on their website [0] to compare your wealth ranking in
the world with and without donating 10%. I believe for many people in IT it
barely makes a difference (whereas for the recipients it's oftentimes life-
changing).

[0] [https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/#how-rich-
am-i](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/#how-rich-am-i)

~~~
AstralStorm
And if you cannot donate money, you might be able to donate time and work if
you have spare.

------
dang
This is fabulous:

 _After retiring, Ms. Bloom agreed to move to a senior residence mainly
because “she wanted to find a good bridge game,” said Ms. Bornstein, a retired
social worker.

To scout them out, and finally to move into one on the Upper West Side, she
insisted on taking the subway, Ms. Bornstein said._

~~~
sharonzhou
Sounds like she knows her priorities and adamantly avoids wasting money and
chasing things for reputation's sake. I aspire to be like that.

~~~
IncRnd
It's because she lived through the Depression.

------
ghazak
Just goes to show the effect of putting away money every year, and placing it
in assets where the returns will compound over a long period.

~~~
loeg
Especially over a 67 year period! If she saved about $10k (2018 dollars)
annually for the first ten years of her working career, got ~4% after
inflation, and _never saved another penny_ that would account for ~$1.2
million of the sum by itself.

Buy and hold long term; reinvest dividends folks :-).

~~~
djrobstep
What if I'm hit by a bus and killed the day before I retire?

~~~
CydeWeys
Not sure what your point is here -- A chance of reaching the future means you
shouldn't plan for the future at all, even though statistically most people do
survive to retirement age?

~~~
hfdgiutdryg
I think the implication is that _if_ your spend your life toiling for future
reward _at the expense of present reward_ , you may lay there on the pavement
bleeding out, wishing that you'd taken that vacation you always wanted.

Obviously it's presuming that you're neglecting reasonable gratification in
the present, and it's all a spectrum of choices and rewards. But often people
talk about financial investment without balancing it with "personal
investment". Personal enrichment can pay interest of a sort, too.

~~~
loeg
I think you're maybe being _too_ charitable with djrobstep's comment. It's an
inane response to the comment it replies to. Here's the full context:

> > Especially over a 67 year period! If she saved about $10k (2018 dollars)
> annually for the first ten years of her working career, got ~4% after
> inflation, and never saved another penny that would account for ~$1.2
> million of the sum by itself.

> > Buy and hold long term; reinvest dividends folks :-).

> What if I'm hit by a bus and killed the day before I retire?

It's just not responsive to the original comment and doesn't really bring up
anything novel. It might be slightly more reasonable if included your
elaborations, but it doesn't, and even then it's totally silly. Saving $10k/yr
is not a hardship for most tech workers and does not preclude gratification in
the present! $90-100k annually is still several standard deviations above
median income.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
What you, and most people championing the virtues of the slow and steady save,
fail to consider is the time value of money (ie why those investments compound
so much interest). Money today is worth more than money tomorrow is worth a
truck load more than money in 67 years. Combined with the fact that, at least
in my opinion, money when I'm young and healthy is also worth multiplicatively
more than money post retirement.

I think most young people would rather be, and far better off with, saving
that 10k annually you suggest to amassing a down payment on city property or
equivalent investment in current quality of life rather than prepping for a
lonely future.

~~~
loeg
> What you, and most people championing the virtues of the slow and steady
> save, fail to consider is the time value of money (ie why those investments
> compound so much interest).

No, we (generally) have not failed to consider it. (I'm sure some have and
some haven't, but it isn't an argument that holds much water anyway.)

In fact, I think it means more or less the opposite of what you have taken it
to mean.

Time value of money calculations implicitly assume return on investment! If
your time value of money calculation gives you a higher value for spending
some money vs investing it, your valuation of the spending _must_ be above
market returns. It's fine if that is the output of your utility function some
of the time, and you do have to make a personal decision about how much to
spend vs save. But I would assert that most people should value retiring with
non-zero savings, and highly paid tech workers have a lot of disposable income
that spending provides minimal value.

No one here is suggesting you should eat cat food and live in a cardboard box
to save for the future.

> Money today is worth more than money tomorrow is worth a truck load more
> than money in 67 years.

Time value of money is simply making the inverse of the same slow-and-steady
statement: investing the money for 67 years will yield massive returns. Your
core assumption is that spending the money today will yield above-market
returns. And for your first dollars, I agree! Housing, food, clothing, and
(some) entertainment give huge value, far above stock-market gains.

> Combined with the fact that, at least in my opinion, money when I'm young
> and healthy is also worth multiplicatively more than money post retirement.

"Young and healthy" and "post retirement" are not mutually exclusive, if you
save. But they certainly are if you don't — it's hard to be healthy if you
can't afford food or housing.

> I think most young people would rather be, and far better off with, saving
> that 10k annually you suggest

First, let me be clear that the 10k figure was just for illustrative purposes
of compounding at average index return rates and is not a suggestion nor rule
of thumb. It's a ton for someone making poverty wages and totally insufficient
for someone pulling down $500k.

The general guideline is: save _at least_ 15% of your take-home pay for
retirement, starting 40 years before you intend to retire. I think this is
even a little optimistic about stock market returns and would encourage saving
_at least_ a few percent higher than that.

Note that this recommendation still leaves 80-85% of your take home pay for
current spending. We're not arguing about the first 30-50% of your spending on
necessities (and some luxuries may be necessary to stay sane and happy), but
the marginal value of that 85th percentile spending vs saving.

> to amassing a down payment on city property

Property investment is just one kind of investment. A first property certainly
has special properties as far as taxes (at least in the US) and long-term
expenses, but is not incompatible with "championing the virtues of slow and
steady save." I would agree that saving for a down payment on property makes a
lot of sense for many people.

> or equivalent investment in current quality of life rather than prepping for
> a lonely future.

The key word here is "investment." Your comparison is against stock market
returns, so the quality of life stuff has to be _really_ valuable to justify
the lost income.

Why do you think your future will be lonely? If you really like working,
great, but many people only work because they need the current income to fund
their necessities. There are other avenues for socializing than work.

------
ivanhoe
Really shocking part of the story to me was that she retired at 96 years old?!

~~~
eXpl0it3r
I found that quite odd as well, but I mean if someone loves doing what they're
doing and are bringing value to the table, why not? For many elderly people it
might be better if they keep working on something, instead of losing all
connection to reality just sitting at home.

~~~
ivanhoe
I meant it's crazy impressive. Three of four grandparents I had lived quite
long lives, and I witnessed first-person how their once exceptional mental
capabilities quickly deteriorated once they've crossed 88-90 years threshold.
Being able to still work regularly at that age is just an amazing achievement.

------
thomk
I know it's a story about giving, but I find it kid of sad that she didn't
enjoy that money more. I can't believe she enjoyed _not_ spending it so much
that would have compared to traveling or building something?

Not that giving is bad, I'm sure it felt good, but man waiting until you are
in your 90s to have that big effect seems like such an unnecessary delay.

I'm not trolling, just a gut reaction here. Anyone else feel that way?

Maybe it's because I'm an American consumer and consumerism is all I know.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
> ...but I find it kid of sad that she didn't enjoy that money more.

I think she enjoyed that money tremendously. It's such a great feeling to give
and to have the heart to give so generously, wow, what an amazing woman.

~~~
thomk
Alright, fair enough. I can see that too. Thank you.

------
cascom
There are are a lot of laudable things in this story, but it seems rather odd
to attribute so much of the wealth accumulation to just Ms. Bloom. She had a
husband who seems to have had three careers, two of which potentially had very
generous pension benefits, and a third that often pays quite well.

~~~
djrogers
TFA specifically says the accounts were soleley in _her_ name, she made the
investments, and that it's possible he didn't even know about them.

~~~
cascom
Her husband died over a decade ago - the accounts being in just her name is
literally proof of nothing, if they maintained separate finances prior to his
death in most cases the assets would all be re-titled in her name.

For all we know her husband inherited $10m before he died, and she blew the
difference in Vegas one weekend...

My point is that there is a lot of speculation in this article and not much in
the way of facts

------
volgo
The power of compounding interest. If you're 26 years old right now, then you
have 70 years to compound your money.

Assuming an average of 7% annual return:

> x * 1.07 ^ 70 = 8200000

> x = 82000 / 114

> x = 72000

Essentially if you sock away $70k at age 26, that's how much you'll have when
you're 96

~~~
8note
I'm a 27 yo with $70k to sock away who's confused by your units.

~~~
MoBattah
I'm a 21 yo with $70k to sock away who's confused as to getting a solid 7%
guaranteed year over year.

But obviously that's not what's stopping us from socking away $70k at 7%.

~~~
throwaway76543
Nothing's guaranteed but the odds are very, very good. If you invest in a
diversified index fund like VTI then 7% is a reasonable average growth
estimate.

Investing a lump sum is a risk -- you'd cut your fortune nearly in half if you
invested in 2008. This isn't an issue for most folks who save over time.

Frankly, the largest thing stopping folks from investing is financial
literacy. The second largest thing is probably lack of disposable income.

~~~
ryandrake
Thank you. Every HN thread about the stock market seems to ignore pr downplay
risk. If the stock market was really risk-free everyone would be able to
retire a millionaire.

~~~
jjeaff
At least historically, there is no reason everyone couldn't.

There is no 30 year period in the history of the s&p 500 that returns less
than 7% if I remember correctly.

~~~
barry-cotter
Just imagine what you’d have gotten out of investing in the German, Russian,
Chinese or Rhodesian stock exchanges in 1900. I don’t know what happened to
people who were heavily invested in the French stock exchange in 1939 but I
doubt it was good either. I wouldn’t want to be in the South Korean or
Japanese stock exchange if North Korea does anything. You may think war is
unlikely but so did a lot of people in 1913. The USA may be the safest
available what with the oceans to the East and West and the client states to
North and South but it’s not like a civil war would be unprecedented.

------
fmax30
Is it common for secretaries to be working until they are in their 90's?

Because 96 is really old. I am amazed that she didn't quit earlier. In an era
where the retirement age is around 60-65 and most tech workers plan to retire
by their 40's. It is truly astounding to see someone work well into their mid
90's.

Props to the lady for that!

~~~
Mtinie
> an era where the retirement age is around 60-65 and most tech workers plan
> to retire by their 40's.

Those of us in our 40’s—who haven’t yet hit the startup lottery—only wish this
was a possibility.

~~~
loeg
To pull it off, you have to take high-paying jobs (i.e., not startups) in your
20s, be somewhat frugal, and save a large portion of your salary. The
compounding is really significant, but early retirement does not give you a
lot of working years for compounding to happen. As they say, the best time to
invest is 20 years ago.

If you're interested in discussing or learning more about this topic, the
subreddit FinancialIndependence focuses on it.

~~~
acdha
Most of it is just lucky timing. There are a lot of people who do the exact
same things but have very different results based on where exactly they fell
on the economic cycle. Unless you’re in the very lucky cohort who would have
been rich in any case, being set by your 40s requires things like timing the
housing and stock markets pretty carefully to get the necessary returns.

~~~
loeg
I don't think it's accurate to say "most" of it is lucky market timing. That's
certainly a component and if it goes _wrong_ , it can throw off the retirement
date by a couple years, but failing to keep your savings to income ratio high
enough can throw off your retirement by _four decades_. For early retirement
in particular, the compounding effect is smaller and the main factor (IMO) is
savings rate.

Sorting people into two cohorts — "would have been rich in any case" and
"other" — fails to recognize that people's individual financials fall
somewhere on a continuum, and that their actions (i.e., spending) affects how
much wealth they can accumulate by their 40s (or phrased alternatively,
affects when they can retire).

~~~
acdha
> Sorting people into two cohorts — "would have been rich in any case" and
> "other" — fails to recognize that people's individual financials fall
> somewhere on a continuum, and that their actions (i.e., spending) affects
> how much wealth they can accumulate by their 40s (or phrased alternatively,
> affects when they can retire).

That wasn't a point I intended to make. What I was trying to get at is that
most of us should not be comparing our returns to people who start wealthy /
connected or the few outliers who were e.g. early employees at a high-return
startup. That can be useful as a dream goal but it's better to have more
realistic expectations.

For the main point, personal habits definitely make a big factor but your
ability to maintain those high savings rates is subject to a number of things
which you have little to no control over. As an example, graduating in a
recession has historically correlated with lower lifetime earnings because
starting salaries influenced subsequent wages and a long period languishing in
a mediocre job market really cuts into your interest compounding time if your
baseline is not substantially over a reasonable cost of living. Similarly, in
many areas the housing market has had huge fluctuations and that's a huge
impact on your savings rate since it affects both the cost of rent and your
time to acquire a down payment if it's more cost effective long-term to own.
You do have the option of living in a smaller/less-desirable place, etc. but
that often still means things like a longer commute and the numerous costs
that entails.

The other side of the luck equation is that many people have factors which
make it hard to optimize for investment returns. If you have health issues,
your savings rate is going to be much lower. If you have kids or a relative
who needs help that will impact your housing, job, travel, etc. choices and
cuts into both your absolute savings rate and especially your ability to make
long-term optimizations. If you're married to someone who needs to move for
job reasons (e.g. everyone in academia), your ability to time the local
housing market is severely hampered. If your particular field is not
continuously in strong demand (this can be out of your control: tons of laid-
off web developers were competing for the same jobs circa 2001) there's going
to be time transitioning, retraining, etc. and likely digging into those
savings temporarily.

None of this is to say that living frugally is a bad idea or that you'd regret
having done so, only that saying you can retire in 20 years is unrealistic for
most people and it makes the pitch sound a bit like a scam/cult.

~~~
loeg
Yeah, all good points.

> None of this is to say that living frugally is a bad idea or that you'd
> regret having done so, only that saying you can retire in 20 years is
> unrealistic for most people and it makes the pitch sound a bit like a
> scam/cult.

I don't mean to suggest that everyone, or even most people, can retire in 20
years, and I certainly agree that such a claim is not true. Some highly paid
tech workers can, and this forum's readership tends to tilt in that direction.

~~~
acdha
Yeah, I guess I prefer a more positive framing – the person who said that most
tech workers plan to retire in their 40s makes it sound like something's wrong
if you're not and I prefer a more nuanced message.

I especially like thinking about the meaning of where your money is going –
some people spend money on experiences which they like but a lot of it is
keep-up-with-the-Jones stuff where e.g. people are paying crazy amounts for
housing zoned for the “right” school when paying less and spending more time
with their kids will have a much bigger lifetime impact. Someone in that
position probably isn't retiring too early in any case but if they have their
spending well planned out they're probably going to say that was an acceptable
tradeoff for having kids, while the guy living above even considerable means
is having a midlife crisis reconsidering hemorrhaging that kind of cash.

~~~
loeg
Totally agree.

------
toadi
What strikes me most is that there is a need for benefactors to make sure
people can get a proper education.

Locking education for people with a disadvantage in life which is not their
own doing is baffling for me. Especially in a developed country... Not
everyone can win the parent lottery.

~~~
sundvor
Define developed? _Properly_ developed countries such as Norway and Australia
have quality public education systems. Sure, parentage always helps with the
outcome, but the facilities are there for all children to do well - should
they choose to do so.

These countries also have universal health care.

But I guess it's more important that your ultra rich stay ultra rich, to
ensure a proper social divide between them and those unfortunate enough to be
born to the poor. (Debating whether to use a snark mark here, landing on not).

~~~
adventured
You could consume the total wealth of the entire Forbes 400 and fund
healthcare in the US for eight months. It will cost $45 trillion over the next
ten years to fund US healthcare, conservatively - equal to nearly half of all
household wealth.

What's your next idea?

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Well, talk about a strawman. In the countries we're talking about, you have
actual progressive taxation, and every dollar you take home above approx.
$100k gets taxed almost 50%. That's not taxing 400 people, it's taxing the 25
million top earners in the US.

~~~
stephen_g
In Australia the marginal tax rate on $100K is more like 35%. You have to be
making several hundred thousand a year to approach the maximum 45% marginal
rate. Not sure how it works in Norway...

~~~
semi-extrinsic
In Norway, the ~45% maximum marginal rate kicks in at $120k. In Denmark, the
~50% rate cuts in at $75k, while in Sweden (which is the most extreme I know
of) the ~60% rate cuts in at $80k.

In all these countries, 10-15% of the population pays the top tax rate.

~~~
stephen_g
Right. Yeah, with ours you do hit the top bracket (45%) at $180K but the
actual percentage of tax across all income (the marginal rate) means that
you're still only paying just over 30% at that point ($18,200 free, 19% of
$18,200 to $37K, 32.5% of $37K to $87K, and 37% of $87K up to $180K = $54,232,
which is about 30.1%). Even by the point you're making a million dollars a
year you're still only paying 42% marginal rate, even though you're well into
the 45% tax bracket.

I'm generally not super opposed to having a rate as high as 60%, but the point
that kicks in with Sweeden's system does seem very low...

------
Reedx
She worked at the same company for 67 years!

That's worth an article itself. How many people have managed that?

------
chubot
What a great story! I imagine she must have been profoundly content in life.
She had no need to show off her wealth or even to acquire material things
beyond what she needed.

------
burntrelish1273
The manager (not owner) of a local storage facility lives extremely frugally:
eats bananas, oatmeal, an apple and sandwich he brings from home. He has a
number of stocks he watches daily after he finishes various tasks. He's the
prototypical "millionaire next door."

------
matt4077
Let’s not ignore that she was clearly capable of much more than being a
secretary, and that she was denied realizing her potential because of her
gender.

------
gcb0
if this is legal, what prevents google from reading emails and investing on
the same stocks as one economist that happens to use gmail?

~~~
betterworldb
per A Random Walk Down Wall Street ([https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-
Wall-Street/dp/03933...](https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-
Street/dp/0393330338)) 99+% of people are best off not picking individual
stocks and just investing in index funds.

------
icantdrive55
Just looked up the nonprofits 990's and it looks like a decent nonprofit.

I only looked at the three highest paid employees though. I didn't calculate
adverting, and company expenses to money sent out to the cause. I never used
to be this leary of nonprofits. I guess I'm just getting old, and seen way too
many people abusing nonprofit status?

(Waystar takes public information and makes it easy for the user to evaluate a
501c3. Waystar recently made it harder to access the financials, but they are
still Free with registration. You can see the last three years usually. Use a
throwaway email because they do like to market.)

------
klochner
Lawyers aren't known for their stock picking, I wonder if she was piggybacking
on insider trading by M&A lawyers.

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
Saving $5000 per year for 75 years compounded annually at 6.2% would net you a
little over $8M. An unremarkable return on an unremarkable savings rate.

~~~
davidgay
I don't think a 21year old secretary was saving the equivalent of $70k 2018
dollars in 1943.

~~~
garmaine
Who said anything about $70k?

~~~
Mtinie
Andre_Wanglin alluded to it, though $70k was a slight overstatement.

With the effective inflation rate, $5,000 in 1947 was equivalent to $58,035 in
2018.

[https://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=5000&year1=194...](https://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=5000&year1=194701&year2=201803)

~~~
Retric
He was using 5k inflation adjusted dollars so starting with ~350 actual $/
year in 1947.

Really, just do the calculation.

------
lopmotr
This is why I don't have sympathy for chronically poor people in developed
countries. Apart from serious disabilities, most poor people actually have
high incomes but can't stop spending money every day on luxuries to entertain
themselves.

~~~
k3d
> most poor people actually have high incomes

what is your evidence for this? take america as a "developed country"

~~~
lopmotr
Here are some stats I just looked up for the US:

$7.25 minimum wage

90% of households own a car [1].

In many cities, rent is about 15% of income, and median rent is less than
minimum wage [2].

0.64/100000 malnutrition deaths [3].

[1] [https://qz.com/873704/no-car-households-are-becoming-more-
co...](https://qz.com/873704/no-car-households-are-becoming-more-common-in-
the-us-after-decades-of-decline/)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/best-cities-for-cheap-
rent.h...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/best-cities-for-cheap-rent.html)

[3] [http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-
death/malnutriti...](http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-
death/malnutrition/by-country/)

~~~
k3d
literally none of that meaningfully indicates that "most [american] poor
people actually have high incomes".

minimum wage means nothing without considering cost of living which outpaces a
40 hour work week at 7.25 (or even the potentially higher state minimum wage)
basically everywhere in the country [1]

as per your article, a) car ownership is dropping, b) a household having a car
can mean sharing it with a number of other people c) 90% of households having
a car is not relevant to a discussion only about those in poverty and d) in
most non-urban environments, having a car is a necessity, not a luxury, if you
want to be able to, y'know, get to work and the grocery store [2][3]

sure, some cities are more affordable than others. what percentage of the
country lives in those cities? do you expect everyone to move there? if so, do
you think those affordable rents will stay affordable? additionally, please
explain, in detail, your full plan for moving when you have no savings, and
for mitigating the effects of leaving your job, the place you know, as well as
all your friends and family who provide a vital safety net in case of
emergency.

i literally do not know what you're trying to say with the malnutrition deaths
note- do you think that having access to a social safety network in the form
of foodstamps means you're not poor or something? lol

[1] [https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/09/mapping-the-
difference-...](https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/09/mapping-the-difference-
between-minimum-wage-and-cost-of-living/404644/) [2]
[https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2018/march/distance-
to-...](https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2018/march/distance-to-grocery-
stores-and-vehicle-access-influence-food-spending-by-low-income-households-at-
convenience-stores/) [3]
[https://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/PovertyBrief.pdf](https://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/PovertyBrief.pdf)

------
somequestions
This is no doubt a very selfless act, however, I don't agree with people of
such wealth living in a rent controlled apartment for so many years and
denying a genuinely underprivileged person/family the opportunity to live
there.

~~~
fdr
The problem is this style of rent control, not her.

~~~
somequestions
So you disagree with means-testing social welfare? At all times she had the
option to use her substantial wealth and live somewhere that wasn't
subsidised.

~~~
fdr
No, I agree with means-testing it. Rent control is not means-tested. That's my
problem with it.

------
verelo
Is it just me or do you get the feeling it's possible her bosses may have been
doing inside trades and she just got lucky by a) not knowing what was going on
and b) copying the trades?

I love the story either way, it just jumped out to me that she obviously 'beat
the market' which typically means you knew something others in the market
didn't.

~~~
chubot
Why do you say she "obviously beat the market"?

Estimate that the stock market has returned 7% a year for last 67 years
(counting inflation, counting dividends).

Then if she saved $6,300 per year for 67 years, she would have ended up with
over $8.2M if she used an indexing strategy (no insider trading necessary).

    
    
        rate = 1.07 
        num_years = 67
        yearly_savings = 6300  # dollars 
        net_worth = 0      
        for _ in xrange(num_years): 
          net_worth *= rate
          net_worth += yearly_savings
        print '{:,.2f}'.format(net_worth) 
    
        8,284,436.90
    

If you change it to 6% return, she would have have to save $10,200 a year. I'm
sure 90% of the people reading this can save $6,000 - $10,000 a year. All you
need is a regular job.

Yes there are some things wrong with this analysis, but the point is:
_compound interest_ !!!

(Feel free to post a better analysis, using real data instead of the
annualized return. The results shouldn't be substantially different. The
returns are adjusted for inflation but the amount of savings per year amount
probably should be too. $6K is easy to save today, probably wasn't in 1955.
Also probably take into account that fees were higher in 1955 and index funds
have gotten better.)

~~~
sologoub
That math really doesn’t work - $6,300 67 years ago (1951) in today’s money
would be $61,478.82
([https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)).

She would definitely have to do well in the market, but I wonder what her
earnings looked like as well over time - Cleary Gottlieb is a VERY successful
law firm. If there was any kind of profit sharing or other incentives, it
could have been fairly lucrative. Stock would have been better, but still.

~~~
chubot
Yeah, that's the point I mentioned in "6K is easy to save today but wasn't in
1955".

I'm interested to see an analysis that takes that into account. But I don't
think it changes the overall conclusion. I think that starting in 1951, on a
secretary's salary, you could have used an indexing strategy to end up with
$8.2M. Should be pretty easy to prove or disprove.

One thing I don't know is how much secretaries made back then. Presumably her
wages increased a non-neglible amount over time.

~~~
verelo
In 1955 $6k was very much likely over 50% of her yearly income. Agreed,
unlikely.

------
ggm
Is this technically "insider trading" in as much as she had privileged
information to inform her buys, which were not general market exposed?

I think not, they were personal buys from her line bosses, but I'm scratching
my head a bit, if this would have been ethical had the buys being made in the
office been for clients, and not her direct employers personal benefit.

~~~
mstade
Unless her bosses traded on insider information I don’t think it is. I work
for a bank and get training in this sort of stuff every three months, but I’m
certainly no lawyer so don’t take my word for it – I may well be wrong.

~~~
prklmn
It’s not uncommon for trades to be made in the wake of outsized unusual
options trading activity in a stock on the theory that the unusual options
activity is made by someone trading on insider knowledge. I’m not a lawyer
either but I don’t think that qualifies as insider trading.

