11–20 of 27 posts
Social workers don't earn $11M in a lifetime, and are unlikely to earn $2M total - this type of wealth cannot be amassed by frugality. This is irresponsible journalism.
"Naiman became a social worker after leaving a career in banking."
"Naiman received a sizable inheritance when his father died, which added to his fortune."
Social workers don't earn $11M in a lifetime, and are unlikely to earn $2M total - this type of wealth cannot be amassed by frugality. This is irresponsible journalism.
Suppose he was just a social worker. Suppose you saved 30k from your job and invested in amazon when it started. It would be worth 30 mil today. But that would require being frugal and not pulling that money out and leaving the compounding effects to work.
The time and effort most people put into the former is much greater over a lifetime than the latter.
In this case you can see what happens when the rule flips.
Social workers don't earn $11M in a lifetime, and are unlikely to earn $2M total - this type of wealth cannot be amassed by frugality. This is irresponsible journalism.
It can be frittered away by a lack thereof. I’ve seen lots of bankers blow through unseemly quantities of wealth due to a lack of financial planning.
Social workers don't earn $11M in a lifetime, and are unlikely to earn $2M total - this type of wealth cannot be amassed by frugality. This is irresponsible journalism.
Social workers don't earn $11M in a lifetime, and are unlikely to earn $2M total - this type of wealth cannot be amassed by frugality. This is irresponsible journalism.
In this case the article says he got a couple million from his parents. He was also a banker as well. Suppose he was just a social worker. Suppose you saved 30k from your job and invested in amazon when it started. It would be worth 30 mil today. But that would require being frugal and not pulling that money out and leaving the compounding effects to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
{citation needed} Rather than "most", I reckon there are very few people who spend that much wealth, and they all have articles written about them.
around 70% of lottery winners end up filing bankruptcy. Lots of professional athletes go broke as well. The rich don't always get richer, most people will revert to mean if they essentially got lucky https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/why_do_...
""" Over the past couple of years several news organizations have attributed a statistic to the National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) stating that 70 percent of lottery winners end up bankrupt in just a few years after receiving a large financial windfall. This statistic is not backed by research from NEFE, nor can it be confirmed by the organization. Frequent reporting—without validation from NEFE—has allowed this “stat” to survive online in perpetuity. """
(https://www.nefe.org/Press-Room/News/Research-Statistic-on-F...)
Social workers don't earn $11M in a lifetime, and are unlikely to earn $2M total - this type of wealth cannot be amassed by frugality. This is irresponsible journalism.
Social workers don't earn $11M in a lifetime, and are unlikely to earn $2M total - this type of wealth cannot be amassed by frugality. This is irresponsible journalism.
But it's important to note that the key to amass wealth is investing not collecting paychecks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how much of it can be attributed to frugalness remains questionable. All of it. Most people that luck into wealth spend it all if they are not schooled in the arts of finance. A couple of shopping sprees, a bad investment here and there, a bad fund manager and it's all gone.
Yet there are many frugal people in the world who have never been millionaires.