Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#31

Post by lern_too_spel »

dangus wrote: post #15

Some questions lingered in the back of my mind after I read this article: - How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make? Is their healthcare fully covered? Do they have generous paid time off and access to higher education for themselves and their children? Was any of his fortune used to give back to the employees whose labor built his wealth in the first place? - Does this dude realize how difficult it is…

> Was any of his fortune used to give back to the employees whose labor built his wealth in the first place?

No idea. Maybe some of it was.

> Does this dude realize how difficult it is to get into Cornell compared to when he went there on the GI bill?

His donation to Cornell was earmarked for opening a new campus (Cornell Tech) to employ more educators and educate more students. It wasn't for replacing a stadium and putting his name on it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#32

Post by brewdad »

egypturnash wrote: post #29

"When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement" Two million is, like, the opposite of broke for the vast majority of Americans. But this is Forbes.

Using the 4% rule, $2 million gives you an income stream of $80,000 a year in retirement. Comfortable but hardly lavish.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#34

Post by chadrs »

dpflan wrote: post #14
sudhirj wrote: post #6

This is a role model I can actually appreciate. I can't figure out why this is the first time I've heard of him. I've seen lots of news about people buying expensive shit, but the fact that this has never come to my attention is a horrible indicator of what the media chooses to report on.

I suggest that it does not align with consumerism/capitalist ideologies which are used in the feedback loop to promote themselves/further substantiate their existence and influence in culture. Philanthropy is great, but to some extent I think the argument that properly taxing such capitalistic gains could have greater effect on society when properly used by the system that can support massive scale projects (i.e. the…

It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$).

If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers.

Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#36

Post by zozbot234 »

hogFeast wrote: post #30
zozbot234 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to "become extremely rich" for charitable giving to be quite worthwhile. Even donating trivial amounts of money to high-impact charity can easily come with a factor of 1000× in value created, compared to just spending the same amount of money on your own private consumption. (Of course this assumes that you're choosing the right causes, generally involving very poor countries and the like; not just "do…

You can also donate your time.

Well, if you're working in paid employment it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. "Donating your time" can of course be genuinely worthwhile if you're, e.g. a scientist who might want to do useful research on globally-relevant, critical issues; just not very much otherwise.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#37

Post by epylar »

brewdad wrote: post #32
egypturnash wrote: post #29

"When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement" Two million is, like, the opposite of broke for the vast majority of Americans. But this is Forbes.

Using the 4% rule, $2 million gives you an income stream of $80,000 a year in retirement. Comfortable but hardly lavish.

$2 million in retirement savings puts him above 90th percentile for retirements savings for any age. The maximum 90th percentile I can find is $619,000.00 at ages 60-64. https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-by-age-united-states/

If he's broke, then at least 90% of retirees are broke.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#39

Post by quickthrower2 »

Multiplayer wrote: post #5

I cannot get my head around this. To be that good at making money and that intent at giving it away is such a massive paradox not to mention paradigm shift from how we typically discuss wealth and wealth accumulators. Looking for video interviews....

He didn’t get caught up in the money trap that almost everyone is, and I wondered how he did that? Is it religion? Is it innate morals? How he was raised? Very interesting.

Hope I can learn something from this. What does a non rich person do? I guess it is about trying to influence things rather than injecting money.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#40

Post by sandworm101 »

>>> When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement.

I don't know about everyone else on HN, but having 2mil in the bank is not my definition of "Broke". I want to see what trusts have been setup. What life estates has he retained? I credit him for giving most all of it away, but "broke" doesn't mean you are worth 0.0001% of some huge number. Broke means you might not cover next month's rent and are parking your car at a friend's to hide it from the repo guy.

Post reply on HN