Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be • Hacker News Board

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#51

Post by SlipperySlope » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #43

SlipperySlope wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dynamics of capitalism put wealth into the control of its wisest custodians - frugality being defined as among the wise virtues in this context. For those who argue that democratic government is the wisest custodian, e.g. there is estate taxation and government redistribution and investment.

Are you saying rich people are wiser than poor people therefore they deserve to be rich? Capitalism made Justin Bieber rich. This makes him a wise custodian of wealth. Not only is my previous statement wrong, but so is yours.

Capitalism does not entail that the wealthy deserve what they have, only that if they are not wise with respect to their wealth they will lose it.

With regard to Mr. Bieber, or celebrities/sports stars in general - there are many foolish ways for them to lose their wealth and only a degree of frugality, i.e. living within their means, will preserve it.

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#52

Post by dylanjermiah » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #43

SlipperySlope wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dynamics of capitalism put wealth into the control of its wisest custodians - frugality being defined as among the wise virtues in this context. For those who argue that democratic government is the wisest custodian, e.g. there is estate taxation and government redistribution and investment.

Are you saying rich people are wiser than poor people therefore they deserve to be rich? Capitalism made Justin Bieber rich. This makes him a wise custodian of wealth. Not only is my previous statement wrong, but so is yours.

People who have earned great amounts of wealth do not get it by stealing it, they provide a product or service in which others choose to purchase. The more people which the product or service provides value to the more wealth the person will make.

Like him or not, Justin Bieber has proved valuable to quite a large sub set of the population.

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#53

Post by walshemj » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

aptwebapps wrote: post #46

siscia wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannot read the article, however, we should be careful about the definition of "millionaires". If we define "millionaires" as the individual with 1M of worth asset you are definitely right. If we define "millionaires" as High-Net-Worth individual (HNWi), the people who have at least 1M in investable finance without counting the primary residence it start to get more interesting. However, if we define "millionaires" a…

I believe your first option is the conventional one so while the others might be interesting they aren't what the article is talking about.

I think you normally discount primary residence

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#54

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:13 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #42

SlipperySlope wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its clear to me that the article's family are still living well below their means. Multiple homes make sense for those who are frugal enough to restrict vacations mostly to the second home, which if well-located can appreciate in value faster than inflation. Frugal families often have such assets that appreciate, rather than expenses or possessions that depreciate.

> Frugal families often have such assets that appreciate, rather than expenses or possessions that depreciate. i'll repeat myself. the people in this article have both , like most successful people in general. it's not a mutually exclusive choice. this article is basically not making any kind of point whatsoever. what's the thesis of the article? that most successful people don't blow all their money on bullshit like…

[deleted]

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#55

Post by crimsonalucard » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:14 PM UTC

jsonjson wrote: post #26

crimsonalucard wrote: post #16

Please note that although we respect frugality over lavishness. Frugality among rich people is one of the primary reasons behind wealth inequality. Sitting on top of an perverse amount of wealth and not doing anything with it is bad for the economy. Wealth needs to be redeployed back into the economy and it must be done in following a method that doesn't grow the wealth in an unnatural compounding way.

Unless they've sacked their money away under their mattress, it has been deployed back into the economy. It is either invested or in a bank where the majority of it has grown the pie of total dollars through loans (this is often not well understood). If I have ten dollars that I place in a bank, they will only hold the required reserve. Assuming this is 30%, then seven will get distributed in loans. The effective siz…

Yes. This is true. I mean wealth in terms of wealth ownership. Compounding interest from loans, dividends, or stock investments causes the amount of wealth "owned" by rich people to grow unnaturally.

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#56

Post by drpgq » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:17 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #37

gizmo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's laughable to suggest splurging on a 300k Ferrari is irresponsible at $10M < assets < $100M.

Everyone's appetite for risk is different. If I had $10,000,001.00 in the bank, I personally would not feel secure enough to spend $300k on a car (and also pay all the expensive maintenance that it entails.) Since the car is 3% of my available funds, I'd be constantly hyper paranoid about a stray rock being kicked up by the truck in front of me. If I had $100 million, the $300k car would feel a little more "disposabl…

If you have $10 million you should give the Ferrari no more thought than a Camry. No if you have fifteen Ferraris that's where things become problematic.

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#57

Post by walshemj » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:19 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #27

jasode wrote: post #15

The millionaires at $1m to $10m absolutely DO have to be "frugal" if we use define "frugal" to be about "smart spending" as opposed to fishing pennies out of public fountains. The word "million" is deceptive because it is an amount beyond what 99% have. It makes it seem like some mind boggling amount of money but mathematically, it really isn't that much. A person classified as "millionaire" could be tagged that beca…

It's laughable to suggest splurging on a 300k Ferrari is irresponsible at $10M < assets < $100M.

And a good classic car does not depreciate in the same way a bmw 7 series does.

And for the cost of a fully loaded BMW you can get a very nice classic. and probably buy a cheap ford for daily runabout even the gt500 super snake is fairly cheap.

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#58

Post by drpgq » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #50

The Millionaire bar is lowered each year at the rate of inflation. So to see how I'm really doing vs. my generation, I factor in inflation since my birth date, and that is the number I need to achieve 'Millionaire' status. It's somewhat arbitrary, but for me, that's about $6,000,000 in 2015 dollars....

Yeah when they made the film How to Marry a Millionaire in 1953 with Marilyn Monroe, a million really meant something.

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#59

Post by SlipperySlope » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #42

SlipperySlope wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its clear to me that the article's family are still living well below their means. Multiple homes make sense for those who are frugal enough to restrict vacations mostly to the second home, which if well-located can appreciate in value faster than inflation. Frugal families often have such assets that appreciate, rather than expenses or possessions that depreciate.

> Frugal families often have such assets that appreciate, rather than expenses or possessions that depreciate. i'll repeat myself. the people in this article have both , like most successful people in general. it's not a mutually exclusive choice. this article is basically not making any kind of point whatsoever. what's the thesis of the article? that most successful people don't blow all their money on bullshit like…

The thesis of this article is that a frugal lifestyle may lead to relative wealth that permits occasional splurges.

I regard the article as inspiring to someone who wants to become successful later in life due to their wealth, despite a modest job history.

Re: Millionaires Who Are Frugal When They Don't Have to Be

#60

Post by walshemj » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #6

Nrsolis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person who travels regularly for work I can say you have quite a romantic view of business travel. The reality is that I usually see (in this order) an airport, a taxi, a conference room, a hotel dining room and/or bar, a hotel room, a taxi, an airport. The idea that there is much downtime on a business trip is a fantasy of those who don't travel for work.

This is absolutely true. Then again do you ever schedule a day or two off before or after a business trip? Mini-vacation with free airfare!

You need to plan it I spent a month for work in Edinburgh once and didn't come back so I had 4 weekend breaks staying in the Balmoral (most expensive hotel in town).

Unfortunately my plan to do the same for the Edinburgh fringe did not work out