Best part of the article was almost a sidebar: When you have Enough, the extra money means very little. I’ve been broke, and being broke sucks balls. Having Enough is awesome. How would I define “Enough”? Enough means that you can take a friend out to a nice lunch and not have to worry about how much it costs. I have hung out with a couple of billionaires—my experiences indicate that being a billionaire is just incre…
As someone who would absolutely love to be a billionaire (I once wrote an 'Ode to Wealth', it's under my comments somewhere), honest question: What makes that the best part of the article?
At the end of the day no one can argue that someone that lives on $20,000 a month doesn't have a better quality of life than someone living on $5000 a month.
I totally appreciate the sentiment in the article but at the end of the day, money equals freedom.
If I had assets of $5 to $10 million in investments throwing off $200k-$500k a year in cash, that would be a nice lifestyle indeed.
Does it mean I would work any less harder? Probably not. But, if I want to take that 3-4 month trip to Europe and spend 50k on the trip, then that's what I would do.
And I think the comparison is wrong. Being billionaire is incrementally better than a multimillionaire (let's say net worth of $5 million and beyond).
Making $100k a year is definitely not close to somebody making $500k a year.
In terms of starting a company and the risks involved, I think for most people that do it, its an itch. The money is the reward but that's not why we want to do it.
I also think that the odds increase dramatically when you focus on building a business where you don't expect it to ever go IPO or be worth more than 5-10 million.