21–27 of 27 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet there are many frugal people in the world who have never been millionaires.
Sure. It's necessary, not sufficient. The only way to get and stay rich is to not spend all of your money. It may seem obvious, but it's a step that many high earners seem to forget.
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.
I mean, the guy had a career in banking, he's not someone off the street who won the lottery. He could also have inherited $30M, then lost most of it. The title makes it seem like he was clipping coupons and eating ramen. "Banker-turned-social-worker leaves $11M to children's charities" would be a more honest headline.
He was doing that. He was also working multiple jobs. He also had an inheritance. It was all of these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I mean it would also require the foresight of going all in on one of the biggest companies of the decade, and keeping it through the rest of the industry was falling apart. This argument is fairly akin to "Suppose he won the lottery."
As for accumulating $11M, it's not surprising. Decades of spending less than you earn, combined with wise investing, are known to produce riches even for modest earners. (Of course the inheritance must have helped. But I bet he'd be well off even without it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet there are many frugal people in the world who have never been millionaires.
Sure. It's necessary, not sufficient. The only way to get and stay rich is to not spend all of your money. It may seem obvious, but it's a step that many high earners seem to forget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. It's necessary, not sufficient. The only way to get and stay rich is to not spend all of your money. It may seem obvious, but it's a step that many high earners seem to forget.
Spot on. Spending less than you earn is a prerequisite to accumulated wealth. Going the opposite direction is a formula for poverty. In both cases, it works without regard for the level of income.