[Newfie]

Elsewhere a couple of guys were discussing ultra wealth yacht owners. I though their comments might be interesting to a few folks here.

This is quote 1, quote 2 will be in the next post.

You obviously don't know many extremely rich folks. During my years as a "yachtmaster' on the motor yachts, not one of my owners was much interested in the yacht as anything more than a status symbol. They were consumed by their true love, making and managing their money, to the exclusion of all else. Even in a beautiful, quiet, far from the beaten path anchorage in the Bahamas, one made himself miserable every day because he couldn't get a Wall Street Journal. He wanted me to spend 8 hours a day in the radio room getting him quarter hourly stock market updates, for crying out loud! (Not my job; hire a radio operator.) He sat around moping instead of enjoying the fruits of his labors and spending quality time w/his family, and he was not at all unique.
People w/that kinda money seem driven beyond their own control and often appear to find their only pleasure in the acquisition and management of wealth. That's fine for them, I guess, and it gave me good employment (they weren't often aboard more than a few weeks a year), but it was tough on the families it seemed, as most were many times divorced.
I don't honestly believe that we are anything like the really rich. It just isn't possible for one of us to say, "If I had that kind of money....", because we haven't invested that much of ourselves into making that kind of money, or we would have it. Not one of my former employers got rich by luck or 'being in the right place at the right time'. Every single one of them got there through hard work, long hours and dedication. And the willingness to risk absolutely everything.
I personally preferred not to spend my life chasing the almighty dollar, to the exclusion of all else.

[Newfie]

Second quote

I have a few Uber wealthy friends. 9 figure net worths. One of my closest friends and his family lost $100mm in the Maddof scandal and it didn’t set their lifestyle back one bit. Obviously, it hurt, but they had more than enough left to keep on.

Think what it’s like when you get to the kind of net worth that even market crashes can’t change your opulent lifestyle.

Not a one of them is still going for the money. They don’t worship money, that’s just what people think. They worship the game. Taking risk, being smarter than the next guy, winning, etc. The money is just the score in the game, so they know if they won. They literally don’t need the money. They need the entrepreneurial fix. Sure, there are a few bad apples, money hungry people in all walks of life. But that’s not typically how these Uber rich get Uber rich. What they do is the addiction, not the cash.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Second quote

The money is just the score in the game, so they know if they won. They literally don’t need the money.

So is this what all the $100+ thousand cars, mansions, etc. are really about? Keeping score?

Because you can't convince me that ANYBODY really needs ultra-luxury goods, unless it's special furniture for health problems or something like that.

...

To me, luxury is not having to WORRY about day to day normal financial stuff. I'd rather have a $20,000 car that I know I can replace, if I'm unlucky enough to have it turn out to be a lemon that the dealer can't fix. (Don't laugh. I've seen it happen multiple times. All a warranty says is they'll TRY to fix it). Or replace if it's nearly totalled and becomes a nightmare as an insurance company and repair shop battle each other for months, while you just want a reliable car to drive. (This happened to me. I stuck with it to save a few grand. Next time, I have better ways to spend my time and energy.)

...

I thought to have a good life was to be happy and feel like your life has meaning. Adding one or a few zeroes to one's net worth won't change that a bit, unless I am missing something.

[mmasters]

I don't think anybody really needs more than a few million. These ultra rich aren't happy.

[AdTheNad]

Tax them more. Current levels of wealth disparity are obscene. They are not in it for the money, and tax rates don’t affect their love of the game. They may work harder to avoid the taxes but that is not insurmountable.

[Newfie]

Better yet, make them celebrities for how much tax they pay. The guy that pays the most tax gets some special congressional medal and is honored at a state dinner. Cover article on Time; “America’s Greatest Supporter”. Do the same for corporations, lauded them for how they are supporting their home country.

[Ibon]

Better yet, make them celebrities for how much tax they pay. The guy that pays the most tax gets some special congressional medal and is honored at a state dinner. Cover article on Time; “America’s Greatest Supporter”. Do the same for corporations, lauded them for how they are supporting their home country.

You can't change power and status as the prime motivations after you achieve the first millions or so but what you can change are the symbols that represent that status as you suggest here.

Related to power and status is the need to win, the competition to out do your rivals.

Your funny idea here actually has a deep cultural significance. When the symbols that honor our leaders are oriented around service, support, philanthropy this ripples down through the masses who always want to emulate their leaders.

As Utopian as this sounds this truly is how you build a resilient society.

[Cog]

I don't know how much is enough, but I do know its none of my business how much another person has or how he obtained it(assuming legally).

[Ibon]

I don't know how much is enough, but I do know its none of my business how much another person has or how he obtained it(assuming legally).

You were not born with this opinion, you were socialized to believe this way. There is no real autonomy as you suggest.

[Cog]

So we are born to be jealous of how much the guy down the street makes relative to us? And we were born to feel entitled to determine what another person needs?

I find the challenges of life are enough for me without involving myself in the speculation and desire to control what others need or do.

[Ibon]

I was thinking about Tanada's historical perspective and also Cog's earlier comment and something occurred to me. The abundance of the fossil fuel age really did allow individuals more autonomy to abandon civic engagement and a sense of community in pursuit of individual materialism. All of us can think back to our childhoods or those of our parents and consider that with each past generation you see a more cohesive sense of community and civic duty and engagement. Probably the number one reason I ended up living in poorer countries for most of my life has been the greater sense of community I have found in these countries. It really is linked to the strength of an economy.

So when Tanada posted on the other thread about a couple of billion global population one day and a significant percentage once again engaged in agriculture when our energy regimen falls to a lower level, it is significant to consider the cultural changes that will take place and it can be assumed that with less abundance and opulence we will return to cultural values that will once again honor civic engagement and more civic duty.

In this light Newfie's suggestion might not be that far fetched in honoring those wealthy individuals who serve, support and contribute and make this the new "status symbol" . In the late 19th century with an empty frontier our society honored railroad barons and those that opened the frontier with quite draconian monopolies. This was possible because of the untapped reserves and wealth of a young nation. These cultural values will not fly on the descent when we are managing increasing constraints.

I think it is correct that culture is largely influenced by economics. The individualism expressed by Cog is a hallmark of the economic abundance of the last 150 years. Upcoming constraints will strain this ideal of individual liberty to pursue wealth regardless of the consequences to the rest of society. This was possible when we had wide open frontiers and abundant energy and wealth. This will not fly in the future when constraints obligate more regulation. This has nothing to do with promoting a more "socialist" agenda. It is simply a question of how a society will be obligated to organize itself with less wealth, a weaker economy and the need to maintain social stability.

[Newfie]

So we are born to be jealous of how much the guy down the street makes relative to us? And we were born to feel entitled to determine what another person needs?

I find the challenges of life are enough for me without involving myself in the speculation and desire to control what others need or do.

This in fact seems to be quite the case. We are a bunch of busy bodies. Your attitude is an outlier. Not passing judgement just relating what I know of human nature. Humans are intensely interested in the rich and famous, just look at all the silly magazines, TV shows, media dedicated to it.

To your last statement I agree with the sentiment, not sure it is really a smart idea though. Follow the money and all that. My sense is that these ultra wealth basically have some rather serious personality disorder that screws with their sense of priority. Because they so much influence in our culture we are in essence being run by a cult of very emotionally damage persons. They probably are not at making decisions that support liberty, personal freedom, or the future.

[ROCKMAN]

Lots of interesting comments. And as usual not much said about the benefits of having wealthy folks in the population. Such as the most obvious: how many here (and around the world) have gotten paychecks from poor people? How many here are part of the population that pay very little of the taxes collected by the govt while the wealthy pay the vast majority of that govt revenue?

There’s no point in listing the very wealthy who not created their wealth but generated $millions in salaries for mucho workers as well has $billions in tax revenue. Those that cannot accept the facts for whatever reason won’t change their views of the very rich. The Rockman has only his personal experiences to draw on. For almost 10 years the Rockman worked for a BILLIONAIRE. A son of a not very wealthy fisherman that worked his way thru college and eventually got his Ph.d. Who then worked for NASA for a while and also taught in college. Who had an idea about using computers in their early days to aid in stock trading. An idea soundly rejected by the big trading houses he pitched it to. And then began creating personal wealth for him and his family. Wealth that freed him from ever working again.

But for him not working/creating was boring. Fortunate for the many thousands of folks that worked for the dozen or so companies he created. Fortunate for the cancer research programs he contributed tens of $millions to support. Fortunate for the genetic research programs he contributed tens of $millions to support. Not surprising he was on the board of directors of one of the largest research hospitals in Houston.

But he did love his expensive toys. Such as the island he bought in the Bahamas. And that allowed him to play with more expensive toys such as solar panels, wind turbines and state of the art battery technology. All together it allowed him to create his most impressive toy: the first fully energy sustainable island in the Bahamas. And island often visited by world class renewable energy researchers. Just one more side effect of the “obscene” wealth he has created. Essentially created from nothing.

Of course, there are other very wealthy folks out there that don’t have such a track record. But I doubt you’ll fine many whose wealth didn’t come from activities that benefited someone’s economy. OTOH despite what many believe the very wealthy don’t drive the US economy: ”In 2014, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.83 million employer firms in the United States. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses. Those with less than 20 workers made up 89.4 percent of businesses.” IOW the overwhelming majority of US workers DO NOT get paycheck from a billionaire. In fact, it’s likely very few of the almost 9 out of 10 workers get paid by a millionaire. But they are getting paid by someone who is likely busting their ass to climb into the very wealthy category.

Like my billionaire former employer who had 5 employees in the first company he started. If you count him and his wife. LOL.

[Newfie]

Rockman
In YOUR Humble Opionion, does this achievement give him some special place in running the government? Sort of access to the inner circles, admitted to the court? Is his success in business a prerequisite, or qualifying event for the circles of power?

[KaiserJeep]

Yet in spite of Tanada's reasonable prediction for an energy-constrained tomorrow, the trends today are still in the opposite direction. I did a quick online check and presently about 2.0% of our population (which figure includes both citizens and resident non-citizens) reside on farms. This compares with 2.2% in 1986, just 32 years ago. The suburbs are ever so slightly smaller in population, the cities are where the population has grown significantly.

Corporate farm acreage is up, petroleum fuels consumed in agriculture are also up, overall acreage under cultivation is down, number of family run farms is down. The average US family income spent on food is down from about 19% in 1986 to 9.2% in 2017. That is kinda deceptive because the income brackets changed in size in those years, and the lowest income 20% population spend 33% on food and the highest income 20% spends about 8% in food, but considerably more in absolute dollar amounts. (All are USDA figures from Wikipedia.)

But I'll have to say, the trends don't appear to be doomish at all. More population in unsustainable cities, about the same in unsustainable suburbs, fewer in rural areas, all spending less income on food.

What Doom?

[Ibon]

But I'll have to say, the trends don't appear to be doomish at all. More population in unsustainable cities, about the same in unsustainable suburbs, fewer in rural areas, all spending less income on food.

I'll say. The largest human migration story in the history of our species happened in the past 30 years when over 400 million Chinese left agrarian subsistence agriculture and migrated to urban areas in pursuit of factory jobs. And their diets have improved with per capita meat consumption more than tripling in the past 10 years.

China still consumes a lot more meat than any other country. People here will eat about 74 million tonnes of pork, beef and poultry this year, around twice as much as the United States, according to U.S. agriculture department estimates. More than half of that is pork and for foreign producers it has been a big growth market, especially for Western-style packaged meats.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN19A31C

Doom is deferred! Just imagine though the headache for the Chinese central government if one day a global recession sends even half of these recent migrants back to the hinterlands!

[Newfie]

KJ
Past performance is no guarantee of future income.

[Newfie]

For me “enough” cake when I hit $100,000/year. We had low debt and a plan to retire with passive income. In all reasonable scenarios we would be able to retire comfortable. So I started to take more time off. This created a bit of a stir with the HR lady, she could not fathom the concept but went along. I’ve reported before how colleages reacted. I eventually moved to a different company where my status was officially part time, but I got full time benefits. I eventually got down to 24 hours/week average while maintaing $100k income. I valued the time off more than the money.

I was extremely lucky to have such a job that allowed all that to occur. It was good work with good people who treated me well, my best job ever. But I still wanted more life, which I now have.

Anyway, that’s my story and take on “what’s enough.”

[Cog]

Everyone has a different level of how much time they want to put into the job versus how much free time they want. There was an opportunity, before I retired, to go that next step up to department head. But managing individual projects for my company was enjoyable but did not have the added stress of managing the whole show. Department heads live the job even when they aren't working. No thanks.

Like Newfie said, time away from the job is very valuable. Pick a target at which you are comfortable and do that.

[Newfie]

And Cog, I would add that folks who can’t step away from the job, those that are obsessed with the job, are poor leadership candidates. They don’t understand real people or how systems work. They may be brilliant in their barrow filed but they are unlikely to be well balanced folks.

I was a department head and stepped down. You are right, it’s no longer fun or rewarding.