Figure out how much you think is `life changing', e.g. $2M. Chop that into $50k steps, e.g. $2M is 40 $50k steps. So which one of those 40 steps is the one that changes your life?

It's obvious that for at least 80% of people in `wealthy' nations, and almost everyone in poor nations, $50k is a significant chunk of money, that can make a meaningful step towards more financial security.

I've misclicked for more than 50k and I am still working my ass off to be truly independent.

fallacy much?

You are not acknowledging the fact that a large % of those 168 hours during the week are spent sleeping, thus the 35-60 hours a week someone spends at their job ends up having a more significant impact on their lifestyle than you seem to suggest by comparing it to 60/168. Someone that's working 60 hours a week that sleeps 8 hours each night is working 60 out of their 112 waking hours of their life. That would be more than half of their life (in waking hours) is spent at their job. If you don't think something that you're spending half of your waking hours at is going to have a large correlation to ones quality of life then I'd have to say I disagree entirely.

And no, I don't just believe the only option is to stop working. The other option is to do something that you genuinely enjoy for a living. I am of the belief that your quality of life is going to largely be impacted by what you do on a day to day basis and if you are working long hours at a job that you are unhappy at then quality of life takes a nosedive. Same reason I believe some CEO that hates his job but makes some huge salary has a crappy quality of life. Having a bunch of money in the bank and nice car in the parking lot means nothing if you're still spending more than half of your waking hours of your life at some job you dislike. For example I think someone working some job they love (ie: sports commentator, tour guide in exotic location, play video games, whatever the hell is someones dream job) and making far less money, gets more enjoyment out of life than someone miserable with a lot more money in the bank.

As I already mentioned I'm not referring to life changing as in now you can get extra cheese on your whopper or can afford to go to the movies when not at work. I meant for people that aren't already scraping by and can afford those things already, getting more money doesn't change anything in their life. It basically seems as though if you are incredibly poor it will change your lifestyle, but then if you are just fine an have a normal job then the gap for changing your lifestyle again past that is enormous. Basically the entire middle class all have the same lifestyle regardless of the amount of money in the bank. I guess if you value material things though you could make a point that whoever has more money in the bank has the better lifestyle, but I meant in the sense that they are all spending a huge % of their life at work and then just doing whatever when at home or on weekends.

Also I'm not sure what Henry has posted in this thread that gives you the impression that he has true wealth... the only thing I could guess was when he said that $50k wouldn't go far for him. That doesn't mean much other than he blows through money fast.

My point exactly.

No. You are a ****ing idiot. Not every American city is constructed the same. GL not owning a car in Atlanta. Vice versa in NYC. Enjoy walking anywhere in during the 7 months of summer in Houston. And the list of issues specific to locales goes on and on and on.

I guess we can add geography to the growing list of subjects that you don't have a clue about.

50k for me would be pretty lifechanging. I'm not poor by any means, but 50k would be a huge cushion for me. I would insta-quit my job and focus my time on my business and playing poker. I'm planning to do this anyways in a few months, but nonetheless 50k would huge for me in terms of security and investing.

I think this is more of what you were getting at OP.

It's an opportunity to think.

Thats a "special circumstance" though I would argue, and while its in line with the idea OP presented, i think OP was too generically talking about the random joe stumbling into $50k and what it might mean for that random person. You have presented a defined need for a large cash cushion so you can shift focus towards developing a business and stop working - the only reason you continue to work is because you need the cash for everyday living expenses - but if you had a substantial other source of it that required no work...

For most people stumbling into $50k means they get a new car, pay down some debt, a few years of a mortgage and finally be able to start an emergency cash fund. Life(style) changing? No. "Life Comfort Level" changing, Yes.

My answer would be sleep less.

I don't disagree with you that having a job consumes a considerable amount of time and that sucks. I'm the first to say that. Earlier though your posts were such that you were claiming that someone working 50 hours a week to make $50k a year had the equivalent lifestyle to someone working 50 hours to make $500k a year. That simply isn't true.

That is a little unrealistic. I think the best that people can hope for is a job that they are neutral on. If something is enjoyable then you can get people to do it with no or very little monetary compensation.

There is a relation but you make it out to be way stronger than it is. Again you are ignoring that being broke will greatly impact the enjoyment of your non-working time. Once you get into a certain income level considerations of enjoying your employment will becomes a much greater factor due to the marginal utility of money but when we are talking about people who make less than a certain amount no.

I think what you are thinking about is that the utility function of money is not a curve but actually discrete cascading plateaus. Yes that is true. It would look sort of like stairs where the width and hight of the stairs increases with each step up. Someone making $95k and someone making $100k have the same quality of life so if you can make $95K with less stress and hassle you should. Where you go wrong is in assuming the steps are larger than they are. Making $150k is worth putting up with employment that is a more of a hardship than the $95k because you do get enough of a quality of life improvement when not working to end up overall happier.

Did you inherit your vast wealth?

Successful businessmen LOVE their work...
Building their business is a passion/obsession...
For successful Pros poker is an obsession.
A lesser commitment is a waste of time.

That's why dilettante slackers can NEVER compete...
Over the long run they get CRUSHED...
By geniuses (Top 1-2%) who love their work.

so true in every way.

why else do you think Donald goes to work everyday when he can sit at home banging Melania and eating gourmet meals?

Remember that 'lifestyle' and 'happiness levels' are different things, and the only real connection between them is when one person is made miserable because he sees someone else's lifestyle and wants it (or conversely feels better about his own life because he is better off than his neighbor).

I have a friend like this -- rich people depress the crap out of him, although it seems to me he has a pretty comfortable life and plenty to enjoy if he would stop worrying about not being one of the idle rich.

While I would be thrilled for him to find financial success and get all the material wealth he desires, I'm sadly convinced he would then find other reasons to envy other people's lives and feel unsatisfied with his own.

And without a day job, he'd have even more time and energy to dwell on this.

The sad truth is that a great many people could not psychologically handle having a lot of extra time on their hands (e.g., if they won $10M and quit their jobs).

Of course, all of us here could, right?

Ego. Compensation doesn't have to be monetary.

It is a little disingenuous to talk about people on some Forbes list in relation to this topic. The vast majority of employment is not going to have the characteristics of these outliers. We are basically talking about the spectrum from fast food employee to high level professional. When you start to discuss the extreme entrepreneur well that is completely different but it also described a few thousand people.

I think it says more about you than reality if you are trying to sell that only a few thousand 'extreme entrepreneurs' are more than 'neutral' about their job.

I made enough as a teenager to live comfortably but my budget looks like any other young 20s professional. In fact, I had roommates until 2 years ago simply because I enjoyed the company.

My point being is that the people that are purely money hungry are generally that way because they have never had it. I would be willing to bet that if you ran psychological studies on every $10 / hr worker turned mutli millionaire as a result of winning the lottery or massive inheritance or whatever, you would find they are only marginally happier. Now thats saying something.

So you are frugal. I'm not really sure what that says about you enjoying your source of income.

To claim that someone loves to do something means that they would do it even if they did not get money, notoriety, ego boost, fame, status, etc.. So basically would they still do X if they got zero benefit other than the actual enjoyment of doing X. There are very few jobs that you could put in to that statement where it would be true. Most of those involve either a job that is challenging and you get value from the affirmation of being able to do it or jobs that involve helping others.

I don't believe that is true. People focus on lottery winners who make horrible decisions and end up worse off but that is a minority -- a big minority given how unprepared the vast majority of lottery winners are for their life-change -- but still a minority. There is something to be said for the value of desert and people who have desert claims to their wealth do experience greater happiness but that is the icing on the cake -- you still have cake even if you don't have a desert base and that is a lot better than being poor.

That is seriously idiotic. Its basically the same as if your girl said to you 'would you like me if I didnt have huge breasts and loved to f*ck.' If you take out the best parts because of your pseudo romantic ideals, then you can drill down to the obv answer that we are most often motivated by impure things.

The analogy doesn't really hold up.

If you actually enjoy something then why wouldn't you do it without any other benefit then the act itself?

If you claim is that people enjoy making money and having power and status then of course but that is not the same thing as actually enjoying the actual money making mechanism. If the claim is does someone enjoying being a partner at a major law firm then yes as a package they enjoy their occupation but only very rarely do they enjoy the actual practice of law as an end in itself.

I don't dislike what I do but if we ignore desert issues for the moment would I still do it if I had a magic genie that offered to give me everything I have regardless of what I spend my time on? No. So I don't actually love what I do. If I did I would be willing to do it even without being rewarded.

hahahha, this made me laugh.

No one can possibly enjoy any 'money making mechanism' without the associated positive emotional responses. People dont enjoy acts in themselves. They enjoy the emotional responses felt from doing those acts.

Just reread that until you get it.

And if that was your point originally, then you had no point at all.

Compensation and reward is not the same as emotional response to doing an act. If I enjoy solving complex problems then my emotional response is in actually solving the problem. If I enjoy doing it I will do it for that emotional response. If I will not do it unless someone gives me money then I don't actually enjoy it.

Also of course we can enjoy the act without being rewarded. I put the roof down and go drive in the country because I enjoy the act of driving. I go to the gun range because I enjoy shooting. I drink and go to bars because I enjoy the actual act of doing those things. They are an end in themselves. The things that we enjoy doing we do for free and actually in most cases we pay for the ability to do them.

Additionally, I think I can add in the fact that I love what I do despite my horrible hours. I really enjoy the work I do and would still want to do something in the field even if I didn't have to work. That being said, would I be working 100 hour weeks if I wasn't getting paid, hell no. Would I be working 30 hour weeks and keeping myself busy while getting the thrill of the deal and the prestige associated with the job, yes.

I also echo Yows in that if you took away the good things from anything you liked you wouldn't do it. Essentially what you are saying is that to really claim you "like your job" you would have to want to do it if there was no benefit. If there was no benefit from doing "things" everyone who had significant money would spend all day in bed being waited on hand and foot. Maybe that is what you want but not me.

OK so what would you do all day instead? Your 'etc' implies that even playing video games (for fun, not as a tester or anything) wouldn't qualify, because although it's probably useless there would still be the satisfaction of achieving something.
Video games specifically are probably a bad example in your case, but everything you do now for fun is by definition rewarding to you. Take that reward away and you wouldn't do it. No ****.

Bottom line, I don't think you can arbitrarily dismiss certain kinds of rewards like ego, money etc as being somehow different from whatever else it could be that makes a person love doing something.