Wealth and Billionares

[Zyst]

Hey guys, so I just thought 'how much money would I have to spend an hour to run out of a billion dollars considering I would die in 60 years' I'm 20 so that means 80 years of age. So I wondered and decided to do the math:

(60 [years] * 365.242 [days] * 24 [hours]) = 525,948.48 [Hours left to live]

Then you divide 1,000,000,000 (one billion) dollars with the amount of hours.

1000000000 / 525948.48 = 1901.327 Dollars per hour.

That means for the rest of your life you are earning basically 1900 dollars per hour (Considering your money is invested or at least in a bank to safeguard inflation) You are earning 45,600 dollars a DAY or alternatively have to spend that much to even run out of it, that's enough to buy almost any car in the world (Except for luxury ones of course, but it just becomes saving up a couple of days)

So, as you can probably imagine, you'd be hard pressed to be ABLE to spend that much money, it would be genuinely hard to do so.

So I got a question: Why are there Multi-billionares?

Why does a man or a woman, after he has reached an amount of currency he'll be hard pressed to spend within his life time continue working? What's the purpose? Personally I'd retire and enjoy the fruits of my labor.

So what is your opinion The Escapist? I don't expect this thread to be too popular as it has no mention of EA, rape or feminism but I would rather hear your opinion about this.

 

[Albino Boo]

The so called billionaires and multi-billionaires don't actually have 1 billion to spend. The figures are derived from asset value rather than money in the bank. Most billionaires are created by the means of a company that has been built up from nothing gets floated on the stock market, e.g apple, goggle and facebook. The percentage of the company that someone like Zuckerberg owns has then got an open market value. However if the person attempted to sell their shares the realisable value would drop for two reasons. One, the selling that many shares in a company would push the price down, its plan old supply and demand. Two, people lose confidence in company if one of the big shareholders suddenly sells their shares, the question is what do they know that I don't.


Don't get me wrong these guys are mega rich but they don't have the spending power that you think they do. They probably get paid anything between 12-50 million a year but that is no greater than high end sportsmen and their careers don't tend to be much longer.

 

[chadachada123]

Personally, I find it morally repugnant to have such an extreme amount of wealth when giving just half of it to a good cause would save hundreds of thousands (even millions) of lives.

In my opinion, every billionaire that doesn't donate a very significant portion of their wealth is an irredeemable asshole, and worse, morally, than most murderers.

I recognize that this is not a popular opinion, and that many people have a small bit of dissonance when thinking about the extremely wealthy. I imagine part of the reason is that they don't comprehend just how much money these billionaires or mega-millionaires have.

Meh.

Edit: Looking at the post above me, I'd just like to clarify that, in my opinion, this counts for people that have a 'mere' fifty million or more in spending money. After several million dollars, there is no excuse, in my eyes, for not donating almost everything past that. At the very least, if you want to not be an asshole, you should do as Bill Gates did and pledge to donate nearly all of your wealth at the time of your demise.

 

[Kordie]

While it has already been mentioned above me that their value is not exactly spendable, I will touch on another aspect.

Why are they rich in the first place? If you ignore inheritence, it's likely for one of two reasons. One, they are people who work hard, got lucky, and managed to become rich. Like when they made Google, I doubt they were thinking this will get us rich, probably more along the lines of wouldnt this company be cool. For these people, they will continue to work and get richer because the money is secondary for them. They are working because it's what they love to do.

Second group I would call people who love money, or can't get enough. If you right now have enough money to live, but still want more you are very likely to continue that trend regardless of how much you have. Some people still feel that way despite having enough to own a small country.

Some people love to go to excess. Think of someone who plays games literally 12 hours a day every day, or someone who has managed to go beyond morbidly obese. Same deal, although to become very wealthy often involves just as much luck as hard work and effort.

Personally, if I came into a large sum of money, I would keep working, going to school and living largely the same way I do now because I enjoy it. However I would be doing it from a decent house and a nicer car. As for charity, I like to think I'd donate a good portion but it would be tempting not to.

 

[Jonluw]

Because they don't get enjoyment from retiring and travelling the world and such.
The reason they're billionaires in the first place is that they get enjoyment from earning money, so they keep doing it way after they've earned enough money to live in luxury for a lifetime.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Being a Billionaire means that you can rest in peace knowing your children and possibly your children's children will never have to worry about hospital costs, debt, going hungry, or any of that other bull shit that most of us have to worry about daily.

 

[Colour Scientist]

In my opinion, every billionaire that doesn't donate a very significant portion of their wealth is an irredeemable asshole, and worse, morally, than most murderers.

Couldn't you say that about anyone who works to have disposable income? You could use the money spent on a computer and an internet connection to feed a family for a month.

A majority of people who amass that kind of wealth have worked for that money and it's not their obligation to give most of it away. Who's decision is it to pick a cut-off point and decide "you've earned enough money, give half of it back". Even though you'd be surprised how many billionaires DO donate to charities, it's their choice. It's a great thing to do but if they decide not to it doesn't put them on a par with murderers.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[chadachada123]

In my opinion, every billionaire that doesn't donate a very significant portion of their wealth is an irredeemable asshole, and worse, morally, than most murderers.

Couldn't you say that about anyone who works to have disposable income? You could use the money spent on a computer and an internet connection to feed a family for a month.

A majority of people who amass that kind of wealth have worked for that money and it's not their obligation to give most of it away. Who's decision is it to pick a cut-off point and decide "you've earned enough money, give half of it back". Even though you'd be surprised how many billionaires DO donate to charities, it's their choice. It's a great thing to do but if they decide not to it doesn't put them on a par with murderers.

I'm only saying that there's a significant difference between a few thousand bucks and a few hundred million bucks. I already donate a pretty sizable amount of my disposable income, and I have very little to speak of.

I'm not saying that they're legally obligated, only that according to my moral code, they're an asshole, and their inaction in particular is causing far more death than the inaction of the average working man. Besides, you and I both know that the majority of people that have that amount of wealth didn't earn it from proportional work, but almost entirely luck or from gaming a system.

In my opinion, every billionaire that doesn't donate a very significant portion of their wealth is an irredeemable asshole, and worse, morally, than most murderers.

*chuckles*

So I guess you weren't one of the people sad about Steve Jobs dying since he was morally worse than most murderers.

I'm not sad about his death partially because I don't know him and partially because most of his money was made through greed, cornering the market, and stealing ideas. That he hogged his money is just icing on the cake, and makes him less redeemable than, say, a man that murders someone in a fit of rage.

I made it clear that this was just my opinion, and one that isn't shared by many people. I understand this, in I suppose a similar way that an atheist is content with his belief that everyone is just going to end up in a hole in the ground no matter how unpopular that opinion is, or a Christian's belief that I'll be going to hell for being a godless heathen. I'd like to say, 'nothing personal,' but it's just what my moral system says, based on, I guess, quite a bit of utilitarianism and by noticing just how wasteful humanity is in the face of massive starvation. I just wish that everyone was as selfless as me, is all. Comfortable living is one thing, but hogging millions of dollars is not indirectly allowing the deaths of many people, but is also harming the country and world's economy as a whole by just sitting, doing nothing.

Besides, once I become an obstetrician, if all goes according to plan, I WILL be giving a significant portion of my money to charity. I don't need 200k a year, and consider just that much to already by quite extreme. Once my family has enough money to not have to worry about paying the bills, the rest is going to someone that needs the money more than I do, and I consider that the morally correct thing to do.

 

[Goofguy]

It depends on age and personality. The filthily rich 40-some year olds still have many good years ahead of them. While retirement would be a blast with all that cash, a lot of those self-made billionaires can be workaholics. You could travel the world and have a good time 365 days a year but realistically, who wants to do that for the remaining 30 years of your life expectancy?

I'm in my 20s and while I relish the idea of an early retirement, I'd go stark raving mad if I didn't have some sort of employment to keep me occupied during the weekdays. It makes your time off and weekends just that much better.

 

[Esotera]

I think we shouldn't disallow multi-billionaires, but make it very very hard to get there through tax on income & assets, so if you are one, you have definitely earned it.

I'm fairly sure I could spend that much a day as well, if I knew I would definitely have it.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

A lot of people say "If I had that much money I'd give half of it away, or all of it, or use it to help people".
Most of you who would say that probably don't know a few things:
1. If you have that much money, you probably also have an insane workload, a lot of love for money and probably wouldn't give it up.
2. Being "worth" a billion dollars doesn't mean you can spend it all in one sitting. Most of it is not liquid, and that "net worth" doesn't just appear. Also if you don't work hard to keep it, it may all just vanish in an instant.
3. Despite what people think, the IRS loves to jump on rich people who don't pay taxes, and your tax code takes an army of tax lawyers and accountants to juggle such finances, all of which cost you money to employ.
4. Billionaires generally don't just sit on their money, they own companies which provide employment for the "less fortunate" as some might put it. Spending the money or giving it away could cause your stock to drop in those companies and put more people out of work than you actually help.
5. Social programs are nice, but they don't always help people. Giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, teaching him to fish will feed him as long as he wants to work for it. A man who doesn't work for his food generally doesn't survive when the handouts end. Thus giving your money away to "help" people might actually hurt them more in the long run unless you attach stipulations such as "I'm giving you money to get your ass a degree and get a better paying job, if you don't you lose the money and have to pay it all back that you spent" rather than "I'm giving you money to better your life".
6. Being rich doesn't necessarily mean they are happy in life. Many of those billionaires are workaholics or so in love with money that they don't have real human interaction. Their social level is all about status and money, and if married they generally don't have love in their lives, but rather "look at my hot-ass wife, who by the way gets an allowance and has a pre-nup keeping her from taking me to the cleaners".

So being rich might sound good on paper, might even sound good in your head but rarely matches up to the reality. Also becoming rich overnight will quickly show you just how many friends aren't really your friends and how many family members are money-grubbing fucktards. Lawsuits will arise out of nowhere for things you probably didn't do and tie a good portion of your money up just keeping them away from it.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Besides, once I become an obstetrician, if all goes according to plan, I WILL be giving a significant portion of my money to charity. I don't need 200k a year, and consider just that much to already by quite extreme. Once my family has enough money to not have to worry about paying the bills, the rest is going to someone that needs the money more than I do, and I consider that the morally correct thing to do.

Good luck with that, hope you realize that the costs of being in healthcare aren't exactly small. And if you plan to be "charitable" (if you're in the U.S.) you would also take on Medicare/Medicaid patients and thus have to shell out a lot of money paying people to do the paperwork because doing it yourself would entail more hours than you can work and maintain your practice.
Also, its good to be charitable, but to hold others in low regard when you probably have no earthly idea how much of their actual gross-liquid finances they do donate (not their assets) to charity is kinda close-minded.
And its not charity if its required, its not donation if forced, thats called a fee.

 

[Yopaz]

In my opinion, every billionaire that doesn't donate a very significant portion of their wealth is an irredeemable asshole, and worse, morally, than most murderers.

Wow, your post is simply amazing. Multi billionaires make sure there are thousands of jobs out theem thousands of people able to make their own income and make a life for themselves and their families. In order to keep their companies safe and have something to rely on in case a crash they need money stored away for when there might be a backlash or a crash. You might not be aware of it, but something called the finance crisis occurred just a few years ago and things got bad for a lot of people who lost their jobs. If the companies didn't have the funds to keep going things would get a lot worse and more people would lose their jobs and the companies would be unable to start up again.

Also a mass murderer is a better person than a wealthy man who doesn't donate a significant portion of their wealth? Bill Gates has donated a lot of money to good causes, but he is still a wealthy man besides his donations. Is he just as bad as a mass murderer because he didn't donate all of his money? Is he a mass murderer because he invested his money in order to keep his company safe and keep providing jobs for thousands of people?

Yes, a lot of the wealthy people out there are greedy, narcissistic assholes with no concern for anything that isn't about them or their money, but even those greedy assholes do provide jobs.

 

[chadachada123]

Besides, once I become an obstetrician, if all goes according to plan, I WILL be giving a significant portion of my money to charity. I don't need 200k a year, and consider just that much to already by quite extreme. Once my family has enough money to not have to worry about paying the bills, the rest is going to someone that needs the money more than I do, and I consider that the morally correct thing to do.

Good luck with that, hope you realize that the costs of being in healthcare aren't exactly small. And if you plan to be "charitable" (if you're in the U.S.) you would also take on Medicare/Medicaid patients and thus have to shell out a lot of money paying people to do the paperwork because doing it yourself would entail more hours than you can work and maintain your practice.
Also, its good to be charitable, but to hold others in low regard when you probably have no earthly idea how much of their actual gross-liquid finances they do donate (not their assets) to charity is kinda close-minded.
And its not charity if its required, its not donation if forced, thats called a fee.

I'm holding *theoretical* people in low regard, I admit, because you're right that I don't know how much each individual person donates and so I cannot make judgement claims about specific rich people. I do feel like most rich people would probably fall under what qualifies as 'asshole' to me, but I should make it more clear that I'm talking about hypothetical people and not all rich people. I'm not closed to the idea of charitable rich people, it just appears uncommon from my perspective.

As for 'required charity,' I'm not saying anything about the law, I'm only talking about morality. As long as they attain their money legally, they're absolutely welcome to it, and I'm welcome to call them an asshole for hogging it. Consider this analogy: You see a man in the distance that is slipping off of the ledge of a bridge that could be helped. How easy it is to help this man depends on how far you are from him, and how far you are from him is inversely proportional to how much money you have. I would consider it a moral imperative to help that man if you're within a reasonable distance, and am applying this analogy to monetary help as well.

It's just my own moral code, and it's not something I would call someone out for in person or anything. *Shrug* I think that a large number of people that have kids are assholes, too, because they have children without being prepared both mentally and monetarily, but I won't call people out on it unless it's a serious issue.

Wow, your post is simply amazing. Multi billionaires make sure there are thousands of jobs out theem thousands of people able to make their own income and make a life for themselves and their families. In order to keep their companies safe and have something to rely on in case a crash they need money stored away for when there might be a backlash or a crash. You might not be aware of it, but something called the finance crisis occurred just a few years ago and things got bad for a lot of people who lost their jobs. If the companies didn't have the funds to keep going things would get a lot worse and more people would lose their jobs and the companies would be unable to start up again.

Also a mass murderer is a better person than a wealthy man who doesn't donate a significant portion of their wealth? Bill Gates has donated a lot of money to good causes, but he is still a wealthy man besides his donations. Is he just as bad as a mass murderer because he didn't donate all of his money? Is he a mass murderer because he invested his money in order to keep his company safe and keep providing jobs for thousands of people?

Yes, a lot of the wealthy people out there are greedy, narcissistic assholes with no concern for anything that isn't about them or their money, but even those greedy assholes do provide jobs.

You, on the other hand, made a complete strawman out of my post. At no point did I say "mass murderer." I said "most murderers." Most murders are done for personal reasons (barring gang shootings, I'm too lazy to look up just how common those are in relation to other murders), and these personal reasons are far less immoral than, say, bombing a building or otherwise killing a large number of people indiscriminately.

Also, in one of my posts I clearly mentioned Bill Gates being basically exempt because after his death, the vast majority of his wealth is going directly towards helping people. He's the closest that I've seen to my 'ideal' rich person, from what I know about them.

As far as 'keeping thousands of jobs blah blah blah,' I really don't think that those billionaires are a net positive for this country, and I think that the world would be much better off without these, for lack of a better term, hyper-investors in addition to the greedy CEOs that can not only run a company into the ground but will also lobby Congress for a huge bailout that nets them a massive paycut for doing a shitty job. I really bet those bonuses will go towards helping people, oh yeah, definitely. /sarcasm

You don't see the wealthy in Japan doing this. No, from what I can tell, it's pretty much endemic to the US and...Islamic countries. At least in Islam it will be under the guise of being for 'royalty' or some shit. Japan has its slew of problems, especially social ones, but it isn't their rich creating a huge amount of the trouble, at least.

 

[Frission]

I'm not American, so I will probably have a different perspective. The French Ultra Rich have emigrated to New York or Swiss when Hollande was elected, after years of having Sarkozy put them above everyone else and giving them a lot of privileges.

They're now staying there to avoid paying taxes. Personally I'm for having them arrested if they ever try setting one of their greedy foot in France for tax evasion. I'm also for the taxing of offshore accounts, since it will provide the state with a lot of money at the behest of one, but the ultra rich.

I don't like the Ultra-rich with few exceptions, like Bill Gates.

 

[Yopaz]

You, on the other hand, made a complete strawman out of my post. At no point did I say "mass murderer." I said "most murderers." Most murders are done for personal reasons (barring gang shootings, I'm too lazy to look up just how common those are in relation to other murders), and these personal reasons are far less immoral than, say, bombing a building or otherwise killing a large number of people indiscriminately.

Also, in one of my posts I clearly mentioned Bill Gates being basically exempt because after his death, the vast majority of his wealth is going directly towards helping people. He's the closest that I've seen to my 'ideal' rich person, from what I know about them.

As far as 'keeping thousands of jobs blah blah blah,' I really don't think that those billionaires are a net positive for this country, and I think that the world would be much better off without these, for lack of a better term, hyper-investors in addition to the greedy CEOs that can not only run a company into the ground but will also lobby Congress for a huge bailout that nets them a massive paycut for doing a shitty job. I really bet those bonuses will go towards helping people, oh yeah, definitely. /sarcasm

You don't see the wealthy in Japan doing this. No, from what I can tell, it's pretty much endemic to the US and...Islamic countries. At least in Islam it will be under the guise of being for 'royalty' or some shit. Japan has its slew of problems, especially social ones, but it isn't their rich creating a huge amount of the trouble, at least.

I read your post did something else so I managed to forget that you said most murderers rather than mass murderers. It doesn't change the fact that you compared being rich to taking a life. Building a company that provides job is as bad as taking a life. Providing jobs for thousands is morally as bad as taking a life. You don't consider Bill Gates the same way you consider other billionaires and that is clearly mentioned in some of your posts... You didn't say this anywhere in the post I was referring to, but that first post was the one I replied to had no exceptions. That was the post I pointed out presented the extreme opinions of yours. Honestly you seem to change your opinions in order to not be pinned down. As I said billionaires have their money tied up in companies and shares. That is not money which they can spend.

I already agreed there are a lot of greedy narcissistic assholes who get rich and that they are screwing people over. There are hostile takeovers which hurt the common man and cause people to lose jobs. However do you refuse to agree with the fact that billion dollar companies offer employment to thousands of people?

I wont say that wealth is the source of happiness nor the source of evil. You do make a fair point that the wealthy in such countries as USA basically do what they want because they are wealthy and that's clearly wrong. Companies seem to be taking over and I am glad I live in a country where the wealthiest have tax rates at 49% in order to make sure we got a decent health care system and social services. Even with this we do have billionaires here that provides jobs and donate to charity. Though you are right that major companies try to squeeze money out of anything they can I don't see the connection that wealth is evil.

 

[ElPatron]

Why does a man or a woman, after he has reached an amount of currency he'll be hard pressed to spend within his life time continue working? What's the purpose? Personally I'd retire and enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Because you might not trust other people to do your job and you would like your family to collect benefits from your business too?

 

[teebeeohh]

what i really don't get is the "rich people provide jobs" argument. while that is technically true the reason they do is because these people make them money, usually far in excess of what they earn. And if it was possible most companies would be staffed entirely by robots(assuming that's cheaper than employing people)

 

[chadachada123]

I read your post did something else so I managed to forget that you said most murderers rather than mass murderers. It doesn't change the fact that you compared being rich to taking a life. Building a company that provides job is as bad as taking a life. Providing jobs for thousands is morally as bad as taking a life. You don't consider Bill Gates the same way you consider other billionaires and that is clearly mentioned in some of your posts... You didn't say this anywhere in the post I was referring to, but that first post was the one I replied to had no exceptions. That was the post I pointed out presented the extreme opinions of yours. Honestly you seem to change your opinions in order to not be pinned down. As I said billionaires have their money tied up in companies and shares. That is not money which they can spend.

I already agreed there are a lot of greedy narcissistic assholes who get rich and that they are screwing people over. There are hostile takeovers which hurt the common man and cause people to lose jobs. However do you refuse to agree with the fact that billion dollar companies offer employment to thousands of people?

I wont say that wealth is the source of happiness nor the source of evil. You do make a fair point that the wealthy in such countries as USA basically do what they want because they are wealthy and that's clearly wrong. Companies seem to be taking over and I am glad I live in a country where the wealthiest have tax rates at 49% in order to make sure we got a decent health care system and social services. Even with this we do have billionaires here that provides jobs and donate to charity. Though you are right that major companies try to squeeze money out of anything they can I don't see the connection that wealth is evil.

Sorry, I've been getting some of my posts confused lately, I thought the Bill Gates bit had been in the full quote that you quoted, guess I was wrong.

Yeah, you're right about money being tied up and unusable. I may have thrown too large of a net and assumed that most rich people have hundreds of millions just laying around and not in stocks or whatever.

I don't think that we should equate billion dollar companies to billionaires, personally, but billion dollar companies provide their own unique issues like small wages and unfair layoffs (with the aforementioned ridiculous bonuses while simultaneously laying off the lower guys that work, in my opinion, just as hard but with worse circumstances).

Still, I guess you're right about me going a bit overboard. I had just gotten done with some R&P-related rants about how all world hunger could be prevented with possibly as low as $13 billion a year, or as high as the still-comparatively-small $250 billion a year, and guess I figured that the ultra-rich should have been doing more to help it. I still think that they *should,* but I shouldn't freak out about it.