[RivieraKid]

It's really hard for me to understand that people who have the chance to achieve basic financial independence (say $1M net worth) don't take that chance and make sure to stay financially independent forever.

If you do that, you're almost guaranteed to stay in the top 2% globally for the rest of your life. You've made it in life, at least financially.

The approach of not taking advantage of the lucky and privileged situation exposes you to a huge risk that your NW will go down to zero and you never get a second chance.

[mordechai9000]

I think $1M net worth in the US these days is a nice little nest egg, but not anywhere near financial independence. Unless your needs are simple, you can relocate somewhere to live very cheaply, and you don't have any dependents.

[RivieraKid]

I meant basic financial independence. It gives you the option to live like someone who has the median wage forever, but without having to work. If you work, it's a bonus on top of the $40k you receive annually.

Whatever happens, perhaps AI replacing all cognitive work, you know you'll be fine. Maybe not able to live lavishly, but much better than needing to have a job you hate in order to survive.

You've hit the escape velocity. Worst case scenario (I'm simplifying) is that your NW stagnates, best case scenario is that your NW will continue to grow quickly. That's much better than the worst case scenario being that your unemployed with a zero NW.

[frmersdog]

People who don't take $1M net worth and use it to secure their simple needs somewhere that they can live cheaply (providing attention rather than financial capital to their dependents) are ironically the reason why $1M net worth isn't anywhere near financial independence. Such people provide an outsize contribution to the bidding-up of costs, because instead of thinking, "This is probably it, I better be careful," they're pushing for the next rung on the ladder and willing to "invest" at high prices, with the expectation of a return.

[sfRattan]

> Unless your needs are simple, you can relocate somewhere to live very cheaply, and you don't have any dependents.

As a human, your needs are simple[1]. With a $1M net worth, you can relocate somewhere to live very cheaply. And your dependents can live in that same place, also cheaply.

All you need to do is show the Joneses the door out of your mind and never let them back in, nor look toward their lives in envy.

[1]: Healthcare being a notable potential exception, depending on the individual.

[bumblehean]

I think there's a large middle ground between relocating somewhere undesirable (or to a developing country) just to stretch your money as far possible vs "keeping up with the Joneses".

Even if your goal is financial independence, it's reasonable to not drastically decrease your existing standard of living just so you can retire _now_.

[ip26]

If you have dependents that are children, I feel there is a moral consideration. If you have earned $1M and then take the family to live who-knows-where slowly drawing on that $1M.. will your children be able to replicate your success? Will they be able to earn their own $1M? Or will leading this new life significantly impair their prospects?

To me this is the most critical problem with the "move somewhere crazy cheap" plan. I feel a parent owes their children at least somewhat similar opportunities as they themselves had. If you got to work as "high flying white collar tech worker", but the only option your children have is "subsistence fisherman", you have wronged them.

[treis]

Interest would put you around median household income.

[fouc]

$1M invested in a reasonably diversified portfolio gets you about $3,000/mo lifetime at ~3.5% safe withdrawal rate. That might be quite restrictive in the more expensive cities.

[nunez]

Some people can't get enough of yachts and other really expensive things

[polishdude20]

I don't think these people NW ever goes down to zero.

[make3]

they often go into the minuses I'm sure, spending culture in the US is bananas

[saucymew]

Silicon Valley bats for 0-to-1 startups. If you swap "Revenue" for "Risk," that is culturally the same. People who don't have a "1" full-risk-on mode by default self-select themselves out of this game.

A toy model game is poker. If opponents know you'll never call an all-in/go all-in, they will always outplay you on the river.

And so, let the market pump funny numbers, and matriculate the lucky survivors.

[eastbound]

> don't take that chance and make sure to stay financially independent forever.

What means do you see? Buy some S&P500 ETF and live off the interest rate? That seams easy but without investing in AI, you’re at risk of AI making the existing economy irrelevant, it’s the same as having all investments in local craftsmanship in 1700 and the steam machine happens, except much faster.

And move to [insert home country]? (What if I want to keep my friends)

[boelboel]

U don't just put everything in the (American) stock market, some money goes into bonds/TIPS bonds and maybe a small portion gold/REITs/foreign bonds/... whatever your risk appetite.

[albumen]

But the S&P500 is ~half AI anyway! At least by market cap.

What’s your idea of investing in AI?

[est31]

Is it the AI companies though that will capture the value that AI creates, or will it be the still-private startups, or new to-be-founded startups altogether?

Startups are taking longer and longer to reach public markets, so more and more value creation requires you to be a family office, angel, or hedge fund.