[scarmig]

Can't most of these great injustices be solved by the newly rich person not bragging about it and living roughly on what they were consuming before plus 25-50%?

Yeah, yeah, you just got this big chunk of change and you want to spend it on Tesla cars and the French Laundry and vacation homes! But when you engage in flagrant consumption people notice and start wanting in on the action.

Figure out what the average amount consumed for someone in the 90th percentile and stick strictly to that budget (and you won't be taking on debt to do it!). Throw any excess money you have around in interesting investments and social ventures. Even if people find out you're loaded, if you're living modestly they'll know not to expect you to act that differently.

[lazyjones]

> Can't most of these great injustices be solved by the newly rich person not bragging about it and living roughly on what they were consuming before plus 25-50%?

Not if you listen to those (many) who consider it anti-social behaviour to hoard money instead of spending it (because spending feeds the economy, pays salaries ...), or even getting interest as a "no-work income".

[I disagree with those people: if your money does not participate in the economy, the relative value of other people's money increases]

[ido]

The bank uses your money where you do or not.

[phillmv]

I'm entirely uninterested in these people's problems. The mere question in the title seems preposterous, verging on offensive.

[therobot24]

I think you're illustrating the first point of the article quite well.

[willholloway]

I agree that that point is a valid complaint, but a complaint is all it is.

If the money was really bringing someone down so much, the problem could be dispensed with by writing one check to a charity of their choice.

The fact that wealthy people do not give all of their money away is proof that having it is better than not having it.

[purplelobster]

I don't think it's that simple. It's possible that you don't like what your life has become, but still wouldn't give your money away because that would make you even more unhappy. It's a nice problem to have, but we shouldn't trivialize the human psychology, just try to understand it. Nobody is completely rational, and even if part of them is rational, they will always have an emotional part. Choosing to be childless for instance, is pretty much the rational choice for many people, but that doesn't mean that would make them happy.

[willholloway]

I completely agree, that is what I meant by saying that it is a valid complaint.

My disagreement with the article is simply that saying its better to be rich than not is understating it.

Of course wealth is not a panacea to the human condition. It is however a better way of living by at least an order of magnitude than the average middle class life in the harsh, socially atomized globalized economy of the developed world. At median income levels in a nation such as the US, essentials like proper health care, education and marital stability are difficult to grasp.

[therobot24]

oh yea for sure. Then again, assuming you're not born into it, I would assume it's difficult to just give away a large portion of the wealth you've accumulated through hard work. There is also the 'rainy day fund'...which signifies another point the author made about worrying about investments. If he loses his money, and suddenly needs it there is a significant amount of regret.

[willholloway]

You have to compare the worry over potentially losing investments to the worry of not having any investments or rainy day fund at all and being totally at the capricious mercy of an often cruel and arbitrary economy with a minimal safety net.