You didn’t make an argument.
You never do.
The wealthy also tend to view their money as generational. And generations multiply. Someone who is very wealthy will likely make it kids very wealthy. But if those kids have kids, they may only be wealthy. And their kid’s kids may only be well off.
Buffett and Gates have said they won’t make their kids extraordinarily wealthy on their death. But I’d bet that both of them have set up educational trusts that will fund generations of their descendants.
One of my friends is the great great grandson of one of the wealthiest men of his time. At this generation there is enough money so he has to work to live comfortably, but school was paid for and he isn’t likely to starve.
I would assume that’s $50,000,000.
The problem is that it’s rarely something that someone thinks ‘Hey, I’ve made enough, I’ll stop earning now.’
IIRC it was one of the google guys (Sergei Brin?) Who went from relative abject normal income to 10 Billion in something like 4 years.
I read about it in an article on a guy who’s job is helping people adjust to extreme, unexpected, wealth. Nice job if you can get it!
The success of most wealthy people can be measured in the jobs they produce. Bill Gates’ enormous charitable contributions are dwarfed by the economic wealth he’s created for other people. I’m not sure what the op expects him to do as the company grows, refuse the value of his stock?
What really prompted my question, I think, was looking at the financial pages and thinkingabout various stories of people in the finance industry being dicks wanting more and more and more and utterly disregarding anything but getting richer…
So I guess what I really want to know is…What’s up with greed, anyway?
The more money people hoard, the better. I look at it this way: Money isn’t wealth. Money represents wealth I’ve earned but haven’t claimed yet. That’s more wealth for the general public floating around out there at my expense. I hate to say it, but it’s debtors who are the bad guys from this point of view. They’re the ones who got more of the pie than they’ve actually earned yet.
Don’t construe this to mean I hate poor people or something. It’s only in the short view that debt is a bad thing, as it gets paid with interest eventually. I don’t know if you can say that all money gets spent eventually though. I’m just pointing out that rich misers are a good thing for the rest of us at any given time.
And I don’t know how charitable most super rich guys are, but doesn’t Bill Gates spend billions of his own dollars on his charity? If he had even more money, maybe he could feed all the starving kids in Africa or teach all the kids in third world countries how to read or something. I’m not necessarily attributing this motivation to anybody, just saying there’s always something you can do with more money. I know stuff like that would be a huge motivation for me if I was at a similar level of uberwealth.
There may be many fine human beings who are beneficiaries of trust funds - but I haven’t met very many of them. In my opinion, there are few things more destructive to the human soul than waiting for someone to die to get money.
I really don’t understand the whole “making more money than one can possibly spend” thing. On the L a few years ago, someone had left a copy of the Financial Times. There was a supplemental section “What To Spend It On”. I looked at this thinking “If you need a newspaper to tell you what to spend your excess money on, you’ve got too fucking much money!”
In the case of Bill Gates, it’s the “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” and it’s run by his father. Without his wife and dad, there is little reason to suppose that Bill would have given a cent to charity. I’ve encountered Microsoft “charity” while working for the National PTA - and it’s an anti-FOSS marketing move.
Nor is there any reason to suspect that he wouldn’t.
Except that, before Bill met Melinda, he hadn’t given anything to charity (other than the previously mentioned “Give charitable organizations one free copy of your software in order to get them as support customers and keep them from from moving to Open Source solutions” marketing drive).
For myself, the appeal would lie in the power to reshape the world (or part of it) as I see fit. With enough money, you can build schools that work in inner-city neighborhoods, or lobby Congress relentlessly to give DC the vote, or pay top-notch developers to build workarounds that Chinese grandmothers can easily use to circumvent the Great Firewall - whatever you want. I couldn’t stand to do the sorts of work required to get that level of wealth, and so I’ll never have it - but if I won the lottery, I could absolutely spend “unspendable” amounts of money, and more besides.
Come on, this seems a little unfair. Regardless of whether or not Bill Gates has always been committed to charitable work, the fact remains that he has chosen to give massive amounts of money to his foundation, and it’s doing genuinely good work. This is worthy of a lot of respect, I think.
[Moderator Admonition]This is neither Great Debates or The BBQ Pit, and the next poster that strays over the line(or jumps over it, for example posts #9 and #17) will get an official warning.[/Moderator Admonition]
Homer: Mr. Burns, you’re the richest man I know!
Mr. Burns: Yes. But I’d give it all up in a second for just a little more.
This. Just about the only person that could tell if Mr. Gate’s contributions were genuine is his therapist, doctor-patient confidentiality prevents him from speaking on this matter.
What matters is the end result. The end result is: Mr. Gates has spent more money on helping others than any other person in written history. This is a guy who’s on record saying he expects to give away the bulk of his money.
(cite: Why Bill Gates Is Giving Away His Fortune - ABC News )
The OP is about the motivation of people like Bill Gates to acquire monumental wealth. Before he met his wife, he concentrated all his energy on getting more, and as a side-effect crushed any number of more innovative technologies and (again, IMO) held computing back 20 years. Maybe I’m alone in remembering genuine innovation like Go’s PenPoint and how Microsoft crushed it with their stillborn “Pen for Windows”, and destroyed that whole sector for a decade.
It’s a pet peeve of mine when non-geeks hold Bill Gates up as some sort of geek ideal. He’s an obsessive-compulsive businessman, and a barely competent programmer. All his successes have been in getting the better of others in business negotiations, not superior technology.The Google guys are examples of the “Geek Ideal”, not Bill. I can only imagine Melinda goaded Bill into charity via some sort of Lysistrata thing.
How much good is necessary to counter a life’s work worth of bad? I don’t know, but in Gate’s case I’d have to say “Not enough yet”.
“Rosebud.”
Stranger
Almost everyone inherits something from their parents, grandparents etc. A trust fund is a good way to transfer the wealth for a lot of tax reasons. Just because you are a trust fund beneficiary does not mean you are set for life. What if you only receive $10,000?
Sure it’s a lot of money, but it will not let you retire and live off the interest.
People like Gates, got their riches because earning money was a side line to their work. Gates wanted to put his Windows O/S all over the world. That was his goal and while he was doing this, he made a truckload of money.
So if Bill Gates’s goal was to get Windows O/S on 90% of the world’s computer he wouldn’t stop to look at how much he made until he hit that goal.
People like Rupert Murdoch, wanted to build a media empire and all his riches came as a sideline of his goal. Indeed, if you look at the history of Murdoch you can find, time and time again, where his whole “corporate empire” was on the verge of collapsing.
The thing is most of us have jobs we work at, because…well, we want to eat and keep a roof over our heads. These rich people like their work and the money is just a nice fact.
I get what you’re saying about people who work because they enjoy it but I personally don’t know of a single person who works for the sole purpose of food and shelter. What I often see are jobs that are effectively “all or nothing” in nature. You either work 70+ hrs a week or somebody else takes your place.