@dham you can be transparent (i.e., keep records) while still decentralizing decision-making. All it requires is, you know, keeping records. You can also, importantly, decentralize decision-making while still having checks and balances - record-keeping to allow after-the-fact review; requiring multiple signers, but not making either of them be president; any number of distributed internet voting/selection techniques; etc. It's entirely possible this was just a naive lack of thinking-it-through, of course (a common Occupy trait!) but you given that the entire movement is grounded in a critique of non-transparency and non-accountability of those with money you'd think common sense would have prevailed... (And I say all this as someone deeply sympathetic to the goals of the movement. I'm just pretty skeptical of lots of the methods.)
Waiting now for the $1M and $10M installments.
I can't speak to this one, but I do find it funny that it is widely accepted that in sports, coaches/coaching can improve performance; but nowhere else in life. I mean, why couldn't a happiness coach work? I want one...
I wish I thought I could get away with this.
@Amanda@twitter Delays when you can take the choice, but hourly rates are high enough that if you have the right clientele/specialty, once your debts are paid off, you can do pretty well.
It is certainly a real phenomena; I'm seeing it among a lot of my peers. How widespread it is... that's another question. I suspect "not much", because while some of it is the presence of the internet, a lot of being able to let go is really about being affluent enough to know that you can easily replace things when you need them.
Nth the call for an old money interview. ;)
@This_Rich_Person Nothing makes me angrier than people in the top quartile (or especially top 5%) complaining about how they are "having problems making ends meet." We're on the same page there. (I wouldn't even call "spending money on private school" an *expense*- that's a *luxury*, as is living in an expensive city.) But that's why we should be trying to drive policy based on hard numbers ("we should increase taxes on the top 15% of wage earners") rather than on squishy feelings ("we should tax the rich", which is what leads to our recent tax increase on almost exactly the 1% and not 10-15%ers like you and I). @Logan Sachon: didn't mean to be judg-y there- definitely not the right word to have used (and in fact I took out a lot of other value-laden words from my first draft of that comment). Just goes to show how hard this whole thing is :(
A lot of how RP defines "rich" seems to boil down to "having enough money not to stress about money" - which is an extremely subjective thing. My guess would be that there are a fair # of billfold readers who are "rich" by this definition. Or to put it another way: I know people who make 50% more than RP, and don't feel rich, because they do things (or did things) that a good billfold reader wouldn't, that put them in the hole. On the flip side, RP here makes less money, but by using it reasonably wisely feels pretty secure about where he is financially.
@lizard The NYT had a useful tool for this a while back. Based on that data, $500K places you well into the 1% nationally (cutoff for that is $383K). $140K is 11% nationally; 14% in LA. So I'd probably draw the line somewhere in-between.