This is a long way of examining some of the maxims that painful life experience has taught me, which are "After a certain minimum income level, it is not how much you make but how much you don't spend" and "If it isn't real estate, if I can't buy it with cash I don't need it." And even with real estate, debt payments should never exceed 25% of your income.
Loved this Argo - you're so right - this is another infringement on the ability to become wealthy, via less ownership. I love your non-city-dwelling perspective on this.
Also the WEF video fails to make the simple logical step: if you are renting something, someone else must still own it!
That's true, but the flip side of the idea is just as interesting to me. If you're not interested in accumulating wealth, or worse, responsibilities, there has to come a point where you just say "nope, not interested" and rent everything or let somebody else own it and just outsource it. Hence "you own nothing and might be happy" - you might just like it better like that.
I feel like big stockholders of public companies have it the worst in that regard. A lot of your net worth could be tied up in those shares, so the company effectively owns your ass if you need to keep up a high net worth.
They own it. But not any individual person does, the "community" or the "government" does. That's why it's completely okay, because everyone owns it in theory (through renting)! It is simply assumed that there is more stuff than people and we just made more of it, centralizing operations and maintenance to make it cheaper. That's the theory, anyway, and a lot of things are built on that theory - mergers & acquisitions, corporate consolidation, private equity takeovers, etc. The idea that if we could only organize better, things would be perfect.
The physical world does not enter into this equation, because they have people for that.
"To own something is not only to have the use of it as you please, but the responsibility to care for it."
Bingo! I do own a home (well, the bank still owns a portion of it) and it's the maintenance and upkeep that rob me of other real experiences. It is a modest home - not a McMansion nor anything approaching that - but still, the place needs constant maintenance, most of which I do not enjoy doing. Sigh. I own a middle of the road hybrid vehicle and that has to be tended to as well (though not nearly as much as the house and yard). Sometimes I want to ditch it all but I don't live alone so that complicates things. I want a life that has plenty of room for long days outside - hikes, beachwalks - and long days of reading. punctuated by some travel here and there. Not possible if you have to maintain the property.
Reinforced concrete posts and hollow blocks might be a very old-school construction method, but they’re very reliable. Little risk of being blown away here.
High-paying jobs or businesses are the same. Sure, you can make money, but you're almost chained to it - you don't own it, but it owns you.
My other definition of ownership (which works better from a life evaluation standpoint) is "what you can afford to throw away". Clearly, homes and cars usually do not fall under that, because you need them for something.
The people that are pissed off about the cost of ownership are correct in worrying about impoverishment, but there has to be an acknowledgement of the difficulties of ownership as well. Some people might just not be into that.
In a way, this is part of my idea of how wealth inequality is born. Anyone who fails to be a proper owner-steward of businesses, employees, and other property loses it, while anyone who does well is able to pick it up on the cheap in hard times. This process has been supercharged by industry, commerce, and communication, but has remained the same, even if the details have changed.
Your comment about the rich living in fantasy is more true than you know. Many of the Uber wealthy have imbibed from the likes of Asimov, Vonnegut and Roddenberry (science fiction) communists all. Champagne Socialists are what we used to describe them now it is luxury beliefs.
Money, I find, is an excellent insulator from reality. It represents an ability to shepherd resources and make things someone else's problem. I feel this distinction greatly when speaking to people of a higher or lower standard of living - even just a little. I imagine the differences just keep getting more insane the wider the gap gets.
When rent and property taxes for regular people in the US are more than the total pre-tax compensation of employees of reputable corporations here, it really puts things into perspective.
Also, if you don't have problems, fiction will give you plenty to deal with. Fiction and fantasy and getting into lore is a rich person's game.
This is a long way of examining some of the maxims that painful life experience has taught me, which are "After a certain minimum income level, it is not how much you make but how much you don't spend" and "If it isn't real estate, if I can't buy it with cash I don't need it." And even with real estate, debt payments should never exceed 25% of your income.
Shows you just how out of touch some of the people that run our lives are, too, if they think any of this is a good idea.
Loved this Argo - you're so right - this is another infringement on the ability to become wealthy, via less ownership. I love your non-city-dwelling perspective on this.
Also the WEF video fails to make the simple logical step: if you are renting something, someone else must still own it!
That's true, but the flip side of the idea is just as interesting to me. If you're not interested in accumulating wealth, or worse, responsibilities, there has to come a point where you just say "nope, not interested" and rent everything or let somebody else own it and just outsource it. Hence "you own nothing and might be happy" - you might just like it better like that.
I feel like big stockholders of public companies have it the worst in that regard. A lot of your net worth could be tied up in those shares, so the company effectively owns your ass if you need to keep up a high net worth.
They own it. But not any individual person does, the "community" or the "government" does. That's why it's completely okay, because everyone owns it in theory (through renting)! It is simply assumed that there is more stuff than people and we just made more of it, centralizing operations and maintenance to make it cheaper. That's the theory, anyway, and a lot of things are built on that theory - mergers & acquisitions, corporate consolidation, private equity takeovers, etc. The idea that if we could only organize better, things would be perfect.
The physical world does not enter into this equation, because they have people for that.
"To own something is not only to have the use of it as you please, but the responsibility to care for it."
Bingo! I do own a home (well, the bank still owns a portion of it) and it's the maintenance and upkeep that rob me of other real experiences. It is a modest home - not a McMansion nor anything approaching that - but still, the place needs constant maintenance, most of which I do not enjoy doing. Sigh. I own a middle of the road hybrid vehicle and that has to be tended to as well (though not nearly as much as the house and yard). Sometimes I want to ditch it all but I don't live alone so that complicates things. I want a life that has plenty of room for long days outside - hikes, beachwalks - and long days of reading. punctuated by some travel here and there. Not possible if you have to maintain the property.
Ever considered moving to milder climates ?? ... 🤔🤔🤔
Better for your lungs, vitamin D3-levels, mood, and far better for long-term structures.
I live in the tropics. I’ve got that covered. :)
Congrats mate !! 👍👍💪💪
Just beware of tropical storms that could swirl-away your property, even faster than the IRS could ever do.
Reinforced concrete posts and hollow blocks might be a very old-school construction method, but they’re very reliable. Little risk of being blown away here.
High-paying jobs or businesses are the same. Sure, you can make money, but you're almost chained to it - you don't own it, but it owns you.
My other definition of ownership (which works better from a life evaluation standpoint) is "what you can afford to throw away". Clearly, homes and cars usually do not fall under that, because you need them for something.
The people that are pissed off about the cost of ownership are correct in worrying about impoverishment, but there has to be an acknowledgement of the difficulties of ownership as well. Some people might just not be into that.
In a way, this is part of my idea of how wealth inequality is born. Anyone who fails to be a proper owner-steward of businesses, employees, and other property loses it, while anyone who does well is able to pick it up on the cheap in hard times. This process has been supercharged by industry, commerce, and communication, but has remained the same, even if the details have changed.
A garden untended quickly overgrows.
Your comment about the rich living in fantasy is more true than you know. Many of the Uber wealthy have imbibed from the likes of Asimov, Vonnegut and Roddenberry (science fiction) communists all. Champagne Socialists are what we used to describe them now it is luxury beliefs.
Money, I find, is an excellent insulator from reality. It represents an ability to shepherd resources and make things someone else's problem. I feel this distinction greatly when speaking to people of a higher or lower standard of living - even just a little. I imagine the differences just keep getting more insane the wider the gap gets.
When rent and property taxes for regular people in the US are more than the total pre-tax compensation of employees of reputable corporations here, it really puts things into perspective.
Also, if you don't have problems, fiction will give you plenty to deal with. Fiction and fantasy and getting into lore is a rich person's game.