To be honest, when I see all these excesses of the super rich, I just want to puke.
I am dumbfounded how the normal people can just celebrate it, and dream that they too can one day become one of these billionaires.
And yes, while it is true, that some people can truly rise from rags to riches, or create a computer program that can take over the world. For the majority of us, the odds are not in our favor. You can work hard, or work smart all your life, but you will never become rich.
It takes money to make money. There is no truer maxim than that.
These people live the life of luxury and pleasure, while the rest of us can barely make ends meet. And I'm not talking about the programmers, but rather, the other people that aren't blessed to have well paying jobs.
Sometimes, I think that there should be a legal limit on the amount of wealth that someone can accrue.
But even this doesn't solve the problems that our society is facing. It doesn't solve the homelessness. It doesn't solve the expensive housing crisis. Or the student loan crisis.
Meanwhile, for the rich, life is great. Technology is abundant. Money just makes more money. Opportunities are plenty, if you have the right connections.
Anyways.. back to the grindstone. When I become a billionaire, I'm going to buy myself a super yacht too.
I was whinging about wealth inequality and my spouse (European) rolled his eyes and said: "This is a solved problem. Your taxes are too low." A quick look at wealth inequality in the USA vs EU told me he might be right.
Wealth inequality in itself should never be the only goal. My parents grew up in China in the 60s, and to them wealth equality doesn't mean everyone is rich, it means everyone was equally poor.
Too often than not that's the form of wealth equality we see. So we need to keep low wealth equality while give enough incentives to people to raise the total wealth of the society, and that is a much harder problem to solve .
High taxes can narrow the gap between lower and middle classes. However, some upper classes will remain because they can pay experts to manage their tax planning. Finland is known for being a high-tax, egalitarian society, but Finnish celebrities are regularly criticized for keeping their wealth outside the country in a low-tax jurisdiction. And within Europe there are a number of law offices which exist solely to help Europeans establish citizenship and tax residency in Malta or the Caribbean islands.
This is absolutely not true. If you choose a career wisely, make room in your budget for savings, by the time you are in your 50’s, you absolutely will be wealthy 9/10 times. Maybe not superyacht wealthy, but not worrying about retirement, buying a new car, or unexpected costs, type wealthy.
Billionaire level wealth aside, amassing a few million over the course of a lifetime isn’t as difficult as people think, it just requires discipline.
Live well within your means and invest your saved money in assets consistently, compounding and time will do the rest.
Most rich people get there slowly, and don’t appear to live a rich person’s lifestyle. Conversely, a lot of people who appear rich have little accumulated wealth.
If you’d like to know more, Have a read of “The millionaire next door” and “I will teach you to be rich”. They changed my outlook on what being wealthy meant, and I’m now putting thousands onto my net worth every month in a automated way.
> and I’m now putting thousands onto my net worth every month
Lucky you. A lot of people I know don't even make thousands per month. They make less than $2,000 after taxes. With this, accumulating millions isn't possible, not even slowly. And even these people are way better off than other's who barely make $1,000 or even less.
Suppose you make $24k. Investing $2400/yr from age 22 and earning 5% returns, you investments pay $540/mo in today's dollars by age 65 [0]. Add in $1,110 in tdoay's dollars from Social Security [1] and you're at 85% income replacement.
Of course there are big problems with saving 10% of so little, and your retirement account could be even more at risk in a financial emergency, but in principle retirement works up and down the income ladder.
I'm old enough to recall the boom of the 1990s. Me and my professional friends were constantly invited to come to seminars about investing. All the mutual funds were trying to convince us to invest in the stock market. At that time, the stock market was booming, so it was easy to believe that investing in the stock market was a legitimate way to become wealthy.
All of the pitches recited the same set of numbers: we could invest in low risk mutual funds and get 12% returns, or we could invest in high risk mutual funds and get 16% returns. It was explained that when we were young we should prefer high risk strategies, and as we got older we should prefer lower risk strategies.
Then the crash of 2001 happened. Nasdaq took 10 years to come back to life. The stock market was flat for many, many years.
Around 2003 we started getting invitations to seminars that taught us how important it was to invest in real estate. We were told that the value of homes had never gone down, in all of USA history. It was the safest investment, and had significant returns.
Then the crash of 2008 happened. My friends who had bought homes were underwater. Even as recently as 2015, I still had friends who owed more on their homes than the homes were worth.
These notions that it is easy to get stable long term returns has not been born out by my experience, or the experience of any of my professional peers.
Our actual experience was very well described by the Bible:
"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
And yet the annualized rate of return of a total stock market index from 1990 to 2017 is 9.82%. There are absolutely booms and busts. It’s absolutely not stable when you look inside the cycles. But there are, reliably, cycles. Period and amplitude vary. But on a long enough time horizon, it works out. It’s also expected to decree as your risk exposure as you get closer to retirement to mitigate the risk of retiring at an unlucky time.
And yet, starting tomorrow, we might be at the start of another down cycle like the one that ran from 1966 to 1982. That was 16 years. For any actual living individual, it would be life changing, in a bad way. Even for young people. From 1966 to 1982 the nominal stock market index declined slightly, at a time when inflation was in the double digits, so the real rate of return was horrible.
Yes - no one is proposing that one can retire in 16 years. The S&P 500 over a 40-year working career from 1966 to 2006 returned 5.57% after inflation [0].
This is the beauty of it - you don’t need to make thousands per month to work towards making thousands per month.
The money you do invest can generate a return, which when re-invested compounds. Yes, this happens very slowly at first, but over the course of many years gets you towards your thousands per month.
I don’t have thousands left from my 9-5 job every month, but my assets (accumulated over years) work for me, and I just add what I can to that money making machine.
A middle-class person with a retirement account is not in anywhere near the same league as a superyacht owner. Yes, you can and should achieve financial independence in old age by investing a reasonable percentage of your income over time, but that has nothing to do with the billionaire class.
What people talk about is consuming a lot. Having an expensive yacht, for instance.
If you save up like a squirrel, you don't get the benefits of being wealthy, even if you are. And how rich are you really if a bit of consumption would significantly reduce your future consumption capacity?
I would argue you're not really rich if you can't just spunk money on whatever you feel like. And no, changing your desires to desire less might be just as satisfying (in fact I try to do that too), but it's not being rich, in the sense people ordinarily mean.
While the dictionary defines rich as "Possessing great material wealth" the real value of being rich is not having to worry about being poor (feeding yourself, affording rent, etc.). After a certain threshold, earning more does not increase happiness [0], and I would argue there is a big gap between being able to afford "a bit of consumption" vs spending money on whatever.
"Billionaire level wealth aside, amassing a few million over the course of a lifetime isn’t as difficult as people think, it just requires discipline."
At this point one could ask whether "excess wealth" shouldn't be used to battle society or species wide problems, like global warming and certain deceases.
True. There should be a hard cap on the amount of pollution (carbon emissions, etc.) that an individual may generate each year, wealth notwithstanding. Of course, this would be almost impossible to enforce and trivial to circumvent :(
I was once invited by (and paid for by) a billionaire investor in the company I worked for to a resort in the Bahamas patroned exclusively by the rich and famous. The extent of the service offered by the (mostly black, Bahamian staff) — appearing, disappearing and offering way more attentive assistance than any reasonable person needs made me downright uncomfortable. It was lovely to be in paradise, but being waited on hand and foot just seemed wretchedly excessive.
It probably varies by person but I've experienced a version of this at Four Seasons and Ritz properties. On one hand I respect the incredible training, homogenization, attention to detail, etc. It really is amazing - impossible to compare their level of service to any other chain/organization at that price point (top 1%, not 0.01%).
On the other hand after about a day or so and the novelty wears off it starts to seem a little "creepy" in a Stepford Wives/Get Out/etc kind of way... On a couple of occasions I was so uncomfortable I literally pulled someone aside and said "Come on, level with me dude. This isn't real. You don't really talk like this." In most cases they would respond with something along the lines of "Sir, I'm sorry but I don't know what you're referring to". It never quite rang as genuine but I couldn't help but wonder if the staff is trained or programmed.
I know some people/families/etc who have never experienced lodging, accommodation, service, etc at any lesser level and it made me really wonder how aware they are of the bubble they're in (and how strange it really is).
Some people definitely do and I've encountered many of them in high end dining (as an example). However, the experiences I've had with staff at these properties are totally unlike that.
Probably the closest comparison I can make are the well-known rules for Disney employees. Every employee on Disney property is essentially in costume and portraying a character, whether they're in a physical costume or not - to the point where every employee is referred to as a "cast member".
These brands have their systems, procedure, and process down to the point where virtually no personality or individualism is expressed by individual staff. Excellent for service and experience, but as referenced in my original comment, it can kind of cross over into "uncanny valley" territory and get unsettling.
I'm quite sure some some people do take pride in providing that level of service. There have been some fascinating fly-on-the-wall documentaries in the world of ultra-high net worth individuals recently -- top-end hotels, exclusive services you'd never imagine existed, and so on. Some of the people interviewed seemed to be genuinely happy, and often proud of what they did and their ability to satisfy obscure requests or handle strange emergencies or pay extraordinary attention to details.
It also wasn't uncommon for people in low-ranking jobs to be asked if they'd like to swap places with their clients and practically fall over themselves to say no. As one of the cleaners at a world-class London hotel said, she doesn't earn as much in a year as her current guest earns in an hour, and the bed does look comfy, but at least when her work is done for the day she won't need to be surrounded by security guards before she can even leave the building.
I think beeing in this kind of bubble for to long, automatically generates the perspective that you are the center of attention for the whole universe.
My grandfather had a nanny/servant, who had to do whatever the spoiled brat asked for. The result was a person, who automatically assumes that all other beeings have not meaning or intent and are in dire need of beeing pupeteered.
Its the sort of disgusting human beeing you regularly find to be CEO. Its one of the reasons they are also so fascinated with art- because art can not be created by pupeteering- as they are usually quite unimaginative.
I think Americans particularly dislike this obsequious type of service. People from other countries love it. Steve Jobs famously had very little household help and their family did their own household chores for a very simple reason that he couldn’t buy his way out of — he didn’t like strangers in his fucking house all the time. The best writing on this is of course David Foster Wallace for Harper’s.
Agatha Christie: “As a child I never dreamed that I would be so poor that I could not afford a servant, not so rich as to own a motor car.”
This varies widely around the world. I lived with an international student who was definitely from an upper middle class family but not a billionaire by any means; the family had several household staff, and that was just a normal luxury in the way that an American family might have a dishwasher.
I can’t speak for all Americans, but in New England most people would rather spend $5000 on a dishwasher than $4000 on lifetime dishwashing services from a person. I don’t want someone in my house and putting away dishes isn’t so agonizing that I need to avoid it.
I also wouldn’t want to live with my extended family in the same house. I’m guessing that past a point, home is more of an active communal space than a private retreat, so what’s a few more people?
We’re completely creeped out by the toilet assistants that no one bats an eye at.... And you’re the country where some states won’t let you pump your own gas
Steve jobs and David foster Wallace is seen as outsiders, to claim they represent the attitude of Americans is absurd
It is. Tipping culture incentivizes American service to get you out the door and free up your table for the next group. The wait staff are also constantly coming by the table to refill things or ask you to spend more money on more drinks and food. If you don’t, the check is next. This behavior is seen as perfectly normal in the states, but I’d consider it much inferior to the German environment where you get to enjoy your food and your company and if you ever need anything, just motion the waiter over.
In the USA, in restaurants, the wait staff get most of their income from tips. Because of this, they are ridiculously obsequious. Female wait staff tolerate a grotesque amount of sexual harassment, because if they complain then they lose their income. Compare that to the wait staff in Europe, which does not expect tips and who do not depend on tips for their income.
After reading, it does seem like a megayacht is an overall safe place to work.
In contrast as a teenager I worked the register at a convenience store in NYC for less than minimum wage selling cigarettes and lottery tickets to the poorest people in the city. At the time "convenience store clerk" was the most deadly job in the US and I really thought I wouldn't live to be an adult. There was also an 11 year old boy who was employed at that store for 25% of minimum wage (not a typo). The boy worked from 5AM to 7PM on Saturdays and was kept in the basement where he used a razor blade to prep magazines and newspapers that didn't sell.
If you had given any of us a chance to work on a yacht, cross the Atlantic, and leave with a few $Ks in savings, we would have taken it even if the survival rate was 50%. And especially if people would still be writing about our deaths years later. Even now, I doubt the death of a convenience store clerk would make the local news.
Not to minimize your experience, but we have no idea what the actual safety statistics are, because they don’t exist.
When your employer is a holding company in Cayman Islands, operating a ship flying a flag of convenience from some random country, located in yet another random country, expectations are limited... who would an accident be reported to?
I agree that actual safety statistics probably do not exist.
But why would you assume they are especially unfavorable? People crew all kinds of boats, big and small. Many do it for fun, on their own boats, in places where law enforcement is barely present.
"People sometimes get hurt on boats", sure. This fact doesn't stir much outrage.
There aren't many crew on these boats, though. That its a small absolute risk doesn't stop it being relatively dangerous. The maritime union guy suggesting it was as risky than oil rigs was an eye opener for me, as that's one of the most hazardous current jobs.
In this case it's much more likely shoddy journalism than those jobs being dangerous.
The author says things that sound factual ("Accidents, injuries and deaths are also commonplace") based on zero evidence ("with union leaders believing working on superyachts to be more dangerous than life on oil rigs").
Note that believing in something doesn't make it so and it's journalist's job to verify data behind believes when they use them to make strong claims like "Accidents, injuries and deaths are also commonplace".
Sadly, Guardian failed to do so, opting for lazy quoting that gives air of legitimacy to unsubstantiated "believes".
It's not like it would be hard for the author to do the math.
The article claims there are 37 thousand jobs on yachts.
25th most dangerous job ("heating, air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics and installers") had 8.4 fatalities per 100k workers per year.
That's 3.1 fatalities per 37k workers per year.
The article found 3 deaths per 18 years, which is 0.17 fatalities per year.
That's 16x less deaths than in 25th most dangerous job and 288x less than the most dangerous job.
I'm sure they don't know about all the deaths and we can argue about not all jobs on the yacht being equally dangerous but the safety margin in those calculations is pretty big.
The data doesn't support the claim that those are particularly dangerous jobs.
There have been more than 3 deaths in 18 years: you can look up the accident reports. Just because the Guardian focuses on three cases doesn't mean that those were all there were.
The oil rig death statistics are also difficult to interpret. In the UK, for example, there was one offshore oil death last year (per the HSE). Because it's a small industry, there's massive year-to-year variation in per-hundred-thousand rates. The Piper Alpha disaster in the late 80s had 167 deaths, which overwhelms those years where little goes wrong - but only if you look at the statistics over a longer period than 1 year.
The Guardian found three British fatalities. Presumably all the fatalities aren't British, it's just that information about the British fatalities were most accessible to the journalist.
I've been watching this thread all day, not one person has mentioned that the entire article has an undercurrent of the unaccountability of the super rich.
The article specifically mentions how the yachts move from port to port, have their ownership hidden, and constantly change flags, to avoid taxes and to avoid giving the legal protections their workers would have if they were employed on land. Where even the death of a crew member is shrugged off.
gone to local bars to celebrate sailing across the Atlantic. Faith had been locked up for the night, and Michael climbed to its top in an attempt to get inside via an unofficial emergency entrance. An inquest found he fell from the top deck, hit his head on the quay and drowned
It’s a stretch to blame that on the owner of the boat. He could have been drunk and climbed scaffolding to get back into his apartment.
Former yacht pro here, been employed as a first mate by Russian minigarch (I am Russian too). Working on a yacht is indeed dangerous and all safety precautions must be taken. All cases described in an article are examples of deadly negligence: one should wear life west when operating tender boat after sunset, one should use additional harness line while hanging on significant height, and one definitely should not try to jump on a boat from pier after drunk night (did it once on my vacation, was centimeters from poor chap's fate, lesson learned).
I don't see, however, how's boat owners are responsible for this except hiring slightly wrong people to manage and command their expensive property.
I guess I'm not cut out to be a yacht owner, because I assume I would treat my crew the same way I treat my employees now -- demand that they try to stick to a 40 hour work week, feed them, and make sure they are well rested and being safe.
I guess I would have to ask that magic yacht designer to design one that had double the normal crew quarters so that they didn't have to work doubles.
Crew on your superyacht is not your employees, it's a service. It's more like a hairdresser or barista. Do you ask your barista if they had enough sleep? Do you ask your hotel room cleaner if they ate well? Do you have another bedroom for your dogwalker?
Your employees and you are the team. You hunt together, you win together, you celebrate together. You may know the name of a waiter, but you don't have the same relationship with them, right?
Given that these people would live in my "house", I would hire people that would be interesting to have around when they're not doing their job, so I would assume I would get to know them better than those other folks.
I equate more to the nanny we have now -- she's only here about 15 hours a week, but we chat all the time, I know all about her family, and I've seen her engagement video.
Given that this is your fifth "house" where you spend about a month per year (maybe a week at a time), you wouldn't even be a person who hires them. And when you do spend time on your superyacht with your guests Bill Gates and Steve Jobs you wouldn't even be interested if your masseur is an interesting person. Because you can either hear about creation of Mac from the creator of Mac directly OR see your masseur engagement video. It's your vacation time and it's your decision what would give you more out of your life.
You’re with a barista for 5 minutes. You’re at the hairdressers for an hour. Crew on a boat is stuck there mostly 24/7. Even if it’s contract work its clearly a different kind of job.
Also, you should know your chef’s name after a couple of months at sea. That seems like basic humanity.
The crew on you superyacht are the people you expect to save your ass in an emergency, to properly maintain the boat's systems, and generally make sure you're not on board a deathtrap.
> None of the owners attended the three British men’s funerals.
Are they trying to spin it as something negative? Why the hell would you intrude into a private and family matter of a person you most likely have talked to only a couple of times in your entire life.
More jack-of-tech sysadmin/software/networking I knew guy who's primary job was (he claims) to ensure that Seattle local TV esp Seahawks (guess who's yacht) was available 24/7 no matter where yacht was.
This was 20+ years ago so a little more cutting edge than same would be today.
Well, that sounds interesting. Any implementation details? 20 years ago video streaming wasn't so trivial -- realmedia? And a satellite modem (or more than one, how fast was a satellite connection then?)
Doesn't this hold true for anywhere outside a major city? If it's going to take you hours to get to a hospital or a market, or for anyone to come to you, theoretically you're in the same predicament.
Part of the issue is the lack of legal structure for ships at sea. Once you're on the boat and outside the legal boundary of a country, the captain is essentially a dictator with little legal recourse for complaints.
I am dumbfounded how the normal people can just celebrate it, and dream that they too can one day become one of these billionaires.
And yes, while it is true, that some people can truly rise from rags to riches, or create a computer program that can take over the world. For the majority of us, the odds are not in our favor. You can work hard, or work smart all your life, but you will never become rich.
It takes money to make money. There is no truer maxim than that.
These people live the life of luxury and pleasure, while the rest of us can barely make ends meet. And I'm not talking about the programmers, but rather, the other people that aren't blessed to have well paying jobs.
Sometimes, I think that there should be a legal limit on the amount of wealth that someone can accrue.
But even this doesn't solve the problems that our society is facing. It doesn't solve the homelessness. It doesn't solve the expensive housing crisis. Or the student loan crisis.
Meanwhile, for the rich, life is great. Technology is abundant. Money just makes more money. Opportunities are plenty, if you have the right connections.
Anyways.. back to the grindstone. When I become a billionaire, I'm going to buy myself a super yacht too.