digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How Do Rich People Spend Their Time?

washingtonpost.com — People invariably believe that money can make them happy -- and rich people usually do report being happier than poor people do. But if this is the case, shouldn't wealthy people spend a lot more time doing enjoyable things than poor people?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SpectralSounds, on 06/23/2008, -8/+119Or you could be like my grandparents who are millionaires now.

    Save up money, invest a lot in the stock market. Live your whole life without luxuries like hot water or television. Live in arizona without air conditioning keeping the house cool, it keeps your house just under "kill you dead hot". Don't bother putting any carpeting in your house, because it will just eventually end up getting ruined anyway... so, why waste the money? Eat enough food just to keep you alive and don't ever leave the house because then the air conditioner would have to run a little more, and we can't have that.

    I could list a lot more examples, but I won't. What is the point of being rich, if you aren't going to use it to make your life any better?
    • justice7, on 06/23/2008, -4/+112Money is worthless if it is never spent
      • TTURabble, on 06/23/2008, -3/+46Money is worthless if it is wasted.
        • ErikHarrison, on 06/23/2008, -13/+5Mo Money, Mo Problems. Damn that Puff Daddy sure is gangsta'.

          /sarcasm
        • Merendino, on 06/23/2008, -2/+26"Wasted" is a relative term. If I wanted to spread $100 worth of honey on a hookers body just to watch her get annoyed at having all that sticky honey on her.... it would be worth it. For me that is. For you? Who the ***** knows....
        • jawagas, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9@Merendino, that's #7 on my ways to spend leisure time as a poor person.
        • Aharoni, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8See, Merendino, this is why you'll never be rich. Why pay a hooker to do that? just find yourself a nice submissive girl in a BDSM website who will gladly do it for free?
          You don't get rich by wasting money when there are perfectly good alternatives...
        • Merendino, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Well you see Aharoni the point isn't to get a girl that likes it... the point is to pay some hooker to do it, and watch what she does with it. While I personally admire your thriftyness, the point is to watch her get annoyed with it. A BDSM chick would like being humilated like that. I wanna see what the hooker would do.
        • Quickstrike, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That is what I told your grandparents when they were writing their will.

          Now look at them. Living life to the max - using up all that money before they die. Not a dime will be "wasted".


      • ikcilabd, on 06/23/2008, -2/+31Money spent on getting wasted is money well spent
      • dstz, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Not if it earns you the money you spend!



        I guess.
      • Wakuko, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Getting wasted for money is time well spent
      • aeoo, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1"Money is worthless if it is never spent"

        Not true. Simply having money to your name adds status and opens certain doors, even if you never spend it.

        This is not universally true, but in our heavily materialistic culture it is at least somewhat true.
      • SoftyMcCuddles, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0Money is worthless.
    • bxblox, on 06/23/2008, -0/+20Bet the family won't be complaining when they get their inheritance checks.
      • colin8651, on 06/23/2008, -0/+15And spend it on the biggest AC unit that money can buy.

        Your kids are not going to have the same respect for the money you saved than you do.

        I want my last check to bounce.
        • WELLDOITLIVE, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2That last line is from a movie, but I can't remember which one. Anybody? I'm sure I'll feel stupid once someone says it.
        • eriksanerd, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Ocean's 12
      • gryphon50, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2miserly people do get some sort of weird satisfaction out of saving money though. It's not what we would consider fun but to them, spending is probably stressful or gives them anxiety.
        • Lawrencesss, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2I can identify with this, I have 30k WoW gold and I HATE spending a cent of it.
    • toekneebullard, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5How about to make sure your family is taken care of?
    • BurnTees, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3on the bright side, you're in line to inherit a million bucks! (not being a d!ck, but to them, this could be worth not spending the money as they think that it's more important to provide for future generations)
    • drpaidout, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Because what makes people happy is not necessarily what you might think it is...
    • wipis, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9If people would just live slightly below their means they would be able to save some money for a nice retirement and the occasional vacation. Just because you make a lot of money doesn't mean you need to spend it all. Most people prefer to live outside their means. Don't buy a new BMW just settle for the Chrysler. Take the remainder and put it in CD's or an IRA. So you lost the status of a BMW but when that extra money sends you on a vacation in Cancun you'll be thankful.
      • slickfire, on 06/23/2008, -6/+4Or you could just get a used BMW.... the older the better actually, I have a '97 318i and yeah, it has problems, lots of them actually, but getting a loan for 5 grand then realizing that you may have to put another 4 grand into the car puts you at around 10 grand after the loan and the cheapest new Chrysler is the PT Cruiser at a whopping 16 grand, and who purchases the base model anyways? So I'm guessing by your standards, I actually got out of dodge(haha...pun) with a BMW and saved around $10,000 or more.

        Plus old BMWs just scream for you to put money into them....so beautiful, like the early E30s mmmmm... OK I'm done
      • asskicker32, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Or you could buy a used Subaru. I picked mine up for $1000. And I make almost 10 times over the poverty line.
      • emyo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Well not having a car is even better! No petrol, no parking, no insurance, no rego

        Just $20 a week for the train is mighty good.
    • superkendall, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3And how do you know they don't like things that way? Just because you are materialistic does not mean they are, or should be.
      • dafragsta, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8desiring comfort != materialistic. Eating good food != materialistic. Bling and cars == materialistic. Forgoing comfort to save money isn't avoiding materialism, especially if you can afford it. It's just being miserly. You don't get to take it with you, and that attitude is VERY unmaterialistic.
    • frozen1, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Being rich wears off for those that have other interests, after a while you get bored. George soros and Warren buffet have thus stated "Investing is boring". Law of diminishing returns.
      • asskicker32, on 06/23/2008, -6/+1No it doesn't, you're an idiot.
    • dafragsta, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8I've always been into creative things. My life wouldn't change at all if I were independently wealthy. My life is not spent in pursuit of wealth. It's spent in pursuit of independence to create to my own standards. I'd love to be rich, but I'd spend the money on a nice house with a big ***** studio separate in the back for my design and music pursuits. I'd love not feeling the pressure of going to work every day or worrying about money, and I'm sure I'd start traveling a lot, but that peace of mind is all that money would really bring me. In that sense, money WOULD be a very big tool in making me happy.
      • specialK16, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1" I'd love not feeling the pressure of going to work every day or worrying about money, and I'm sure I'd start traveling a lot, but that peace of mind is all that money would really bring me. In that sense, money WOULD be a very big tool in making me happy."

        That is ALL I want :(
    • staticneuron, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7Whatever. My uncle died recently and unexpectedly. I have lost 3 family members and 2 friends in the past 3 years. And I am going to lose one more thanks to cancer. It drives home the point that we aren't going to be here forever. So while its nice to save for the future so you are comfortable there is no need to go extreme. Try to enjoy life as much as you can know even if it requires you to spend money because you can miss out on important events in your life by trying to save money and you can die at any time.
    • inajiffy, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Wait, I thought they didn't have an air conditioner.
  • azninvasion2000, on 06/23/2008, -8/+49mo money, mo problems.
    • ErikHarrison, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3holy ***** I think we were both typing the same thing at the same time.
    • dezholling, on 06/23/2008, -5/+0nope, you're post in the first thread was submitted 8 minutes after azn's was.
    • asskicker32, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1no info for the DEA.
    • ekmather, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1no, no, notorious....
    • jackdaniels06, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I've heard "mo money, mo problems." But I've also heard "living rich is a great way of being miserable." The comment "mo money, mo problems" sounds like it was made up by a person of lower class means because if the comment were really true, why don't rich people just give all their money away? It doesn't make sense.
      • t0x2c, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1then they wouldnt be rich and they'd have to complain about the rich
  • CJ117, on 06/23/2008, -12/+66100K a year is HARDLY rich. It's more like middle-upper middle class. If you live in any part of LA that's not the ghetto, that's pretty much what you need just to survive out here. This article is a load of crap.

    Now let's examine 1,000K a year or more... just how "miserable" are THESE people?
    • Griminald, on 06/23/2008, -2/+22Well to a person making $20K, those making $100K are rich. Then again, to those making $100K, the others make $20K *because* of their leisure time (aka "They're Lazy").

      But it depends on where you live, yeah. Here in Jersey, $100K is not even close to rich.
      • specialK16, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That's for the states. In here, 24k would be the line for middle -upper to upper class.
      • Krissam, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure if they're exactly lazy, but they're definately lazier.

        In Denmark we had a debate recently over lowering taxes, some politicians were saying it would get more money to the state because it would get people to work more, but others were saying people would just take more time off because they were happy with what they earned.

        This could possibly be related to this.
        Say that the "rich" were the ones who would take those extra hours of work for the extra cash
        Whereas the "poor" would be the people who takes time off because they're happy with what they earn.
    • MatthewDuke, on 06/23/2008, -2/+27I thought the same thing, $100k/year isn't CEO money, it's just an average management position in a non-rural setting.

      Anyone who has to work a job because they cannot afford to live off their wealth alone is middle class.
    • ilgrappler, on 06/23/2008, -11/+9$1,000K...otherwise known as $1 Million?
      • MatthewDuke, on 06/23/2008, -1/+22CJ117 was keeping the units the same for comparison and emphasis.
      • dpds, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Good catch there, chief.
    • vidaliasweet, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7Cost of living in your region makes a big difference, lots of places 100k a year is just middle class.
      • manitcor, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4very true, in New England 100k from a single earner in the household is almost not enough, you will most likely have both parents working to support kids. Without kids it's comfortable but certainly not rich by any means.
      • t0x2c, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1100k a year is my gas bill...
    • narcofiche, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4I'm an LA resident and live off of the measly money I make as an artist. I'd say about 80% of my activities are doing leisure activities and I live in a nice part of town. It really depends on what kind of leisure activities make you happy and just living comfortably.
      • andy3109, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Do you think one who spends 80% in leisure deserves to pay much less (percentage wise) taxes than one who spends 80% of their time in stress?
    • azninvasion2000, on 06/23/2008, -7/+6i agree, CJ. i make just over six figs, and in NYC thats like making 35k a year if you live in ohio.

      i only eat healthy stuff too, and i like a beer every now and then. on average, a normal lunch for me is around 30 bucks.
      • username7D8, on 06/23/2008, -0/+15where the hell do you eat lunch everyday, Nobu? I work in NYC... avg lunch for me ~ 10 bucks. And no fast food!
      • t0x2c, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3I eat at my office. Average lunch is about OVER NINE THOUSAND
    • kurtwinter, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2You need at least 150k to afford a studio apartment in NYC, with money actually saved towards retirement. No amount of money management skills will help you if you don't at least make half that with a roommate.
    • soloman747, on 06/23/2008, -5/+01,000K? Isn't that a million dollars?
      • bdbr, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1soloman747 shows his mad math skillz. :)
    • Ymeg, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2100k is considered rich in many eastern states.

      Hell, people can have a nice life living on 35-40k a year. Rich is according to where you live.
  • ganymede2010, on 06/23/2008, -7/+18Beyond having the basic necessities. Quality of life is an illusion of the mind.
    • MrWhite7, on 06/23/2008, -4/+26Says the guy with a computer and internet connection
      • sexybobo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+30like he said basic necessities.
        • MrWhite7, on 06/23/2008, -15/+5right, thanks for clearing up an arbitrary ***** distinction for me.
    • frequentFlyer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0Whatever. That's what poor people say to make themselves feel better.
      • Stevethegreat, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Buddhists monks have been invariably found to be the "happiest" people in the world in studies contacted the last 4 decades or so and I have to conclude that was also the case a lot before than that. According to neurobiology it seems that "happiness" is a way of thinking than a state of being,therefore to be "happy" is a skill in itself rather than requiring skills (or money) to achieve it. If a contemplative lifestyle consistently proves -through the eons- to be the best way to tolerate life, it's in itself an argument against possessing wealth (that actually wealth from a point onwards has more negative impact than positive to the human psychology), especially considering that contemplatives -most of the times- are people who would be considered to live in ultimate poverty by outsiders (ultimate poverty also have downsides more than being rich, to be self-sufficient seems to be the trick).

        The poor would say that wealth doesn't bring happiness, but poverty does less so, apparently it's all in the mind and the money you possess is pretty much irrelevant as soon as you're not so poor that you can't survive.
        • shawn650, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Buddhists monks are able to reach a state of 'nirvana' by basically turn off their brains. When too many mental critics are turned off, you're left with few worries, concerns, etc so that everything seems glorious, allowing errors and flaws. In other words, the fewer the critics active, then the fewer goals pursued, making one intellectually dull. Mental turmoil is normal and healthy, as long as it's not all-consuming and it doesn't cause you to get so discouraged that you don't move forward.
        • Stevethegreat, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I know that's why I'm against Buddhist meditation as a waste of time, it turns you to an imbecile. What you need is not to clear your thoughts, what you need is to pick and choose from the emotions you feel and the things you want to do, wisely. My point however was not that, it was that "being happy" is something you can learn to do and if Buddhists are able to do so, so should you without even the aid of meditation and/or the clearing of your mind. If it is a state of mind (as in the flow of electricity to certain neurotransmitters) you have to learn to stimulate them externally by the use of your own experiences than the absence of them (like it happens to Buddhist monks). It's most possibly something for which having more money than you need won't help and having more needs than you can satisfy can actually make you even more miserable no matter your physical wealth.
  • tonytheshoes, on 06/23/2008, -2/+77I always imagined they swam around in their huge Scrooge McDuck money-pools...

    Illusion shattered :/
    • surasshu, on 06/23/2008, -0/+13They do, but they told this guy that they were "doing taxes" to ***** with his research.
    • Haoie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5I always imagined they'd hit their heads when they tried diving into a pool of gold.
      • t0x2c, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1We abandoned the Gold Standard in the 30s dude.
        • saranagati, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Yah, now they just hit the floor when they dive into their money pool because that money doesn't really exist.
  • bigd063, on 06/23/2008, -7/+12If I had money I could afford to use cocaine when around others, and heroin the rest of the time.
  • mustafya, on 06/23/2008, -5/+113My father's boss is part of the family that founded Murphy Oil Corp. His wife wanted to go shopping in NY so she took the private jet to NY and back. They have no idea what it is like to pay bills or worry about money. He has accountants that take care of all the bills. All him and his wife have to do is sit back and do whatever the hell they feel like.

    They are great people to. His CPA gave him the choice of taking a capital loss on some stock or giving everyone at the company he owns a $30,000 dollar bonus. Both options had the same net effect on this guy's wealth. What did he do? He sold the stock because he said he didn't feel like his workers deserved the bonus.

    Before you say maybe they didn't. Keep in mind this guy's workers add approximately $2.5 million a month to his wealth.

    His oldest son got a Ferrari for his 18th birthday. Only one of his kids works. He wanted to be an anthropology professor for the University of Arkansas. UofA turned him down because he had no research published. So daddy donates $5 million to the university in return for his kid getting a tenured spot as a full professor. Another kid just spent 5 years yachting around the world.

    In my experience those born truly wealthy have absolutely no idea how a normal person lives their life.
    • jonshipman, on 06/23/2008, -1/+44I make 30k a year :(
      That bonus would have doubled my yearly income! :o
    • MattB123, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6A lot of these things would make a "normal" person happy. But my experience with super-rich people is they are still unsatisfied, and get annoyed with stupid things. I'd like to be able to try being super-rich to find out but it seems people are as happy as they want to be. In most cases it's not all that happy. Human nature?
      • WileEPeyote, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I'd rather be annoyed at little things than things like..."how am I going to pay for my kids dental bills".
    • jerrycan, on 06/23/2008, -0/+10That's a great story. I like the part in the middle about not dolling out a bonus.
    • dpds, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4He sounds like a real Randian hero.
    • bombula, on 06/23/2008, -5/+10We must be cautious, or there will come a day like many other days in other cultures at other times throughout history when the poor will simply start killing the rich for being rich. It has happened before. It will happen again. Two things prevent it from ALWAYS happening: religion and ignorance. Religion makes you think that killing scumbags is wrong because the meek shall inherit the Earth and have their reward in Heaven. Ignorance makes you unaware of how ***** your own life is compared to those who are wealthy.

      Religion and ignorance are both on the way out. If I was rich, I assure you nobody else would know it.
      • phufufoo, on 06/23/2008, -4/+7O cry me a ***** river. People who kill others for being simply rich are a bunch of cowards that won't face the fact that
        1. They are Lazy
        2. They have no talent
        3. They are not lucky

        Take that energy and DO SOMETHING other than kill the next rich guy. Or just shut up and be happy with what you have. I'm not wealthy, but I am happy with being able to eat food drive a car have a computer and go out on weekends.

        Oh yeah another thing stopping them is probably this lil thing called law enforcement and jail time. Also common sense. Whats the point of killing a rich person unless you are a thief.
        • WileEPeyote, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Bobula wasn't crying about it. I believe it was more of a warning...
      • sn4ke666, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2The third thing is that the rich have the guns.
      • aeoo, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2I think it is healthy to have some differences in wealth. Some people are more industrious and bring more value to society, and so they have more wealth. However, I will never, ever, ever believe that someone can bring 1000 times more value than someone else. No way. I think janitors are just as important as scientists and so on. Our society is extremely prejudiced and unbalanced in how we view value. It has to do with the notion of "ownership". Once you are an "owner" you no longer have to justify yourself to the society. And that's a shame.
        • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1What if your company provides 1000 jobs? Are you bringing 1000 times more value than your janitor? I think so.
        • WileEPeyote, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1How so?
          Suppose the person can't find 1000 workers? Will that person still be worth 1000 times more?
          A boss with no workers is just a worker...
    • sylance, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I don't quite understand how you can choose to take a loss on some stock... I have stock... can I choose not to take a loss? If I can... please explain because I have some Ford stock that I'd like to sell soon.
      • mustafya, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8It was to reduce his tax burden. He could sell the stock at a loss and claim it on his taxes. Or he could give "gifts" to all his employees and claim those as deductions. Just like you have to pay 15% on capital gains. You get a 15% deduction on capital losses. I don't understand all the details I only know what his CPA told me and my father.
        • ScottMitchell, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1But if he gives the bonuses to his employees, then he's out the $$$ plus he still is holding the stock that is worth a lot less than when he bought it.
      • ericmerrill, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Ford stock? Please tell me it was purchased in 1957 or something.
      • EASwanson, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Basically if you bought a million dollars worth of ford stock and now it's worth half a million dollars and you went to sell it you could claim 500k against your income for the tax year. So if you make 500k a year and sold your stock for a loss of 500k then you're effective income is 0 and no income = no taxes pretty much.
      • dystra, on 06/23/2008, -4/+0Buying Ford stock is one way....
      • dystra, on 06/23/2008, -4/+0buying Ford stock is one way...
    • EASwanson, on 06/23/2008, -5/+9Why you don't give a 30k bonus to you're workers out of the blue:

      Unless the bonus is performance based giving workers a random bonus actually has a lot of negative effects. Such as when a year later the workers get no bonus they become upset / feel entitled to more then they are actually worth. It's like if you go to lunch with someone and they randomly buy you lunch for a week or two. Pretty soon you'll be accustomed to this person buying you lunch that when the period is over you may actually feel upset with the person because they won't buy you another free lunch.
      • jpop, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2They also don't get the full 30k. At best, they get half after taxes, plus get shafted into a higher tax bracket.
        • ScottMitchell, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5FYI, getting bumped up to a higher tax bracket doesn't mean you pay a higher rate for every dollar you earn. You only pay the higher rate for dollars earned over a certain limit.
        • WileEPeyote, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5You are one of those "yeah, but you lose half in taxes" people huh?
          How about just call it 15k then. Are you saying you wouldn't want 15k?
        • jpop, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3This may be just BS, but looking at the numbers, they make 30K, they're in the 15% tax bracket. They make 60K, they're well into the 25% tax bracket. Some quick numbers. 30K * 15% = $4,500. 60K * 25% = $15,000. Bonus money is withheld at the highest rate, so they'd get around 15k at bonus time, plus 4k or so in refunds (maybe).

          However, their income doubles (30k to 60k) but their taxes increase more than 3 times what they paid before, so if they're living paycheck to paycheck (like a lot of people), they may get a nasty surprise come tax time.
    • bdbr, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Your story makes me glad I don't buy Murphy's Oil.
    • azzythedemon, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Well, the idea of life is to work as little as possible to gain the most results. It's what we all strive for; it's why we try to work faster, streamline things, retire early, et cetera.

      These lucky ***** just got dealt a good hand and have what we want, without working for it.
      • outdplay, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Of course... all the poor people are dealt bad cards.. way to play the victim. I'm sure the founders of Murphy's Oil just happened to stumble upon a money tree to start their oil business. It probably took 1 week to set up and they were just rolling in dough. Yeah, lucky *****. The truth of the matter is that it probably took the "Murphys" a few generations to achieve this kind of success. The grandfather probably risked his life savings, lived off of canned beans for a few years, and worked harder than you would EVER be willing to work to see success through.
    • outdplay, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Rich people don't have to live the normal life because they are smart enough and have enough foresight to secure their financial futures. That's why they live a *gasp* rich lifestyle.
  • itsthebrod, on 06/23/2008, -1/+21I've heard both sides of the story. Rich people don't get rich by spending money, as well as, what's the point in having money if you're not going to spend it? Personally, I fall into the latter belief. Save up and invest. Use your money wisely, but not necessarily always sparingly... Hell, you only live once and I'll be damned if I'm going to live my life worrying about my air conditioning running up the electricity bill.
    • DangerCollie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+10The problem is that the habits that make you wealthy are the same habits that make you a miser. And it gets to be a habit that's hard to break. You turn into Warren Buffet when it comes to selling investments and just never get around to it.

      The same habits that make a successful business person start creeping into your personal life. I could afford a nicer house than I live in, a nicer car than I drive. But whenever I've done that in the past it seems inevitable that my stress level goes up. I get nervous about parking the expensive car in the grocery store parking lot, I spend more time taking care of a big house than a modest one. All the small extra expenses really add up over time. The last time I bought a pair of $200 sunglasses, I lost them. I've never lost a $12 pair and don't worry about it.
      • Spire3660, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8The things you own begin to own you.... I find myself reflecting upon this more and more as I get older.
        • Pulch, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Not in all cases. My vice is music, I just spent far too much money on a PA system for my band. I've probably spent almost $8k on music equipment (which is a lot considering I'm only 23 and don't make much), and I don't see any of that as possesions ruling my life. If I had more money, I would use it to buy better equipment, or use it to rent a nice practice space, and as far as the study goes, the only reason money would make me happier is that it would add to my free time, that's the whole point!
        • bdbr, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Damn, Spire, that was quite wise. OK, you probably didn't make it up, but it was still quite wise.
      • veriix, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1logged in to digg
    • WELLDOITLIVE, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I completely agree, except I use the a/c very sparingly still.
  • speel, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4This is something new?
  • mlrigsby, on 06/23/2008, -2/+51Yeah, I'm crying in my beer for all the rich people.
  • K3ITHK, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7There was an article on digg or reddit not too long ago that said that giving away money or gifts made people happy.
    • KingGorilla, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2but is it the same kind of happy as buying a ps3?
  • mattingly, on 06/23/2008, -11/+2mo' money mo' problems. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who likes Biggie.
  • CryTekEmployee, on 06/23/2008, -19/+3they are so gay
  • RizzoFrank, on 06/23/2008, -0/+15Depending on how you became wealthy is the determining factor in your happiness from wealth. If you truly worked and earned your wealth then you probably will be happy knowing that you have achieved something. If you acquired your wealth from inheritance, stealing from your workers, scams, donations, etc. your happiness will not have the same effect as earning it.
  • Calinthalus, on 06/23/2008, -4/+72Since when is a family that makes 100k a year considered rich? In today's economy?
    • benologist, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8I suspect that soon enough anyone not on welfare will be 'rich'....
      • sexybobo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+12almost every one in the USA is rich. compared to a lot of the world.
      • WhistlinTom, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1oh that's rich.
    • lordewoks, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9How about making ~100k a year and spending your entire day on Digg?
    • shibyness, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5my family makes a little over 100,000k a year, and we are about to get kicked out of our 3 bedroom house because we can't afford the rent, and have mounting money issues and car's that are breaking down..
      yay for being rich right? bullox.
      • rodrigorules, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1my family makes a combined 200,000 dollars a year and we can barely pay the home, and we only have power 25 days out of the month. now thats bad personal finance!

        in the end its what you owe, not what you make.
      • verevi, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7Holy *****, that's bad money skills. Lemme guess: you have a 60in plasma TV, $150/mo cable bill, drink Starbucks everyday, and recently bought a new car within the last couple of years? 100K is enough to live well if you have your priorities straight.
    • Skooma714, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5Stop living in California. You'll find 100k is more than enough to live decently.

      Edit: I didn't even know for sure you did live in California till after I posted and checked your profile.
      • saranagati, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1i agree, everyone needs to get the ***** out of southern california. everyone who is thinking of moving here should realize that you're chosing to move to a ***** desert that is more expensive than 95% of the rest of the country. On top of that you're also choosing to sit in traffic in the desert all day to get to/from work while not feeling safe enough to walk down the street after dark. There's nothing out here for all you ***** so you should all either stay wherever you're living now or go back to wherever you moved here from.

        Happily married? Have fun watching spouse cheat on you once you get out here... Bring your wife/husband to disneyland and they want to go on all the rides.

        Enjoy spending time with your family? Have fun working all day to afford your drastically overpriced house with no yard while your wife ***** your neighbor and your 13 year old daughter is out whoring herself to some entire gang so she could get just a little more heroin so that she can forget about how her home life is totally falling apart. Your son should be alright though, well if you consider doing time as alright. Its fairly hard not to get arrested here if you're under 25 since all the cops have some raging hard on to terrorize the high school kids who shunned them when they were in high school.

        Well at least you'll live next to the beach and be able to go swimming in it. Well at least on the days when it's not shut down because its so polluted that you cant swim in that 325473859723 gallon pool.

        The weather is great though. Temperatures are a cool 100+ degrees during the summer. Luckily with that weather being so great you can save on your electric bill because your apartment doesn't have ac.

        In conclusion, go/stay home! We don't want you here and if you do show up here, we'll have some gang from whatever race you aren't come and rob you from time to time.
        • Myers3979, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0Sooo you're wife is a whore, your son is being raped by big black men in prison as we speak, your daughter is putting on an ass to ass showing for the local heroin supplier, you hate your job and your house, the only reason your area is considered rich is because of some guys who are making computer chips but your not so you live in silicon valley because you just want to feel like your a part of something bigger than you are.. congratulations. Or maybe you should stop watching desperate housewives, block mtv from your daughter, and get a better job so you can afford an air conditioner for your family and pay off some of your son's drinking tickets.
  • chanop, on 06/23/2008, -0/+14It also depends on what the person considers Leisure. A wealthy person may consider a game of Golf with their colleagues work, when a lesser off person would consider it leisure.
    • kingmanic, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8Ensuring you stay a few strokes behind while not appearing to be throwing the game, carrying on a banal conversation about his hemorrhoids while trying to edge in a comment on how it's help us both if he'd accept the Henderson offer and not laughing when he triple bogeys a par 3 is all work.
    • sn4ke666, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1A driven person may consider hard work, in a field of interest, to be rewarding in itself. A lazy person may consider it just boring work. From my experience the hardworking interested individual tends to be happier. A side effect of hard work is sometimes money, which has its own benefits. When one has money, by itself, without responsibilities, or a life work, as in trust-fund babies and the Paris Hiltons of the world, one usually is miserable, fickle, and hateful.

      Its the outlook and habits of most upper-middle class people that bring happiness, not their money. The money is a third, dependent variable, variable, that by itself neither brings happiness nor misery. That is, money beyond what is necessary for basic survival.
  • DrTubes, on 06/23/2008, -3/+99"What would you do if you had a million dollars?"

    "I'll tell you what I'd do man! Two chicks at the same time man."
    • bbqsalad, on 06/23/2008, -0/+26***** a
    • mediaspree, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5AFTER you finish up the drywall over there at the new McDonalds.
    • dezholling, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1thank you for making my day.
    • trer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+42"I would do absolutely nothing".

      "You don't need a million dollars to do that. My cousin's broke and don't do *****."
    • imrich, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0haha i created an acc. just to say that is the best thing ive heard thus far LMAO... thats ***** great haha
  • zyl0x, on 06/23/2008, -12/+10Hey, if you're so ***** unhappy with your 7-digit incomes, why don't you send some of that spare cash overseas to people who NEED IT TO LIVE.
    • MrWhite7, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7Then his descendants would be competing with their descendants for space and resources. Get it?
    • mhender, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4They don't need it to live. Not every country runs on capitalism. A lot of people get by without cars, stores and credit cards.
      • zyl0x, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1How did I imply that they were trading cars, stores and credit cards for food and clean water? Not every country runs on capitalism, but they all use money.
    • ender7074, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8Ahhh the wealth redistribution argument. Very good, lets start with yours.
      • zyl0x, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3Ahh the typical donation response "you first". It's always the guy who barely has enough money to survive in his society but never complains about it that's expected to donate first. I don't understand where you get that ridiculous proposition. Some guy with $50 a month to spare should donate it all, but someone with $150,000 a month to spare on "risky investments" is perfectly honorable in his pursuits. How about no?
        • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Right, it's also typical that the guy with less to lose suggest we all donate out extra cash. Sorry I know its not right but I feel like I donate to the less fortunate every May 15th. I'm a lot less likely to give freely when I know I'm already being forced to give.
        • ender7074, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0Pal i donate quite a bit every year, in both time and money, and I dont make anywere near 100k. So yes, you first. If you feel that someone should be giving more, then lead by example. If not, then keep that piehole shut. You dont get to criticize someone else's generosity and you for damn sure dont get to tell them that its not enough. People that get gouged on taxes every year have less to give and, guess what, they will give less. I know thats a difficult idea for a lib to swallow but there ya go.
    • Jethris, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Why don't those people get jobs that pays more? Get a degree in something that will make money (not social work, library science, art history etc.)

      Can't afford college? The military has nice programs to help with that. Don't want to go to Iraq? The Navy and Air Force spend less time there than the Army.

      I worked my way out of lower class by enlisting in the Air Force. I now make good money, and there is no way that I want my money to go to people who don't want to work.
      • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Thats how I feel. I worked my way through school slowly, delivering pizzas. I feel like if I can do it anyone can.
        • zyl0x, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1That's all great and fine when you live in a country where there are jobs. Oh, and schools.
        • ender7074, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0@zyl0x So now its our responsiblity to provide jobs and eductation to everyone in the world? Funny how we are doing just that in Iraq but you dont celebrate that. Stupid, just stupid although we do spend billions each year on education for foregin countries.
      • ender7074, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0Because the people around here feel that the government owes them something. Keep in mind that the people bitching the loudest have done jack for this country, say like serve in the military, but they feel that just because they are not as successful as the Jones' up the street, the government should take away the Jones' hard earned money and give it to them because its just not fair *stamping feet and screaming like a toddler* that Mr. Jones has a better lifestyle. Its all about jealously.
  • phanfromcheese, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7I'm playing this for all of them...
    http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/2541/moblog_bfb2fc0fd2f3 ...
  • RivalJr, on 06/23/2008, -14/+0I did not read the story, but if I was rich I would just sit around and count my money...
  • santaliqueur, on 06/23/2008, -4/+93If I had $1 million, I'd spend $950K on hookers and booze. Then I'd spend the rest foolishly.
  • diggthisman, on 06/23/2008, -1/+14health > money

    You need your health to enjoy the money that you have; money is worthless if you don't have your health
    • sexybobo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+19Money can pay for better health.
      • pbone, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1not in canada
        • sexybobo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2If you go to the US though you can pay so you don't have to wait 4 months like you do in Canada.
        • Trichomonas, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Lol...you've obviously never worked/know anyone that works in the health industry. Wait times can be avoided by going to private clinics in Canada, to the USA, or even by personally knowing doctors.

          Oh, and the "wait 4 months" is only for large procedures and scans. If you need the procedure (CAT, MRI, under 2 hour surgery, etc.) and are young you can usually get it within 3 weeks.
        • sexybobo, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1My sister needed her gall bladder removed. She found out Thursday and by the next Tuesday she was in the car coming back from the surgery and her age had nothing to do with how long she had to wait. Simple fact that doctors in the USA make a ***** load more money then doctors in Canada so more people will go through the required college and work in the US.
    • Aadain, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Money == health.
      • drunkmonkey01, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3the richest people can still die of cancer or get seriously injured in a car wreck.
        • Aadain, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1And so can poor people. But on average, when viewed as large groups, the group with little money will suffer from more health issues than those with lots of money. This is from many factors, including the rich getting access to better doctors/medicine than those with little money. Some in the lower segments of society can't even visit a doctor except when a life threatening event occurs, leading to minor alignments becoming major issues since they are left untreated for so long. Those are just a few examples, I'm sure you can find more with 10 minutes on Google.
      • sexybobo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3http://tinyurl.com/57rebc
        Apparently.
        • Aadain, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That's actually a pretty cool site. I need to explore it.
        • sexybobo, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1It is called gap minders they gave a ted talk about 2 years ago is where i found the site
          http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/92 for the info about the graphs. Also just a hint about something i didn't know it has a play button so you can see the stats between 1850-2000 for most info. It is either owned or supported by google now.
    • Wakuko, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Health is worthless if you don't have money
    • KingGorilla, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3money can buy you a robot body where your brain will be placed
    • outdplay, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Here is a concept. You can have both! *gasp*
  • sensical, on 06/23/2008, -2/+8So the point is that poor people are poor because they want to live a laid back lifestyle. If you want to be rich, don't live a laid back lifestyle.
    • staticneuron, on 06/23/2008, -3/+7"People who make less than $20,000 a year, for example, told Kahneman and his colleagues that they spend more than a third of their time in passive leisure -- watching television, for example. Those making more than $100,000 spent less than one-fifth of their time in this way -- putting their legs up and relaxing."

      This article is *****. People who make less the 20k a year are either going to school or to inexperienced (young) to get more than a part time position. I have seen poor and struggling people and lazy is not the word i would use to describe them. Working multiple jobs, horrible commutes on horrible (in my area) public transportation. Killing themselves to make ends meet. But the people I met that were por were making above 20k a year.

      I made less...... when I was working and going to school at the same time. I had made 13k one year. And I probably did spend a good portion of my time relaxing. But When I was out and hit the workforce I have seen people struggle just to make ends meet.

      ""In reality," Kahneman and his colleagues wrote in a paper they published in the journal Science, "they should think of spending a lot more time working and commuting and a lot less time engaged in passive leisure."

      My ass. This is just a way for someone to use numbers to skew facts for their own perverted reason. From Florida, to chicago, georgia and LA, all I have been exposed to is people on the low end of the totem pole busting their ass to get ahead.
      • JointVenture, on 06/23/2008, -6/+5You dont know any black people do you?




        /someone had to say it.
        • andy3109, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1I dugg you up...their are actually statistics to prove your point...they are called employment statistics.
      • xceptionaly, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5Of course you have to bust your ass to get ahead. If you didn't everybody would get ahead and we'd all be millionaires and then who would flip the burgers at McDonalds? Unfortunately, some people don't figure out that "getting ahead" is its own full time job. You can work like the devil is chasing you at whatever ***** you work at, but they'll just use you up and throw you away when they've sucked out everything you have to give if you're not also planning for the next move.
    • toxicshok, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2uhhh... can I get some evidence to back that up? You seem to just be yelling at the rich, because there rich. Not all rich people got to where they were by "stealing from hard workers"
      • staticneuron, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Wow. Are you responding to me? I hope not because I never "yelled at the rich" or implied that the stole from hard workers. All my comments were directed towards the article and its faulty logic.
    • sn4ke666, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1The point is that many of the poor are unhappy because they live unengaged lifestyles.
  • kolyana, on 06/23/2008, -0/+46The article was amazingly 'light' and offered really no substance at all; I was disappointed. 4 paragraphs of largely fluff.
  • idavidtang, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9No money, no honey.
    • frequentFlyer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0And that, boys and girls, is the meaning of life.
  • OC73, on 06/23/2008, -5/+2Doing lots of coke.
  • paintpro, on 06/23/2008, -1/+13I like to drink expensive scotch and pee on poor people
    • WELLDOITLIVE, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1At the urinal, that is. You wouldn't be so poor if you didn't waste all your money on expensive scotch!
    • FlyingSpaghetti, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5At yes, that's the trickle down theory!
    • byrc, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2R. Kelly, is that you?
  • ltomson, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1They are rich but not wealthy....besides what do you define as rich??
  • Suzilla, on 06/23/2008, -1/+62They considered people making $100,000 "rich"?

    I once heard a definition of rich as being when your money works for you, rather than you working for money. People who have sufficient $$ socked away to be living off the interest would be, by this definition, rich, whereas people who are working (that is, generating active, rather than passive income) every day are not.
    • Aadain, on 06/23/2008, -0/+22That is probably the best definition of 'rich' I've ever heard.
    • ender7074, on 06/23/2008, -10/+5Thats how the libs want to define it. You always hear about "the rich" not paying enough. Should check and see what the bar is for that. You may end up with a ton more taxes if that clown Obama is elected. For the reccord, no, I dont think 100k is rich either.
      • kingmanic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3The world is not divided into only two camps. There are idiots and jerks are all stripes and political affiliation does not make you smarter or dumber. Stereotypically both eh 'lib'rals and 'con'ervatives live with a pretty simplified view but most people do not fit neatly into one camp or the other. Generalizations about it are often useless and counter productive.
    • thedragon4453, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Yeah, that is my picture of "rich" as well. Its all well and good to have a media room with every game system playing on a hi-def 100" projector, but if you can't ever play it, whats the point?

      I don't necessarily want money. I want time. I'd be pretty happy on my income now if I didn't have to work.
      • ScottMitchell, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1What the hell would you do with your time if you didn't have to work? If you say, "Watching TV" or "playing games" or "just sitting around," I cannot imagine how that wouldn't bore you to tears in short order. And if you have more interesting and engaging and socially beneficial hobbies and interests, why can't you turn those into a career? Granted, the end result may not be EXACTLY what you'd do if you didn't need the money, but I'd wager you could get close to your dream "time off" activity and still make a buck.
        • Aadain, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Think you missed the target there buddy. If you hobby/interest becomes your job, they are no longer your hobby/interest, but just more work. Its wonderful if you can do what something you love every day and get paid for it, but in the end work comes with responsibility, effort, stress, etc.

          If I didn't have to work, I'd do a lot of things, only some of which would involve sitting around watching TV/playing games. I'd travel. I'd dabble in things that interest me but never turn them into a job. I'd make donations to charities and help fight some causes. But I would always leave time for me and my loved ones so we can enjoy life, not slave away through it.
        • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I'd spend more than 3 hours a day with my sons. It literally depresses me when I think of how I'm paying people to raise my son and my mother in law is raising the other one all day. Then they see me for a few hours in the evening. That would add happiness to my life that cant be measured.
    • 45441, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Exactly.
      The guy who is making as much interest on his savings as I make in a month = rich.
      Your life is pretty much taken care of at that point.
  • mmalecki, on 06/23/2008, -1/+24This article only compares the amount of time people spend watching TV versus commuting for people who are rich versus poor. It finds people who are rich watch less TV and commute more. Unfortunately, the article does little to address how much time rich people (whatever your definition of them may be) do leisurely activities other than watching TV. In other words, the author assumes watching TV is what people want to do in their free time.

    Buried for shallow analysis.
    • FlyingSpaghetti, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Aaagh! I'm stuck in an endless loop of logic! I work hard so that I can afford a nice high-def TV, however, if I watch this new TV I will be categorized as being lazy and poor. If I am categorized as being lazy and poor then I can't afford a new TV!
  • bxblox, on 06/23/2008, -1/+19"New money" rich people spend most of their time working to make money. "Old money" people spend most of their time spending money and believing they're rich because they deserve it.
    • 48snickers, on 06/23/2008, -1/+0And THAT is why we have estate and inheritance taxes.
      • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1So we can legally take whats theirs and make it ours. Those rich bastards.
    • outdplay, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Old money people do deserve it because somewhere a long while back, somebody in their family had to foresight to create wealth for their offspring. Are you saying if you become rich to give your family everything they wanted, you family doesn't deserve it? Then what is the point of becoming rich? I thought it was to provide for your family.
  • cypriss9, on 06/23/2008, -3/+11There's also a relationship between being rich and being intelligent. It's just dumb to waste your life in front of a TV.
    • laserdog, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Unless something by Joss Whedon is on...
  • myass666mlong, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_odditie ...
  • Kenzan, on 06/23/2008, -8/+10How Do Rich People Spend Their Time?
    Trying to enforce their views on the rest of us.
    • staticneuron, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5How Do Rich People Spend Their Time?
      By creating reports that give the impression that poor people are poor because they are lazy.
    • geogeer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3You mean all the people on digg are rich?
    • outdplay, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Poor people are poor because they are idiots. They trade their time/skills for a salary. Rich people have learned a word called leverage. They leverage other people's time/skills to make themselves rich. It's called they start businesses. They are the employer, you are the employee. But you know the magical thing about this relationship? You can change your status from employee to employer. The question is: do you have the courage? If you don't, then don't criticize the people that do have the courage.
  • 2clone, on 06/23/2008, -0/+18According to this article Homeless people have the most fun, because they dont' have to work thus have more free time.
    • Narcism, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9You do realize that most homeless people want to be homeless right? [citation needed]
  • Farmer77, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7If Paris Hilton actually read, she would have a good laugh at that article.
  • TopBanana, on 06/23/2008, -1/+11The article confuses cause and effect.
    These people are better off because they don't spend all their time watching TV.
    • UMDirector, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I have friends who make over a million a year who watch the same amount of TV as friends who make about $60K between the two of them.

      It is possible there is a cut off I suppose...if you watch more than "X" amount of TV your income tends to be on a downward trend. I don't think watching some TV leads on to failure. Of course if its dumb sitcoms or WWE that may not be true.
  • glucoseboy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8Money doesn't buy happiness. However, it can take care of many of the things that will make you miserable.

    • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1It can buy you time and relive our main cause of stress.
  • Exedous, on 06/23/2008, -2/+0This makes no sense. What about retirees who still receive income from rental property and their pension? Making 100k a year in some places in the U.S may be considered rich, but in other places that would put you on the middle class spectrum. I think its only the upper middle class who save and invest their money while working, and when they become older, they sell most of their investments and become millionaires. And then travel, buy a big ass house stress free. This is what I plan on doing and is a more full proof plan and less stressful then becoming rich by starting up these multi-million dollar companies.
  • shroominbal, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7lol - how very true - beside when your rich you have too many friends then you can't really have time for fun. I moved from a house to a tent once in my life and suddenly so less people came to parasite me It was like getting out of prison.
    • rockefeller2, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5I once had an experience where I mentioned to a couple people how much money I had saved up over some time. I wasn't bragging, but I was quite proud of myself. It was quite a bit of money. About enough to buy a house outright. This was when I was 25. After I told them, I noticed the people behaving differently, asking for more, expecting me to pay for dinner when we went out, little things like that. So, from now on, I don't tell anybody about my net worth. They can think I'm poor based on the cars I drive and the current house I'm living in, but I don't care. Lesson learned: never tell ANYBODY about how much you're worth.
      • dpds, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Alternate lesson to be learned - don't make or keep friends that are the kind of people who will change their view of you based on how much money you have saved.
        • ScottMitchell, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Although, to be fair, I think it can be hard for anyone to not let knowledge of an insanely out of balance net worth affect their thoughts or impressions of a friend to some degree. If your best friend had a net worth 1,000x yours, wouldn't some small part of you - however remote or quiet - feel a little callous when you're splitting the check at a restaurant?
        • dpds, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1re : ScottMitchell

          I understand your point and with that large of a difference such a reaction is more understandable. However, having enough money to buy a house outright, assuming it is not a very lavish home, is not that much. Say, $100,000 to $600,000. That is not so much money that it is a remote possibility that the 25 year old earned it with hard work. I guess the point I am trying to make is that to assume he can pay for dinner because $50-$100 means nothing to him is just wrong, for that amount. If he had told them he has $10 million dollars, I might still disagree, but less so.
  • yujie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I wonder how do they sleep at night
    • greevar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1With a fist full of Benjamins....
    • ender7074, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Probably just fine. Most people dont carry around unnecessary guilt.
    • laserdog, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1600 count sheets
    • Jethris, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1With a pillow between their knees. Helps with the back problems.
    • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Is that sarcasm? I suspect they sleep fine. Wait what am I saying? I meant , "We sleep fine, thanks for asking".
  • Dotnetsky, on 06/23/2008, -4/+25has got to be one of the dumbest articles I've read in recent times. Besides describing people making a lousy $100,000 a year as "rich", the article in general actually says little to nothing. Is the Washington Post so hungry for "news" that they must stoop to this?
    • BDOUG, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Agreed. $100,000 is upper-upper middle class, not truly wealthy. $100,000 in USA currency is (relatively) peanuts these days (not that I'd turn it down). People with that level of household income are in the "sacrifice everything on the altar of salary" crowd and not in the mega-wealthy "private jet" crowd. I suspect the mega-wealthy do spend a ton of time doing fun / leisure things like travel/touring, golfing, etc. They are living off of investments and the like, and while they often do work to maintain their wealth, it's probably a phone call or an internet session here and there... the butler and other personal assitants pick up all the rest of their daily chores.
      • silveravnt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I'd say lower middle class if thats a couples income and they have kids. They aren't buying new cars every year for sure.
        • BDOUG, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Sure, $50K is lower middle class. I was thinking $100K for a single person.
    • michaelsynclare, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3About 3/4 of the country makes less than 100k a year. So yeah a lot of ppl would consider that to be "rich".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_groups.j ...
  • jacklopter, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Don't rich people sleep in a bed of $100 bills and then throw stacks of cash into the fireplace to keep warm?
  • MACady, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7If your money works for you, you are rich. If you have to work for your money you're not.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Agreed, with the broader substitution that you're rich if your *assets* work for you. Such as a Web site that sits in the background of your life depositing a few hundred bucks into your checking account each day.
  • gavinrobinson, on 06/23/2008, -7/+2hey, did anybody read this article on how tom cruise, will smith, and david beckham all fence together at cruise's house?

    http://withleather.uproxx.com/post.phtml?pk=6165
    • greevar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3So, they call it fencing now?
      • BeforeSputnik, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Well, it is sword work. Thrust, thrust, riposte, thrust.
    • FlyingSpaghetti, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1***** all three of those wack-jobs.
  • f4nt0m4s, on 06/23/2008, -1/+20SpectralSounds story reminds me of my grandparents. They immigrated to America after World War 2 and built up their equity and bank account from nothing. Now they are old and they have tons of money sitting in the bank and property that is worth good money. They have no interest in retiring or using the money they have to move to someplace warm or spend their remaining years enjoy the fruits of life. It seems ironic, they came to America looking for a better life, and now that they have the potential to live it they are letting the money sit in the bank to someday be inherited (cynical view, I know).

    I've seen both sides of the spectrum, I have seen families that don't save up tons of money and they live life to the maximum capacity they can afford. I think having some money saved away is always a good idea. I said it before when a similar story showed up on Digg, I'm a simple guy who has simple wants. I just want to be able to enjoy nature, have a decent place to call home, have good family and friends, and be able to enjoy a cold beer. Yeah, it would be kick ass to afford a 150,000 car or a yacht or something, but ultimately I don't think that would complete me. One day I will get a motorcycle, and that is something I can afford.

    Having moderate amounts of money lets you appreciate the finer things in life, like sharing stories over a cold beer with some friends, smoking a cigar and watching a football game, or strolling through the park at 2 in the morning staring up at the sky looking at the thousands of stars that liter the sky.

    But, with happiness, to each his own.
    • geogeer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1After you live through a war and are left with nothing you tend to become very conservative with money. These people know what it is to be left with nothing for an extended period of time. The sad thing is many of their children/grand children will roar through the money that they meticulously saved throughout their lives.
    • Trichomonas, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1It's not only about letting your money save up and they don't want to "take it easy". They would rather keep on working because passing on the money to their kids means a lot more to them. I know because that's how my parents are as well.
  • iamgreg007, on 06/23/2008, -0/+12They don't spend time reading articles like this...that's for sure.
  • trer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7"Rich people spent much more time commuting and engaging in activities that were required as opposed to optional. The richest people spent nearly twice as much time as the poorest people in leisure activities that were active, structured and often stressful -- shopping, child care and exercise. "

    I can see child care being "stressful", but in what way is "shopping" and "exercise" stressful? And if I understand this statement correctly, is child care somehow "less stressful" for poorer people (because they spend more time in "passive activities" like watching TV?) I would think it was more stressful. And why should I feel sorry that your commute is stressful? You're rich, rent a place closer to work! Sitting in your air conditioned car listening to satellite radio is not stressful.

    Horrible article and equally horrible research.
    • toastjam, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I agree about the exercise bit... if you find exercise stressful, you're doing it wrong.

      But perhaps they are rich partly because they are living somewhere cheaper than they could otherwise afford and commuting, and not commuting because they are rich. And I personally find being stuck in traffic stressful regardless of what's on the radio.

      And shopping stresses the crap out of me, partially because I don't like to spend money (so I can be rich some day, ha!) :P
    • Alenzia, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I agree with you - people shouldn't equate time to do passive activities to happiness. I love exercising and shopping, and TV is kind of mindless. This isn't well-done research.
  • chrissku, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7digg......where the poor read about the rich.
  • duder83, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Well, i'm guessing they dont sit in a cube for 9 hours a day, travel an hour to and from work, go home to find dog ***** on the floor, cook dinner for the kids, cut the grass, take out the trash, do laundry, relax for 30 minutes and then go to bed
    • laserdog, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1They have people that do that for them.
      • FlyingSpaghetti, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I'm so rich I have people that find dog ***** on the floor FOR ME.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.