That article is repeating a falsehood that's been widely refuted. The surveys that article is likely mentioning do not ask individuals if they could pay for an expense using just their savings, but rather how would they pay for an unexpected expense. Some clickbait sites then take facts like, let's say, only 31% choose 'from savings' to create fake news along the lines of '69% of Americans do not have the savings to cover a $xxx expense'.
It's completely fake. I, for instance, would also not answer 'from savings' -- probably preferring to reduce expenses, since I try to avoid touching my savings.
I think denial is the only reason why one might find this result surprising. Everything else being equal, almost any life path will be enriched by extra money up to a certain point. That point is field-dependent, but it’s rarely low.
> Everything else being equal, almost any life path will be enriched by extra money...
I don't think so. If you have a lot of money, there will be constant pressure upon you about ways to spend it or invest it "wisely". And you ll always will have the fear of "ruining everything". If you choose to do nothing with it, you ll be blamed for not investing it or making it grow.
Not to mention that you will have a hard time differentiating associates who are just there for a piece of the cake.
I have a lot of money and none of what you mention afflicts me. I don't feel "constant pressure" to spend or invest it wisely, and I don't recall ever fearing "ruining everything." I doubt I would be blamed (by who?) for not investing it; even if I was I don't think I'd care.
This might come across as condescending, but everything you're saying sounds like the typical cliches about what it's like to have wealth from people who don't actually have it. It comes with its own challenges but I would not include the ones you've mentioned. Clearly some people with money do struggle with some of what you've said, but in my experience it's rare for it to be a dominating focus in their lives, and it's rarer still for it to cause the wealth to become a net negative on their health and well-being.
The reason why I'm saying this is because frankly I find it frustrating when speculation like this is promulgated so confidently despite its disconnect with reality. Of the people I personally know earning over seven figures in annual income, none of them struggle with what you've said. Your generalization has a very brittle foundation.
Unfortunately there are two obstacles in combatting generalizations like this: 1) most wealthy people don't talk about what their life, aspirations and challenges are actually like, 2) hearing wealthy people say they in fact are mostly happy and fulfilled makes for a boring story without a lot of draw.
> I have a lot of money and none of what you mention afflicts me.
Sure. Some people are afraid of public speaking. But some people on the other hand, can't wait to get in front of people. But I think it wouldn't be too off to say people are generally afraid of public speaking.
So generally, the more you have to lose, the more you will worry. Simple. If you want to refute that, argue logically why it might not be the case, instead of just "I am rich, and you are wrong". Please.
If you want me to "argue logically", you should start with defending the points you've made for which the burden of proof is on the positive. My point is that you're generalizing without any substantive support for the generalization. For example:
> So generally, the more you have to lose, the more you will worry. Simple.
This is not simple and I don't follow that it's true a priori. Moreover I don't necessarily agree that it's the correct characterization, either. I don't know anyone with wealth whose approach to thinking about wealth is that they have "more to lose." That strikes me as begging the question. I can understand why a given rich person might feel that way, but I don't see why the modal rich person would feel that way.
The essence is that you're asking me to refute a statement that you have not actually supported. Had you supported with something grounded I'd agree that my anecdotal reply isn't much of a refutation. But so far it's my direct experience and observations against something which boils down to intuition. Intuition is misleading.
1. Having more of something - gives one the tolerance to lose some of it without feeling the pinch.
2. Again - the ability to take risks increases - this is one reason the rich get richer - they can make riskier investments while the poor can't make such bets
3. People with more to lose - are the people who lose a greater percentage of their savings - a rich person losing $1000 vs a poor person losing $1000 - a poor person loses more
But loosing a million bucks is going to hurt much more than losing 100 bucks. Apart from that, it is much easier to sit on 100 bucks, not doing anything with it, than to sit on a million dollars. Doing nothing with money is less worrisome than taking risks with a lot of money..
This is not logical reasoning, there are too many gaps.
Logical reasoning works best with absolutes, things like individual motives (applied to larger populations) and "risk", "worry" etc have a lot of nuances - you need to work with probabilities backed by data.
> The takeaway here is that being wealthier gives you a bigger buffer. Being poor means you have more to loose from the vissicitudes of life.
Bigger buffer does not always mean big enough. That is why rich work to make more and more money. It is never enough. You don't know how much money might be required to save you in a future calamity. After a certain point, no amount of money might be able to save you. Then you need to keep people on power on payroll. And they, in turn, will be going through the same thing, demanding more and more money.
The point is, A buffer is not never big enough, if the rate of drain can be arbitrarily high, which is the case for human existence in the current economic makeup.
So you see, once you are rich, there is not stopping.
Actually there is. If someone thinks that, "This is enough. What I have is the buffer I am willing to store for future calamities. For me and my descendants". But I doubt rich people ended up being rich thinking like that. Or if someone is stupid/naive to not see things as they are. Then they will spend themselves to bankruptcy anyway.
Then either they ll kill themselves or grow wise, and might grow rich and go the first path the second time.
As a matter of fact, it is normal for patent examiners to not even read the invention specification and focus only on the claims.
I was surprised to learn that from a patent attorney, but it seems to be common knowledge, e.g. [1]. Upon reflection, that's the only way it can work. A generalist patent examiner could never understand all the inventions given the volume of applications they must handle.
It's only the claims that matter, but the claims typically draw on vocabulary and context established in the disclosure. Often, part of getting a patent granted is clarifying the disclosure such that the examiner can understand the idea and how it's different from previous art.
In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter. But I think it's ethically wrong for a company to have this power over an individual. Can't it lead to a situation where, for a few weeks, a person becomes an involuntary worker (i.e. a slave) - unless they negotiate or buy their own release?
I live in Austria, arguably the most backward-looking rich Western country, and my agreement requires me to give a four-week notice. While my employer is such that this will never become an issue, I believe that the "at-will employment" is one of the many manifestations of the "American freedom" that also give the US its competitive edge.
I'd honestly rather run the risk of having to legally work somewhere a few weeks than the company having the power to simply dismiss me without cause. I always hesitated to simply be myself at work for fear of this sort of thing when I lived in the states. I lived in a small-to-medium sized, fairly christian towns. I'm a bisexual athiest that doesn't care what race she dates. And in general, I'm a good employee, especially for the sorts of jobs I had. Once place need actual cause to fire me, I can relax a little.
Having worked at a firm with largely big-C Conservative, Christian, male heads of department and up, I've seen how my more "out-there" co-workers were treated[0]. Folks who were open about their "pagan" religions, or polyamorous ways, or even women of the same social standings who dared have a job, get pregnant and raise children were treated terribly. If it weren't for the fact that good coders and managers are hard to find, I'm sure it would have been even worse, and them having some protection would make resting easier.
Still, that lack of protection meant they could find greener pastures and leave sooner. Personally, I've had a few jobs wherein I was lied to about the position, duties and responsibilities, etc. and after finding out it was a "Take it or leave it" situation, I left.
I really wish we had a bit more leeway in terms of negotiating employment agreements, so folks could find the right balance for them. Sadly, the business world is full of cargo-cult behavior so we get bog standard take it or leave it deals.
[0] - I'm not saying this an indictment of any group, just illustrating the conflict.
See, that last bit - the lying about position, duties, etc - would be harder where I am now. Yes, I do generally have to give notice to leave a place, but everyone also has the right to a contract before they start a job. Minimally, it lists duties, positions, pay rate, and things like that. The notice time is in the contract as well - and the contracts cannot take away rights given by law (so they can't force people into arbitration instead of having a lawsuit, for example).
Granted, at least for your average low-to-mid level worker, you don't have as much negotiating power. Luckily, however, there are legal protections for regular sick time (get the flu, stay home 3 days, and you are safe to do this a few times a year) and parents have more time, since they are responsible for other little humans who get sick. (I don't have children, but fully agree with this). And there is either 4 or 5 week of vacation each year for everyone. These protections make it easier to find something that works with life.
Having a decent notice period favors the employee much more than the employer and most employers offer PYLON (pay in liew of notice) and often half a months notice period will be taken up by annual leave
And as some one living in Austria I thought you would have been acutely aware of the social status symbol of working in a professional role that has a long 3 - 6 month notice period.
Not sure about Austria, but in my home country, Poland, the employee is liable for statutory damages. He will be ordered by the court to pay the employer an amount equal to his gross salary for the notice period [1].
For example, if you earn 10,000 PLN gross (7,000 PLN net) and quit without observing a 3-month notice period, you will have to pay your employer 30,000 PLN, i.e. over four times the monthly net salary.
Of course, if the employer believes they incurred a loss due to the employee leaving without notice, they can sue for additional damages of any amount.
In the UK (as I understand it) you might become liable for the costs of replacing you until the end of your notice period, probably because of "breach of contract". But the business would have to be pretty shitty to do this and probably willing to lose all of that money again in legal fees. Mostly they would probably on refuse to give you a reference.
What happens if you change the question so that it conforms to Aristo's input constraints, i.e. is unambiguous and includes the correct answer among the choices?
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/lack-of-savings-cover-un...