"In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don’t Feel Rich" (NY Times)

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Or you can do what some of the people in this thread do:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=377857[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=377857&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Just keep returning stuff after you use it! ;)</p>

42

<p>Requires too much organization! I’d rather while away my time on CC.</p>

43

<p>I guess I’ve lived here too long, as when I see “Net worth of 10 million” for someone still working I understand that some large portion of that is in stock options that have not yet vested, and cannot be touched, and may well be worth $0 when they can be cashed in. Another large chunk of that is in how much their house, which they paid maybe $700K for, is now worth, but if the real estate bubble burst will be worth the $700K they paid for it. Here in Silicon Valley, when I see net worth mentioned in a newspaper, that’s how we all interpret it. (I know the $200million that article attributed to Ms. Baranski was not real money, it was what her options would be worth if she cashed them at their height, which she couldn’t legally do.) </p>

<p>So these folks with a net worth of $10million, if they cashed out right this second, after taxes might be worth $500K. Yeah, $10million cash is a ton of money. $10million net worth on someone who still has outstanding options and is living in the overpriced home is not enough to move to the Oregon coast and retire.</p>

<p>And I think this is what the people in the article were saying, it might look like I have enough to retire, but realistically, until the options vest I don’t. And, unless I sell the house and move away, I’m not going to have enough money to live in an area with this high a cost of living. And what other’s have interpreted as whining, I see as people just trying to explain this reality to journalists that have absolutely no clue. They were just trying to explain that their cirmumstances are not unique, nor a big deal.</p>

<p>And yes, there are some large number of folks in the valley that do have enough to retire, but find work so fun they don’t want to give it up. There is nothing they’d rather be doing, and they really don’t care whether they are making money doing it or not. And I don’t know why they didn’t interview some of them. Their enthusiasm is contagious.</p>

44

<p>Great post, UCD. You tell it a lot more like it really is, imo. Of course, doesn’t make as snazzy a story (or headline) as the article did ;). One has to be very careful to distinguish journalism which is reporting and analysis from “journalism” which is finding some good quotes to tell a story from a pre-determined POV.</p>

45

<p>Kremen’s rationale is again found in the Times today (the book review section): The book reviewed speaks about “relative deprivation”, which is the new term for “keeping up with the Joneses”. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/books/review/Gross-t.html?ref=review[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/books/review/Gross-t.html?ref=review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

46

<p>

</p>

<p>Reminds me of the guys who got laid off from Apple and kept sneaking back into the building to design the graphing calculator software. :)</p>

47

<p>Good article-and again reinforces my premise that is good to choose in whatever way is comfortable in your own life to opt out of some of the tide of consumption. </p>

<p>“What does this societywide arms race for goods have to do with income inequality? Frank trots out sobering data. Between 1949 and 1979, the rising tide of the American economy lifted all boats more or less equally. In fact, the incomes of the bottom 80 percent grew more rapidly than the incomes of the top 1 percent, and those of the bottom 20 percent grew most rapidly of all. But since 1979, gains have flowed disproportionately to top earners. In an economy where the wealthy set the norms for consumption and people at every rung strain to maintain the consumption of those just above them, that spells trouble” From the article, sorry couldn’t get the shading to post the quote.</p>

48

<p>Someone should rename this thread the “Too much information” thread. ;)</p>

49

<p>Garland had the best quote:</p>

<p>“On so much less, I feel rich, and have peace of mind–as much as one can while being a real human being in a real world with all its attendant surprises–monkeywrenches that all the money in the world can’t protect us from.”</p>

<p>I understand driven folks that want to invent and create, but the article’s focus seemed to be on multimillion dollar net worth folks that felt they had no choice but to work long hours just to keep up with the Jones. I have far less net worth than the folks in the article and consider myself far more fortunate than most…</p>

50

<p>I don’t know the interviewer, but in all articles they tend to publish around here, the journalist choose to include unvested options, even when the interviewee mentions they are unvested. The journalists know enough to ask or just look up how much they are worth, but are not interested in mentioning it’s not money you can get to. Several people I know have been portrayed in articles this way. It makes a better story. And it has the added advantage of making the journalists feel virtuous.</p>