Housing. How Do You Look at It and Not Go Crazy?

OK, so I found out my boss's boss recently sold a home in a prestigious suburb of Melbourne for about a $7 million profit over a 5 year period. He will pay zero capital gain tax on that profit. Adding income tax back in, you'd have to make approximately $3 million before tax per year to make the same amount of money during that period. That is equivalent to ridiculous amount of hard labour (like 100 hours a day), frugal living and ozbargaining for people like myself. And what did he do to earn that? Well, simply by living in pure luxury and being very close to the city and public transport, nice parks (maintained by all tax payers) and good schools.

My question is, how do you work hard and indeed ozbargain hard when this is the sad reality? What's the point? You'd never catch up. And this is not a one off "lotto" situation. You can apply this to all home owners within 25km of all major cities in all developed countries.

Comments

  • +6

    An increase in property sale values is only relevant if you actually sell the property.
    And if you do sell you, in all likelihood, will be buying back into the same market (which has also increased in value).

    Meanwhile, you can take comfort that OP's boss paid council rates based on the assessed value of their property, which is probably higher than a lot of their neighbouring properties.

    • +3

      I must admit I never understand this concept of gain is not a gain unless you sell, and loss is not a loss unless you sell. I have a few friends that tell me while they've lost a fortune on e.g. Dominos shares, because they haven't sold, they are OK…

      • As in the gain/loss hasn’t crystallised or turned into cash. Those dominos shares might go up in value one day!!

      • this concept of gain is not a gain unless you sell, and loss is not a loss unless you sell

        Take gold $2037 AUD ( 1st August, now $2200 AUD). So you only gain ( in ATO eyes ) $164. But IF you want to get back into the game, then you have to buy it in at $2200 or more …

        I dont think you pay CGT on gold & silver

      • +1

        I must admit I never understand this concept of gain is not a gain unless you sell, and loss is not a loss unless you sell.

        It hasn't realised yet.
        The recognition of the value of anything happens at the sale (and conversely at the purchase) depending on which side of the transaction you are on, it becomes traded for the cash value at that point in time

        For example, you can have X amount of hectares of land for $100,000 in a nuclear wasteland.
        Until you can sell that land, you have invested $100,000.

        It's current perceived value is determined by the market (people's interest and thoughts of what they could do with the land)
        You only make a loss, if you sell it below the price you bought it for.
        You will make a gain, if you sell it above the price you bought it for.

        The value always fluctuates.

        Value is in the eyes of the beholder (and the market), whether that be in the value of sentimental value (not truly quantifiable), functional value, actual composition value (a property is literally an area of land and if there's a building, a pile of bricks), perceived value (external values can come into play, how close are shops, schools, surrounding infrastructure, etc).

      • +7

        Oldmate got a free $7M when he sold his house, but where is he going to live now? He most probably "traded up" the ladder to a flasher house. That flasher house probably went up 20M in that same time period, so he has actually "lost" 13M on the deal. The only time any gains are real is when he sells and doesn't buy another one (ie. he is dead, or he downsizes, or more likely has several other houses anyway).

    • +1

      The other part of this is that interest paid on your place of residence is not tax deductible, so all the money paid into the loan was taxed.

  • +1

    Your boss's boss might not be happy despite his material wealth. Appreciate the good things in your life that you have…health? family? friends? Food and shelter? Many are worse off than you…

    • I also think about this to cheer myself up. That there are people that are worse off - although it still doesn't change the fact the society has a strange way of rewarding people.
      Hard work is valued in many ways less than ability to live in a luxury house - because the outcome is that people live in a luxury home often get better rewarded for their effort than the hard working people.

      • +1

        often the best reward is a kind "thank you" for something you have done for someone. Rewards do not have to be materialistic…

      • I also think about this to cheer myself up. That there are people that are worse off

        Why do you need to compare yourself too anyone else? This need for external validation is toxic. Be less insecure.

      • An adult who seeks validation is a child who didn't receive any… Ask any middle child.

  • +7

    I think this post has slowly turned from 'expensive houses' to 'How do I get rich?'.

    Keep in mind that most people don't become wealthy on their own when they're young. There are always exceptions but on average, it takes a person until after they're 40 to have accumulated enough assets and reliance on compound interest to become more financially stable.

    It takes time for businesses to grow and become successful.
    It takes time for a career to be developed and to progress to the top (if at all possible).
    It often just takes time until you get to the stage where you can truly afford what you want.

    • Also, there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors that are out of your control which dictate success.

      For instance, factors that are genetically inherited:
      Family Name, Behaviour, Intelligence, Beauty, Height, Pigmentation (skin, eye, hair), etc etc statistically lead to greater influence in hiring and promotion and overall success.

      In addition, factors that are environmentally adopted:
      Habits, Optimism, Hard work, Creativity, Humour, etc etc also statistically lead to a greater influence in hirings and promotions and overall success.

      As an example of extremes, compare two immigrants to New York.
      One is a 25 year old Norwegian Man, born in March, he has Straight blonde beard, blue eyes, square jaw and is 185cm tall. He's studied Engineering, knows how to speak fluent English, Norsk, Spanish, French and has an easy to pronounce western name. Generally is hard-working, very optimistic, but likes to hang out after with friends for outdoor activities etc etc. He dresses well, is creative, and curious. His parents, siblings, friends, and teacher have always challenged and encouraged him to excel, and was punished only on occasion. He immigrates to New York with $50,000 of money he had saved up personally. His parents have $1 Million, and they agreed to only give him $100k of that amount for his inheritance.

      The second is a 25 year old Burmese Man, born in November. He can't grow facial hair, a juvenile jawline/face, has a has wavy black hair, dark eyes, and is 165cm tall. He's also studied Engineering, and knows fluent English and Burmese, and has a very foreign name. He's a good worker, but doesn't have much interests outside of work, maybe he plays some video games. He dresses okay, but is more by-the-books, and shy. He comes from a wealth, where his parents were not at home often, he occasionally fights against his siblings for more pocket money, his teachers never pushed him hard because of financial fear, his friends are children from other wealthy families. He immigrates to New York with $50,000 of money he received from his mother. His parents are very rich and have $500k, and as the eldest son have agreed to give him the most of that amount to roughly $300k total.

      …which one of these two individuals is more likely to get an interview, be hired, form great relationships, and work their way up with promotions? And say they both immigrated to New York in 2015, how do you think these identical people from different environments and genetics will continue in life? Who is more likely to attract a "higher quality" woman, and set themselves up for good life and career?

      And here's the kicker, how much of his success can be waged on his genetics? And how much on his environment? And how much on his own will-power and skill?

      • +1

        Agreed with your general post and can I just say that attractiveness is the most underestimated genetic indicator of success and is linked to almost all other measures of success.

        As many gym goers may say, you can go to the gym for your body but you can't go to the gym for your face.

  • +2

    Isn't the issue that if you purchased a house for 1 million dollars and then sold it for 10 million later, that most equivalent houses would have gone up by a similar amount (not in every case)? If you taxed that figure, you then wouldn't be able to afford an equivalent house again. People would never be able to sell up unless the price had stayed static or dropped which would cause all sorts of issues.

    • +4

      Yes I think that is the concept behind the whole "no capital gain tax for primary residence". Except of course they left out the people that don't already own a house. For a renter, if a property doubles in value while they study and train so they can get a job, it just means when they do finally get a job, they also double the loan. The law is skewed towards home owners no?

      • +1

        I do agree! I don't know what the answer is though.

      • +3

        But this has always been the case.

        Any property purchaser that is buying without the benefit of an inheritance or generous parents has to take a big breath at some point and dive in. It's bloody hard for a few years and you have to live frugally but that's how it is for most of us.
        We had the same 14" Panasonic TV without a remote for 15 years.
        Both our cars were 10+ years old (when cars were rooted after about 7 years) and needed constant repairs (luckily I was a mechanic - although a fairly crap one).
        I wanted a CD player and we discussed it for months before purchasing.
        My wife had 3 jobs, her FT one plus a lecturing job at TAFE at night plus she did wine tastings at a bottle shop on the weekends (and something else that escapes me.
        I worked as a mechanic 7.30-18.30 most weekdays and 8.00-14.00 most saturdays. I also had private clients.

        Our actions/work patterns weren't unusual for the time and they aren't unusual for today's purchaser.

        • +1

          This is what I found. We lived frugally in a tiny apartment a long way from the city and used public transport.
          After years of saving we afforded a to buy a tiny unit, and then upgraded to a house (still a long way from town).

          Now I see the next generation complaining that they can't afford a 4 bedroom home with double lock up garage. Well either would we if we had paid for netflix and big data allowances on our phones and went out for coffee.

          • +1

            @SlickMick: I was thinking about whether my parents had it easier in the 1940s/50s. They didn't.

            Mum was a hairdresser in Bondi Junction 6 days a week and they lived in a rented 1 bedroom "flat" above the hairdressers shop. Mum also had a part time job at night as an usherette at the Star movie theatre.

            Dad worked as a clerk for the Post Master General (later to become Telecom/Telstra) and had a job as a waiter at night and filmed the greyhound races on Saturday night at Wentworth Park so that the trainers could review how their dogs ran.

            Even then he still had to get a War Service loan as it was too hard to get a mortgage from a bank (I also had difficulties getting my first loan too despite having 40% deposit and YAY 16% interest).

  • +22

    Sleep with his wife to teach him a lesson

    • +6

      In general, wives of rich men usually swing to another rich man, which OP is not.

      • +3

        Buh… Titanic?

        • +1

          Isn't that a fictional movie?

          In any case, that is almost as good a movie as 60 Shades of Gray in terms of commentary on gender relations. EG. Pretty boy Leonardo di Caprio fulfils his ultimate male gender role: he sacrifices his life for a woman he barely knew for a week.

          So much for equality eh?
          So much for outdated gender roles eh?

          • @DeafMutePretender: There is very thin line between Sarcasm and being not. Which, seems you have just crossed the line, my friend. Relax. Have fun. Cheers.

    • The lesson being?

      • Money doesn't buy a big ding-a-ling?

        • the big ding-a-ling is not as important as the big credit card and the flash life style in most cases.

    • Why would a rich woman sleep with a poor man? That's not the way things work.

      • Never heard of a woman divorcing her wealthy husband to run off with her yoga instructor?

        They get the looks and half their husbands money. Might not be a smart long term decision. But it definitely happens.

        • +1

          While your scenario is not impossible, can we agree that in general, men date downwards and women date across or upwards?

          • @DeafMutePretender: Certanily agree on that to an extent.

            Although it's a little more complicated than that. In the early years (16 - 28ish) it's mostly about looks when you refer to the upwards and downward. However as people mature its more about the economic status of the parties. But the rule generally holds true.

            The structure of family law in western countries also throws a bit of a spanner in the works. This gives people the opportunity to take the wealth of another (rightly or wrongly), and give them a comfortable enough lifestyle to ignore the natural hierarchies. i.e Leaving your wealthy husband to run off with the yoga instructor. Also this discourages wealthy men's natural urges to run off with their 20 year old secretaries so there are swings and roundabouts.

      • Why would a rich woman sleep with a poor man?

        Love makes you do the wacky?

  • +1

    Yeah I do, I know its probably not healthy and best I can do is to use the cards I've been given in life to do the best I can. I think it just helps me to blame something for why I'm not rolling in the money haha. I think everyone has something they blame for why their life isn't as best as it can be (blaming parents, society, boss, luck etc) and maybe theres truth behind that and maybe theres not.

    All I know is for me, it makes me feel a little better when I say its not my fault, I'm just unluckily brought up in the wrong time where housing is expensive and keep some hope something will change.

    • +1

      You could look at your situation in that way, or you could take a wider perspective and acknowledge that money is not the be-all and end-all.
      Nothing wrong with aspiring to succeed, acquire assets, etc., but we should also appreciate what we do have.

    • All roads lead to death, I think all that matters is you do the best you can, and take advantage of opportunities when they crop up.

  • +12

    Don't believe everything that people tell you when they are talking about how much money they made on real estate. They tend to forget the stamp duty, RE fees, renovation and maintenance costs etc.

    I have known or socialised with a few CEOs or General Managers of large companies. They got there through being smart, making some good decisions, having good networks, having some good luck and (mainly) being in the right place at the right time. They all tend to work crazy hours and are away from their family a lot.

    If that's a measure of success then you can keep it.

    • +1

      Don't believe everything that people tell you when they are talking about how much money they made on real estate.

      It is fairly easy to ascertain how much money has made on property (in Melbourne or Sydney) purely from just seeing how long ago they purchased their property. If it was 10+ years ago they have probably at least doubled their money even if they renovated the thing.

      • +2

        Sure, they've doubled their money but have the returns been any good?

        I've owned 4 properties in Sydney, all within 20km of the CBD, since 1981 and the first one I lost money on. The other 3 only returned about 7% after expenses. The intangible return was having a roof over my head that I could do whatever I wanted with.

        I've made better returns with less outlay by investing in shares and my education.

        • How do you return 7% after expenses when by renting it you'd probably do minimum 3-4% without capital gains. Or are you excluding capital gains? And yes, you should factor in the roof over your head component in your return.

          • @serpserpserp: Loan establishment costs, Interest costs, RE commission, Stamp duty, repairs, renovations, rates, etc. It all adds up and isn't tax deductible (offset somewhat by no CGT).

            Keep in mind the lowest interest rate I ever paid was ~8% and the highest 16%. In these low interest times maybe the returns are greater.

            Don't forget opportunity cost as well.

            The house I bought in Jan 1998 was $567,000 plus stamp duty. I borrowed $200k and that took me 6 years to pay off and the interest rate was around 8% IIRC. When I divorced in May 2017 the average of 2 valuations was $1.75m.

            If I'd invested the $367k cash in the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index over the same period it would have been worth $1.75m as well but without having to borrow $200k and without any costs beyond the brokerage and the CGT at the end.

            If I'd taken out a $200k margin loan as well then the final result would have been $2.7m less brokerage and (tax deductable) interest.

            • @brad1-8tsi:

              repairs, renovations

              Well if you are going to count major renovations into the mix that does change things a little.

              I borrowed $200k and that took me 6 years to pay off

              Well you would have hardly paid any interest at that pace. So that wasn't a factor.

              without any costs beyond the brokerage and the CGT at the end.

              CGT will be more of a factor on that investment then you might be considering.

              If I'd invested the $367k cash in the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index

              Not even sure if they even had that product in 1998. Lets say they did though, you would have had to hold your nerve in not pulling out our money through 3 downturns in the market. Which everyone says they would in hindsight, but the majority don't.

              If I'd taken out a $200k margin loan

              Again, in hindsight this works but to actually hold a margin loan over a 19 year period is quite rare. Through the downturns you most likely would have exited due to escalating costs whilst your index getting smashed 50% in the GFC. Not even factoring the possibility that the lender might have just called the loan at any rate.

              • @serpserpserp: I'm talking equivalents and FWIW I did keep my money in the market during various downturns (have had shares and managed funds since 1987). I used 2008 as a buying opportunity although some of my choices weren't very smart.

                $200k over 6 years at 8% is $52,000 interest. At the time that was a years pay. I don't think that's insignificant.

                • @brad1-8tsi:

                  If I'd invested the $367k cash in the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index over the same period it would have been worth $1.75m as well but without having to borrow $200k and without any costs beyond the brokerage and the CGT at the end.

                  Even if you round down your capital gain to !.3m you'd still be paying ~200k in CGT on that I think. still a bit higher than your interest costs, other costs (but maybe less if you had a significant reno). Plus not factoring in the average ~$300 rent a week over 19 years (296k!) you might have had to pay.

                  • @serpserpserp: Always an interesting conundrum and culturally, if you were brought up in Australia post WW2, you'd be inclined towards home ownership no matter how little sense it makes.

                    • @brad1-8tsi:

                      you'd be inclined towards home ownership no matter how little sense it makes.

                      A true point. But this country's tax system and developmental policies are all geared towards home ownership. So even though the rest of the world aren't all geared towards home ownership, in this country it absolutely makes financial sense to develop your wealth base through owning your own home. I don't agree with having everything tied up in housing. But owning your own place makes financial sense in this country.

                      Of course, only if it is within your means!

  • +3

    OP I get what you are saying. I don't think the property market in this country is fair or even sane. But we all have the same rules to live by so my advice is to pile into the property market as soon as you can and try your luck. I wish I had been more gung ho about it in my early 20s and got in then, I'd be so well off now and wouldn't have to obtain such high paying stressful jobs just to pay off my crap shack 10-12km from the CBD.

  • Whilst there will be cases of people making some tidy profits on selling a property which has shot up in value being in one of those "valued" suburbs, I still have a the belief - maybe I'm just in denial? - that these people would already be quite well off as it is.

    Like heard from an envious-sounding friend saying about their friends had become wealthy through property. Not super rich or anything, but along the lines of them owning like 3 investment properties. When I asked the first obvious question of whether they actually owned them or not, the answer was Yes (obv I'm relying on this 2nd hand response), and when I said if they did, then they would be "rich" regardless because to own the place you have to pay it off, meaning you somehow earnt that money to begin with because afaik they haven't actually flipped any of them to realise any capital gains profits.

    TLDR; people who can seem to afford a lot of property earn a lot to begin with?

  • +3

    If you're in a blue chip suburb, chances are you're already making bank in the first place. Comparing yourself to your boss's boss is silly.

  • +5

    My experiences are that people expect that they should also have access to the best and biggest stuff without trying and that's where the issue lies.

    You can work up to it, I started with nothing 10 years ago and have two properties now without working that fancy a job. I don't eat out often or own a car but the way you create wealth is being frugal and working towards a goal.

    Once you start investing a significant amount you earn more and more and it becomes a bit of a snowball effect. But again, I know people earning 100k+ who have nothing as they spend it all, whilst 65k can buy a property within a few years budgeting smartly.

    Focus on your goals and stop comparing yourself to others as it'll go nowhere.

  • +3

    Your boss took a risk, and it paid off.

    • Agreed. In 2008, it was the GFC. Doom and Gloom all around. But if you had the courage to buy property then, you would have doubled your money.

      Get on with it, and buy a place now.

  • Its not just blue chip areas by rich people.

    My parents bought our family home 15 years ago for $160K. It is now worth about $1.1 Million and this is out in the burbs ~40 KMs from Melbourne CBD). Even at the time they bought it; it felt very expensive and we questioned if it was worth spending that much on a house.

    I entered the market 8 years ago with a $330K purchase based on an income about a fifth of what I earn now. That has gone up to $1 million.

    Things go up in price; but so does standard of living and hopefully income.

    • +2

      Do you mind sharing the suburb?

      Unless both properties have been rezoned since you and your parents purchased I don't find that believable.

      • Plenty of far-from-CBD areas I know would have hit that growth off the top of my head.

        Narre North, Berwick, Beaconsfield upper, Guys Hill etc.

        i.e. big size land in the middle of (profanity) no where suddenly become close to amenities and essential infrastructure.

        • +3

          Unless rezoned or heaps of capital invested, A house in areas you mentioned wouldn't have achieved that much growth in 15 years.

          Block of land perhaps if exceptionally lucky, a house- unlikely.

          A $160k property 15 years ago, would be $100k house, $60k land. That land would not have increased from $60k to $1m (unless rezoned).

          Happy to be proven wrong with real examples (all property sales are public).

          • @JimB: I assume the OP parents property would have some major work done to it to improve capital value 5 folds over the period of 15 years. He didn't say they has kept it in original condition. Anyway, here's an example of fairly original house improved from 475 to 1.825 mil over the period of 16 years. I'd say 4 fold growth isn't too bad.
            https://www.realestate.com.au/property/96-brisbane-st-berwick-vic-3806?pid=p4ep-pdp|sold-pdp:property-history-cta#timeline

            • @Punknerd: My mum's property is in Rowville - not a single renovation done since originally built nor has the area been rezoned. It is on a 800 sqm plot though.

              My property is in Altona North and only renovation I have done is had the pergola re-built. Again, it is on a good side plot - no re-zoning involved.

              • +1

                @MrHyde: err, Rowville is not 40km out. More like 25-30.
                Anyhow, I'd like to see the sale records in area indicating >5 folds growth in 15 years without renovation. My friend bought a house at the near peak (3yrs ago) in rowville with >850sqm block for 880, and it's a 5 bedders.

              • @MrHyde: lol Rowville.

                Why am I laughing?

                Because my parents and extended family have all lived there since 2000. Hell, I've been living there on and off for 14 years (free rent :D)

                I would say Rowville has achieved below average to average capital growth in the last 15 years.

                I haven't cherry picked these…

                Same year but $100k more.
                http://house.ksou.cn/report.php?q=4+Gerang+Close,+Rowville&s…
                Sold $260,000 in Sep 2004
                3BR
                Land size: 776 sqm (average for Rowville)
                Estimate: $600,000 - $790,000

                The below is $180k but sold in 2001.
                http://house.ksou.cn/report.php?q=14+Wartook+Way,+Rowville&s…
                Sold: $180,000 in Dec 2001
                4BR
                Land size: 746 sqm (average for Rowville)
                Estimate: $575,000 - $750,000

                So you're saying that your parents bought cheaper (and/or later), yet their house is currently worth 50% more?

                I won't comment on Altona North because I don't have first hand experience.

                I guess your family has the midas touch when buying property.

                • @JimB: Not that I'm saying you're wrong - but those prices and estimates are not always accurate.

                  Our previous family home has wildly incorrect information for 'Sold' and 'Last Sold'. It says it was sold in a year we still owned and lived there - and it's not even close to the actual year we sold it.

                  Our current home also says it was sold a few years ago (which it wasn't) and the estimate is $200k - 500k less than our next door neighbour's - despite both properties being identical as they were built together, except ours has had a few renovations.

                  • @Harold Halfprice: Yeah, estimates can be way off.

                    However I know the market of that suburb very well (and hence didn't comment on the other suburb).

                    Those estimates may be a tad low but not more than 10% off

            • @Punknerd: 4 fold.. I'd take that!

              I wonder if the possibility to subdivide has something to do with the huge capital growth.

              • @JimB: Brisbane st is one of the "it" street in Berwick. Lots of wealthy people want to build nice houses there. I don't think sub-dividing provide best growth. Rather, it's the potential for Mcmansion to shelter the owner's fleet of Tesla and Porsche.

                • @Punknerd: Can't say I'd want to live in any street in Berwick and doubt anyone owns a fleet of expensive cars unless they are surgeons working at the nearby hospital.

    • +1
  • +1

    Your boss's boss could die tomorrow. So could you. So could I.

    Enjoy today, try not to worry about what you don't have but rather, enjoy what you do.

  • +2

    Spooky; ABC just posted this story:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-16/buying-versus-renting…

    I haven't analysed the content in detail, but it may be worth a read as an alternate view that property is the 'dream' that we all need to attain.

    • +4

      Renting or buying. Douche or turd sandwich.

      How long will house prices rise until there is a massive crash or a massive riot/unrest by the young who cannot afford either? I fear for the future.

      • luckily the young doing all the whinging are also too lazy to riot. I think we're good.

        • And even if they riot, they riot over things nobody cares about or things that only affect 0.1% of the population. Useful idiots they are.

  • +1

    OP's 'what is the point' outlook in life is very uncouth and undignified.

    Be happy with what you have.

  • +4

    Is this post just sour grapes?

    • +6

      Based on recent grape purchases, that's the only type of grapes available at the moment.

  • It's not fair, and you have no rights.

    But I'll let you in on a little secret. Something that keeps me warm on the cold nights. Your boss's boss, is unhappy. Even with everything he has, at the end of the day he still feels incomplete. He felt the need to brag about this windfall, because it was something that made him feel like a winner. Somebody special. A person

    But that feeling of winning is temporary.

    Because just like how you look at your boss and say 'Why him? How is he better than me? Why don't I have what he has..', your b-boss looks up at the multi-millionairs, the billionairs, all those thousands of people who would hear your b-boss bragging and be like ugh. Poor people, and he thinks the same. Why don't I have a billion dollars? I deserve it more than Trump does. What kind of world is this, where I can work so hard, and yet never ever reach the same heights of success?

    He's only going to feel good until he hears what others have done, like how that dude bribed the Liberal party, and scored himself 500million for the phony 'great barrier reef fund'. Then he thinks to himself 'Shit. This jerk gets 500 million by cheating the system, and here I am, celebrating over a few measly million like a sucker'

    • Hmmmm I would disagree .

      Money obviously bring freedom such as :

      Shall I work today or not ?

      Macca's or lobster for dinner ?

      Hong Kong or Las Vegas ?

      1 bathroom or 6 bathroom house ?

      Basically unlimited freedom of choice would in my opinion cause less stress lol

      • I think their argument is that if you got a 6 bedroom house then you would automatically wanna step up to a castle.

      • +1

        Do you remember when you were a kid? And how you would fantasize about 'when you were an adult' and all the wild things you would do?

        Well, its the same thing here. As kids, we only saw the freedoms of adulthood, and not the downsides. You're applying the same rosy pattern of thinking.

      • Very few wealthy people, throw their money away. There must be something preferable about being rich.

        Not happiness necessarily, but comfort, health, security, better things, all come with a price tag.

    • +3

      yea maybe
      or maybe he got a few mil and hes happy

    • +7

      But I'll let you in on a little secret. Something that keeps me warm on the cold nights. Your boss's boss, is unhappy. Even with everything he has, at the end of the day he still feels incomplete. He felt the need to brag about this windfall, because it was something that made him feel like a winner. Somebody special. A person

      Nice story bro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

      I'll paint an alternative picture: the boss's boss is at his mansion and he is banging two blonde supermodels on his king-sized bed. Sure, they're only with him because of his money but hey, they're 1/4 his age, can't complain right? Oh well, he thinks, at least I'm not a Kurd in Northern Syria right now. That would suck.

      • +2

        he is banging two blonde supermodels

        So funny you say this.

        I was reading through a post from a sex worker a few weeks ago. She said that she couldn't take the sugarbaby lifestyle anymore, because it was giving her too much stress, to pretend she found the John attractive. His face, his smell, his interests… everything about him revolted her. And she was getting well paid, too, so it wasn't like she was a bottom shelf hooker.

        I imagine thats pretty common. You can buy people, to lay there naked while you grunt and sweat over them, but I am yet I am unware of any way to buy a persons love. You will always be cursed with knowing that they are only there for the money, that you are an object to them for that purpose, no matter how much you delude yourself.

        I don't know about you, but if that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I'm going to hold out for something better.

        Btw, if you read the wiki you linked, you would see it talks about rewards for noble actions. I don't believe anything of the sort.

        My philosophy is more along the lines of
        Mo' money, mo' problems

        • +1

          I was reading through a post from a sex worker a few weeks ago. She said that she couldn't take the sugarbaby lifestyle anymore, because it was giving her too much stress, to pretend she found the John attractive. His face, his smell, his interests… everything about him revolted her. And she was getting well paid, too, so it wasn't like she was a bottom shelf hooker.

          That makes complete sense. Her ideal situation would be to be paid lots of money to have sex with attractive guys. She'll be a loud and proud sugar baby then. Just think of the unprecedented popularity of Sixty Shades of Gray (a handsome billionaire who knows what he wants) among women.

          However in reality, attractive guys (I'm talking top 10%) don't need to pay money for sex, they get it for free. So her dream of having sex with hunks and getting paid for it won't come into fruition.

          A friendly reminder that most women find 80% of men unattractive: https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-t…

          With the above study in mind, we can truly understand how much sugar babies despise what they do (or to be precise, despise who they have sex with, the unwashed 80% of men).

          I imagine thats pretty common. You can buy people, to lay there naked while you grunt and sweat over them, but I am yet I am unware of any way to buy a persons love. You will always be cursed with knowing that they are only there for the money, that you are an object to them for that purpose, no matter how much you delude yourself.

          You could argue that back in the old days, the days of clearly defined male and female gender roles, where the male works at a job he hates to provide for his woman and the family and the woman takes care of the house and children, this was somewhat possible (buying someone's love). Sure, the woman might not find him immediately attractive but she might appreciate all that he is doing for her (making money etc) and eventually end up loving him (because of his sacrifices, time spent at job working for boss he hates etc). That's the idea behind arranged marriages that still happen in places like India.

          In this brave new world however, women are becoming independent and in some cases, making more than the man. Feminists say that they don't want women to follow old-fashioned gender roles (EG. homemaker). Okay, but by doing so, the old-fashioned male "provider" role is also becoming obsolete.

          Now we are at this stalemate: women no longer need men for their money. Men no longer need to make money for their woman (either because they're not desired in the first place or because any love that money buys will ultimately be temporary).

          Men are now "economically unattractive": https://www.studyfinds.org/why-are-marriage-rates-down-study…
          Women are now "where have all the good guys gone"

          I don't know about you, but if that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I'm going to hold out for something better.

          Good luck. If you can't buy a woman's love nor can you get a woman's love by any other means, what left but to go your own way? I hear they're making great progress in VR and dolls/bots (expect some resistance from feminists regarding robot consent).

          • @DeafMutePretender: Yeah.. you took a bit of a left turn there towards some pretty anti-woman stuff.
            I'm not about any of that

            • @outlander: Sorry about that. I should make it clear I'm not anti-woman, just pro-pursuit of the truth.

              Anyone else, feel free to prove me wrong.

      • +1

        Sure, they're only with him because of his money but hey, they're 1/4 his age

        The boss would need to be 72 for someone a quarter of his age to be legal.

        • More power to him if they let him grab them by the

    • +5

      But I'll let you in on a little secret.

      Me too.

      People tell other people that their more successful counterpart has some intangible flaw and/or unhappiness as a coping mechanism for their own shortcomings.

      • Highanddry upvoted you. How predictable.

        • He also upvotes the stuff I upvote.

          It's like… we're the same people :O

          Suspenseful music

          Laughs in Spanish

          • @[Deactivated]: Maybe.
            Maybe he's in love with you.. and it didn't even cost you a dime.

            • +1

              @outlander: Maybe.
              Maybe you're in love with me and I'm sure it costs me a few dimes.

        • +1

          Success is not correlated with misery. It's probably the other way around. And in any case, OP seems poor and miserable, so someone who's rich while being miserable is still better off…

          The need to pull others down in your imagination just to feel better seems unhealthy.

          • +1

            @HighAndDry: Precisely. And that was the main crux of my point to the OP. The rich don't have everything. Ordinary people have access to opportunities that the most powerful billionaires just don't have.

            Worst way you can live is to despair at all the doors that are closed to you, while ignoring the special few that are open just for you.

    • +1

      But I'll let you in on a little secret.

      How about I let you in on a little secret? :p According to research while the wealthy don’t appear to receive a joy bump from their income, the poor do suffer from greater daily sadness than the rich.

      Here's how to find your own personal sweet spot aka your wealth satiation point

      • +1

        If thats a secret, its a very badly kept one.

        O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars, are in the poorest thing superfluous

        • Not asking you to live like a "beast" …just you know, don't fall in the greediness trap cos

          The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
          Make instruments to plague us.

          • @[Deactivated]: Should have known better than to quote fancy old verses at you. You've got so many memorized your mind is like a rollerdex of them.

            Greeds not something I'm particularly susceptible to I'm afraid, so you need not worry about me. I'm a dreamer. Most people obsessed with money are really looking to buy a dream, but I have so many of the damn things I'm not looking for any more!

            • +1

              @outlander: You're an oxymoron in that you're a pragmatic dreamer. No wonder I'm so fond of you :)

Login or Join to leave a comment