You are 30 ... Would you rather have $50 million at 30 and die at 50 or have $100 at 30 and die at 70?

you're saying 100 dollars, not 100 million, right?

yes, $100

well, there wouldn't really be much of a dilemma if it were $100 million at age 30.

I'd take the $50 million for sure. Life would be great with that much money. The time you'd save from not having to work almost makes up for the 20 lost years itself. Plus, you could live life to the fullest with that much money. Assuming, of course, you at least have a bit of intelligence and don't blow it on multi-million dollar houses, 10 cars at 100K each, and millions more on jewelery within a couple years.

I would rather have $100 at age 30 and try to earn my way to a better life. I would bet most people over 25 would go for the $100 and those under 25 would go for the money.

Doug,

The money would trump the extra time you would be allowed to spend with loved ones?

That's a pretty good question. There are a lot of unknowns in both situations. For instance, you don't know if you will continue making money, your current form of shelter, or your current friends or family. I never really thought that I needed a lot of money to be happy, but I also don't really see why I need to live real long.

In a religious sense, I would like to think that I could help more people find God if I lived longer. Realistically, I would probably just do the same junk I've been doing if I lived longer.

Actually, I'd take the 50 mil. Then, I'd develop a master plan of how to spend the last dollar exactly the day before I turn 30. I would live the whole year moneyless; I don't want to risk keeping possessions if I new I would did some time that year. I could spend it earlier if I realized I didn't need money. I would travel, give some talks maybe, try to volunteer some time doing random stuff, have a little fun, possibly donate some money. It would be kind of crazy knowing the exact year that you die.

guaranteed to live to 50?

20/20 hindsight says I`d win taking 50M

Coyote Carl wrote:

Doug,

The money would trump the extra time you would be allowed to spend with loved ones?

well, I could argue that the money would allot me all that extra time to be able to spend with family and build relationships that you otherwise never would've had. You could take the time to visit family members around the country for a few weeks (or more) out of the year, you could take them on nice vacations with you, support them financially (i.e. pay for college educations), etc. Besides, from what I've seen, life after 50 isn't too glamourous, and at that point in your life, your family should be able to support themselves anyways.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

Besides, from what I've seen, life after 50 isn't too glamourous...

Perhaps you should rely upon the opinion of people who have actually lived through both, rather than your own conjecture.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

Besides, from what I've seen, life after 50 isn't too glamourous, and at that point in your life, your family should be able to support themselves anyways.

I agree!

so you've been able to do all the things you did in your 20's? You can recover just as fast? You don't have any aches and pains? You could go hiking all day if you wanted to? Rock climbing? Don't act like you're the same as you were in your 20's, because you're not. My dad takes great care of himself, yet he had to have surgery on one of his vertebrae because of a spur poking into his sping, has bouts of tendonitis, back goes out a lot, etc. I'm not saying one will be bedridden when you're past 50, but I'm sure it's certainly not as enjoyable as when you were in your 20's and early 30's.

I am in better shape at 55 (physically and mentally) than I was at 35.

cause of death?

20 years is worth a lot more to me than 50 million dollars.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

so you've been able to do all the things you did in your 20's?

No, but that is both naive and a blatantly baited question.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

Don't act like you're the same as you were in your 20's, because you're not.

Thank you for those profound words of wisdom! On the other hand, don't act like you have any divine insight on what it's like to live past 50, because it's obvious that you are the classic example of someone drawing conclusions based upon one side of the story. Personally, other than an unfortunately receding hairline, I don't have any significant health problems at all. I'm quite comfortable, both physically and financially. Would I trade another 20-30 years with my wife, kids, and eventual grandkids simply to have a lot more money? Not a chance. That is the very epitome of a self-centered materialistic attitude. Regardless of how much you are "living large" during those 20 years between 30-50, there is no substitute for spending time with the people that you love. If you can bring yourself to essentially sell another 2 or 3 decades of your life for a given price, I feel sorry for you.

cod wrote:

cause of death?

atomic erection syndrome

I had $100, now I am sixty, no regrets.

What, and forfeit my chances at a gold medal at the Senior Olympics?

Good question.

I'd take the 20 years.

I'd rather pass on both an try and be like Ed Whitlcok.