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

Doug Heffernan wrote:

I am definitely more self-centered and materialistic than the average person...

It certainly shows. You still have a lot of growing up left to do.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

However, I still think I'm making a compelling argument.

You aren't.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

Sure I'd miss my grandkids growing up, daughter getting married, blah blah...

Those sort of things are strictly "blah, blah" to you? That is genuinely sad.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

To me, you guys seem to be picking the extra 20 years to justify your miserable lives you're currently living... As for my age, I'm 22.

You are really a class-act, Doug. Once again, it shows (although based upon your immature, overly-defensive and confrontational attitude, I would have guessed closer to the 16-18 range).

I'd also like to point out that the only thing I would be missing out on (based on that list) is providing emotional support for my dying parents if my overwhelming self-centeredness got in the way of me having kids.

Doug = not an informed opinion wrote:

It certainly shows. You still have a lot of growing up left to do.

You aren't.

There are people who are different than you. Not everyone has the same values. Perhaps I should just off myself since I don't share your point of view.

Doug = not an informed opinion wrote:

Those sort of things are strictly "blah, blah" to you? That is genuinely sad.

my bad, that should read "etc." Better?

Doug = not an informed opinion wrote:

You are really a class-act, Doug. Once again, it shows (although based upon your immature, overly-defensive and confrontational attitude, I would have guessed closer to the 16-18 range).

My opinion is not immature, it's different than yours.

You seem to be taking it more personally and acting more defensively than I am. You were the one who brought the argument to this level.

Like I said, not everyone is like you. Different people have different view points and values. Get over it. No need to get upset.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

I'd also like to point out that the only thing I would be missing out on (based on that list) is providing emotional support for my dying parents if my overwhelming self-centeredness got in the way of me having kids.

oh, and let me beat you guys to the punch.

let's just hope you don't have kids so they aren't instilled with the same evil values that you have

J.R. wrote:

I'll take the 50 million, and Doug Heffernan can die at 50.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

Is this an attack on me? You're dying at 50 too.

As for my age, I'm 22. Use that against me as you'd like.

No, but since you're dying at 50 anyway, why waste it?

This way we both win. You die, I live forever plus have the 50 million to enjoy.

Since I went from average joe in my twenties to making a fortune in my early thirties and am now in my fifties I have a pretty good background to comment.

I grew up lower middle class.I was good at software.This was back when a guy with some talent,guts and willing to work hard could do very well.

Serious money has a down side.

I had problems fitting in.My old friends were envious or mad when I would not help em out.People who had money looked down on me.

Long story short I moved across the country and hide the fact that I had any money.After many years of not working I got bored.Something I never thought would happen.

So trust me on this one.Good health is the most important treasure you will ever have.A job you enjoy is also right up there along with people you love.

peace

Doug = not an informed opinion wrote:

...although based upon your immature, overly-defensive and confrontational attitude...

Doug Heffernan wrote:

My opinion is not immature, it's different than yours.

As you can see from the text directly above, I didn't say that your opinion was immature. I specifically pointed out that your attitude was immature, and based upon your propensity for trash-talking, you seem to have provided ample proof to support my claim.

I only had a few hundred bucks to my name when I was 28 anyway, so I'd take the 100 bucks at 30.

Jason

Then how did you live and train in Thailand ?

Please, explain.

First off, great question to the OP. My initial reaction was that it was a no-brainer: of course you'd take the extra 20 years assuming you're not some hedonist after an easy, pleasurable life. But then I read some of the posts

yeahright wrote:

i'd take a great 20 years in exchange for a mediocre or crappy 40 yrs.

The good you could do, the way you could change people's lives, and the sheer fun and experiences you could have with the $50M out weigh the alternative.

and I changed my mind. I think so much of it depends on how you would use the money. If you'd just use it to buy stuff and be happy then take the extra time. But if you could use that money to help others or put off work and pursue your dreams then take the money.

If you're a semi-professional runner, struggling artist, wanna-be writer, etc.; working, going to school or doing whatever you can to make ends-meet: think about the possibility of really pursuing your dreams. With $50 mil you could do so.

Giving up 20 years is a big sacrifice, but exchanging a long amount of mediocrity for a shorter amount of good makes sense.

(FYI: I'm 25 and grew up poor, but have chosen the poor life - did Americorps for a year. I don't plan on having kids so I don't have to worry about walking daughter down isle, watching grandkids, etc.)

I would take the extra time on this earth.

It is who you are and what you stand for, not what you have.

www.myspace.com/gregoryzawaski

time is worth much more than money. time is the ultimate treasure.

Axis Austin wrote:

If you're a semi-professional runner, struggling artist, wanna-be writer, etc.; working, going to school or doing whatever you can to make ends-meet: think about the possibility of really pursuing your dreams. With $50 mil you could do so.

You could follow your dreams without $50 mil - not a good argument.

I'd take the time - don't even have to think about it.

Same.

Like someone else said, you can pursue your dreams without the money. It's harder, but you can still do it.

I'm not sure everyone would have a better time if they were suddenly given 50 million. I'm sure money can bring some problems with it (for example the stories of the lottery winners who end up in all kinds of states).

Anyway. As long as I could work to bring enough income to keep me relatively comfortable each month, I don't see having 100 dollars at 30 being a problem.

Easily 20 extra years of life.

Making enough money to live very, very comfortably is not all that hard to do. Living 20 extra years is pretty tough...

sure, you could follow your dreams without $50 million, but you're not going to have the time and energy to do it like you would with the money. You have 8 hours of work a day and you might not have the money that you otherwise would've had to pursue such dreams. Right now I work 8 hours/day and what I'd really like to do is spend more time running, lifting, catching up on DVDs, reading books, pick up new hobbies, teach myself something I'll never learn in school, etc. Do I have time for any of that? No. I'm exhausted after being at work for all of daylight and I can only choose what I deem most important to me.

And "not an informed opinion", stop picking out petty shit from my posts and start arguing against my actual points. Calling my ATTITUDE immature does nothing to shoot down my points or strengthen yours.

$100 and more time. not that I'm particularly scared of death at this point, but it will be fun to see grand kids grow up, etc... I don't care that much about money.

Doug Heffernan wrote: You have 8 hours of work a day and you might not have the money that you otherwise would've had to pursue such dreams. Right now I work 8 hours/day and what I'd really like to do is spend more time running, lifting, catching up on DVDs, reading books, pick up new hobbies, teach myself something I'll never learn in school, etc. Do I have time for any of that? No. I'm exhausted after being at work for all of daylight and I can only choose what I deem most important to me.

It's pretty hard for any American to honestly complain about having to work too hard. Where do you live? How much money do you have in the bank?

In most of America, 100k$ is a house. In most of the world, 100k$ is never work again, sit on the beach, spend your days worrying about margaritas and senoritas money. There are a lot of pretty girls in Thailand who'd let you catch up on those DVD's while living off of 5k$ a year or so in interest...

If you have more that 100k$ and you are still working, it is pretty much because you value the money more than you value the extra time you\'d have by not working....'

Do I have time for any of that? No. I'm exhausted after being at work for all of daylight and I can only choose what I deem most important to me.

So you are gutless and unimaginative - if you really wanted to follow your dreams you would. You don't need to work 8 hours a day to get enough money to live on.

I suspect that you are just scared to make the leap - you want a safety net before you jump. If you had any real dreams you'd find a way, but it is easier to complain about how hard you work than test yourself and find out you aren't as good as you think.

If you had $50 mil you'd find some way to complain that it isn't enough, anything rather than making the leap.

Sorry Doug, but "not an informed opinion" has you pegged.