Consider that your family might be a lot more concerned about having 20 extra years to spend with you than with how many cars and diplomas you can buy them with 50 million dollars.
For your sake I sure hope they are
Maybe forgoing the luxurious life that 50 million will give you is a lot more selfless.
Doug, I agree with you for the most part, but your forgetting that for a lot of people on this board, the choice has already been made for them. A lot of people arent giving you the straight answer to the question because they simply cant. Doug, he CANT choose the 50mil because he is over 50, and no person in that situation is going to say that they wish they had died at 50 for 50million dollars. Its just not realistic.
I would never trade years for money.
Whoever would do such a thing is a fool.
4:09 Miler;
A lot of people arent giving you the straight answer to the question because they simply cant.
I'm not over 50, but if I were I could still answer a hypothetical question requiring me to imagine I'm thirty, and it would be just as valid an answer as Doug having to imagine he's thirty from his age of 22.
If your conception of a "good" life is so wrapped up in material things, and you think you can't live a good life AND work, then you'd better take the money, because you won't be happy otherwise.
My point is that all of the things Doug wants to do with the money, can be done without the money, and you get an extra 20 years to do them - the fact that Doug can't see any way to do them without the money is sad, and points either to a lack of imagination (he really wants to do the things he listed, but can't see how), fear (Doug wants a guarantee that he won't end up poor), or that, really, deep down, he doesn't want the things he listed as much as he wants money.
To answer your question Doug - no I didn't take the "safe route" - I left school when I was 16, and I travelled the world. I did everything I wanted to do for 20 years, until my daughter was born, then I got a serious job. It can be done if you aren't scared.
Yes, I could have ended up poor, but who cares there are worse things, I had fun and you only get one go around. My experience (and maybe it is atypical) is that I've made up for the 20 years of not working steadily. I've got it in mind to retire when I'm 55 and, on this bet I'll get another 15 years bumming round the world, secure in the knowledge that my daughter's college tuition will be paid for, and I'll get to see her grow up. Your 50 mil won't buy you that, and my guess is that, even if you had the money you are the sort of person who wouldn't do anything with it. If you can't work out how to do it without the money, you won't do it.
Yes, 4:09 Miler, my answer is coloured by my life experiences, which may not be typical, but so are everyone's - that's the point of a hypothetical - my straight answer is to take the time, money is easy to come by.
"Prosperity is not without many fears and distastes,and adversity is not without comforts and hopes."
Francis Bacon.
Life is.
Time,no money.
Money,no time.
J.R. wrote:
I would never trade years for money.
Whoever would do such a thing is a fool.
If you work, you do it all the time.
You're still alive when you work though (unless you have a really shitty job).
I gave some thought when I chose $50 million as the amount of money some might opt for instead of having a longer life. I am curious as to the "threshold" for Doug in which he would choose the extra 20 years rather than the money ... $5 million? $20 miillion? $1 million? How much money is not enough and would force him to opt for the longer life?
"you say money isn't everything, but I'd like to see you live without it."
Wise words from Silverchair's hit 90's song, "Tomorrow."
Well, I suppose this debate is done. You can't argue with that ;)
Amen,
Give me the time. Too often large chunks of capital have the propensity to turn normal people into "wack" jobs.
I would take the extra 20 years for sure. You can still MAKE money beginning at age 30, and still have fun for 40 more years. 50 is too young to die...hell anymore, 70 is too young.
I'd take the 100 in a heartbeat, given the two scenarios. Money doesn't make happiness. But I think I'll live past 70 anyways so I wouldn't pick either.