Playing the Money Game (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Playing the Money Game

[lasti]

Want to know how it continues...

What’s the point of playing the game Trouble? Is it to win? No. The point is to enjoy the experience and have fun.

Cool point.

[Sam988]

Kyle seems like a very competitive child, or am i mistaken?

Interestingly, as you said, Kyle won more games than you and Emily. I don't want to get into whether he just got lucky or if the fact that he takes it more seriously and is more competitive made him win more, but being competitive and taking things seriously also has its advantages.

I think that there needs to be a balance between competitiveness/uptightness and "laid-backness", for lack of a better word.

If i had to choose between the two extremes, i would certainly go with being completely and ruthlessly competitive. I think it's a much more precious and useful quality (and i stress the word quality) to have than to not take things very seriously. Being competitive makes you more responsible to yourself, makes you not allow yourself to become lazy and not follow through and accomplish the goals you've set.

So what if a competitive person has a major setback in his life? He gets really pissed at himself (because he takes full responsibility for his life and success, something VERY important to do) and goes on with more energy and power than ever to attain that which was taken away from him or to attain that which he failed to get before. He knows no lamenting and mourning. "Failure" only makes him stronger and gives him more energy to try again.





I'm aware that there are other ways to view and to live life, but i think that this is the way that is going to take someone the farthest in life.

[jawillie]

I liked the article, but that is no surprise as I really do feel I am on the "same page" as Steve and Erin.

I like to go about my business creatively not competively. For me competition is like swimming up stream. Yeah, you can get far, but PHEW!! A lot of extra work!! I am not against "work" I just prefer Inspired Action to acting out of fear of losing. I like swimming downstream.

Am I "successful?" I have made a lot out of my life, owning my own home, owning two businesses, and in a happy marriage. So, I do not feel competitive action is the only way to get ahead ~ infact I deeply hope more people take on creative, Inspired action as that brings up many people not just one. But, like Steve mentioned in his blog, it's not about "winning"... it's about the journey. I can honestly say I am LOVING this journey!! When I finally realized I was on a journey, and not in a competition, my entire life changed instantly for the better.

[DeRocky]

Originally Posted by Sam988

being competitive and taking things seriously also has its advantages.

I think that there needs to be a balance between competitiveness/uptightness and "laid-backness", for lack of a better word.

I agree with this. This is one of the precarious things about attachment and non-attachment. In life, because we are human, I think we have to be serious about certain things - our well-being, the well-being of those we love, our work, etc.

Steve says he's taken up chess so I'll use chess as an example. I'm a violent competitor at chess and have huge goals in that area (in fact I was just in Las Vegas, Steve's neck of the woods, for a competition). Some people use "it's just a game" or "at least it was a learning experience" as an excuse to stop trying even before the game ends -- or even before it starts. While they're entilted to that, such comments "it's just a game" don't often seem to resonate with their being -- they don't actually feel that way. They just seem to be using it as an excuse not to examine their weaknesses.

Just like in life, some people like to say they're "going with the flow" which sounds like detachment, but I'm often suspicious.

Setting goals, maintaining a competitive spirit, having ambition and desire, and investing oneself in certain outcomes seems like a useful and necessary part of being human. But personally I think that joy, detachment and acceptance have to still be experienced on a deeper level. I try (try!) to keep a quality deep in my being that even though I may take certain things very seriously, even though I have certain big desires, I still maintain a certain level of detachment and inner joy apart from that.

I think there's a very fine line here, and your word "balance" speaks to it. Though, I'm not sure if that word quite works for the way I feel about it.

Nice article, Steve

[supertom]

cant wait for the next article

[geekchic9]

Originally Posted by Sam988

So what if a competitive person has a major setback in his life? He gets really pissed at himself (because he takes full responsibility for his life and success, something VERY important to do) and goes on with more energy and power than ever to attain that which was taken away from him or to attain that which he failed to get before. He knows no lamenting and mourning. "Failure" only makes him stronger and gives him more energy to try again.

"Failure" doesn't always make someone stronger. It doesn't always give more energy to a person to try again. Sometimes, the setbacks seem so insurmountable that it's hard to not take the failure personally. The mindset switches from "I failed" to "I'm a failure." I recognize that "I'm a failure" is not a good way to look at life, but it's a mindset that is way too common.

I'm with Steve on this one, especially as a person who takes things way too seriously in general. It's only a game -- enjoy it! Now, if I only knew how....

[Erin Pavlina]

Kyle isn't competitive at all. He's actually really emotionally sensitive. The reason he gets upset is because when someone takes his piece he feels bullied, he feels hurt, especially when Emily and Steve high five each other over his defeat.

Now I'm a really non-competitive person and I dislike competitive games. I feel the way Kyle does. I want everyone to win. I'd be happy just rollign the dice and tooling around the board without taking other pieces down and without other people taking me down.

I went out and got us an XBox 360 game, Marvel Alliance, because all four of us play on the same team, that's what I like. Teamwork.

But I will say that Steve and Emily definitely enjoy playing and don't care at all if they win or lose. So that's interesting to me.

[Steve Pavlina]

FYI the way Trouble is played, piece taking is often involuntary. Much of the time it happens strictly by a roll of the die with no decision to make. Even when it does involve a decision, it's almost always the obvious correct move. When Emily and I high-five each other, we're making a silly show of common events in the game, not praising a brilliant strategic move or anything like that. It's similar to how drunk people cheer at the game of craps in the casinos when they make a good roll.

We also high-five Kyle when he knocks Erin out of the lead position, so we aren't ganging up on him. He just seems to take the game much more seriously than we do, not because he's competitive about it but because he gets very attached to his position and hates to lose ground. The game, however, is designed such that when you're in the lead, the other players are practically forced to gang up on you to equalize the board.

The gameplay is similar to the game Sorry.

[Brutha]

Just like in life, some people like to say they're "going with the flow" which sounds like detachment, but I'm often suspicious.

Nietsche is quoted as having said:
A man's maturity consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play. (and at that time children played with each other selfmades roleplays)

You can be very seriously play something without being attached to an outcome.

Go is a game that rewards non attached to your stones or positions. A Go game can end in a lot of different ways.
If someone has only one outcome in mind for a situation he loses the flexibilty and gets less effective.

I think a lot about life is similar. If you have invested in a venture and it fails, it sometimes is better to quit that venture instead of pumping more money into it. Nonattachment to particular outcomes of ventures allows for that.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by geekchic9

"Failure" doesn't always make someone stronger. It doesn't always give more energy to a person to try again. Sometimes, the setbacks seem so insurmountable that it's hard to not take the failure personally. The mindset switches from "I failed" to "I'm a failure." I recognize that "I'm a failure" is not a good way to look at life, but it's a mindset that is way too common.

It may be a common mindset but this fact doesn't justify having the mindset. If the person thinks he's a failure, what's more logical than to try even harder to achieve something and prove to himself he's not a failure?


The way i see it, a continuous and frequent state of helplessness is unacceptable, unless the person is severely emotionally unstable, in which case he should go see a psychiatrist.

[Trezker]

Another alternative is to play a game where no one is likely to win at all. Dungeonquest is a game where it's everyone against the game as well as eachother, with a 15% chance of anyone making it out alive. It really teaches you that no one wins every time, and it's really fun to try again and again. I also recommend getting as old version as possible, it's more fun with more unfairness in this game. Dungeonquest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's somewhat similar to the old computer game NetHack. I've not even gotten halfway through this game despite hundreds of tries. It's incredibly unfair but packed with weirdness and funny so the experience is most of the time enjoyable. NetHack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dbstraight]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Go is a game that rewards non attached to your stones or positions. A Go game can end in a lot of different ways.
If someone has only one outcome in mind for a situation he loses the flexibilty and gets less effective.

Glad to see I'm not the only one interested in both Go and Steve's blog!

On that subject, though moreso on the subject of Steve's post. I found this section of the American Go Association's E-Journal very interesting, and Steve's post just reiterates the same basic idea. I don't think there's any copyright problem in reproducing this since it was part of a lecture which the AGA was simply reproducing, but I just want to make it clear that I am getting this from the AGA, and that the words are not mine, but those of Takemiya Masaki, a master Go player.

"When you sit down to play a game is your aim to win the game or to become stronger? You probably think you can do both, but these are quite different projects. The problem with trying to win – besides the fact that it makes it hard to enjoy the game – is that you don’t trust your feelings about where to play. When you look over the board there’ll be a place find you want to play, but if you’re concerned about winning, you’re not going to trust your feeling. You’ll think and analyze and nervously play somewhere else. This is a terrible way to play go. You should look at the board and play wherever you want to. This is the way to get stronger. I say this everywhere I go, around the world, but no one believes me. Nevertheless it’s true. Of course, when you do this, you’ll lose a lot of games. So you have to review the games. That way your feelings about the game will get better and you will not only get stronger, you’ll also find that playing go is a lot of fun. And you’ll win more often. This is go the natural way."

Even without any knowledge at all of the game, anyone can, I think, get something from this, especially if you consider "the game" to be the money game of which Steve spoke.

For example, the problem with trying to win the money game is that you're too concerned about having money, and you won't trust your feelings about what you should really be spending your time on. If you're too concerned about going bankrupt or being broke, you may never quit your job to pursue something you're really passionate about. You may nervously decide to stick with your job because it's "safe." Granted, you may lose some rounds if you follow your passions, but then you can look at where things went right and where they went wrong, improve, and do something you love. Then, you'll start to win more often... this is the money game the natural way.

Yeah, I think the connection is pretty clear even without my explanation there, but I was just so excited to see somewhere else to apply these words of Takemiya's that I find so helpful (I first started applying them in my local Chess club) AND to see that someone already brought up Go. It really is kinda like winning the lottery. *there should be a LOL smiley on here*

[kpollock]

Originally Posted by geekchic9

I'm with Steve on this one, especially as a person who takes things way too seriously in general. It's only a game -- enjoy it! Now, if I only knew how....

Oh my yes. I need to learn that too.

I recall being much like Kyle at a similar age...and all the way up to, well, still am I suppose. 37. wow.

I have to be good at something to enjoy it. Good at its stated aim, to be precise. I recall my mother asking me "can't you just do anything for fun?" and looking at her utterly baffled, saying "where's the fun if you are bad at it?". Except dancing. I'm not the world's worst, but I'm not great by anyone's standards. I still manage to enjoy that! Maybe there's hope :-)

[Goldhart23]

Originally posted by dbstraight: You should look at the board and play wherever you want to. This is the way to get stronger. I say this everywhere I go, around the world, but no one believes me. Nevertheless it’s true. Of course, when you do this, you’ll lose a lot of games. So you have to review the games. That way your feelings about the game will get better and you will not only get stronger, you’ll also find that playing go is a lot of fun. And you’ll win more often.

Sounds exactly like the "ready, fire, aim" approach that Steve's always talking about! I like it!

*Barb*

[Bruce Achterberg]

Here comes Bruce, the strengths-theory guy, to comment on the article!

So Steve, Kyle probably has Competitive as a talent them, or perhaps Achiever. (Edit: judging from Erin's post above, it seems he might have some Includer in there as well.) It's hard to tell exactly what, but what is more important is his behaviour--it doesn't really matter what you label it with, so long as you can identify it.

I react exactly like Kyle does, although I do have the maturity to push through. I, according to both my StrengthsFinder 1.0 and 2.0 results, have Achiever as a talent theme, and in my case, that manifests as me caring about my reputation.

Achiever

Personalised theme description

Because of your strengths, you see yourself as a logical, rational, sensible,
and wise person. Once you establish this reputation with people, you work very hard to maintain it.

Copyright © 2000, 2006-2007 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Not sure why this is-although I'd say it's the result of Maximiser + Achiever-but I know it comes up.

It comes up in a competitive game where, if I don't have a practice mode to play in and I know I'll lose in a mode that records your losses and wins, I tend to feel less drawn to play, even if I want to play, because I feel I need to maintain my reputation.

This isn't a fear thing, or even an ago thing; it feels more like a positive draw, as if maintaining my reputation feels better than playing the game. Even though I may enjoy the game if I actually play it, I'll always be aware of whether my reputation is maintained. If I win-that's great! But if I lose... well, suffice to say I feel that positive draw toward keeping my wins high, and my losses low. The draw isn't as enjoyable as I may make it sound, but I feel fulfilled if I appease it. That is certainly a talent thing, since I've experienced a similar sensation with other talent-related things. And while that may sound like some sort of addition, I'm wired to fulfill it. Should I fulfill it consciously and intelligently, it's also quite likely to make me extremely effective.

Now I've no idea how this specifically manifests for Kyle, but I thought I'd throw that info out there. Kyle is probably going to frustrate the bejesus out of you with his avoidance of failure as he grows up, heh. You're Mr. "Dive in and fail", and he he is (from the sounds of it) Mr. "Did you say failure? Nope, won't be engaging in that."

The good news is that I often fail a lot (a lot! Did I say "a lot" yet?), but I somehow manage to do it without my talents taking a beating. In time, I'm sure Kyle will, too.

But this topic is too fun to stop here.

Let's explore an eerily-applicable story Marcus Buckingham tells in the (excellent, yet not-for-everyone) book Go Put Your Strengths to Work:

My son Jackson is five years old, and already I know some things about him. For example, I know that Jack is passionately competitive. Not in the way that most kids are, with their vague preference for winning over losing, but in a deep-and-abiding-hated-of-losing kind of way. If he's watching his favorite football team on television and they start to lose, he can't stay in the room. He is compelled to run into the other room and bury his face in the sofa cushions. It's a physical thing. His need to win is such an overwhelming force that, once it's triggered, he doesn't know quite what to do with himself.

Last year, as a special reward for being nice to his younger sister for a week, I took him to watch the Arizona State Sun Devils play the Rutgers Scarlet Knights in the Insight Bowl. I picked this football game, first, because ASU was his favorite team. I'm still not entirely sure why. And second, because I judged ASU more of a football powerhouse than Rutgers, so I was pretty sure I could guarantee a win for "our" team.

All went well in the run-up to the game. I had been worried that Jack would be frightened by the extravaganza of a full-blast college bowl game, but he seemed unfazed by it all. The parachutists with smoke pouring out of their heels, the pregame fireworks, the marching bands, the huge inflatable helmets with the teams bursting onto the field through clouds of coloured smoke-it was all fun and games for Jackson, perched on my lap with his little Sun Devils cap on.

Until, that is, the game started. ASU stalled on its first possession. Rutgers got the ball and quickly scored a touchdown. ASU turned the ball over again, and Rutgers scored another touchdown. Then ASU turned the ball over again, and so there we were, seven minutes in, out team down 14-9, and no offence in sight.

And we had to leave the stadium.

It began with a small, polite, "Dad, can we please leave?" Which prompted a calming, "oh, don't worry Jack, ASU will rally" from me. But then things escalated. Not to screaming and shouting and carrying on. He's not that kind of kid. But as the minutes ticked by, and as ASU continued to struggle, Jack became more and more agitated. He twisted in my lap; a distressed, squirming, unhappy little creature burying his head in my shoulder. Then came a barely audible whimper: "Please, please, Dad, can we leave?"

Which, of course, we did. I can take a hint. We left at the end of the first quarter and wound up watching the rest of the game in our hotel room across the street, where the lack of atmosphere was more than made up for by our ability to grap the remote and flip the channel whenever ASU's fortunes took a turn for the worse. (Jackson's happy ending: ASU won 45-40 on a last-minute touchdown.)

I wish I could have persuaded him to walk back into the stadium, particularly after ASU came back to take the lead in the second half, but Jack was having none of it. He feels losing as a physical pain, and he needs-really, truly needs-to be able to shut it off if, God forbid, it starts to happen. That's Jack. And that will always be Jack. My wife and I didn't cause him to be this way, but as far back as I can remember, he was this way, and he always will be.

He won't grow out of this. He won't come to believe that winning and losing are childish concerns. Sure, when he grows up, his competitiveness will manifest itself differently than it does now, but regardless of how much fun the "taking part" is, he will never be able to ignore the outcome. When, as an adult, he learns a new skill, his first thought will still be "What's the score" as it was last week when he picked up a ping-pong paddle for the first time.

"There's no score, Jack. You have to learn to hit it back before we can start scoring."

"Oh." Pause. "What's the score, Dad?"

Likewise, if some time in the future it happens that he works in an environment where there is no way to measure his performance, no way to compare it to others, he will still feel as frustrated as he now does playing T-ball where, because of tournament rules, every game must end in a tie. ("What was the score, Dad? Fifteen to fifteen? Again?")

Today he races his sister every night down the corridor leading to his bedroom. She darts, he chases. Stimulus/response. Twenty years from now, when you walk down a corridor with Jack, he will still be subliminally aware of being just a couple of inches ahead of you. In fact if you were to gradually increase your pace, you might actually be able to get him to break into a run.

Jack's challenge as an adult will not be to put aside this competitiveness and replace it with a more "mature" trait, such as collegiality or team spirit. Instead, his challenge will be to find a productive way to channel this need to win. I hope, as he grows, that he finds ways to focus his competitiveness. I hope he learns to seek out situations in which he can win. And I hope he stops crying when he loses.

But I don't expect he will ever lose his craving to win. I don't expect he will ever learn to be a good loser. Of course, as a parent, I hope that he will learn to be a gracious loser, someone who can be polite in defeat. But Jack is today, and will always be, one of those people who thinks to himself, "You show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser."

Clearly, I am not suggesting he will experience no change as he grows. His dreams will change. His skills will change. His achievements will change. His circumstances will change, and along with them, I'm sure, his values will change. But the core of him, the most dominant aspects of his personality, will remain the same.

So will yours. And that's OK. That's as it should be. As you grow, your goal should not be to transform yourself, to somehow conjure new forces from within you. Instead, your goal should be to free up and focus the forces already there.

- Page 45-49 of the book, Go Put Your Strengths To Work by Marcus Buckingham. Copyright © 2007 by One Thing Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.

(Bruce's awesome, strengths-based post continues below...)

[Bruce Achterberg]

(I was grinning as I typed that quote. The Individualiser in me was *living* this story, the Input'er in me loved to read it, and the Maximiser in me just loves strengths-theory to bits. )

So let's take stock.

If a talent calls you to a particular action, are you doomed to fulfill it, like a zombie searching for brains?

Thankfully, no. You can of course consciously control this bodily reaction, but at least with talents, in most cases, you want to align with it, or at least, do your best to create situations that align with it once you know about it. There will be cases where you can't, or probably should go against it for whatever reason, but in most cases, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness (here I go again; darn that Maximiser talent of mine ), you, just like Kyle, will want to play to your talents and draw on and hone your strengths.

But then, I feel like I'm talking to myself about strengths. In other words, I'm telling someone--Steve--who knows a lot about something things he already knows. But in this case, I probably know a bit more about strengths-theory than Steve does, but he's actually more strengths focused, so gg Steve, you win. Now I don't want to play any more.

("gg" is gamer talk for "good game" for the uninitiated, sadly deprived non-gamers out there.).

And as an interesting aside for those reading this, one of the most little-known things about Steve's work and content is that his approach, as universal as it is, aligns with his talents completely. That's not to say that Steve hasn't aligned a lot of what he does with universal forces-he has, masterfully. But it does explain why Steve is a little better at applying a lot of what he writes about than all of us.

Sure, in some cases he has more knowledge and skill, but most of the time, he simply has more talent alignment with certain methods and processes where we simply don't. Steve became most useful to me, I think, when I started using him as an inspiring example, rather than a resource for processes and methods. I still model certain things he does and use certain ideas, but for the most part, I align everything with my talents, or boil down his methods to the core, and add my own trappings that draw on my own talents.

Before I end my rambling, I'll mention that I like that you play family board games after dinner, Steve--games are awesome, enriching things.

On a side note, consider playing some Street Fighter with Kyle. Heck, I'd play Street Fighter with Kyle (that'd be neat, heh), but alas, his competitive talent theme would probably cause him to not like me beating him (which I would probably do... relentlessly! Ok, maybe not relentlessly, but often enough to shirk that uncomfortable "I'm losing" sensation I get from not-winning. Sure, I can lose, but I prefer to win.)

You might say "Street Fighter is violent", but bah, that's like saying martial arts is violent. Sure, it has a degree of violence, but the self improvement aspects far outweigh any of that, and neither games nor martial art are about violence, anyway. (Although yes, some people who don't look beneath the graphics may just play it to see people get punched and kicked and hadouken'd. Those people should read Playing to Win.)

Of course, you (of all people) don't need me to tell you how to raise your kids, but I honestly believe there's a very good change that Kyle's life--and the lives of many other children, and adults, too--would be better with a bit of Street Fighter in it. I particularly recommend Street Fighter II Super Turbo HD Remix that is, conveniently, coming out in beautiful high definition, with all new redrawn art by Udon (the guys who draw the Street Fighter comics), online multiplayer on Xbox live and PSN, and re-balanced gameplay by expert-game-balancer, David Sirlin, yet with all of the goodness of the original Street Fighter II Super Turbo. To quote Sirlin:

Looks like the cat's out of the bag that you can play the game in widescreen or not, with new gameplay or not, with new music or not, and with redrawn sprites or not. Plus 8-person tournaments, true 1080p, and a way to view the hitboxes. It's all for you!

That may sound like a bit of a Street Fighter and Sirlin plug, but if you knew how awesome Super Turbo is--especially re-balanced Super Turbo with new art and online multiplayer--you'd plug it too.

[24evita]

Steve's article is definitely inspiring and made me think about how I play the money game myself. I am definitely not like Kyle, or Erin, but I am not where Steve and his daughter are either.

I grew up with the typical mind set that was unfortunately ingrained in me that money is hard to come by, you don't take chances with it, losses are terrible things, etc, etc... you get the point.

Thank goodness i started to change and dissolve away that mindset slowly over the past few years and am really motivated to get up to par since the past few months. So yeah, I agree, money is just another game in life, although I am still not doing jumping jacks if some losses happen, I am really happy with the ease and direction that my alignment has been taking me in.


On another note a quick comment too regarding Bruce's part 2 comment above, where he states the following:

"Of course, you (of all people) don't need me to tell you how to raise your kids, but I honestly believe there's a very good change that Kyle's life--and the lives of many other children, and adults, too--would be better with a bit of Street Fighter in it. I particularly recommend Street Fighter II Super Turbo HD Remix that is, conveniently, coming out in beautiful high definition, with all new redrawn art by Udon (the guys who draw the Street Fighter comics), online multiplayer on Xbox live and PSN, and re-balanced gameplay by expert-game-balancer, David Sirlin, yet with all of the goodness of the original Street Fighter II Super Turbo. "

I think personal development is only successful if it is balanced in all areas of one's life. Hence why are we after violent video games? If we treat life like some war where people need to be trampled on and beat up then I think we are moving backwards not forwards, no?

I don't know, I just feel there are so many better, compassionate and empathetic ways to develop various life skills and violent video games just don't seem to cut it. At a time where the age of awareness is upon us and more and more people are even taking up vegetarianism as they see the madness in inflicting pain on animals, we should be way past any kind of visual, physical or other acts of violence against humans.

[Dedekind]

Wow, thanks for this blog post! It came at a perfect time for me. I am 25 and have been quite obsessed and worried lately by the size of my bank account. But I'm just 25; I should enjoy life, right? I should not worry too much about the account size, but focus instead on having fun, educating myself, and building up knowledge for the future, right? I think this post made me realize that.

Consider this fact: If you save $110 each month from age 20 to age 65, you will retire a millionaire (assuming 10% rates).

Based on the fact above, I'm going to set a new rule for myself: Since I'm 25 now, I assume that I have been saving $110 each month for five years. That means that currently I should have at least $9,000 in my account. The rule is simply this: I should not be afraid to spend the money I have that exceeds that amount! I should enjoy the excess. For instance, if I now own $10,000 I should enjoy and make the most out of the excess $1,000. And every year I just do a similar calculation. For instance, next year I will put 6 years (instead of 5) in that formula above, making the minimum amount I should own $11,500.

I of course realize that later on my goal to become a millionaire might change one day over to a goal to become a 10-millionaire. That would simply mean I would modify that $110-per-month amount to something more in the above formula. But for now (and probably for the next 10 years), I believe the $110 amount could serve me well.

How does this simple rule of mine sound Steve (and others)? Will this make me enjoy life more than I already do? Please tell me what you think.

(I hope I am not stealing your thread by talking here about ideas I got after reading your post.)


EDIT: Just to clarify a little more: by "not being afraid to spend the excess", I don't mean to just waste it completely like burning it, but rather I mean that I should not be afraid to spend the excess wisely, for instance on things like new books, taking courses, attending unversity, etc.

[DeRocky]

Originally Posted by Dedekind

Consider this fact: If you save $110 each month from age 20 to age 65, you will retire a millionaire (assuming 10% rates).

Personally, I wouldn't try this! Don't forget about inflation. I did a quick calculation based on a 3% inflation rate year-to-year (which is a very conservative estimate). Even though you'd have $1,000,000 by age 65, in 45 years $1,000,000 will have the same purchasing power as about $254,000 today. And again that's based on a small inflation number. If you assume 4% inflation then you will have the purchasing power of just $159,000 today.

Instead, personally, I think it is a much better idea to save based on a percentile of your income. Personal finance gurus, for example, usually suggest saving 10%. The bonus of this approach is that as your earning power grows (raises, promotions, career development, ventures) your savings go up. In fact, since a semi-ambitious worker will tend to get raises which keep up with or outpace inflation, this approach makes a lot more sense.

Some people suggest you save more, 15% is great, 20% is the goal which my partner and I set each year, but this requires a lot of delayed gratification for a bigger, faster payoff.

Finally a percentile approach also provides us a similar cognitive freedom as the one you described (feeling as though you can now spend the rest of your money as you please). We simply aim to get 20% of all income moved into investments as quickly as possibly (preferablly automatically) and everything else is "free to spend" on essentials and discretionary spending.

Laters

[seeker5]

Here is a problem you run into when you try to save your way into becoming "rich": If it takes you 20 years to get the sum you want, you then become fearful that if it's taken away from you - either by theft, stupidity, the government, the economy tanking, or any of the many other ways you can lose your savings, then you won't be able to re-generate that sum for another 20 years.

I know some guys who have a big 401K accounts, and yet, they are scared of some terrorist attack on this country that can sink the economy and thus sink their 401K.

Thus, if you save up a huge amount of money over a long period of time - you become much more susceptible to the environment and outside factors changing then if you've been able to generate a good deal of money through your skills.

At least, that's what I'm currently thinking, maybe I'm wrong .

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by seeker5

I know some guys who have a big 401K accounts, and yet, they are scared of some terrorist attack on this country that can sink the economy and thus sink their 401K.

Thus, if you save up a huge amount of money over a long period of time - you become much more susceptible to the environment and outside factors changing then if you've been able to generate a good deal of money through your skills.

At least, that's what I'm currently thinking, maybe I'm wrong .

Invest in hard assets.

Life is just like Press Your Luck.

There are whammies in life. You'll get hit with them occasionally. This is why you diversify into hard assets. Restaurants, land, productive farms, salvage yards, etc. Warren Buffet says that railroads are a great investment currently.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Invest in hard assets.

Life is just like Press Your Luck.

Investing makes life like Press Your Luck. But if your investment that you've spent 20 years investing in gets whipped out, it's another long 20 years to get back to where you were before.

There are whammies in life. You'll get hit with them occasionally. This is why you diversify into hard assets. Restaurants, land, productive farms, salvage yards, etc. Warren Buffet says that railroads are a great investment currently.

The problem with hard assets is you're again dependent on the prevention of wars, of the economy going well, the avoiding of terrorists major action, etc.

But if you invest in your own ability to contribute, as long as you've got your mind, you can adapt, let war devastate your country while you move elsewhere, not be concerned about drastic changes at age 65 that completely wipes out 40 years of built-up savings.

[Dedekind]

Originally Posted by DeRocky

Personally, I wouldn't try this!

Ah you're right. Forgot to take inflation into account. So yeah, I could then of course just estimate my earnings until now, and assume that I have saved 20% of that and refuse to spend that money. But feel free to spend the excess. Thanks for your tip.

[Dedekind]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Here is a problem you run into when you try to save your way into becoming "rich": If it takes you 20 years to get the sum you want, you then become fearful that if it's taken away from you...

I get you, but it's still a good idea to save don't you think? You know, in the unlikely (a little sarcasm there) event that you will be able to keep your savings at the age of 65.

Your point is valid though. Which means that of course one should also focus on steadily and continuously increasing one's earning ability throughout one's life with continuous learning.

[bigadam]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I went out and got us an XBox 360 game, Marvel Alliance, because all four of us play on the same team, that's what I like. Teamwork.

Yeehaw! Another gaming family. Download Bomberman for the 360. It's clean family fun and we love it. It's one of the few games we all enjoy playing together.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by seeker5

But if you invest in your own ability to contribute, as long as you've got your mind, you can adapt, let war devastate your country while you move elsewhere, not be concerned about drastic changes at age 65 that completely wipes out 40 years of built-up savings.

True. The hard assets need not be all in the same city, state, or even country.

[supertom]

bomberman is awesome !!!

I use to have competitive as a strength but since i took the oneness mindset, its hard to use, i use it as out-prepare everyone

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Dedekind

I get you, but it's still a good idea to save don't you think? You know, in the unlikely (a little sarcasm there) event that you will be able to keep your savings at the age of 65.

Sure it's not a bad idea to save. I've got some money in a 401K from the previous two companies I worked for that that I just transfered to an IRA, and I'll just let it sit there for the next 40 years for the fun of seeing what happens to it. (Hah! So funny, I never thought I saw money as fun but yet that's exactly what I saw with the money I transfered to a IRA a few weeks ago and thought it'd be fun to see how much it grows in 40 years if any while not counting on it)

Your point is valid though. Which means that of course one should also focus on steadily and continuously increasing one's earning ability throughout one's life with continuous learning.

Yeah, I think that's the way to do it - so that your savings just becomes a supplementary "nice if there, but not disastrous life-changing if it's not there".

[Dedekind]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Yeah, I think that's the way to do it - so that your savings just becomes a supplementary "nice if there, but not disastrous life-changing if it's not there".

Agreed.