[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, some people love to work. That’s fun for them.[/quote]

’tis true.

[quote=briansd1]But wealth is just a word to describe something just like “table” or “computer”. It’s not a philosophy of life.[/quote]

Is it not possible to have a wealth of time ?

Time is money, after all.

I do agree, though, that when calculating wealth in dollars, you have to mark you assets to market and back out the debt. Because, if you can’t use your assets to buy time, they are worthless.

I also think that wealth has to be a sustainable condition, unlike the gentleman who borrowed his way into the high-life. UCGal’s comment about free from worries suggests this idea of sustainability as well.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, some people love to work. That’s fun for them.[/quote]

’tis true.

[quote=briansd1]But wealth is just a word to describe something just like “table” or “computer”. It’s not a philosophy of life.[/quote]

Is it not possible to have a wealth of time ?

Time is money, after all.

I do agree, though, that when calculating wealth in dollars, you have to mark you assets to market and back out the debt. Because, if you can’t use your assets to buy time, they are worthless.

I also think that wealth has to be a sustainable condition, unlike the gentleman who borrowed his way into the high-life. UCGal’s comment about free from worries suggests this idea of sustainability as well.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, some people love to work. That’s fun for them.[/quote]

’tis true.

[quote=briansd1]But wealth is just a word to describe something just like “table” or “computer”. It’s not a philosophy of life.[/quote]

Is it not possible to have a wealth of time ?

Time is money, after all.

I do agree, though, that when calculating wealth in dollars, you have to mark you assets to market and back out the debt. Because, if you can’t use your assets to buy time, they are worthless.

I also think that wealth has to be a sustainable condition, unlike the gentleman who borrowed his way into the high-life. UCGal’s comment about free from worries suggests this idea of sustainability as well.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, some people love to work. That’s fun for them.[/quote]

’tis true.

[quote=briansd1]But wealth is just a word to describe something just like “table” or “computer”. It’s not a philosophy of life.[/quote]

Is it not possible to have a wealth of time ?

Time is money, after all.

I do agree, though, that when calculating wealth in dollars, you have to mark you assets to market and back out the debt. Because, if you can’t use your assets to buy time, they are worthless.

I also think that wealth has to be a sustainable condition, unlike the gentleman who borrowed his way into the high-life. UCGal’s comment about free from worries suggests this idea of sustainability as well.

[sdduuuude]

I wouldn’t support it. Nor would anyone else not in a Mello-Roos tax area. I don’t want to pay the bill for Mello-Roos tax that someone else signed up for.

[sdduuuude]

I wouldn’t support it. Nor would anyone else not in a Mello-Roos tax area. I don’t want to pay the bill for Mello-Roos tax that someone else signed up for.

[sdduuuude]

I wouldn’t support it. Nor would anyone else not in a Mello-Roos tax area. I don’t want to pay the bill for Mello-Roos tax that someone else signed up for.

[sdduuuude]

I wouldn’t support it. Nor would anyone else not in a Mello-Roos tax area. I don’t want to pay the bill for Mello-Roos tax that someone else signed up for.

[sdduuuude]

I wouldn’t support it. Nor would anyone else not in a Mello-Roos tax area. I don’t want to pay the bill for Mello-Roos tax that someone else signed up for.

[sdduuuude]

I can’t say this is the fault of the females.
You get what you settle for, I guess.

[sdduuuude]

I can’t say this is the fault of the females.
You get what you settle for, I guess.

[sdduuuude]

I can’t say this is the fault of the females.
You get what you settle for, I guess.

[sdduuuude]

I can’t say this is the fault of the females.
You get what you settle for, I guess.

[sdduuuude]

I can’t say this is the fault of the females.
You get what you settle for, I guess.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]Interesting that so many are taking the philosophical approach to wealth.[/quote]

I hope you aren’t putting my comment in the “philosophical” bin. It is very practical, indeed.

Having time to do what you want takes cash, and lots of it. Even if you just want to sit there and do nothing, you have to have money to generate some income to pay for a place in which to sit.

You can have all the toys and square footage in the world, but if you have to work 16 hours a day to pay for it, you still aren’t wealthy as you don’t really get to use the toys and you truly don’t have the time to do what you want.

Of course, some have toys and houses they don’t use, AND they have time to do what they want, so they are really wealthy.

I like thinking about wealth in terms of time instead of money. It works for me. It keeps me focused on what I’m really trying to accomplish with my wealth-building activity.

If you need little more than you have, you are wealthy. That can come from having alot, or from not needing much, or a combination thereof, but for me it all boils down to – “how am I spending my time?”

Working all the time = not wealthy
Working some and playing some = average
Not working and doing nothing = pretty good
Not working and doing fun stuff = wealthy
Not working and doing extremely fun and expensive stuff that requires lots of expensive toys = really wealthy.

UCGal’s perspective is similar, and I think also not philosophical. Being free from worry about money is a very practical view of wealth.

[Author]

Posts