Slashdot Mirror
Rise of the Slacker Millionaires
There was an article titled THE NEW GILDED AGE: Rise of the Slacker Millionaires in yesterday's Washington Post that caught my eye. It's about Hal McCabe, a 28-year-old AOL employee who quit as soon as his stock options vested and made him a millionaire. He's retired now, but spending his take so fast that friends say he may need to un-retire in a few years. And in an unrelated story (submitted by dozens of readers over the weekend), we finally learn what Bill Gates plans to do with his money. Both stories make interesting reading. I wonder how many Slashdot readers share Hal and Bill's money "problem," and how they're handling it. Hmmm...
Gates already sold off 3,000,000 shares of Microsoft stock earlier this year. The stock price momentarily dropped, but seems to be doing quite well again.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What you can or can't do depends on details of your situation which you haven't specified.
Are you 18+? If so, you can open your own bank account and deposit the money there, and your father will not be able to access it directly. Then you can control the purse strings, and can insist your father use whatever you give him the appropriate manner, or pay off any debts he has incurred directly. Thus if he's still wasting money on drinks, drugs, gambling, etc., you can limit the further damage he can do. Also, this would enable you to set aside funds for moving, getting a higher-paying job, etc. If you're under 18, you would have to petition the court for adult status, I'm not sure exactly how this works. (Check into what the gymnast Dominique Moceanu was doing, she was trying for this sort of status.)
Above all, don't panic! It must be frustrating not to control your earnings, but if you are less than 18, you're still approaching that age, and then you will have control over it. And in the meantime, you're gaining useful experience and contacts that will help you in future endeavors.
If you respond to this message with more info, I can give you more specific advice. I have no particular qualifications other than being older than your average slashdotter...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
So why not spend valuable research time and money on something that kills so many more people a year (no... not Windows) like Cancer.
Cancer may kill more in the U.S., but in Africa, AIDS is epidemic. (Oh, and by the way, a high percentage of those cancer deaths are likewise preventable -- lung cancer from cigarette smoking.) 1.4 million people in Africa died from AIDS last year. The cost is staggering, in terms of caring for the dying, lost productivity from the young adults killed by it, the large number of orphans created, etc. And the number of cases is expected to rise.
Furthermore, with AIDS, you have the fear of possible mutation. What would happen if a strain of AIDS became airborne, like Tuberculosis, or could be passed through bodily fluids? It wouldn't take long for it to get from Africa to New York.
Education programs are being used in Africa to try to reduce risky behaviour as well, with some degree of success.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Let's take some generic civ, and we'll say that the average woman in that civ has 6 kids.
Many of them have that many kids because so few live to adulthood, and with that many you assure having someone to support you in your old age. Up the survival rate and the birth rate tends to go down.
In 30-50 years, we can make a population completely dependant upon us for survival.
We're all pretty much dependent on modern technology for survival. The land of the U.S. wouldn't support 250 million hunter-gatherers.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Bill Gates doesn't like to attack problems in a half-assed fashion; he wants to work on one problem at a time and attack it thoroughly. We know this from his business ventures; Microsoft generally doesn't give up until it wins. (or, more rarely, is thoroughly defeated despite vast expenditure of effort). What makes the company so successful is its focus: Gates picks his battles carefully, and doesn't attack unless he thinks the odds are good.
Apply this mindset to charitable efforts and it's quite easy to explain what we saw with Rockefeller and what we can expect from Gates. Gates will keep earning money until he gets bored or frustrated with his current path and retires from active service with Microsoft. After that, he'll start worrying about how to give the money away.
But I don't blame him at all for not spending or donating much money now. Giving away that magnitude of money is basically a full-time job. Think of your favorite charity. Could it handle a grant of, say, one billion dollars? Do they have the accounting resources, the banking resources, the talent, the scruples and common sense at all levels, to use it effectively? Could he just write them a check and expect good things to happen?
With great fortunes come great responsibility. Bill should keep doing what he's doing until he has the time and energy to focus on charity, and then he should think long and hard and carefully about how to donate money in a way that does more good than harm.
Good luck, Bill. You'll need it!
I play Nerd-Folk!
I suppose donating to charity is like motherhood and apple pie and all that sort of thing, but personally, I'd rather just see a half-decent operating system out of Redmond. That would help a lot more people than any charity.
D
----
Isn't Kodak hurting, though? I thought digital photography was all but killing their core business. I know I haven't bought film in over a year because of my digital still/video camera lets me take all the pictures I want without the bother and expense of film + developing.
D
----
Aren't you worried that Barnes & Noble or amazon.com would eat your lunch?
If I had a lot of money, I'd move to Newport Beach or Malibu, get a T1 line straight to my home, and try and figure out some inspiring Internet-based project, maybe some variant on the free web page community theme. I'd also buy a nice boat and do some sailing.
I could do the Internet part now, if I had the time to really think. The problem for me is really time and energy (and the cost of time), not raw dollars.
D
----
Depends on your area. In Detroit, Michigan, you could buy a decent house for around $ 50k. Here in Los Angeles, California, that same house (in a good area) would cost in the $ 500,000 range. And if you want to feel rich, you're probably talking about spending at least $ 1 million for a home.
Still, I could probably retire comfortably on $2 million and have enough money for a creative project or two to keep me amused, simply because I'm not keen on having kids. Kids really kill off money fast. Budget is $ 500,000 for a house, $ 250,000 for assorted extravagences, and the rest in an investment fund.
D
----
Yes, it's probably wrong to complain about him giving his money away, but he has been under flack for a while for being REALLY slow about it. Up until really recently, he was put to shame even in raw numbers by all the other billionaires--he was not very good at giving away money. He really has kicked things into gear in the past year. Maybe he's getting tired, maybe it's because he's worth twice as much now as he was a year ago. It's not entirely unreasonable to say that he might be doing it because of the trial or because he's tired of people saying he doesn't give away enough money (that's always been enough to goad him in the past). Just saying that while it's good that he gives money away, as modern billionaires go he's taking his sweet time.
We may disagree with Microsoft's business practices. We may disagree with the way that Bill Gates made his billions. We may dispute that one man should be allowed to be that rich. However, the fact the Bill is prepared to donate most of his fortune to charity shows that he has at least some scruples. It's surely a Good Thing that the richest man in the world is prepared to use his billions to support a charitable foundation.
Maybe he is doing it to try to save face and look less greedy. On the other hand, maybe he's doing it because he wants to put his fortune to good use. We could sit and debate his motives for ever. The point is, he's doing it, and has made the right decision.
Not necessarily. Extreme example: if I kill a man, serve my time in jail, then discover the cure for cancer when I get released, the fact that I've discovered the cure for cancer does not excuse the earlier crime I committed. Doing a wonderful deed in the present does not excuse past failings.
I think Bill Gates may go down in history as a flawed character; someone who built up a fortune in a less-than-ethical manner[1], but who later put that fortune to good use.
[1]: My opinion only. I am aware that some people reading this do not disagree with Microsoft's business practices.
I don't think Bill Gates will be seen in that bad a light, because he hasn't been responsible for any killings. It's a good analogy though.
You're right about one thing - people here are waaaay to hard on Microsoft. We need to just calm down and realize that they are a company trying to make money, just like any other. And big deal, their products are flawed just like any other. What this really boils down to it propaganda.
/. you're either part of the solution or you're flaimbait. Anyone who praises MS or critiques Open Source gets moderated down. There doesn't seem to be any room to share.
Seriously - we've talked so much trash about MS here that it's become ingrained in our heads that they are the minions of Satan. People cry out "Microsoft is trying to get rid of company XYZ". Well of course they are, XYZ is their competitor. Just because it's against the law doesn't mean its not human nature. EVERYONE wants to get rid of the competition.
And what bothers me more is that the Linux Community as a whole seems to be showing this too. Here at
I'm about to get a new PC and with 27 gigs of hard drive space, you can bet your ass that I'm going to put Win98, Linux, AND WinNT on it. Because you know what? I enjoy some of MS's products. I'm writing this from IE5.0 and it's just flat out better than Navigator ever will be. Hell, Wordpad basically blows AbiWord out of the water.
Now I'm just ranting, but listen - I love Linux and I love Free Software even more. It's flexibility and freedom cannot be beaten. However - and this is for the "World Domination" people out there - you don't want what you're asking for. The day that 90% of the PCs on this planet run Linux is the day that you start running NetBSD. Or some other, less popular, OS.
Because the real driving force behind Linux isn't any of the crap that Raymond or Perens wail about. Don't kid yourselves guys, it isn't. It's the fact that NOBODY ELSE USES IT! It's the idea that you're trendy and the other fellow who runs MS stuff is just a "windoze luser". And when he finally becomes a "linux luser", you'll move on to greener pastures - I guarantee it.
-------
From the site:
William H. Gates Foundation
At the end of 1998, the Foundation had committed $133 million to organizations working in global health; $122 million to educational concerns; more than $42 million to community projects in the Pacific Northwest; and over $60 million to special projects and annual giving campaigns.
Gates Learning Foundation
The Gates Learning Foundation began life as the Gates Library Foundation in June 1997 with the mission of helping to bridge the "digital divide" between those who have access to computers and the Internet and those who lack such access. By the end of 1998, the Foundation had awarded grants of over $22 million to 1300 libraries in 28 states to bring Internet access to their patrons, as well as provide staff technical assistance and training.
Gates Center for Technology Access
The Gates Center for Technology Access (GCTA) is dedicated to ensuring that no one becomes "information disenfranchised." GCTA works to establish access to information technology resources in communities throughout the United States through partnerships with libraries, schools, and community organizations.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
kayaking
*grin* That's why I'd be likely to do it if I was independently wealthy and didn't care how much money I was losing. I'd love to stay in business to be a thorn in their sides.
But that's just me, and I'm a bit annoyed lately because a local bookstore folded thanks to B&N, Borders, etc. Fortunately, Blue Sunday (all used books, lots of good stuff, and wonderful coffee) is alive and well in my area. I just wish they weren't all the way the heck out in the only-accessible-by-car suburbs. I'd love to open a similar business in the middle of the city
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
*chuckles* My mom (a civil servant) is talking about taking "early retirement" and in her case that means 55 years old! This guy from AOL retired at the age my mom had me. Scary.
If I were in a position to retire that early, I wouldn't stay retired for long. My boyfriend and I have been talking about opening a bookstore for a while now, and that would make it a lot easier to do (not to mention, we could stay in business even if the darn thing started to lose money).
But hey, I'm only partially a slacker -- enough to be wasting some of my workday on
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I agree that it's a good thing that he is donating to charity, but a company that does something damaging and then makes a big show of donating to charity (or, as Kodak is doing here, of reminding people about past donations) just doesn't sit right with me, somehow.
Kodak's founder put a lot of money into establishing music programs and dental clinics -- a local dental school and a well-known music college both bear George Eastman's name.
However, at the moment, I'd say that most of the Rochester area is substantially pissed at Kodak's current business practices. We're all well aware that George Eastman was a nice guy for giving all tihs money to things that still benefit our city. But Eastman's been dead for a while now, and yet the current powers-that-be at Kodak can still point to his good works even as they continue to close plants and threaten large layoffs in the name of "good business practice."
Sorry, I know I'm ranting. The point is that no matter how "generous" you are with a fortune, getting that fortune by stepping on other people does a lot of damage. It's all well and good to see the "reformed" Scrooge, but perhaps Tiny Tim would have been a healthy child in the first place if Scrooge had paid his father a decent wage to begin with.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
They said that Bill Gates wanted to help third world countries, and cure diseases. Diseases are nature's way of thinning out the weak.
However, you don't reach epidemic proportions until you get too great of a population. So it's system of checks and balances.
By helping people live, we're killing off their entire civilization.
Let's take some generic civ, and we'll say that the average woman in that civ has 6 kids. Because of disease, only 2 of these kids will live to an age where they can reproduce. (so, on average, one more female). Which means, we're at replacement value.
We go and vaccinate all of the kids against Polio and whatever else, and suddenly, 4-6 of those six kids might live to reproduce. That's 2 or 3 females. Another generation, and what should have been 1 kid is now 4 to 9. One more, and it's 8 to 27.
And we're not talking American generations, with maybe 35-40 years before they have kids, we're talking about having kids at 15-20, because they'd be dead by the time they're 50.
But now that the kids live, the parents can't feed that many kids. So what happens? In most societies, the motherly instict is so strong that the mother gives her share to the children, so she's too weak to do anything productive. The kids aren't doing much better, and chances are, neither is the father.
In 30-50 years, we can make a population completely dependant upon us for survival. All because of a little humanitarian effort.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I made a bunch of money in Silicon Valley, years ago. It was nice, I was able to quit my job, got rid of all my material possessions, and did the things I wanted to do.
:-) But too much working leads to stress and burnout.
Granted, I didn't get any where near the $1 million mark, so my spending wasnt that over the top.
After a while I found myself back working again as a consultant. Working was fun, for little blocks of time. In between there is travel, the only really fun thing in my life.
The money has only paid for a few things, more education, lots of travel, a place to live, extra time off every year.
But I still like working (maybe I should do some today, instead of slashdotting
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on