having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto?
I have been there.
O.k. Let me see if I can attempt to 'splain my assertion to you.
There are a lot of people who don't have shit in regards to investments or savings (even if we account for home ownership, too), and surely having any kind of investment portfolio is going to be a whole hell of a lot more than many people, even in the US of A, where we have way more access to credit and financial services than so many people on the planet. However, many of us still have a lot of difficulties building some kind of investment portfolio.
So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people, whether we are talking about silicon valley or other places in the country. And, for sure, the cost of living for any particular area is going to hamper the extent to which the accumulated amount of wealth meets either "fuck you" status or "filthy rich" status.
There are places in the world in which $1million or $2 million, and maybe even some places in the USA (so long as a guy/gal has fairly humble needs) would allow a kind of entry level "fuck you" status, even if there might be some questions regarding future value of such dollar denominated amounts, but there still might be ways in which a BTC portfolio might have decent chances of being able to outperform the value of the dollar in terms of maintaining its value in dollar denominated terms.
Never been to Palo Alto (been to many other places in Cali), but I imagine that I know what he is talking about as Houston also has very prosperous enclaves with houses that look like some kings ought to live there. I straddle "the great divide" of both of these arguments.
IMHO, in most of US, $1-2 mil remains a pretty good investment portfolio AS LONG as you have a steady job that pays reasonably well (or an equivalent income stream) AND your job gives you a decent health plan. If you don't have a job and you are not close to at least getting Medicare and SocSec, $1-2 mil is woefully insufficient. "Gambler" (the movie) claims that 2mil is enough (F U money), but it is not. The movie is based on the 1974 screen play. Back then, $2mil was certainly F.U. money. Not anymore.
Ok. Let's play with $2million. I was not referring to any movie, and sure of course, if you are talking about 1974 as compared to today, then you have to 3x the referred to amount in order to get somewhere close to 2020 dollars.
I do believe, however, a person can live decently well off of $2million, which would provide a passive income of $6,666 per month. That is assuming a 4% withdrawal rate that would largely allow the withdrawal of appreciation while maintaining the principle.
We have had this conversation before, and of course, you are not going to have any kind of baller lifestyle on $6,666 per month, but it should be enough to get by pretty decently as a kind of passive income, and surely, $2million is better than $1million because it is double the amount of $3,333... even $1million is doable in some parts of the USA and of course certain parts of the world will even allow for better living on that amount of passive income per month. We can agree to disagree if you believe that entry level of fuck you status is absolute more than $1million, because I know all kinds of poor fucks who live off way less than $3,333, and some of them live off less than $1k per month and are able to get by, so $3,333 is going to be much better for them, than $1k, especially passive income.
Of course, many of us consider that we want to have a cushion and all those kinds of considerations that involve volatility and making sure that we are planning based on worse case scenarios, but if we can assume either $1million or $2million in principle that is steady, then a lot of people are going to be bat shit excited by that level of principle to be able to generate their 4% per month of a withdrawal rate that would produce $3,333 per month for $1million and $6,666 for $2million.
having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto?
So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million (Let's say 1.5 Million, which is in the middle) is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people
With your subsequent clarification, I think we're
largely aligned, JJG. I think I was mostly reacting to your choice of silicon valley as an exemplar. Sure, Coeur D'Alene could be a fine place to live out a comfy life on 2M (I'm spitballing here). But Silicon Valley? Nuh-uhnh. Not Palo Alto, not San Fran, not San Jose, not Santa Ana, not Milpitas, not Los Gatos, not...
Ok,
maybe Gilroy.
I only brought up silicon valley because the initially referred to article was talking about the guy who cashed out like around half of his BTC stash of about 2,200 bitcoin at $11,000 in 2017, which generated somewhere around $25 million, and he bought a house for $7million in silicon valley and he bought a few other consumer items and a business, but anyhow, I was referring to more modest cashing out scenarios that might generate way less revenue, and suggesting that the amount of money that the guy in the article had was in the filthy rich status rather than either fuck you status or even a more reasonable expected amount that brought me to mentioning a $1million to $2million dollar investment portfolio for some other hypothetical (and less rich) person who might be trying to get by in silicon valley.
Anyhow, since you are conceding that we had some moment of being "largely aligned," we probably don't need to bat around too many more details, because it would likely just push us out of such alignment, which I would rather just enjoy our temporary alignment status, even if it may not be anything very solid to grasp onto.