What's the End Game?

This week I finished a very good book, “Never Enough: From Barista to Billionaire” by Andrew Wilkinson. The book is about this Canadian dude who started building businesses in his 20s and became a billionaire in his 30s.

And at some point, he realizes that most people in his position were obsessed with having more. And more. And more.

He talks about people competing about who has the bigger yacht or the largest mansion.

About going out with bodyguards and having an automation that encapsulates your house in steel when you go to bed.

I am not going to spoil it to you (that much), but he makes a decision to gradually donate all his money by committing to Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge.

He shares in his book a discussion based on the essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" by philosopher Peter Singer. In this essay, Singer argues that affluent individuals and nations have a moral obligation to help those suffering from poverty and famine, particularly if they can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.

Singer's argument rests on a utilitarian ethical framework, where he contends that the distance between individuals and the suffering of others should not diminish the moral duty to provide aid.

One of the essay's most famous thought experiments involves a child drowning in a shallow pond. Singer asks if one has a moral obligation to save the child, even if it means ruining expensive clothes. He extends this to argue that failing to donate to alleviate famine or poverty is morally equivalent to letting the child drown, as the consequences (preventable death) are comparable.

Of course, the discussion is a lot more complex than this, and there are several opinions and perspectives that disagree with Singer.

But I can’t help thinking about it the last couple of days.

How much is enough?

You could hear on the news that Zuckerberg made another billion. Musk is again the richest person in the world. Next week it’s Bezos again, and so on.

(By the way, Bezos owns a yacht that cost him $500 million and $25 million for yearly maintenance.)

The thing is, after a few millions, probably, as I don’t have them yet, your life will be marginally improved with more money.

You can still afford to travel to the best destinations in the best conditions, sitting at the most luxurious hotels and eating at the most expensive restaurants.

So, why this process of accumulating more and more?

So your kids can inherit 100 millions instead of 10?

There is another moral issue here. How will your kids and grandkids spend their lives knowing that they are set for life already?

It’s not even moral; it’s a practical question.

And, of course, we have the other perspective.

“Oh, only people who get filthy rich have these problems. Let me become one as well and I’ll donate everything too.”

Which makes a lot of sense.

It’s hard asking yourself these questions when you live salary to salary and worry about being able to pay the mortgage.

But even for us, this is a question worth pondering.

Because at some point, we might have more, we might have enough, and we would not even know it.

And then, we would still sacrifice our health, our passions, and the time spent with our families just to make sure we get that large bonus at the end of the year or that double-digit profit for our company.

And it starts with defining your number.

The question "What's your number?" typically refers to the amount of money an individual believes they need to retire or achieve financial freedom.

It reflects the specific financial target that would allow someone to feel secure enough to stop working and live comfortably without concern for earning additional income.

The "number" varies depending on a person’s lifestyle, financial goals, expected expenses in retirement, and other factors such as healthcare and legacy planning.

The idea is to calculate how much wealth is necessary to cover these needs throughout one's remaining life.

So, with my friend’s help (ChatGPT), I asked him how much money I would need so I can spend 30 years in retirement with a monthly income of 5000 EUR. Which is more than enough to live a comfortable life in my country.

The results:

• Pessimistic scenario (2% return rate): 1,343,787 EUR
• Most probable scenario (3.5% return rate): 1,103,523 EUR
• Optimistic scenario (5% return rate): 922,347 EUR

These amounts represent the capital I would need to accumulate by the start of my retirement, assuming constant returns and withdrawals. ​

I’m still pretty far from it, but I am sure my income will explode in the next few years 😉

I don’t aim to convince anyone of anything. I am not convinced myself.

But it makes sense to figure out what we want in life.

What is our number?

How much is enough?

Of course, if you love your job or your business and it’s your highest priority, by all means, work until you die.

If the greatest satisfaction you get is when you buy a nicer car than your colleague, do it.

But maybe ask yourself why you feel this way.

And ask yourself another question:

Was my success dependent on external factors, like the country I was born in, the education I received, or the support of my family?

And your answer might convince you to donate to people who don’t have them.