My best friend just shared with me that he thinks his brother-in-law, who is about 50, probably has $6mil to his name. The guy amassed his wealth over time, slowly, with a few good breaks in the property market. What a lucky guy, I thought to myself. So, I asked my friend, now that he’s so well nested, if he is enjoying life to the fullest, doing what he wants everyday, without a care in the world?
No, said my friend. He’s miserable.
How come, I asked, genuinely surprised.
Well, the friend replied, he’s obsessed about living to a hundred years old, and $6mil just isn’t going to last that long. He needs more.
Ouch, I thought. This person has issues.
At a time when the portfolios of retired individuals have been totally wiped out by the collapse of big name financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, I find the idea of a person who’s holding on to oodles of cash, worrying about not having enough money for the next fifty years, quite ludicrous, and a bit offensive.
While money is generally perceived as the currency for measuring present and future well-being, the idea can be stretched to absurd proportions if my friend’s brother-in-law is any example. I understand that some people pursue wealth endlessly, as a measure of their achievements, and I think we can all appreciate that, even if we may not approve. But I think that all of us should stop once in a while, and figure out what’s really important to our lives as human beings.
Some things you need, and some things you want. Suze Orman made a point about “People first, then Money, then Things”. Lots of money, supposedly to pad a long retirement, is great. Knowing whose lives you have touched, and how many quality relationships you have amassed by your twilight years is going to be infinitely more enriching than the millions that you have stashed away in a safe deposit box. Money simply isn’t going to love you back.
I hope my friend’s brother-in-law live to be a hundred. But I hope he realises early that he can be happy for a lot less than $6mil.
