(It’s not only liquid assets if you only exclude the primary residence, per your comment.)
The LW demographics are skewed towards working in/seeking education for MINT fields (mathematics, informatics, natural sciences, and technics), high IQ and high-achiever status all, among other such factors.
That means that status as an active LW’er is strongly associated with factors which indicate a high earning potential, without necessarily positing any increase in earning potential based on the “insight porn” of internet forum procrastinating. There may be such a benefit as well, but I didn’t have it in mind when writing the grandparent. Could be just selection effects, especially if people are already set on their career paths once finding LW.
Finding the direction of a potential causal influence is always fun, but the correlation suffices, whichever way the cookie crumbles.
If you are active primarily because of a perceived correlation between being active and winning, you should care very much whether being active causes winning or if there is a common cause of winning and being active.
Noting your correction: you would need to have $100k in liquid assets and $1m in total assets (excluding a primary residence). That’s not nearly so hard, particularly if you are a sole proprietor in a moderately successful endeavor. It does mean that you risk leaving that endeavor with lots of capital equipment but no way of covering operating expenses.
I’m still confused as to why there’s an advantage to making the donation posthumously, unless it is intended to protect against an unforeseen change in personal status that makes the donation retroactively undesirable.
I’m still confused as to why there’s an advantage to making the donation posthumously
One consideration may be that it helps you “factor out” the whole charity issue from your daily life. You can buy an iPhone without feeling guilty about not donating the money to charity if you’ve precommitted to posthumous donation. You’ll just never have to think of it again, it’ll take care “of itself”. It may work for some.
If you live already having donated, you may feel bad about not donating more, whereas if the donation is by definition always in your future, you can always assuage yourself with “well, that’s why I will donate in my will”, and also, you can still harbor the option of keeping the money for your family, for whatever reason, after all. You can feel like a saint while it’s in your will, and it’ll cost you nothing if you turn scumbag, I mean, if there’s unforeseen cost with your grandchild’s college funding, and you go back on your pledge.
One consideration may be that it helps you “factor out” the whole charity issue from your daily life. You can buy an iPhone without feeling guilty about not donating the money to charity if you’ve precommitted to posthumous donation. You’ll just never have to think of it again, it’ll take care “of itself”. It may work for some.
Ah. Free fuzzies. In that case, requesting comments on it is status signalling among other things.
(It’s not only liquid assets if you only exclude the primary residence, per your comment.)
The LW demographics are skewed towards working in/seeking education for MINT fields (mathematics, informatics, natural sciences, and technics), high IQ and high-achiever status all, among other such factors.
That means that status as an active LW’er is strongly associated with factors which indicate a high earning potential, without necessarily positing any increase in earning potential based on the “insight porn” of internet forum procrastinating. There may be such a benefit as well, but I didn’t have it in mind when writing the grandparent. Could be just selection effects, especially if people are already set on their career paths once finding LW.
Finding the direction of a potential causal influence is always fun, but the correlation suffices, whichever way the cookie crumbles.
If you are active primarily because of a perceived correlation between being active and winning, you should care very much whether being active causes winning or if there is a common cause of winning and being active.
Noting your correction: you would need to have $100k in liquid assets and $1m in total assets (excluding a primary residence). That’s not nearly so hard, particularly if you are a sole proprietor in a moderately successful endeavor. It does mean that you risk leaving that endeavor with lots of capital equipment but no way of covering operating expenses.
I’m still confused as to why there’s an advantage to making the donation posthumously, unless it is intended to protect against an unforeseen change in personal status that makes the donation retroactively undesirable.
One consideration may be that it helps you “factor out” the whole charity issue from your daily life. You can buy an iPhone without feeling guilty about not donating the money to charity if you’ve precommitted to posthumous donation. You’ll just never have to think of it again, it’ll take care “of itself”. It may work for some.
If you live already having donated, you may feel bad about not donating more, whereas if the donation is by definition always in your future, you can always assuage yourself with “well, that’s why I will donate in my will”, and also, you can still harbor the option of keeping the money for your family, for whatever reason, after all. You can feel like a saint while it’s in your will, and it’ll cost you nothing if you turn scumbag, I mean, if there’s unforeseen cost with your grandchild’s college funding, and you go back on your pledge.
Also, see my edit.
Ah. Free fuzzies. In that case, requesting comments on it is status signalling among other things.