Has wanting money discouraged you from public service?

[Anonymous]

I don't know why folks on this thread equate pursuing money - even through the revolving door of government service, to be evil. High positions and personal fortunes can do far more good than a single individual who puts in 30 years helping the homeless. Money allows fir the hiring of an army of such individuals. Just look at the philanthropic activities of wealthy people throughout history.

Perhaps the pursuit of money isn't evil - what one does with it is the determinative factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Earning $350K year still puts you in the "plenty of money" category. Geez.

Well not when you're used to 2x that amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why folks on this thread equate pursuing money - even through the revolving door of government service, to be evil. High positions and personal fortunes can do far more good than a single individual who puts in 30 years helping the homeless. Money allows fir the hiring of an army of such individuals. Just look at the philanthropic activities of wealthy people throughout history.

Wealthy people throughout history have almost unanimously acquired their fortunes from doing terrible things. Humanity has always been better off with many normal people doing good things than by a few powerful criminals seeking to wash the blood from their hands after a lifetime of cruelty by "philanthrophy." However, as someone posting on an American site largely devoted to consumerism, you've also been raised on a steady diet of money worship, and it's only natural you'd see the world as being improved by inequality, rather than by equality. But on the off-chance you're actually interested in seeing the world differently, we don't need any more billionaires trying to shape global policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Earning $350K year still puts you in the "plenty of money" category. Geez.

Well not when you're used to 2x that amount.

By this insane reasoning, 350M isn't that much if you're used to 700M.

In the world of the non-insane, you stand out, and not in a good way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why folks on this thread equate pursuing money - even through the revolving door of government service, to be evil. High positions and personal fortunes can do far more good than a single individual who puts in 30 years helping the homeless. Money allows fir the hiring of an army of such individuals. Just look at the philanthropic activities of wealthy people throughout history.

Wealthy people throughout history have almost unanimously acquired their fortunes from doing terrible things. Humanity has always been better off with many normal people doing good things than by a few powerful criminals seeking to wash the blood from their hands after a lifetime of cruelty by "philanthropy." However, as someone posting on an American site largely devoted to consumerism, you've also been raised on a steady diet of money worship, and it's only natural you'd see the world as being improved by inequality, rather than by equality. But on the off-chance you're actually interested in seeing the world differently, we don't need any more billionaires trying to shape global policies.

Quite a generalization there about rich people - almost as if you've never known any who built their fortunes on hard work, creativity and building things people need. What you see as "terrible things" may not be terrible to others (not just the rich person doing them).

If you want equality, go look at how countries like the Soviet Union, Venezuela and other failed communist states have fared. I'm all for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But you earn that opportunity based on merit - not by some aspect of your genetics that may not have had any effect on the opportunities available to you.

Billionaires, Kings, Queens, Warlords, Nobility, etc... have always shaped global policies - and always will. Even the most saintly "community organizer" can be corrupted by power, particularly if fueled by a preexisting ideology. This is simply human nature. Power corrupts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why folks on this thread equate pursuing money - even through the revolving door of government service, to be evil. High positions and personal fortunes can do far more good than a single individual who puts in 30 years helping the homeless. Money allows fir the hiring of an army of such individuals. Just look at the philanthropic activities of wealthy people throughout history.

Wealthy people throughout history have almost unanimously acquired their fortunes from doing terrible things. Humanity has always been better off with many normal people doing good things than by a few powerful criminals seeking to wash the blood from their hands after a lifetime of cruelty by "philanthropy." However, as someone posting on an American site largely devoted to consumerism, you've also been raised on a steady diet of money worship, and it's only natural you'd see the world as being improved by inequality, rather than by equality. But on the off-chance you're actually interested in seeing the world differently, we don't need any more billionaires trying to shape global policies.

Quite a generalization there about rich people - almost as if you've never known any who built their fortunes on hard work, creativity and building things people need. What you see as "terrible things" may not be terrible to others (not just the rich person doing them).

If you want equality, go look at how countries like the Soviet Union, Venezuela and other failed communist states have fared. I'm all for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But you earn that opportunity based on merit - not by some aspect of your genetics that may not have had any effect on the opportunities available to you.

Billionaires, Kings, Queens, Warlords, Nobility, etc... have always shaped global policies - and always will. Even the most saintly "community organizer" can be corrupted by power, particularly if fueled by a preexisting ideology. This is simply human nature. Power corrupts.

It's telling that you look to the Soviet Union and Venezuela instead of, you know, countries with the lowest Gini indices, like Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. Almost as if you had no understanding of what functional, egalitarian societies actually looked like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[Anonymous]

Desiring more pay has left me wanting to leave public service sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make 50k as a teacher. We still paid off our house in our 20s and reached barebones FI by 30.

In 1962?

What does your spouse do and where do you live and what is your home currently worth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We went from two private sector salaries/careers to two public sector. You can still live an extremely comfortable life as a family with a $300k HHI around here. Our HHI is around $275k and we max both TSPs, save $25k/year for kid college funds, and have plenty of money for a nice vacation 1-2 times/year, eating out, and really all that we want to do. Our tastes are normal upper middle class, not extravagant. We are both MUCH happier and have very flexible schedules and are almost always home for dinner with our kids.

Before I'd make the move, I suggest that you use your savings/private sector money to 1) pay off any debt other than your mortgage (student loans, car loans, etc) and 2) buy or set aside a large-ish pot of money for a home downpayment. If you set yourself up with a reasonable monthly housing cost (I'd aim for $3,500 or less), you will be fine.

This. Use your current very high income to set the stage for your next move. Live at the lower salary now and use the extra money to lay the foundation for the move. Pay off debt. If you want a fancy house in a fancy neighborhood with your fancy friends, bring a very large down payment so that your monthly payments are manageable on the lower income. Or consider buying in a neighborhood that reflects the lower salary. Not only will it still be a lovely neighborhood, as your potentially lower salary is still generous, it may also help you not feel like you're struggling to keep up with much wealthier neighbors. Make sure you'll have sizeable emergency savings, and ramp up retirement savings. For stuff that you'll have for a very long time, like furniture or handbags, etc, buy high end now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why folks on this thread equate pursuing money - even through the revolving door of government service, to be evil. High positions and personal fortunes can do far more good than a single individual who puts in 30 years helping the homeless. Money allows fir the hiring of an army of such individuals. Just look at the philanthropic activities of wealthy people throughout history.

Perhaps the pursuit of money isn't evil - what one does with it is the determinative factor.

Because the pursuit of money by seeking to leverage your public service for later gains due to peddling your influence is in fact corrupting and wrong.

Nobody cares here if OP wants money. It's just the notion of doing it for the revolving door, and then patting himself on the back for his "public service" is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make 50k as a teacher. We still paid off our house in our 20s and reached barebones FI by 30.

In 1962?

What does your spouse do and where do you live and what is your home currently worth?

I think this is the poster on the "windfall" thread who claims that they can live (in theory) on 10k/year (although in actuality they are still working).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Desiring more pay has left me wanting to leave public service sometimes.

I'd be happy if my pay kept up with inflation. I really hate the GS/step system. Its comparble for pay increases early on, but once you start to top out, it stagnates.

[Anonymous]

No. I am private sector, make a bit over $200K, and my husband went Fed. It's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why folks on this thread equate pursuing money - even through the revolving door of government service, to be evil. High positions and personal fortunes can do far more good than a single individual who puts in 30 years helping the homeless. Money allows fir the hiring of an army of such individuals. Just look at the philanthropic activities of wealthy people throughout history.

Wealthy people throughout history have almost unanimously acquired their fortunes from doing terrible things. Humanity has always been better off with many normal people doing good things than by a few powerful criminals seeking to wash the blood from their hands after a lifetime of cruelty by "philanthrophy." However, as someone posting on an American site largely devoted to consumerism, you've also been raised on a steady diet of money worship, and it's only natural you'd see the world as being improved by inequality, rather than by equality. But on the off-chance you're actually interested in seeing the world differently, we don't need any more billionaires trying to shape global policies.

You obviously don't know any people who are self made. At 25, I had a negative net worth (b school loans). At 50, I had a $4 million net worth from working continuously, saving and investing well and luckily. If I were into consumerism, I wouldn't be wealthy now.

[Anonymous]

Wanting money has discouraged my from lying on the couch channel-surfing all day, I know that much.