Is WSP right? Would you feel better $150/night doing nothing, vs $1k+/hr consulting?

Would you feel better

  • Waking up with $150 while you were quite literally doing nothing.

    Votes: 22 50.0%
  • Consulting for $1,000+/hour

    Votes: 22 50.0%

  • Total voters
    44

It's an intriguing idea for sure.

I dislike doing work as much as you possibly can while still being able to work hard/be self sufficient in life. But I'm trying to wrap my head around it. Instinctively, I feel consulting for 1k+/hr is significantly better. Both are good though...

Is the idea that you can earn even more than $150/night doing nothing once you get the ball rolling? A psychological boost to "unearned" money? Buying back your time? I like the idea of time being more valuable than money, yet your time has to be really damn valuable to give up the opportunity to earn 1k+/hr. I think your time would have to be worth more than $950+/hr. Or you would really have to hate your work.

 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
The example is not really a good one, because vanishingly few people are actually earning $1000/hr, and the few who are will be making a lot of passive income in short order if they invest their earnings anyway. So it's kind of a false dilemma. It's not really a choice.

That being said, of course passive income is awesome. Everyone should try to generate as much of it as they can, whether through passive stock/real estate investments or direct business ownership that produces a passive income stream. The idea is to use your direct earnings to invest in passive income generating assets over time, so that at some point you no longer have to earn direct income to finance your lifestyle (aka retirement).

This is why the example is kind of dumb. If I had the choice between the two I would be billing as many hours as I could for $1000/hr and investing my earnings. If I only billed 100 hours a month (not even full-time) I'd be earning over a million dollars a year, which I could then invest in passive income producing assets. Your $150 in passive income every night would have earned you $55,000 for the year.

Would your rather earn $1.2 million a year working part time or $55,000 a year doing absolutely nothing? Unless you're the absolute laziest guy in the world the answer is pretty obvious.

(This is the point you should realize the Wall Street Playboys write a lot of dumb shit that should be taken with a beachball-sized grain of salt).
 
scorpion said:
Would your rather earn $1.2 million a year working part time or $55,000 a year doing absolutely nothing? Unless you're the absolute laziest guy in the world the answer is pretty obvious.

(This is the point you should realize the Wall Street Playboys write a lot of dumb shit that should be taken with a beachball-sized grain of salt).
Thanks for the reply.

Other than this tweet, most of what WSP says seems to make total sense to me as an inexperienced-with-finances guy, and I've taken what he said on board. I'm curious to know what else he says you/others think is dumb, so I can adjust my mentality/thought process.
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
I understand the example, but it is hyperbolic and overblown. It needs to be a bit more specific.

First, there is an opportunity cost that changes per hour that you work in a day. That is described as "how much is the NEXT hour you have to work worth to you?". I you haven't worked at all today, and its 4pm, and you can leave after that 1 hour of work, probably $25/hr sounds like a pretty good deal. Now change that to, "You have worked 12 hours already today, would you take $25/hr to work another hour"...probably not. Its essentially where the whole concept of overtime came from.

Second, I can understand this opinion coming from a 'finance' guy. Finance/brokerage work sucks, you are just making fake money for faceless people. The big brokerage work is doing that plus providing kickbacks to people at corporate offices for sending you their accounts. It seems soul crushing. I work for myself, doing tax work for customers. I also volunteer and do the same work for free for poor people. I really like the work, its like doing puzzles all day and when you 'win' its like beating the system for the little guy. I certainly wouldn't choose to do it 10hrs/day if I was otherwise wealthy but I sure would do it for 1-2 hours per day because I like it, and its a way to serve others in the name of the Lord.

If your job sucks, and drains your soul, you probably would dream of being independently wealthy and never touching it again. If your job is fun, you might keep doing it if you could make your own hours and just show up when you felt like it.
 
I’d take the $150 in a heartbeat. Time is worth more than money to me, especially since at $150/day I’d have all my expenses and wants covered with enough to save and invest a little each week.

I was making decent passive income during my heyday as an internet marketer and it is way better than working, especially if it’s coming from something you built and put a lot of time and effort into on the front end.
 
Once you have a cushion and understand that really big money is near impossible to get to anymore, and that really great money starts getting taxed at 50% for any added effort ... you start to understand how much more important time always is.

What's funnier is that money means very little when the largest single chase for it is to indirectly attract quality mates, which by and large just aren't around in the west, anymore. Thus, time ---> foreign countries. The last and only option I can foresee, sadly.
 

RDF

Woodpecker
RE: Is WSP right? Would you feel better $150

The Catalyst said:
Other than this tweet, most of what WSP says seems to make total sense to me as an inexperienced-with-finances guy, and I've taken what he said on board. I'm curious to know what else he says you/others think is dumb, so I can adjust my mentality/thought process.
I have followed WSP very closely since 2014 when I was just out of undergrad. I've bought their books, read each post, and [used to] check their twitter compulsively.

While their blog has influenced my life in many positive ways and I still believe in much of their finance/life advice, there are a few important caveats that you need to keep in mind when reading their posts/tweets. These caveats are really difficult to catch when you haven't followed them for some time, and even more so when you're young (<25) and/or financially inexperienced.

Here are these "beachball-sized grains of salt" as I see them:

1) They have said that they do not have children and that their financial advice implies being a bachelor indefinitely. Not only do children change your financial picture dramatically (I started a thread on that here), but they can also change your lifestyle and ability to work. It doesn't apply in this case (since if anything passive income is better with kids), but it does apply to some of their other advice.

2) They regularly make points through exaggeration and blanket statements that people take too literally. This thread is a great example. Obviously they are trying to make the point that passive income is awesome (which it is!), but doing so by saying consulting for $1k/hour is worse makes no sense for a single person who hasn't "made it" yet.

3) They are not nearly as invincible in their financial predictions as they like to present it. Take crypto as an example. They began to talk about it publicly when Bitcoin was at ~$15k, pretty much right at the peak. When Bitcoin promptly took a shit and dropped 80%, they said "well we bought at <$1k, not like all the morons who bought at the top" (of course these are the "morons" that they told to buy...), refused to take crypto Q&As, and said that "Bitcoin is dead until 2020". Of course, that was wrong as well (BTC up almost 100% ytd). Looking at how they present it though, you would think these guys are the crypto experts.

WSP is run by very good salesmen. By presenting the blog as their hobby, ripping on "regulars", and writing posts from the POV of somebody who has "made it", they create a cult-like aura around their information. I know because I fell into it for a while and definitely over-relied on them far too much.

In short -- The basic tenets of their advice -- get wealthy while relatively young, focus on specific careers and then pivot to building a business, diversify investments so that you have passive income -- is all really good advice. Just don't make them your Bible. Use it as one source in a large mosaic of financial information that you compile in your mind over time.
 

tomtud

Pelican
I would feel better doing nothing as I am older and don't give a shit. $150 doing nothing and living in certain places in the world - you can live like a king. You don't need the $1k per hour to live that much better. Splitting hairs here. It is subjective.
Personally , give me $150 a day doing nothing and living in Croatia or Colombia and I'm a happy camper. Make several thousand a day and live in Toronto Canada with this cold weather and amongst other things no thanks. Just my subjective opinion.

That consulting figure is it 8 hours per day ? It is also gonna be taxed. So you are looking at $500 ish. $150 is gonna be taxed but not at the same rates.

Again it's subjective. Good luck
 

scotian

Crow
Gold Member
RE: Is WSP right? Would feel better $150/night doing nothing, vs $1k+/hr consulting?

I think it all boils down to accepting your station in life and being happy with what you have. I’m a blue collar union meat head and have lived a life that exceeded what I dreamt of as a kid, all I wanted to do back then was travel and see the world and for the most part I’ve achieved that by punching a clock and grinding on the tools. I’m now satisfied with traveling and am transitioning into a more settled life which will hopefully include more fishing and possibly a family.

What I’m getting at is that it’s ok to be an average guy who doesn’t make $150 in his sleep or $1K/hour in the corporate rat race, there’s an in between that millions of people live in and it actually isn’t too bad. A lot of you young guys put way too much pressure on yourselves to over achieve and it can lead to burn out and feelings of inadequacy.
 
RDF said:
Here are these "beachball-sized grains of salt" as I see them:

1) They have said that they do not have children and that their financial advice implies being a bachelor indefinitely.

2) They regularly make points through exaggeration and blanket statements that people take too literally.

3) They are not nearly as invincible in their financial predictions as they like to present it.

WSP is run by very good salesmen. By presenting the blog as their hobby, ripping on "regulars", and writing posts from the POV of somebody who has "made it", they create a cult-like aura around their information. I know because I fell into it for a while and definitely over-relied on them far too much.

In short -- The basic tenets of their advice -- get wealthy while relatively young, focus on specific careers and then pivot to building a business, diversify investments so that you have passive income -- is all really good advice. Just don't make them your Bible. Use it as one source in a large mosaic of financial information that you compile in your mind over time.
Fascinating. Yes, what they said was very compelling to me.

With regards to children, it does seem like what they say makes sense assuming you want children in your 30s. Work hard in your 20s when your time doesn't matter and then you can chill with your children and your money in your 30s. But it raises a few questions if they don't intend on having children.
 
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
According to WSP, trust fund kids are the happiest people in the world :laugh:
You don't think so? I think having a trust fund would increase happiness by quite a bit.

Kid Twist said:
What's funnier is that money means very little when the largest single chase for it is to indirectly attract quality mates, which by and large just aren't around in the west, anymore. Thus, time ---> foreign countries. The last and only option I can foresee, sadly.
While I agree there's less of a reason to get rich if it doesn't get you quality mates, and as a bachelor you can live very cheaply, I still think it is much better to be rich and there's a lot you can do with money, even if only to make an impact on other peoples' lives. Plus WSP would say rich people have access to good mates regular people just don't have.

WSP is actually on the side that more money is better, so it's interesting he actually chooses the option which probably gets him less money.
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
The Catalyst said:
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
According to WSP, trust fund kids are the happiest people in the world :laugh:
You don't think so? I think having a trust fund would increase happiness by quite a bit.

Kid Twist said:
What's funnier is that money means very little when the largest single chase for it is to indirectly attract quality mates, which by and large just aren't around in the west, anymore. Thus, time ---> foreign countries. The last and only option I can foresee, sadly.
While I agree there's less of a reason to get rich if it doesn't get you quality mates, and as a bachelor you can live very cheaply, I still think it is much better to be rich and there's a lot you can do with money, even if only to make an impact on other peoples' lives. Plus WSP would say rich people have access to good mates regular people just don't have.

WSP is actually on the side that more money is better, so it's interesting he actually chooses the option which probably gets him less money.
Ask the natives in Canada how much they like their government trust fund. If they live on the reservation they get free housing, free schooling, free healthcare, free money (not wealth, but enough to live on), free utilities and live in an area surrounded by millions of acres of untouched wilderness that they can go hunting and fishing on all day. They have to do nothing each day. What do they do?

Drink, do drugs, sniff gas and commit suicide.

When your life has no purpose, even to work, after a few generations things get pretty dark.

Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return"

We are supposed to work to live.
 
It's true that we are supposed to 'work' to live but this is a good opportunity to make it clear that modern work is closer to traditional slavery than work.

We cant make our own hours, choose our work location, work seasonally, have to compete with immigrants, employers, capitalists and corporations have too much control over the worker.

Lets make it clear that modern 'work' is closer to slavery and that even explains why women are so good at it.
 

scotian

Crow
Gold Member
^I work seasonally, usually about 6-8 months each year, I could probably work even less and supplement my income with employment insurance but choose to travel abroad instead. There has arguably never been a better time to be a blue collar worker in countries like Canada, the US and Oz where skilled trades like welders, plumbers, etc make 100K+ and guys who start their own companies often become very wealthy. But ya, I wouldn’t want to be a landscaper in Texas.
 

Swooping

Newbie
The point of the tweet isn’t $150 with no work is better than $1,000 with work. It’s that you feel god damn amazing waking up and seeing those Shopify notifications making you a few hundred while you literally did nothing. If you haven’t experienced it yet you wouldn’t know the feeling...

I worked in finance (private equity) and even my bonus hitting my bank account didn’t feel nearly as good as my first online sale (and the many more that followed).

You can’t put into words being out at the bar/club with your boys, checking your phone and seeing that you’re getting paid while having a good time.
 

JiggyLordJr

Woodpecker
Looking at the poll responses, it seems pretty evenly split for those who prefer passive to active income, and vice versa.

A man's value lies primarily in his ability to earn, not necessarily his net worth. For example, trust fund babies will no financial acumen or skills will find themselves broke in a few decades. They may have currently have a high net worth, but without the ability to earn more money, it's all moot. Whereas someone starting from the bottom, with 0 net worth, can build up his skills and can generate wealth. Who's the higher value man?
 
Top