I Wanted to Be a Millionaire
February 18, 2015 9:44 PM Subscribe
I Wanted to Be a Millionaire. How failing colossally on a game show changed my life for the better.
The show used to specialize in easy questions, so much so that, during its first calendar year on the air, six separate people won a million dollars—so much so that the insurance company that paid out the big jackpots actually sued the show’s creators because the game was too easy.
LOL. I wonder what kind of win/lose ratio is acceptable to both?
posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:43 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
LOL. I wonder what kind of win/lose ratio is acceptable to both?
posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:43 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Whoa, weird, I haven't seen the show in years but watched part of an ep a few weeks back in a waiting room and it was one with this guy.
posted by kmz at 10:52 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kmz at 10:52 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Winning $25,000 isn't a colossal WWTBAM fail. This is a colossal WWTBAM fail.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:02 PM on February 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 11:02 PM on February 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
Adverbs or verbs… adverbs or verbs…
posted by mazola at 11:11 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by mazola at 11:11 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Im happy for the guy or whatever, but it seems set up. 225 grand is hardly a ton of money, especially for someone who lives in New York. It seems like he had more to gain from failure than from success. Look at all this advertising for his book, and his comedy tour. Just wait until he turns the whole experience into another book.
posted by Literaryhero at 11:20 PM on February 18, 2015
posted by Literaryhero at 11:20 PM on February 18, 2015
225 grand is hardly a ton of money
Oh, you!
posted by adept256 at 11:27 PM on February 18, 2015 [76 favorites]
Oh, you!
posted by adept256 at 11:27 PM on February 18, 2015 [76 favorites]
wait so he threw the match? that's a sort of insane thing to say, don't you think?
posted by Sebmojo at 11:33 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 11:33 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Those grapes were probably sour anyway.
posted by clarknova at 11:35 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by clarknova at 11:35 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Is that not just a spoof by the Portlandia guy?
posted by pwnguin at 11:50 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by pwnguin at 11:50 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Most reasonable people, if they get to that point and don't know the answer, choose to take their money and walk away.
I haven't seen the show since the early days, but are they really allowed to hear the question first, then decide on whether or not to walk away?
Really?
posted by ShutterBun at 12:09 AM on February 19, 2015
I haven't seen the show since the early days, but are they really allowed to hear the question first, then decide on whether or not to walk away?
Really?
posted by ShutterBun at 12:09 AM on February 19, 2015
I was my cousin's phone-a-friend when she was on. They were very strict about how many times you'd let the phone ring and how to answer the phone and making sure you knew not to chitchat with Regis. Sadly, after sitting on my ass all afternoon answering the phone the way it was supposed to be answered - my cousin didn't make it into the chair.
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 12:13 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 12:13 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I haven't watched this show in a long, long time. It's interesting that they went from relatively easy questions the people at home on their couches could feel smug about knowing the answer to when the dumbass on TV didn't to actual trivia. The question Peters went out on, really all the answers are plausible, and the correct answer perhaps the least likely. That's tough. That's the danger of thinking the game is part of a story though isn't it?
I knew a guy who was deep, deep, deep into Ultima Online when it first came out. In meatspace he was a true warrior; brave, cunning, and among the top ten players at a tough LARP. He never understood that in the computer game he couldn't anticipate the attack or use any of his other gifts to influence the outcome. So the story he was telling himself in his head about his character didn't matter. It was all decided by a random number generator on a computer in Virginia.
It's all too easy to tell yourself a story that isn't really supported by reality. No fault on Peters there. Anyway, good for him. I hope it works out for the dude.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:14 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I knew a guy who was deep, deep, deep into Ultima Online when it first came out. In meatspace he was a true warrior; brave, cunning, and among the top ten players at a tough LARP. He never understood that in the computer game he couldn't anticipate the attack or use any of his other gifts to influence the outcome. So the story he was telling himself in his head about his character didn't matter. It was all decided by a random number generator on a computer in Virginia.
It's all too easy to tell yourself a story that isn't really supported by reality. No fault on Peters there. Anyway, good for him. I hope it works out for the dude.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:14 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
To be more clear, I didn't mean he threw the match. As a professional writer he went in with the decision to not quit because he had a plan. If he won the money, great. If he lost, then he would write an article for Slate, mention his book and his comedy due like ten times each. Sure winning that money would have been grand, but he certainly didn't gamble it all on a guess without a backup plan.
posted by Literaryhero at 12:32 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by Literaryhero at 12:32 AM on February 19, 2015
Really?
Well yeah. Otherwise people would be gambling with 0 information other than the current money and implied difficulty level. It's much more compelling to see people agonize over how sure they think they are about an answer.
I haven't watched this show in a long, long time. It's interesting that they went from relatively easy questions the people at home on their couches could feel smug about knowing the answer to when the dumbass on TV didn't to actual trivia. The question Peters went out on, really all the answers are plausible, and the correct answer perhaps the least likely. That's tough.
I don't remember the early show super well but usually by the time you got to one or two away from a million the questions would get pretty damn tough. A lot of it would depend on luck and hitting your knowledge areas. Though, now that I think about it Sikorsky was a pretty easy top answer in the Olmstead run.
posted by kmz at 12:38 AM on February 19, 2015
Well yeah. Otherwise people would be gambling with 0 information other than the current money and implied difficulty level. It's much more compelling to see people agonize over how sure they think they are about an answer.
I haven't watched this show in a long, long time. It's interesting that they went from relatively easy questions the people at home on their couches could feel smug about knowing the answer to when the dumbass on TV didn't to actual trivia. The question Peters went out on, really all the answers are plausible, and the correct answer perhaps the least likely. That's tough.
I don't remember the early show super well but usually by the time you got to one or two away from a million the questions would get pretty damn tough. A lot of it would depend on luck and hitting your knowledge areas. Though, now that I think about it Sikorsky was a pretty easy top answer in the Olmstead run.
posted by kmz at 12:38 AM on February 19, 2015
I don't remember the early show super well but usually by the time you got to one or two away from a million the questions would get pretty damn tough.
The $500,000 question was generally tough in the network years. The $1,000,000 was often not. Case in point: "The Earth is approximately how many miles away from the Sun?"
posted by parliboy at 12:54 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
The $500,000 question was generally tough in the network years. The $1,000,000 was often not. Case in point: "The Earth is approximately how many miles away from the Sun?"
posted by parliboy at 12:54 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Quite a lot hangs on what they mean by "approximately" there.
posted by Segundus at 1:51 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Segundus at 1:51 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
“You’re a man, Justin Peters,” my producer said, as she walked me through the backstage area. “You’re more of a man than anyone I know.”
That Producer either has a very limited circle of acquaintances or was been very economical with the truth. It is a moderately interesting piece, a little long and unwieldy for what is a pretty straightforward story perhaps. There are certainly better canons of literature out there in relation to regret which is essentially what this piece is about, but he managed to get $25K, squeeze an article on Slate out of it and a bit of self-promotion for his improv show which, all in all, seems like quite a good outcome.
If anyone has any interest here are some of tipples of the past and present Chancellor of the Exchequer's:
George Osborne (present chancellor) - Mineral Water
Kenneth Clarke - Whisky
Nigel Lawson - Spritzer
Geoffrey Howe - Gin & Tonic
Benjamin Disraeli - Brandy & Water
William Gladstone - Sherry & Beaten Egg
*Gladstone also holds the record for longest uninterrupted budget speech I believe coming in at 4 hours 45 minutes.
posted by numberstation at 2:21 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
That Producer either has a very limited circle of acquaintances or was been very economical with the truth. It is a moderately interesting piece, a little long and unwieldy for what is a pretty straightforward story perhaps. There are certainly better canons of literature out there in relation to regret which is essentially what this piece is about, but he managed to get $25K, squeeze an article on Slate out of it and a bit of self-promotion for his improv show which, all in all, seems like quite a good outcome.
If anyone has any interest here are some of tipples of the past and present Chancellor of the Exchequer's:
George Osborne (present chancellor) - Mineral Water
Kenneth Clarke - Whisky
Nigel Lawson - Spritzer
Geoffrey Howe - Gin & Tonic
Benjamin Disraeli - Brandy & Water
William Gladstone - Sherry & Beaten Egg
*Gladstone also holds the record for longest uninterrupted budget speech I believe coming in at 4 hours 45 minutes.
posted by numberstation at 2:21 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well yeah. Otherwise people would be gambling with 0 information other than the current money and implied difficulty level. It's much more compelling to see people agonize over how sure they think they are about an answer.
On final Jeopardy, contestants are required to lock in their wager after the category, but before the question (errr...answer) is revealed. Unless they've nerfed that as well.
Way more ballsy.
posted by ShutterBun at 2:40 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
On final Jeopardy, contestants are required to lock in their wager after the category, but before the question (errr...answer) is revealed. Unless they've nerfed that as well.
Way more ballsy.
posted by ShutterBun at 2:40 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
The $500,000 question was generally tough in the network years.
"Cambridge Circus is in which U.K. city?"
Yeah, I think I would have missed that one.
posted by ShutterBun at 2:58 AM on February 19, 2015
"Cambridge Circus is in which U.K. city?"
Yeah, I think I would have missed that one.
posted by ShutterBun at 2:58 AM on February 19, 2015
Oh, you!
It really isn't though, it's sort of a life ruining amount of money after taxes. It's just enough that someone who didn't think it through or know better would quit their job, but not enough that you could live off it for more than a few years. Unless you're smart about it, you basically just put your life and career on pause for those years then are suddenly thrust back in to having to deal with shit.
Several million, you can probably live on if you're not going apeshit for the rest of your natural life. that's 100k a year for 20+ years. But 225k? that's a few years of rent, or paying off your house and fucking off... and then you're hosed.
I know people who inherited money in that range, and it basically ruined their lives because they just went "oh sweet, i can just live off this" and stopped even trying. When really, you can't.
Most people don't seem to do the smart thing, which is go "oh cool, now i have this on the back burner!" and just keep living their lives. They act like they won a prize that forever changed their life, because that's what they're pretty much taught to do.
posted by emptythought at 3:39 AM on February 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
It really isn't though, it's sort of a life ruining amount of money after taxes. It's just enough that someone who didn't think it through or know better would quit their job, but not enough that you could live off it for more than a few years. Unless you're smart about it, you basically just put your life and career on pause for those years then are suddenly thrust back in to having to deal with shit.
Several million, you can probably live on if you're not going apeshit for the rest of your natural life. that's 100k a year for 20+ years. But 225k? that's a few years of rent, or paying off your house and fucking off... and then you're hosed.
I know people who inherited money in that range, and it basically ruined their lives because they just went "oh sweet, i can just live off this" and stopped even trying. When really, you can't.
Most people don't seem to do the smart thing, which is go "oh cool, now i have this on the back burner!" and just keep living their lives. They act like they won a prize that forever changed their life, because that's what they're pretty much taught to do.
posted by emptythought at 3:39 AM on February 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
I recall (but cannot find online) a report from a few years ago that you would need to have at least £2.7m to live what people perceived to be a millionaire lifestyle.
posted by biffa at 3:52 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by biffa at 3:52 AM on February 19, 2015
They act like they won a prize that forever changed their life
From your description, the prize did forever change their life.
posted by maxwelton at 3:52 AM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
From your description, the prize did forever change their life.
posted by maxwelton at 3:52 AM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
When I was doing the trivia contest in Williamstown twice a year, one of our regular teammates got tapped to be on the show and sent out a general call for people,who could offer to be phone-in friends. I said I could, and he emailed me - great, let me know what you can help with and send me your phone number for where you'll be from 4 to 6:30 pm on Wednesday (it was some weird time like that). He would confirm and let me know what to do. I emailed him my fetes, stayed late at work, got no call and went home.
Then I got an email from him two days later; my email had been caught in his spam trap and he hadn't gotten it, so he couldn't have used me for the phone-in stuff. "Sorry about that. ...and if you know what a snood is, I'm REALLY sorry.". He'd gotten up to about $5,000 or so and missed that. I emailed him back that there were snoods in some of the costumes for my last show.
He emailed back: "GOD DAMMIT."
A few months later, we all met for the trivia contest - he walked in, grinned when he saw me, and opened his jacket to show me a t-shirt he'd gotten for a website he'd discovered - called "snood.com".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:57 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Then I got an email from him two days later; my email had been caught in his spam trap and he hadn't gotten it, so he couldn't have used me for the phone-in stuff. "Sorry about that. ...and if you know what a snood is, I'm REALLY sorry.". He'd gotten up to about $5,000 or so and missed that. I emailed him back that there were snoods in some of the costumes for my last show.
He emailed back: "GOD DAMMIT."
A few months later, we all met for the trivia contest - he walked in, grinned when he saw me, and opened his jacket to show me a t-shirt he'd gotten for a website he'd discovered - called "snood.com".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:57 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
225 grand is hardly a ton of money
Oh, you!
By weight, 225 grand in dollars is not even a quarter ton.
posted by otherchaz at 4:09 AM on February 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Oh, you!
By weight, 225 grand in dollars is not even a quarter ton.
posted by otherchaz at 4:09 AM on February 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Money will ruin your life, peon. You're not ready for it. Sure, it sounds like a lot, but it's not enough to be a millionaire. You'll squander it, and become lazy. Not lazy like us, but lazy like you. The underclass, so depraved to go on a trivia game show.
As for my original comment, emptythought, that amount of money is not trivial. It's college, it's surgery, it's a roof. It could be everything. Not something to be dismissed. Sure, it could be half a Ferrari, but let's not blame the victim.
posted by adept256 at 4:10 AM on February 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
As for my original comment, emptythought, that amount of money is not trivial. It's college, it's surgery, it's a roof. It could be everything. Not something to be dismissed. Sure, it could be half a Ferrari, but let's not blame the victim.
posted by adept256 at 4:10 AM on February 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
225 grand is hardly a ton of money
Only 6 times my yearly salary, even! Chump change.
*snerk*
posted by chainsofreedom at 4:28 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Only 6 times my yearly salary, even! Chump change.
*snerk*
posted by chainsofreedom at 4:28 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
The question Peters went out on, really all the answers are plausible, and the correct answer perhaps the least likely.
Declaring war is a form of commencement; it initiates action.
Crowning a royal and taking the oath of office are also beginnings, which may rest on immediate activity.
Passing a budget is a resolution. As it seeks to conclude a matter, without significant recourse, it's the only option out of the four where everyone's expected to leave once all's said and done.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:32 AM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Declaring war is a form of commencement; it initiates action.
Crowning a royal and taking the oath of office are also beginnings, which may rest on immediate activity.
Passing a budget is a resolution. As it seeks to conclude a matter, without significant recourse, it's the only option out of the four where everyone's expected to leave once all's said and done.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:32 AM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Suppose you win $250k. Let's even say that's your net, after taxes. In a way that's a huge amount of money, life-changing even. You could do a lot of good stuff with it. Get out of debt, including paying off a mortgage. Establishing decent retirement savings., which you don't have now because you spent it on weed and video games. Pursue education full-time. Start a business. But a failing small business could chew through $250k like a toddler with a box of Pop Tarts. It's not enough money that you'd be able to just not work, and live off it. Don't get me wrong - I'd be glad to have it. But it's not going to elevate you into the ranks of the Olympians or something.
posted by thelonius at 4:35 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thelonius at 4:35 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I tried out for WWTBAM once, during the Meredith Viera era. Got passed the written test, had a brief interview with a PA. Apparently I'm not telegenic enough, as I got a postcard about a month later saying I hadn't been selected. Given the description in the article that it's even more about entertainment now, I'd probably be even less likely to get on today.
So, in the course of reading the article (well, skimming parts of it, it was kind of long for what it was), I naturally stopped when I got to The Question and thought about it, about what my guess as to the answer was, and what I would have done. First, what did I think the answer was? I quickly narrowed it down to the same two candidates that Peters had. From those two, I had a hunch as to which one was right, but was by no means sure of it.
Then, would I have answered or walked away, in his situation? On balance, probably walked away. I wasn't sure enough of my answer to have chanced it. So then I read on. And I found out that, if it had been me, when we got to the "you're walking away with $250K; now, just for fun, what would your answer have been" stage... my answer would have been right after all.
Peters lost $225K. I would have lost $250K.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:49 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
So, in the course of reading the article (well, skimming parts of it, it was kind of long for what it was), I naturally stopped when I got to The Question and thought about it, about what my guess as to the answer was, and what I would have done. First, what did I think the answer was? I quickly narrowed it down to the same two candidates that Peters had. From those two, I had a hunch as to which one was right, but was by no means sure of it.
Then, would I have answered or walked away, in his situation? On balance, probably walked away. I wasn't sure enough of my answer to have chanced it. So then I read on. And I found out that, if it had been me, when we got to the "you're walking away with $250K; now, just for fun, what would your answer have been" stage... my answer would have been right after all.
Peters lost $225K. I would have lost $250K.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:49 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
225k? that's a few years of rent, or paying off your house and fucking off... and then you're hosed.
I know people who inherited money in that range, and it basically ruined their lives because they just went "oh sweet, i can just live off this" and stopped even trying. When really, you can't.
225k's still money that can be invested, whether it's through an IRA or by securing Government bonds (the latter will have a meager payoff over a substantial period of time, given current rates, but it's a low-risk bet for players of the Long Game). Even with a low-paying job on the side, it's still emergency money for anything medical insurance won't cover, or a better start on a relocation budget (if opportunities dry up in a region, or nearby pollution worsens) than having nothing at all.
Depending on where one lives, it can buy a boat* with a fiberglass hull for residence on the water which could allow for a tax break, and retrofitting every 8 years would be a bit less than landscaping and upkeep costs on a typical home.
*Any ship you pick up for that amount will likely be a waste of investment, as overhead, docking fees and maintenance would be the least of anyone's problems.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:59 AM on February 19, 2015
I know people who inherited money in that range, and it basically ruined their lives because they just went "oh sweet, i can just live off this" and stopped even trying. When really, you can't.
225k's still money that can be invested, whether it's through an IRA or by securing Government bonds (the latter will have a meager payoff over a substantial period of time, given current rates, but it's a low-risk bet for players of the Long Game). Even with a low-paying job on the side, it's still emergency money for anything medical insurance won't cover, or a better start on a relocation budget (if opportunities dry up in a region, or nearby pollution worsens) than having nothing at all.
Depending on where one lives, it can buy a boat* with a fiberglass hull for residence on the water which could allow for a tax break, and retrofitting every 8 years would be a bit less than landscaping and upkeep costs on a typical home.
*Any ship you pick up for that amount will likely be a waste of investment, as overhead, docking fees and maintenance would be the least of anyone's problems.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:59 AM on February 19, 2015
Yeah, as too many lottery winners have learned $250K is not a "lifestyle changing" prize. It might seem that way if you're living hand to mouth, but it's really not hard to burn through that in a few years even living modestly. In much of the country it's not even enough to buy a suburban house for cash. It's nice, sure, and can solve a lot of immediate problems but the OP is angsting entirely too hard over losing it. Lots of ordinary people manage to lose $250K without ever having won it in the first place.
posted by localroger at 5:18 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by localroger at 5:18 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
"I got to $250,000. It was a life-changing sum."
Not sure, where this guy lives that he thinks this is a life-changing sum. Even if taxes weren't taken out (which they would be) it still wouldn't be life changing. Unless perhaps he lives in Arkansas were you can literally buy large mansion for about $150k. But the main thing life-changing about that would be that you're now living in a big mansion in the middle of nowhere and virtually no economy.
The only way this would be life-changing is if the person knew enough about investing to invest and make it grow to an amount that WOULD make it life-changing. $250k may be able to change your life for 3 or 5 years, but then it's back to square one.
But then I live in NYC where 250k won't even buy you a nice 1 bedroom apartment in the nice parts of town. So perhaps my barometer is off.
posted by manderin at 5:52 AM on February 19, 2015
Not sure, where this guy lives that he thinks this is a life-changing sum. Even if taxes weren't taken out (which they would be) it still wouldn't be life changing. Unless perhaps he lives in Arkansas were you can literally buy large mansion for about $150k. But the main thing life-changing about that would be that you're now living in a big mansion in the middle of nowhere and virtually no economy.
The only way this would be life-changing is if the person knew enough about investing to invest and make it grow to an amount that WOULD make it life-changing. $250k may be able to change your life for 3 or 5 years, but then it's back to square one.
But then I live in NYC where 250k won't even buy you a nice 1 bedroom apartment in the nice parts of town. So perhaps my barometer is off.
posted by manderin at 5:52 AM on February 19, 2015
He ruled out 2 answers. Win $250,000 if right, lose $225,000 if wrong. Mathematically, he should play even if he's only going to guess.
posted by Obscure Reference at 6:04 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Obscure Reference at 6:04 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
$250K would handily pay off most people's student loans and credit card debt. Even if it won't buy you a nice house outright, it may let you make enough of a down payment that suddenly you can look at owning a home without back-breaking mortgage payments. Even if you were to just stick it in some index funds you'd get the stress reduction of knowing you have $250K of "what if" money available to you. All of those things would make it an immediately and significantly life changing sum for a huge number of people.
posted by Grimgrin at 6:12 AM on February 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Grimgrin at 6:12 AM on February 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
$250k may be able to change your life for 3 or 5 years, but then it's back to square one.
I would consider being able to do something like pay off student loan debt to be life-changing for more than 3 to 5 years. "Life-changing" here would mean, though, getting out from a bad thing and being able to live a normal life free from it, not becoming transformed into some kind of elite human.
posted by thelonius at 6:13 AM on February 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
I would consider being able to do something like pay off student loan debt to be life-changing for more than 3 to 5 years. "Life-changing" here would mean, though, getting out from a bad thing and being able to live a normal life free from it, not becoming transformed into some kind of elite human.
posted by thelonius at 6:13 AM on February 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
I don't know this guy's circumstances, but put me into the $250k can definitely be life changing camp. Maybe I'm understating what people consider to be "life changing" but that's more than enough to pay off credit cards, pay off student loans, pay off a car loan, make a big down payment on a house, and still have quite a bit to invest and buy a few toys. In short, that amount can take you from struggling under typical young person debt to being very cash flow positive every month. That is a huge, huge thing and is absolutely life changing to the person involved.
Or look at it another way. Put that amount, as a young person, into a tax deferred retirement account and wait three or four decades. Suddenly your retirement can go from "eh, I get by" to very, very comfortable. That is clearly life altering.
No, it's not "Buys a Rolls and spend the rest of your life in leisure" money like winning hundreds of millions in the lottery would be, but it's still life changing if you manage it properly.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:16 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Or look at it another way. Put that amount, as a young person, into a tax deferred retirement account and wait three or four decades. Suddenly your retirement can go from "eh, I get by" to very, very comfortable. That is clearly life altering.
No, it's not "Buys a Rolls and spend the rest of your life in leisure" money like winning hundreds of millions in the lottery would be, but it's still life changing if you manage it properly.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:16 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
True, 250K doesn't transform you into one of the super duper wealthy, but if you pay off your debts and have some left over for your retirement and maybe a nice vacation or home reno, then I'd happily take it. For me, it would be retirement and then helping my parents out of their financial debt. That would be fine with me; I don't need gold-plated toilets and a private jet.
posted by Kitteh at 6:18 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by Kitteh at 6:18 AM on February 19, 2015
Good lord, I want to swap lives with you guys who can shrug off $250,000. With $250,000 my student loan and my wife's student loans are gone, we have a nice big down payment on a house and we can start a retirement account. We have $1250 left over every month that had been going to debt and rent. There's enough in savings that we never have to finance a car again, and compound interest starts working for us instead of against us. That counts as "life-changing" to me, even if it's six notches short of sailing around the world, drinking fine wines on a luxury yacht. I love you guys, but some of you are freaking clueless about what life is like for most of the country.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:18 AM on February 19, 2015 [57 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:18 AM on February 19, 2015 [57 favorites]
In short, what they said while I was typing.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:19 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:19 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
This might count as one of WWTBAM's most heroic failures, poor woman. Couldn't find any video of it but that's just as well, it's painful.
posted by glasseyes at 6:31 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by glasseyes at 6:31 AM on February 19, 2015
I like how everyone is focusing on the actual value of the money he lost, and not the lesson he gained from losing it, which is the actual point of the piece.
posted by dry white toast at 6:37 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dry white toast at 6:37 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, maybe he's not a very good writer then.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:41 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 6:41 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
It must be really frustrating to not be able to control what people want to discuss.
posted by thelonius at 6:49 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 6:49 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I like how everyone is focusing on the actual value of the money he lost, and not the lesson he gained from losing it, which is the actual point of the piece.
If that was his point, I'm not sure he made it very well. His intended point seems to be something along "better to take the shot and fail than not to take the shot at all." His epiphany comes from a story from Terry Crews, the host, via his sister (who was in the audience when Crews told the story, but Peters was not in the studio). About how Crews took a potential game-winning shot when playing in a high-school basketball game, and missed, but it was still the right decision to make the shot.
But I don't think that's a good analogy. A high school basketball player might play, what, 60-80 games in his four years? When you have that number of opportunities, it likely makes sense to play the percentages. You'll take many shots over the course of your time. You'll make some, you'll miss some, some of the made ones may be game-winners and some of the missed ones will be would-have-been-game-winners. It's appropriate to take that shot; over the long run, over many games, it's better than not taking it. But it's not a good analogy to a once-in-a-lifetime decision.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that even on a once-in-a-lifetime decision, one should never "take the shot." Far from it. And I'm not saying that just because the outcome of a gamble was bad, it was the wrong decision to make the gamble. I'm not even necessarily saying Peters was wrong to "take the shot" in this case.
But I don't find Crews's story particularly convincing of the point Peters is trying to make, and if that point is "always take the shot," it's also a point I don't agree with. Whether to "take the shot" is something to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I find "always take the shot" no better advice than "never take the shot."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:59 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
If that was his point, I'm not sure he made it very well. His intended point seems to be something along "better to take the shot and fail than not to take the shot at all." His epiphany comes from a story from Terry Crews, the host, via his sister (who was in the audience when Crews told the story, but Peters was not in the studio). About how Crews took a potential game-winning shot when playing in a high-school basketball game, and missed, but it was still the right decision to make the shot.
But I don't think that's a good analogy. A high school basketball player might play, what, 60-80 games in his four years? When you have that number of opportunities, it likely makes sense to play the percentages. You'll take many shots over the course of your time. You'll make some, you'll miss some, some of the made ones may be game-winners and some of the missed ones will be would-have-been-game-winners. It's appropriate to take that shot; over the long run, over many games, it's better than not taking it. But it's not a good analogy to a once-in-a-lifetime decision.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that even on a once-in-a-lifetime decision, one should never "take the shot." Far from it. And I'm not saying that just because the outcome of a gamble was bad, it was the wrong decision to make the gamble. I'm not even necessarily saying Peters was wrong to "take the shot" in this case.
But I don't find Crews's story particularly convincing of the point Peters is trying to make, and if that point is "always take the shot," it's also a point I don't agree with. Whether to "take the shot" is something to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I find "always take the shot" no better advice than "never take the shot."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:59 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pater Aletheias: and compound interest starts working for us instead of against us.
This is probably the best idea of any "money management wisdom". Going from "paying to use somebody else's money" to "being paid for your wealth" is one of the most basic life-changing financial inflections out there.
posted by achrise at 7:34 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is probably the best idea of any "money management wisdom". Going from "paying to use somebody else's money" to "being paid for your wealth" is one of the most basic life-changing financial inflections out there.
posted by achrise at 7:34 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I like how everyone is focusing on the actual value of the money he lost, and not the lesson he gained from losing it,
Whether he lost a "life-changing" amount of money or not seems pretty integral to how you interpret his story. Thus the discussion. (He did, and going for it was stupid, but it's good that he can reframe his experience and move on with a positive attitude.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:53 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Whether he lost a "life-changing" amount of money or not seems pretty integral to how you interpret his story. Thus the discussion. (He did, and going for it was stupid, but it's good that he can reframe his experience and move on with a positive attitude.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:53 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's really galling to hear people chime in from New York or San Francisco or Paris or Tokyo or wherever to gripe about how a quarter mil is next to nothing for them. It's like listening to some doctor whine about how he has to drive his Mercedes all the time because his vintage Ferrari spends most of its time in the shop.
Living in an urban cultural center is a luxury, too.
posted by indubitable at 8:03 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Living in an urban cultural center is a luxury, too.
posted by indubitable at 8:03 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's really galling to hear people chime in from New York or San Francisco or Paris or Tokyo or wherever to gripe about how a quarter mil is next to nothing for them.
I think it's more galling how many people are like "I'm sure no one has thought of this, but poor people can't handle money so will just try to live off the money and screw themselves whoops"
$225K in New York would change my life and I do pretty well.
posted by zutalors! at 8:10 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think it's more galling how many people are like "I'm sure no one has thought of this, but poor people can't handle money so will just try to live off the money and screw themselves whoops"
$225K in New York would change my life and I do pretty well.
posted by zutalors! at 8:10 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of my favorite television shows of all time. Thanks for sharing!
posted by Capillus at 8:58 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by Capillus at 8:58 AM on February 19, 2015
All of this arguing about whether the prize money is a life changer is getting us nowhere.
Anyone who wants to know for sure can just send me a donation and I promise to let you know what happens to my life once I reach $250K.
posted by orme at 9:20 AM on February 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
Anyone who wants to know for sure can just send me a donation and I promise to let you know what happens to my life once I reach $250K.
posted by orme at 9:20 AM on February 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
Declaring war is a form of commencement; it initiates action.
Crowning a royal and taking the oath of office are also beginnings, which may rest on immediate activity.
Passing a budget is a resolution. As it seeks to conclude a matter, without significant recourse, it's the only option out of the four where everyone's expected to leave once all's said and done.
This doesn't really stand up. He'd already (correctly) eliminated "declaring war" and "taking the oath of office." So the only choice he was faced with was "crowning a royal" and "passing a budget." If the house of commons played a role in crowning royals there's really no reason to imagine it would be anything other than a ceremonial occasion, with no presumption of subsequent action of any kind (and a strong ceremonial reason for toasting the new monarch's health). The mistake he made wasn't failing to recognize which actions were initiatory and which conclusory, it was failing to remember that monarchs aren't crowned by the House of Commons.
posted by yoink at 9:42 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Crowning a royal and taking the oath of office are also beginnings, which may rest on immediate activity.
Passing a budget is a resolution. As it seeks to conclude a matter, without significant recourse, it's the only option out of the four where everyone's expected to leave once all's said and done.
This doesn't really stand up. He'd already (correctly) eliminated "declaring war" and "taking the oath of office." So the only choice he was faced with was "crowning a royal" and "passing a budget." If the house of commons played a role in crowning royals there's really no reason to imagine it would be anything other than a ceremonial occasion, with no presumption of subsequent action of any kind (and a strong ceremonial reason for toasting the new monarch's health). The mistake he made wasn't failing to recognize which actions were initiatory and which conclusory, it was failing to remember that monarchs aren't crowned by the House of Commons.
posted by yoink at 9:42 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anyone else read this story and imagine it as a sketch on SNL, because the guy looks so much like Fred Armisen in a wig?
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:08 AM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:08 AM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Win $250,000 if right, lose $225,000 if wrong. Mathematically, he should play even if he's only going to guess.
This is how people get addicted to gambling. You're betting $250K on an expected return of $12.5K.
E(R) = R1*P1 + R2*P2 = 250*0.5 - 225*0.5
posted by walrus at 10:34 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is how people get addicted to gambling. You're betting $250K on an expected return of $12.5K.
E(R) = R1*P1 + R2*P2 = 250*0.5 - 225*0.5
posted by walrus at 10:34 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're betting $250K on an expected return of $12.5K.
Aren't you betting 225K (the amount you stand to lose) on an expected return of 125K (.5 x 250K--that is the odds of winning times the amount you stand to win)?
Of course, if you're really trying to calculate the odds you need to factor in the fact that winning also gives you, at minimum, a .25 chance of winning a further $500K. It's not really possible to calculate your odds of getting a question to which you know the answer (or where you can, at least, eliminate some of the wrong answers), but it's plausible, at least, to argue that that *might* pencil out to making the gamble an economically rational one (that is, one where the odds are, overall, in favor of gain rather than loss).
posted by yoink at 10:44 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Aren't you betting 225K (the amount you stand to lose) on an expected return of 125K (.5 x 250K--that is the odds of winning times the amount you stand to win)?
Of course, if you're really trying to calculate the odds you need to factor in the fact that winning also gives you, at minimum, a .25 chance of winning a further $500K. It's not really possible to calculate your odds of getting a question to which you know the answer (or where you can, at least, eliminate some of the wrong answers), but it's plausible, at least, to argue that that *might* pencil out to making the gamble an economically rational one (that is, one where the odds are, overall, in favor of gain rather than loss).
posted by yoink at 10:44 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
yoink, I'm just using the standard definition of expected return; the numbers don't necessarily match what you could win, but they do tell you it's a very bad bet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_return
I also factored in that he had correctly discounted two choices.
posted by walrus at 10:48 AM on February 19, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_return
I also factored in that he had correctly discounted two choices.
posted by walrus at 10:48 AM on February 19, 2015
I'm not a gambler by the way, in case you couldn't guess!
posted by walrus at 10:52 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by walrus at 10:52 AM on February 19, 2015
Does anything to do with coronation happen in the house of commons? I thought his guess was pretty bad.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:55 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:55 AM on February 19, 2015
Sorry for the multiple posts here.
The expected return is actually 500*0.5 - 225*0.5 = $137.5K
Still not great odds.
Thanks for making me see my error.
posted by walrus at 11:01 AM on February 19, 2015
The expected return is actually 500*0.5 - 225*0.5 = $137.5K
Still not great odds.
Thanks for making me see my error.
posted by walrus at 11:01 AM on February 19, 2015
The expected return is actually 500*0.5 - 225*0.5 = $137.5K
No, I think you were right the first time. He "has" 250K in his pocket (i.e., he can get up and walk away with that). Choosing to gamble on the question he's putting 225K at risk on 50/50 odds of making a further 250K. So his expected return (by the formula) is, as you said, 12.5K. Which, from a homo economicus p.o.v. makes it a rational wager (i.e. the odds are on his side).
posted by yoink at 11:16 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
No, I think you were right the first time. He "has" 250K in his pocket (i.e., he can get up and walk away with that). Choosing to gamble on the question he's putting 225K at risk on 50/50 odds of making a further 250K. So his expected return (by the formula) is, as you said, 12.5K. Which, from a homo economicus p.o.v. makes it a rational wager (i.e. the odds are on his side).
posted by yoink at 11:16 AM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
When I hear "life-changing" I think of - being able to quit your job. Not necessarily being jobless, but 90% of people are in jobs they hate because they need the money. I think if you can make enough money to quit your job and instead do a job you love (that may not pay so well) That's life-changing. I guess it depends on who has the money and how it's used.
I have no student debt and I had it only for a very short time after graduation because I was offered a partial scholarship and I went to a state school where the tuition was cheap to begin with. My credit card debt was never much either. So when I think of $137k (which walrus says is what you'd get after taxes). It would certainly be cool to have, but there's not much life changing about it. Not unless you a) know how to invest it b) Are lucky enough with the investment. You can't quit your job with that money. Your life remains the same on a day to day basis. I can see how it would be life-changing on an emotional level for someone with debt. The load off must be amazing. But is it really that dramatic in material real life circumstances? I'm not so sure. I read about a farmer (I think he was in Iowa) that won two million dollars in the lottery. Now most people who win a million in the lottery blow it all, but this farmer was smart. He knew that a million dollars is not a lot of money in this day and age. So what he did was he purchased state of the art farming machines to help him work his land better and produce more. He only allowed himself to buy one 'fun' thing- a fancy sports car. The rest of the money went into investing into his farming. Because of this his farming business took off and grew every year; and he should able to provide a higher standard of living for him and his family for the rest of their lives. But... he's still a farmer. He realized that after taxes a million dollars doesn't last a life time and therefore cannot change someone's life completely unless they know how to invest it where they can turn it into a more life-changing sum.
I would say that in today's world in order to completely change one's life from the outside where they can quit their job and do what they love without sacrificing one would need probably at least 7 or 8 million. (before taxes) which probably leaves them with around 4-5 million.
But there are ways to significantly change one's life with much less. If someone is kinda ugly they can use 60k to get jaw surgeries and hair transplants and that would be a really good way to permanently change one's life for the better IF all the surgeries go well. IF their issues can be fixed at all. Bad teeth will deny you all sorts of jobs and promotions in this world. We all know it's generally much easier to get on in life if you don't look like a troll. But if the surgeries don't go well life may be changed for the worse. Someone I didn't have bad jaws, but only bad teeth. They paid 20k for veneers and I can say without doubt that this COMPLETELY changed their lives. Less than a year later they had a much better job, much higher salary, bigger-better place to live and a hot new girlfriend.
posted by manderin at 11:44 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have no student debt and I had it only for a very short time after graduation because I was offered a partial scholarship and I went to a state school where the tuition was cheap to begin with. My credit card debt was never much either. So when I think of $137k (which walrus says is what you'd get after taxes). It would certainly be cool to have, but there's not much life changing about it. Not unless you a) know how to invest it b) Are lucky enough with the investment. You can't quit your job with that money. Your life remains the same on a day to day basis. I can see how it would be life-changing on an emotional level for someone with debt. The load off must be amazing. But is it really that dramatic in material real life circumstances? I'm not so sure. I read about a farmer (I think he was in Iowa) that won two million dollars in the lottery. Now most people who win a million in the lottery blow it all, but this farmer was smart. He knew that a million dollars is not a lot of money in this day and age. So what he did was he purchased state of the art farming machines to help him work his land better and produce more. He only allowed himself to buy one 'fun' thing- a fancy sports car. The rest of the money went into investing into his farming. Because of this his farming business took off and grew every year; and he should able to provide a higher standard of living for him and his family for the rest of their lives. But... he's still a farmer. He realized that after taxes a million dollars doesn't last a life time and therefore cannot change someone's life completely unless they know how to invest it where they can turn it into a more life-changing sum.
I would say that in today's world in order to completely change one's life from the outside where they can quit their job and do what they love without sacrificing one would need probably at least 7 or 8 million. (before taxes) which probably leaves them with around 4-5 million.
But there are ways to significantly change one's life with much less. If someone is kinda ugly they can use 60k to get jaw surgeries and hair transplants and that would be a really good way to permanently change one's life for the better IF all the surgeries go well. IF their issues can be fixed at all. Bad teeth will deny you all sorts of jobs and promotions in this world. We all know it's generally much easier to get on in life if you don't look like a troll. But if the surgeries don't go well life may be changed for the worse. Someone I didn't have bad jaws, but only bad teeth. They paid 20k for veneers and I can say without doubt that this COMPLETELY changed their lives. Less than a year later they had a much better job, much higher salary, bigger-better place to live and a hot new girlfriend.
posted by manderin at 11:44 AM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the article pointed out how the money would change the author's life. He would be able to take a sabbatical to trial-run a career in comedy.
posted by Monochrome at 12:04 PM on February 19, 2015
posted by Monochrome at 12:04 PM on February 19, 2015
225 grand is hardly a ton of money
I could live--modestly--on that money for ten years. Factoring in interest (we don't pay taxes on winnings in Canada), that would be $2k/month for a decade, which is enough for me to live relatively comfortably, even with some initial splurging on nicer furniture/clothes/etc.
It's a life-altering amount, and seriously, if you don't think it is how about we trade bank accounts?
Crowning a royal
Is done in Westminster Abbey, not the Palace, and Parliament doesn't sit that day.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:45 PM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I could live--modestly--on that money for ten years. Factoring in interest (we don't pay taxes on winnings in Canada), that would be $2k/month for a decade, which is enough for me to live relatively comfortably, even with some initial splurging on nicer furniture/clothes/etc.
It's a life-altering amount, and seriously, if you don't think it is how about we trade bank accounts?
Crowning a royal
Is done in Westminster Abbey, not the Palace, and Parliament doesn't sit that day.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:45 PM on February 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's all too easy to tell yourself a story that isn't really supported by reality.
Over in the field of roguelike games, of course, this is part of the appeal. The story in your head of your brave guy overcoming the tremendous challenge. It's all random numbers under the hood, but his wit, cunning, strategy and knowledge (which of course are actually yours) win him through the impossible odds. It's not as interesting if you imagine a chess piece roaming through an abstract world taking arbitrary risks.
The narrative we construct around these chains of events, those are what make the tale comprehensible and interesting. Even if you chart out the guy's progress on a graph, that is itself a form of narrative, of interpretation.
posted by JHarris at 12:55 PM on February 19, 2015
Over in the field of roguelike games, of course, this is part of the appeal. The story in your head of your brave guy overcoming the tremendous challenge. It's all random numbers under the hood, but his wit, cunning, strategy and knowledge (which of course are actually yours) win him through the impossible odds. It's not as interesting if you imagine a chess piece roaming through an abstract world taking arbitrary risks.
The narrative we construct around these chains of events, those are what make the tale comprehensible and interesting. Even if you chart out the guy's progress on a graph, that is itself a form of narrative, of interpretation.
posted by JHarris at 12:55 PM on February 19, 2015
I could live--modestly--on that money for ten years.
But the thing is, very few people with that kind of money actually sitting in a bank account will live that modestly. Very few people will continue to drive a 15 year old car or live in an efficiency or sit on the Goodwill furniture when enough money is at hand to easily make all those things far nicer and still have most of it left.
I've been there, and in reality living on that kind of budget is a job in and of itself, and while it technically passes manderin's "quit your job" test it fails in other ways few people would accept.
I'd say a better metric starts with, do you have to pay attention to how much things cost? I vividly remember counting my change to see if I could afford a bag of potato chips. You fix that, do you have to ask if you can afford to eat out? At a nice restaurant for a holiday? A replacement if your TV blows or the mechanic if your car needs repair? The doctor's bill if you break your leg? If your car is totaled do you have to wonder where you'd get the money to replace it?
At a certain point we get the Maslow hierarchy pretty well filled in so that most of what we'd have to wonder about is luxury items we can do without. This is where you want to be, where you don't have to angst over recurring expenses and unpredictable necessities. That's something most working people can manage to achieve with a decent job and some financial sense (and a little luck). A quarter million dollars can be a big help getting you there if you're not there, but even there you're still a working stiff. You still owe your 5 days a week to the system, you still need to worry if you lose that job and can't find another.
Now, can you live angst-free about money without working at a job? If so, your lifestyle has been changed; you're no longer a working stiff. You can spend your days in comfort learning to oil paint or clubbing every night or whatever you want. You're not angsting over what you can afford OR setting the alarm clock for 5 to get to work every morning. That's what we mean you aren't going to achieve with $225,000. It just isn't enough, and after a few years you'll realize that you have a better stereo and a nicer TV and a better car and maybe you took some vacations or a sabbatical and have enough dough to take another, but you're not really living all that differently than you were before.
posted by localroger at 3:17 PM on February 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
But the thing is, very few people with that kind of money actually sitting in a bank account will live that modestly. Very few people will continue to drive a 15 year old car or live in an efficiency or sit on the Goodwill furniture when enough money is at hand to easily make all those things far nicer and still have most of it left.
I've been there, and in reality living on that kind of budget is a job in and of itself, and while it technically passes manderin's "quit your job" test it fails in other ways few people would accept.
I'd say a better metric starts with, do you have to pay attention to how much things cost? I vividly remember counting my change to see if I could afford a bag of potato chips. You fix that, do you have to ask if you can afford to eat out? At a nice restaurant for a holiday? A replacement if your TV blows or the mechanic if your car needs repair? The doctor's bill if you break your leg? If your car is totaled do you have to wonder where you'd get the money to replace it?
At a certain point we get the Maslow hierarchy pretty well filled in so that most of what we'd have to wonder about is luxury items we can do without. This is where you want to be, where you don't have to angst over recurring expenses and unpredictable necessities. That's something most working people can manage to achieve with a decent job and some financial sense (and a little luck). A quarter million dollars can be a big help getting you there if you're not there, but even there you're still a working stiff. You still owe your 5 days a week to the system, you still need to worry if you lose that job and can't find another.
Now, can you live angst-free about money without working at a job? If so, your lifestyle has been changed; you're no longer a working stiff. You can spend your days in comfort learning to oil paint or clubbing every night or whatever you want. You're not angsting over what you can afford OR setting the alarm clock for 5 to get to work every morning. That's what we mean you aren't going to achieve with $225,000. It just isn't enough, and after a few years you'll realize that you have a better stereo and a nicer TV and a better car and maybe you took some vacations or a sabbatical and have enough dough to take another, but you're not really living all that differently than you were before.
posted by localroger at 3:17 PM on February 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think it's more galling how many people are like "I'm sure no one has thought of this, but poor people can't handle money so will just try to live off the money and screw themselves whoops"
Localroger covered what i actually meant, but holy crap have people been willfully taking my comments the wrong way and assholing at me lately.
This isn't "poor people can't money lol", and i'm perfectly aware that it's a ton of money in many parts of the country where you can buy an entire house for 30k or even less.
Maybe i should have written it better, but my point was that the vast majority of people who would consider game show winnings a big deal are not going to treat them like something to be managed. It's a windfall, party!
If that comes off as "poor people can't handle money" then i think we'll never meet in the middle. But i think this is a psychological thing that spans classes. The kind of thing you'd think unless you were born in to serious money, and even then, you'd probably think it... except that it would be true because you wouldn't need it in the first place.
And yes, i'm aware that growing up and living in a place where 225k wouldn't buy anything but a small condo colors my views of this. But i've just seen what happens when a middle class +/- person comes in this kind of money. They think they monkey barred their way to the final stage of localrogers comment, when really it's a problem solving amount of money.
What i meant by life changing was your life style is forever shifted, you never have to work again. Paying off your mortgage, student loans, putting some savings in the bank and getting a car that doesn't suck is problem solving. Living your current lifestyle or slightly better without working again is life changing. I don't think these are weird out of nowhere definitions i made up to serve something, they make pretty good sense to me(and seemingly others, like the comment above me).
posted by emptythought at 3:39 PM on February 19, 2015
Localroger covered what i actually meant, but holy crap have people been willfully taking my comments the wrong way and assholing at me lately.
This isn't "poor people can't money lol", and i'm perfectly aware that it's a ton of money in many parts of the country where you can buy an entire house for 30k or even less.
Maybe i should have written it better, but my point was that the vast majority of people who would consider game show winnings a big deal are not going to treat them like something to be managed. It's a windfall, party!
If that comes off as "poor people can't handle money" then i think we'll never meet in the middle. But i think this is a psychological thing that spans classes. The kind of thing you'd think unless you were born in to serious money, and even then, you'd probably think it... except that it would be true because you wouldn't need it in the first place.
And yes, i'm aware that growing up and living in a place where 225k wouldn't buy anything but a small condo colors my views of this. But i've just seen what happens when a middle class +/- person comes in this kind of money. They think they monkey barred their way to the final stage of localrogers comment, when really it's a problem solving amount of money.
What i meant by life changing was your life style is forever shifted, you never have to work again. Paying off your mortgage, student loans, putting some savings in the bank and getting a car that doesn't suck is problem solving. Living your current lifestyle or slightly better without working again is life changing. I don't think these are weird out of nowhere definitions i made up to serve something, they make pretty good sense to me(and seemingly others, like the comment above me).
posted by emptythought at 3:39 PM on February 19, 2015
Now, can you live angst-free about money without working at a job? If so, your lifestyle has been changed; you're no longer a working stiff.
If I could choose, for example, to only work a couple days a week, or accept low pay for a job I love, that $225K would allow me to do so. Ergo, life-altering.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:51 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
If I could choose, for example, to only work a couple days a week, or accept low pay for a job I love, that $225K would allow me to do so. Ergo, life-altering.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:51 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think shows like this are cruel and everyone involved in them can go eat a big box of frozen dicks from Costco.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:20 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:20 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
If I could choose, for example, to only work a couple days a week, or accept low pay for a job I love
But that's still just an improvement. You are still, so to speak, a slave to the system; some part of your time is not your own, and you are at the mercy of the system to give you something to do that pays so that you can stay afloat. $225K does not change that, it only changes the scenery.
posted by localroger at 5:25 PM on February 19, 2015
But that's still just an improvement. You are still, so to speak, a slave to the system; some part of your time is not your own, and you are at the mercy of the system to give you something to do that pays so that you can stay afloat. $225K does not change that, it only changes the scenery.
posted by localroger at 5:25 PM on February 19, 2015
I think I'm pretty aware of what would change my life and what wouldn't, thanks. $225K in a lump sum would permanently change my life in ways that I really don't have to explain to you in detail, so do me a favour and stop telling me that I'm wrong about how something would affect me personally, kthx.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:33 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:33 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
fffm it's not meant to be personal; the phrase "lifestyle changing" is used in a certain way by people who watch large lotteries and casino jackpots. It is a matter of general agreement among people familiar with how these things play out that jackpots under $1M do not generally change peoples' lifestyles. There are some cases where they can, and you might be one of them, but they very rarely actually do.
Although it took place over a period of years rather than being a sudden windfall I have had my own chance at a game, only for me it worked. Of the ten people who ever played for X, at least 8 of whom pulled down over $100K, and five of them over $200K, only two still have any of it. One was perhaps the way you would be, a dedicated beach bum with a very low denominator who retired to the third world to keep his living expenses down. My partner is the other, as we used it to flip our huge consumer debt to paying off our house in our mid-40's. That was assuredly a nice thing and has really improved our stress levels, but it has not in any meaningful sense changed our lifestyle. It is not, for example, enough for me to seriously consider retiring early. So I, too, have some idea what I'm talking about here.
As for X himself, who took away at least $800K when the team split up, thanks to a combination of unwise stock market marginal investments, thieving family members, and Katrina vs. his rental properties, he is now penniless. We're pretty sure [redacted] stole the Rolex and gold chain which were among his few actual luxury splurges.
posted by localroger at 5:46 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Although it took place over a period of years rather than being a sudden windfall I have had my own chance at a game, only for me it worked. Of the ten people who ever played for X, at least 8 of whom pulled down over $100K, and five of them over $200K, only two still have any of it. One was perhaps the way you would be, a dedicated beach bum with a very low denominator who retired to the third world to keep his living expenses down. My partner is the other, as we used it to flip our huge consumer debt to paying off our house in our mid-40's. That was assuredly a nice thing and has really improved our stress levels, but it has not in any meaningful sense changed our lifestyle. It is not, for example, enough for me to seriously consider retiring early. So I, too, have some idea what I'm talking about here.
As for X himself, who took away at least $800K when the team split up, thanks to a combination of unwise stock market marginal investments, thieving family members, and Katrina vs. his rental properties, he is now penniless. We're pretty sure [redacted] stole the Rolex and gold chain which were among his few actual luxury splurges.
posted by localroger at 5:46 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
fffm it's not meant to be personal; the phrase "lifestyle changing" is used in a certain way by people who watch large lotteries and casino jackpots.
And I was using it in a certain way to describe the fact that my life would be changed by it. As I explained, repeatedly. It's really not my fault that you chose to ignore what I was saying about me; $2K a month would be double my current income.
Seriously. I was making it very very very clear that I was talking about me, and you chose to be condescending and patting my pretty little head about how I couldn't possibly know how a chunk of money would affect my life. You made it personal.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:51 PM on February 19, 2015
And I was using it in a certain way to describe the fact that my life would be changed by it. As I explained, repeatedly. It's really not my fault that you chose to ignore what I was saying about me; $2K a month would be double my current income.
Seriously. I was making it very very very clear that I was talking about me, and you chose to be condescending and patting my pretty little head about how I couldn't possibly know how a chunk of money would affect my life. You made it personal.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:51 PM on February 19, 2015
fffm I didn't mean it that way. I hope you don't think I'm "patting your head" to point out that you are probably an exceptional case -- no, really, there are numbers and statistics to back that up. The thing is I've seen a depressingly large number of people actually get windfalls of that scale and jump up and down and squee about how their lives are going to be different, and it's usually not so much. I can vividly recall a time in my life when I'd have thought exactly the same thing of myself. And I know now I would have been wrong.
posted by localroger at 5:58 PM on February 19, 2015
posted by localroger at 5:58 PM on February 19, 2015
If people are using different definitions of "lifestyle changing", how can you be discussing whether it is or isn't lifestyle changing?
Like
"Do you blorb oranges?"
A: "Yeah, I define blorb as 'eat', so people totally blorb them!"
B: "No, I define blorb as 'interrogate', so nobody blorbs them!"
A: "Don't tell me whether or not I blorb them, B, I know that I do!"
B: "Come on, A, there is statistical evidence that almost nobody blorbs them!"
You're talking about two totally different things, so you're never going to reach an agreement or convince the other party. It's not that you're right and the other person is wrong, or vice versa. You're not even debating the same issue in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 9:32 PM on February 19, 2015
Like
"Do you blorb oranges?"
A: "Yeah, I define blorb as 'eat', so people totally blorb them!"
B: "No, I define blorb as 'interrogate', so nobody blorbs them!"
A: "Don't tell me whether or not I blorb them, B, I know that I do!"
B: "Come on, A, there is statistical evidence that almost nobody blorbs them!"
You're talking about two totally different things, so you're never going to reach an agreement or convince the other party. It's not that you're right and the other person is wrong, or vice versa. You're not even debating the same issue in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 9:32 PM on February 19, 2015
You know, on reread, it probably doesn't help that you're not even using the same word differently, but in fact different words. FFFM, you are discussing "life changing" (as is the actual article). Localroger, you are discussing "lifestyle changing".
Emptythought, as far as I can tell, is the only person who has addressed both in a single comment, saying "Living your current lifestyle or slightly better without working again is life changing." So your life can be changed, without your lifestyle also changing.
posted by Bugbread at 10:16 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Emptythought, as far as I can tell, is the only person who has addressed both in a single comment, saying "Living your current lifestyle or slightly better without working again is life changing." So your life can be changed, without your lifestyle also changing.
posted by Bugbread at 10:16 PM on February 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Money will ruin your life, peon.
I'll risk it. I'm a risk-taker.
Try me. (please)
posted by ShutterBun at 12:32 AM on February 20, 2015
I'll risk it. I'm a risk-taker.
Try me. (please)
posted by ShutterBun at 12:32 AM on February 20, 2015
It's so weird to claim that the only way a life might be changed is becoming independently wealthy.
Someone didn't actually claim that, did they?
posted by ShutterBun at 12:33 AM on February 20, 2015
Someone didn't actually claim that, did they?
posted by ShutterBun at 12:33 AM on February 20, 2015
That's more or less exactly what localroger is saying.
And yeah, Bugbread, I was pretty explicitly saying it would change my life, not my lifestyle; I'd still have to live relatively modestly, but I'd have a fair whack more job freedom.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:00 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
And yeah, Bugbread, I was pretty explicitly saying it would change my life, not my lifestyle; I'd still have to live relatively modestly, but I'd have a fair whack more job freedom.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:00 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Okay, this is the SECOND discussion which has gotten bogged down in how to properly define ONE SINGLE WORD from the post.
The cold weather cannot break fast enough; we all have insane levels of cabin fever, clearly.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:41 AM on February 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
The cold weather cannot break fast enough; we all have insane levels of cabin fever, clearly.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:41 AM on February 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
The phrase lifestyle or life-changing jackpot has an extensive and consistent usage. From the TripAdvisor discussion several pages into that search, note the third reply.
posted by localroger at 5:37 AM on February 20, 2015
posted by localroger at 5:37 AM on February 20, 2015
This feels like an odd argument to stick to so strongly, localroger. (And the second reply in that link uses the phrase contrary to the way you're advocating, no?)
If you're someone who's used to scraping by -- and maybe especially if you're used to scraping by as a freelancer, where heavier work-years might be bankrolling the lighter ones -- then obviously a windfall of 10-years' worth of subsistence-budget is going to be life-changing, just for the extra freedom to pick and choose jobs and for the evaporating stress about budgeting just on the edge of the subsistence-line. Maybe this depends on not having dreams of a fancier lifestyle to begin with?
Even in NYC, the median income is around 50k (significantly less in the Bronx; significantly more in Manhattan). Half the city subsists on less than that and a huge number of people subsist on less than half that. (And those stats combine both incomes in dual-earner households.)
posted by nobody at 6:33 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you're someone who's used to scraping by -- and maybe especially if you're used to scraping by as a freelancer, where heavier work-years might be bankrolling the lighter ones -- then obviously a windfall of 10-years' worth of subsistence-budget is going to be life-changing, just for the extra freedom to pick and choose jobs and for the evaporating stress about budgeting just on the edge of the subsistence-line. Maybe this depends on not having dreams of a fancier lifestyle to begin with?
Even in NYC, the median income is around 50k (significantly less in the Bronx; significantly more in Manhattan). Half the city subsists on less than that and a huge number of people subsist on less than half that. (And those stats combine both incomes in dual-earner households.)
posted by nobody at 6:33 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I mean - we are reasonably well off, and live in a not particularly high cost area. And I would still find a quarter million pretty life-changing. I could pay off our mortgage or my wife's student loans, and that would result in a considerably greater amount of cash each month. Sure, we'd still both need to work, but I'd be a lot more relaxed.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:13 AM on February 20, 2015
posted by Chrysostom at 8:13 AM on February 20, 2015
I am sticking with it because it is a term of art that has an established meaning within the gambling industry, and the OP used it wrong.
Look, it's as if you bragged to an old maritimer that you have a fine ship, and showed him your 25 foot sailboat. He would say, rightly, that that isn't a ship for a variety of reasons. And he would stick with that even if you explain that it's a ship for you because all you use it for is making commercial runs to import some, shall we say, products and not for fishing or show, and that's shipping, right?
You can call your sailboat a ship if you want and explain to your friends how much money it makes for you as opposed to their money-eating holes in the water, but if you go to someone who's spent a few years around actual ships they are going to remain unimpressed.
Similarly, if you walk into any casino in the world and ask a floor person to show you to the life-changing jackpots, they will take you to slot machines that pay a minimum of 7 figures. That is what the phrase commonly means in the exact context of windfall prizes.
posted by localroger at 8:52 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Look, it's as if you bragged to an old maritimer that you have a fine ship, and showed him your 25 foot sailboat. He would say, rightly, that that isn't a ship for a variety of reasons. And he would stick with that even if you explain that it's a ship for you because all you use it for is making commercial runs to import some, shall we say, products and not for fishing or show, and that's shipping, right?
You can call your sailboat a ship if you want and explain to your friends how much money it makes for you as opposed to their money-eating holes in the water, but if you go to someone who's spent a few years around actual ships they are going to remain unimpressed.
Similarly, if you walk into any casino in the world and ask a floor person to show you to the life-changing jackpots, they will take you to slot machines that pay a minimum of 7 figures. That is what the phrase commonly means in the exact context of windfall prizes.
posted by localroger at 8:52 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, obviously none of us know what would change our lives.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:49 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:49 AM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
The OP is writing about a windfall prize. The phrase "life changing" is used in the same way in discussions about lotteries, slot jackpots, and game shows. In fact I am pretty sure the OP picked the phrase up in reading about strategies, because it's a very particular turn of phrase and he was wonking about game show strategies.
You can easily see the distinction, too, if you visit a casino. There are very few slots with payouts between $50K or so and $1M. The former pay out frequently enough that any normal person who plays them on a regular basis has a reasonable expectation of occasionally seeing a jackpot. The latter are generally wide-area progressives hosted by a network of casinos (because casinos do not have the customer base and economies of scale of a lottery) and the players know they will probably never get the prize, but they want to be sure they notice if they do.
There are no machines in the gap because they would have to pay with depressing infrequency yet wouldn't create that life-change buzz when they hit. That gap is the divide between life changing and not.
The OP most probably picked the phrase up precisely because the high concept pitch behind WWTBAM was almost certainly "game show with life changing prize;" at the time it was created it was the only one. And there is a reason they didn't call it "who wants to be a quarter-millionaire."
The OP was written for general publication but it is a very deep navel-gaze by someone who spent a lot of effort on game show strategy. I would expect such a writer to use the industry terms in their usual sense just as I would expect someone writing about casino life to know that orange cheques are generally $1,000.
posted by localroger at 12:25 PM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
You can easily see the distinction, too, if you visit a casino. There are very few slots with payouts between $50K or so and $1M. The former pay out frequently enough that any normal person who plays them on a regular basis has a reasonable expectation of occasionally seeing a jackpot. The latter are generally wide-area progressives hosted by a network of casinos (because casinos do not have the customer base and economies of scale of a lottery) and the players know they will probably never get the prize, but they want to be sure they notice if they do.
There are no machines in the gap because they would have to pay with depressing infrequency yet wouldn't create that life-change buzz when they hit. That gap is the divide between life changing and not.
The OP most probably picked the phrase up precisely because the high concept pitch behind WWTBAM was almost certainly "game show with life changing prize;" at the time it was created it was the only one. And there is a reason they didn't call it "who wants to be a quarter-millionaire."
The OP was written for general publication but it is a very deep navel-gaze by someone who spent a lot of effort on game show strategy. I would expect such a writer to use the industry terms in their usual sense just as I would expect someone writing about casino life to know that orange cheques are generally $1,000.
posted by localroger at 12:25 PM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're really sticking to this and really ignoring those of us telling you that since we're not gambling experts that is not how we're using the term. Could you kindly get over it please?
Man, I could murder a beer right now.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
Man, I could murder a beer right now.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
The beer is an excellent suggestion.
posted by localroger at 12:49 PM on February 20, 2015
posted by localroger at 12:49 PM on February 20, 2015
And on reflection, also worth pointing out that in the article he points out that $225/250K wouldn't change his life forever, but it would for a while.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:53 PM on February 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:53 PM on February 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well also according to the looser definition, the $25,000 he actually took home would be "life-changing" for some number of people.
posted by localroger at 2:47 PM on February 20, 2015
posted by localroger at 2:47 PM on February 20, 2015
Yes, it would wipe out all my debt, which would absolutely change my life. Can you please stop sneering about how we're all doing it wrong? Thank you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:17 PM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:17 PM on February 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mod note: At this point, maybe let this debate rest, guys.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:25 PM on February 20, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:25 PM on February 20, 2015
My question above was about the use of the word "ONLY".
I mean, there are other ways for someone's life to be changed, yeah?
posted by ShutterBun at 10:52 AM on February 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean, there are other ways for someone's life to be changed, yeah?
posted by ShutterBun at 10:52 AM on February 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Elephants. Larger than the moon.
posted by Monkey0nCrack at 4:14 PM on February 21, 2015
posted by Monkey0nCrack at 4:14 PM on February 21, 2015
« Older It's not the 7-10 Split | It's not ping pong, dammit! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hellojed at 10:22 PM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]