A rare talent for making money

You read lots of interviews with artists about their creative process. But you seldom read interviews with entertainment lawyers about theirs. Are they less creative than the artists they represent? What is it about making a contract that distinguishes it from making a song? Why are lawyers so much less popular than artists, if indeed we think they're in some ways just as creative?

That simple statement in itself contains something disturbing. We feel uneasy when people can become so attached so something, only to push so far away again. There are two different ways of looking at matter, difficult to reconcile: matter as 'the props of our life, to which we are emotionally attached' and matter as 'commodity'. There are people for whom the beloved familiar props of our life are just so many commodities. This makes us anxious. We suppress the knowledge. It surfaces now and again: when our bank asks us to list our 'assets', or, when, selling our house, we see it reduced to a bare shell, and see it through the realtor's eyes: a saleable object rather than the locus of emotions and experiences.

And those 'realtor's eyes', can they be borrowed? Can we be chivvied into using them? What does the world look like when we start seeing more and more of the stuff that surrounds us through them?

Of course money can be exciting too. You are drawn to it, perhaps without realising it. As a performer, you obviously like the idea that there are places rich enough to sustain something as luxurious as art. As a recording artist or writer, you obviously deal with entrepreneurs (hi McGee!) who regard your 'vocation' as a commodity. And you find some complicity, some symbiosis with them. But doesn't it get harder the richer they get?

By the way, is this going to be the only thread where nobody says OTM?

Producers: love things, so they make them.
Consumers: love things, so they buy them.
Dealers: hate things, so they trade them.

1.  I idolized Alex P. Keaton ("Family Ties") as a youngster, and I still sympathize a bit with the Gordon Gekko character from Wall Street.
2.  I am an unabashed believer in capitalism.
3.  A reminder:  I adored and wanted to emulate the yuppies I'd see in the more prosperous neighborhoods when I was a little girl.
4.  Another reminder:  Remember the degree in economics?

None of the members of my family are rich, really, and my parents were raised in near poverty, sure. But I'm working hard and saving/investing money and hope to someday become one of those yuppie types I adored from afar.

what is "poor"?

and what the fuck is a "talent for living"?

I know lots of people who have great talents for making money. One of the main reason they are good at making money is because they tend to avoid behavior that will cause them to lose money.

Many people think being a millionaire (in the US) means you have "a lot" of money. A good book on this subject is called "The Millionaire Next Door."

I was at the Art Institute in Chicago this Friday looking at the beautiful detailing of the medieval armor and wondering how long it took to make one such custom suit, then thinking of current ugly mass-stamped helmets and wondering just how soldiers got so cheap.

'Poor' is... well, it's not owning anything, and deciding to walk in the cold because you can't afford the bus fare, and always being late with the rent.

'A talent for living' is loving stuff for its own sake, not for its 'commercial potential'. Compare 'use value' with 'exchange value'. 'Talent for living' (l'art de vivre) is all about the former, and about pleasure. It's about living for now rather than deferring gratification.

Defining rich is a slippery slope unless you think you are not.

Accumulation is essential as it is an indication of planning for unseen, money-draining events.

I think you can have a talent for living and a talent for money. I think they often go hand in hand.

Dealers: hate things, so they trade them.
Maybe some dealers trade things because they love them? we generally become fonder of some objects than others, so to make space (and yes, make money, too) we might look for new owners who will cherish those less-loved objects more than we could.

I love watching Antiques Roadshow to see the beautiful handcrafted furniture, jewellery, household effects, etc. They'd be so expensive to produce now (and that limits the market of course) which is doubly saddening because not only do I wish I could make these things, but that they could be produced in quantities for everyone to enjoy.

The capitalist: 'I will experience joy later, when I have stored up enough wealth.'
The protestant: 'I will experience joy later, when I have died and gone to heaven.'

I'd rather have time. Being born with money would buy you plenty of it, eh? I'd feel guilty though, looking at the way my parents wasted their lives.

If it weren't for the fact that one moderately severe illness, one visit to the emergency room, could financially bury an uninsured American for life, I could stop working the health-insurance job and live on freelance writing. I pitch so much of my time into a black hole so other people can bore themselves... suddenly my stomach hurts, but at least it's almost time for me to go home!

Luxury is what you make it.

Time and beauty.

Hm, somebody's already come up with the term "status symbol," Sterzy -- it's time for you to toddle to bed.

I was reading recently tbe fascinating story of the Barclay Brothers, two identical twins who own the Scotsman newspaper and the Ritz and have built a gigantic castle on the channel island of Brecqhou, a dependecy of the feudal isle of Sark. They've built a granite wall around the castle 100 feet thick. But this isolation -- and the fact that they pay no tax -- is not enough, and now they're taking legal action against Sark, trying to have their island declared an independent state. The brothers never allow themselves to be photographed. They hide their faces. They seem resigned to the idea that people will hate and try to harm them. They fly in and out of Brecqhou on a helicopter. The people of Sark despise them.

It seems odd; these are surely people for whom the whole system of accumulation and private property was designed. Yet it seems that they hate the kind of world that has allowed them to become so wealthy, and have got as far away from it as they can. They seem to prefer a pseudo-feudal lifestyle.

It's important not to define 'talent for living' too narrowly especially in context of 'talent for making money': many well-off successful people think that pursuing, say, outdoor non-team non-trendy sports or travelling to somewhere ancient and dirty or taking up basketweaving (I don't know) makes them spiritually better than well-off successful people who get spendy with it at the bar & grill. For instance, trustafarians annoy me just as much as the Hilton sisters.

As for myself, I love to be around money. Getting in tow with stinking-rich new "friends" that just throw pleasure at your feet for free. Love it love it love it, love the freedom and avenues for fun it offers me. If you tell me you can "get by in Europe for seven dollars a day, honest" - good for you, I honestly don't care. When I feel I'm going overboard, I imagine how badly my very hardworking immigrant parents from a long long line of hardworkers would feel if they knew they'd spawned a genetic abberation that did nothing now but seek pleasure and objects, and then I slow down and recoup my funds. It's all about control and appreciation for what you've got. But by all means, get rich quick.

When you live your whole life with the single determination to earn a lot of wealth, have a talent for entrepreneurial risk taking, and a bit of innovation and brains behind it all, you shouldn't be surprised if you "succeed" materially - but only if you are overwhelmingly driven for it, and revel in "hard work" which never ends. Responsibilities multiple, things only get more complicated

There are a lot of examples but just off the top of my head

One of my filthy rich cousin's husbands started working in the US as an engineer in the telephone pole company, and evenually wound up selling a large corporation in the same business for untold millions about twenty years later. Tycoon that he is, we don't know the details...but he's always been the "cown" character at reunions, and has the best sense of humor in my extended family hands down! A wonderful man

I also know a man who came to this country 15 years ago with absolutely nothing. Today he owns a restaurant, a liquor store, 5-7 Subways, and lives in Huntington Beach... even though he/his wife and two girls spend at least a few months each year going back to the motherland.

And he is absolutely one of the nicest men I've ever been blessed to know - whenever I needed anything, a bit of help or his time, he has never refused it.

Part of it may be that when you have (or appear to have) money, people start trying to get things from you -- taxes, requests from charities, begging letters. In my case I don't think that I look rich, but every panhandler in DC zeros in on me, and I really resent that.

And Suzy, oddly enough I've never been particularly convinced by the kind of socialism that sees big corporations as charitable employment organisations with a duty to keep people 'working down the mines' or whatever. The solution is not to bind the hands of corporations by stopping them changing their structures when the market changes, but to make the fate of human beings less dependent on capitalism, so that when companies go under there are other options for them, state safety nets.

I'm talking about huge companies which turn a respectable profit, mostly due to the work of the worker bees, shedding staff to have a larger profit margin and leaving who's left over to do the equivalent work of three people. If your company is making a loss, sure, some people have to go - but if it's in comfortable profit I don't see why it's okay to throw people's lives into chaos for the sake of a few more dollars. It's also more 'sustainable' to make sure everyone's taken care of to a reasonable standard, and more egalitarian to aspire to turning away from a world where there is privilege for the few to one where there is room for the many to take roles and make a living.

From the moment I was about eight years old, my mother sat me down and told me about monthly budgets, balancing the checkbook, and saving for retirement. I was balancing her checkbook by the time I was 11, and by the time I was 15 I was helping out with the planning of the monthly budget and clipping coupons for her. I learned a lot from those early lessons and activities and it takes a great deal out of me just to get a single article of clothing that costs about $30, for instance, and I get thrilled when I can find something on sale, e.g. the $30 pair of name-brand trainers I was able to score last week.

I don't totally go for the whole "starving artist" lifestyle, either. In my family, it's seen as foolishness to live a life that doesn't include a steady income. We have very few people in our family who are full-time into creative ventures for making money. I suppose that's because we're a very traditional bunch.

I will always be frugal, btw. I suspect that even if I become a multimillionaire, I will pass on the big mansions and just get myself a nice home (no more than about 2,500 square feet in size), a quality used vehicle, and continue to have issues with spending even $30 for a single article of clothing. But you can be sure I'll have money in the bank, I *will* see the world (travel being the only luxury item I can totally abide with), and I *will* retire early.

Especially when the life of non-deferred gratification comes on the back of the labour of the "inauthentic" "deferred" types. But I am not going to get started on that tack, because it makes me start sounding like a suburban Tory housewife.

Momus, what on earth is "inherently likeable" about your second group of capitalists? Those types of money-making entrepreneurs are also the most likely to fuck over their employees, ie most of us in the world, because they run their fortune, ie business, into the ground with their "big adventures". The owner of my company is quite a Richard Branson figure, only a bit drunker. We call him a "twat," not "inherently likeable." I mean it is all well and good to take your risks and have your fun but the idea that you find this kind of charming seems to run counter to the rest of your so-called socialist leanings: they're the least socialist of your capitalists, yet they seem the ones you like the best.

Of course, I am also well more one of those second groupers, a great talent for making money coupled with a greater talent for losing it in the name of my own interest. The Privledged Poor, as suzy put it so aptly.

Equally, if your primary aim is to deliver a profit to shareholders, Big Adventures are pretty risky (Leeds United to thread!)

The original post asks if something has to be given up. I agree with suzy that something in life is always being deferred at any moment. The question will always be what you chose to sacrifice - when defining oneself, this question is just as important as the one of your goals (ie, what you're *not* giving up).

Step 1: Making peace with the past.
Find out how much money you've earned in your lifetime, from the first penny to your last paycheck; then create a personal balance sheet of assets and liabilities.

Step 2: Tracking your life energy.(hippy alert?)
Establish the costs in time and money required to maintain your job, and compute your real hourly wage. (this last idea I like alot) Keep track of every cent that comes into or goes out of your
life. (I enter my bills in an "ecxel" spreadsheet every day. it ain't much trouble)

Step 3: Monthly tabulation.
Establish spending categories that reflect the uniqueness of your life. Convert the "dollars" spent in each category into "hours of life energy," using your real hourly wage.

Step 4: Three questions that will transform your life.
Of the money spent in each category, ask yourself: Did I receive fulfillment, satisfaction and value in proportion to life
energy spent? Is this expenditure of life energy in alignment with
my values and life purpose? How might these expenditures change if I didn't have to work for a living?

Step 5: Making life energy visible.
Make and keep up to date a chart of your total monthly income and total monthly expenses.

Step 6: Minimizing spending.
Lower your total monthly expenses by valuing your life energy and increasing your consciousness in spending. Learn to choose quality of life over standard of living.

Step 7: Maximizing income.
Increase your income by valuing the life energy you invest in your job, exchanging it for the highest pay consistent with
your health and integrity. Don't sell yourself short.

Step 8: Capital and the crossover point.
When your monthly investment income rises above expenses you'll be financially independent, with a safe, steady income for life from a source other than a job.

Step 9: Managing your finances.
Become knowledgeable about long-term income-producing investments and managing your finances for a safe, steady and sufficient income for the rest of your life.

nb: Right now I'm just reflecting on all of this, I'm not using 100% of this material.

But the rule is you have make MORE. MORE than last quarter, more than last year, more than your competition. Of course you're right - it *shouldn't* be like this, but that's the way it is in (big)business. Top execs would do *anything* to make next quarter's numbers - staff are as important as paperclips in the majority of large corporations. If you have to ship a few departments out to satisfy Wall St., then you don't even stop to think. This fuck the employees, fuck the customer attitide WILL change over decades, I think and there will be new models of employment, new relationships between 'employer' and 'employee' and 'organization' and 'customer'. But as long as VAST executive compensation is unrelated to 'performance' over the long-term, then nothing will change. And 'performance' should mean more than just financial results. In the past I have worked at a senior level in a multinational and I tell you some of these guys are BRUTES - you wouldn't believe what goes on. Corruption is inadequate to describe it. I got the hell out of that level of things as soon as I could manouevre a way off to one side. I will never, ever work with these bastards again.

They did make some smart choices... my Dad sold trucks for Kenworth in the early 80's and made a pretty fat salary doing it (believe it or not, he made around $200,000 a year)... enough to pay off their mortgage in only a few years. This debt off their shoulders allowed them to save a lot more money and my dad eventually gave up selling trucks and started his own business.

My parents always encouraged me to make smart financial decisions--working fulltime through college, going to a cheap-ass university and living in their house to save money. Oddly enough, I didn't save a goddamn dime. I earned about $40,000 during college from my job. Where the hell is that money now? In retrospect I feel foolish.

But money has always seemed intrinsically useless to me unless it's spent on something. I need to see it manifest itself in some experience or material object; clothes, food, traveling, whatever--for it to become real to me.

Anyhow, I can relate to the type of childhood experiences Dee had, but these made no impression on me. I find investments, stock options, retirement funds, etc., hopelessly boring. I remember I dated a guy when I was 19 whose only goal in life was to make his first million by age 26. He and my father would talk about Roth IRAs and mutual funds... and I just thought it was such a pathetic goal of this guy. It seemed to be all he thought about. HE SEEMED TO HATE FUN.

Okay, my yarn is over.

I've been off this thread having fun, but reading through it all has been interesting. Somehow money is an excellent way into autobiography, because it puts realism and fantasy into an interesting dynamic. Money keeps stepping in to call the writer's dreams back into line with 'reality'.

A few scribbled thoughts:

Ricardo asked Er, Momus, do you, or do you not have a steady income?

It depends what you mean by steady. I live on royalties for my recording work, which come in at six-monthly intervals. That's not really enough, although the odd synchronisation fee for commericals or films helps. I eke it out with concerts -- one a month is enough to pay rent, and concerts are also what pay for all my travel -- and with journalism. I have no assistance from my family, no property, pension, savings, investments, assets of any kind. I also have no vices -- I don't smoke or drive a car. So all my intellectual property income goes on food and rent. I live in Berlin because it's a good combination of cheap and interesting. This life works for now, but I do realise that it's a rather delicate little ecosystem which could change if I fell ill or something. I just hope I will always be smart enough to find some way to finance a life as agreeable as the one I have now.

I remember once my friend Alison (Suzy knows her) said something striking. She met a rich businessman who asked her how much she earned. She named some pathetic figure, £10,000 or something, and asked how much he earned. He said £100,000. 'But you have to go out and work for that every day, don't you?' 'Oh yes.' 'How much would you be willing to pay to have all your time to yourself, like I have?' He thought a while, then said 'That would be worth £90,000 to me.'

Exactly, Rob. This is what I felt/feel. Yet because I know that I can do exactly what they do 'functionally' as well as they can, I feel very resentful at times that simply because I'm not prepared to a) sell my soul to the company and b) become a ruthless bastard, I have to settle for a fraction of their salaries. At the level above me they begin to throw *serious* money at you - think 6 figures with the first figure at least a 3! The deal is that you do exactly what they want 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Whilst I'm grateful that I have time to do things I enjoy doing, I can't help thinking from time to time that just one year on that wedge would be useful! Thing is - I'd be found out within a week or so and fired.

On the other hand, I live close to the City and see total wankers waving it around in a way that suggests their sex lives are, ahem, paid for - because nobody nice/interesting would agree to their companionship any other way (if you want a provocative enough display of 'money talks', check the clientele of the stripper pub across the road stepping out in identical, impeccable cashmere coats). My lawyer friend says she'd go out with a slacker dude in a second if the lack of motivation in most of them didn't piss her off so badly, but she says there's no way she'd date any of the beagley fratboys in her office or similar because they are as devoid of personality as extras in American Psycho.

Whatever success you want, you've got to be prepared to work hard for it and treat others well (especially if they're serving you). Most of the people I know who have material success as artist(e)s probably spend at least 60 hours a week working on their stuff - much more than office workers - and have to do a lot of juggling (I'm thinking of my friend who's commissioned to do a show in Genoa, a piece for Leeds, another show in Holland somewhere plus catalogues for all of it and the occasional piece for a collector, plus she teaches at Chelsea art college). Even when she didn't have all this stuff to do, she still spent the same time writing and making work. Her mantra is 'you make your own luck'.

Fantastic description!

I'm not sure that postroom-to-boardroon types exist anymore. At my place it's an ever-rotating pool of 35 year old former McKinsey consultants laden with MBAs from the 'right' New England business schools. (I work for an American company btw). They generally stay a couple of years, f@ck everything up and then either get promoted or leave for the next gravy train. It's called bringing a fresh perspective. If you've been in the same company for more than about 10 minutes they assume that you're no good for anything except licking out the executive cesspit.