$1M at 20. Take it and don't look back. I can't really see the other side of this one and I've tried. People see the weekly payment because as if it is a salary, it sounds like security. Since we were children we have been taught that steady income = responsible. But constant income which you cannot increase, cannot speed up, cannot redirect. That sounds like a pretty much dependency on a pretty nice label. You're 20. Your entire economic life is ahead of you. At that age, capital doesn't lie dormant. It's more effective than weekly drips because compounding requires mass and time. So you have both at this moment. To many this can become a "discipline question". Like oh if you can't trust yourself with a million just take the weekly. When did we become so focused on our negative tendencies rather than strengthening ourselves to deal with the real choices in our finances? Liquidity is more than about returns on investment. Opportunities don't show up on a schedule. A business opportunity, a house on the market, an opportunity to move for a better opportunity. These things need capital available NOW not next Tuesday's installment. The only valid argument for weekly is that someone has an actual spending issue that they can't correct. And even then I'd say a combination of therapy + a financial advisor is better than voluntary financial helplessness for the next 50 years. I don't know. Perhaps I'm being too aggressive, but there's clearly one side of the equation. Therefore choosing the other feels like choosing comfort over agency. That trade-off costs you decades of potential at 20.
$1M at 20. Take it and don't look back. I can't really see the other side of this one and I've tried. People see the weekly payment because as if it is a salary, it sounds like security. Since we were children we have been taught that steady income = responsible. But constant income which you cannot increase, cannot speed up, cannot redirect. That sounds like a pretty much dependency on a pretty nice label. You're 20. Your entire economic life is ahead of you. At that age, capital doesn't lie dormant. It's more effective than weekly drips because compounding requires mass and time. So you have both at this moment. To many this can become a "discipline question". Like oh if you can't trust yourself with a million just take the weekly. When did we become so focused on our negative tendencies rather than strengthening ourselves to deal with the real choices in our finances? Liquidity is more than about returns on investment. Opportunities don't show up on a schedule. A business opportunity, a house on the market, an opportunity to move for a better opportunity. These things need capital available NOW not next Tuesday's installment. The only valid argument for weekly is that someone has an actual spending issue that they can't correct. And even then I'd say a combination of therapy + a financial advisor is better than voluntary financial helplessness for the next 50 years. I don't know. Perhaps I'm being too aggressive, but there's clearly one side of the equation. Therefore choosing the other feels like choosing comfort over agency. That trade-off costs you decades of potential at 20.

$1M at 20. Take it and don't look back. I can't really see the other side of this one and I've tried. People see the weekly payment because as if it is a salary, it sounds like security. Since we were children we have been taught that steady income = responsible. But constant income which you cannot increase, cannot speed up, cannot redirect. That sounds like a pretty much dependency on a pretty nice label. You're 20. Your entire economic life is ahead of you. At that age, capital doesn't lie dormant. It's more effective than weekly drips because compounding requires mass and time. So you have both at this moment. To many this can become a "discipline question". Like oh if you can't trust yourself with a million just take the weekly. When did we become so focused on our negative tendencies rather than strengthening ourselves to deal with the real choices in our finances? Liquidity is more than about returns on investment. Opportunities don't show up on a schedule. A business opportunity, a house on the market, an opportunity to move for a better opportunity. These things need capital available NOW not next Tuesday's installment. The only valid argument for weekly is that someone has an actual spending issue that they can't correct. And even then I'd say a combination of therapy + a financial advisor is better than voluntary financial helplessness for the next 50 years. I don't know. Perhaps I'm being too aggressive, but there's clearly one side of the equation. Therefore choosing the other feels like choosing comfort over agency. That trade-off costs you decades of potential at 20.

$1M at 20. Take it and don't look back. I can't really see the other side of this one and I've tried. People see the weekly payment because as if it is a salary, it sounds like security. Since we were children we have been taught that steady income = responsible. But constant income which you cannot increase, cannot speed up, cannot redirect. That sounds like a pretty much dependency on a pretty nice label. You're 20. Your entire economic life is ahead of you. At that age, capital doesn't lie dormant. It's more effective than weekly drips because compounding requires mass and time. So you have both at this moment. To many this can become a "discipline question". Like oh if you can't trust yourself with a million just take the weekly. When did we become so focused on our negative tendencies rather than strengthening ourselves to deal with the real choices in our finances? Liquidity is more than about returns on investment. Opportunities don't show up on a schedule. A business opportunity, a house on the market, an opportunity to move for a better opportunity. These things need capital available NOW not next Tuesday's installment. The only valid argument for weekly is that someone has an actual spending issue that they can't correct. And even then I'd say a combination of therapy + a financial advisor is better than voluntary financial helplessness for the next 50 years. I don't know. Perhaps I'm being too aggressive, but there's clearly one side of the equation. Therefore choosing the other feels like choosing comfort over agency. That trade-off costs you decades of potential at 20.