> They were content with their home and
> lifestyle, so why make major changes.

I've read it. But it still doesn't answer the question: If you're going to live like a pauper, why bother chasing wealth in the first place?

Most of the people profiled in the book have something fundamentally flawed about them. First, a million bucks isn't what a million bucks was in the 50's. The book really should have focused on those who are worth 100+ million.

Secondly, many of the those profiled were tradesmen, who built up their business. They continue working (I speculate) not because they love it, but because they lack the creative thinking to figure out what else to do. My parents fit into this category. It's amazing when you meet people who have the financial ability to do whatever they want, but still continue working. It's not (for most) because they love working. It's because they are work-a-holics and the thought of NOT WORKING creates internal conflict about having to decide on what to do next. "I'll work till I die, even though I don't need to. That way, I won't have to make any decisions."

But I digress.

The main question I wanted to raise still hasn't been adequately answered: If you're going to live like a peasant once you're financially wealthy, then why struggle to become financially wealthy in the first place?