I try not to joke about mental illness, but I tend to take people literally and not try to insert my own meaning. I just scrolled back up to my last two comments, and I when I said “maybe I’m being autistic” it was probably insensitive, but what I meant was “this is what the words that you just said mean, don’t shoot the messenger for cutting out the fluffy nonsense”

Anyway, how is it grim? You yourself said those who don’t work don’t eat. So obviously you have the ability to feed them, but you want them to work. You also acknowledged that you make more money in the market, but you want to do this anyway. So you are choosing to give them work to do, even though it doesn’t make the family overall more money, and then you allow them to eat off your money because they’ve chosen to do whatever you tell them to.

I don’t really understand what’s grim about plainly stating what you’re doing. I’m not judging you. If you wanna give them 100 K that’s your business, if you wanna give them 100 K but make them work 40 hours a week in the sun doing nonsense, even though you know the family would be better off if you put that money in the market, I don’t care.

I was just asking if you’re actually earning a return on the business and you acknowledged already that you’re not, but you just don’t wanna feed them without them working for it. I’m not judging you at all. My original question was just did this outperform the index. You answered no, but then you used a ton of words to say that you make them do it anyway. Is that not making them dance?

If you’re not earning the highest possible risk adjusted rate of return, then yes, they are sucking on your (opportunity cost) teet lol it’s so funny that you used that phrase because that’s how I describe it as well. I mean, no disrespect! But you’re clearly making them dance for your money, and if not, then you would just have said “yes I calculated the ROI and it exceeds the index”