This story is quite common. The obvious conclusion is that a large infusion of money can ruin someone. But it occurred to me recently to wonder if there’s a selection effect where people who are bad with money are far more likely to buy lottery tickets. People who are bad with money can waste whatever quantity they are given. Someone like that isn’t going to get a lot happier with an infusion of cash. Or rather they would with a gradual infusion over time coupled with some training and discipline. 3 things which are deliberately avoided in the framing of the lottery.
There's a old reddit post about how to win the lottery well. It's one of the most fascinating things I've read. <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_happiest_5word_sentence_you_could_hear/chb4v05/" rel="nofollow">https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_...</a>
Interesting. I wonder how prevalent this sort of thing is? I mean, even small populations of people will contain a ne'er do well, or a gambler or something. Does the prevalence of lottery winners that screw up match the general population's prevalence of individuals who screw up?<p>Without some indication like the above, it's hard to take the WaPo seriously on this.
About 30 years ago, I read a book about lottery winners and the stories read very similar to Mr. Whitaker's, back when a mere million dollar payout was a big deal.<p>Though it's possible the book had a selection bias - because who would read the stories that ended happily ever after?<p>I'm not sure regular schmoes can avoid problems with large sums of money because we're not used to dealing with wealth or the problems it attracts. Rock stars, pro athletes, and even heirs to family fortunes have similar problems.<p>Given the likelihood of winning, I've already spent too much time thinking about what life modifications might be needed but here goes --<p>1) If you know or can access someone who has tons of money (e.g. Bill Gates), ask them. Though people such as Bill Gates probably have most of their wealth in investments, not cash.<p>2) Get a second address or at least access to a place under someone else's name. Assume your driver's license info will become public knowledge.<p>3) A couple of lawyers on retainer is good, at least one who specializes in defending against frivolous lawsuits. Maybe one who specializes in such lawsuits, just to knock them out of the pool of possible attorneys who would come after you. I heard Michael Avenatti might be available.<p>4) Having a friend or two in the police might help, they can find people willing to pull security details. The key phrases here are POST-certified, sworn officers. I'm not as big on hiring military-grade "operators" but maybe if you find yourself dealing with kidnappers or other hard-core types...<p>5) I prefer lump sum, because governments have a reputation for altering plans. Not to say a government wouldn't just confiscate one's holdings, but it's usually easier to not give something than to take it back.<p>6) If you are a man, seriously consider a vasectomy. That won't stop the paternity suits but you'll sleep a bit easier. Apparently celebs have doppelgangers who bed women on the reputation of others. That may be a harder scam to pull off in the age of smartphones.
In most states, the biggest issue is still the one of anonymity.<p>I wonder if there’s a way around that by selling/auctioning off your winning ticket to somebody who’s already famous and, say, a billionaire at a discount.
Of course, what's true of individuals, is true of societies, too. Getting rich quick (particularly without effort) brings out the worst. Look a Saudi funding for 911 and much other mischief they've funded, for example.<p>But this may be true of Western nations in general as wealth accelerates; and the increasing Gini coefficient in the U.S. may be just one more sad symptom of too much wealth, not too little. The U.S. won the techprogress lottery, and doing so seems only to have amped up political craziness, drug use and inequality.