This shows the author, his father and grandfather had the wrong end of the stick. His grandfather, wanting security, had traded his time and independance for security, and got neither. His father, wanting to ensure he had both security and longevity, got neither. The author, apparently seeing this as a failed experiment, walked away from it.<p>What he failed to realise that neither his father or grandfather ever got control over their situation. The continually worked for money by trading their precious time for security. It's that which made them unhappy, not the actual money.<p>The author, to me, is making the fundamental mistake of thinking that you have to work 40 hours a week for 40 years to have 'money', so the choice is between working like a dog or having nothing, not realising that their is another way. Can money set you free? Of course it can, but not if you're trading your free time for your money.<p>For most people, it is a choice between security of income and freedom to spend your time as you want. The most secure people on the planet are prisoners, but they don't have the freedom to do what they want. If you're prepared to accept a less-secure income (by being risky, ie, startups) then you're going to gain the benefits of freedom when/if it does work out.<p>Bottom line : if this guy's Dad had cashed out at a younger age and spent the last 20 years of his life doing things on his own terms, he wouldn't have died an unhappy man in a short retirement.