A speaker argues earning $10 million a year is easier than $100k, using a transportation analogy: walking covers less ground than driving, so choosing a faster vehicle gets you further in the same time. His counterpart pushes back, pointing out that faster vehicles cost money and effort to operate, making the comparison unrealistic.
It's easier to make $10 million a year than $100,000 a year, and I can prove it in under 60 seconds.
If that was the case, I'd have $10 million in cash right now in my bank account. But let's see what you got to say.
So let's say you're walking, and if you want to walk for 12 minutes, you're going to get 0.5 miles covered. Not a lot. Now let's say in that same 12 minutes you decide to bike. If you bike the average pace, you'll get somewhere closer to 3 miles in that same time period. If you chose to hop in a car and go 60 miles an hour, you'd get somewhere closer to 12 miles in that same 12 minutes. But if you got into a rocket, you would go all the way to outer space in 12 minutes. It's easier to get to $10 million because you pick a different vehicle, but all of these take the same amount of time.
Hang on a second, bro. You got something wrong here. I see where you're coming from in terms of it being easier, but that's once you get into the vehicle. It's not just as simple as choosing the vehicle. I mean, you can choose to walk because it's free. It costs something to build a bike, to build a car, to build and create and produce a rocket. So it's not just about choosing the vehicle. Choosing the vehicle is one thing, not factoring in what it actually takes to build that vehicle.
