I grew up watching Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, and I have always found him to be a super impressive guy. Bodybuilding, movies, and politics -- he always seems to have the discipline and the confidence to accomplish his goals. But what some of you may not be aware of is that he actually had an illustrious real estate career before he became a movie star, and that this side hustle made him a millionaire before he ever starred in Conan.
Here's an excerpt from a recent interview that he did with Tim Ferriss:
I did not rely on my movie career to make a living. That was my intention because I saw over the years the people that worked out in the gym and that I met in the acting classes, they were all very vulnerable because they didn’t have any money and they had to take anything that was offered to them because that was their living. I didn’t want to get into that situation. I felt like if I am smart with real estate and take my little money that I make in bodybuilding and in seminars and selling my courses through the mail orders, I could save up enough money to put down money for an apartment building.
I realized in the 70’s that the inflation rate was very high and therefore an investment like that is unbeatable. Buildings that I would buy for $500K within the year were $800K and I put only maybe $100K down, so you made 300% on your money. You couldn’t beat that. I quickly developed and traded up my buildings and bought more apartment buildings and office buildings on Main Street down in Santa Monica and so on. The investments were very good and it was just one of those magic decades.
Today you couldn’t do it in that same field. There’s another field in real estate where you can do it, but in this particular field I don’t think you will see those kind of jumps ever again. I benefited from that and I became a millionaire from my real estate investments. That was before my career took off in show business and acting, which was after Conan the Barbarian. In 1982 that movie came out. We shot it in 1981 and in ’82 it came out. From that point on my career took off because people saw that the movie was successful at the box office and then I signed a contract to do Conan number 2 and then that led to a contract for Terminator 1 and then Commando.
To listen to the interview, click here. Or for the full transcript, click here. It's great.
In the world of finance, carried interest is the share of the profits in an investment that a manager (of said investment) earns in excess of what they may have contributed to the partnership. For example, let's say that a manager is putting in 10% of the cash that is required for a particular project. If the project goes really well, the manager, through carried interest, could earn more than their 10% share of the profits. Put another way, it is a performance fee that is intended to incentivize and reward the manager.
Today I learned (credit to Lucas Manuel) that the origins of carried interest go all the way back to the Middle Ages. The concept and term supposedly came about because the captains of European ships would take a share of the profit from the "carried goods" that they were transporting. This was to compensate them for the work and for the risk of sailing all over the place. Keep in mind that, just like today, any number of things could have gone wrong. Maybe you don't make it or maybe pirates steal all of your goodies.
There is also a compelling argument (made here) that this simple concept has been instrumental, since the Medieval Period, in improving the fortunes of many, but most notably those that weren't born into riches and that were starting out with limited means. Carried interest allowed Medieval merchants to (1) initiate sailing ventures for which they didn't have the requisite money and (2) earn a disproportionate amount of the profits so that they could more quickly improve their socioeconomic position.
Do good work, take on some risk, and then hopefully make a few bucks. That's still how things work today. Supposedly David Rubenstein, cofounder of The Carlyle Group, also talks about the origins of carried interest in his recent appearance on the Tim Ferriss Show. I say supposedly because podcasts generally take too long for me and I haven't listened to it.
I took a class during my undergraduate degree about the material culture of the Victorian era. I took it mostly for fun and because I found the lessons relevant to architecture. But it also allowed me to write papers about things like gin (though I remember not doing very well on that one).
My big takeaway from that class, which continues to stick with me to this day, is about how difficult it was for the Victorians to process and ultimately accept new technologies and ideas. There seemed to be immense skepticism and concern for everything that was novel.
Take, for example, the first ever escalator. An invention of the Victorian era, there were very serious concerns at the time about what such rapid changes in elevation would do to the human body. That's why they initially gave people booze at the top of the ride. A little something to calm the nerves after such a traumatic experience.
This, of course, seems silly today. But I always come back to it when I see us trying to process new technologies. Will posterity eventually think that we too were being silly for worrying? Will they think it's cute that we thought social media was turning us all into narcissistic and envious creatures? Probably.
Still, there's no denying that material culture impacts us all. I was reminded of this while reading this WIRED article by Craig Mod called, "The Glorious, Almost-Disconnected Boredom of My Walk in Japan." (Tim Ferriss shared it in his most recent newsletter.)
Craig does ultra-marathon walks. And the article is about one that he did in Japan. While this may seem like a recipe for a whole lot of nothing, there are things to be learned here. In it, he talks about how he rationed his use of technology on these walks and how "boredom" became something of value.
In the context of a walk like this, “boredom” is a goal, the antipode of mindless connectivity, constant stimulation, anger and dissatisfaction. I put “boredom” in quotes because the boredom I’m talking about fosters a heightened sense of presence. To be “bored” is to be free of distraction.
Perhaps the biggest drawback of our phones is that they allow us to fill every second of boredom with stuff. Have 3 three seconds to spare? Pull out the phone. On the one hand it's nice to never be bored. But on the other hand, it's harder to be contemplative. It's harder to go deep into things. And it's harder to find that right kind of "bored."
Or maybe we're just being fuddy-duddies who will one day be made fun of by future generations when somebody decides to teach a university course about early 21st century material culture.