Chelsea recently tried to justify her jumping from job to job instead of choosing a career and sticking with it. It turns out, she says, that she just doesn’t much care about making money.

“I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents,” Chelsea told the UK Telegraph on June 22.
“I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

So, instead of working in fields where she could make a lot of money, Chelsea has claimed she has decided to make a career out of working
for her parents’ charitable organization the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton progeny said that she just couldn’t get into all those other careers she dipped her privileged toes into.
She couldn’t find enough interest in her hedge fund work, didn’t care about her consulting job, is noncommittal about her “journalism” career, and just isn’t interested in working in academia.

Chelsea was fortunate to find so many jobs to try out at her young age, certainly. But as the New York Daily News said in the understatement of the year, “The Clinton name likely opened doors for the political heiress.”

It is worth noting that, despite not putting in the years to earn it, Chelsea seemed to have landed in a top position in nearly every “career” she dabbled in before migrating to the Foundation.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/23/hillary-chelsea-so-selfless-she-doesn-t-care-about-money/

Cassiopeia

(2,603 posts)

8. It's easy to not care about making money

Reply to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 02:19 PM

Feb 2016

when you already have more than you can spend in many lifetimes.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)

4. Astounding.

Reply to Mufaddal (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 01:39 PM

Feb 2016

Kip Humphrey

(4,753 posts)

5. You know, the really sad part is Chelsea can expect to not do better than her parents.

Reply to Mufaddal (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 01:44 PM

Feb 2016

Its the world we live in.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)

7. This needs to be seen

Reply to Mufaddal (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 02:16 PM

Feb 2016

'the have and the have more'' and then there's the Rothchilds

Some say the family, which is large, has wealth of 80 trillion dollars.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)

9. Well, the really good part of that is

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 03:35 PM

Feb 2016

a lot is "paper wealth"

Sort of like I am worth $150,000 cause of the appraised value of my house, which would sit on the market for years down here, no body is buying.
Add in the supposed value of over priced stocks, a lot of "wealthy" people are not that rich.

The New York City housing market was in another huge boom the last 10 years as the rich from other countries bid up prices in buying
apts. and condos which they then never moved into..it was for speculation.
I was SO happy to read of late that the NYC real estate bubble is collapsing now, leaving all those "wealthy" investors holding the bag.

Hiraeth

(4,805 posts)

10. shallow me. I will critique her ensemble.

Reply to Mufaddal (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 04:15 PM

Feb 2016

bold pattern and strong wine colors .... ugh.

peep toe shoes ... wrong.

clutch that will not hold iPhone ... what is up with that. clutter.

she does NOT look pulled together.

senz

(11,945 posts)

11. You know, you're right.

Reply to Hiraeth (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 04:35 PM

Feb 2016

Bad ensemble for her. The open-toed shoes are especially wrong with the thick, satiny fabric, not refined and elegant enough. The colors aren't good for her either.

However, in the photo below it, she looks great in a little black sheath and city-elegant open-toed shoes. Boy, she does look rich though, doesn't she?

I've been jittery all morning what with Iowa caucuses, so it's kinda fun to analyze the princess's outfits. I personally haven't even thought about fashion since retirement.