Talk:Warren Buffett

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2025

Change "whom he later fired" to "who later resigned"

References

207.96.54.137 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Partly done. In the interview cited in the same paragraph, Buffett stated that he had "fired" him. "Resigned" could be for voluntary reasons. I rewrote it to clarify why he resigned. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2025

Change 100 percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation to 5 percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation Vedatvecoskun (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2026

Please delete the majoirty of the'equivalent to X in 2024s', it makes the page almost unreadable.

One 'equivalent' per section is ample - the constant repetition of that phrase is very jarring and adds nothing of value. Buffets 50000usd salary in the 1950s is clearly a large amount. it doesn't need to be translated in current prices ~2026-29144-8 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) who added many of the inflation-adjusted templates to the article recently. I agree with the temporary account that there are way too many now. Day Creature (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I felt that they helped to show context from the older time periods to today, so maybe leave those where there is at least a 10 year gap in time. Inflation really has changed the purchasing power quite a bit on those (and older!) pieces. I think we could remove those that are less time than that, until it become 10 years past for any given date. Is that acceptable? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

They do convey some useful information but they make the article much less readable. Maybe the solution is to place them within footnotes? Day Creature (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I entirely disagree about removing Buffets salary though from the 1950s as 50,000 into present dollar terms, that is a massive difference in purchasing power is it reads now, " He lived solely on his salary of $50,000 per year (equivalent to $428,721 in 2024" This is almost a 10X difference!!! This information is valuable and informative to a reader to understand the amount in present-day terms of purchasing power. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sort of on the fence on this. I agree that readability is an issue.

To the extent we keep them, we need to round them (e.g. "equivalent to $2,495,609,112 in 2024" should just be $2.5 billion). See the very last bullet point at MOS:MONEY

I disagree with @~2026-29144-8 that it is clear that $50,000 USD is a large amount to all readers. I'm less convinced the others are particularly helpful. What am I supposed to take away from learning that the Swiss Re investment was $3.6 billion in today's dollars, not $2.6 billion? (That's well over @Iljhgtn's 10 year suggested threshold).

I'm guessing that converting all to footnotes would also be a readability problem. I'd probably delete all but a few. meamemg (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the best choice (of course I'd think my idea is the best choice!) is to cut down on adjacency in the conversions, and toss out smaller amounts. For example, in the second paragraph of 'Early life and education', in three consecutive sentences covering 1944, 1945, and 1947, there are three conversions. I think dropping the first two (which are for trivial amounts even when inflation-adjusted) and keeping the one for the cost of the car, would be appropriate. Same for the next paragraph.

Maybe a ten year, $1,000 (original) minimum value would also be appropriate as a 'guideline'

In all cases it's a judgement call; avoid similar and adjacent conversions, toss trivial and recent conversions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable solution to me; any objections from anyone? Day Creature (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

My inclination is that 10 years is far too short, but I don't want to stand in the way of letting that become a first pass. meamemg (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

We could make it 20 years as a baseline then per @Meamemg? I was just throwing something out there. I also like the idea of rounding the figures for readability. I just used the template. I imagine it should be able to round the figures, no? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 16:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that 10 years even has shown a lot of inflation even in that time so the purchasing power and the final figure adjusted from the initial is still quite different in these cases, but we could go out a bit further if you want. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 16:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yup re rounding, there's a whole bunch of variables that can be set to fine-tune the output. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)