Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

shift.newco.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 374 posts

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#251

Post by st3v3r »

oldmanjay wrote: post #216
st3v3r wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're an asshole about it, and because they're ignoring the pure luck advantages they had which made their success possible. And it doesn't matter if they've offset the losses of their previous tries, they still took multiple tries (in and of itself not a problem), which is something most people don't get.

Let me ask a question - what does your attitude benefit you? It seems mostly to make you bitter about things that were never in your control, which seems like an unvarnished negative. Maybe you've found something more helpful.

I'm not bitter, I just think that guy is an asshole.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#252

Post by hueving »

st3v3r wrote: post #190
hueving wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I absolutely would take away from their success Why? Because they are an asshole about it? That doesn't reduce their success in any way. If they have offset the losses of their previous endeavors, they have provided a net gain and it's still a success.

Because they're an asshole about it, and because they're ignoring the pure luck advantages they had which made their success possible. And it doesn't matter if they've offset the losses of their previous tries, they still took multiple tries (in and of itself not a problem), which is something most people don't get.

With that attitude, nobody could ever take any credit for success because there is someone else that had it harder.

"Warren Buffet didn't do anything impressive because he grew up with his parents."

What a petty way to live.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#253

Post by hueving »

ap22213 wrote: post #192
ap22213 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loudoun county, which is ranked as the highest income county in the US.

LOL - of course many of you just seem to want to rebuke me. Makes sense, given today's culture. But, you're just adding to the problem. Most current problems in our society stem from people getting more satisfaction out of pushing web buttons than doing real things out in the real world. Oh, well, sucks to be many of you but I guess really good to be me. It's just really sad. Especially sad given how poor I grew up.

It's sad that you have been sucked into a life of such competitive materialism that you can't find satisfaction with a net worth less than 25m. If you grew up poor and have 20m now and are still not satisfied, there is likely no number that will ever satisfy you.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#254

Post by st3v3r »

Teever wrote: post #222
quanticle wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what OP is trying to point out. It's easy to be "self-made" when you can get a million dollar loan from your dad to get your real-estate business off the ground. It's easy to be self-made when your dad works at Seattle's most prestigious law firm and can arrange an introduction with IBM's PC hardware division. It's significantly more difficult to be self-made when you have no connections and no capital…

I don't understand. none of those examples are 'self-made'

But they're still usually counted as such. Both Donald Trump and Bill Gates are regularly touted as "self-made" Xillionaires. And, at least in terms of that book, we don't know what definition of self made is used, or how they counted it.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#255

Post by st3v3r »

hueving wrote: post #252
st3v3r wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're an asshole about it, and because they're ignoring the pure luck advantages they had which made their success possible. And it doesn't matter if they've offset the losses of their previous tries, they still took multiple tries (in and of itself not a problem), which is something most people don't get.

With that attitude, nobody could ever take any credit for success because there is someone else that had it harder. "Warren Buffet didn't do anything impressive because he grew up with his parents." What a petty way to live.

Warren Buffet doesn't discourage and shit on those who haven't been able to do what he has. Again, I would discount the person's success because they're an asshole, and refusing to acknowledge that they were given many privileges and benefits by pure random luck. Buffet routinely acknowledges that he had lots of help getting to where he is today.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#256

Post by st3v3r »

ktRolster wrote: post #145
ryandrake wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone who was so aggressively proud of their success, having founded and grown a successful business. He'd talk your ear off about how people like him were the ones adding value to society and how unsuccessful people are just lazy and don't try hard enough or don't take enough risks, or are just deadbeats, and how successful, hard working people are punished with taxes--you know, the standard soapbox speech.…

>going from $1M to $2M is almost inevitable. If that were true, I could easily borrow it now and make my way there.

Yeah, but borrowing it would fall under the "going from $0 to $1MM" part.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#257

Post by khedoros »

Teever wrote: post #222
quanticle wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what OP is trying to point out. It's easy to be "self-made" when you can get a million dollar loan from your dad to get your real-estate business off the ground. It's easy to be self-made when your dad works at Seattle's most prestigious law firm and can arrange an introduction with IBM's PC hardware division. It's significantly more difficult to be self-made when you have no connections and no capital…

I don't understand. none of those examples are 'self-made'

That's the point. They're saying that those 85% of self-made American millionaires aren't as "self-made" as they claim.

Like me: I could talk about starting with almost nothing in my bank accounts, getting a job, working through the ranks, buying a home, and working toward my first million... conveniently leaving out all the advantages that I've had to get me to this point (cultural expectation that I'd go to college instilled in me from a young age, a family well-off enough to support that financially, uninterrupted time to work on the hobbies that grew into a career, etc).

Quanticle seems to be relating the origins of Donald Trump and Bill Gates. Donald describes his fortune as self-made. Bill Gates has been described as self-made. It's true, if you only consider that their wealth is much greater than any gift they've ever received. It's false from the perspective that anyone could do it with enough hard work.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#258

Post by noobiemcfoob »

bsder wrote: post #148
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's an overly simplistic view. Are prosecutors dropping shoplifting charges for "upper middle class" people because they brought in an $1,000/hour lawyer? Real life prosecutors aren't quite so cartoon villain-y. The bigger issue is that (1) laws are enforced more harshly in poor areas because there is pressure on prosecutors to focus on high-crime areas; (2) poor people are much more likely to be within on…

> Are prosecutors dropping shoplifting charges for "upper middle class" people because they brought in an $1,000/hour lawyer? Yes, they are. It's not this blatant, but the result is the same. First, the rich person has probably been told, repeatedly, "Shut the fuck up, and only talk to your lawyer." This is a HUGE deal and helps your end result dramatically. Second, the rich person likely doesn't have to worry about…

> So, the prosecutor doesn't actually think: "He's rich, so I won't prosecute this so hard." But at every point where a decision can go for or against, there's a bit of bias in the rich person's favor distributed throughout the system.

This is absolutely critical and I think best explains that undercurrent of things like "subconscious racism".

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#259

Post by clock_tower »

groby_b wrote: post #244
WalterBright wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealthy people tend to have different attitudes about money than others, which has a strong influence on their ability to accumulate wealth. This is expounded upon in the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad". It's worth a read, especially for people who are not wealthy but aspire to it.

If you're not wealthy and aspire to it, I'd suggest not starting with a book from somebody who uses a made-up story to explain luck, giving fundamentally flawed advice. Instead, realize that the odds are against you: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poor... And then work to acquire basic financial literacy. Which requires reading quite a few books. Here's a good starter list: http://www.getrich…

You might also be interested in Byron Tully's _The Old Money Book_. He's from an old-money background himself, and while his investment advice is unsophisticated, his advice on everything else is pretty much on the dot.

Re: Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

#260

Post by st3v3r »

bsder wrote: post #151
CM30 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered why we don't just get rid of private lawyers and legal teams. That way, no one has an advantage or disadvantage. Even the wealthiest get one guy chosen by the court and no other assistance whatsoever and we see lots of rich kids going to prison as a result.

> I've always wondered why we don't just get rid of private lawyers and legal teams. Because bringing the quality of someone else's defense down does not solve the fundamental problems of the justice system. The problem is that the justice system is unfair to the poor, PERIOD . And we need to fix that. The problem is not putting more rich kids in jail. In my opinion, the better change is to remove things like prosecu…

I don't think so. If the lawyer pool is so terrible, there will be people with incentive to fix it, and those fixes will benefit everyone, rather than the few it benefits now.
Post reply on HN