How to get rich. What a lame life goal, and a terrible starting point for anyone trying to do good in the world.
Probably so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
61–70 of 193 posts
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I bet the average googler The point is that the average person is not the average Googler. His philosophies are intended for people who aren't lucky enough to be a Googler, or to inherit wealth, etc.
Getting a job at Google is way easier than starting a large successful software company.
And both are effectively impossible for many people in the world.
His advice is meant to be applicable for people who aren't lucky enough to have either of those options.
The option to invest in income-generating assets over costly status-signalling devices is available to far more people in the world.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#63I agree with a lot of his points, and I would do well to embrace them.
When he gets into diving people into “makers or takers” that’s an arrogant and ugly way to look at the world. Because “taker” has a perjorative element.
People are not one thing. Maybe I’m biased by living in the US but most people I know try to be a positive member of society, even if they lack wealth.
Perhaps you could apply the “taker” label to the severely disabled, or to pathological criminals. If ones criteria is net contribution to the worlds wealth.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#64Wealth = freedom to do what you want. For some people with minimal lifestyles in low cost areas of the US (or living internationally) that can be $30K. I think the series does a good job covering principles such as leverage (software, capital, labour) which are rarely taught in school. Most financial planners only talk about cutting costs, not making more money, because they don't know how... this is the opposite.
> Wealth = freedom to do what you want. I have a friend who is pretty wealthy. I've noticed he spends a fair amount of time worrying that his money is secure. Seems like the ultimate first world problem to me, but it's real.
Seems like the issue is having enough cushion so that your lifestyle is well below your means, so you can invest very conservatively without having to worry about your circumstances changing.
Of course, this can be accomplished by either dramatically increasing your assets, or by dramatically decreasing your expenditures.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#65> Study microeconomics, game theory, psychology, persuasion, ethics, mathematics, and computers. Anyone have any book recommendations for these? Any favorites?
Game Theory: The Strategy of Conflict, by Schelling.
Microeconomics is useful, but behavioral economics would be where I'd spend more time. It's a cross between econ and psych.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wealth = freedom to do what you want Once you're wealthy, kind of :) (there are some complications and the fact that often the main limitations of doing what we want are usually not wealth, but not knowing what we'd want the most in the first place, or lacking courage/skill to pursue it) But there's the process of getting wealthy, which can include self-restriction of freedoms...
Possibly. The wealthiest person I ever dated (he wasn't super wealthy while we were together just doing well, but I just saw him a month ago and he was excited because he CAN retire now but doesn't want to - he's 38) spent TONS of money doing rich people things in the pursuit of wealth, he stretched his bank account very thin over and over doing this. Going to Sundance, Cannes, Burning Man, TED, etc to network. Spend…
That’s an interesting anecdote because most wealth building strategies don’t really discuss the value and cost of networking.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#67This article honestly read like something out of a bullshit self-help book. There's a lot of tidbits in there that sort of ignore the reality for most people and how one small injury, accident etc can spiral out of control and bankrupt someone, at least in America. But reading this part especially stood out to me
> We all know people who are consistently pessimistic, who will shoot down everything. Everyone in their life has the helpful critical guy, right? He thinks he’s being helpful, but he’s actually being critical, and he’s a downer on everything.
> That person will not only never do anything great in their lives, they’ll prevent other people around them from doing something great. They think their job is to shoot holes in things. And it’s okay to shoot holes in things as long as you come up with a solution.
This is silicon valley in a nutshell. Silicon valley needs more pessimists, people that understand the problems with all the nonsense they push in attempt to solve problems while exploiting people along the way. It needs people that are willing to question people and tell them to stop doing things that are fucked up. Because these companies don't think about what will happen if they fuck up and break things.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#68I agree with a lot of his points, and I would do well to embrace them. When he gets into diving people into “makers or takers” that’s an arrogant and ugly way to look at the world. Because “taker” has a perjorative element. People are not one thing. Maybe I’m biased by living in the US but most people I know try to be a positive member of society, even if they lack wealth. Perhaps you could apply the “taker” label to…
"Maker" and "taker" are also technical terms from trading markets. The "maker" is the firm who puts a limit order into the order book and waits for someone to accept the trade; the "taker" is the firm who enters a market order (or a limit order that'll fill immediately) and accepts whatever the best bid is in the market.
Not sure if he meant it like that, since the following paragraph seem to go on to say that yes, he did mean "taker" in its pejorative sense. But there's an interesting analogy there: the maker sets the terms of trade, while the taker just offers their consent to the terms that are given. Similarly, in entrepreneurial markets, the "maker" is the one who determines what the world will look like, while the "taker" can merely offer their consent to one possible vision that is offered by an entrepreneur.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wealth = freedom to do what you want Once you're wealthy, kind of :) (there are some complications and the fact that often the main limitations of doing what we want are usually not wealth, but not knowing what we'd want the most in the first place, or lacking courage/skill to pursue it) But there's the process of getting wealthy, which can include self-restriction of freedoms...
Possibly. The wealthiest person I ever dated (he wasn't super wealthy while we were together just doing well, but I just saw him a month ago and he was excited because he CAN retire now but doesn't want to - he's 38) spent TONS of money doing rich people things in the pursuit of wealth, he stretched his bank account very thin over and over doing this. Going to Sundance, Cannes, Burning Man, TED, etc to network. Spend…
How did he make his money, in the end? A talented software developer can make enough money to retire as comfortable middle class by 38, by getting a job at a FAANG by age 25.
The thought of going to Burning Man for millionaire-business networking makes me sick, the quintessence of how Silicon Valley tech bros are murdering human culture.
Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)
#70This article honestly read like something out of a bullshit self-help book. There's a lot of tidbits in there that sort of ignore the reality for most people and how one small injury, accident etc can spiral out of control and bankrupt someone, at least in America. But reading this part especially stood out to me > We all know people who are consistently pessimistic, who will shoot down everything. Everyone in their…
[deleted]