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

How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

nav.al

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 193 posts

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#151

Post by xorfish »

tomhoward wrote: post #117
JamesBarney wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he's arguing buying stock instead of a nice car will make you wealthier? No argument here.

Well yes, buying stock, sure - though a small shareholding in a mature stock is not going to get you very far. But a significant shareholding in a small-medium business that provides a valuable product/service and ends up generating steady cash flows over the long term seems like the optimal approach in terms of risk/reward, and is something that a lot of people in the world could figure out how to do if they put the…

> though a small shareholding in a mature stock is not going to get you very far.

Sp500 Average real return is 6.5% per year. So If you invest $1'000 per month, you will be a millionaire in today dollars in 30 years with just over 1.1 Million Dollars

That is a save income of around $38'500 per year.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#152

Post by badpun »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #102
cryptica wrote: post #97

>> Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Everybody in the world can have a house. This is false and the people who say this tend to be in elite circles so they don't see the scarcity which is obvious to everyone else. The fact is that there aren't going to be enough builders to build houses for everyone. Why? Because those people are too busy building mansions, building yahts, building private jets, mining gold, making jewe…

> And yes, investing in a useless startup is not real investing; it's consumption; the real purpose of most startups is to bring pleasure to a rich person and their friends when the startup gets acquired, not to serve society. And yet it is the very same startups that have improved your standard of living exponentially where luxuries reserved for the rich like private chauffeur (Uber/Lyft), matchmaking (Tinder/OkCupi…

> standard of living exponentially where luxuries reserved for the rich like private chauffeur (Uber/Lyft), matchmaking (Tinder/OkCupid), and private island vacations (Airbnb) are accessible to normal people.

Uber is, from client's perpective, just a taxi service with ability to hails cabs through an app. Matchmaking services were available and cheap way before the Internet. As for private island vacations available for normal people via Airbnb - can you point me to one airbnb offer like that?

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#153

Post by robocat »

pawanrawal wrote: post #94
reducesuffering wrote: post #89

"I started as a poor kid in India, so if I can make it, anybody can, in that sense." I agree with most of the advice and Naval's musing. But let's not pretend opportunity is mostly equal. He attended Stuyvesant [0], one of the highest acclaimed high school educations [1][2]. I'm sure that had a bit to do with how the rest panned out compared to just anyone. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AngelList [1] https://www.…

Also, started as a poor kid in India doesn't really present the whole picture. He was lucky that his family moved to New York when he was 9 which broadened the scope of opportunities he had. From the Wiki article, "Ravikant moved to New York City with his family at the age of 9". I still think what he has achieved is great and love some of what he shares but Naval can sometimes make things sound grander than they are…

Anyone that manages to pass the gauntlet of residency/green-card/naturalisation has shown some deluxe skills IMHO: almost by definition his parents are well above "normal" because they managed to win the game.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#154

Post by tomhoward »

xorfish wrote: post #151
tomhoward wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, buying stock, sure - though a small shareholding in a mature stock is not going to get you very far. But a significant shareholding in a small-medium business that provides a valuable product/service and ends up generating steady cash flows over the long term seems like the optimal approach in terms of risk/reward, and is something that a lot of people in the world could figure out how to do if they put the…

> though a small shareholding in a mature stock is not going to get you very far. Sp500 Average real return is 6.5% per year. So If you invest $1'000 per month, you will be a millionaire in today dollars in 30 years with just over 1.1 Million Dollars That is a save income of around $38'500 per year.

> If you invest $1'000 per month

Sure – if you're lucky enough to have that amount of spare money to invest, that's great. Many people don't. (i.e., they aren't that lucky - remember this is about how to do well without relying on luck).

Some people who do have that amount to invest may want to get better returns and invest in something over which they have more control.

But let's not get stuck in the weeds over the specifics.

Either path is far better than wasting money on costly, depreciating status symbols.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#155

Post by tomhoward »

n4r9 wrote: post #146
tomhoward wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, buying stock, sure - though a small shareholding in a mature stock is not going to get you very far. But a significant shareholding in a small-medium business that provides a valuable product/service and ends up generating steady cash flows over the long term seems like the optimal approach in terms of risk/reward, and is something that a lot of people in the world could figure out how to do if they put the…

How easy is it to go from nothing to a position where you can afford to make a "significant shareholding" in a small-medium business?

If you start a company yourself you own 100% of it.

If you have nothing to invest in it, and if it needs capital to get started, then you need to borrow funds to invest or sell part of the company to an investor.

In the former case your net worth will be the value of the company less the value of your debt. In the latter case you'll own less of the company, but you can still own most of it.

This applies whether you're in a rich western country starting a company that needs big amounts of capital, or in a developing country and starting a small business with micro-loans or micro-investments through bodies like Kiva.

But none of this is about what is easy. It’s never easy to attain something that is prized and scarce.

It's about what decisions will give the greatest probability of the outcome you want, given the opportunities and resources that you have available to you.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#156

Post by challenger22 »

wwweston wrote: post #92

There's a lot in this article that I'd endorse as a first-pass approximation of the truth for orienting oneself towards productive behaviors. But... There's a number of places where Naval is mixing the concerns of "status" and "values." This isn't an easy distinction to make, because status essentially exists by the standard of one form of values or another, but without this distinction you can gather both ideas like…

The act of decomposing a piece based on the values of the artist and the values of other viewpoints ultimately leads to a spooky place where truth is defined by narrative. This is the domain of postmodernism.

I reconcile the narratives by: 1. Observing which set of values leads to the most effective goal-oriented behavior by individuals 2. Consider the most effective values to be true, in that they are the values most worth believing in because they actually stand the test of time and get results.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#157

Post by bubblewrap »

elcomet wrote: post #121

Wow, I just discovered I'm rich according to his definition. > The reason you want wealth is because it buys you your freedom. So, you don’t have to wear a tie like a collar around your neck. So, you don’t have to wake up at 7:00 AM, and rush to work, and sit in commute traffic. So, you don’t have to waste away your entire life grinding all your productive hours away into a soulless job that doesn’t fulfill you. I'm…

You are getting money from somewhere, though, and presumably, if you don't make progress on your PhD, that source will eventually dry up. Likewise, once you have finished your PhD.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#158

Post by ralphstodomingo »

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #47
mrnobody_67 wrote: post #5

Wealth = 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.

The thing is, the mindset that gets you wealth isn't necessarily the same mindset that makes you realize the true value of it which makes you secure. Non-exclusive sets, I say. There can be two types of people who get to the top.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#159

Post by vinceguidry »

The title gives a connotation about the article's contents that is not actually present in the article. While the article works just fine at giving the broad strokes for how to acquire wealth, it makes no effort at providing direction for how one might do it in a riskless fashion. Invariably any attempt to get rich must interact with free markets, and while there are ways to de-risk financial activity, you must be rich already to employ them.

Re: How to get rich without getting lucky (2018)

#160

Post by awinder »

darawk wrote: post #140
wwweston wrote: post #92

There's a lot in this article that I'd endorse as a first-pass approximation of the truth for orienting oneself towards productive behaviors. But... There's a number of places where Naval is mixing the concerns of "status" and "values." This isn't an easy distinction to make, because status essentially exists by the standard of one form of values or another, but without this distinction you can gather both ideas like…

I like what I think you're trying to say...but: > Once you understand this, though, it's easier to note that this piece is itself a bid in a status game -- it defines a set of values and sets them up as higher than a competing set of values. And the set of values he's advocating seems to be one by whose standards he would have a high status. ;) I don't think this is actually true. As far as I can tell, Naval isn't se…

I felt like this got very close to what the parent was talking about:

  Work as hard as you can. Even though who you work with and 
  what you work on are more important than how hard you 
  work.
Realistically if the who + what is more important than the specific effort, I feel like the author is trending more into status/values because despite the relative importance, the last-place component of success there is the lede & focus here. I'd also contend that "work as hard as you can" is generally crappy advice, "work as hard as the situation demands" will leave you with more energy & the clarity that comes with understanding relative importance.
Post reply on HN