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

How People Get Rich Now

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 941 posts

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#241

Post by zone411 »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #166
zone411 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. Huh? Gini coefficient can be based on wealth just as well as on income. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_eq... . This essay doesn't specify which one PG is talking about.

Think the implicit meaning here is that Gini coefficient is often used only as an indicator of income inequality, not wealth inequality, despite it being usable for both. Usually one has to specify "wealth Gini coefficient", as most default to income otherwise.

However, this essay is specifically about wealth so at most I'd criticize this use as somewhat ambiguous instead of assuming that PG meant income Gini and therefore confuses income with wealth.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#242

Post by gopalv »

nindalf wrote: post #71

It's a classic PG article. Many true facts in there, lots of good analysis with just a few questionable claims thrown in here and there. At the end, there's a massive claim that isn't fully stated but implied. "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absol…

> people like me are creating a lot of value, please acknowledge it. Also there are no downsides to this accumulation of wealth

That is an overstatement of the article, but the article is actually defending the rise in inequality as a nature of the world today with no guilt (of participation) about it.

Reminds me of the call girls in H2G2 who specialize in sociology telling executives that it is okay to be rich and they earned every dollar in a dystopian war field (HanDod city?).

It is extremely important for a creator to truly believe that "they built all this value" (non zero sum value and that is often true) and not merely built an efficient transfer mechanism into their pocket. This in contrast to something like Warren Buffet's "lottery of birth" statements.

He is right about something though, the rules are the same as before.

"Welcome all. Everyone can play, the winners get to keep playing, the rich can play longer even if they lose - those who play longest, win big. Just remember there are no second acts in american life".

The winner-take-all only benefits those who can actually spread their investments around ,so that the investors can spread their money, but the workers can't spread their time around 10 possible jobs.

Also, picking oil and 1982 feels odd considering half the "gas crisis of the 70s" highlighted why oil is critical.

If I said medical tech would boom in the next five years, with vaccines for HIV and bespoke immune therapy for cancers, that would not be a bad bet because of the usual "events leading up to".

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#243

Post by bambax »

bambax wrote: post #187
nindalf wrote: post #71

It's a classic PG article. Many true facts in there, lots of good analysis with just a few questionable claims thrown in here and there. At the end, there's a massive claim that isn't fully stated but implied. "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absol…

The people he thanks for "having read drafts of this" are: - his two lifelong friends and business partners - his wife - two prominent libertarian economists. Missing from that list are his children and Peter Thiel.

Yeah. My point is, PG's essays project objectivity and neutrality and even science; but in truth he has an agenda, and it's the same as Thiel's.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#246

Post by whimsicalism »

prostoalex wrote: post #164
nindalf wrote: post #71

It's a classic PG article. Many true facts in there, lots of good analysis with just a few questionable claims thrown in here and there. At the end, there's a massive claim that isn't fully stated but implied. "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absol…

> "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". The book "The Great Leveler" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31951505-the-great-level... is probably the most comprehensive dive into history of inequality, and arrives at a fairly unexciting conclusion that periods of great inequality are correlated with significant economic growth (usually related to advances…

Growth from whom and stagnation for whom? If during this "stagnation", the level of societal wealth remains the same, but inequality decreases, that indicates massive utility gains due to decreasing marginal utility of wealth.

Moreover, inequality now is extremely high, and growth is decelerating. China has less wealth inequality than the United States, yet is growing substantially faster.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#247

Post by VRay »

strikelaserclaw wrote: post #153
tyre wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add to that that tech companies concentrate wealth line never before. Airbnb takes a cut of transactions not only around the US but across the world. Not everyone works in the Bay Area, but how many of the founders, early employees, and VCs do? The ones who really make massive wealth? Not 100%, but most. Same with Stripe, the same with Facebook, Google, etc. we’re pulling tremendous wealth into a small area, with tec…

undoubtedly, i think theres a sweet spot for letting people gain rewards from their own hard work/talent/value creation, but i think as a society we are moving into the dangerous territory where that balance is totally skewed in one direction.

You're looking mixing up cause and effect

You're mad about "cause": Evil startup stiffs tons of small players across the world

You're lashing out at "effect": Lots of money gets concentrated around the evil startup's headquarters

A lot of really bad stuff has happened in history because of this sort of bad logic, so you really need to rethink your position

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#250

Post by whimsicalism »

closeparen wrote: post #197
nindalf wrote: post #71

It's a classic PG article. Many true facts in there, lots of good analysis with just a few questionable claims thrown in here and there. At the end, there's a massive claim that isn't fully stated but implied. "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absol…

These takes freak people out because we want to think of anti-inequality as a virtuous, prosocial belief. But a commitment to hold down inequality is a commitment to prevent the creation of value. I don’t think it’s controversial to skim the top of the creation of value / rise in inequality to fund services that people need. But as long as a founder’s share of his value creation is greater than the share accruing to…

Is it? Does most inequality rise from value creation?

Most wealth in America is held by the top 5% wealthiest households directly as a result of inheritance, not hard work or value creation.

How is arguing that the inequality produced by inherited wealth needs to be restrained a "commitment to prevent the creation of value"?

Post reply on HN