How People Get Rich Now • Hacker News Board

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#271

Post by blaser-waffle » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #222

wanderer2323 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PG is apropos for this forum, but beyond that he is plainly a good writer. I don't know who you consider 'amazing writers across our civilization' -- but whether it is Gracian or Scott Alexander, PG shares one thing with them, namely that his works will be quoted beyond the lifespan of his contemporary readers.

The presumption that Scott Alexander will be quoted long beyond his lifespan really drives home how much of a bubble this site can be at times.

Indeed. How many people know who HL Mencken is?

Alexander is a good writer, and I appreciate how he is able to tackle assumptions and challenge mainstream opinions, and does so systematically.

But he's writing 10 pages of what could be summed up in 10 bullet points.

The intellectual collateral is nice, but he's not really breaking new ground, and I'm not sure what he's going to share with the next generation of readers

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#272

Post by true_religion » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

lolive wrote: post #139

blackshaw wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's the founder of this website?

Just like RMS is highly respected at the FSF :)

I understand the comparison, but the FSF can exist without RMS. PG on the other hand solely supports HN, I doubt he would continue to pay for a site that vilified him.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#273

Post by iur12 » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #267

iur12 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t a surprise. The religion that formed here hanging off his every word subscribed to it to get rich, just like he started YC to get rich. Now he’s happily rich, barely even looks in the mirror at these adherents that he left behind, and is writing for his new friends who are also rich. It was always pointless snake oil but the Sand Hill Greed here made everyone overlook that because maybe, just maybe, the ke…

Downvoted not because you're right, but because you're mostly wrong. I mean, you're maybe 10% right. You take that 10% and inflate it to the point that it's almost completely wrong, though.

I appreciate your well-defended and reasoned argument. I learned a lot from your countless examples of what I got wrong and given that I’ve missed the mark on earning your vote, I’ll be sure to factor your feedback into my future comments.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#274

Post by rland » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

It's really interesting to see the world through PG's eyes. Kudos to him, I guess, for actually saying out loud what most of the mega-rich are unwilling to.

Everyone who isn't like PG (so, 100% of the population) is finding it difficult to make enough money to have a life in the most basically fulfilling sense: education, retirement, support for loved ones, and good health.

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/129/4/1553/1853754?logi...

So, PG: great news about the Forbes 100, I guess?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#275

Post by didibus » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

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

Ya this confused me, because the geni coefficient measures inequality, the higher the number, the more inequality.

> A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values

So is PG saying it's normal the world is becoming less equal? Because of more people starting companies?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#276

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

bondarchuk wrote: post #80

harshaw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation data: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2010?amount=1 . I don't think that a 20% difference means 200K is a lot less. It's a bit less.

But that is the government inflation, which is considered by some to be fake. Shadowstats [1] says inflation would be about 5%/year if we use the same methodology as in 1990, which gives about 60% over 10 years, i.e. you'd have to make 320k now. I'm just eyeballing the chart but if we use the 1980 method (~7% a year) it's almost 100% (i.e. you'd have to make 400k now). For another example, Dow Jones with dividends re…

Yes, and those trails from airplanes are considered by some to be mind control chemicals.

I wonder why the whole "secret inflation" theory seems so popular among techies, I see it multiple times a week on HN.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#277

Post by karolsputo » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

chrisBob wrote: post #113

harshaw wrote: post #32

I don't want to derail this too much with personal anecdotes, but I suspect you are much more likely to build wealth with the more established tech companies - and that wealth is "rich enough". Maybe I am just unlucky or unskilled, but I spent roughly 20 years working at startups or innovation labs. I was "close" to some big events where I could have made big $$ but made 0. Both at my own startup and being at early s…

He is saying you are more likely to become a Billionaire by starting a company than by joining a FAANG as an employee. Now that is a 1:1000000 event instead of a 1:5000000 event like it may have been in the past. I will forgive you if you still think it is unlikely. Most people's goal isn't (and shouldn't be) $1B. If your goal is a more reasonable $5M then joining an existing company is still your best bet. I am goin…

Dustin Moskovitz presented that point in the invaluable How to start a startup series - https://youtu.be/CBYhVcO4WgI

A good resource when deciding on your future ambitions

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#278

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #210

cryptoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PG's recent articles have changed from what they used to be. Recently (last few years) there is a dramatic change towards defending riches, logical fallacies to explain why being rich is okay, a lot of focus on wealth and how to get it and why it's okay. A lot less technically interesting than he used to post. I used to send Startup=Growth to everyone I knew. I think people are used to high-quality content from PG an…

The political messaging has also changed from “people in poverty have specific material needs that we need money to fix” (war on poverty) to “actually, people having or making different amounts of money is inherently wrong” (war on inequality). The war on poverty can be waged with a modest tax on the PGs of the world. The war on inequality is different. Venture capital always seeks to create wealth that will flow to…

> actually, people having or making different amounts of money is inherently wrong” (war on inequality).

This is a misrepresentation though. There isn't anything inherently wrong with people having or making different amounts of money. The complaint, as I see it usually, is that the degree of inequality is unacceptable. That is, millionares aren't inherently unethical, heck people who make millions annually aren't inherently unethical. But people who make billions a week, might be.

That is, I can comfortably and easily donate enough each year to support a few working families. Bezos could match the Child Poverty Tax Credit to every child in poverty in the US each year and still turn a profit.

(For the math here, its ~$3000 * 11 million children, which comes out to ~35 billion, or half his income this year). And remember: he could do that every year and his wealth would increase.

The key issue is that personal wealth, after a point is wasted. Creation of vast personal wealth doesn't really serve society, so why should society encourage it? That, again, doesn't mean that no one should have any personal wealth, just that the ROI, after a point, should lessen.

How much do you really care after your second billion anyway?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#279

Post by ncann » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

lolive wrote: post #139

blackshaw wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's the founder of this website?

Just like RMS is highly respected at the FSF :)

I love RMS but unfortunately his skepticism doesn't get treated well by the vocal mass. These days people like to view things in a very black and white manner and if you dare to express your skepticism in a topic that is considered clear cut by the mass you get ostracized.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#280

Post by anonu » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

harshaw wrote: post #32

I don't want to derail this too much with personal anecdotes, but I suspect you are much more likely to build wealth with the more established tech companies - and that wealth is "rich enough". Maybe I am just unlucky or unskilled, but I spent roughly 20 years working at startups or innovation labs. I was "close" to some big events where I could have made big $$ but made 0. Both at my own startup and being at early s…

> but I suspect you are much more likely to build wealth with the more established tech companies

FANG: low variance + moderate reward

vs

ENTREPRENEUR: high variance + high reward

The Kelly Criterion can probably be applied here on how much to "invest" in each opportunity. Ultimately it matters how often these opportunities come up.