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

291–300 of 941 posts

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#291

Post by boringg »

pc86 wrote: post #168
boringg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree - I have seen a lot of wealthy family children completely underperform relative to this bar. I'd say it's the exception and far from the norm that wealthy families to produce exceptional children. Exception to the statement being wealth taken from your countries people through corruption (like Putin, Jinping etc).

I'd be curious to see if the rate of "exceptional" children is higher for "exceptional" families than "unexceptional" families since by definition it's going to be far from the norm regardless. But the rate could still be 2x or 3x (I don't think it is, but it's a possibility). There's a lot of focus on the exceptional but I think where having a very rich or wealthy family helps is less in a much bigger upside, which…

Oh completely agree -- wealth raises the floor, not the ceiling.

I'm not discounting that at all (and I recognize all the advantages that that class receives), rather pointing that generational wealth is normally created once, not multiple times in a family. Probably as a function of environment and not having the same drive - but thats merely speculation.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#292

Post by taurath »

wanderer2323 wrote: post #180
WhompingWindows wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul Graham's articles always shoot immediately up to the top of HN, but I agree with you, they're generally cursory and pithy thoughts which don't convince my skeptical mind. I don't know, can someone explain why his work is so popular? Think of all the amazing writers across our civilization whose work is linkable, and we're worshipping these decent but not amazing blog posts?

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.

He’s a good writer in that he’s able to convince people who know next to nothing about the subject matter that he is making good points. Neither history nor economics agree with his hand waving statements.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#294

Post by internetslave »

cupofcoffee wrote: post #175
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…

You are not unlucky the vast majority of startups fail. You need to be extremely lucky, extremely talented, extremely ambitious basically extremely everything to create a company and get rich from it. It's pretty much a pipe-dream to create a company and get rich from it. The most likely result is ending completely burnt out and having wasted a couple of years.

False. I personally know multiple people that have done it. And I knew them before they got rich

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#295

Post by whimsicalism »

bufordtwain wrote: post #129
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.

Inflation measurements should be tied to location because housing costs vary dramatically and are a huge proportion of expenditure for most people.

At the same time, differing costs of living reflect differing values.

The reason the Bay Area is so much more expensive than Tulsa, Oklahoma is because many people would much prefer to live in the Bay. Adjusting completely for COL ignores the reality that living in the Bay is, to some extent, a luxury.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#296

Post by Aunche »

whimsicalism wrote: post #246
prostoalex wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

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

Growth is a second derivative. Income inequality is a function of first derivatives. You can't directly compare the two. If I had to guess, China's wealth inequality in China is growing at a much faster rate than that of the US.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#297

Post by the_local_host »

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…

It definitely takes a bias toward "wealth accumulation is good" to present the following as good news:

> "The reason the percentage of heirs has decreased is not that fewer people are inheriting great fortunes, but that more people are making them."

It's likely that many of the inheritances of 1982 were the echo of the corrupt and monopolistic industrialism in the 19th century. Is it a bad thing that the great individual fortunes that were built a century earlier couldn't be amassed in the 20th? Have we returned to a 19th-century environment now, with technology taking the place of railroads and telegraphs? On that note...

> "the major sectors of the economy were either organized as government-backed cartels or dominated by a few oligopolistic corporations."

Unless I see a FAANG company go out of business, soon, and as abruptly as it appeared, I'm inclined to think we're entering a new oligopolistic era. Just because these companies were recently startups doesn't mean they aren't entrenched now.

(As an aside regarding the wealth tax, that actually would have worked to reduce the number of heirs at the top of the list in 1982 had it been enacted some time earlier.)

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#298

Post by levinb »

Advice straight out of The Onion, 18 years ago:

https://local.theonion.com/i-should-start-some-sort-of-huge-...

"Working security at Rite Aid for $6.55 an hour is just not cutting it the way it used to. But I'm not worried, because last night, as I was standing there staring at the rows of shampoo bottles and disposable razors, the answer hit me: I should start some sort of huge corporation!"

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#299

Post by didibus »

timkam wrote: post #167
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…

I agree. To me, the post reads a bit like this: "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have more inequality, but the super-rich [like PG himself] really deserve it, because they are innovators." The post does not cover the arguably more important questions like "Are the working and middle classes better off?", "Was there less innovation back then or we…

You hit the nail on the head!

It also didn't discuss that it seems more so that there is a new technology which is enabling a shift on riches, but it's likely that the next phase is one of inherited wealth again. Unless he believes that the children of those new fortunes won't inherit anything or will keep being surpassed in riches by the next generation startups. But I'm not so sure, I think it's just a cycle, refresh most company from a non tech based one to a tech one, and once that's done, it'll go back to consolidation and inheritance, until the next big technology.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#300

Post by Matticus_Rex »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #271
whimsicalism wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reade…

Mencken gets quoted pretty regularly in my circles :shrug:
Post reply on HN