Live data from Hacker News

How People Get Rich Now

paulgraham.com

301–310 of 941 posts

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#301
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.

First off, I really like your username! I'm sure you had a particular robotic animal in mind when you chose it.

Secondly, a gain from one's own rewards is supposed to be in one direction. A person is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Not anyone else. There are only a few people at the top of any profession or activity. But this fact seems to be ignored for some "utopian" dream where the guilt or coercion of the successful compels, via self-abnegation, some "compensation" to the masses for the latter's lack of success. That the best are merely cogs to keep churning to the rhythms and dictates of his fellow man and of his government. That the best see no value in their own work or selves without others as their chief barometer.

However, I don't see it argued that Usain Bolt should slow down so that he doesn't ruin the Olympic Sprint for the rest of his competitors. I don't see it argued that intelligent students should stop going to Harvard/Stanford/{take your pick} because such academic success makes everyone else look mediocre by comparison. Why should it be any different in Silicon Valley? Why should one accept inefficiency or inadequacy? It benefits no one to either become or accept a prize that is lesser in value than the sum of one's actions. Except perhaps for martyrs and masochists.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an insane amount of money even in the Bay Area. It's more than enough to support a large family living a very comfortable lifestyle while also saving significantly for retirement. I'm not sure what the grandparent poster is on about.

Everyone argues about this but for most people in tech - $400k/yr does not give you a "very comfortable" lifestyle. You cannot afford a $2m home. A $2m home isn't even that comfortable in the peninsula. (Varies on location but it'll probably be under 2000sqft, still 3-4 bedroom, 4000-8000sqft lot, 2-car garage if you're fortunate, will likely require $200k+ in renovation/repairs on move in, nothing lavish) Good luck…

> 2000sqft, still 3-4 bedroom, 4000-8000sqft lot, 2-car garage if you're fortunate

In what way is this not "comfortable"? What is your definition of "comfortable"?

Like, I grew up in a 3BR, 2 car garage house that was You're describing an inflated, luxury lifestyle. You even sort of admit it when you say "very comfortable lifestyle for most people in tech". That's not "very comfortable", that's "very comfortable for people who are already very comfortable". I feel like this is a sort of keeping up with the joneses thing: comfortable implies "more comfortable than the median person in your social circle, where your social circle is all tech people with 400K a year or more household incomes".

Like another way of putting this is that a 400K income should allow you to afford a nice 3-BR rental and kids and save money. If you don't have kids, 400K allows you to keep a luxury apartment in SF and another one in the south bay, you know, if you want to do that.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#303
post #195

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…

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…

Dang now that you're back in the black I don't know if you're right or not :-/

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#304
As an aside, it always frustrates me when people say that someone got rich from investing, when really they got rich from running an investment firm and doing investment managing. It gives the wrong impression that people are getting rich from their own investment.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#305
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…

> But this level of wealth concentration and inequality is detrimental to the fabric of a society. We’re not better off, we’re not more innovative, we’re not healthier or more cohesive or happier when this happens. I agree 100%, but you're ignoring the other factor that is detrimental to society: social factors. Notably, the divorce rate and single-parent rate among poor and working class Americans of all races has s…

Could also be the tail wagging the dog. People arrested for say being drunk in public are gonna be broke, because they don’t have mansions to drink in.

Could be that the cultural problems you’re describing follow whole towns being hollowed out as all wealth is transferred to winner take all cities, as free trade knocks out industries with no help nor replacement.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#307
post #183

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?

My two cents on why his writings are popular: - He uses anecdotal evidence which appears to be sound at first. Looking at the top 100 billionaires seems to give a good idea on how wealth is created and distributed, but really it is only a glimpse at a much bigger phenomenon (especially since the data only comes from two years). - His style of writing is very accessible and natural. He wrote an article on his style (…

Same reason Malcolm Gladwell is popular — it's pop science/economics/whatever, made to be readable and digestible, but over simplifies (and sometimes falsifies) in the process.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#308
post #303
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…

Dang now that you're back in the black I don't know if you're right or not :-/

CONUNDRUM OF THE AGES

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#309

> It's easier now to start and grow a company than it has ever been. That means more people start them, that those who do get better terms from investors, and that the resulting companies become more valuable. This may be a quibble, because I think Paul Graham really means a certain type of high-growth startup in mind when he says "start a company". But the rate of new business formation in the US has fallen off a cl…

Actually, I think this is almost the perfect response to his article. It's not hard to imagine that a guy who made his fortune off of startups would be biased to think that everyone should create a startup and get rich that way. So, after correcting for rich guy tunnel vision, the statement "more people are starting companies" translates to "more people are starting technology companies in Silicon Valley." And of course, as you point out, the reality that the rest of the country is living in is conveniently ignored.

So yeah, rich guy writes a blog article saying essentially "people should just do what I did" and water is wet.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#310
post #280
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.

absolutely correct, and let's not forget there is the whole spectrum of startups and mid sized growth companies that one can join in between.
Post reply on HN