How People Get Rich Now • Hacker News Board

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#381

Post by yarcob » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

Nacdor wrote: post #312

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.

> namely that his works will be quoted beyond the lifespan of his contemporary readers I have never seen PG quoted anywhere, not even on HN.

I see the quote "Do things that don't scale" often enough

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#382

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

frongpik wrote: post #176

dudeman13 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just how bad at finances are you and people around you if 150k just really isn't that much? That literally places you amongst the richest 1%. Not metaphorically, literally. A couple of years worth of saving is enough to give you passive income to never need to work again for food or shelter.

Emma, no, the top 1% has at least 10M in liquid assets (primary residence doesn't count). 150k will never take you to that level.

If you are a two-professional household it can.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#383

Post by thegrimmest » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #367

thegrimmest wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask a related question? Why all the focus on income/wealth "inequality"? Shouldn't we be looking at the absolute baseline quality of life? Hasn't it been increasing dramatically despite increasing inequality? Due to technological advances, hasn't the baseline quality of healthcare, education, sanitation, nutrition, shelter, comfort, convenience, etc. significantly improved from the 60s or the 80s? If so, why be…

Three problems: 1. Humans are humans, and they pretty much always judge their success by comparing themselves to others. Or, rather, humans are primates. Take a look at the famous study of the monkey that got cucumber while the other monkey got tastier grapes. 2. Income inequality in and of itself can be a problem because the mega wealthy can essentially buy laws that benefit themselves. There have been many studies…

> pretty much always judge their success by comparing themselves to others

Yes but that doesn't mean this comparison has moral standing. Also this behaviour is pretty low-level, neurologically, and we can train our higher executive functions to override and disregard it. I would argue that should be the expectation.

> can essentially buy laws that benefit themselves

Again - so what? As long as everyone's lives are improving on every metric, who cares that the wealthy mess with the tax laws or enact regulatory capture.

> that's cold comfort to someone who won't be able to buy a house in their lifetime because limited land supply goes to the richest.

No, the person (and all other people) should derive their comfort from the gratitude for being able to live in a modern, extremely comfortable world.

Edit: to rephrase, isn't the problem here the expectation/belief that you should have/are entitled to a detached house?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#384

Post by irishcule » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #86

internetslave wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work in investment research in NYC. So I know those types, but the vibe was the same. Maybe I’ve been lucky, but a lot of people I know actually have had startup success. I know a few people that ended up making over 25 million by 30. None of them made it in law or finance, and none of them ever wanted to continue their finance career. 10x the median income just isn’t that much. If you have three kids, mone…

"...because they’re actually getting paid what they produced." Do they really though? That's really the owners getting paid that, not all the workers. And a lot of that is really valued on the potential rather than what was actually produced to that point. "10x the median income just isn’t that much. If you have three kids, money is still tight." That's about $400k, right? That seems like an insane amount of money (I…

"Do they really though? That's really the owners getting paid that, not all the workers. And a lot of that is really valued on the potential rather than what was actually produced to that point."

I believe the OP is talking about the owners of the startups.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#385

Post by slibhb » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:14 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…

> It just seems like a desperate play to keep his wealth intact.

To me this dismissal reads as a little blithe. Is it true that, now more than in the past, the rich are getting rich by innovating? I don't see you engaging with that argument.

Clearly people who create successful businesses add value. Clearly Jeff Bezos has added a lot of value. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be taxed but I constantly see people talking about Bezos as if he's an evil capitalist oppressor who has stolen his wealth from virtuous laborers. To me it seems obvious that Bezos' personal wealth is a drop in the bucket compared to the value he's added to the world (hundreds of thousands of jobs, changed the way we buy things).

It's totally fine to be in favor of higher taxes but it shouldn't be because you hate rich people or you think they are greedy parasites. Unfortunately I see a lot of that going around.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#386

Post by WitCanStain » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #347

joshuamorton wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 in…

> The key issue is that personal wealth, after a point is wasted. Creation of vast personal wealth doesn't really serve society ... How much do you really care after your second billion anyway? What do you think the billionaires' billions are doing? Sitting in a bank account? I think the majority of their wealth is invested , i.e. it is funding industry, which is a good thing. If we assume for illustration that billi…

Those few would, however, have proportionally much more power and are not going to use that power to threaten the structures which made them their money. I don't think it's by any measure a good idea to have a few billionaires set the course of society; deciding what gets invented and produced, what kinds of ventures get supported, what programs enabled. That is just autocracy with extra steps.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#387

Post by alexgmcm » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #118

tqi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"working for a corporation day in and out is slavery" Corporations are the boogeyman de jour but from personal experience, landlords / restrictive zoning / "anti gentrification" activists are the primary cause of my angst. I make more money now than I ever thought I would, but a truly staggering amount of it goes directly into my landlord's pocket.

And how much of your paycheck to landlords goes to the bank to pay off the mortgage

But except for the interest that is still money going to the landlord as they have the property itself.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#388

Post by adwn » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

purple_ferret wrote: post #95

>So it's not 2020 that's the anomaly here, but 1982. The real question is why so few people had gotten rich from starting companies in 1982...a wave of consolidation was sweeping through the American economy Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Bloomberg, etc were all started in the late 70's/ early 80's. Their founders are the richest people in the world. Seems like the question he's asking, though, is why weren't they obscene…

> Every time I read one of PG's posts, it seems like he's working from a narrative that he's trying to conform facts to.

Indeed. Compare this gem from [1]:

You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I'm claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you're expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

The process is: Start with a hidden conclusion, selectively pick convenient facts (or make up bullshit numbers), ignore that they don't make sense in context, and finally present your a-priori conclusion.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#389

Post by rattray » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #120

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…

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?

> can someone explain why his work is so popular?

He's an important person to our field, and he's contributed quite a lot to it (including, for example, this forum). That does count for something.

However, to me if anything it really just confirms yet again that even great people can become thoroughly warped by wealth and fame.

His wealth tax piece was quintessentially unconvincing and self-serving, and many of his recent tweets and posts have done much more to pat himself and his peers on the back than to contribute convincing or useful analysis.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#390

Post by ihyfhgyfhth » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

I don't think anyone has mentioned this.

The Forbes list of 100 wealthiest people will exclude people that ask to be excluded. All of the excluded people have inherited their wealth and all of them are so wealthy they would push out anyone without inherited wealth.