Live data from Hacker News

How People Get Rich Now

paulgraham.com

421–430 of 941 posts

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#421
Wow, its nice to see something I've strategized for years articulated well. While I would like a larger dataset, and mostly focus on the non-billionares in my more reasonable target wealth, it generally matches my analysis.

"Roughly 3/4 by starting companies and 1/4 by investing."

Some people have given me a hard time for not being too attached to companies, especially startups, but one of the things I've learned by seeing the internals of hundreds of companies, both as a contractor and as an employee, is that there are so many lessons to be learned at the business level if you learn how to pay attention and think about those problems. I found that as a sysadmin I was around these kinds of discussions a lot, but that other sysadmins just tuned most of it out. Instead I exploited the fact that so many C's viewed me as a "janitor", and soaked up the knowledge about what to do right and what not to do... and I continue to do so.

Now, I finally got my foot in the door in finance, and my two main strategies match (starting a business and investing).

"There were no fund managers among the 100 richest Americans in 1982. Hedge funds and private equity firms existed in 1982, but none of their founders were rich enough yet to make it into the top 100. Two things changed: fund managers discovered new ways to generate high returns, and more investors were willing to trust them with their money."

This is because put options weren't even a thing until, what, 1977, and more complicated options weren't removed from the moratorium until 1980. It was a very new field even for the existing hedge fund managers.

"of the 73 new fortunes in 2020, 4 were due to real estate and only 2 to oil."

Again, this is a very limited dataset, especially as someone who has been inside at least one oil boom, with family in the industry. I've seen quite a few many-millionares created by oil, they just don't show up in the forbes lists. They are still extremely wealthy, of course it's very sad to see so many of them piss it all away on hookers drugs trucks and houses, only to end up destitute when the bust cycle hits... (and a little infuriating)

The real crux is in defining the word "rich" it seems. To me, building up enough that I can retire early and live off my investements without penny pinching to much is "rich". I only need a few mil for that, and it's achieveable. To others, especially with high expenses because they live in places like SV/NY, their required "rich" is many more millions.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right. Even if you knew 100 people that all made startups and made 10M+ it would still prove nothing. What percentage of startups do you think succeed?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#423

So in the 1960s the rest of the world was rebuilding their bombed out cities. The US had no competition to speak of and provided “mature” at the time manufacturing to the rest of the world. There’s a lot of cracks and hand waving in this article, it’s a very roundabout way to say that income inequality isn’t a problem. It is a problem, and PG is so far removed from it he’s just thinking about how to justify keeping h…

I don't think he said that. This seems like an article trying to explain increased wealth inequality. At most he's saying its a neccesary consequence of innovation, and he would prefer a world with innovation than without. That's very different from saying its not a problem.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 people are feeling more volatility, and…

> If people are feeling more volatility Do you think this feeling is reflected in actual risk though? If so, how would you quantify it? If not, shouldn't we expect/teach people not to feel so volatile and be more grateful and content?

Yes, the easiest way to see it is in the lack of income security and wage stagnation for the vast majority. You have to hustle, your employer may not be around for your working lifespan, or they might be obviated by cheaper labor from overseas and/or technology and automation.

Edit: Another example is health insurance is tied to your employer in the US. It costs anywhere from $400 per child per month to $1k per month per adult, with a $17k out of pocket annual maximum. Imagine you've scraped together some savings for a house or a business or kids' education, and a wage earner becomes ill or injured, and can't work. Now you have giant expenses coming your way at your most vulnerable, and government help from Medicaid (for subpar quality healthcare) doesn't kick in until after you've exhausted all your assets, so you are at risk of getting sent back to square 1.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#426
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…

Is income inequality a problem? In my opinion, the real problem would more accurately be defined as peoples inability to afford their basic needs: housing, food, and to a degree healthcare. Some might argue to throw education/training into the mix as well, and I wouldn't fight that too much as long as people remember more affordable options like community/technical colleges. Many who argue income inequality is a problem tend to imply that it means people can't afford their basic needs. I agree if people can't afford basic needs that's a problem. But my neighbor simply having 10000000x more "wealth" than me isn't a problem. Great for them.

Where things become a problem is when people can't afford their needs. But lets be honest about what needs really are. Housing/shelter's needs demand a space for someone to stay dry/warm, with a toilet and running water (to keep things sanitary). We don't "need" a 3500 sq ft mansion even if you are a family of 16. Though the trend year after year, is we're spending more and more money on bigger and bigger homes for smaller and smaller family sizes (see https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s...), which subsequently cost more and more money to heat/cool. Not to mention the fact that more people are getting mortgages for larger and larger and longer and longer amounts... there are even mentions of > 30 year mortgages on the horizon... while mortgages help you get into a home, the typical 30 year mortgage today results in you paying ~1.5x+ over the cost of the actual home (300k home costs ~450-550k depending on interest rates). Not too long ago, many people built their own homes, mortgage free. Yea, they weren't fancy homes. Typically a box with a roof. But they lived within their means.

Back in the day more people heated homes "for free" using wood they chopped themselves back in the day. And few had AC (none did if you go back far enough). Back in the day people didn't have a microwave, toaster oven, toaster, oven, stove top, panini press, smoker, bbq, coffee maker, etc all in their one home. Depending on how far back you go, they had none of these things and still survived.

Back in the day you didn't "need" the latest iPhone every 12-24 months, or the biggest TV. You didn't need a new car every X years. You didn't "need" an international vacation every few years.

The point I'm trying to make is our spending habits can take on some amount of blame (how much can be argued)... especially when you consider the demand impact of everyone willing to overspend and go into debt on items they don't truly "need". Take a look at the FIRE community (financial independence, early retirement) and you'll see real life examples of people who scale back their living to their needs + a few wants, on small amounts of income and how they're able to still put money aside every month. The community tends to highlight those that can save 50%+ of their income on a 6 figure salary... but there are plenty of examples of people saving on small amounts of income.

With all that being said, I'd agree income to house cost ratio isn't great in a lot of areas in the country, and is trending in the wrong direction. That's a problem. Healthcare's rising costs isn't great--that's a problem. But also keep in mind people are living longer now than ever before (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...), and I'd assume the longer people live the more expensive their healthcare becomes... so while this is a problem, I think it's false to say it was "solved" decades ago. Educational costs are skyrocketing too--that could be argued a problem. But there's also more of us spending more money going into more debt to get all of these things, driving the demand up for each of them. Massive corporations using anti-competitive practices to crush small up and coming competition is a problem. Companies failing to pay out a decent salary is a problem.

I think there are things that need to be addressed when it comes to peoples ability to cover basic needs + some ideal wants. However I have yet to hear a convincing argument that my neighbor getting filthly rich somehow leads to my inability to afford my basic needs.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#427

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.

Of all the things posted on this site, this is the comment that is the most wrong. If his writings are ever quoted again after his death, it will be meant as sarcasm.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#428
Does that apply to Theranos? I can't tell you how many class action lawsuits I've received lately too. Looks like move fast a break things is infecting everything. I suspect eventually the government will HAVE to catch up and redistribute the wealth for the wealthy.

That or the people will do it with some kind of sharp, pointy object I'm sure.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#429
post #11

I don't think that the top 100 richest people is a good dataset. You can be extremely rich without making it anywhere near that list. While a lot of those top 100 people made it to that list by starting companies, I'm curious how many of them did so by leveraging family or inherited wealth.

There is a pretty low bar for inherited wealth. Simply having a family who is able to support you if everything goes pair shaped (maybe as little as letting you live in your childhood bedroom for little or no rent) gives you a huge advantage over someone who isn't in that position. Having parents who are able to lend / invest / gift modest sums of money is yet another step up the ladder. All the way up to having pare…

I'd imagine a good number of those new to the top 100 were born into families in the top 1000. Sure they technically built their own tech company instead of inheriting their position, but they did so starting with a small 10M "loan" from their parents and already connected with the movers and shakers of Silicon Valley.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#430
post #325

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…

The lowest state median income in the US is Mississippi at $45,000. I can't possibly imagine how someone mismanages their finances so much that $450,000 is not enough to raise a family on.

I think the problem here might be the different meanings of "money is tight".

https://www.financialsamurai.com/scraping-by-on-500000-a-yea...

Post reply on HN