Live data from Hacker News

How People Get Rich Now

paulgraham.com

841–850 of 941 posts

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#841
post #833
post #324

There's some nuggets of truth in here, but I am disappointed that this article sidesteps what I feel is the most important reason for startup success in 2020: easy and abundant access to cheap capital. - Interest rates are at all time lows, borrowing is cheap - The Fed's balance sheet is at an all-time high. The economy is flush with cash, particularly the investor / VC class - This excess cash creates an (arguably a…

Netflix and Airbnb are profitable, and as far as I can tell the others could be profitable but aren’t because they want to stay huge / have the capital access to do so. When you have unlimited money pouring in, whats the point of profit other than a checkbox for wall street? You can pay everyone their wages, compete fiercely, grow like crazy, and so on. Profit is just inefficiency - we don’t have a use for this money…

There is one fairly obvious reason: survival is the great filter. Anything that's not under survival pressure is almost by definition not good in the long run. If something is bad, you want it to die quickly before it becomes too big to fail.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes people uncomfortable to think that success is mostly a matter of luck. I constantly hear this sentiment and don't think it makes people uncomfortable at all. If anything it is the opposite, people cling to this idea to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own situation. What makes people far more uncomfortable is the nagging feeling that success isn't mostly a matter of luck. Success is a choice…

Ironically, people I know who did the most drugs in high school (myself included) are the most successful out of the people I know. The straight-laced A students are all way behind.

I did plenty of drugs too and am doing just fine as well. Not a million or billionaire, but that is a pretty tough standard to meet.

That being said, only drugs I ever did were weed, acid, shrooms, MDMA, and trying the odd pharmaceutical. Never any opoids of any sort, never meth etc.

And in terms of broad advice, I think not doing drugs is still a fairly consistent rule for good outcomes.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this comparison. Stock based compensation didn't exist in 1965. It's an oranges to apples comparison. CEO salaries today are still about 20-1, depending on the business. For instance: - Doug McMillon of Walmart makes $1.2 million in salary. - James Quincy of Coca-Cola makes $1.5 million in salary. - JPMorgan's CEO Jamie Dimon has a $1.5 million salary. - Sundar Pichai of Google makes $2 million in salary. You…

Why can’t employee compensation also come from diluting Wall Street? Why do they vast majority of those benefits go to top executives?

"Heads I Win; Tails You Lose" --Majority Top Executives

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#845
post #512

>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…

> 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. How are they the richest? Per https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ Gates is #4, Ellison is #7, and Apple/Bloomberg/etc are lower. Above Gates are the founders of the much later Amazon and Tesla (then there's FB, Google, etc)

But Gates was the #1 richest for many years, like 20-ish.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#846
> How are people making these new fortunes? Roughly 3/4 by starting companies and 1/4 by investing.

One thing that is ignored in this essay is that you need initial capital to get rich by either of those methods.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#847
post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hm? That paragraph is accurate. No, the assumptions in it are ridiculous in context: 1) "You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee" : Okay, maybe you can "work" 80 hours a week, as in "be in the office 80 hours per week". 2) "if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour" : No. You can't stay focused for 11.5 hours a day, especially not 7 days in a row, especially e…

No. You can't stay focused for 11.5 hours a day, especially not 7 days in a row, especially especially not week after week after week. I'm a former software engineer. The best engineers absolutely, genuinely can work very long hours and remain productive. 80 hrs/week might be a bit high, but 65 hours a week at 3x average-programmer-productivity is definitely something that exists in the real world, and although it is…

> and because the rest of us are literally slacking as we post here, and want to believe our slacking is some kind of biological necessity.

When people are shamed for taking a break, no wonder there is a lot of burnout and mental problems in tech.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has finally prevailed. But none of them seem to be. You can almost hear them saying "No, no, not that way." This line is particularly disgusting. Labor has not prevailed. Labor in fact has been crushed by deregulation, union busting, automation, and most importantly…

PG is probably not delusional. To make such a claim without proper evidence is probably suggesting you may be having an emotion response to what he wrote. Understood. Not Cool to call people 'delusional' with paltry evidence. I know PG only a little, but I think his intention was to stir the pot on this old debate. But yes, for the lower 70% that have as much wealth as the top 10% (and it takes about $ 95K net worth…

He is either delusional or he's lying. How else can you explain his claim that labor has prevailed?

As Amazon and Tesla employees fail to unionize, as Uber buys a law to avoid treating their drivers as employees, as the Democrats fail to increase the minimum wage despite holding all three branches of government, as the US is the only western nation without universal health care... What honest person can look at the current state of America and think labor is winning?

The children of upper middle class parents getting rich by starting startups is not labor prevailing over capital. It's just capital. It's just the rich getting richer.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#849

>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.

PG has been a cheerleader for VC backed capitalism for a while, which has produced both anodyne and strained articles alike. I think the more interesting question after an article like this one is this: does he actually believe this stuff?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#850

I like reading PG's essays, but...I read a book on pretty much the same phenomenon ("Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty) a few months ago. It took a lot longer to cover the same ground, but it also covered it a lot better, and a lot more persuasively. Not unsurprisingly, it is also a lot less sanguine about the impact of recent wealth trends.

> The central thesis of the book is that inequality is not an accident, but rather a feature of capitalism, and can only be reversed through state interventionism.

> The book thus argues that, unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...

Post reply on HN