Live data from Hacker News

Just Be Rich

keenen.xyz

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#261
The essay is just a collection of incorrect notions pushed all over the place by the intellectuals and media. The author failed to even try to look himself on the real data and went with templates that were proven wrong again and again.

Few points: 1. "The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." - author does not understand the difference between statistical categories and real flesh and blood people. If he did, he would have known that real people move between statistical categories over time, which makes absolute sense: you start career with no experience and debt to pay if you have a college degree, then over years you gain skills that allow you to get better pay. There is no "rich" and "poor" when judging statistical categories, because in this sense there always be newly graduated people starting their careers at lower payed jobs. That's how the world works, you can't get Staff Software Engineer position in Google without proving that you're at least have skill for Junior.

2. "Most people don't have the safety net or mental bandwidth to even consider entrepreneurship." - Entrepreneurship is tough and definitely not for all. But, not having money at first was never a problem. Reading some history of big companies you may see that they often started on campus or in garage. Therefore main prerequisite is mental toughness, and building of something people want.

3. "It's less a tutorial or analysis and more a thinly veiled attempt to ease concerns about wealth inequality." - PG correctly pointed out that individuals become wealthy by creating giant amount of new wealth and then capturing some small part of it. For example Amazon, you use it everyday, it has the best pricing, so get immense value from it. Bezos captures some part of the value that Amazon created for all consumers.

4. "basic needs" - It's often a tactic of demagogues to hide behind undefined terms to push their vision. Having a fridge or microwave is a basic need? Is having a car or 2 cars also a basic need? Both of these would have been considered luxuries 50 years ago, and still people were living without them. The point is that setting arbitrary standards imposed by third-parties is not basic needs. In this case, you could define anything as basic need and always have 15-20% of people that don't meet your arbitrary standard.

5. "a small minority of people" - And again, PG provided an approach that will work for every individual. If you create something immensely valuable, and capture some small fraction of it, you get rich. If you do not create, then you don't become rich. But, that is not the problem of society that you yourself did not create anything.

As is usual with such types of articles, the author positions himself on some moral high ground. He claims that his aim is to help the poor, but since the author did not create big amount of wealth and he could not donate large sums to philantropy (which wealth individuals do a lot), then the only approach is to steal money from people who created it with hard work, and give to people who did not work, did not create wealth and likely will never do.

Re: Just Be Rich

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well then move to high-income country. You can't just take an Uber to a rich country. You have to do a lot of work to get there. All that work is wasted years compared to someone who was just born there in the first place and can focus 100% on their actual path of getting rich.

Exactly, I live in relatively wealthy Western Europe and emigrating to the United States would still be a hell of a lot of work. It's not 1900 where you can just jump on a boat. Comments like the one you quoted just seem completely divorced from reality.

Maybe the US is but if you have proper education nothing stops you from migrating to switzerland. Dont like german? No worries french and italian are options too.

Re: Just Be Rich

#263

Income inequality is growing, yes. But are the wealthy somehow responsible for it? Is their "getting richer" directly responsible for it? There seems to be a growing consensus on the left that they are. I have yet to see a convincing argument to show this though. Someone who builds a company worth 100m didn't have to steal money from me (or anyone else) to do it. If they did steal, then that's what needs fixed. Preve…

Isn't it literally the government's job to legalize theft and pick the winners and losers? One of the government's main tools in regulating the outcomes of a country is tax policy and if you want to call that theft, sure, go ahead. It doesn't make it the wrong course of action to take. You even lay out a remarkably cohesive argument for that 'theft' in your statement: if wealth provides an excess of agency for the wealthy, the only way to optimize for maximal opportunity (or maximal innovation if you'd prefer that framing) is to reallocate opportunity capital from the hyper-rich to the general population. The way you get more entrepreneurialism is not by increasing the payout for 'winning' the startup lottery, it's by letting more people play.

Re: Just Be Rich

#264
post #255

Income inequality is growing, yes. But are the wealthy somehow responsible for it? Is their "getting richer" directly responsible for it? There seems to be a growing consensus on the left that they are. I have yet to see a convincing argument to show this though. Someone who builds a company worth 100m didn't have to steal money from me (or anyone else) to do it. If they did steal, then that's what needs fixed. Preve…

I’m stuck on the second sentence of your argument. If the wealthy aren’t responsible for income inequality, then who is? An action doesn’t have to be illegal for us to condone it. Do you like income inequality? No? Then let’s take measures to stop it.

There isn't a finite amount of "wealth" in the world. You can go out and make wealth every single day. The rich obtaining more of it doesn't mean there's less left over for you and I.

People need to be able to cover their needs. Food, housing, healthcare, and I'd be open to arguments in favor of education. But I don't see income inequality as bad necessarily. I see massive amounts of people unable to cover those needs as bad. Fix the problem that people can't cover their needs--not that fact that some fortunate entrepreneur got richer faster than me.

Re: Just Be Rich

#265

I'm just gonna quote what I think is a very important part from the Graham piece itself >" People who don't look any deeper than the Gini coefficient look back on the world of 1982 as the good old days, because those who got rich then didn't get as rich. But if you dig into how they got rich, the old days don't look so good. In 1982, 84% of the richest 100 people got rich by inheritance, extracting natural resources,…

Wealth tech people are giving their money away younger than the previous generation of billionaires:

https://outline.com/mtGgFW

I think they understand noblesse oblige. But it's a 2-way street. Don't expect them to feel a sense of obligation if you're going to assume the worst about them just because they are rich.

Re: Just Be Rich

#266

Income inequality is growing, yes. But are the wealthy somehow responsible for it? Is their "getting richer" directly responsible for it? There seems to be a growing consensus on the left that they are. I have yet to see a convincing argument to show this though. Someone who builds a company worth 100m didn't have to steal money from me (or anyone else) to do it. If they did steal, then that's what needs fixed. Preve…

>It's at best a band-aid attempting to treat a symptom caused from underlying issues. We need to treat those underlying issues--not the symptom.

The underlying problem is that the economy is breaking basic macroeconomic equations, namely that savings must be invested. A wealth tax would force such an outcome. This is unpopular for republicans. Government investment would force such an outcome. It's still unpopular for republicans. Building more houses would force such an outcome, it's unpopular for democrats. Deeply negative interest rates for consumers would force such an outcome except that cannot happen because people will just hoard cash.

I can list more and more things. The pattern is clear, all the options are disappearing and we are left with nothing to do. The reason why economics doesn't work isn't that the textbook is wrong, it's that people come up with more and more sophisticated ways to prevent the textbook rules from functioning.

Re: Just Be Rich

#267

Income inequality is growing, yes. But are the wealthy somehow responsible for it? Is their "getting richer" directly responsible for it? There seems to be a growing consensus on the left that they are. I have yet to see a convincing argument to show this though. Someone who builds a company worth 100m didn't have to steal money from me (or anyone else) to do it. If they did steal, then that's what needs fixed. Preve…

Isn't it literally the government's job to legalize theft and pick the winners and losers? One of the government's main tools in regulating the outcomes of a country is tax policy and if you want to call that theft, sure, go ahead. It doesn't make it the wrong course of action to take. You even lay out a remarkably cohesive argument for that 'theft' in your statement: if wealth provides an excess of agency for the we…

> The way you get more entrepreneurialism is not by increasing the payout for 'winning' the startup lottery, it's by letting more people play.

I'm not arguing we need to increase the payout. Letting more people play is exactly what we need. I'm simply arguing that people winning more isn't what's preventing people from playing.

Re: Just Be Rich

#268
post #228

I'm just gonna quote what I think is a very important part from the Graham piece itself >" People who don't look any deeper than the Gini coefficient look back on the world of 1982 as the good old days, because those who got rich then didn't get as rich. But if you dig into how they got rich, the old days don't look so good. In 1982, 84% of the richest 100 people got rich by inheritance, extracting natural resources,…

Can't one just counter his arguments without assigning nefarious intent? It feels conspiratorial at times. - Quoting your comment: "The real sinister psychological thing going on behind the Graham argument is that..." - Quoting a line from the article: "His seemingly impartial and logical writing attempts to hide his true intentions."

The worldview he is (poorly) attempting to prosthelytize is inherently nefarious. It doesn’t matter if he intends it or not.

Re: Just Be Rich

#269
post #7

A lot of people who are just as smart and motived as Elon Musk or Steve Jobs will never be able to start their own companies and get rich. Because they have family obligations that take priority. Because they live outside high-income countries. Because they have no access to support network, so when they fail, they fall all the way to bottom. Because they may have made a crippling mistake in their pasts that now prev…

Veritasium had a video about success vs luck and survivor bias. There's a bit of that here too.

That said, I'd love to have a graph or model (or book even) to describe the tipping point at which things become increasingly better and easier.

I observed that in the crypto bubble. Once you lifted off (fortune by accident maybe) you can comfortably ride the game from the back seat and pick what kind of new wealth you're gonna pick up this month.

Re: Just Be Rich

#270
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are in depth, your wealth is negative. After I finished school, as a software engineer I bought a home and a car (by taking a loan) and effectively I had negative wealth. I was by no means in a bad situation, I just consciously took a loan against my future earnings to improve my life quality now rather than after I saved up. Many of these charts ignore this.

> Many of these charts ignore this. From https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/methodo... : > Wealth, or net worth, is the difference between the value of assets owned by households and the value of the liabilities (or debt) held by the household. Assets include items such as the value of an owned home, value of a business, accounts in financial institutions, stocks and bonds, 401(k) and thrift account…

Exactly. Which means when you finish school, if you have a student loan you have negative wealth. If you finished a good school and can expect a decent career you are not in a bad situation even though your wealth is negative.
Post reply on HN