How People Get Rich Now • Hacker News Board

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#861

Post by _fhnu » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 7:58 AM UTC

danans wrote: post #569

rland wrote: post #274

It's really interesting to see the world through PG's eyes. Kudos to him, I guess, for actually saying out loud what most of the mega-rich are unwilling to. Everyone who isn't like PG (so, 100% of the population) is finding it difficult to make enough money to have a life in the most basically fulfilling sense: education, retirement, support for loved ones, and good health. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/129/4/…

> Everyone who isn't like PG (so, 100% of the population) is finding it difficult to make enough money to have a life in the most basically fulfilling sense: education, retirement, support for loved ones, and good health This exactly. PG arguing the relevance of the Gini coefficient is oblivious to the the crumbling state of the public infrastructure in the US and the declining accessibility of high quality public go…

Life expectancy is dropping like a rock, and that's a number with a little more rigor behind it than PG's moronic hand waving. The guy has no idea what he's talking about and comes across as incredibly desperate to justify obscene hoarding of wealth. He'll draw a line between any two data points you can dig up, no matter how distant and spuriously correlated, if it will allow him to fellate a few billionaires.

We get it, these people pay you. Just say it: "I can see nothing wrong with the current distribution of wealth because the lenses in my eyeglasses are actually solid gold, a gift bequeathed to me by the Duchess of Facebook." The guy needs meritocracy to not be a myth, because he's styled himself as some kind of kingmaker who can selectively pluck only the most deserving young founders from a bubbling vat of Stanford alumni DNA. It's been a good run, but it's just getting gross now.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#862

Post by arvinsim » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:01 AM UTC

TapWaterBandit wrote: post #727

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Maybe unpopular opinion, but entrepreneur insights from CEOs are rarely valuable because no individual contribution outweighs sheer luck. Every day millions of people make smart decisions, take good risks, and work hard without significantly improving their conditions. It is pure survivorship bias to think individuals are capable of more than slightly nudging the cosmic needle if it happens to land near the r…

> 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…

> But if you follow some basic rules (finish high school, don't have kids before marriage, don't do drugs or smoke, minimise alcohol, eat healthy and exercise, don't buy things to impress others), you have a very good chance of being successful in life.

The discontent in millenials nowadays is exactly because they are peddled that fairy-tale myth.

"Get a degree and get a job, you can will be able to afford a house and a family with children."

It might have worked for the older generation but it sure as heck doesn't work now. Why do you think "hustle" culture is so pushed right now? Our parents didn't need to "hustle" to afford these basic things.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#863

Post by d110af5ccf » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:04 AM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #856

d110af5ccf wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing the issue with the except you posted. In context, it seems clear to me that those are all very back of the envelope estimations. Not everything needs to be backed by multiple citations to double blind trials; approximations can be quite useful. The point (IMO) is to take statements you strongly suspect to be true from personal experience (ex that a pointy-haired middle manager reduces your productivity…

Software Engineers sometimes act as if administration and coordination of effort are unwelcome distractions to productivity, but those are necessary components to any viable commercial effort. The super-productive, "$3M/year engineer" who goes and starts a successful new startup always metamorphosizes into the pointy-haired boss. Why is that? Because that is the steady state of companies, anything else is transient.…

I mostly agree, but I think it's important to note that the necessity of administrative overhead (and associated friction) scales with team size and project scope. I expect a lone developer to be the most productive by far in the narrow sense of producing working code. However, at some point a single person just can't do everything that needs doing themselves.

So I'll agree that as things grow administrative overhead will necessarily creep in. But I expect that if you can find a way to turn a profit, a smaller team will probably involve significantly less overhead. So if (as in PG's hypothetical) the developer is worth $80k at a big company, how much would you estimate them to be worth at a company of only 4 people that has a good idea and funding?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#864

Post by strikelaserclaw » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:12 AM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #301

strikelaserclaw wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

Hey fellow zoids fan, first of all i never said people creating value shouldn't be rewarded, i think they should be rewarded extremely well but at the end of the day, no individual can survive without a society, this is a fact. What we need is a more balanced society where people can start at some base level and can gain based on their contributions. As for your Usain Bolt analogy, for me its more like Usain Bolt is a great runner so he gets 99.9% of sponsorships but theres some kid in Uganda with even more potential, yet he becomes a farmer because he can't find a sponsorship. There are talented people all over the world, a good society affords them the opportunity to realize their potential, something which i don't think is possible with uncontrolled winner take all in the economic marketplace.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#865

Post by jason0597 » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:26 AM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #827

mmmmmbop wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious: Do you have any more background on this? Who are these rich people that are not listed in Forbes?

Cryptocurrencies have created many paper-rich people who wont be on the list. Just 10k bitcoin would make you very rich these days, and there must be a few low-profile geeks with that may coins on a HDD. Also anyone rich, non-domiciled and "avoiding tax" will presumably not be on the list.

And now that Monero is getting traction, it will be absolutely impossible to pin down who owns what money. Times are certainly getting interesting.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#866

Post by mike_hearn » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:36 AM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #824

benzor wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for some hastily chosen examples. I think the point still stands if you consider the following companies: WeWork, Lyft, Snapchat, Pinterest, Dropbox, Slack, Casper, Lime, Peloton, Beyond Meat, Wayfair, Zillow. More generally speaking, take a look at Goldman Sachs' Non-Profitable Technology Index: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsRVCiMXIAE7xlA.png

Would you have put Google and Facebook in this group when they weren't profitable? You are missing something - many companies have great long term economics even if they are losing money right now . Slack (if still independent) could easily be profitable - they just have to spend less growth (ie, largely they could cut their sales and marketing dramatically, along with other items). Snapchat the same, Pinterest the s…

This is a common argument but would seem wrong to a lot of people. It's just unintuitive. Most people of our parents generation would find this argument slightly absurd, and our grandparents would find it entirely absurd.

It sounds weird because it assumes that every tech business has either insurmountable lock-in or insurmountable first mover advantage, without explicitly stating that. To fill in that assumption requires a lot of cultural knowledge of tech - the vast majority of businesses don't have either.

The problem is these assumptions are very likely incorrect for most modern "tech" businesses. It looks like over-generalisation. For example:

1. Slack has relatively little lock-in. The last company I worked for was in the process of migrating to Teams when I left. The justification was cost savings. Slack is trying to build network effects and lock-in with shared inter-firm channels, but most employees don't need to interact with other firms at least in today's business world, so even if Slack becomes the Bloomberg Terminal for the rest of us, it won't be the foundation of a huge business: only the people who need to communicate with other Slack-using firms will have Slack accounts and they charge by account.

2. Snapchat is a social network, and the iron law of social networks seems to be that they're at the top for only a relatively short period. Facebook is by far the longest lasting but even so, they've had to shore up that position by buying Instagram and WhatsApp. Snapchat's value won't last forever, so burning cash to get to the top in the hope of monetising it over the long run seem a bit optimistic.

3. Uber is basically a taxi firm. There is no moat there. Me using Uber doesn't really make it more useful for you, except in the sense that it attracts drivers. But drivers are capable of using multiple apps at once and switching between them. If Uber's prices were to increase really significantly, their market share would probably go into free-fall yet the hallmark of a company with lock-in is that they can charge very high prices for decades without facing competition.

4. Amazon was never able to convert high market share in retail to high profits. Its profits come mostly from AWS: a pure tech supply chain business.

It's also worth noting that Google and Facebook became profitable quite quickly relative to the sorts of companies people are criticising these days. It took Google less than 6 years to reach mega-profits. There are now firms that are doing Series G (!) raises, which aren't profitable after 15 years.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#867

Post by dsq » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:38 AM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #369

kkoncevicius wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social status is by comparison, that's why. I assume the vast majority of people would choose to be in the aristocracy somewhere in 1300 Europe, compared to middle class today. Even if objectively the middle class has better quality of life.

Why on earth would you assume that? Middle Ages aristocracy lived comparatively miserable lives - no daily hot shower, no climate control, nothing resembling health care, no running water or sanitation, no access to information, no international supply chain for food or products (eat only what your community can preserve for the winter). I would wager that any of those aristocrats would gladly amputate their limbs to…

Interesting to think of, let's say, one of our society's upper class given the opportunity to be a 'regular' person X years from now. Rejuvenation, instant cure for any illness, pain or wound, immersion into world spanning super intelligence, gratification of any physical or emotional desire, personal host of robotic servants, etc. The price is that they would be regular, that is, devoid of superior wealth or power. Would they take it?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#868

Post by collyw » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:42 AM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #506

benzor wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for some hastily chosen examples. I think the point still stands if you consider the following companies: WeWork, Lyft, Snapchat, Pinterest, Dropbox, Slack, Casper, Lime, Peloton, Beyond Meat, Wayfair, Zillow. More generally speaking, take a look at Goldman Sachs' Non-Profitable Technology Index: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsRVCiMXIAE7xlA.png

Are the fake-meat companies tech companies? I thought they are more like contract manufacturers, brewers, or other industrial foodstuffs. No doubts on the access to cheap debt, though.

Marketing companies would be my opinion. Fake meat has been around for years, but has become trendy again in the last couple of years. (Maybe it's better now, but that is subjective).

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#869

Post by BlargMcLarg » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:43 AM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #673

giantg2 wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see your comment as a valid response to the parent. They were not talking about developing countries. They were talking about in the US. They even pointed out that most devs do not live in the SV area (in response to your statement about most people in tech...). The majority of the people in tech in the US do not live in SV and the median salary for a dev is about $100k-110k.

No. They literally were talking about 15% of $100k being sufficient. Re-read it.

15% of 400k. Your initial comment clearly said "400k is not enough to live very comfortably". That's what 15% is in response to.

You might want to take your own advice and re-read, since I wasn't talking about developing countries either. Or should we consider Western EU, Northern EU, East Asia all as developing countries?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#870

Post by BlargMcLarg » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 8:49 AM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #635

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>for most people in tech The majority of people in tech do not work in Silicon Valley or even US tech hubs for that part. Friendly reminder entire continents across either side of the US coast by with less than 15% of that number and would live extremely comfortable lives with just the 100k that often gets tossed around here.

omfg. dude, we're not comparing devs in developing countries to people in SV. What kind of troll comment is this? Is it a surprise that cost of living DIFFERS WILDLY based upon LOCATION?

It's a surprise you try to defend such a bold claim, "most of tech", by kneejerking a reaction which suggests you realize there is more than the US, while your comment doesn't reflect that at all. It would suit you well to have some modesty and reflect on it.