Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Just Be Rich

keenen.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#301

Post by nasmorn »

reader_mode wrote: post #82
ironman1478 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Poverty doesn't just cause immediate issues it can also cause long term issues that can effect not only adults, but the children who grew up in that environment. This is largely because families in poverty tend to also abuse their kids at higher rates (this includes mental abuse) or at least foster an extremely unhealthy environment due to the stress it causes. So even a generation later it can be difficult for…

I grew up in a family of 7 (4 younger siblings), during civil war, father was into gamling and drinking, mother was unemployed and constantly on the verge of a mental breakdown (understandable given the conditions she was living in). To paint the picture, I have vivid memories of vomiting a boiled onion I ate after not eating for days (I think I was arround 5 years old). And we were poor well into my early 20s untill…

Obviously money will not change everything but if you get a monthly allowance to feed your children it will probably decrease the incidence of onion vomit for a substantial portion of them. Which seems valuable in its own right. Dealing with a large lump sum payment is inherently much harder.

Re: Just Be Rich

#302

Post by nindalf »

imtringued wrote: post #253
nindalf wrote: post #151

OP mentions PG’s article arguing against a wealth tax. That article is short, simple and to the point - Modelling a Wealth Tax ( http://www.paulgraham.com/wtax.html ). It is so compelling, but also misleading and wrong. Its not easy to spot the sleights of hand he uses. I wrote more about it here - Modelling a Wealth Tax Correctly ( https://blog.nindalf.com/posts/wealth-tax/ ). And yet, I think the simplicity of PG’s…

>They assume that the superrich can't just leave. This isn't even a downside. In a savings glut this is actually a desired outcome. Of course we don't want literally everyone to leave, only those on the margin.

This is a downside if your goal is revenue generation.

Re: Just Be Rich

#303

Post by deepGem »

EliRivers wrote: post #296
deepGem wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, there are many examples of those who made big from rags to riches. Am not talking about movie stars but business tycoons. Carol Bartz, Dhirubai Ambani, Naval Ravikant, Chamath to name a few. Bartz for instance "Bartz was born in Winona, Minnesota. After losing her mother at a young age, she moved with her brother to her grandparent's farm in Alma, Wisconsin. She took a job at a bank at age 15 to help support her…

"Those who want to break out and go get things done, will find no excuses." Bullshit. Many people are constrained by things they cannot control.

No doubt. Things out of your control are not excuses.

Re: Just Be Rich

#304

Post by mytherin »

camhart wrote: post #264
johnfn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 need…

> 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.

There is an essence of truth to that, but it certainly does not tell the whole story.

Consider what happens with Amazon. When they put a family-owned store out of business, those people need to work somewhere. They then turn to the only place left that has any jobs in their area: the Amazon fulfilment center. They then get a minimum wage job there. It is clear those people have directly lost wealth as a result of Amazon.

In some cases the "creating wealth" argument holds up, but in reality what is mostly happening in the age of globalism is wealth consolidation, not wealth creation. Amazon is not creating new wealth, they are simply taking all of the customers and wealth away from all of the smaller businesses and consolidating it into a single huge entity.

This obviously has strong negative consequences for the people who are losing wealth. There is a reason wages have remained stagnant for over 50 years while corporate profits keep on growing to record highs.

Re: Just Be Rich

#305

Post by irq »

raspasov wrote: post #214
RHSeeger wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be making the assumption that "A is easier if B" implies "A is impossible without B", which is not what is being said. I guess the question is, of the new wealthy, how many came from a situation of already having access to wealth (either directly or by proxy)?

I didn't make such an assumption. I ask again: How do you define "access to wealth"?

Based on what you wrote, I agree with RHSeeger that you did indeed make that assumption. That you can’t see it speaks volumes about your analysis not matching the facts.

Re: Just Be Rich

#306

Post by heavyset_go »

herbst wrote: post #272
danillonunes wrote: post #138

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.

Did you actually see how this really works before forming your opinion? The only thing my family needed to migrate to Switzerland was one job contract for my mum, not even a well paid job but some future potential due to relatively good education. The most complicated part was not paying way to much to get our stuff over here. Its not to different in many other countries. The thing is, if you are somewhat valueable (…

What first world country can people emigrate to without a sponsor, a degree or specialization?

Re: Just Be Rich

#307

Post by bobmaxup »

camhart wrote: post #264
johnfn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 need…

Would equality be better than the bare necessities?

Re: Just Be Rich

#308

Post by danjac »

saddlerustle wrote: post #103
donnythecroc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is all down to the basic human need of a home. In the 70s and 80s even 90s someone on a teacher's salary could own their own home in a major world city - say London. Now, literally zero chance. Because homes have become an asset class and the rich can outbid regular people so they are pushed out. That's the problem. I couldn't care less how many billionaires there are if regular people can afford a decent…

Pretty much every mainstream economist put the blame for this squarely on the massively increased regulation of the housing market since the 70s causing a massive decrease in the amount of new construction, not wealth itself.

In the UK the governments of the 70s and 80s stopped building houses and started selling off their existing housing stock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_1980

> By 2013, some tenants who had purchased their council flats, sold them later to speculators, investors or property companies. By 2013, a one-bedroom council flat that sold for £50,000 in the early 1990s, for example, had a market price of £250,000.[9] A tight housing market led to increased rent as construction of new homes decreased.[9]

Re: Just Be Rich

#309

Post by dignick »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #98
dignick wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. You are looking at this from a world where that isn’t the case. Money would be worth less in that scenario, and that 10% owns 99% of the wealth, which is still going to cause problems.

Yes but OP meant the 90% of people would get access to opportunities like the millionaires today. So even if inequality would be wild, nobody would worry about “issues of the poor”, like food or healthcare bills.

In this fictitious world I'm sure there would be other problems, perhaps some we can't foresee and might look like privilege to us today. We don't complain about "issues of the poor" from the past such as child labour (with some exceptions) today. Significant inequality will cause problems regardless of the baseline standard of living.

Re: Just Be Rich

#310

Post by notahacker »

herbst wrote: post #272
danillonunes wrote: post #138

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.

Did you actually see how this really works before forming your opinion? The only thing my family needed to migrate to Switzerland was one job contract for my mum, not even a well paid job but some future potential due to relatively good education. The most complicated part was not paying way to much to get our stuff over here. Its not to different in many other countries. The thing is, if you are somewhat valueable (…

So all you need to do is rewrite the first 18 years of your history to obtain a "relatively good education"....

People are not paying their life savings to get smuggled into Europe on a small, overcrowded boat because it's easy to move here.

Post reply on HN