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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#591

Post by [deleted] »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #580
Barrin92 wrote: post #49

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,…

> Because at least old money understands the concept of noblesse oblige. Is there actual data to back this up? That 'old money' behaves in a more positive society-impacting way than 'new money'?

[deleted]

Re: Just Be Rich

#592

Post by tester34 »

pydry wrote: post #275
qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've got cause and effect reversed. Bill Gates started giving his money away after he was attacked for his anti competitive behavior and attempts to kill open source, etc. The rich donate because they are protecting their reputation and for the sake of their own self image (everybody needs to be the hero of their own story). The only ones who can manage that and not be charitable are the utterly self deluded (e.g.…

you might not like this, but 2k was over 2 decades ago, nobody gives a fuck about it now except some HNers and Linux people

recent fake news about Bill Gates connections to covid/vaccines probably caused more PR damage to him than all of you combined

Re: Just Be Rich

#593

Post by lordnacho »

flexie wrote: post #410
mjburgess wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenter is referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic which is the cultural handmaiden of contemporary american capitalism.

No. "Silicon Valley money wants to remake people in their images, they have a Protestant zealotry associated with their money that makes any oligarch look straight up sympathetic in comparison" The comment literally suggests that Silicon Valley billionaires (which it juxtaposes with old money) have a Protestant fanaticism associated with their money.

WADR you've read the comment wrong. It literally does say Protestant, but it doesn't mean they are Protestants. Someone can have a fanaticism associated with Protestants without actually being one, and that's what he means.

I also think it's actually not that confusing, assuming you're experienced in reading English. It might be more subtle if you spend most of your time in other languages.

Re: Just Be Rich

#594

Post by throwaway0a5e »

heavyset_go wrote: post #326
flexie wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protestant zealotry? Seriously? When you bring religion into it, at least get the religion right: The Google founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, had Jewish backgrounds but consider themselves non-religious. Facebook founder Zuckerberg had Jewish background and considered himself atheist at some point. Microsoft founder Bill Gates is Catholic. Paul Allen had Jewish parents. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was raised Catho…

American history and culture is heavily influenced by the Protestants that made up the early US. The Protestant work ethic is a commonly referenced aspect of American culture, and most Americans regardless of religion are not free of its influence.

When was the last time anyone overtly referenced the protestant work ethic except for the purposes of tearing down a straw man.

Many cultures, in the far east as well as Europe have similar "always be doing something productive" undertones.

I agree that the moralizing zealots that set the tone for early American culture were insufferable (and being so insufferable likely helped accelerate the settlement of the east coast states) but "muh protestant work ethic" isn't really unique to the US.

Re: Just Be Rich

#595

Post by csomar »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #333
stdbrouw wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply not true. Economists who try to explain the housing crisis have pointed to increased regulation, cheap credit leading to an asset bubble, speculation, ill-advised tax cuts for homeowners, NIMBYism (not by government but by current residents), irrational buy vs. rent decisions, changing preferences for city vs. suburb, relaxed downpayment requirements, changing lifestyles and demographics with bachelors…

What about just, people buying multiple houses/apartments to rent them out? IANAE, but I have a sinking feeling the situation would quickly improve if ownership had per-person limits (and no easy way to pool the limits into a company). Countries could build new housing faster than the population grows, but as long as it can be scooped up by the wealthy for renting out, the scarcity would prevail.

> I have a sinking feeling the situation would quickly improve if ownership had per-person limits

Running an economy on feelings is a sure way to ruin an economy. People who buy multiple dwellings would be more than happy to rent them. Renting is good. It provides a liquid market to access housing. If the market is efficient, rent or buy should be a preference rather than a financial decision: The financial impact should be the same.

If people refuse to rent, or sell their property then you have something wrong with your economy (too much regulations, people are afraid of devaluation, etc...). You don't fix a structural problem of an economy by implementing a per-person limit to buy houses.

Re: Just Be Rich

#596

Post by AussieWog93 »

xupybd wrote: post #336
AussieWog93 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you 100% if it weren't for absolutely ludicrous house prices (for reference, I'm in Melbourne, but I've heard similar complaints from people in Canada and Hong Kong). My wife and I have a far higher than average household income, and even we're worried about how the hell we can afford to own our own home. God knows what the average single-income, working class family goes through.

I'm in NZ and it's craz I've here too. I don't know if that's a symptom of a wealth gap or something else. What ever it is it's a real issue. I personally think prices are inflated by low interest rates and the bubble is going to pop at some point.

Thank God you guys have Jacinda, though. Our government doesn't have the balls to get rid of negative gearing, let alone completely nullifying tax deductions on mortgage repayments.

Re: Just Be Rich

#597

Post by matchbok »

yarcob wrote: post #573
McScroogy wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich outbidding poor people is not what is causing a housing shortage. There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy. Even if you assume that every rich person keeps a number of spare houses, there are not enough rich people to cause a housing shortage.

The problem isn't a "housing shortage". The problem is that interest rates are so low, so everyone who has a bit of money on the side tries to invest in the real estate market. The result is that for every house thats sold, there isn't just someone who wants it as a living space, but also 5 people who want it as an investment. So 5 people outbid each other, the highest bidder gets it, and then the sucker who wanted t…

...and this would be ameliorated with more housing. Real estate is only a good investment if there is tons of demand.

Re: Just Be Rich

#598

Post by jtbayly »

chrisseaton wrote: post #549
lou1306 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment was about house owning, though. Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes, it wasn't always like this.

> Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes Something like 60% of US people own a home. 30% even own their home completely outright, with no mortgage. Obviously 30%, let alone 60%, of the population cannot be considered 'upper class', and 'middle class' is probably even a stretch. The home ownership rate seems broadly stable since the 60s to me, with gentle ups and downs with the economy,…

> 30% own their home completely outright...

Which tells me that they likely bought their house over 30 years ago. Which tells me that they have been largely unaffected by the complaint you are responding to.

Re: Just Be Rich

#599

Post by ramphastidae »

McScroogy wrote: post #535
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…

The rich outbidding poor people is not what is causing a housing shortage. There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy. Even if you assume that every rich person keeps a number of spare houses, there are not enough rich people to cause a housing shortage.

> There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy.

Do you really think that’s a factor? That the wealthy say “My family has all bedrooms they need, so I’m done investing in real estate?” PE firms buy up entire communities and repackage their mortgages into investment products. Foreign investors will buy property regardless of location and never step foot in it if it’s in a more stable country than theirs. Real estate investing is not about finding a place to live for the wealthy.

Re: Just Be Rich

#600

Post by Kbelicius »

timwaagh wrote: post #545
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…

In the Netherlands we already have wealth tax (capital gains tax, but doesn't care whether you gained or not). It's nothing particularly disruptive. We still have the most wealth inequality in all the world. It might be a bit pointless to tax wealth in addition to capital gains though. You could just raise the former instead.

> We still have the most wealth inequality in all the world.

No you don't, not even close. Where did you get that idea?

Post reply on HN