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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#741

Post by RHSeeger »

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"?

> If this was true in reality, then why are there so many new wealthy people that didn't come from wealth?

The way I am reading this is you are saying

> It is easier to become wealthy if you're already wealthy or have access to wealth

is disproven by the fact that

> There exist people that became wealthy without already

I do not see any other way to take your statement. If you meant it some other way, please explain.

Since the original statement is "it's easier with" not "it's impossible without", it is not disproven by the second item.

As to how I define "access to wealth", I mean you either have wealth yourself or are in a position to get it (borrow it from a bank or family, etc). To take an extreme example, a penniless, homeless person with no friends or family has 0 access to wealth; they do not have their own money available, nor can they borrow from a bank or family. Everything between that and "has 200 million under a mattress" is a matter of scale in between; and the definition of what counts as "wealth" depends on the context.

Re: Just Be Rich

#742

Post by Jotra7 »

_coveredInBees wrote: post #621
tester34 wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Seriously. Every time I read a post like the parent you are replying to, my eyes roll back a little farther in my skull. It's like they teleported from the slashdot comment sections from 2 decades ago and decided to carry on without missing a beat.

I can't believe the Gates sycophants who will defend him no matter what. The man is richer than he's ever been and people think he's some sort of hero.

The billionaires have cucked so many people.

Re: Just Be Rich

#743

Post by Spivak »

dasil003 wrote: post #709
nindalf wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Bill Gates - terrible guy. Spending money trying to eradicate diseases that kill poor people. What's worse, here's him in 2015 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI ) wasting money and faffing on about some pandemic. As if that's going to happen, and even if it does the pandemic won't affect rich countries in any way.

Sure I’ll give credit for his recent philanthropy, but the man crushed a generation of innovative software companies under his heel. Fortunately he didn’t see the web coming and failed to stop Linux, but make no mistake was not a good person for most of his career, and we are still feeling the effects of the damage he did to the software world.

I know we’re in a form of technology people but to put it bluntly — nobody cares. Microsoft is a massive massive successes story for the US in which a US company has a dominant position in the world market for software.

You forget that outside of tech everything that MS did that we rail on about will be remembered as good business. Nobody except people on the inside have these idealistic views about software and freedom and all that.

Re: Just Be Rich

#744

Post by mikro2nd »

labatyd wrote: post #467
mikro2nd wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In startups you get to be wrong only once.

What is that supposed to mean? Fail fast and move on is one of the mantras of the industry and as far as I can tell from reading HN most startup founders and employees all have numerous startups under their belt unless they accidently unicorned their very first one.

It means, as you succinctly captured, that the startup is dead. The founders may well move on, but the original venture is toast. Point being: generally a startup doesn't have sufficient resource to recover from any serious missteps, particularly in the earlier parts of the game. All you can do is close the doors and move on to the next thing. Or get a job. The people survive (though frequently not without taking some damage, emotional, personal, financial or other) but the venture itself... no.

source: Me. ~Veteran~ Survivor of 3 failed startups ;)

Re: Just Be Rich

#745

Post by analyst74 »

The author is talking about a definition of wealth in the top quintile, 20%, or top 80 million of Americans. In some other figures he talked about upper class in pew's research, which is double the national median income. Households in that income bracket earns a whopping $187,872 per year, and have $848,000 in wealth. Why are people talking about founders and the extremely wealthy in context of those numbers?

Most of those people are regular people with regular incomes with good saving habit, and/or got lucky because the house they bought 30 years ago happen to be in a boom area.

Re: Just Be Rich

#746

Post by hiphipjorge »

titzer wrote: post #724

Personally, I think anyone who amasses oh, say, 100 lifetimes of wealth and can't stop trying to get more has a mental illness. And I don't mean that for laughs. They have a sickness and are not well. If you've got a $300 million fortune, why can't you just go enjoy life already? It's not like enjoying your life by spending your money isn't going to also create jobs for other people. You don't need to be "a job creat…

I see it completely differently.

For a lot of the people that get to that level of wealth, it was never about the money. It was always about something else. I don't think the Bezos, Zuckerbergs, and Musks of the world wake up every morning wanting to make more money. They find fulfillment in their work. The external recognition is not bad either.

I think you're right that some people who want to continue making money are mentally ill, but there are other reasons people continue working. For some, the money is just a byproduct.

Re: Just Be Rich

#747

Post by dragonwriter »

arximboldi wrote: post #732

It seems that the Graham's point (a trap in which the OP's critique falls) is that obscene riches are OK if they are not inherited. Following this logic, Hitler is better than the Queen of England because he earned his power instead of inheriting it! In fact, the Industrial Revolution that he claims to be the last "time of entrepreneurship" created the the Dickensian's work conditions and such a strong class divide t…

> In fact, the Industrial Revolution that he claims to be the last "time of entrepreneurship" lead to the Dickensian's work conditions and such a strong class divide that lead to all the workers revolutions, the fascist counter-revolutions,

...and popular reaction againat capitalism everywhere else in the developed world, too, leading to the general abandonment of pure capitalism in the developed world and its replacement with the modern mixed economy, a comparatively vastly more socialistic system. The rejection of the system for which the term “capitalism” was coined was pretty universal,

Re: Just Be Rich

#748

Post by ameister14 »

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…

Part of your article is a bit confusing to me - when you say this: "Strange. No one is proposing a tax that would apply to all your assets."

Are you saying that the wealth tax proposed does not apply to assets and only applies to actual liquid cash holdings?

Re: Just Be Rich

#749

Post by iso1631 »

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.

When we were young my (now) wife kept jumping from job to job around the south east, and we'd move pretty much every year. As we were renting it didn't cost much to move - hire a van for a couple of days and job done.

However when we settled down with kids priorities changed, living close to a train station with good connections for work was less important, school catchment areas were, and the main importance is stability. The longest rental contract you can take in the UK is 3 years, after that who knows what will happen - maybe the owner will sell up, maybe they'll double the rent. A 5 year or even 10 year fixed mortgage gives certainty.

But the key thing is we wouldn't be able to rent if nobody owned properties they didn't live in.

Re: Just Be Rich

#750

Post by rory »

rychco wrote: post #663
chrisseaton wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

As someone in their mid 20’s with a tech job, it blows my mind that 60% of people own a home. I can’t imagine having enough money to own a home in a major city.

The home ownership rate is a lot higher outside major cities. It's only 30-40% in most major US cities.

Regardless, at current (historically quite low) interest rates, a typical software engineer's salary will qualify you for a very large mortgage.

You'd be surprised. At 30, I saw many of my friends go from thinking they'll never afford a home to each buying one over just a few years.

Post reply on HN