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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#941

Post by nybble41 »

rjmunro wrote: post #694
yarcob wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the UK, it's not just low interest rates, it's also that the rules on renting have made it more attractive for landlords and less attractive for tenants. For example, you used to need a good reason to evict someone, now you can just evict them whenever you like. Once you moved in, increases in rent used to be regulated. Now a landlord can charge whatever they want after the initial period and if you can't afford i…

> Landlords used to have to maintain and fix the property. While they still do in theory, in practise they often just threaten one of the two options above to anyone who wants a repair done.

That's not very smart. So the current tenant leaves, and then what? Good luck finding someone else to rent the property at the original price without fixing the issue…

Re: Just Be Rich

#942

Post by TearsInTheRain »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #854
baron816 wrote: post #58

Inequality by itself is not a bad thing. Let's start from there. 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. Inequality is only bad if you're in a zero-sum game. The rich do have the power to extract rents and "rig the system" to ceme…

> I personally don't believe that an unskilled worker in the US deserves to be paid 10X... A full-time worker deserves to be paid enough to live, period. Unskilled or not. They deserve a roof over their head, food on the table, and basic healthcare. Cost of living varies greatly based on locale, and comparing that number to the poverty wage in Bangladesh is what the invisible hand does, yes, but it's absolutely not w…

> A full-time worker deserves to be paid enough to live, period.

Even if "enough to live" is greater than the value they generate?

Re: Just Be Rich

#943

Post by martinflack »

wayanon wrote: post #554
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…

True - I'm in my late 40s in London and accepted some time ago I will never own a home. If UK renters had the same protections as they do in eg Germany it wouldn't be such a precarious existence.

What is your opinion of the "Help to Buy" and "Shared Ownership" schemes in the UK?

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/help-to-bu...

Re: Just Be Rich

#944

Post by feoren »

greyhound wrote: post #647
feoren wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so weird that you seem to be kinda agreeing with the article while at the same time quoting some Ayn-Randian, hyper-libertarian, "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" scare-tactic nonsense. Can we kill this idea that the spooky government helping a poor person is some sort of tyrannical insult to them? The government helps rich people all day long -- even the most bootstrapped businessman still uses gov…

Such a privilege to have no idea how the Government can execute millions of its citizens having no doubt that they are paving the way to a Better Tomorrow.

You're right: our only two options are (A) extreme libertarianism where the Government exists only to protect the interests of the rich, and (B) the government literally exterminating its own citizens. We better be careful not to increase taxes on the rich or we risk immediately turning into (B)!

Also, didn't I just say that eugenics was a horrible thing that was in-vogue in the early 20th century? Isn't that exactly what you're saying?

Re: Just Be Rich

#945

Post by astan »

soheyl wrote: post #894
dougmwne wrote: post #807

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. I strongly disagree with this and I think it runs counter to human nature. You're looking at quality of life as if there were some kind of absolute measure of it, but it really doesn't wor…

But is it really "human nature"? Go back a few centuries, and everything belonged to a monarchy, and by everything, I mean even your life and your family. Were people unhappy "because of it"? For the vast majority of humans, I doubt it. They had just learned not to compare themselves with the king. For something to be human nature, I think it needs more time. And if peasants knew that comparing themselves to the king…

Nice response. Part of the problem is "pull yourself up by bootstraps" PG-tier p0rn. With a king, an average person isn't being told everyday that they too can become a king, if only they worked harder. With people like startup founders, VCs, Musk, Bezos and the like, constantly writing articles on how you too can become rich like them: http://paulgraham.com/richnow.html, average people view this life as achievable and it harbors disappointment and insecurity to not achieve those levels.

Re: Just Be Rich

#946

Post by camhart »

ryandrake wrote: post #847
camhart wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The proportion is zero-sum by definition, and that's what's important. Even if the pie keeps growing for everyone, the rich are taking a bigger and bigger proportion of the pie, and proportion is what makes you poor. If I have 10% of a $10M the pie today and you have 90%, and tomorrow I have 5% of a $20M pie and you have 95%, then you have proportionally taken from me, and I am worse off, despite having the same abso…

The amount of the pie you have doesn't matter. How could it?

What matters is purchasing power.

Re: Just Be Rich

#947

Post by jb775 »

nindalf wrote: post #662
hellbannedguy wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates 501c3 puts back less than 1 percent off their benovelent humanitarian money back to the United States. The country that coddled him, an his connected mother. Personally, I think these good ole nonprofit boys; Billy, Zuck, Warren, etc. are tax dodgers. Obama wanted to reform nonprofit regulations, but chickened out.

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.

The world would be better off if he didn't exist.

Re: Just Be Rich

#948

Post by jb775 »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #906
jb775 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any data to support anything you said here? The middle class has been getting decimated the past 20 years. They used to live comfortably on a single income, now both parents slave the week away and have even less purchasing power. Also, housing prices aren't "out of control" at all. Inflation is reducing the value of the dollar, and it's showing up in the real estate market. Inflation hurts anyone on a sa…

My data is anecdotal. I live in the suburbs surrounded my middle class people like myself. Food / clothes / tools / entertainment are plentiful. People are living a good life. Here in Australia, house prices are rising significantly faster than inflation. My personal suspicion is that its because everything else is so cheap, the middle class can afford borrow and spend more of their dual income salaries on their hous…

Food/clothes/tools became cheaper over the past 100 years as economies of scale were built, but they were much cheaper 10-15 years ago when you compare price to purchasing power of income. This is a somewhat recent trend we're talking about (last ~25 years or so).

I think inflation is rising a lot faster than you think. They don't admit there's actual inflation until it's already been here for a while.

> We live in a democracy so we can make rules that balances power

Not true and never has been. This is a pipe dream for suckers. The golden rule is that those with the gold make the rules.

> inequality of power vs inequality of money

Money buys power (lobbyists, legal bribes, media access, etc), so these are basically the same thing if someone with lots of money is interested in spending it on obtaining power.

Re: Just Be Rich

#949

Post by soheyl »

astan wrote: post #945
soheyl wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it really "human nature"? Go back a few centuries, and everything belonged to a monarchy, and by everything, I mean even your life and your family. Were people unhappy "because of it"? For the vast majority of humans, I doubt it. They had just learned not to compare themselves with the king. For something to be human nature, I think it needs more time. And if peasants knew that comparing themselves to the king…

Nice response. Part of the problem is "pull yourself up by bootstraps" PG-tier p0rn. With a king, an average person isn't being told everyday that they too can become a king, if only they worked harder. With people like startup founders, VCs, Musk, Bezos and the like, constantly writing articles on how you too can become rich like them: http://paulgraham.com/richnow.html , average people view this life as achievable…

Absolutely. I think (hope) that what PG meant in that essay is that the rich people today get there by displaying more "sportsmanship" than 200 years ago. And I generally agree with that. And I think if you compare Bezos and Musk with whoever would rank similarly to them on Forbes list in 1821, you would agree too. But it absolutely does not mean that anyone can get there.

The fact that Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt have won so many medals without (hopefully) juicing or bribing officials is great, and maybe even a cause for celebration for the human race, but it absolutely does not mean that anyone can do those things.

Re: Just Be Rich

#950

Post by themacguffinman »

cbslinger wrote: post #789
sbacic wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because at least old money understands the concept of noblesse oblige. Source please. > it's that this mentality of earned wealth completely rids the owner of any sort of responsibility. Allow me to offer a different view. If you're one of the lucky few who went from nothing to millions (or even billions) you'd be pissed if society came and started talking about responsibility and equality _now_. Where was society…

Noblesse Oblige came less from the old wealthy being kind and more from them being physically close to poor people. They were under constant threat of physical violence by sheer proximity, so they had to care - because they likely realized how tenuous their positions were. The ultra-rich nowadays physically isolate themselves from the working class and generally have security forces and bodyguards to further ensure t…

This doesn't really track with my knowledge of history. Aristocrats wouldn't socialize with or marry anyone from the low classes, it would be shameful and scandalous. Aristocratic leaders like royalty were sequestered to enormous palaces. It was difficult to blend in either, your class & wealth was very obvious in the clothes that you wore and how you spoke.
Post reply on HN