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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#971

Post by neonological »

ivanche wrote: post #953
neonological wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investments do not compound fast enough for middle class people for it to really matter. Most people must work for an economy to function. If everyone can stop working and rely on income from investment growth then there would be no more human capital to grow those investments because everyone is waiting for investments to grow rather then producing work and labor which is the true driver of growth. Therefore, Anyone…

It seems to me you're painting everything black or everything white, no shades in between. I never said anyone must rely only on investment income. I also never said that everybody should stop working and live off of investments (of course it's unsustainable). But outright refusing to combine salary and investment income just because investments "don't compound fast enough" is like saying you don't want to ride a bic…

I consider myself middle class. And I make what you made in 5 months what took you 4 years without any penny pinching schemes.

Not to mention I invest what I make. So yeah when I say it doesn't compound fast enough for poor people, I'm being honest. You don't even stand a chance catching up to me with just investing. Not to mention I'm still considered middle class.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you won't make this kind of money ever. You could approach and likely surpass this income in the future. What I'm saying is investing won't get you anywhere at your stage. Not when baseline living costs are too high and compounding interest is too low.

Also I NEVER said to not invest. I'm saying investing doesn't close the gap nor does it alleviate hardship. It doesn't address the problem head on. To poor people investment is worth much less than it is to rich people, much much much less. So much less that a wage increase effects lifestyle more than gains on investment. See this: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0211/why-the-fir...

Wishing your kid will be worth 5 million is a pipe dream. First consider inflation. Second consider that every generation will have it harder than the last. Your kid will absolutely 100% have to rely on inheritance to get ahead. Both me and you didn't rely on inheritance but I doubt our kids will have any chance if they don't.

Re: Just Be Rich

#972

Post by ivanche »

neonological wrote: post #971
ivanche wrote: post #953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me you're painting everything black or everything white, no shades in between. I never said anyone must rely only on investment income. I also never said that everybody should stop working and live off of investments (of course it's unsustainable). But outright refusing to combine salary and investment income just because investments "don't compound fast enough" is like saying you don't want to ride a bic…

I consider myself middle class. And I make what you made in 5 months what took you 4 years without any penny pinching schemes. Not to mention I invest what I make. So yeah when I say it doesn't compound fast enough for poor people, I'm being honest. You don't even stand a chance catching up to me with just investing. Not to mention I'm still considered middle class. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you won't make t…

Well, then I can only say we revisit this thread in year 2081. I started investing when I was 40. My son started investing when he was 5. He has 60 more years of compounding ahead of him. Even if the rate of return drops to 7% instead of historical (around) 10.3%, he'll be good. Also, I wasn't referring to $5,000,000 in today's money, but in year 2081 money. I know it will be much less than today but heck, it will probably be much more than what is $50,000 today.

Re: Just Be Rich

#973

Post by greyhound »

feoren wrote: post #944
greyhound wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a textbook example of a straw man.

Re: Just Be Rich

#974

Post by dougmwne »

Z0rr0 wrote: post #956
dougmwne wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If human nature wasn't greedy, vain and materialistic, the modern economy would not exist.

Are you arguing that if we take away the bad parts of human nature, the economy would collapse? What useful function does greed, vanity, and materialism serve in the modern economy?

I am arguing the economy would change and probably look nothing like it does now. Market economies basically have taken the "bad" aspects of human nature and use them to drive price discovery, demand creation, and efficiency gains. There would be other ways to do these things, but working within the bounds of normal human behavior has it's advantages. The economy can function on "whatever works" not just our better angels.

Re: Just Be Rich

#975

Post by adamdusty »

flexie wrote: post #274
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,…

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…

He's using "protestant" as an adjective of zealotry, not as an adjective of the people themselves.

Re: Just Be Rich

#976

Post by robocat »

soheyl wrote: post #949
astan wrote: post #945

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think using sporting analogies often fail because sports are zero-sum games (only one winner), whereas more than one person can win playing business, and transactions where both sides win are common in non-sporting contexts.

Re: Just Be Rich

#977

Post by TearsInTheRain »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #965
TearsInTheRain wrote: post #942

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A full-time worker deserves to be paid enough to live, period. Even if "enough to live" is greater than the value they generate?

No - that type of job shouldn't exist. Automate them, offshore them, let the business models that depend on this type of exploitive labor fail. Eventually, this sort of job is going to disappear anyway. If paired with robust social safety nets, we can absolutely require jobs to pay a living wage.

There are people willing to take those jobs. You would be taking a job away from a willing worker and doing what? Tell them to take welfare? Not everyone in the workforce is a sole breadwinner for their family. Regulating those jobs makes all of those workers worse off and is an economic loss to the system.

Re: Just Be Rich

#978

Post by dennis_jeeves »

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,…

>Protestant zealotry

My god, so many people misunderstood you, and took this thing in the literal sense. HN is worse that I imagined.

Re: Just Be Rich

#979

Post by jiriknesl »

Mulpze15 wrote: post #207
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…

If you did not need to pay when you need healthcare, if education was free with equal opportunity, and everybody had enough to eat and a half decent place to live, I would entertain discussing this. You could have this today in the US, it exists elsewhere. Yes, it would probably cost a bit more for the wealthiest people. Until then, I believe we should not try to justify inequality based on irrealistic theoretical ar…

When you are building wealth, you are likely to be young (so often healthy) and there is so much information online, libraries cost nothing. So I don't think this is a valid argument.

Re: Just Be Rich

#980

Post by southerntofu »

throwaways885 wrote: post #958
southerntofu wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism is called the 'least worst' system Capitalism is only called "least worst" by capitalists themselves. Much of humanity considers capitalism "the worst". > Give a viable alternative that doesn't descend into fascism So, to give some historic perspective, capitalism is precisely the root cause of fascism. All totalitarian systems are capitalist by essence, and historic fascism in France, Germany, Italy, Gr…

State capitalism is the only viable implementation of communism. Humans will not share unless co-opted, so the use of violence is required for the proletariat to seize resources. > What about a society in which nobody has to worry for a place to sleep and food to feed their children? We have this society, today. There are a few outliers, and yes, life is tough for many (most?), but we are way way better off as compar…

> Humans will not share unless co-opted

There's ample evidence otherwise in the body of social sciences. Cooperation is a fundamental characteristic found all across nature and is a pillar of human civilizations throughout the ages. I would argue it takes a lot of resources/energy to coerce people into NOT sharing, like when school teachers will try to make you believe copying is cheating despite your guts telling that helping one another is perfectly fine.

You could read Kropotkin on Mutual Aid, if you're interested on more information (though outdated by over a century of research) on how selfishness is definitely not a natural state of things.

> This is an issue with America, not capitalism.

No, it's a problem with money and profit and does not only affect America. The same issues have reached the UK and every other place where "neoliberalism" got a foothold. In fact, even in France where neoliberalism isn't quite established just yet and education is still rather cheap (> If state violence is required to force people to share

It is not. In fact, state violence can only be used to PREVENT people from sharing. If there was no police, there would be no poverty because we'd have expropriated the rich long ago, as the vast majority of people agree that's the only sane thing to do. Or do you know a lot of people defending banks and billionaires? Personally i don't know a single one in my neighborhood.

> I make ~O(£20k) per year (...) calling me part of "the tiny privileged elite"

So depending on where you live you're either very rich or rather poor. In the UK that's definitely not a rich income, but in other parts of the world £20k/year makes you a rich person. In any case, any form of salary in the Global North makes us considerably richer than most people in the Global South.

Also, please note i did not call you part of the tiny privileged elite, as i do not know you. The "you" employed was a generic, impersonal you. The tiny privileged elite was "most of us on HN", which you and me are apparently not a part of (i make EDIT: Also worth noting about the human tendency to sharing. Marxism-leninism never was a form of sharing. There were richer and poorer folks in the USSR, as in every "dictatorship of the proletariat". In fact, the political police hunted down people who wanted to share, such as the peasants cooperatives of Ukraine (defended by the Makhnovtchina peasant's army) or the soviet of Kronstadt... both of which were eradicated in blood by Lenin and Trotsky's red army because they were actual communists and not power-hungry tyrants.

Post reply on HN