[deleted]
How People Get Rich Now
131–140 of 941 posts
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#132I'm not sure what the intent of this post is. Seemingly, it's to encourage people to start a company, because it's so easy now and you can get rich (look at all these people in the top 100 that got there by starting a company!) But I'm not sure looking at the top 100 is a compelling argument. That's for the 0.0001%. How does the top 10% do? The top 25%? What about the median outcome? More than that, what are the trad…
I think the point of the article was to demonstrate that the "wealth disparity" we are seeing nowadays is not due to parasitic rent seeking behavior, but due to genuine creativity and the creation of things people want to buy, and also that this was the norm except for the mid to late 20th century.
I think the parent point stands, though. Using the 100 richest individuals as a proxy for measuring and commenting on wealth disparity isn't very helpful. These people have always been outliers. A meaningful discussion would look more broadly at the top 10%, 1%, and 0.1% groups and investigate why they have been accruing wealth at a much higher rate than the bottom 75%/50%/25%
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#133I think there’s a different reason, companies just aren’t paying enough. Wages, even at 150-200k just really aren’t that much. 200k now is a lot less than 200k in 2010. The younger generation intuitively knows this. I don’t know anyone jockeying to climb the corporate ladder, and my social circle spans Stanford grads to no college degree at all. People are starting businesses because working for a corporation day in…
Just how bad at finances are you and people around you if 150k just really isn't that much? That literally places you amongst the richest 1%. Not metaphorically, literally. A couple of years worth of saving is enough to give you passive income to never need to work again for food or shelter.
$150k is not even enough to buy a small home near your workplace in a lot of cities. Janitors had better living conditions 50 years ago than $150k earners do today
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not talking about the bottom 95%, you are talking about 5% of the bottom 95%: tech-educated programmers & engineers. Now look at how many have the skills to be a CEO and that's about another 5% of that. So in reality you are describing 2.5% of the population.
The population of people who have the skills to be CEO of a <25 person business is far more than 5% of the population. The blue collar sector is filled with such people running e.g. electrical or plumbing companies. Plenty of those people are doing very well for themselves, and now we're talking about how rich is rich.
I know a woman who is the CEO of her Etsy knitting company that her daughter helps her with. So I guess you're right, anyone can call themselves a CEO.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#135It's a classic PG article. Many true facts in there, lots of good analysis with just a few questionable claims thrown in here and there. At the end, there's a massive claim that isn't fully stated but implied. "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absol…
Paul Graham's articles always shoot immediately up to the top of HN, but I agree with you, they're generally cursory and pithy thoughts which don't convince my skeptical mind. I don't know, can someone explain why his work is so popular? Think of all the amazing writers across our civilization whose work is linkable, and we're worshipping these decent but not amazing blog posts?
Because he's the founder of this website?
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#136It's a classic PG article. Many true facts in there, lots of good analysis with just a few questionable claims thrown in here and there. At the end, there's a massive claim that isn't fully stated but implied. "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absol…
>Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth.
Huh? Gini coefficient can be based on wealth just as well as on income. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_eq.... This essay doesn't specify which one PG is talking about.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#137I don't want to derail this too much with personal anecdotes, but I suspect you are much more likely to build wealth with the more established tech companies - and that wealth is "rich enough". Maybe I am just unlucky or unskilled, but I spent roughly 20 years working at startups or innovation labs. I was "close" to some big events where I could have made big $$ but made 0. Both at my own startup and being at early s…
Likewise, even down to being in the Boston area. I did OK at a couple of the eleven startups I worked at, but still made even more over just a couple of years at a FAANG. Many of my former colleagues on both sides have had similar trajectories. The vast majority of the "merely rich" in tech got that way by working at companies that had already broken away from the pack.
Speaking of breaking away from the pack, that brings us to the ultra-rich. AFAICT what pg has shown is not that building wealth alone is a path to riches (nor was that his intent AFAICT). The way to become ultra rich is to be one of the "lottery winners" among a cohort of relatively minor wealth creators. Playing the lottery is just as essential as building wealth, just as with literal lottery winners. The main difference is that this lottery isn't entirely random. Even among those who make it into the first round (founders), some players have certain innate advantages over others in the second. There's little demographic distance between Gates, Ellison, Bezos, and Musk - and Graham, for that matter. It's no accident. If you want to become seriously rich, it helps if you can afford to ride out risks - or even actual losses - that would force others out of the race.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#138It's a classic PG article. Many true facts in there, lots of good analysis with just a few questionable claims thrown in here and there. At the end, there's a massive claim that isn't fully stated but implied. "Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing" translated means "income inequality is not a problem". Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absol…
There's also the unstated implication that "anyone can do it if they work hard for it" - basically saying it used to be you had to be born into a wealthy family to be one of the richest people in the world and now you can be the richest person in the world based on merit alone (thus rich people are inherently meritorious).
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paul Graham's articles always shoot immediately up to the top of HN, but I agree with you, they're generally cursory and pithy thoughts which don't convince my skeptical mind. I don't know, can someone explain why his work is so popular? Think of all the amazing writers across our civilization whose work is linkable, and we're worshipping these decent but not amazing blog posts?
Because he's the founder of this website?
Just like RMS is highly respected at the FSF :)
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inflation data: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2010?amount=1 . I don't think that a 20% difference means 200K is a lot less. It's a bit less.
Unfortunately, for the last few years I have noticed more and more people no longer take government inflation data very seriously. Here are two (I am sure there are more) reasons why: Housing, Health and Education.. these very basic needs have consistently outstripped official inflation numbers. Specifically on the US coasts. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the cost of housing is completely left out of that i…
That's not really how substitutions work. Substitutions work by replacing what people used to buy with what people buy now.
Now your criticism remains valid, to a slightly lesser extent, because if everyone gets poorer and trades wool for acrylic socks, they get replaced in the basket. Not to artificially depress inflation, but to reflect what everyone (now poorer) actually buys.
The issue is, obviously you need substitutions. The finance example is going to be horses, so let's go with that. Nobody buys or rents horses anymore. They are exclusively the domain of recreation. So having them in the index would be lunacy.
One measure people use is the "big mac inflation index", a PPP index. That one would tell you that inflation between 2010 to 2020 is about 76%, or indeed 5.8% per year average.
But that's how the FED chairman Powell (and all those before) will dress it up these days.