161–170 of 941 posts
But it was Reagan who actually executed on it. The unions and a significant amount of Democrats opposed both of them. Some jobs were lost but consumers greatly benefited.
Earlier 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.
But that is the government inflation, which is considered by some to be fake. Shadowstats [1] says inflation would be about 5%/year if we use the same methodology as in 1990, which gives about 60% over 10 years, i.e. you'd have to make 320k now. I'm just eyeballing the chart but if we use the 1980 method (~7% a year) it's almost 100% (i.e. you'd have to make 400k now). For another example, Dow Jones with dividends re…
I 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…
FAANG compensations can be quite high. Arguably they are that high precisely to siphon up headcount that would in the past alternatively go into other ventures to seek wealth there. But I would say that these high compensations seem to me to be set precisely high enough to hoover up talent but not high enough for employees to achieve "escape velocity" entirely from the market (without extreme financial discipline anyways)
It'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…
The book "The Great Leveler" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31951505-the-great-level... is probably the most comprehensive dive into history of inequality, and arrives at a fairly unexciting conclusion that periods of great inequality are correlated with significant economic growth (usually related to advances in automation, which tend not to be universally distributed) whereas periods of equality can generally be attributed to stagnation.
It'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.
It'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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make it on that list, you have to have succeeded at such an extreme outlier level that almost by definition almost everything had to have gone perfectly. That takes a lot of luck and advantages, such as family advantages. I'm not saying that detracts from what they accomplished, but they can't take all the credit either and it's not reproducible.
I'd agree - I have seen a lot of wealthy family children completely underperform relative to this bar. I'd say it's the exception and far from the norm that wealthy families to produce exceptional children. Exception to the statement being wealth taken from your countries people through corruption (like Putin, Jinping etc).
If you are born into a single-income, lower-middle class family, your floor is poverty and even literally starving to death. If you're born into a family of two high-income individuals, the odds of you living your adult life in poverty are vanishingly small and your floor is probably something closer to a ho-hum middle/upper-middle life. If you're born into a family where one of your parents is the CEO of a publicly traded company and makes tens of millions a year, your floor is probably a $150k/yr lower management job in some sector-adjacent company that your parents had to call in a bunch of favors to get you.
It's not so much that coming from an exceptional family increases the "genetic" odds of exceptionality, but it provides safety and security that allows you to take risks someone waiting tables at night to pay for college wouldn't be able to, which coupled with the natural contacts and associations you'll have, gives you a huge advantage.
I 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…
I worked for startups because I really wanted to “get rich”. And, I put way too many hours in trying. In the end, I did get moderately rich. But, honestly, it was mostly from saving and investing well, not from exit events. Unless you play the political game, I doubt you’re gonna get rich from options. And, they don’t write the options contracts like they used to.
When I started working, I made $30k / year, and I loved my work. Now, I make $180k / year, and I hate it. I hate the people mostly, and the politics. Lol. I do have enough to retire early, and I probably will because generally I feel the golden years of software development seem over. I liked it better when it was a bunch of nerds playing with tech - people who loved it. Now, it’s more people who would have otherwise gone into banking. Ymmv.