Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buy payphones and retire

computer.rip

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 365 posts

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#161

Post by popcalc »

hinkley wrote: post #23
asveikau wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that is a bit like splitting hairs, but the article does question the extent to which actual payphones and calls were actually involved..

Ponzi schemes are illegal. MLMs are legalized Ponzi schemes. The outcomes are similar but one has a veneer of legitimacy that makes it more dangerous for some people.

MLMs are pyramid schemes, not ponzis. For example bitcoin is a (somewhat decentralized, but centralized among major mining companies) pyramid scheme while Tether is a Ponzi.

Both pyramid schemes and Ponzis are illegal. MLMs are illegal in many places. In the US they were successfully able to lobby their way into carving out a legal niche in the 80s. They are also the reason supplement safety is so loosely regulated in the US.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#162

Post by bongodongobob »

brewdad wrote: post #34
bongodongobob wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he's a helicopter mechanic or a million other things you can't just do at home.

Go buy 40 acres in the desert and live your dream.

Unless it comes with a fleet of helicopters to play with, I don't see how that's helpful.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#164

Post by simmerup »

immibis wrote: post #145
miki123211 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the version of passive income where you don't do anything productive at all, ever, and just put up some initial capital in exchange for even more money back, is always a scam No, that's just investing. This is how savings accounts work, this is how CDs work, this is how treasury bonds work, this is how passive investing (e.g. via ETFs on index funds) works, and there are many, many more examples. If you're keeping…

If everyone does it, the world grinds to a halt and everyone dies.

Well, everyone can’t do it because not everyone has access to capital

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#165

Post by georgeecollins »

immibis wrote: post #145
miki123211 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the version of passive income where you don't do anything productive at all, ever, and just put up some initial capital in exchange for even more money back, is always a scam No, that's just investing. This is how savings accounts work, this is how CDs work, this is how treasury bonds work, this is how passive investing (e.g. via ETFs on index funds) works, and there are many, many more examples. If you're keeping…

If everyone does it, the world grinds to a halt and everyone dies.

What really happens: if everyone tries to acquire a particular income producing asset, the asset gets so expensive that the return is not worth the risk plus the time value of the money it could generate. Stocks in the 1920's, Tokyo real estate in the 1990s, US housing the mid 2000's...

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#166

Post by spacebanana7 »

sokoloff wrote: post #123
thrance wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how often you hear "put your money to work". Money doesn't work, people do! If you receive a monthly income by doing nothing, you're taking from someone else's work.

While technically true, this could still be a great trade for all involved. If you invest in shares in a company, you are a link in the chain to that company existing at all, employing people, serving customers, and paying a dividend to shareholders. Employees have a job and income without the need to come up with the initial capital to start the venture and the associated risk of no income for a while. If you invest…

Another tangible example is renting a tractor to a farmer that couldn’t otherwise afford one. Their income from crop production goes up (even after tractor rental expenses) and society also gets more food.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#167

Post by __turbobrew__ »

SirMaster wrote: post #101
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and additionally the total investment about doubles in roughly 5 years That is a big assumption. What happens during the next real estate bust and your real estate value goes down to 1/4 of its prior worth? You are now set back 10 years. I think residential real estate is a bad bet long term. As real estate gets more expensive and more and more young people cannot afford to buy there is going to be more political c…

They have insurances for downturns built into the cost of the deal. Even if the value of the property doesn't increase as much as expected, you are still making a decent amount in income from the rent being paid. 6% maybe doesn't sound like much, but it's tax free income due to being able to deduct from that income the depreciation from the property and appliances and such which in my experience always is more than e…

I believe your account, and agree that this investment has turned out well for you. The last 11 years are not normal in my opinion, and I believe the time will come where policy changes will make this investment strategy much less desirable.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#168

Post by andai »

ElFitz wrote: post #106
andai wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the goal is to have a system where everyone can have passive income, then achieving that goal is the end of the world. If AI and robotics continue to be developed, then eventually most human labor becomes uneconomical by comparison. At that point, the system provides passive income on a mass scale (UBI) to prevent its own violent destruction. At least, that's the good ending.

To me, a major obstacle on the path to UBI is that it seems to conflict with the interests of those who benefit from the current status quo. If everyone receives a sufficient basic income, who will fix their toilets or clean their yachts? If the answer is ’no one’, then I’m afraid we’ll need significant advances in automation and robotics—or pitchforks—before we see UBI implemented. But my point of view may be simpli…

To clarify, the "human labor no longer exists in a meaningful way" thing depends (as far as I can tell) on "robots are able to perform all human labor", so their yacht would be cleaned by robots. Though I imagine they might hire humans anyway, as some kind of status symbol! (Artisanal, like hand-crafted items today.)

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#169

Post by simonebrunozzi »

andrewla wrote: post #57

The concept of "passive income" is almost a scissor concept. Or maybe only if you couple it with the categorical imperitive. On the one hand, it's so obviously true that it would be great to have passive income. Draw the salary you're drawing now, with some growth, and not have to work. On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt. People make things…

I would agree with you, but you seem to forget the concept of "cohorts" applied to this.

You could have people from age 20 to 40 working for everyone else; and people from 40 onwards to live on passive income. You would still have ~60% of the current workforce. Not impossible.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#170

Post by KK7NIL »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #144
KK7NIL wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your average retiree should not hold stocks as they usually can't survive a 10+ year drawdown (which, as I just showed you, happens a lot more than people think, even in the survivor biased S&P500 example). This is why target retirement funds transition to safer fixed income assets as the target date approaches. You're also forgetting that inflation doesn't just affect assets, it also affects living necessities (and…

>You're also forgetting that inflation doesn't just affect assets, it also affects living necessities (and that's how it's defined in fact), so it's unclear how this is a net gain for asset holders. Because the rate of increase of asset prices is quicker than that of other prices, namely labor. Hence the griping by young people about wages not keeping up with costs over the past many decades. Again, it’s not all old…

> Because the rate of increase of asset prices is quicker than that of other prices, namely labor.

This totally depends on the asset and is nowhere near as straightforward as you make it seem. For example, companies who mainly sell to consumers and require constant capex will generally be negatively impacted by inflation.

Your idea that the government will hold up the stock market just doesn't up to historical data. 2020 was the big exception (and the most recent in memory, hence why you and others are so focused on it) but the inflation that caused has lead to economic hardship across the board.

I agree with you that there's a political force trying to prop up the US stock market, but I'm not sure it's as simple as "old people and their 401k's!"

Post reply on HN