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

How People Get Rich Now

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 941 posts

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#251

Post by hardwaregeek »

nindalf wrote: post #71

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…

> A French critic cleverly wrote that "with Autumn Sonata Bergman does Bergman." It is witty but unfortunate. For me, that is. I think it is only too true that Bergman (Ingmar, that is) did a Bergman.... I love and admire the filmmaker Tarkovsky and believe him to be one of the greatest of all time. My admiration for Fellini is limitless. But I also feel that Tarkovsky began to make Tarkovsky films and that Fellini began to make Fellini films. -- Ingmar Bergman

And PG does PG. It's a classic pseudo-contrarian, startup rally cry, PG post. Which isn't to say it's worth getting annoyed at it. It's simply on brand.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#252

Post by john_moscow »

nindalf wrote: post #71

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…

>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".

To me, the implied message simply reads as "Startups and private equity is the number way to make money in 2021. Come do business with us."

Makes sense given PG's primary business.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#253

Post by monktastic1 »

quantumofalpha wrote: post #112
internetslave wrote: post #23

I 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…

Get out of your bubble. There's a whole world outside of Bay Area/NYC, where $150-200k/y is still a batshit crazy amount of money and $1M can last you happily ever after, even with kids. Accumulating $1-2M NW is totally within reach for most employees at US FAANGs after a decade or so of work.

I'll partly agree. I live in a HCOL city, and $200k is way more than enough, even with a kid. But $1M with a safe withdrawal rate of 3.5% gets you $35k/yr, which won't leave you "happily ever after" anywhere in the US with kids, particularly with healthcare concerns. Of course, one could move abroad, but that's not always feasible.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#254

Post by mattlondon »

internetslave wrote: post #23

I 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…

I disagree. Sure I am not able to just give up work entirely but those sort of figures you mention lead to a very comfortable standard of living, even supporting my entire family on one salary.

I guess it is about expectations about what you think you should have. I don't have a Tesla for instance.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#255

Post by iur12 »

exhaze wrote: post #220
iur12 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t a surprise. The religion that formed here hanging off his every word subscribed to it to get rich, just like he started YC to get rich. Now he’s happily rich, barely even looks in the mirror at these adherents that he left behind, and is writing for his new friends who are also rich. It was always pointless snake oil but the Sand Hill Greed here made everyone overlook that because maybe, just maybe, the ke…

Maybe one day, you'll even be confident enough to not make a throwaway account to say something like this.

This is kind of like a Clippy suggestion: hi there, it looks like you’re criticizing the forum. Would you like to establish a reputation on the forum?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#256

Post by gen220 »

timkam wrote: post #167
nindalf wrote: post #71

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…

I agree. To me, the post reads a bit like this: "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have more inequality, but the super-rich [like PG himself] really deserve it, because they are innovators." The post does not cover the arguably more important questions like "Are the working and middle classes better off?", "Was there less innovation back then or we…

Yep, I think there’s a lazy argument that tends to get made to justify the status quo, namely that inequality is necessary for innovation.

Of course it is, otherwise why take risks?

But this does not justify the 1000x inequality that we have today separating CEOs from laborers and 10000x separating founders from laborers.

What if those numbers were 100x and 5000x? Might we see even more innovation, and stronger communities?

The payoffs figures of today are also used to justify truly stupid risks. There are ponzi scheme type people who would rather masquerade at being a founder 10 times over in search of getting lucky once, screwing over investors and laborers in the process. Maybe if the disparity weren’t so eye popping, the same people would go into other fields instead.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#257

Post by runarberg »

zdragnar wrote: post #229
tyre wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add to that that tech companies concentrate wealth line never before. Airbnb takes a cut of transactions not only around the US but across the world. Not everyone works in the Bay Area, but how many of the founders, early employees, and VCs do? The ones who really make massive wealth? Not 100%, but most. Same with Stripe, the same with Facebook, Google, etc. we’re pulling tremendous wealth into a small area, with tec…

The use of Airbnb seems odd to me. People around the world use it because they don't like the alternatives. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do business?

I think the problem here is the consolidation of an entire industry around a single Silicon Valley company. In any other time in history this would be called a monopoly, and that is a problem.

If AirBnB was just an aggregator, say a cooperative standard where hotels and guesthouses could post their services and the profits of AirBnB would go back to the industry, that would be fine. But it is not, the profits go to shareholders and Silicon valley executives. And that is the problem.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#258

Post by arcturus17 »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #134
Godel_unicode wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So I guess you're right, anyone can call themselves a CEO

Semantics... That's not what I got from GP's point. They are talking about a company of up to 25 people (so, an order of magnitude larger than a two-person company). CEO, general manager, principal, top dog... What does it matter.

The point is you can make bank with a business of that size - possibly the mom and daughter operation you're describing does.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#259

Post by matkoniecz »

zdragnar wrote: post #229
tyre wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add to that that tech companies concentrate wealth line never before. Airbnb takes a cut of transactions not only around the US but across the world. Not everyone works in the Bay Area, but how many of the founders, early employees, and VCs do? The ones who really make massive wealth? Not 100%, but most. Same with Stripe, the same with Facebook, Google, etc. we’re pulling tremendous wealth into a small area, with tec…

The use of Airbnb seems odd to me. People around the world use it because they don't like the alternatives. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do business?

Noticing some consequences does not mean that they are calling for outlawing them.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#260

Post by de_keyboard »

There are clearly jobs that require high talent and have a shortage of labour that pushes up salaries. This includes things that require mathematical talent, like quantitative finance, but it also includes skills like motivational speaking or playing sports to a very high level.

However, I think most jobs are ones that, frankly, anyone could do if given the opportunity and a bit of training, but access to these jobs is controlled via gateways such as fancy schools, culture, family connections, your accent, etc. There's a kind of mediocre upper-middle class filling seats at large organizations but not really doing much. These are sometimes referred to as bullshit jobs.

But this is just speculation... I would like to see some data around it.

The number of people doing start-ups is a blip. This is not how most people accumulate wealth.

Post reply on HN