Live data from Hacker News

How People Get Rich Now

paulgraham.com

391–400 of 941 posts

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn't really picking on the point, I was just noting that Airbnb seems like an increadibly bad example.

Also, using hyperbolic language like

> But this level of wealth concentration and inequality is detrimental to the fabric of a society. We’re not better off, we’re not more innovative, we’re not healthier or more cohesive or happier when this happens.

is definitly a dog whistle and not simply "noticing some consequences".

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#392

Earlier 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?

There's a cycle with blogs. The author starts a blog and they have a distinct, somewhat original voice with distinct, somewhat original views. In PG's case, the startup advice about building stuff that doesn't scale, not worrying about competitors, Lisp, etc. were quite fresh, at least to me. The author's blog becomes successful and their ideas become well understood throughout a community. But a person's ideas don't…

In other words there is a brand identity associated with the articles. And brand identity is a time/effort savings device employed by human minds when making a determination on what to consume.

You see this with consumer products all the time; for example the audiophile world may turn their nose up at Bose, but in the consumer space Bose is recognized as a known quantity (may be over priced for the quantity of quality you get but is recognized as not being extremely subpar generic).

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PG is apropos for this forum, but beyond that he is plainly a good writer. I don't know who you consider 'amazing writers across our civilization' -- but whether it is Gracian or Scott Alexander, PG shares one thing with them, namely that his works will be quoted beyond the lifespan of his contemporary readers.

It's impossible to know for certain, of course, but it seems highly unlikely that any of those writers will be quoted beyond the lifespan of contemporary readers (except potentially in scholarly books about rationalism/startups/etc). How many authors from the 1940s are still widely read, especially for essays/non-fiction?

Excepting the WWII memoirs (because I'm not sure how I want to count either Anne Frank, Elie Weisel or Winston Churchill in terms of "authors from the 1940s"), among authors whose nonfiction works are still read, there are a few names that do occur to me:

George Orwell, Friedrich Hayek, Simone de Beauvoir, John Maynard Keynes, Jean-Paul Sartre

For fiction there are obviously many more whose works have come through to frequent readership: Hemingway, Shirley Jackson, Albert Camus, C.S. Lewis, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Ayn Rand to name a few.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#394
I don't think this article makes the argument the author thinks it does.

If I take the author at his word that more people are creating large new fortunes at a higher rate, and I assume that the large fortunes of 1982 have not become significantly smaller (I admittedly don't have a citation for this, although I feel it's a safe assumption), and finally take into account that wealth inequality has been steadily increasing in the USA [1] since 1982, I come a reasonable conclusion:

"Winners" from the middle class are being promoted to super-wealthy status by consolidating wealth from their peers in the middle and lower classes, and it's happening at a much higher rate than it was 30 years ago.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#395
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"working for a corporation day in and out is slavery" Corporations are the boogeyman de jour but from personal experience, landlords / restrictive zoning / "anti gentrification" activists are the primary cause of my angst. I make more money now than I ever thought I would, but a truly staggering amount of it goes directly into my landlord's pocket.

Zoning doesnt matter unfortunately, prices go up in line with maximum possible mortgage amounts. Real-estate prices have no bearing on 'value' of the land or materials. The buyer is convinced that he will get that money back and then some from the next sucker to buy it off him. It a pyramid scheme, detached from real economy.

In this particular economy, absolutely - where else is your money going to go?

However, part of the way we got here is specifically due to neighborhood segregation and zoning laws. People don't like their housing going down in value, so they protest anything that might cause it to do so. Whether or not upzoning would actually harm property values is not material: the fact that people believe it to do so is enough to get them to protest increases in the housing supply. This means that every local government is blocking housing supply and working to keep prices high, which makes housing an artificially safe investment, and thus encourages infinite speculation.

This will continue until we break the idea that home ownership = retirement plan and that dense housing = cheap housing = crime. Once that happens, then it makes far less sense to speculate on real estate and we can start unwinding this long con. The reason why maximum mortgage amounts are so high is that banks can't lose - if the the debtor pays off their investment in full, then the bank wins; and if they default, then the bank repossesses a house that is likely worth more than the principal of the loan, so they win. There's no default risk - if that were to return, then banks would be more skeptical of who they lend to, and that would put start quenching demand.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#396
As usual, it's a well-written article. I wonder about a few things:

1. Why look at the top 100 people? It's an incredible small sample size. Those 100 people represent a huge amount of wealth, but a small number of people. What are the trends is we zoom out to, say, the top million wealthiest people? Does his thesis play out?

2. By extension, looking at the top 100 makes Graham feel myopic and elitist, which is what I think a lot of the comments in this thread allude to. By definition there can only be 100 richest people. The odds of breaking into that group are extremely small.

3. Graham's job is to convince people they have a chance to making it big. That's not a bad thing: we need those people. But it doesn't speak to broader needs of society.

So, honest question, because I haven't researched his essays in recent years: does Graham write about the situation of the bottom 100 million, in addition to the top 100?

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#397
It's funny how this post subtly buries the lede:

> In 1892, the New York Herald Tribune compiled a list of all the millionaires in America. They found 4047 of them. How many had inherited their wealth then? Only about 20% — less than the proportion of heirs today. And when you investigate the sources of the new fortunes, 1892 looks even more like today. Hugh Rockoff found that "many of the richest ... gained their initial edge from the new technology of mass production."

I agree with PG, 1892 is a lot like today. And just like today it was characterized by the formation of huge monopolies that consolidated control of new technologies, as well as rampant inequality and exploitation of workers[1]. The reaction among those that didn't get to benefit from the excesses of this era is also notable - Communism - and not the kind where hipsters complain on the internet but rather the kind where people were willing to violently overthrow governments.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#398
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 had the same feeling skimming through the post. What a despicable person this PG turned out to be.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#399
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…

Can I ask a related question? Why all the focus on income/wealth "inequality"? Shouldn't we be looking at the absolute baseline quality of life? Hasn't it been increasing dramatically despite increasing inequality? Due to technological advances, hasn't the baseline quality of healthcare, education, sanitation, nutrition, shelter, comfort, convenience, etc. significantly improved from the 60s or the 80s? If so, why be…

>Why all the focus on income/wealth "inequality". Shouldn't we be looking at the absolute baseline quality of life? Hasn't it been increasing dramatically despite increasing inequality? Due to technological advances, hasn't the baseline quality of healthcare, education, sanitation, nutrition, shelter, comfort, convenience, etc. significantly improved from the 60s or the 80s?

If people are feeling more volatility, and that it can all slip out from under them at any time, then all that baseline quality improvement is not worth much. Also, just like many other animals, we are playing a game rooted in the mechanics of mating involving social hierarchy and various tribal mechanics that are key to securing desired resources and reducing the aforementioned volatility. I do not imagine vast gaps in income/wealth/security help the tribe as a whole in this game.

Re: How People Get Rich Now

#400
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted not because you're right, but because you're mostly wrong. I mean, you're maybe 10% right. You take that 10% and inflate it to the point that it's almost completely wrong, though.

I appreciate your well-defended and reasoned argument. I learned a lot from your countless examples of what I got wrong and given that I’ve missed the mark on earning your vote, I’ll be sure to factor your feedback into my future comments.

Your post is just a bunch of empty accusations, too. You're trying so hard to be snarky but everything you said might as well be applied to your own post. You just had to talk big hiding behind a throwaway, didn't you?
Post reply on HN