How People Get Rich Now

Firstly, Gini coefficient is based on income, not wealth. That isn't stated clearly. Secondly, there's absolutely no data on what proportion of income flows to which decile. The conclusion (income inequality isn't a problem) is simply based on an assumption that the rise in the Gini coefficient is based entirely on the wealth accumulated by founders, and that this is a good thing.

I think this post boils down to "people like me are creating a lot of value, please acknowledge it. Also there are no downsides to this accumulation of wealth". This would be fine if PG also didn't argue that policies like wealth taxes are harmful (http://www.paulgraham.com/wtax.html). It just seems like a desperate play to keep his wealth intact.

This may be a quibble, because I think Paul Graham really means a certain type of high-growth startup in mind when he says "start a company". But the rate of new business formation in the US has fallen off a cliff in the past few decades.[1] The number of new companies as a percent of total businesses is 44% lower in 2012 than it was in 1978.

Again, I think this is different than what Paul Graham is talking about. When he says "many more people are starting companies", I think he's thinking more about a SaaS startup than a McDonalds franchise. Obviously that fits in much more with the theme of how people generate massive fortunes. Nobody becomes a billionaire from starting a landscaping service or an auto body shop.

But still, I think it's important to keep the context in mind. In the larger sense, entrepreneurship in America is very much dead. That doesn't mean that it isn't thriving in a specific Silicon Valley subculture, that to be fair makes massive contributions to the broader economy. But it should make us question what makes the Valley so different from Main Street, USA. If not just to figure out how to export the model from Palo Alto to Oklahoma.

[1]https://www.inc.com/magazine/201505/leigh-buchanan/the-vanis...

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 inflation number. Which in my opinion is kind of silly.

The formula for the index used considers substitutions. So for example, let's say Wool gets expensive, they expect you to substitute it for acrylic. If beef gets expensive, they expect you to substitute it for chicken or turkey, and so on. This isn't the reality people _feel_. For example, I for one, would realize I am no longer able to afford wool socks, and have to make do with acrylic socks. In essence, feeling poorer than I did before.

I was lucky to live in a state where my college tuition was mostly paid for, and with a parent who, despite making very little (worked in the school system), was still able to help support me with a stable home and to help cover some of the gaps (like living on campus). I was very lucky.

I realized later on the advantages other people had though when talking with people; a work colleague whose parents, though not rich, were far better off than mine, and had equipped her with life skills I and my family simply did not have. It was from her I learned about the company 401k, and investing in general, and caused me to realize that I should be investing money, not saving it.