3 ms·

> It is not that hard to become a millionaire, way easier than being a salaried person Sure. If it is not so hard, everyone would do it. If everyone was a mi

> It is not that hard to become a millionaire, way easier than being a salaried person Sure. If it is not so hard, everyone would do it. If everyone was a millionaire, who would do actual unpleasant work? Who would clean, run hospitals, build infrastructure? Who would work for your startup so you can make money? Your comment is such an example of survivorship bias! Capitalism is a competition. You won, good for you. Don't tell the rest they can win too, that's insulting. You won because someone lost.

thenomad 10y ago
The "actual unpleasant work" is to a significant extent the domain of entrepreneurs. For example, cleaning companies - often started by one person doing the cleaning - are an absolutely textbook example of entrepreneurship. Some of those entrepreneurs then become millionaires :) (Updating this post: obviously a lot of unpleasant work is done by non-entrepreneurs. But the maxim of "find something necessary but unpleasant and start a company doing it as a high-success-chance play" is also very true: entrepreneurs don't, as a class, all avoid the nasty stuff. In the UK, the phrase I'm looking for is "where there's muck, there's brass.")
- moulder 10y ago
  Congrats: you made me register just to tell you to shut the f*ck up.
- danielpatrick 10y ago
  lol. What?
- et-al 10y ago
  Along those lines, the idea of meeting a millionaire who makes bottle caps tickles me more than meeting most well known entrepreneurs like Phil Knight. Something about commonplace, yet invisible products.
mseebach 10y ago
> Capitalism is a competition. [...] You won because someone lost. This is false, and frankly a bit insulting.
- tankenmate 10y ago
  But not as false as you seem to imply; in fact it is somewhere in the middle ground. Some things are finite, others not. So for finite things there literally are cases where one person can have and another can not. Obviously there is a spectrum and some things fall into the middle ground. I think that the GP is antagonistic, but one person's envy politics is another person's inequality; your statement seems to be the flip side to the GP's. So almost all acknowledge that luck can play a factor, how much can sometimes be up for debate. So if you are lucky do you deserve all that comes your way? or should you play nice and share? And if someone else's luck was even partly the cause of your misfortune how would you feel? I don't have the answers but I think the subject is worth thinking about; especially as it seems difficult to square the circle.
- dbatten 10y ago
  To expand... it's false, because wealth is not a zero sum game. There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117. Most of the wealthiest folks get rich by inventing/creating new wealth, not by stealing from others. If capitalism was just a competition, we'd still be fighting over castles and wheat and Trojan women. Cars, computers, and indoor plumbing wouldn't exist.
  - arximboldi 10y ago
    > wealth is not a zero sum game. Agreed. > There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117 Agreed. Also inequality is higher than ever. > Most of the wealthiest folks get rich by inventing/creating new wealth, not by stealing from others. False. They get rich by extracting surplus out of the new wealth created by someone's labor. Whether we call that stealing or not I don't care. > If capitalism was just a competition, we'd still be fighting over castles and wheat and Trojan women. Cars, computers, and indoor plumbing wouldn't exist. As I said, wealth is not a zero sum game. But for someone to be rich, someone has to be poor. By definition. For someone to extract surplus, someone has to create value--i.e. work. By definition. Now, you could argue that in a society with a lot of wealth, one can be "poor by definition" or a salaried worker, and still live a life in dignity. I concede that this could be a theoretical possibility. It could make for an interesting science fiction novel. In most parts of the real world (including the USA), being poor is miserable and doing salaried work is alienating and most often exploitative.
989throwaway66 10y ago
I am a small business owner, doing unpleasant work. My business has been doing well, exactly because it is unpleasant: a lot of people want to outsource what I do, even if it is a bit expensive. I also have found that many people are OK to do some jobs for me that I find really really unpleasant. You need to find the right person for the right "unpleasant" though. This is the beauty of capitalism. And I am now a millionaire. And when I describe what I do, people yawn and don't want to do it. Even if I find it quite darn interesting. Beware survivorship bias: I strongly believe it is much easier, and way most likely, to become a millionaire if you set your mind to become a millionaire, and not a billionaire. Many more ways and options. No need for a wild unproven new idea.
- kk_cz 10y ago
  ...so? what is it that you do?
  - 989throwaway66 10y ago
    Not sharing on a very public platform with so many readers, by fear that, even if 99.99% will yawn, someone will decide to try to compete with me... Living small, discreetly, living happy.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      That is the trouble with you guys: You propose ideas that work - but only as long as only very few people do it. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly - by the way, did you yourself even notice this catch? It may work for anyone, but not for everyone. I love that in English those words sound so similar. I might be tempted to consider that's part of the problem (as part of the larger "how does language influence thought" topic, where the answer currently seems to be "generally not too much, but it depends"), but in my (non-English speaking) country the same kind of thinking isn't exactly unknown either.
      - 989throwaway66 10y ago

thenomad 10y ago

The "actual unpleasant work" is to a significant extent the domain of entrepreneurs. For example, cleaning companies - often started by one person doing the cleaning - are an absolutely textbook example of entrepreneurship. Some of those entrepreneurs then become millionaires :) (Updating this post: obviously a lot of unpleasant work is done by non-entrepreneurs. But the maxim of "find something necessary but unpleasant and start a company doing it as a high-success-chance play" is also very true: entrepreneurs don't, as a class, all avoid the nasty stuff. In the UK, the phrase I'm looking for is "where there's muck, there's brass.")

moulder 10y ago
Congrats: you made me register just to tell you to shut the f*ck up.
danielpatrick 10y ago
lol. What?
et-al 10y ago
Along those lines, the idea of meeting a millionaire who makes bottle caps tickles me more than meeting most well known entrepreneurs like Phil Knight. Something about commonplace, yet invisible products.

mseebach 10y ago

> Capitalism is a competition. [...] You won because someone lost. This is false, and frankly a bit insulting.

tankenmate 10y ago
But not as false as you seem to imply; in fact it is somewhere in the middle ground. Some things are finite, others not. So for finite things there literally are cases where one person can have and another can not. Obviously there is a spectrum and some things fall into the middle ground. I think that the GP is antagonistic, but one person's envy politics is another person's inequality; your statement seems to be the flip side to the GP's. So almost all acknowledge that luck can play a factor, how much can sometimes be up for debate. So if you are lucky do you deserve all that comes your way? or should you play nice and share? And if someone else's luck was even partly the cause of your misfortune how would you feel? I don't have the answers but I think the subject is worth thinking about; especially as it seems difficult to square the circle.
dbatten 10y ago
To expand... it's false, because wealth is not a zero sum game. There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117. Most of the wealthiest folks get rich by inventing/creating new wealth, not by stealing from others. If capitalism was just a competition, we'd still be fighting over castles and wheat and Trojan women. Cars, computers, and indoor plumbing wouldn't exist.
- arximboldi 10y ago
  > wealth is not a zero sum game. Agreed. > There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117 Agreed. Also inequality is higher than ever. > Most of the wealthiest folks get rich by inventing/creating new wealth, not by stealing from others. False. They get rich by extracting surplus out of the new wealth created by someone's labor. Whether we call that stealing or not I don't care. > If capitalism was just a competition, we'd still be fighting over castles and wheat and Trojan women. Cars, computers, and indoor plumbing wouldn't exist. As I said, wealth is not a zero sum game. But for someone to be rich, someone has to be poor. By definition. For someone to extract surplus, someone has to create value--i.e. work. By definition. Now, you could argue that in a society with a lot of wealth, one can be "poor by definition" or a salaried worker, and still live a life in dignity. I concede that this could be a theoretical possibility. It could make for an interesting science fiction novel. In most parts of the real world (including the USA), being poor is miserable and doing salaried work is alienating and most often exploitative.

989throwaway66 10y ago

I am a small business owner, doing unpleasant work. My business has been doing well, exactly because it is unpleasant: a lot of people want to outsource what I do, even if it is a bit expensive. I also have found that many people are OK to do some jobs for me that I find really really unpleasant. You need to find the right person for the right "unpleasant" though. This is the beauty of capitalism. And I am now a millionaire. And when I describe what I do, people yawn and don't want to do it. Even if I find it quite darn interesting. Beware survivorship bias: I strongly believe it is much easier, and way most likely, to become a millionaire if you set your mind to become a millionaire, and not a billionaire. Many more ways and options. No need for a wild unproven new idea.

kk_cz 10y ago
...so? what is it that you do?
- 989throwaway66 10y ago
  Not sharing on a very public platform with so many readers, by fear that, even if 99.99% will yawn, someone will decide to try to compete with me... Living small, discreetly, living happy.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    That is the trouble with you guys: You propose ideas that work - but only as long as only very few people do it. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly - by the way, did you yourself even notice this catch? It may work for anyone, but not for everyone. I love that in English those words sound so similar. I might be tempted to consider that's part of the problem (as part of the larger "how does language influence thought" topic, where the answer currently seems to be "generally not too much, but it depends"), but in my (non-English speaking) country the same kind of thinking isn't exactly unknown either.
    - 989throwaway66 10y ago