18 ms·

Stop Pretending You’re Not Rich

185 points by lorenzfx 9y ago

HalcyonicStorm 9y ago
A factor to consider is that vast majority of people still need to work to survive. There are very few people who can live off their investments.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  Hmm, I'm missing your point. Are you saying that the definition of "rich" is "can live off their investments"? I would disagree with that.
  - chronic940 9y ago
    I would argue those with access to clean water and shelter from the rain, including the homeless in San Francisco, are rich. Everyone here on HN needs to check their privilege.
  - HalcyonicStorm 9y ago
    I would say that true wealth does not have to work
    - akerro 9y ago
      Someone needs to maintain the wealth, keep avoiding taxes, keep an eye on regulations, foreign markets, looking for new investments.
      - orf 9y ago
        Couldn't they pay someone to do that?
        jk2323 9y ago
        Yes. But this is VERY risky. See this as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz The article does not give much details. But managers basically stole her wealth from her and siphoned it to themselves. "She was supported in her claim by Thomas Middelhoff". In my opinion it was Middelhoff who badly advised her for his own gain.
      - HalcyonicStorm 9y ago
        Money management is a huge industry.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - k__ 9y ago
    I've seen stats about wealth distribution in Germany and I'm in the top 7%. I could life of my saved money for 3 maybe 5 years if I'm very frugal. I wouldn't consider this rich, wealthy yes, but not rich. Also my money is probably more in the range of the 20% of the population that is "under me" in the stats than the 2% "over me".
  - ryanackley 9y ago
    I'm guessing his point is your lifestyle changes very little between the bottom and the top of the middle class. You have four walls and a roof over your head. Have home internet. Eat out a few times a week. Have a smart phone, etc. You still have to go to work every day like everyone else to sustain this lifestyle. You just have nicer "things" and "fancier" experiences?
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      That argument is extremely broad, though. It's easy to live off your investments if you live in a hovel, eat ramen every day and never go out. Is that classified as rich? Sure, it's a continuum, but "not having to live hand-to-mouth" is a hell of a lot closer to rich than to poor.
  - mangofoobar 9y ago
    No, that's the definition of Wealth
- notauser 9y ago
  Your comment is a fine example of the article's point. You (and I) may need to work. But that doesn't mean there's not a large gap between us and the "poor". Take myself for an example - I own half my house and the bank owns the other half. So, yes, I have to work for a "survive" and pay for my mortgage and food. But I only have to earn enough pay half the cost of housing, because the other half is provided by my capital. A poor(er) person has to earn enough pay 100% of their cost of housing. A rich(er) person would own their house in full, so has no need to earn to pay that cost of living. So there's clearly a scale between having to work to pay for anything, and not having to work at all because your capital pays enough dividends to cover all your bills. The article contends that the "rich" cut off point is much lower down than we think, and that this advantage is passed from generation to generation. The author says that in the UK this generational advantage is more recognised than in the US, because it is more formalised - which takes away some of the ability for people to be willfully ignorant of the advantage they've been given from birth compared to others.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  The article is defining rich as "a privileged life that can be passed on to your descendents". That's no less a valid definition of rich than your "need to work to survive".
  - ue_ 9y ago
    With regard to passing on to one's descendants, here's an interesting excerpt from Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread: In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen. And this tax, levied upon him by the State, the capitalist, the lord of the manor, and the middleman, is always increasing; it rarely leaves him the power to improve his system of culture.
  - korrachs 9y ago
    If you can't work you can't pass that on your descendants. The same is not true for capital.
    - rtx 9y ago
      You can pass values and education those are important at that level.
  - HalcyonicStorm 9y ago
    Of course, for the most part they're similar. What the article alludes to is the stratification of social classes. There are the wealthy rich, the professionals, and the working class (Of course there are more classes and this is a simplification). Children of the elites tend to stay elite, children of professionals are professionals, and so on. Regardless, vast majority of the people have to work to maintain their lifestyle. It's hard to feel that you made it if not working makes you lose your position.
Shivetya 9y ago
I do find it odd that this writer and many think you have to have 200k incomes to be rich. That is a lie. If you are in the high eighties, let alone over one hundred thousand, you are doing damn well and rich by most accounts. Gated communities evolved out of limited access high rises. there is no real difference other than one has a lawn. it is the same idea. zoning laws are just horrid in most cities and they tend to be disguised with well meaning names to keep people from challenging them; first trying protecting of historical interest, then trying the environment foil, and finally insufficient infrastructure purposefully kept that way. For the majority of us here we are rich. Politicians are the real one percent, did any party have someone running for President who wasn't very well off? Actually that would have been two of the Republican candidates had 100k or lower, even the left's favorite is worth near a million and has three homes.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Yup, 80-100K is double the median, and 4X poor. It sure doesn't feel like very much when you're struggling to pay bills, imagine trying to live on half or a quarter of that...
- vacri 9y ago
  The author didn't pluck a number out of the air as a cutoff point. $200k was mentioned only in passing, as it's the average wage of the top quintile.
- justin66 9y ago
  > I do find it odd that this writer and many think you have to have 200k incomes to be rich. That is a lie. If you are in the high eighties, let alone over one hundred thousand, you are doing damn well and rich by most accounts. If you're in the high eighties, your quality of life will vary tremendously depending on where you live (and the concomitant cost of living variations) and how much you paid your education.
Neliquat 9y ago
Yet another brit postulating their superiority over americans while pointing out their system is indeed worse off. Talk about privlidge.
cabaalis 9y ago
This article seems to be stretching to find reasons for its existence. I am willing to accept that I may be blinded by my own income/position. But it makes wild accusations and the backup feels very thin. I also disagree that a "meritocracy" does not exist, at least in the IT world. In my own life (anecdote, sure, but how many stories are similar?) I was raised by a single father who made 20-30k a year. I'm now in the top 20% that the article refers to, and seems to imply as very hard to do from the way I was raised. This happened not due to luck or privilege, in my opinion. This happened because I spend 12-16 hours a day in front of a computer screen, and because I do what I tell people I will do. My son will certainly have access to more than I had when I was a child. Maybe I'm just an evil rich guy? The article seems to be prefer that I am.
- charrondev 9y ago
  This article seems to posit that most people who are in this top quintile haven't had to work incredibly hard for it, or that they have worked no harder than anyone else. From what I've seen the responsibilities I have for my salary are far greater and require a far greater amount of autonomy and personal responsibility for my work than most people making 30k/year.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    Okay, now try getting where you are now while being black.
    - IanDrake 9y ago
      In what way? IT is very diverse and some places are specifically looking to hire non-Asian minorities.
  - mgkimsal 9y ago
    > a far greater amount of autonomy and personal responsibility for my work than most people making 30k/year. I see a lot of jobs at the ... $50k-$80k mark which have a lot of responsibility but not much autonomy, and that's where I always have trouble (that mismatch). The folks I know in the $50k-$80k range seem to work (measured perhaps by effort, stress and hours put in) at least as much as, often far more than, folks earning $100k-$200k. I don't have enough connections at the $300k and $30k ends to compare.
korrachs 9y ago
I was wondering how long it would take for the attack on the solidarity of the precariat: >The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for inequality. 7 months after the election is actually quite long. Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same: >Your home is regarded as a model home, your life as a model life. But all this splendor, and you along with it... it's just as though it were built upon a shifting quagmire. A moment may come, a word can be spoken, and both you and all this splendor will collapse. The rich cannot be ruined. I can. If I was to be fired from my job it would be a minor disaster, if I was to get an incurable disease I would slide down the income scale without a break. I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. Nothing prevents you from moving in a more socialist country. Why don't you? There's plenty of choice out there.
  - _acme 9y ago
    Language and nationality would be two significant obstacles.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    >Nothing prevents you from moving in a more socialist country. Countries can control who moves into them, you know.
  - 9y ago
andrewclunn 9y ago
Perhaps the "wealthy," who have fewer kids, are also more interested in the well being of their progeny. Railing against this positive trait is a losing battle.
stult 9y ago
I think the author misses some of the point of the "99%" rhetoric. It's not that someone in the 98th percentile making a 6 figure salary doesn't feel well off, it's that they don't feel any control over the political system. In the post-Citizens United landscape, multi-millionaires and billionaires who can afford to solo fund a PAC have outsized influence over politicians and government agencies. The impression that control has been ceded to such people is reinforced by their increasing monopoly on the accrual of tangible political benefits, which manifest in the forms of tax breaks and favorable regulatory decisions. And for those of us who are younger, student loan debt has delayed the meaningful accumulation of wealth via home purchases (plus not paying rent) and investment savings even when we earn such high salaries, so our annual incomes don't reflect our true economic status relative to prior generations.
- smsm42 9y ago
  Rich people has always had large influence in politics. Being rich means commanding a lot of resources, that's literally the definition. Having a lot of resources makes you influential. It's not the only way to have influence - one can be poor or average and still influential - but it's definitely one of the ways. Pretending that something - be it "Citizens united" decision or anything else - created this situation is extremely naive and ignores the whole human history and history of politics. Wealth, influence and politics are always interlinked, at least in a free lawful society - in a totalitarian one, property means nothing, and resources are distributed in other way, so influence is gained in other ways. All that said, money don't matter as much in politics as some of the propaganda tries to tell. They are important, but they are not everything. There are numerous examples in US history alone where the candidate who spent the most lost, and the candidate who was the richest lost. By now, there's enough money on each side of any issue that the money on the sides is no longer the issue. As for student debt etc. - this is the result of applying "feel good" solutions without considering the economic consequences. If you inject a huge stream of money into education system by providing unlimited federally supported loans, you get the prices go up, and you get the debt. And if you support home ownership and wealth accumulation by home ownership, house prices necessarily skyrocket and newcomers get priced out of the market. You can not have one without the other.
jasode 9y ago
>The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for inequality. [...] The strong whiff of entitlement coming from the top 20 percent has not been lost on everyone else. Ok, since it's not clear from the title, Richard V. Reeves is directing his tirade towards people making $100k+ and not the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts of the USA. Since many HN readers earn $100k+, let's ask ourselves: Do you feel "rich"? Richard Reeves is calling you out as the class of the "rich" and to stop denying it. You agree? Do programmers and sysadmins feel like getting the job and six-figure salary was from luck or the result of a rigged system? (Attending the 4-year college, whiteboard interviews, etc, was "rigged" in your favor.) If you want to live in a neighborhood that prevents disassembled cars jacked up on cinder blocks, it doesn't really mean you want a nice-looking environment. Instead, you're just using the rules as a smoke screen to keep out low-income blacks and Latinos. You agree? If you take advantage of 529 deductions for your kids' education and mortgage deductions, these are financial games to keep the low-income people from achieving what you've accomplished. Richard Reeves says you should feel guilty? Do you feel guilty? EDIT ADD: Since none of the replies (so far) directly engage with what I was trying to ask, I'll try to pose the question more directly: Do HN readers agree with Mr Reeves that _you_ are to be blamed for the low-income people not moving up the ladder?
- HelloMcFly 9y ago
  Do I feel like the game is rigged to benefit me? Yes, to a certain (and meaningful) extent I do. I don't feel personally guilty about making decisions that are in my own best interests when the alternative would be to simply inconvenience me with no upside to any other party. I do feel some collective guilt in that we cannot get our country to do right by those coming from less advantaged positions.
- ajdlinux 9y ago
  I'm an HN reader who does not earn $100k+. In my view, very, very, very few programmers really deserve more than about $200k at most. If you're earning $100k+ and you don't have children or extenuating circumstances such as disabilities that increase your non-discretionary expenditure, you're absolutely rich, and if you don't feel rich then you're either spending your money wrong or your benchmarks of wealth are waaaay off.
netsharc 9y ago
Meritocracy is an interesting "religion", which we unconsciously believe in, and one can probably argue is the basis of the Republican ideology. "You're poor? That must mean you're lazy!" I find Alain de Botton's essays enlightening, here's a 2+ hour documentary about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g , and a 4 minute summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM
lotsofpulp 9y ago
It's simply a matter of definition, and the most useful one will depend on the discussion being had. You could say rich is above certain income, certain wealth, etc. I would think this is most appropriate for discussions about income and wealth inequality. However, if we're talking about state of mind, then rich can be how secure one feels in their lifestyle. If all your family and friends are doctors/lawyers/business and owners/engineers and everyone is making $200k+, then making $100k won't feel rich. You won't be able to engage in many of the activities they can. You might also not feel rich if your income isn't secure, there is working rich and then wealthy, where you can make a few hundred thousand from investments and don't have to worry about getting sick or taking sabbaticals.
- harryh 9y ago
  However, if we're talking about state of mind, then rich can be how secure one feels in their lifestyle. If all your family and friends are hedge fund managers/CEOs/famous athletes and everyone is worth 50M+, then having a mere 10M won't feel rich. You won't be able to engage in many of the activities they can. You might also not feel rich if your wealth isn't secure, there is wealthy and then truly high net worth, where you can make so much off the interest that you can afford multiple houses and a private jet. If "state of mind" is your standard then almost anyone can tell a story about how they aren't really rich. And this isn't just me screwing around. There is a bunch of research about how the vast majority of people, no matter their financial situation, don't quite feel rich because they can always see "the next level up." Perhaps we should be using a better standard than "state of mind."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
whatok 9y ago
Stop Pretending You're Not Waging Class Warfare.
jlebrech 9y ago
pretending you're not rich is called SAVING UP
froindt 9y ago
For anyone curious about how they are doing relative to others around their age, here are two interesting calculators. Income percentile by age: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ Net worth percentile by age: https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united...
lordnacho 9y ago
Posh Brits are more likely to see that their position is at least in part the result of good fortune. This is true, and part of the reason I prefer the UK to the US. People can be humorous about their status in the UK. I've got at least one friend, child of a zillionaire, who quite causally jokes about how he'd never be able to afford his lifestyle were it not for a judicious choice in parents. Class is so constantly talked about in the UK that you can’t really avoid the most common observations about it: it’s undeserved, and it’s hard to do anything about. The other thing, which doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the article, is race. It's a truly unpleasant thing about America that race is a thing. I'm not psychologically scarred by it, in fact I thought it was somewhat funny, but I remember going to a NYC comedy club and the comedian started joking about me. "Why aren't you doing homework?". The point is race seems to be an alternative kind of class in America, one you can never work yourself out of. (And in that sense, class proper.) And because that’s there, everything else can be fixed with hard work. Right? The stuff about property prices causing gated communities is quite true in and around London. Even a very highly paid banking job does not buy you much in many parts of London, and private schools are not cheap either. However there are council flats in just about every area of London; it may be unrealistic that they end up socialising, but there is at least the physical chance that children of the poor will run into the wealthy kids in Kensington. His point about Oxbridge entrance is a positive for the UK; it is quite unthinkable that an Oxbridge don will be forced into accepting some unqualified kid. My tutor was clear that it was her and her alone who decided who got into the four spaces she had. Maybe someone has a story about it, but I find it unlikely that the swirl around Jared Kushner’s acceptance at Harvard would occur in the two British universities.
- NLips 9y ago
  Do you mean you prefer the UK to the US? Otherwise that statement seems out of kilter with the rest of your comment.
  - lordnacho 9y ago
    Yeah typo
  - majewsky 9y ago
pdog 9y ago
> So imagine my horror at discovering that the United States is more calcified by class than Britain, especially toward the top. The American myth of meritocracy allows people on the highest rung to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system. Conspicuously missing from this op-ed is the experience of millions of immigrant families who came to the United States and worked hard to make it into the top 20%. Many started with practically nothing. Did they all benefit from pure luck? Did they move to the U.S. to take advantage of a rigged system? This seems to blow quite a big hole in the author's specious argument.
neom 9y ago
I cannot stress enough how excellent this book is. It's quite sad, but stirred something in me that I've not been able to quell since reading it. $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America: https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/054481195X https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/05...
TheCondor 9y ago
these upper middle class people (we) are the work horses of the tax system, right? Not rich enough to stop working, too rich for sympathy.
- namarie 9y ago
  And sympathy clearly makes up for the poorest 20% of the country, right?
- harryh 9y ago
  No, not really. The top 1% pay nearly half the income taxes.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    (...and take in 99% of the income. Why not 99% of the income tax? Clearly at 50%, the system is massively out of balance in their favor.)
    - harryh 9y ago
      That is incorrect. The top 1% earn about 20% of the income in the US. They pay about 40% of the income taxes (I went and looked this up after your comment. "Nearly half" was perhaps slightly overstating the case). Given that we have a progressive tax system it makes intuitive sense that the higher percentiles (1%, 5%, 10%, whatever) will always pay a greater percentage of total income tax than they make in total income.
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        Ah! I was wrong; I was thinking 'net worth' not income. And the net worth of the top 1% is around 35% of the total national wealth. (Which is curiously close to the income tax number of 40%)
        harryh 9y ago
        Ah, yes. Stock vs flow! I noticed that curiosity as well. Not sure it means anything in particular but it was interesting.
marcoperaza 9y ago
As a counter example, I'd like to use the Cuban-American community in the US. All of our families came to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs, starting in the early 60s. Now, half a century later, Cuban-Americans are doing as well for themselves as non-Hispanic white Americans, with equally large proportions in the middle, upper middle, and upper classes. My mom's father had a fourth grade education in Cuba and was a self-made businessman who ran a country store in Cuba and a store-fixtures store in the US. My dad's father was a middle class computer technician in Cuba, who came to the US and was never able to work in his profession again. He worked two jobs at first, sweeping floors and taking whatever other jobs came his way, and eventually rose up to running a hospital department. My father never had his own bedroom as a child. He got almost all of his schooling at very tough (in the high-crime and high-apathy sense) NYC public schools in the 60s/70s. There were no silver spoons in their mouths. My parents have had successful careers, despite being dead broke in their 20s. They were able to stress the importance of education and hard work to me. I had a great job at Microsoft for two years, which I've now left to pursue a career in law. And this is more or less the same family story of countless Cuban-American families. So I'm not buying this narrative of a calcified class structure built on generational wealth. The most important thing you can do for your children is not to be rich, but to be good. Values and virtues, not trust funds and special treatment.
- 4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
  Except for the fact that the first waves of Cuban-American migration were almost exclusively made of the wealthy and middle-upper classes who were profiting from the Batista dictatorship, therefore it's a bit disingenuous to say that they came "with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal."with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    Yes, it was the middle and upper classes that came in that first wave. But almost all of them did come with nothing, only small portions of the ultra rich were able to sneak out any signicant amount of wealth. The Castro regime did not allow you to take your worldly possessions with you. Bank accounts were frozen, homes were inventoried, and bags were searched. But they all felt lucky enough to escape with their lives and freedoms. And they did bring the values and virtues that served them well in their previous lives. I also reject your premise that all of these people were profiting directly from the Batista dictatorship. There was corruption in Cuba, but there was also capitalism.
rogy 9y ago
Not sure how much I agree with the sentiment of this article as a relating class seemingly directly with salary. In the UK its fairly well considered now that a working class 50 year old thats worked at UK average pay for the majority of their life, generally, has better standard of living than the 30 year old on 100k. The appreciation of housing and the current cost of things they got for free seem to matter far more than the salary you currently earn.
aaronchall 9y ago
And here on HN the socialists are in full force alleging the successful didn't earn it, government is the only solution, and minorities can't be successful on their own. I imagine we're being hit by an r/socialism brigade. I have a graduate degree that I worked quite hard for, and paid tuition for while eating macaroni and cheese, paying a mortgage for a tiny and old home, and otherwise watching every penny and scraping for every dime. Now I'm almost middle class in a city where you really have to be wealthy to live well. I take public transportation and constantly study to learn new things so I can get ahead and continue climbing the ladder of success. And we have chumps like this author who don't care about the thought I put into choosing my vocations and studies, and thinks that if I'm successful then I owe it to everyone else who half-assed it or just didn't think or care, to provide for them as well. Shame on socialists. Their philosophy is responsible for 100,000,000 deaths globally. Hitler was a full-throated socialist too. If you're going upend society and then force everyone to share everything when the vast majority of those can't do well with things they actually own, you destroyed your society's wealth, not the "greedy" people who wouldn't recreate it from scratch when they don't get to keep it. Socialists still can't do it. See Venezuela. See Cuba. See North Korea. Shame on them.
- coldpie 9y ago
  > I imagine we're being hit by an r/socialism brigade. It's OK for people to disagree. Not everything is part of a conspiracy.
- Max_Mustermann 9y ago
  >Hitler was a full-throated socialist too. Is there even remotely a consensus by historians on this?
  - aaronchall 9y ago
    Read his speeches, and watch him deliver them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o > A new community is being built in Germany and it is our most beautiful goal and aim. Those who can not see past their own nose deserve our pity more than anything else. It is the luck to help which rewards those who commit themselves to this socialist state, and this commitment must happen every new winter. Our social welfare system is so much more than just charity because we do not say to the rich people "Please, give something to the poor." Instead we say "German people, help yourself!" Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor. Everyone must have the belief that there's always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and this person I want to help as a comrade. If one should say, "Yes, but do I have to sacrifice a lot?" That is the glory of giving! When you sacrifice for your community, then you can walk with your head held up high. How else do you rationalize the killing of millions, than "these people got rich because they cheated and stole it from us, now we will take it back from them?" How will you take it from them except by force? And then they will revolt, and you'll be forced to or find it quite convenient to kill them. No wonder everyone wants to shut down his speeches. Socialists don't want to be associated with him, and capitalists worry that people will be persuaded by him.
surrey-fringe 9y ago
Don't tell me what to do
mangofoobar 9y ago
What a load of garbage article. Paying for your kids high school directly AND paying taxes to support other kids FREE education is somehow a bad thing? What twisted logic people use to bash the wealthy. Not only do YOUR kids get MORE and more jobs are created but you get to bash the rich guy. Fucking pathetic poverity stricken attitudes
Taek 9y ago
I've always defined rich by whether or not you need to work to maintain your desired lifestyle. If your desired lifestyle has you spending $30k / yr, rich means you have about $750k saved up. If your lifestyle would put you at $100k / yr in spending, you'll need $2.5m saved up. Rich is as much about being able to manage your finances well as it is about how much money you make. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck, it doesn't matter whether your monthly check is $1500 or $10,000. If you're bad with money, you aren't rich.
- zyx321 9y ago
  So if you're a CEO who collects sports cars, you're not rich because you still need to work because you couldn't retire without selling one of your five vacation homes?
- wavefunction 9y ago
  >If you're bad with money, you aren't rich. Or if you're bad with money and can't hire people who are good with it.
crispyambulance 9y ago
It was an interesting piece but now I am interested in how sensitive the Brits are to accent. Can someone point to an example of upper class speech vs lower class speech and stuff in-between? Accent very much colors perceptions in America as well. There are "redneck" and "urban" accents that would absolutely be a devastating red-flag in many job interview situations.
peteretep 9y ago
> Posh Brits are more likely > to see that their position > is at least in part the > result of good fortune Quite, although it did take a millennium-long detour through the divine rights of royalty and so on
candiodari 9y ago
> So imagine my horror at discovering that the United States is more calcified by class than Britain, especially toward the top. The big difference is that most of the people on the highest rung in America are in denial about their privilege. The American myth of meritocracy allows them to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system. At least posh people in England have the decency to feel guilty. Heh, riiiiiight. They feel guilty. Color me skeptical.
gkanapathy 9y ago
From the article: > Most of the children born into households in the top 20 percent will stay there or drop only as far as the next quintile. And rewritten a bit, it sounds rather weak: > More than 50 percent of the children born into households in the top 20 percent will stay in the top 40 percent.
callumlocke 9y ago
Why was this flagged?

185 points by lorenzfx 9y ago

A factor to consider is that vast majority of people still need to work to survive. There are very few people who can live off their investments.

StavrosK 9y ago
Hmm, I'm missing your point. Are you saying that the definition of "rich" is "can live off their investments"? I would disagree with that.
- chronic940 9y ago
  I would argue those with access to clean water and shelter from the rain, including the homeless in San Francisco, are rich. Everyone here on HN needs to check their privilege.
- HalcyonicStorm 9y ago
  I would say that true wealth does not have to work
  - akerro 9y ago
    Someone needs to maintain the wealth, keep avoiding taxes, keep an eye on regulations, foreign markets, looking for new investments.
    - orf 9y ago
      Couldn't they pay someone to do that?
      - jk2323 9y ago
        Yes. But this is VERY risky. See this as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz The article does not give much details. But managers basically stole her wealth from her and siphoned it to themselves. "She was supported in her claim by Thomas Middelhoff". In my opinion it was Middelhoff who badly advised her for his own gain.
    - HalcyonicStorm 9y ago
      Money management is a huge industry.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- k__ 9y ago
  I've seen stats about wealth distribution in Germany and I'm in the top 7%. I could life of my saved money for 3 maybe 5 years if I'm very frugal. I wouldn't consider this rich, wealthy yes, but not rich. Also my money is probably more in the range of the 20% of the population that is "under me" in the stats than the 2% "over me".
- ryanackley 9y ago
  I'm guessing his point is your lifestyle changes very little between the bottom and the top of the middle class. You have four walls and a roof over your head. Have home internet. Eat out a few times a week. Have a smart phone, etc. You still have to go to work every day like everyone else to sustain this lifestyle. You just have nicer "things" and "fancier" experiences?
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    That argument is extremely broad, though. It's easy to live off your investments if you live in a hovel, eat ramen every day and never go out. Is that classified as rich? Sure, it's a continuum, but "not having to live hand-to-mouth" is a hell of a lot closer to rich than to poor.
- mangofoobar 9y ago
  No, that's the definition of Wealth
notauser 9y ago
Your comment is a fine example of the article's point. You (and I) may need to work. But that doesn't mean there's not a large gap between us and the "poor". Take myself for an example - I own half my house and the bank owns the other half. So, yes, I have to work for a "survive" and pay for my mortgage and food. But I only have to earn enough pay half the cost of housing, because the other half is provided by my capital. A poor(er) person has to earn enough pay 100% of their cost of housing. A rich(er) person would own their house in full, so has no need to earn to pay that cost of living. So there's clearly a scale between having to work to pay for anything, and not having to work at all because your capital pays enough dividends to cover all your bills. The article contends that the "rich" cut off point is much lower down than we think, and that this advantage is passed from generation to generation. The author says that in the UK this generational advantage is more recognised than in the US, because it is more formalised - which takes away some of the ability for people to be willfully ignorant of the advantage they've been given from birth compared to others.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
The article is defining rich as "a privileged life that can be passed on to your descendents". That's no less a valid definition of rich than your "need to work to survive".
- ue_ 9y ago
  With regard to passing on to one's descendants, here's an interesting excerpt from Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread: In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen. And this tax, levied upon him by the State, the capitalist, the lord of the manor, and the middleman, is always increasing; it rarely leaves him the power to improve his system of culture.
- korrachs 9y ago
  If you can't work you can't pass that on your descendants. The same is not true for capital.
  - rtx 9y ago
    You can pass values and education those are important at that level.
- HalcyonicStorm 9y ago
  Of course, for the most part they're similar. What the article alludes to is the stratification of social classes. There are the wealthy rich, the professionals, and the working class (Of course there are more classes and this is a simplification). Children of the elites tend to stay elite, children of professionals are professionals, and so on. Regardless, vast majority of the people have to work to maintain their lifestyle. It's hard to feel that you made it if not working makes you lose your position.

Shivetya 9y ago

I do find it odd that this writer and many think you have to have 200k incomes to be rich. That is a lie. If you are in the high eighties, let alone over one hundred thousand, you are doing damn well and rich by most accounts. Gated communities evolved out of limited access high rises. there is no real difference other than one has a lawn. it is the same idea. zoning laws are just horrid in most cities and they tend to be disguised with well meaning names to keep people from challenging them; first trying protecting of historical interest, then trying the environment foil, and finally insufficient infrastructure purposefully kept that way. For the majority of us here we are rich. Politicians are the real one percent, did any party have someone running for President who wasn't very well off? Actually that would have been two of the Republican candidates had 100k or lower, even the left's favorite is worth near a million and has three homes.

bryanlarsen 9y ago
Yup, 80-100K is double the median, and 4X poor. It sure doesn't feel like very much when you're struggling to pay bills, imagine trying to live on half or a quarter of that...
vacri 9y ago
The author didn't pluck a number out of the air as a cutoff point. $200k was mentioned only in passing, as it's the average wage of the top quintile.
justin66 9y ago
> I do find it odd that this writer and many think you have to have 200k incomes to be rich. That is a lie. If you are in the high eighties, let alone over one hundred thousand, you are doing damn well and rich by most accounts. If you're in the high eighties, your quality of life will vary tremendously depending on where you live (and the concomitant cost of living variations) and how much you paid your education.

Neliquat 9y ago

Yet another brit postulating their superiority over americans while pointing out their system is indeed worse off. Talk about privlidge.

cabaalis 9y ago

This article seems to be stretching to find reasons for its existence. I am willing to accept that I may be blinded by my own income/position. But it makes wild accusations and the backup feels very thin. I also disagree that a "meritocracy" does not exist, at least in the IT world. In my own life (anecdote, sure, but how many stories are similar?) I was raised by a single father who made 20-30k a year. I'm now in the top 20% that the article refers to, and seems to imply as very hard to do from the way I was raised. This happened not due to luck or privilege, in my opinion. This happened because I spend 12-16 hours a day in front of a computer screen, and because I do what I tell people I will do. My son will certainly have access to more than I had when I was a child. Maybe I'm just an evil rich guy? The article seems to be prefer that I am.

charrondev 9y ago
This article seems to posit that most people who are in this top quintile haven't had to work incredibly hard for it, or that they have worked no harder than anyone else. From what I've seen the responsibilities I have for my salary are far greater and require a far greater amount of autonomy and personal responsibility for my work than most people making 30k/year.
- bitwize 9y ago
  Okay, now try getting where you are now while being black.
  - IanDrake 9y ago
    In what way? IT is very diverse and some places are specifically looking to hire non-Asian minorities.
- mgkimsal 9y ago
  > a far greater amount of autonomy and personal responsibility for my work than most people making 30k/year. I see a lot of jobs at the ... $50k-$80k mark which have a lot of responsibility but not much autonomy, and that's where I always have trouble (that mismatch). The folks I know in the $50k-$80k range seem to work (measured perhaps by effort, stress and hours put in) at least as much as, often far more than, folks earning $100k-$200k. I don't have enough connections at the $300k and $30k ends to compare.

korrachs 9y ago

I was wondering how long it would take for the attack on the solidarity of the precariat: >The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for inequality. 7 months after the election is actually quite long. Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same: >Your home is regarded as a model home, your life as a model life. But all this splendor, and you along with it... it's just as though it were built upon a shifting quagmire. A moment may come, a word can be spoken, and both you and all this splendor will collapse. The rich cannot be ruined. I can. If I was to be fired from my job it would be a minor disaster, if I was to get an incurable disease I would slide down the income scale without a break. I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one.

ekianjo 9y ago
> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. Nothing prevents you from moving in a more socialist country. Why don't you? There's plenty of choice out there.
- _acme 9y ago
  Language and nationality would be two significant obstacles.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >Nothing prevents you from moving in a more socialist country. Countries can control who moves into them, you know.
- 9y ago

andrewclunn 9y ago

Perhaps the "wealthy," who have fewer kids, are also more interested in the well being of their progeny. Railing against this positive trait is a losing battle.

stult 9y ago

I think the author misses some of the point of the "99%" rhetoric. It's not that someone in the 98th percentile making a 6 figure salary doesn't feel well off, it's that they don't feel any control over the political system. In the post-Citizens United landscape, multi-millionaires and billionaires who can afford to solo fund a PAC have outsized influence over politicians and government agencies. The impression that control has been ceded to such people is reinforced by their increasing monopoly on the accrual of tangible political benefits, which manifest in the forms of tax breaks and favorable regulatory decisions. And for those of us who are younger, student loan debt has delayed the meaningful accumulation of wealth via home purchases (plus not paying rent) and investment savings even when we earn such high salaries, so our annual incomes don't reflect our true economic status relative to prior generations.

smsm42 9y ago
Rich people has always had large influence in politics. Being rich means commanding a lot of resources, that's literally the definition. Having a lot of resources makes you influential. It's not the only way to have influence - one can be poor or average and still influential - but it's definitely one of the ways. Pretending that something - be it "Citizens united" decision or anything else - created this situation is extremely naive and ignores the whole human history and history of politics. Wealth, influence and politics are always interlinked, at least in a free lawful society - in a totalitarian one, property means nothing, and resources are distributed in other way, so influence is gained in other ways. All that said, money don't matter as much in politics as some of the propaganda tries to tell. They are important, but they are not everything. There are numerous examples in US history alone where the candidate who spent the most lost, and the candidate who was the richest lost. By now, there's enough money on each side of any issue that the money on the sides is no longer the issue. As for student debt etc. - this is the result of applying "feel good" solutions without considering the economic consequences. If you inject a huge stream of money into education system by providing unlimited federally supported loans, you get the prices go up, and you get the debt. And if you support home ownership and wealth accumulation by home ownership, house prices necessarily skyrocket and newcomers get priced out of the market. You can not have one without the other.

jasode 9y ago

>The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for inequality. [...] The strong whiff of entitlement coming from the top 20 percent has not been lost on everyone else. Ok, since it's not clear from the title, Richard V. Reeves is directing his tirade towards people making $100k+ and not the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts of the USA. Since many HN readers earn $100k+, let's ask ourselves: Do you feel "rich"? Richard Reeves is calling you out as the class of the "rich" and to stop denying it. You agree? Do programmers and sysadmins feel like getting the job and six-figure salary was from luck or the result of a rigged system? (Attending the 4-year college, whiteboard interviews, etc, was "rigged" in your favor.) If you want to live in a neighborhood that prevents disassembled cars jacked up on cinder blocks, it doesn't really mean you want a nice-looking environment. Instead, you're just using the rules as a smoke screen to keep out low-income blacks and Latinos. You agree? If you take advantage of 529 deductions for your kids' education and mortgage deductions, these are financial games to keep the low-income people from achieving what you've accomplished. Richard Reeves says you should feel guilty? Do you feel guilty? EDIT ADD: Since none of the replies (so far) directly engage with what I was trying to ask, I'll try to pose the question more directly: Do HN readers agree with Mr Reeves that _you_ are to be blamed for the low-income people not moving up the ladder?

HelloMcFly 9y ago
Do I feel like the game is rigged to benefit me? Yes, to a certain (and meaningful) extent I do. I don't feel personally guilty about making decisions that are in my own best interests when the alternative would be to simply inconvenience me with no upside to any other party. I do feel some collective guilt in that we cannot get our country to do right by those coming from less advantaged positions.
ajdlinux 9y ago
I'm an HN reader who does not earn $100k+. In my view, very, very, very few programmers really deserve more than about $200k at most. If you're earning $100k+ and you don't have children or extenuating circumstances such as disabilities that increase your non-discretionary expenditure, you're absolutely rich, and if you don't feel rich then you're either spending your money wrong or your benchmarks of wealth are waaaay off.

netsharc 9y ago

Meritocracy is an interesting "religion", which we unconsciously believe in, and one can probably argue is the basis of the Republican ideology. "You're poor? That must mean you're lazy!" I find Alain de Botton's essays enlightening, here's a 2+ hour documentary about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g , and a 4 minute summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM

lotsofpulp 9y ago

It's simply a matter of definition, and the most useful one will depend on the discussion being had. You could say rich is above certain income, certain wealth, etc. I would think this is most appropriate for discussions about income and wealth inequality. However, if we're talking about state of mind, then rich can be how secure one feels in their lifestyle. If all your family and friends are doctors/lawyers/business and owners/engineers and everyone is making $200k+, then making $100k won't feel rich. You won't be able to engage in many of the activities they can. You might also not feel rich if your income isn't secure, there is working rich and then wealthy, where you can make a few hundred thousand from investments and don't have to worry about getting sick or taking sabbaticals.

harryh 9y ago
However, if we're talking about state of mind, then rich can be how secure one feels in their lifestyle. If all your family and friends are hedge fund managers/CEOs/famous athletes and everyone is worth 50M+, then having a mere 10M won't feel rich. You won't be able to engage in many of the activities they can. You might also not feel rich if your wealth isn't secure, there is wealthy and then truly high net worth, where you can make so much off the interest that you can afford multiple houses and a private jet. If "state of mind" is your standard then almost anyone can tell a story about how they aren't really rich. And this isn't just me screwing around. There is a bunch of research about how the vast majority of people, no matter their financial situation, don't quite feel rich because they can always see "the next level up." Perhaps we should be using a better standard than "state of mind."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

whatok 9y ago

Stop Pretending You're Not Waging Class Warfare.

jlebrech 9y ago

pretending you're not rich is called SAVING UP

froindt 9y ago

For anyone curious about how they are doing relative to others around their age, here are two interesting calculators. Income percentile by age: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ Net worth percentile by age: https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united...

lordnacho 9y ago

Posh Brits are more likely to see that their position is at least in part the result of good fortune. This is true, and part of the reason I prefer the UK to the US. People can be humorous about their status in the UK. I've got at least one friend, child of a zillionaire, who quite causally jokes about how he'd never be able to afford his lifestyle were it not for a judicious choice in parents. Class is so constantly talked about in the UK that you can’t really avoid the most common observations about it: it’s undeserved, and it’s hard to do anything about. The other thing, which doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the article, is race. It's a truly unpleasant thing about America that race is a thing. I'm not psychologically scarred by it, in fact I thought it was somewhat funny, but I remember going to a NYC comedy club and the comedian started joking about me. "Why aren't you doing homework?". The point is race seems to be an alternative kind of class in America, one you can never work yourself out of. (And in that sense, class proper.) And because that’s there, everything else can be fixed with hard work. Right? The stuff about property prices causing gated communities is quite true in and around London. Even a very highly paid banking job does not buy you much in many parts of London, and private schools are not cheap either. However there are council flats in just about every area of London; it may be unrealistic that they end up socialising, but there is at least the physical chance that children of the poor will run into the wealthy kids in Kensington. His point about Oxbridge entrance is a positive for the UK; it is quite unthinkable that an Oxbridge don will be forced into accepting some unqualified kid. My tutor was clear that it was her and her alone who decided who got into the four spaces she had. Maybe someone has a story about it, but I find it unlikely that the swirl around Jared Kushner’s acceptance at Harvard would occur in the two British universities.

NLips 9y ago
Do you mean you prefer the UK to the US? Otherwise that statement seems out of kilter with the rest of your comment.
- lordnacho 9y ago
  Yeah typo
- majewsky 9y ago

pdog 9y ago

> So imagine my horror at discovering that the United States is more calcified by class than Britain, especially toward the top. The American myth of meritocracy allows people on the highest rung to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system. Conspicuously missing from this op-ed is the experience of millions of immigrant families who came to the United States and worked hard to make it into the top 20%. Many started with practically nothing. Did they all benefit from pure luck? Did they move to the U.S. to take advantage of a rigged system? This seems to blow quite a big hole in the author's specious argument.

neom 9y ago

I cannot stress enough how excellent this book is. It's quite sad, but stirred something in me that I've not been able to quell since reading it. $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America: https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/054481195X https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/05...

TheCondor 9y ago

these upper middle class people (we) are the work horses of the tax system, right? Not rich enough to stop working, too rich for sympathy.

namarie 9y ago
And sympathy clearly makes up for the poorest 20% of the country, right?
harryh 9y ago
No, not really. The top 1% pay nearly half the income taxes.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  (...and take in 99% of the income. Why not 99% of the income tax? Clearly at 50%, the system is massively out of balance in their favor.)
  - harryh 9y ago
    That is incorrect. The top 1% earn about 20% of the income in the US. They pay about 40% of the income taxes (I went and looked this up after your comment. "Nearly half" was perhaps slightly overstating the case). Given that we have a progressive tax system it makes intuitive sense that the higher percentiles (1%, 5%, 10%, whatever) will always pay a greater percentage of total income tax than they make in total income.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Ah! I was wrong; I was thinking 'net worth' not income. And the net worth of the top 1% is around 35% of the total national wealth. (Which is curiously close to the income tax number of 40%)
      - harryh 9y ago
        Ah, yes. Stock vs flow! I noticed that curiosity as well. Not sure it means anything in particular but it was interesting.

marcoperaza 9y ago

As a counter example, I'd like to use the Cuban-American community in the US. All of our families came to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs, starting in the early 60s. Now, half a century later, Cuban-Americans are doing as well for themselves as non-Hispanic white Americans, with equally large proportions in the middle, upper middle, and upper classes. My mom's father had a fourth grade education in Cuba and was a self-made businessman who ran a country store in Cuba and a store-fixtures store in the US. My dad's father was a middle class computer technician in Cuba, who came to the US and was never able to work in his profession again. He worked two jobs at first, sweeping floors and taking whatever other jobs came his way, and eventually rose up to running a hospital department. My father never had his own bedroom as a child. He got almost all of his schooling at very tough (in the high-crime and high-apathy sense) NYC public schools in the 60s/70s. There were no silver spoons in their mouths. My parents have had successful careers, despite being dead broke in their 20s. They were able to stress the importance of education and hard work to me. I had a great job at Microsoft for two years, which I've now left to pursue a career in law. And this is more or less the same family story of countless Cuban-American families. So I'm not buying this narrative of a calcified class structure built on generational wealth. The most important thing you can do for your children is not to be rich, but to be good. Values and virtues, not trust funds and special treatment.

4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
Except for the fact that the first waves of Cuban-American migration were almost exclusively made of the wealthy and middle-upper classes who were profiting from the Batista dictatorship, therefore it's a bit disingenuous to say that they came "with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal."with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Yes, it was the middle and upper classes that came in that first wave. But almost all of them did come with nothing, only small portions of the ultra rich were able to sneak out any signicant amount of wealth. The Castro regime did not allow you to take your worldly possessions with you. Bank accounts were frozen, homes were inventoried, and bags were searched. But they all felt lucky enough to escape with their lives and freedoms. And they did bring the values and virtues that served them well in their previous lives. I also reject your premise that all of these people were profiting directly from the Batista dictatorship. There was corruption in Cuba, but there was also capitalism.

rogy 9y ago

Not sure how much I agree with the sentiment of this article as a relating class seemingly directly with salary. In the UK its fairly well considered now that a working class 50 year old thats worked at UK average pay for the majority of their life, generally, has better standard of living than the 30 year old on 100k. The appreciation of housing and the current cost of things they got for free seem to matter far more than the salary you currently earn.

aaronchall 9y ago

And here on HN the socialists are in full force alleging the successful didn't earn it, government is the only solution, and minorities can't be successful on their own. I imagine we're being hit by an r/socialism brigade. I have a graduate degree that I worked quite hard for, and paid tuition for while eating macaroni and cheese, paying a mortgage for a tiny and old home, and otherwise watching every penny and scraping for every dime. Now I'm almost middle class in a city where you really have to be wealthy to live well. I take public transportation and constantly study to learn new things so I can get ahead and continue climbing the ladder of success. And we have chumps like this author who don't care about the thought I put into choosing my vocations and studies, and thinks that if I'm successful then I owe it to everyone else who half-assed it or just didn't think or care, to provide for them as well. Shame on socialists. Their philosophy is responsible for 100,000,000 deaths globally. Hitler was a full-throated socialist too. If you're going upend society and then force everyone to share everything when the vast majority of those can't do well with things they actually own, you destroyed your society's wealth, not the "greedy" people who wouldn't recreate it from scratch when they don't get to keep it. Socialists still can't do it. See Venezuela. See Cuba. See North Korea. Shame on them.

coldpie 9y ago
> I imagine we're being hit by an r/socialism brigade. It's OK for people to disagree. Not everything is part of a conspiracy.
Max_Mustermann 9y ago
>Hitler was a full-throated socialist too. Is there even remotely a consensus by historians on this?
- aaronchall 9y ago
  Read his speeches, and watch him deliver them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o > A new community is being built in Germany and it is our most beautiful goal and aim. Those who can not see past their own nose deserve our pity more than anything else. It is the luck to help which rewards those who commit themselves to this socialist state, and this commitment must happen every new winter. Our social welfare system is so much more than just charity because we do not say to the rich people "Please, give something to the poor." Instead we say "German people, help yourself!" Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor. Everyone must have the belief that there's always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and this person I want to help as a comrade. If one should say, "Yes, but do I have to sacrifice a lot?" That is the glory of giving! When you sacrifice for your community, then you can walk with your head held up high. How else do you rationalize the killing of millions, than "these people got rich because they cheated and stole it from us, now we will take it back from them?" How will you take it from them except by force? And then they will revolt, and you'll be forced to or find it quite convenient to kill them. No wonder everyone wants to shut down his speeches. Socialists don't want to be associated with him, and capitalists worry that people will be persuaded by him.

surrey-fringe 9y ago

Don't tell me what to do

mangofoobar 9y ago

What a load of garbage article. Paying for your kids high school directly AND paying taxes to support other kids FREE education is somehow a bad thing? What twisted logic people use to bash the wealthy. Not only do YOUR kids get MORE and more jobs are created but you get to bash the rich guy. Fucking pathetic poverity stricken attitudes

Taek 9y ago

I've always defined rich by whether or not you need to work to maintain your desired lifestyle. If your desired lifestyle has you spending $30k / yr, rich means you have about $750k saved up. If your lifestyle would put you at $100k / yr in spending, you'll need $2.5m saved up. Rich is as much about being able to manage your finances well as it is about how much money you make. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck, it doesn't matter whether your monthly check is $1500 or $10,000. If you're bad with money, you aren't rich.

zyx321 9y ago
So if you're a CEO who collects sports cars, you're not rich because you still need to work because you couldn't retire without selling one of your five vacation homes?
wavefunction 9y ago
>If you're bad with money, you aren't rich. Or if you're bad with money and can't hire people who are good with it.

crispyambulance 9y ago

It was an interesting piece but now I am interested in how sensitive the Brits are to accent. Can someone point to an example of upper class speech vs lower class speech and stuff in-between? Accent very much colors perceptions in America as well. There are "redneck" and "urban" accents that would absolutely be a devastating red-flag in many job interview situations.

peteretep 9y ago

> Posh Brits are more likely > to see that their position > is at least in part the > result of good fortune Quite, although it did take a millennium-long detour through the divine rights of royalty and so on

candiodari 9y ago

> So imagine my horror at discovering that the United States is more calcified by class than Britain, especially toward the top. The big difference is that most of the people on the highest rung in America are in denial about their privilege. The American myth of meritocracy allows them to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system. At least posh people in England have the decency to feel guilty. Heh, riiiiiight. They feel guilty. Color me skeptical.

gkanapathy 9y ago

From the article: > Most of the children born into households in the top 20 percent will stay there or drop only as far as the next quintile. And rewritten a bit, it sounds rather weak: > More than 50 percent of the children born into households in the top 20 percent will stay in the top 40 percent.

callumlocke 9y ago

Why was this flagged?