11 ms·

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.

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.