3 ms·

I would argue that wealth gravitates toward those who are better at accumulating wealth (Warren Buffet, George Soros, Peter Lynch). There may be a correlation b

I would argue that wealth gravitates toward those who are better at accumulating wealth (Warren Buffet, George Soros, Peter Lynch). There may be a correlation between those who are good at accumulating wealth and those who have accumulated a large amount of wealth.

the_cat_kittles 8y ago
what is your argument? you just made a claim without evidence- would be more compelling with some. i think there is a lot of data to suggest the opposite.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  > i think there is a lot of data to suggest the opposite. You also just made a claim without evidence. It would be more compelling with some.
- basementcat 8y ago
  I claim that those who are better at managing their money (spend wisely, save more, invest wisely) tend to accumulate wealth more quickly than those who don't. For example, I have several colleagues who started their careers around the same time as me. Some are much wealthier than me partly because they spent considerable time and effort accumulating real estate portfolios (among other investments). Others have accumulated less wealth than me because they spent much of their incomes on ephemeral pleasures.
  - the_cat_kittles 8y ago
    thats just completely tautological. id argue that little upward mobility, and racial inequality in lifetime earnings suggest that being having money makes it easier to make more. also because it is my lived experience as someone who is rich.
hari_seldon_ 8y ago
When talking about wealth in our society (especially when it is tied up in real estate and other non-cash assets), things get a lot more complicated, especially when wealth can help move markets and set policy. I was purely talking from the perspective of thinking about games and probability.
sidlls 8y ago
That's a bit tautological. Also, what do you mean by "good"? Also many things cost less for wealthy people. They literally spend less as a fraction of their wealth than anyone else for credit, for example. Wealth will naturally gravitate towards them even if they do nothing more than act like anyone else because of that kind of thing.
- basementcat 8y ago
  I meant that in the same way as there is likely a correlation between people who are good at math and people with advanced degrees in engineering, math, science and finance.
- darkerside 8y ago
  People who are good at making money make more money. Yes, it's tautological, which doesn't make it untrue. People who are good at scoring the basketball get a lot of points. People who are good at cooking make delicious food. I think you're questioning whether someone can really be good at "making money", and the answer is yes. Money follows rules and laws that appear random to those who are not skilled. Just like some people might not understand the laws of electricity, making electricians seem like wizards. That doesn't mean the laws don't exist. And those who understand the forces behind money are able to take advantage of them, like a surfer uses the force of a wave to propel himself. Effortless. The wealth just seems to find you. Your second point is accurate, but not really a rebuttal.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    You miss the point. It’s vastly easier to be successful at making money if you start with a lot of it, and vastly harder if you start with nothing. A few very unusual people in each generation start with nothing and become billionaires, but for most of the population a running start will get them much further towards a comfortable life than almost any combination of luck and talent. This is a problem, because many of our social myths suggests that the most reliable and predictable way to become richer is through hard work - and therefore rich people are more socially valuable than the poor, who stay poor because of laziness. Both of those beliefs are absolutely untrue.
jere 8y ago
I suppose lottery winners are good at accumulating wealth too.
- phyller 8y ago
  You actually strengthen basementcat's point. There have been many stories about how lottery winners often end up worse off than they were before. Handing someone 100 million dollars won't keep them rich if they are bad at handling money. Apparently this is proven by research of lottery winners: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00114#.VpLMM1J327Q https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_0011... and https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016/01/12/odds-are-15-billion-powerball-winner-will-end-up-bankrupt https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016/01/12/odds-are-15-...
  - ItsMe000001 8y ago
    That does not strengthen that point, quite the opposite, one might argue: People who were never exposed to having money to begin with don't know what to do with it. Having money from the start (rich parents) gives you a head start.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

the_cat_kittles 8y ago

what is your argument? you just made a claim without evidence- would be more compelling with some. i think there is a lot of data to suggest the opposite.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> i think there is a lot of data to suggest the opposite. You also just made a claim without evidence. It would be more compelling with some.
basementcat 8y ago
I claim that those who are better at managing their money (spend wisely, save more, invest wisely) tend to accumulate wealth more quickly than those who don't. For example, I have several colleagues who started their careers around the same time as me. Some are much wealthier than me partly because they spent considerable time and effort accumulating real estate portfolios (among other investments). Others have accumulated less wealth than me because they spent much of their incomes on ephemeral pleasures.
- the_cat_kittles 8y ago
  thats just completely tautological. id argue that little upward mobility, and racial inequality in lifetime earnings suggest that being having money makes it easier to make more. also because it is my lived experience as someone who is rich.

hari_seldon_ 8y ago

When talking about wealth in our society (especially when it is tied up in real estate and other non-cash assets), things get a lot more complicated, especially when wealth can help move markets and set policy. I was purely talking from the perspective of thinking about games and probability.

sidlls 8y ago

That's a bit tautological. Also, what do you mean by "good"? Also many things cost less for wealthy people. They literally spend less as a fraction of their wealth than anyone else for credit, for example. Wealth will naturally gravitate towards them even if they do nothing more than act like anyone else because of that kind of thing.

basementcat 8y ago
I meant that in the same way as there is likely a correlation between people who are good at math and people with advanced degrees in engineering, math, science and finance.
darkerside 8y ago
People who are good at making money make more money. Yes, it's tautological, which doesn't make it untrue. People who are good at scoring the basketball get a lot of points. People who are good at cooking make delicious food. I think you're questioning whether someone can really be good at "making money", and the answer is yes. Money follows rules and laws that appear random to those who are not skilled. Just like some people might not understand the laws of electricity, making electricians seem like wizards. That doesn't mean the laws don't exist. And those who understand the forces behind money are able to take advantage of them, like a surfer uses the force of a wave to propel himself. Effortless. The wealth just seems to find you. Your second point is accurate, but not really a rebuttal.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  You miss the point. It’s vastly easier to be successful at making money if you start with a lot of it, and vastly harder if you start with nothing. A few very unusual people in each generation start with nothing and become billionaires, but for most of the population a running start will get them much further towards a comfortable life than almost any combination of luck and talent. This is a problem, because many of our social myths suggests that the most reliable and predictable way to become richer is through hard work - and therefore rich people are more socially valuable than the poor, who stay poor because of laziness. Both of those beliefs are absolutely untrue.

jere 8y ago

I suppose lottery winners are good at accumulating wealth too.

phyller 8y ago
You actually strengthen basementcat's point. There have been many stories about how lottery winners often end up worse off than they were before. Handing someone 100 million dollars won't keep them rich if they are bad at handling money. Apparently this is proven by research of lottery winners: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00114#.VpLMM1J327Q https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_0011... and https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016/01/12/odds-are-15-billion-powerball-winner-will-end-up-bankrupt https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016/01/12/odds-are-15-...
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  That does not strengthen that point, quite the opposite, one might argue: People who were never exposed to having money to begin with don't know what to do with it. Having money from the start (rich parents) gives you a head start.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]