15 ms·

Unsolicited advice? Fair enough. Unsolicited comment- the ones related to money are spoken like someone who has never actually been poor, and are, frankly, in

Unsolicited advice? Fair enough. Unsolicited comment- the ones related to money are spoken like someone who has never actually been poor, and are, frankly, insulting. Even a cursory look at who has developed what over the years shows that people who actually had the resources to do whatever it was that interested them are the ones in the history books. Who knows how many others of equal or greater talent spent their whole lives scraping by instead.

StandardFuture 6y ago
> spoken like someone who has never actually been poor It's not even just that. It is spoken like someone who has not even been around poor people. Class segregation is a much more serious issue than simply class distinction. I wonder if it is a growing problem in society. Because if so, it will not end well as it never has historically. If you grew up upper middle class or wealthy and you have not had multiple friends on much lower financial tiers than you then you are absolutely out of touch. It is not possible to be aware of the (mostly minor but not insignificant) differences in people's lives by simply reading a book, watching a documentary, listening to a TED talk, or "being an activist".
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  I fully agree.
andi999 6y ago
Wouldnt it have felt more offensive if the author would have written: next advice is not for poor people...
Gatsky 6y ago
Ok, fair enough. However, this type of comment is subject to the following problem: for any assignemnt of privilege, there is always someone poorer or more wretched than the person making this assignment, all the way down to a child born with no mind due to Zika virus who is cast aside by her family and dies alone in a ditch. Furthermore, the arc of privilege is logarithmic. So although I agree with you in some sense, I find I can't in good faith criticise someone for being privileged. Is it not inherently hypocritical, as the 'privilege gap' I perceive (either between me and the person, or between some societal band and the person) is minimal compared to the gap between me and everyone else less privileged than I?
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  I'm actually surprised at the number of folks who appear to have interpreted my comment as one regarding privilege. That wasn't my intent at all. As another commenter noted, it's about the hierarchy of needs. Perhaps I should have left off the 'and frankly, insulting' bit. I meant intellectually insulting, as it is exceedingly easy to see that it's bad advice if you took the time to check. I have yet to meet someone who downplays the importance of money who doesn't also come from enough wealth that they've never had it be a real concern. This is frustrating in multiple ways- one, it shows that they have a strong disconnect from the day to day reality for the majority of humanity. That doesn't make them a bad person. It does bring in to question the universal applicability of their advice. Secondly, being currently wealthy is no guarantee that someone will maintain that state in perpetuity. Having respect and gratefulness for what money provides, instead of downplaying it, goes a long way towards being able to preserve it. There's a reason the pattern goes from rags to riches to rags again across three generations, and it's not just regression towards the mean.
shanecleveland 6y ago
I can't disagree with your point that resources and opportunity beget more resources and more opportunity. I don't think that is the only path to success. I also see advice in here that implies he tried and failed at many things, and perhaps was most successful when not focused so much on money: • A multitude of bad ideas is necessary for one good idea. • Most overnight successes — in fact any significant successes — take at least 5 years. Budget your life accordingly. • Don’t create things to make money; make money so you can create things. The reward for good work is more work.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  It's easy to not focus on money when you've got it.
SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
> Advice like these are not laws. They are like hats. If one doesn’t fit, try another. Lists like these are full of survivor bias. In fact, it's baked into it.
- coldtea 6y ago
  On the other hand, survivor bias, when it's not about "to make it big, start as a millionaire heir" can also be another name for "worked for me, so there's at least a single living proof that it can work".
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    But "worked for me" could mean that something worked, or that something didn't work but the good outcome happened anyway.
- nine_k 6y ago
  The entire concept of evolution is built on survivor bias.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you meant by this but it comes across as a quip attempting to be witty and piercing but completely missing the point.
    - nine_k 6y ago
      No, it's quite literal. Evolution is the process that preserves those who survived and left progeny, and chaffes away those who don't. The only measure of success in it is the survival. It does not mean that attempts to make some rational models is worthless; quite the contrary. Of course, there are many who tried things like these and failed; maybe many more than those who prospered. But there are those who tried something opposite, and fewer of them, if any, have prospered. So these inclinations of prosperous people have something to them, though not a guarantee. If you take many such accounts of successful people and correlate them, you will find certain similarities; they, of course, are pretty well-known.
coldtea 6y ago
>Even a cursory look at who has developed what over the years shows that people who actually had the resources to do whatever it was that interested them are the ones in the history books. In areas like startups, where family connections, early education, family environment, and fallbacks, matter, yes. But the 20th century was full of people from poor backgrounds (includings immigrants arriving with 0 dollars) making it in e.g. arts. So much so, that the "starving artist" is a cliche. (And of course, starting and succesfully running regular businesses - the 99% of businesses kind, from grocery stores and restaurants to design studios and software houses, not the 0.0001% that is VC-backed startups sold for b/millions).
- Beldin 6y ago
  > But the 20th century was full of people from poor backgrounds (includings immigrants arriving with 0 dollars) making it in e.g. arts. So much so, that the "starving artist" is a cliche. First up, the "starving artist" cliché isn't one because of those artist who got really really rich. It's a cliché because of all the very poor artists that were starving. Secondly, survivor bias. Don't focus on the few artists who escaped the clutches of starvation to frame the group as a whole. Especially in case the calling may be abandoned in order to not starve. How many "starry night"s could we have had if no one ever needed to Weeley about food, shelter, or safety? We've got one, from someone who worked about all of those at various points in his life.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >How many "starry night"s could we have had if no one ever needed to Weeley about food, shelter, or safety? Probably much fewer. Part of the allure of starry night is the backstory and toil involved - not the same as some fat complacent well off guy painting pretty pictures in a nice house.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  Many of those artists starved to death, or otherwise perished, before they were recognized as greats, and their works became seen as important and valuable. And the 20th century was quite full of rich artists making it, too.
throwaway_4253 6y ago
I think this depends a lot on what the task is. If your goal is explicitly to build a factory or a real estate empire, then you're probably right. You're not going to get very far without a bunch of capital to start. However, if your goal is to do something legitimately creative, I agree with the spirit of the article. Indie game developers often work absolute wonders in spite of (or maybe because of?) Their limitations, whereas super heavily funded giants like Google and Amazon seem to be unable to think through any problem where the solution isn't dependent on "we have really deep pockets; buy the creative talent" https://kotaku.com/bloomberg-report-reveals-major-dysfunction-at-amazon-ga-1846160018 https://kotaku.com/bloomberg-report-reveals-major-dysfunctio... https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/google-praised-stadia-studio-for-great-progress-one-week-before-killing-it/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02...
biren34 6y ago
In most every discussion I've come across that touches on money advice, I've see a variant of this comment "This world view doesn't incorporate (my) reality of the poorest of the Western world and is so in invalid and offensive". I'm not sure what motivates this. If you invert the situation and someone made a list with stuff like "use coupons", would rich people come by and say "this is dumb because it only saves you $0.50 and I (as a rich person) don't care about $0.50"? People have different starting conditions and different current situations, if what's described isn't relevant to yours--why does it bother you so? Let the people who find value in it find value in it.
- johnchristopher 6y ago
  > People have different starting conditions and different current situations, if what's described isn't relevant to yours--why does it bother you so? Let the people who find value in it find value in it. Those advice are most of the time given as being universal, that's why.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Explicitly denied in the text: > Advice like these are not laws. They are like hats. If one doesn’t fit, try another.
    - johnchristopher 6y ago
      I am referring to this, not the article: > In most every discussion I've come across that touches on money advice, I've see a variant of this comment "This world view doesn't incorporate (my) reality of the poorest of the Western world and is so in invalid and offensive".
- andi999 6y ago
  Rich people might just follow your advice.. Warren Buffet bought Bill Gates lunch at McD with coupons. https://www.pinterest.de/pin/837880705644592185/?amp_client_id=CLIENT_ID(_)&mweb_unauth_id=%7B%7Bdefault.session%7D%7D&from_amp_pin_page=true https://www.pinterest.de/pin/837880705644592185/?amp_client_...

StandardFuture 6y ago

> spoken like someone who has never actually been poor It's not even just that. It is spoken like someone who has not even been around poor people. Class segregation is a much more serious issue than simply class distinction. I wonder if it is a growing problem in society. Because if so, it will not end well as it never has historically. If you grew up upper middle class or wealthy and you have not had multiple friends on much lower financial tiers than you then you are absolutely out of touch. It is not possible to be aware of the (mostly minor but not insignificant) differences in people's lives by simply reading a book, watching a documentary, listening to a TED talk, or "being an activist".

Baeocystin 6y ago
I fully agree.

andi999 6y ago

Wouldnt it have felt more offensive if the author would have written: next advice is not for poor people...

Gatsky 6y ago

Ok, fair enough. However, this type of comment is subject to the following problem: for any assignemnt of privilege, there is always someone poorer or more wretched than the person making this assignment, all the way down to a child born with no mind due to Zika virus who is cast aside by her family and dies alone in a ditch. Furthermore, the arc of privilege is logarithmic. So although I agree with you in some sense, I find I can't in good faith criticise someone for being privileged. Is it not inherently hypocritical, as the 'privilege gap' I perceive (either between me and the person, or between some societal band and the person) is minimal compared to the gap between me and everyone else less privileged than I?

Baeocystin 6y ago
I'm actually surprised at the number of folks who appear to have interpreted my comment as one regarding privilege. That wasn't my intent at all. As another commenter noted, it's about the hierarchy of needs. Perhaps I should have left off the 'and frankly, insulting' bit. I meant intellectually insulting, as it is exceedingly easy to see that it's bad advice if you took the time to check. I have yet to meet someone who downplays the importance of money who doesn't also come from enough wealth that they've never had it be a real concern. This is frustrating in multiple ways- one, it shows that they have a strong disconnect from the day to day reality for the majority of humanity. That doesn't make them a bad person. It does bring in to question the universal applicability of their advice. Secondly, being currently wealthy is no guarantee that someone will maintain that state in perpetuity. Having respect and gratefulness for what money provides, instead of downplaying it, goes a long way towards being able to preserve it. There's a reason the pattern goes from rags to riches to rags again across three generations, and it's not just regression towards the mean.

shanecleveland 6y ago

I can't disagree with your point that resources and opportunity beget more resources and more opportunity. I don't think that is the only path to success. I also see advice in here that implies he tried and failed at many things, and perhaps was most successful when not focused so much on money: • A multitude of bad ideas is necessary for one good idea. • Most overnight successes — in fact any significant successes — take at least 5 years. Budget your life accordingly. • Don’t create things to make money; make money so you can create things. The reward for good work is more work.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
It's easy to not focus on money when you've got it.

SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago

> Advice like these are not laws. They are like hats. If one doesn’t fit, try another. Lists like these are full of survivor bias. In fact, it's baked into it.

coldtea 6y ago
On the other hand, survivor bias, when it's not about "to make it big, start as a millionaire heir" can also be another name for "worked for me, so there's at least a single living proof that it can work".
- nerdponx 6y ago
  But "worked for me" could mean that something worked, or that something didn't work but the good outcome happened anyway.
nine_k 6y ago
The entire concept of evolution is built on survivor bias.
- uoaei 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you meant by this but it comes across as a quip attempting to be witty and piercing but completely missing the point.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    No, it's quite literal. Evolution is the process that preserves those who survived and left progeny, and chaffes away those who don't. The only measure of success in it is the survival. It does not mean that attempts to make some rational models is worthless; quite the contrary. Of course, there are many who tried things like these and failed; maybe many more than those who prospered. But there are those who tried something opposite, and fewer of them, if any, have prospered. So these inclinations of prosperous people have something to them, though not a guarantee. If you take many such accounts of successful people and correlate them, you will find certain similarities; they, of course, are pretty well-known.

coldtea 6y ago

>Even a cursory look at who has developed what over the years shows that people who actually had the resources to do whatever it was that interested them are the ones in the history books. In areas like startups, where family connections, early education, family environment, and fallbacks, matter, yes. But the 20th century was full of people from poor backgrounds (includings immigrants arriving with 0 dollars) making it in e.g. arts. So much so, that the "starving artist" is a cliche. (And of course, starting and succesfully running regular businesses - the 99% of businesses kind, from grocery stores and restaurants to design studios and software houses, not the 0.0001% that is VC-backed startups sold for b/millions).

Beldin 6y ago
> But the 20th century was full of people from poor backgrounds (includings immigrants arriving with 0 dollars) making it in e.g. arts. So much so, that the "starving artist" is a cliche. First up, the "starving artist" cliché isn't one because of those artist who got really really rich. It's a cliché because of all the very poor artists that were starving. Secondly, survivor bias. Don't focus on the few artists who escaped the clutches of starvation to frame the group as a whole. Especially in case the calling may be abandoned in order to not starve. How many "starry night"s could we have had if no one ever needed to Weeley about food, shelter, or safety? We've got one, from someone who worked about all of those at various points in his life.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >How many "starry night"s could we have had if no one ever needed to Weeley about food, shelter, or safety? Probably much fewer. Part of the allure of starry night is the backstory and toil involved - not the same as some fat complacent well off guy painting pretty pictures in a nice house.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
Many of those artists starved to death, or otherwise perished, before they were recognized as greats, and their works became seen as important and valuable. And the 20th century was quite full of rich artists making it, too.

throwaway_4253 6y ago

I think this depends a lot on what the task is. If your goal is explicitly to build a factory or a real estate empire, then you're probably right. You're not going to get very far without a bunch of capital to start. However, if your goal is to do something legitimately creative, I agree with the spirit of the article. Indie game developers often work absolute wonders in spite of (or maybe because of?) Their limitations, whereas super heavily funded giants like Google and Amazon seem to be unable to think through any problem where the solution isn't dependent on "we have really deep pockets; buy the creative talent" https://kotaku.com/bloomberg-report-reveals-major-dysfunction-at-amazon-ga-1846160018 https://kotaku.com/bloomberg-report-reveals-major-dysfunctio... https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/google-praised-stadia-studio-for-great-progress-one-week-before-killing-it/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02...

biren34 6y ago

In most every discussion I've come across that touches on money advice, I've see a variant of this comment "This world view doesn't incorporate (my) reality of the poorest of the Western world and is so in invalid and offensive". I'm not sure what motivates this. If you invert the situation and someone made a list with stuff like "use coupons", would rich people come by and say "this is dumb because it only saves you $0.50 and I (as a rich person) don't care about $0.50"? People have different starting conditions and different current situations, if what's described isn't relevant to yours--why does it bother you so? Let the people who find value in it find value in it.

johnchristopher 6y ago
> People have different starting conditions and different current situations, if what's described isn't relevant to yours--why does it bother you so? Let the people who find value in it find value in it. Those advice are most of the time given as being universal, that's why.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Explicitly denied in the text: > Advice like these are not laws. They are like hats. If one doesn’t fit, try another.
  - johnchristopher 6y ago
    I am referring to this, not the article: > In most every discussion I've come across that touches on money advice, I've see a variant of this comment "This world view doesn't incorporate (my) reality of the poorest of the Western world and is so in invalid and offensive".
andi999 6y ago
Rich people might just follow your advice.. Warren Buffet bought Bill Gates lunch at McD with coupons. https://www.pinterest.de/pin/837880705644592185/?amp_client_id=CLIENT_ID(_)&mweb_unauth_id=%7B%7Bdefault.session%7D%7D&from_amp_pin_page=true https://www.pinterest.de/pin/837880705644592185/?amp_client_...