8 ms·

Pretty off topic comment, but I read the title as "inheriting money is a way avoid being a high performer", which happens to be true, although completely irrele

Pretty off topic comment, but I read the title as "inheriting money is a way avoid being a high performer", which happens to be true, although completely irrelevant to the actual article. ;)

dudeinjapan 5y ago
I read it similarly as "inheriting money". And it's true that inheritance IS a performance hack--not for the children, but for the parents. Inheritance incentivizes parents to accumulate wealth not just for one lifetime but for multiple lifetimes. (Granted it may paradoxically have the opposite effect on the children as you mention.) Here's Milton Friedman on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  What's wrong with someone wanting to provide for his offspring?
  - carlhjerpe 5y ago
    Ted Kazinsky was talking about it in his manifesto. https://unabombermanifesto.com/#THE%20POWER%20PROCESS https://unabombermanifesto.com/#THE%20POWER%20PROCESS It depends on how much you provide for your offspring according to this deranged terrorist. And I've read stories from billionaire kids not living "the good life" because they never have to fight/work for anything.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      That's just bad parenting. I think rich people tend to be people obsessed with work, giving access to money is easier than teaching their kids to earn stuff - it is a different problem.
      - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
        Exactly. There are many rich people who have properly raised their children.
    - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
      An atheistic/secular lifestyle tends to result in such outcomes.
      - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
        yikes. why?
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Inheritance is a natural phenomenon. If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime. Sure, some people may still do it because they love working or because they love providing for their society. The main reason I want to accumulate money, is so I can offer them a job instead of them going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital. Bigger businesses are capable of bigger bets (think Elon Musk) which benefit everyone, removing an economic incentive doesn't sound wise for innovation and growth.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Inheritance is a natural phenomenon. Biological inheritance, property inheritance, however, is not. > If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime. Even if one agrees that that is true, that’s not an argument that inheritance is natural, that’s an argument that it is a feature of society chosen to incentivise people to accumulate wealth surplus to their personal needs.
    - achenatx 5y ago
      property inheritance seems like it is also a natural phenomenon. For example animals can "inherit" territory. https://ideas.ted.com/humans-arent-the-only-ones-that-help-out-their-adult-kids-heres-why-animals-do-it-too/ https://ideas.ted.com/humans-arent-the-only-ones-that-help-o...
  - amelius 5y ago
    Also, there are probably numerous ways to avoid inheritance tax, so a 100% inheritance tax wouldn't make much sense anyway (even if I agree ideologically with such a tax).
  - tnzm 5y ago
    >wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime. >going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital. The corporate bullcrap you had to go through is a direct consequence of someone growing their business beyond what they could spend in a lifetime.
- take3 5y ago
  If you're "not able to spend it in a lifetime..." Then you're selfish and no good for the money anyway. One can only buy so many jets and sports teams, sure. But, if society endows you with that sort of reward, it becomes your responsibility to move society forward with that blessing. Anything less is exactly why we live in Trump world and not some sci-fi future we all imagined as kids.
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    Life is more than just self indulgences, I don't actually see a point in working or contributing to society at all if I can't build a foundation that will benefit my children. I'm certainly not working so I can drive a fancy car or whatever. Honestly not sure I'd even bother getting out of bed most days if the future of my children was just in the hands of the state, what would be the point.
    - take3 5y ago
      Sounds like you may be depressed. My mom would tell us of how, similarly, us kids would be the only thing that helped her get through periods of depression. Life itself, even for those of us without children, is an incredible experience.
      - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
        I just work myself to my limits but I do it for a reason, if that reason isn't there why not just be comfy instead?
Jiocus 5y ago
I read the title as "new hypothesis about evolutionary theory and gene inheritance". This is why I'm not a biologist (or OOP fan). :)
- anonytrary 5y ago
  Omg I can't believe I didn't see it this way first, this is quite some title!
ck425 5y ago
I thought the same and tbh was quite excited to read about that. Less interested in OOP.
taneq 5y ago
> "inheriting money is a way avoid being a high performer", which happens to be true By what metric? Or do you mean "a way to avoid having to be a high performer in order to achieve good results"? Isn't the whole beef with wealth inequality that given otherwise equal luck and faculties, a person who starts with more capital will gain more capital?
- cdogl 5y ago
  The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The children of the very wealthy often (usually?) share their parents’ economic advantage, thus perpetuating the inequality that originated due to economic factors. But that doesn’t mean they’re driven or that they’ll develop the same qualities that drove their parents to be successful.
  - taneq 5y ago
    Well yeah, that's why I asked.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    > But that doesn’t mean they’re driven or that they’ll develop the same qualities that drove their parents to be successful. That's the point: a leasurely trust-fund baby will likely be more "successful" than a hardworking and "driven" poor person.
shoto_io 5y ago
I first thought it was about genes and evolution...
marderfarker2 5y ago
Huh, I was thinking along the lines of inheriting genes.
bubblethink 5y ago
Heh. Have we all been trained to expect increasingly medium-style lifestyle content on HN ? This title was a nice Rorschach test.
take3 5y ago
Monetary inheritance is likely bad for the species from an evolutionary standpoint. For example, if a "manipulative anti-social" gene was increased in prevalence because it maximized net worth. The problem here is a common issue in game theory, optimization without regard for process. Your inheritance doesn't care how it was acquired. Sure this could be offset for positive genes, but that's making one big assumption. The assumption that capitalism is the only reward function for our species. That is, what other forms of inheritance reproductively compete with money?
cghendrix 5y ago
How to improve your TC with this one trick (other relatives hate this)
Shorel 5y ago
I was thinking the same thing.
CRConrad 5y ago
Exactly how I read the headline on the front page too. In fact, I clicked through to this page mainly out of curiosity as to which meaning was the intended.

Pretty off topic comment, but I read the title as "inheriting money is a way avoid being a high performer", which happens to be true, although completely irrelevant to the actual article. ;)

dudeinjapan 5y ago

I read it similarly as "inheriting money". And it's true that inheritance IS a performance hack--not for the children, but for the parents. Inheritance incentivizes parents to accumulate wealth not just for one lifetime but for multiple lifetimes. (Granted it may paradoxically have the opposite effect on the children as you mention.) Here's Milton Friedman on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4

gher-shyu3i 5y ago
What's wrong with someone wanting to provide for his offspring?
- carlhjerpe 5y ago
  Ted Kazinsky was talking about it in his manifesto. https://unabombermanifesto.com/#THE%20POWER%20PROCESS https://unabombermanifesto.com/#THE%20POWER%20PROCESS It depends on how much you provide for your offspring according to this deranged terrorist. And I've read stories from billionaire kids not living "the good life" because they never have to fight/work for anything.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    That's just bad parenting. I think rich people tend to be people obsessed with work, giving access to money is easier than teaching their kids to earn stuff - it is a different problem.
    - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
      Exactly. There are many rich people who have properly raised their children.
  - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
    An atheistic/secular lifestyle tends to result in such outcomes.
    - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
      yikes. why?
jokethrowaway 5y ago
Inheritance is a natural phenomenon. If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime. Sure, some people may still do it because they love working or because they love providing for their society. The main reason I want to accumulate money, is so I can offer them a job instead of them going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital. Bigger businesses are capable of bigger bets (think Elon Musk) which benefit everyone, removing an economic incentive doesn't sound wise for innovation and growth.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Inheritance is a natural phenomenon. Biological inheritance, property inheritance, however, is not. > If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime. Even if one agrees that that is true, that’s not an argument that inheritance is natural, that’s an argument that it is a feature of society chosen to incentivise people to accumulate wealth surplus to their personal needs.
  - achenatx 5y ago
    property inheritance seems like it is also a natural phenomenon. For example animals can "inherit" territory. https://ideas.ted.com/humans-arent-the-only-ones-that-help-out-their-adult-kids-heres-why-animals-do-it-too/ https://ideas.ted.com/humans-arent-the-only-ones-that-help-o...
- amelius 5y ago
  Also, there are probably numerous ways to avoid inheritance tax, so a 100% inheritance tax wouldn't make much sense anyway (even if I agree ideologically with such a tax).
- tnzm 5y ago
  >wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime. >going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital. The corporate bullcrap you had to go through is a direct consequence of someone growing their business beyond what they could spend in a lifetime.
take3 5y ago
If you're "not able to spend it in a lifetime..." Then you're selfish and no good for the money anyway. One can only buy so many jets and sports teams, sure. But, if society endows you with that sort of reward, it becomes your responsibility to move society forward with that blessing. Anything less is exactly why we live in Trump world and not some sci-fi future we all imagined as kids.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Life is more than just self indulgences, I don't actually see a point in working or contributing to society at all if I can't build a foundation that will benefit my children. I'm certainly not working so I can drive a fancy car or whatever. Honestly not sure I'd even bother getting out of bed most days if the future of my children was just in the hands of the state, what would be the point.
  - take3 5y ago
    Sounds like you may be depressed. My mom would tell us of how, similarly, us kids would be the only thing that helped her get through periods of depression. Life itself, even for those of us without children, is an incredible experience.
    - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
      I just work myself to my limits but I do it for a reason, if that reason isn't there why not just be comfy instead?

Jiocus 5y ago

I read the title as "new hypothesis about evolutionary theory and gene inheritance". This is why I'm not a biologist (or OOP fan). :)

anonytrary 5y ago
Omg I can't believe I didn't see it this way first, this is quite some title!

ck425 5y ago

I thought the same and tbh was quite excited to read about that. Less interested in OOP.

taneq 5y ago

> "inheriting money is a way avoid being a high performer", which happens to be true By what metric? Or do you mean "a way to avoid having to be a high performer in order to achieve good results"? Isn't the whole beef with wealth inequality that given otherwise equal luck and faculties, a person who starts with more capital will gain more capital?

cdogl 5y ago
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The children of the very wealthy often (usually?) share their parents’ economic advantage, thus perpetuating the inequality that originated due to economic factors. But that doesn’t mean they’re driven or that they’ll develop the same qualities that drove their parents to be successful.
- taneq 5y ago
  Well yeah, that's why I asked.
- andrepd 5y ago
  > But that doesn’t mean they’re driven or that they’ll develop the same qualities that drove their parents to be successful. That's the point: a leasurely trust-fund baby will likely be more "successful" than a hardworking and "driven" poor person.

shoto_io 5y ago

I first thought it was about genes and evolution...

marderfarker2 5y ago

Huh, I was thinking along the lines of inheriting genes.

bubblethink 5y ago

Heh. Have we all been trained to expect increasingly medium-style lifestyle content on HN ? This title was a nice Rorschach test.

take3 5y ago

Monetary inheritance is likely bad for the species from an evolutionary standpoint. For example, if a "manipulative anti-social" gene was increased in prevalence because it maximized net worth. The problem here is a common issue in game theory, optimization without regard for process. Your inheritance doesn't care how it was acquired. Sure this could be offset for positive genes, but that's making one big assumption. The assumption that capitalism is the only reward function for our species. That is, what other forms of inheritance reproductively compete with money?

cghendrix 5y ago

How to improve your TC with this one trick (other relatives hate this)

Shorel 5y ago

I was thinking the same thing.

CRConrad 5y ago

Exactly how I read the headline on the front page too. In fact, I clicked through to this page mainly out of curiosity as to which meaning was the intended.