3 ms·

Without defining rich and “self-made” pretty tightly your statement is pretty weird. If someone with nothing risks $100 is that an indication of more or less ri

Without defining rich and “self-made” pretty tightly your statement is pretty weird. If someone with nothing risks $100 is that an indication of more or less risk tolerance than a billionaire risking 200 million?

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
I think someone with next-to-nothing risking everything demonstrates significantly more risk than a billionaire risking a fraction of his wealth. One person has everything to lose, and the other isn't really risking that much (I've personally risked more than 50% of my entire net worth on a single bet when I was already doing well - it's a ridiculously comfortable position to be in and doesn't really demonstrate anything other than privelege). I think a more interesting question is comparing someone with $100 to someone with $1 billion risking their entire net worths - who has taken on more risk?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  In your example they’ve taken on same risk. Arguably still the poorer person as you have to take into account the ability to regenerate wealth.
  - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
    I see it differently, although without context we're really just projecting our own assumptions. The poor person is likely to starve to death. I doubt the billionaire would ever experience that hardship even if he lost everything, he probably still has some lines of support. Hell, just his reputation alone can probably get him an enormous loan or job or something else that other people could only ever hope to have. Masayoshi Son is famous for losing more money than anyone in history, and he goes out and raises the largest VC fund in history (which is a laughable failure) and is doing it again (apparently logic doesn't apply). Once you reach that status people will worship you even for your failures. Nobody ever pays attention to the person who is struggling just to get by. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/billionaire-news/a-decade-before-the-wework-disaster-masayoshi-son-lost-more-money-personally-than-any-human-ever/ https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/billionaire-news/...
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you're saying - it sounds like you're agreeing with me, then?
      - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
        My apologies - I accidentally added a negative somewhere (I didn't get enough sleep). Yes, I think we agree. Cheers.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        no worries, I was just a bit confused, haha.
    - bzbarsky 5y ago
      > The poor person is likely to starve to death. This is actually _extremely_ unlikely in the US or Western Europe. Social safety nets do in fact exist, and while they have all sorts of problems they do generally prevent starvation to death. Now eating things that get you to ill health, that is much more believable.
      - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
        Most of the world isn't the US or western Europe. Try to be a little less ethnocentric.
xur17 5y ago
But it's not just financial risk, it's the risk to his physical safety / life that he takes.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Ok, dangerous jobs are overwhelming taken by poor(er) people. The idea that rich people take more risks is laughable. Rich people simply gain more from having taken the same risk as a result of the compounding effect of capital investment.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>The idea that rich people take more risks is laughable. No one was arguing that. The point being made is that Branson is taking a significant risk given all he has to lose - which is far more than a non-wealthy person - if he were to die.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      So what? Why does it matter if he is rich or not? The other crew members had just as much to lose if they all died, no?
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        It matters to the risk/benefit calculations. Let's not kid ourselves to challenge some caricaturized narrative of a right-wing bogeyman, or reinforce some idealistic narrative about the worth of human life. I mean this is not a debatable point. Studies on criminal behavior for example show that relative poverty massively increases the probability of risk-taking criminal behavior. Jobs which pose high risk of serious injury and death also pay a premium for that risk, which shows there is an intimate relationship between resources available and willingness to take risks, which would typically make risk-taking less appealing to the wealthier party.
        endisneigh 5y ago

OnlineGladiator 5y ago

I think someone with next-to-nothing risking everything demonstrates significantly more risk than a billionaire risking a fraction of his wealth. One person has everything to lose, and the other isn't really risking that much (I've personally risked more than 50% of my entire net worth on a single bet when I was already doing well - it's a ridiculously comfortable position to be in and doesn't really demonstrate anything other than privelege). I think a more interesting question is comparing someone with $100 to someone with $1 billion risking their entire net worths - who has taken on more risk?

endisneigh 5y ago
In your example they’ve taken on same risk. Arguably still the poorer person as you have to take into account the ability to regenerate wealth.
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  I see it differently, although without context we're really just projecting our own assumptions. The poor person is likely to starve to death. I doubt the billionaire would ever experience that hardship even if he lost everything, he probably still has some lines of support. Hell, just his reputation alone can probably get him an enormous loan or job or something else that other people could only ever hope to have. Masayoshi Son is famous for losing more money than anyone in history, and he goes out and raises the largest VC fund in history (which is a laughable failure) and is doing it again (apparently logic doesn't apply). Once you reach that status people will worship you even for your failures. Nobody ever pays attention to the person who is struggling just to get by. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/billionaire-news/a-decade-before-the-wework-disaster-masayoshi-son-lost-more-money-personally-than-any-human-ever/ https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/billionaire-news/...
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you're saying - it sounds like you're agreeing with me, then?
    - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
      My apologies - I accidentally added a negative somewhere (I didn't get enough sleep). Yes, I think we agree. Cheers.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        no worries, I was just a bit confused, haha.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    > The poor person is likely to starve to death. This is actually _extremely_ unlikely in the US or Western Europe. Social safety nets do in fact exist, and while they have all sorts of problems they do generally prevent starvation to death. Now eating things that get you to ill health, that is much more believable.
    - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
      Most of the world isn't the US or western Europe. Try to be a little less ethnocentric.

xur17 5y ago

But it's not just financial risk, it's the risk to his physical safety / life that he takes.

endisneigh 5y ago
Ok, dangerous jobs are overwhelming taken by poor(er) people. The idea that rich people take more risks is laughable. Rich people simply gain more from having taken the same risk as a result of the compounding effect of capital investment.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>The idea that rich people take more risks is laughable. No one was arguing that. The point being made is that Branson is taking a significant risk given all he has to lose - which is far more than a non-wealthy person - if he were to die.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    So what? Why does it matter if he is rich or not? The other crew members had just as much to lose if they all died, no?
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      It matters to the risk/benefit calculations. Let's not kid ourselves to challenge some caricaturized narrative of a right-wing bogeyman, or reinforce some idealistic narrative about the worth of human life. I mean this is not a debatable point. Studies on criminal behavior for example show that relative poverty massively increases the probability of risk-taking criminal behavior. Jobs which pose high risk of serious injury and death also pay a premium for that risk, which shows there is an intimate relationship between resources available and willingness to take risks, which would typically make risk-taking less appealing to the wealthier party.
      - endisneigh 5y ago