4 ms·

>>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

>>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
    not everyone subscribes to this idea that rich people are worth more than poor people that you (apparently) believe in. so, no, it doesn't matter. perhaps it does to you, though.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      I made no reference to how society should value people. I was referencing how much value people generally place on staying alive, and how personal wealth affects that. People generally perceive themselves as having more to lose when they are rich than when they are poor, since people generally value wealth and the material comforts its affords them. Attacking me personally, by inferring sinister social views, for accurately describing reality is not a constructive way to engage with the world.
Johnny555 5y ago
I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can't stop aging (yet). And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, we all only get one life. His heirs will be taken care of either way, how can his life be valued higher than, say, one of his pilots?
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can't stop aging (yet). That is perhaps true, but I was just making a point about his wealth, and comparing him to another person who is the same in all respects but that. >>And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, The life of a billionaire is incredible relative to the life of a poor person.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    The life of a billionaire is incredible relative to the life of a poor person. The point I was trying to make is that that's not necessarily true. There are many non-billionaires that have led incredible lives and have made a big impact in the world and there are billionaires whose biggest contribution to humanity is increasing their own wealth and power.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      I was making a generalization, not implying this is a hard and fast rule. And I wasn't talkig about the positive social impact they have on the world. I was talking about they personally have to lose in terms of high quality living.
Applejinx 5y ago
Pretty sure everybody who dies loses 'everything', for all practical purposes. They lose the universe. I don't see a distinction, to the person. To the outside world it's bound to seem very different, but they're the ones left behind to care. I would also answer the 'as a mega-rich person he has much more happiness and satisfaction to lose than a poor man who is just poor and wanting to die!' question by asking: how do you think these hyper-achievers get to where they are? I think it's possible that the relative angst level doesn't change, either. It's just that the poor man punches the guy on the adjacent barstool and gets thrown in jail. The rich man punches a COUNTRY, or a class, or a demographic, and typically gets cheered for his trouble.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  People lose everything when they die, but very wealthy's 'everything' is far more than the typical person's. >>They lose the universe. I don't see a distinction, to the person. One loses access to billions, and the other to access to thousands. People who 'make it', to the degree Branson has, have far less need to take risks, because they have already achieved most if not all of their financial goals. Yes they still want to achieve more, but they are undoubtedly far more satisfied with their current life than a typical person, and could enjoy being at their station for years, immensely, due to the comforts, luxuries and experiences they can afford to partake in. I think contrarianism, when taken to the extreme, like arguing the rich don't have more to lose than the poor, becomes unconstructive. The ego gets wrapped up in arguing against some allegedly oppressive/elitist truism, and that leads to biased analysis that selectively examines the evidence to push the contrarian position.
  - Applejinx 5y ago
    Nobody becomes a Richard Branson, or an Elon Musk, or a Jeff Bezos, or a Mark Zuckerberg, because they have finite goals and they are satisfied. I would argue that the rich on that scale have MORE dissatisfaction than the poor, otherwise they would have cashed out and retired quite happily. How dissatisfied do you have to be to leave the planet? I don't think you understand entrepreneurs that well. They're a mixed blessing at best, but a worthwhile societal sparkplug if properly harnessed… and they are defined by a burning ambition and dissatisfaction. I'll grant you they keep score and are very aware of the high value of what they've achieved (some are even driven to inflate this with obvious lies) but if you think that's the same thing as ease and satisfaction, you'd be mistaken.

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
  not everyone subscribes to this idea that rich people are worth more than poor people that you (apparently) believe in. so, no, it doesn't matter. perhaps it does to you, though.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I made no reference to how society should value people. I was referencing how much value people generally place on staying alive, and how personal wealth affects that. People generally perceive themselves as having more to lose when they are rich than when they are poor, since people generally value wealth and the material comforts its affords them. Attacking me personally, by inferring sinister social views, for accurately describing reality is not a constructive way to engage with the world.

Johnny555 5y ago

I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can't stop aging (yet). And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, we all only get one life. His heirs will be taken care of either way, how can his life be valued higher than, say, one of his pilots?

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can't stop aging (yet). That is perhaps true, but I was just making a point about his wealth, and comparing him to another person who is the same in all respects but that. >>And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, The life of a billionaire is incredible relative to the life of a poor person.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  The life of a billionaire is incredible relative to the life of a poor person. The point I was trying to make is that that's not necessarily true. There are many non-billionaires that have led incredible lives and have made a big impact in the world and there are billionaires whose biggest contribution to humanity is increasing their own wealth and power.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I was making a generalization, not implying this is a hard and fast rule. And I wasn't talkig about the positive social impact they have on the world. I was talking about they personally have to lose in terms of high quality living.

Applejinx 5y ago

Pretty sure everybody who dies loses 'everything', for all practical purposes. They lose the universe. I don't see a distinction, to the person. To the outside world it's bound to seem very different, but they're the ones left behind to care. I would also answer the 'as a mega-rich person he has much more happiness and satisfaction to lose than a poor man who is just poor and wanting to die!' question by asking: how do you think these hyper-achievers get to where they are? I think it's possible that the relative angst level doesn't change, either. It's just that the poor man punches the guy on the adjacent barstool and gets thrown in jail. The rich man punches a COUNTRY, or a class, or a demographic, and typically gets cheered for his trouble.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
People lose everything when they die, but very wealthy's 'everything' is far more than the typical person's. >>They lose the universe. I don't see a distinction, to the person. One loses access to billions, and the other to access to thousands. People who 'make it', to the degree Branson has, have far less need to take risks, because they have already achieved most if not all of their financial goals. Yes they still want to achieve more, but they are undoubtedly far more satisfied with their current life than a typical person, and could enjoy being at their station for years, immensely, due to the comforts, luxuries and experiences they can afford to partake in. I think contrarianism, when taken to the extreme, like arguing the rich don't have more to lose than the poor, becomes unconstructive. The ego gets wrapped up in arguing against some allegedly oppressive/elitist truism, and that leads to biased analysis that selectively examines the evidence to push the contrarian position.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Nobody becomes a Richard Branson, or an Elon Musk, or a Jeff Bezos, or a Mark Zuckerberg, because they have finite goals and they are satisfied. I would argue that the rich on that scale have MORE dissatisfaction than the poor, otherwise they would have cashed out and retired quite happily. How dissatisfied do you have to be to leave the planet? I don't think you understand entrepreneurs that well. They're a mixed blessing at best, but a worthwhile societal sparkplug if properly harnessed… and they are defined by a burning ambition and dissatisfaction. I'll grant you they keep score and are very aware of the high value of what they've achieved (some are even driven to inflate this with obvious lies) but if you think that's the same thing as ease and satisfaction, you'd be mistaken.