5 ms·

Is this true though? Leaving aside those with inherited wealth. If you imagine in purely competitive business situation, with poor enforcement of blue collar c

by dbspin 2y ago

Is this true though? Leaving aside those with inherited wealth. If you imagine in purely competitive business situation, with poor enforcement of blue collar crime prosecution globally - seems likely the least ethical competitors would win out a supermajority of the time.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
I know a dude with a 7th grade education who amassed millions via hard work and thrift. Don't think you have to play millionaire games to make millions. Mostly you just need to not overtly waste your income.
- immibis 2y ago
  Supposing I worked for my whole life I could retire with a few millions. Then I'd be 60, and then eventually dead, having spent my whole life working for the actually rich people (who have 5 orders of magnitude more and didn't work for it) instead of doing things I wanted to do, in order to get them to give me a tiny fraction of their wealth. Is that good?
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Depends on your motivations I suppose. Hopping on the Hedonic Treadmill is a sucker play though.
throwuxiytayq 2y ago
The most unethical competitors get investigated and „…find out” eventually. The money-optimal strategy is to only act badly when one can get away with it and stay under the radar. (The sanity-optimal strategy is to always act lawfully.)
bombcar 2y ago
It's entirely true because it's easy to prove that any normal decently paid occupation with thrifty savings will result in rich, at least by a normal standard. If by "rich" you mean "Elon Musk or Gates" then you may have a point.
- immibis 2y ago
  Sure, I could earn a few million that way. Is it rich? If a house goes for one million, and you have two million, you have the equivalent of two houses. You presumably only want one house, and if you're wise, you don't engage in the kind of thinking that might cause you to spend the rest on a Ferrari or a Rolex, so you have practically unlimited money left over for daily purchases. You're very comfortable. You're also 60 years old. Money rich, time poor. Still... is it really rich? It's upper middle class. You want for nothing, financially. However, you're going to have to work about 50 times longer to start to get into the big boy's club. The gap between the middle class (even at the very upper end) and the truly rich, at this present time, is beyond human comprehension in that way. See you when you're 3000 years old. People who have that much money did not get there by working.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    To me, rich is 'not having to work anymore' - which is easily doable at $5m and very likely doable much lower than that, depending on where you are.
    - immibis 2y ago
      So, you can work your entire life and then not have to work any more i.e. retire. Rich is getting a retirement now??
      - bombcar 2y ago
        Again, it depends on what you consider rich to be. Most people consider rich to be about "twice what I earn/have" and it slides. I think rich is much better looked at from the time perspective - if your time is yours and not unwillingly sold to others; you're rich. If your time is not your own and you have to sell most of it to live, you're not rich. And yes, I would put anyone who can comfortably retire before social security kicks in (so, early retirement/FIRE) as at least rich-adjacent.
- dbspin 2y ago
mewpmewp2 2y ago
What if you make a solo video game that millions of people are willing to buy and play and become a millionaire through that?

by dbspin 2y ago

forgetfreeman 2y ago

I know a dude with a 7th grade education who amassed millions via hard work and thrift. Don't think you have to play millionaire games to make millions. Mostly you just need to not overtly waste your income.

immibis 2y ago
Supposing I worked for my whole life I could retire with a few millions. Then I'd be 60, and then eventually dead, having spent my whole life working for the actually rich people (who have 5 orders of magnitude more and didn't work for it) instead of doing things I wanted to do, in order to get them to give me a tiny fraction of their wealth. Is that good?
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Depends on your motivations I suppose. Hopping on the Hedonic Treadmill is a sucker play though.

throwuxiytayq 2y ago

The most unethical competitors get investigated and „…find out” eventually. The money-optimal strategy is to only act badly when one can get away with it and stay under the radar. (The sanity-optimal strategy is to always act lawfully.)

bombcar 2y ago

It's entirely true because it's easy to prove that any normal decently paid occupation with thrifty savings will result in rich, at least by a normal standard. If by "rich" you mean "Elon Musk or Gates" then you may have a point.

immibis 2y ago
Sure, I could earn a few million that way. Is it rich? If a house goes for one million, and you have two million, you have the equivalent of two houses. You presumably only want one house, and if you're wise, you don't engage in the kind of thinking that might cause you to spend the rest on a Ferrari or a Rolex, so you have practically unlimited money left over for daily purchases. You're very comfortable. You're also 60 years old. Money rich, time poor. Still... is it really rich? It's upper middle class. You want for nothing, financially. However, you're going to have to work about 50 times longer to start to get into the big boy's club. The gap between the middle class (even at the very upper end) and the truly rich, at this present time, is beyond human comprehension in that way. See you when you're 3000 years old. People who have that much money did not get there by working.
- bombcar 2y ago
  To me, rich is 'not having to work anymore' - which is easily doable at $5m and very likely doable much lower than that, depending on where you are.
  - immibis 2y ago
    So, you can work your entire life and then not have to work any more i.e. retire. Rich is getting a retirement now??
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Again, it depends on what you consider rich to be. Most people consider rich to be about "twice what I earn/have" and it slides. I think rich is much better looked at from the time perspective - if your time is yours and not unwillingly sold to others; you're rich. If your time is not your own and you have to sell most of it to live, you're not rich. And yes, I would put anyone who can comfortably retire before social security kicks in (so, early retirement/FIRE) as at least rich-adjacent.
dbspin 2y ago

mewpmewp2 2y ago

What if you make a solo video game that millions of people are willing to buy and play and become a millionaire through that?