6 ms·

Saying it once and for all: Not everyone can be rich. And getting rich requires lots of luck. That's why it's better to be frugal and invest wisely, than to gam

Saying it once and for all: Not everyone can be rich. And getting rich requires lots of luck. That's why it's better to be frugal and invest wisely, than to gamble on writing a best seller or invent the next big thing. I'm not saying don't invent or write books either. Just don't bet your life on it.

Infinitesimus 13y ago
He isn't proposing that everyone can be rich. Have you read the book? He's proposing that 1. If you don't think it is possible for you, it will never be. 2. Getting rich (financially) requires a LOT of hard work On the subject of saving and investing wisely, he reminds the readers that investment works on compound interest. It is good to invest, but the more you put in, the more you get in return and it is a pretty slow process. It is good to be smart with money and invest wisely, but without high risk, there would be little high reward. It seems like a lot of people are dismissing the book without looking at the contents of it... (sort of brought it on himself with the title) Also, the book is NOT saying getting money is the end-all. He emphasizes the important of health, family and freedom (which may or may not mean money for people)
- squintychino 13y ago
  He hasn't. He probably skimmed the title and started writing his post then and there.
- luxpir 13y ago
  OK - my last comment on this - the book has wasted enough time already... For my sins, I read it. And it was painful. But he doesn't say what you remember he did. You took away the wrong message. He belittles the 'slowlane' approach of building up wealth through compound interest, encouraging you to build a business that scales first (then look at compound interest to consolidate). Much of what he says makes sense, if not completely obvious, it's just the endless fluff and ego I couldn't stand. If the guy used normal language, had it edited well [1], didn't impose his ego everywhere through misogyny, dubious self-anecdotes, a continuous stream of prententious and laughable 'Laws' and didn't have a complete lack of self-awareness that he might have just got lucky in the dotcom boom, not overlooking his respectable work learning to code for his own golden-ticket website (a limo hire business), then I might have appreciated the book. But then, that's a different book. I've nothing against the guy, I can see he's charismatic in a way and probably attracts the young and naive in droves, but I just don't think it's the healthiest of outlooks on life and encourages the hero-syndrome of the self-obsessed, rather than the respectable achievements of the generous and giving. I've only ever written one other bad review, for a speed reading book [2], and it tried the same trick: all fluff and no substance. It probably says more about me that I keep checking these books out 'just in case' they have some useful insight. They rarely do. -- [1] It's obviously more of a pleasure to read something that has been made with care, and not full of this kind of awkward phrasing: "I don't espouse my world vision on them" (first example I could find). [2] http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R29N3MVZ18NRUH http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R29N3MVZ18NRUH
  - roostin 13y ago
    Created account on HN to chime in, I support everything you said. I posted similar comment in r/Entrepreneur, where the book/review is also making rounds today. My comment on reddit was the first time I've ever been motivated to do a negative book review, kudos to the book I guess... You and I must be fighting the same war of principles. http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/21bghh/notes_from_the_millionaire_fastlane/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/21bghh/notes_f...
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
...says the not-an-entrepreneur. Some of us think its NOT better to play it safe. Just sayin.
- hippee-lee 13y ago
  Not playing it safe doesn't mean you don't have a back up plan, right? Why does it have to be all one way or the other? The finance folks on Wall Street take big risks that get lots of press when they fail but they or their parent company also mitigate the risk. I'm not an entrepreneur, maybe a wanna be which is why I keep choosing start ups to work for. What I am curious about is why there is so much resistance to a balanced approach that doesn't require you to go all in without a plan for mitigating the risk your are taking on. I totally get not playing it safe, all the big names in tech seem to have done this and made fu money. But I'm not that smart and even less connected. (I suspect most folks on here lack the connections that the big names in tech had before they made their $ - I could very well be mistaken about this and it's importance to starting up and striking a jackpot) so, I don't get not having a plan that looks at the long term consequences for all the potentail outcomes and plans accordingly. I'm really interested in your feedback on this if you have the time.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Having a backup plan means planning to go back. It means holding something back from your effort. Its much harder to win big when you're not committed, when you haven't committed all of your resources to win where you're at. All sorts of schemes are possible; its not a no-brainer that a balanced approach is the best for everyone. In fact I'm certain its not.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      I tell the fable: you can swim, you're at the beach surfing and diving and splashing around. A big ship goes by, full of passengers, leaning over the rail. They're yelling something at you. Paddling over you hear "Get out of the water! Its wet in there! You're getting soaked! I hear there can be sharks! Maybe it'll rain or something!" You try to tell them "It's ok, I can swim. If it rains I can go back on the beach for a while. There aren't any sharks here, at least not now. " But they don't listen, they sail on. See what I did there? The corporate employees can only see the risks, and greatly overestimate the danger. The swimmers (entrepreneurs) can't really convey how normal it is to them, to be swimming in those waters, to actually enjoy it. This conversation happens a lot, where someone comfortable in their career can't conceive of jumping overboard and trying anything else. There's not a lot you can say, coming from such different points of view.
corkill 13y ago
"And getting rich requires lots of luck." No it requires making something useful to other people that you can sell to them. You really should read the book. Airbnb (hardwork and launching 4 times? nah just luck) Dropbox (solving a hard problem? nah just luck) "That's why it's better to be frugal and invest wisely" This concept is explored in depth in the book. It's called wealth in a wheelchair and is highly dependent on the stock market and property market (things you don't control performing favourably for you).
- svisser 13y ago
  You're biasing your view to the startups that made it. Many startups also worked hard, made something useful and the founders didn't get rich (for some definition of "rich").
- jorleif 13y ago
  It's not either "just luck" or no luck involved. Sure, most people who do get rich try and work very hard. The question is how big a proportion of people who work hard do get rich. If it is only 1% and it cannot be predicted in advance who it is, then there certainly is an element of luck.
- spada 13y ago
  thank you for this reply. it's amazing how so many people think success is luck.
  - normloman 13y ago
    It's not just luck. But a big portion of it is luck. Lots of people had made social networks in the past. Why did Facebook succeed? Partly because it was well designed. But also because it was in the right place at the right time to build momentum early on. That's the lucky part. Success takes hard work. But hard work isn't enough.
- nilkn 13y ago
  This sort of backward reasoning doesn't work very well. Yes, Dropbox solves a hard problem. Plenty of other people have solved hard problems and didn't make much money. You have to explore the factor that differentiates the cases if you want your post to have any real substance. The parent post would probably propose that this differentiating factor is, at least partially, luck.
squintychino 13y ago
Perfect. Please keep to the right and stay in the slow lane. The last thing we need in the fast lane is people like you telling us we can't pass others.

Infinitesimus 13y ago

He isn't proposing that everyone can be rich. Have you read the book? He's proposing that 1. If you don't think it is possible for you, it will never be. 2. Getting rich (financially) requires a LOT of hard work On the subject of saving and investing wisely, he reminds the readers that investment works on compound interest. It is good to invest, but the more you put in, the more you get in return and it is a pretty slow process. It is good to be smart with money and invest wisely, but without high risk, there would be little high reward. It seems like a lot of people are dismissing the book without looking at the contents of it... (sort of brought it on himself with the title) Also, the book is NOT saying getting money is the end-all. He emphasizes the important of health, family and freedom (which may or may not mean money for people)

squintychino 13y ago
He hasn't. He probably skimmed the title and started writing his post then and there.
luxpir 13y ago
OK - my last comment on this - the book has wasted enough time already... For my sins, I read it. And it was painful. But he doesn't say what you remember he did. You took away the wrong message. He belittles the 'slowlane' approach of building up wealth through compound interest, encouraging you to build a business that scales first (then look at compound interest to consolidate). Much of what he says makes sense, if not completely obvious, it's just the endless fluff and ego I couldn't stand. If the guy used normal language, had it edited well [1], didn't impose his ego everywhere through misogyny, dubious self-anecdotes, a continuous stream of prententious and laughable 'Laws' and didn't have a complete lack of self-awareness that he might have just got lucky in the dotcom boom, not overlooking his respectable work learning to code for his own golden-ticket website (a limo hire business), then I might have appreciated the book. But then, that's a different book. I've nothing against the guy, I can see he's charismatic in a way and probably attracts the young and naive in droves, but I just don't think it's the healthiest of outlooks on life and encourages the hero-syndrome of the self-obsessed, rather than the respectable achievements of the generous and giving. I've only ever written one other bad review, for a speed reading book [2], and it tried the same trick: all fluff and no substance. It probably says more about me that I keep checking these books out 'just in case' they have some useful insight. They rarely do. -- [1] It's obviously more of a pleasure to read something that has been made with care, and not full of this kind of awkward phrasing: "I don't espouse my world vision on them" (first example I could find). [2] http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R29N3MVZ18NRUH http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R29N3MVZ18NRUH
- roostin 13y ago
  Created account on HN to chime in, I support everything you said. I posted similar comment in r/Entrepreneur, where the book/review is also making rounds today. My comment on reddit was the first time I've ever been motivated to do a negative book review, kudos to the book I guess... You and I must be fighting the same war of principles. http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/21bghh/notes_from_the_millionaire_fastlane/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/21bghh/notes_f...

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

...says the not-an-entrepreneur. Some of us think its NOT better to play it safe. Just sayin.

hippee-lee 13y ago
Not playing it safe doesn't mean you don't have a back up plan, right? Why does it have to be all one way or the other? The finance folks on Wall Street take big risks that get lots of press when they fail but they or their parent company also mitigate the risk. I'm not an entrepreneur, maybe a wanna be which is why I keep choosing start ups to work for. What I am curious about is why there is so much resistance to a balanced approach that doesn't require you to go all in without a plan for mitigating the risk your are taking on. I totally get not playing it safe, all the big names in tech seem to have done this and made fu money. But I'm not that smart and even less connected. (I suspect most folks on here lack the connections that the big names in tech had before they made their $ - I could very well be mistaken about this and it's importance to starting up and striking a jackpot) so, I don't get not having a plan that looks at the long term consequences for all the potentail outcomes and plans accordingly. I'm really interested in your feedback on this if you have the time.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Having a backup plan means planning to go back. It means holding something back from your effort. Its much harder to win big when you're not committed, when you haven't committed all of your resources to win where you're at. All sorts of schemes are possible; its not a no-brainer that a balanced approach is the best for everyone. In fact I'm certain its not.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    I tell the fable: you can swim, you're at the beach surfing and diving and splashing around. A big ship goes by, full of passengers, leaning over the rail. They're yelling something at you. Paddling over you hear "Get out of the water! Its wet in there! You're getting soaked! I hear there can be sharks! Maybe it'll rain or something!" You try to tell them "It's ok, I can swim. If it rains I can go back on the beach for a while. There aren't any sharks here, at least not now. " But they don't listen, they sail on. See what I did there? The corporate employees can only see the risks, and greatly overestimate the danger. The swimmers (entrepreneurs) can't really convey how normal it is to them, to be swimming in those waters, to actually enjoy it. This conversation happens a lot, where someone comfortable in their career can't conceive of jumping overboard and trying anything else. There's not a lot you can say, coming from such different points of view.

corkill 13y ago

"And getting rich requires lots of luck." No it requires making something useful to other people that you can sell to them. You really should read the book. Airbnb (hardwork and launching 4 times? nah just luck) Dropbox (solving a hard problem? nah just luck) "That's why it's better to be frugal and invest wisely" This concept is explored in depth in the book. It's called wealth in a wheelchair and is highly dependent on the stock market and property market (things you don't control performing favourably for you).

svisser 13y ago
You're biasing your view to the startups that made it. Many startups also worked hard, made something useful and the founders didn't get rich (for some definition of "rich").
jorleif 13y ago
It's not either "just luck" or no luck involved. Sure, most people who do get rich try and work very hard. The question is how big a proportion of people who work hard do get rich. If it is only 1% and it cannot be predicted in advance who it is, then there certainly is an element of luck.
spada 13y ago
thank you for this reply. it's amazing how so many people think success is luck.
- normloman 13y ago
  It's not just luck. But a big portion of it is luck. Lots of people had made social networks in the past. Why did Facebook succeed? Partly because it was well designed. But also because it was in the right place at the right time to build momentum early on. That's the lucky part. Success takes hard work. But hard work isn't enough.
nilkn 13y ago
This sort of backward reasoning doesn't work very well. Yes, Dropbox solves a hard problem. Plenty of other people have solved hard problems and didn't make much money. You have to explore the factor that differentiates the cases if you want your post to have any real substance. The parent post would probably propose that this differentiating factor is, at least partially, luck.

squintychino 13y ago

Perfect. Please keep to the right and stay in the slow lane. The last thing we need in the fast lane is people like you telling us we can't pass others.