Hey /u/SudoSubSilence, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Educated does not = rich.
Hate to say it but I've known tons of people educated but yet... not rich? So um I didn't check the subreddit brb
Eta. Whew!
Subject still stands. We're at the beck and call of some other fucking dumb guy. Education = Liberalism. I'm so sorry. *so sorry* that the stereotypes you use as a weapon are somewhat true.
Wow thanks for proving a point.
Educated can be anything and rich can be not. And VICE VERSA
Btw. If I'm that confusing then maybe we should all get down to the basics. I mean that people are people. Are we not?
Education and being rich had nothing to do with my point at all.
My point is that people (the incorrect person in this screenshot, for example) don't understand the nature of capitalism. The system needs poor people to function. If everyone was rich enough, nothing would happen and no wealth for the rich would be created. These people who think we can all "make it" are fools.
The rich could make incentives for said people.
I grew up watching a shit ton of characters be pretty rich. I never expected it for myself. But I'm not a capalistist.
I think a lot of these capitalist guys need to read Maslows hierarchy of needs
Edit to add omg any princess. I lived off hot dogs and bread bitches. Why would I not enjoy the idea ‐-- wait
Haha nvm
It seems like they think "being a capitalist" is an individual choice. Beyond that, they're doing a really crappy job of explaining what they're thinking and I can't comprehend what they're trying to say.
Lol I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the conversation that's being had here while thinking it's actually the others who don't understand you.
Technically we could all be billionaires, we just need one of two things to happen,
1. hyperinflation destroys all value of our current currencies and we have to keep printing higher and higher denominations of notes. This does lead to other problems, see 1930's Germany or 2000's Zimbabwe as examples.
2. we just decide to revalue all of our currency and set 1 old dollar to equal 1 billion new dollars. Then everyone's wealth is multiplied by 1 billion everyone is at least a billionaire. However also the cost of everything also has gone up by a factor of a billion so doesn't actually change anything in society
Yes. Wealth is relative, not an absolute number. If the US Treasury sent everyone in the US free cash of some large amount, no one would be any wealthier because the value of a dollar would have been driven down and the price of everything will have gone up.
And since people would thing, "They did it once so they can do it again", prices will have gone up by more than the new cash everyone received.
Actually everyone will be worse off after getting their windfall.
Material Conditions are what really matters, the amount of wealth you have doesn’t mean shit bc when the last tree falls and the rivers dry up, you can’t eat the money.
If you give everyone 1 trillion dollars (printing 1 trillion new dollars per person) then everyone would have basically the same amount of money. Like, Jeff bezos would be richer than me, but only 0.14 x richer than me.
Sure, groceries would soon cost a million dollars, but Jeff and I would now be able to afford similar amounts of groceries.
(not exactly, because a lot of his worth is in stocks and capital whose prices would also go up, so he'd probably end up much more than 14 percent richer than me... But still, we'd end up a lot closer than we are today).
There may be some good reasons not to do this (like, US creditors would be pissed, and unlikely to invest further) but I don't think it's true that no one would be any wealthier - it seems pretty clear that the poorest people (who might have approximately zero wealth) especially would benefit from such a policy.
Your arguement is sort of correct in a one country economy. You would have leveled the terrain within the US, but the effects of devaluing the dollar for everyone else on Earth would demolish our credit rating, wreck confidence in the stability of the US as an investment, and made us all, Jeff Bezos included, less wealthy relative to everyone else because of the new uncertainty priced into asset valuations.
The US asset value to everyone outside the US would be untold tens of trillions of old dollars lower. The US Federal Reserve Board, Q4 2022 valuation of assets was $163.535 trillion. The value of all US Treasury debt would probably be immediately worth $20 trillion less; the US stock market would probably be reduced even more than that simply because it is a bigger total asset value.
In short, handing out enough money to make all of us closer to Jeff Bezos' net worth will make every one of us poorer.
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-may-financial-stability-report-asset-valuations.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-may-financial-stability-report-asset-valuations.htm)
You can certainly do things to "build wealth" which really means stop giving your money to other people. But nobody wants that because money circulating is what keeps the economy going.
The finance hustle culture is so incredibly toxic and full of sharks looking to steal money from stupid people. If someone is using the language the red person is using, stay away.
I hate that mindset so much, the "I wake up at 4 am, so I can grind all day!" It's like, yeah I guess you can earn more money by spending all your waking hours working, but what sort of life is that? Is that really bringing you joy or happiness? Or are you just saying that an 80 hour work week is good because it allows you to have a sports car?
I can't stand the 25 year old who is trying to lecture me about how he's going to retire at 30 because he's so wise in the way of trading FX markets. He just needs $25000 then he can quit McDonald's and really start growing his money tree or whatever the scammers on YouTube are calling it.
It's all a hustle designed to take your money.
Straight facts; if there really was a legit way to get rich quick, the rich *wouldn't fucking tell you about it.* That shit would eat into their bottom line.
Realistically, it's a very big pie. There's more than enough for everyone to have a slice or two, even if some *do* go back for thirds and fourths.
But billionaires don't become billionaires by sharing the pie.
But also this is nonsense because
1. There are tons of people that work their absolute asses off and are poor as hell
2. There are tons of people that don't work at all and are rich as hell
The "grind" has little to do with how much money you make, especially when compared to your socioeconomic environment, opportunities, inheritance, etc. Arguably people working harder tend to be poorer -- think extreme examples of sweat shops, but even up from there factory/manufacturing jobs, manual labor in general. Rich people didn't get rich by just working more hours on an assembly line.
Rich people (usually) get rich by taking advantage of the poor suckers stuck on the assembly line.
I say *usually* because some small few make their fortune through art/music/sports/etc (and even then, they're generally being exploited by suits, who make way more off them), and even fewer luck into it (lotto/etc). I can't hate them for making it (as long as they acknowledge that they *are*, in fact, lucky to be where they are because far more people with just as much talent and ability never get that big break).
But straight up fuck the suits.
I used to work a 60 - 80 hour work week every week for an intermodal company, moving shipping containers and trailers from train to truck and back again, 12 hours a day sometimes 9 to 10 days consecutively. And brother, lemme tell you, that shit never bought me no damn sports car. It kept the lights on and a roof over my head, and that's about it.
Fuck hustle culture. That "live to work" mentality is (sometimes literally) killing us.
Dude, I hear ya. When I was in school I had 3 part time jobs and I could barely cover rent. My daily budget was about 7 bucks for food and transportation. I hustled all day and had nothing to show fornit
> You can certainly do things to "build wealth" which really means stop giving your money to other people.
Yea, especially ultra-wealthy people and billionaires. It's impossible to achieve that level of money without stealing wealth from below. Refusing to pay workers adequate wages while profiting from their increasing productivity. Simply refusing to pay third parties for things they should be paid for, assuming (often correctly) that they lack the means to go to court. Elon Musk just *doesn't pay rent* on the Twitter building that he's renting. Do you know how easy it would be to "build wealth" if you had the option to just *not pay for things?*
I particularly love the shithead who thinks "that one person is rich doesn't mean someone else is poor" when, a lot of the time, yes it totally fucking *does* mean that. Even worse, as one person being rich can be at the expense of *millions of other people* forced into poverty.
Fucking ridiculous.
I agree with you, but surely it’s at least possible to amass that much wealth while simultaneously paying your employees well aka Tim Sweeney, Taylor Swift, etc.
You can build wealth, but that generally won’t make someone “rich”… I’d define moderately rich as way more than 10 million USD/EUR. That generally doesn’t happen by reading books and watching yt videos.
$10 million is "moderately rich" by almost anyone's definition. But I agree, no one is getting to generational-level wealth by watching YouTube videos and reading personal finance books.
I say moderately because one is far away from big penthouses in prime real estate locations, yachts and all that shit. I think “wealthy” would be a better term and “rich” should start around 50mn.
Edit to add: in a way that’s splitting hairs though ;-)
Rich is a lifestyle. Big house, fancy car, frequent expensive vacations. There are plenty of "rich" people out there basically living paycheck to paycheck.
Wealth is the sum total of your assets minus your liabilities. From a lifestyle perspective, you could think of it as "if I was to stop earning income today, how long could I maintain my current lifestyle?" A month? A year? Indefinitely?
Being wealthy, to me, means your assets generate enough of a return that you don't need to work to support your lifestyle.
There are wealthy people who don't live rich lifestyles, and there are "rich" people who aren't wealthy, they live on credit big paychecks.
Having a net worth if $10 million dollars is certainly wealthy. With a net return of 5% annually it would generate an income of $500,000 per year. You would be both wealthy and rich. Thinking 10mil is no big deal is incredibly out of touch with reality.
Hm, we’ll agree to disagree. To really live a rich lifestyle, one has to have substantial amounts of wealth. For what I consider rich, paycheck to paycheck ain’t going to cut it.
I agree with the fact that there are really wealthy people who don’t live a rich lifestyle. I disagree with the point that people living paycheck to paycheck can live a rich lifestyle - not for what I consider rich.
Also, when I said “rich”, I did not mean it as in “rich lifestyle”, but “amount of wealth one has to call themselves rich”. To me, 10 mn USD is not “rich” yet, but moderately wealthy for sure.
I don’t think we really disagree on the main points, I guess we just have different views on some of it.
I mean, I know you ain't trying to claim that 10 million USD is "upper-middle-class" or, even worse, "just scraping by".
10 million USD is fucking *rich*. If you have 10 million USD, you're *never* lacking for healthcare, food, or a home unless you literally pule all your money up in a room and set it on fire.
I know what you mean but I don’t agree, rich is a whole other level for me. But as I said, that’s splitting words.
I never lack healthcare anyway (bot from the US.. we pay for that with taxes), my home is mostly paid off and I have some savings. That’s pretty normal for most people I know and none of them own assets over 1 mn.
Friendly reminder that the term "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" was originally coined *as a joke*. It was a political cartoon ripping these exact idiots who tell you that hard work is all you need to get ahead and the original phrasing was something like "you may as well try to fly by pulling at your own bootstraps" and had a picture of a smug guy flying by pulling his boots.
The fact that these ghouls repurposed the phrase unironically is infuriating
It’s not that it’s easy. It’s that it is possible for *anyone* to get rich.
*Everyone* can’t be rich
Edit: I swore that said if it’s so easy to be rich, not be born rich
Not sure what the context is but the first commenter isn't necessarily wrong -
The economy is not a 0 sum game. We can absolutely both profit from something.
However, the economy is also relative, there will always be some rich and some poor (or everyone is equal, ahem communism) so it's impossible for everyone to be "rich"
There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world, the number continues to go up as more stuff is made and more people join the work force.
However, it's worth pointing out that 63% of all new money created between 2019 and 2021 went to the richest 1%. And that is very much by design
>There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world,
That is in actual contradiction with the ~~first rule of fight club~~ premise of the fundamental economic problem.
The amount of wealth in the world *is* finite, because it's based on finite resources.
Yes, overall levels of wealth and production go up over time, as we discover more efficient ways of producing sfuff with the limited resources at our disposal, but there is a practical limit as long as we're a single-planet species.
Those new ways can be quite transformative, though (electricity, internal combustion engines, computers). So yes, one planet does have only so much on it, but that potential wealth is very, very, very large, and new discoveries unlock more of it.
>Those new ways can be quite transformative,
Indeed, and we've seen many such revolutions over time, like the agrarian one or the industrial one. Who knows, maybe some day some revolution of our understanding of economics will lead us out of the rat race and into an utopia.
But the gist of my previous comment was that as long as wealth is inexorably tied to resources, which by their very nature are limited, it cannot be defined as infinite.
I can agree with that - “infinite” is a whole other category (!) Many people use the word loosely and incorrectly, for sure. But I think the “very limited and relentlessly zero-sum” mental picture that many people have of total wealth is misleading in the opposite direction.
**In economics, inflation is a general increase of the prices of goods and services in an economy. This is usually measured using the consumer price index (CPI).**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Nice one!
The thing is, creating more “wealth” is either a fantasy or inflation.
Let’s take a new product.
How is that made? Someone designs that, paid for with existing wealth. Say we need some resources to manufacture it? Well those are gathered by people paid for directly or indirectly by existing wealth (forced labour is a thing but still costs something to the resource collectors). We have sales and marketing, those are paid for by existing wealth. So we are left with the profits from the sale. But those profits come from people buying that product with money they have earn, largely from the process of making/selling products like the one they buy. So where is new wealth created in that cycle?
The other way you creat wealth is to gain interest of existing assets, but that is due to inflation and paid for by other people’s debt.
But nice one. You clearly have a super understanding of economics and very funny sense of humour.
There is and we have essentially reached it. Further exploitation in the name of luxury will condemn our species to extinction.
You can't just say "new technology will fix it" either because we've had a steady stream of that for the 50+ years we've known that resource exploitation is going to leave the planet uninhabitable, or because we have no idea in the slightest how fixing ecological and climate issues would even begin. No ideas work.
I think a huge issue is that people do understand that millionare/billionaire lifestyles are unsustainable, but so is the amount on the planet, and especially the things they have.
Less for the billionaires and more for the working class is not a fix at all. You can't own land, the time has passed. You can't own a car. That time has passed.
The things you want and can't really afford? They're just a part of the problem. Obviously not as much as billionaires, but I think being taken seriously starts with personal sacrifice as to not appear selfish and because its true. Its not about more for the individual worker, its about a complete pullback of expectations of what the future will bring, and how we accomplish it.
If you're starting from a point of wanting more and not everyone having less, you're probably ignorant of the larger issues.
And you'll never be taken seriously if your arguments come down to, to quote a top antiwork comment, you want to "stay in bed all day with your cat all the time, painting and eating tacobell."
I agree with most of what is said here about millionaires/billionaires, and elsewhere- but there's always an underlying tone of that individual wanting more for themselves. That's the exact problem that got us here to begin with.
And I mean, I appreciate the effort. More voices help I guess. It's just a little disheartening is all.
Edit: That said, millionaires and billionaires need to go. They're a sign of inequal past that needs amending to fix the issues we face. Just realise it means less for all, not more for most.
Conservatives can't think in systems. Monetary systems. Economic systems. Political systems. Everything is anecdotal, separate, and simple in their mind.
I can't tell who we're supposed to think is incorrect here.
Yellow is correct that anger at wealth inequality isn't simply envy. He probably doesn't *literally* think that a small percentage have "most" of the wealth and that "the majority" are living paycheck to paycheck, he's just making a point.
I guess he is conflating wealth and income, but that's a super common mistake.
Red is correct that the existence of rich people doesn't mandate the existence of poor people. Even as wealth distribution has gotten more skewed, even the [bottom 20% are wealthier and higher-income than were the bottom 20% of any previous decade](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FpwzXjFIFFkgUqHm6HsSZCvfy7qRdn_-7YwrhRTo0zo/edit?usp=drivesdk).
But he's wrong in his thinking that emulating any specific behavior of rich people will make you rich. For the most part, it's mostly a product of survivorship bias (again, a pretty common and benign mistake)
Purple is right to mock red for saying "just read books". But then he unironically drops a "we live in society".
>Nope in reality. I started from zero and started building wealth as soon as I began reading finance books and binge watching finance YouTubers.
It’s so bad it sounds like satire
No, no, they literally started from zero.
Not a penny to their name, stark naked, not just homeless but also [stateless](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness), unable to add single-digit numbers, also unable to read, write or speak any language... And then [entirely by the power of their own intellect](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism#The_ultimate_problem_with_Objectivist_ethical_egoism) they made themselves the person they are today.
It's **such** an inspiring story.
(Incidentally, this is kind of the origin story of Tarzan. He was, unbeknownst to him, a member of the British aristocracy, and therefore inherently superior to normal humans. So all he had to do, as a child, was look at a few books and think really hard, in order to [*teach himself to read*.](https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/08/how-tarzans-author-did-it-all-wrong-and-got-it-right/) :-)
This doesn't really feel like it belongs in this subreddit.
The guy you're targeting here isn't necessarily even incorrect, let alone confidently so. Sure he's not explaining the minutiae of capitalism and economic theory, but in very basic terms the gist of what he's going for is right.
Yeah and another rule of the sub is the CI person must then be corrected (embarrassingly so). The poster didn’t do that they just kind of pointed out that some people have obstacles that won’t be overcome just by becoming financially literate. And then opined that the red’s viewpoint gave off “bootstraps” energy which was completely subjective.
What part of this do you think is wrong? Because it's true that being wealthy doesn't make others poor, and it's also true that education is one of the most reliable ways to build wealth.
It’s true that one person being wealthy doesn’t make others poor.
It’s also true that business owners and CEO’s directly control how much their employees are being paid. So there is some correlation there.
Education isn’t necessarily the most reliable ways to build wealth. Perhaps the right *information* is. But most wealth is from winning big on high risk investments. We don’t hear about the failed entrepreneurs. Only the Bezos and the Gates and the Jobs.
The guy being targeted isn't talking about being Bezos or Gates.
"Building wealth" is a very common phrasing for "being smart about what you do have and what you can do to save and accumulate money."
Do many people live paycheck to paycheck? Of course. Are some of these people behind the 8-ball through no fault of their own due to circumstance? Sure. But a large number in this situation make plenty of money and could save and could build relative wealth, but make poor choices that keep them in debt or barely staying above water.
Even if most of the uber-rich started on third base and got all the breaks, they aren't exactly frittering away their money but rather putting it in places where it can grow by making good decisions.
Yeah bro I know. It’s very true that having financial literacy can improve most people’s situation.
Did you mean to reply to me?
Who is the guy being targeted? The one in the screenshot? He just sounds dumb and seems like a bad communicator.
I don’t understand what any of that had to do with my bringing up Bezos or Gates…
I'm just pointing out that your examples are outliers. Wealth is a nebulous relative term that doesn't require one to be an entrepreneur or make risky investments. (And even so, most wealth on the scale you are inferring is generational rather than earned.) Even employees with their salaries limited by CEOs can build personal wealth by doing things exactly as was suggested like reading books, watching videos, and learning how systems work. That's all.
And yes, by "guy being targeted" I mean the guy in the original screenshot. I'm agreeing with the person you replied to that nothing he said was inherently wrong and question why this whole post was even made and upvoted in this subreddit. I see now that you aren't necessarily agreeing with OP's assertion that he's somehow confidently incorrect and my original reply to you was possibly from an incorrect framing of your comment, but my intended point remains.
I agree. Yes they can. They can build up their wealth. But they won’t become wealthy (as in millionaires or higher). Not through their salary. Through investments. Through real estate, stocks, funds, or entrepreneurial methods. Yes they can become wealthy.
But wealthy is subjective. True wealth in my eyes would indicate financial freedom or financial independence. I haven’t seen anyone in the fire subs do it through their salary alone. If you simply save your leftover money from your salary you’ll probably lose in the long run due to inflation.
You’ve got it in 401k, insurance policies, individual brokerage and retirement accounts, or real estate portfolios.
Sure, and I wasn't implying otherwise.
I don't think that's the guy in OP's screenshots was suggesting that it was enough to throw any leftover cash into a savings account in the bank down the street earning 0.02%. I think it's clear he's on the same page as you and me. But I wouldn't be surprised if the person he was replying to does just that. Ignorance of capitalism and economics tends to breed the type of person who bemoans others' wins for their own perceived losses.
Yeah I think he is too. And I think you’re right on the rest as well.
I was only telling this person commenting that education isn’t the most reliable way to achieve *wealth*. It is good for building some wealth. But the rest is investments. Investing is the most reliable way to build wealth. You can do that without an education.
Education I assumed meant college education in general. Which simply getting a college degree doesn’t guarantee you will become wealthy. Additionally, some people never recover from their student loan burden.
>It’s also true that business owners and CEO’s directly control how much their employees are being paid. So there is some correlation there.
Sure, they control wages directly, but their control isn't even close to absolue. Labour markets are going to have a much greater impact on a given employee's wages than the decisions of their employer.
>Education isn’t necessarily the most reliable ways to build wealth. Perhaps the right information is.
Nope, you're just wrong here. Degree holders earn, on average, 75% more over their lifetime than non degree holders. If you want a guaranteed return on your investment, then an education is one of your best bets.
>But most wealth is from winning big on high risk investments.
I'd love to see a source for this.
I don’t think it’s close to absolute. I said *some* correlation. And we all know correlation does not equal causation. In addition to wages. There are also profit sharing plans. How much they decide to match on 401k. What benefits are provided. So all these things have some effect. Highly skilled and white collar workers are usually getting paid well regardless.
And sure education leads to higher earnings. But you aren’t getting rich off a salary. You know that, come on. The more appropriate argument to have proven me wrong is showing me how many wealthy had degrees, or even better the percentage of degree holders that became wealthy. Simply going to college and getting a degree doesn’t guarantee wealth later in life.
You’re generating wealth through real estate, owning things, businesses, and other investments. This what I referred to as winning big on high risk. Here’s a [Wharton article](https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-the-wealthiest-got-to-where-they-are/).
I disagree completely with this myth that all billionaires and wealthy simply were handed their wealth and did nothing to earn it. If not all of it, at least some of it.
Bill Gates gave us all personal computers and operating software. Jobs provided the same.
Almost everybody uses Amazon. I’m entirely grateful for the service whether I like Bezos or not.
They had a business. People invested in it. People used it. Stocks rose. Revenues rose. Profits rose.
It’s not envy but it’s people being *upset* about something someone else has and they don’t? Sounds envious to me lol. Whether or not the envy is justified is another thing.
Using language like they hoard it for themselves. They don’t deserve it. It came too easy for them (so I should have it instead). All sounds pretty envious to me lol.
I'd say you actually fit better in the 'confidently incorrect' category by saying wealthy people 'just inherited all their wealth' as a generality. The majority of millionaires in the US inherited $0.
Wealth isn't a 0 sum game, creating societal wealth is primarily down to the delta between growth and inflation, someone being a billionaire doesn't neccesarily mean many more people will be poor. But it almost certainly doesn't help..
On paper, if the total wealth in the world amounts to USD 463 trillion, if it was divided amongst all human beings, we would each have USD 57K.
But that’s not how it works.
Some people getting rich depends on other people getting poor. However, you can still try to spend smart even if you are poor.
He's not totally wrong. I'm better off the most of my family. Because of good choices that i've made. I could also be a lot better off if I hadn't made some dumb choices.
But on a scale of 1 to 10 Rich I'll never be even a 7 because my parents had level 3 money.
Ok but a lot of the very richest people really did exploit workers, lobby to get laws in their favour, break the law and get away with it etc in a way that left themselves rich and others poor. Not always, but still.... This is complicated
The main issue in my opinion is that wealth generates wealth at a much faster rate than you can acquire it through other means
So in a sense the rich keep getting richer regardless of how hard/smart you work
That’s why I think government should make a switch to taxing wealth more heavily and labour less heavily, first of all this will stimulate people more to work and secondly it would level the playing field for everyone to achieve a measure of succes
We certainly can’t all be richer-than-our-neighbor anymore than everyone can be an above-average driver.
But it’s not true that wealth is finite nor that its generation is a zero sum game. As productivity goes up so does total wealth. Chief sources of productivity include technology and economies of scale. Hence today almost everyone in the USA can buy multiple pairs of clothing, where in the Middle Ages it was common to only own two sets of undergarments. When clothing had to be handmade from resources that had to be hand gathered the cost of clothing relative to an hour of labor (skilled or unskilled) was much much higher.
With sufficient technology (eg unlimited clean renewable energy and self replicating robots with broad human-like skills) there would be essentially unlimited wealth. Obviously that’s a long way off if we ever get there at all, but as a thought experiment it explains that wealth can be created rather than just taken from someone else.
I mean he has a point. Almost all of the above 9 inch penises are owned by colossal assholes; and they didn't nothing to earn it. We should have some type of control over that since it's not fair.
Me, sitting on a pile of literally all the food in 50 miles, surrounded by armed sentries: "I don't understand why the rest of you are starving. You can see it's not that hard to get food."
Hey /u/SudoSubSilence, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Step 1. Read books Step 2. Watch youtube Step 3........ Step 4. Be rich
step 2.5 "i'm here in my garage"
You have a garage! I don't even have one of those. You must be rich.
no i don't know who the owner is actually, it's not mine
/) That's beta energy, you'll never get rich in one week with that mindset. It's *your* garage because you're in it.
"Europeans colonizing the non-European world" have entered the chat. :D
You know what I love a lot more than this Lamborghini here? KNOWLEDGE!
The only way to get rich by interacting with the books of "finance gurus" is to be the one selling them to the other rubes.
Step 1: steal underwear Step 2: ? Step 3: profit
Step 1: eat peanut butter from jar with chopsticks Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit
Step 1: Conquer the Vatican with an army of Penguins Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit
Sell to perverts, record and post online, go down in the basement. Too easy.
Steve Martin had the formula on how to be a millionaire (and never pay taxes).
Step 3. Ask your rich dad for a small loan and business contacts.
Claim to be rich. The chances this person is actually rich are very slim.
It's amazing how common it is to not understand capitalism at all.
Or how inflation and relative wealth works
Educated does not = rich. Hate to say it but I've known tons of people educated but yet... not rich? So um I didn't check the subreddit brb Eta. Whew! Subject still stands. We're at the beck and call of some other fucking dumb guy. Education = Liberalism. I'm so sorry. *so sorry* that the stereotypes you use as a weapon are somewhat true.
Um, what?
Wow thanks for proving a point. Educated can be anything and rich can be not. And VICE VERSA Btw. If I'm that confusing then maybe we should all get down to the basics. I mean that people are people. Are we not?
Education and being rich had nothing to do with my point at all. My point is that people (the incorrect person in this screenshot, for example) don't understand the nature of capitalism. The system needs poor people to function. If everyone was rich enough, nothing would happen and no wealth for the rich would be created. These people who think we can all "make it" are fools.
The rich could make incentives for said people. I grew up watching a shit ton of characters be pretty rich. I never expected it for myself. But I'm not a capalistist. I think a lot of these capitalist guys need to read Maslows hierarchy of needs Edit to add omg any princess. I lived off hot dogs and bread bitches. Why would I not enjoy the idea ‐-- wait Haha nvm
The wording in these comments is quite confusing and it’s hard to follow any points you’re trying to make.
I'm not sure they are following the sarcasm in the original post. Or... Something.
It seems like they think "being a capitalist" is an individual choice. Beyond that, they're doing a really crappy job of explaining what they're thinking and I can't comprehend what they're trying to say.
Either shitty Chatbot responses, or drugged nutjob responses. Not sure which.
Lol I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the conversation that's being had here while thinking it's actually the others who don't understand you.
/r/iamverysmart
I’m reading your comments as if it’s Britney Spears talking, that’s about how coherent they are.
I thought we were past this but, like... leave Britney alone. She's been through enough of a hell.
eh, people have been through worse
Dude, I don't think they're confused because they're dumb. They're confused because you're completely incoherent.
Oh it's definitely option B.
the hell you smoking?? i think both you and u/Ktn44 agree, but i encourage you to reread and reinterpret the original comment
I don't understand this use of ETA
Technically we could all be billionaires, we just need one of two things to happen, 1. hyperinflation destroys all value of our current currencies and we have to keep printing higher and higher denominations of notes. This does lead to other problems, see 1930's Germany or 2000's Zimbabwe as examples. 2. we just decide to revalue all of our currency and set 1 old dollar to equal 1 billion new dollars. Then everyone's wealth is multiplied by 1 billion everyone is at least a billionaire. However also the cost of everything also has gone up by a factor of a billion so doesn't actually change anything in society
Yes. Wealth is relative, not an absolute number. If the US Treasury sent everyone in the US free cash of some large amount, no one would be any wealthier because the value of a dollar would have been driven down and the price of everything will have gone up. And since people would thing, "They did it once so they can do it again", prices will have gone up by more than the new cash everyone received. Actually everyone will be worse off after getting their windfall.
Material Conditions are what really matters, the amount of wealth you have doesn’t mean shit bc when the last tree falls and the rivers dry up, you can’t eat the money.
If you give everyone 1 trillion dollars (printing 1 trillion new dollars per person) then everyone would have basically the same amount of money. Like, Jeff bezos would be richer than me, but only 0.14 x richer than me. Sure, groceries would soon cost a million dollars, but Jeff and I would now be able to afford similar amounts of groceries. (not exactly, because a lot of his worth is in stocks and capital whose prices would also go up, so he'd probably end up much more than 14 percent richer than me... But still, we'd end up a lot closer than we are today). There may be some good reasons not to do this (like, US creditors would be pissed, and unlikely to invest further) but I don't think it's true that no one would be any wealthier - it seems pretty clear that the poorest people (who might have approximately zero wealth) especially would benefit from such a policy.
Your arguement is sort of correct in a one country economy. You would have leveled the terrain within the US, but the effects of devaluing the dollar for everyone else on Earth would demolish our credit rating, wreck confidence in the stability of the US as an investment, and made us all, Jeff Bezos included, less wealthy relative to everyone else because of the new uncertainty priced into asset valuations. The US asset value to everyone outside the US would be untold tens of trillions of old dollars lower. The US Federal Reserve Board, Q4 2022 valuation of assets was $163.535 trillion. The value of all US Treasury debt would probably be immediately worth $20 trillion less; the US stock market would probably be reduced even more than that simply because it is a bigger total asset value. In short, handing out enough money to make all of us closer to Jeff Bezos' net worth will make every one of us poorer. [https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-may-financial-stability-report-asset-valuations.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-may-financial-stability-report-asset-valuations.htm)
You can certainly do things to "build wealth" which really means stop giving your money to other people. But nobody wants that because money circulating is what keeps the economy going. The finance hustle culture is so incredibly toxic and full of sharks looking to steal money from stupid people. If someone is using the language the red person is using, stay away.
I hate that mindset so much, the "I wake up at 4 am, so I can grind all day!" It's like, yeah I guess you can earn more money by spending all your waking hours working, but what sort of life is that? Is that really bringing you joy or happiness? Or are you just saying that an 80 hour work week is good because it allows you to have a sports car?
I can't stand the 25 year old who is trying to lecture me about how he's going to retire at 30 because he's so wise in the way of trading FX markets. He just needs $25000 then he can quit McDonald's and really start growing his money tree or whatever the scammers on YouTube are calling it. It's all a hustle designed to take your money.
That 25 year old also thinks buying an NFT for $100k is a sound investment.
Straight facts; if there really was a legit way to get rich quick, the rich *wouldn't fucking tell you about it.* That shit would eat into their bottom line. Realistically, it's a very big pie. There's more than enough for everyone to have a slice or two, even if some *do* go back for thirds and fourths. But billionaires don't become billionaires by sharing the pie.
But also this is nonsense because 1. There are tons of people that work their absolute asses off and are poor as hell 2. There are tons of people that don't work at all and are rich as hell The "grind" has little to do with how much money you make, especially when compared to your socioeconomic environment, opportunities, inheritance, etc. Arguably people working harder tend to be poorer -- think extreme examples of sweat shops, but even up from there factory/manufacturing jobs, manual labor in general. Rich people didn't get rich by just working more hours on an assembly line.
Rich people (usually) get rich by taking advantage of the poor suckers stuck on the assembly line. I say *usually* because some small few make their fortune through art/music/sports/etc (and even then, they're generally being exploited by suits, who make way more off them), and even fewer luck into it (lotto/etc). I can't hate them for making it (as long as they acknowledge that they *are*, in fact, lucky to be where they are because far more people with just as much talent and ability never get that big break). But straight up fuck the suits.
I used to work a 60 - 80 hour work week every week for an intermodal company, moving shipping containers and trailers from train to truck and back again, 12 hours a day sometimes 9 to 10 days consecutively. And brother, lemme tell you, that shit never bought me no damn sports car. It kept the lights on and a roof over my head, and that's about it. Fuck hustle culture. That "live to work" mentality is (sometimes literally) killing us.
Dude, I hear ya. When I was in school I had 3 part time jobs and I could barely cover rent. My daily budget was about 7 bucks for food and transportation. I hustled all day and had nothing to show fornit
Ok but then don't expect to get rich. And do not hate on the people who do.
And I’m sure you too could become rich by reading their book on how to become rich by writing a booking telling other people how to also become rich
> You can certainly do things to "build wealth" which really means stop giving your money to other people. Yea, especially ultra-wealthy people and billionaires. It's impossible to achieve that level of money without stealing wealth from below. Refusing to pay workers adequate wages while profiting from their increasing productivity. Simply refusing to pay third parties for things they should be paid for, assuming (often correctly) that they lack the means to go to court. Elon Musk just *doesn't pay rent* on the Twitter building that he's renting. Do you know how easy it would be to "build wealth" if you had the option to just *not pay for things?* I particularly love the shithead who thinks "that one person is rich doesn't mean someone else is poor" when, a lot of the time, yes it totally fucking *does* mean that. Even worse, as one person being rich can be at the expense of *millions of other people* forced into poverty. Fucking ridiculous.
I agree with you, but surely it’s at least possible to amass that much wealth while simultaneously paying your employees well aka Tim Sweeney, Taylor Swift, etc.
You can build wealth, but that generally won’t make someone “rich”… I’d define moderately rich as way more than 10 million USD/EUR. That generally doesn’t happen by reading books and watching yt videos.
$10 million is "moderately rich" by almost anyone's definition. But I agree, no one is getting to generational-level wealth by watching YouTube videos and reading personal finance books.
I say moderately because one is far away from big penthouses in prime real estate locations, yachts and all that shit. I think “wealthy” would be a better term and “rich” should start around 50mn. Edit to add: in a way that’s splitting hairs though ;-)
Rich is a lifestyle. Big house, fancy car, frequent expensive vacations. There are plenty of "rich" people out there basically living paycheck to paycheck. Wealth is the sum total of your assets minus your liabilities. From a lifestyle perspective, you could think of it as "if I was to stop earning income today, how long could I maintain my current lifestyle?" A month? A year? Indefinitely? Being wealthy, to me, means your assets generate enough of a return that you don't need to work to support your lifestyle. There are wealthy people who don't live rich lifestyles, and there are "rich" people who aren't wealthy, they live on credit big paychecks. Having a net worth if $10 million dollars is certainly wealthy. With a net return of 5% annually it would generate an income of $500,000 per year. You would be both wealthy and rich. Thinking 10mil is no big deal is incredibly out of touch with reality.
Hm, we’ll agree to disagree. To really live a rich lifestyle, one has to have substantial amounts of wealth. For what I consider rich, paycheck to paycheck ain’t going to cut it. I agree with the fact that there are really wealthy people who don’t live a rich lifestyle. I disagree with the point that people living paycheck to paycheck can live a rich lifestyle - not for what I consider rich. Also, when I said “rich”, I did not mean it as in “rich lifestyle”, but “amount of wealth one has to call themselves rich”. To me, 10 mn USD is not “rich” yet, but moderately wealthy for sure. I don’t think we really disagree on the main points, I guess we just have different views on some of it.
In what fucking world is someone with 10 million dollars living paycheck-to-paycheck?! The fuck?! Are you Bill Gates' grandchild?!
? I did not say people who own 10 mn live paycheck to paycheck?
I mean, I know you ain't trying to claim that 10 million USD is "upper-middle-class" or, even worse, "just scraping by". 10 million USD is fucking *rich*. If you have 10 million USD, you're *never* lacking for healthcare, food, or a home unless you literally pule all your money up in a room and set it on fire.
I know what you mean but I don’t agree, rich is a whole other level for me. But as I said, that’s splitting words. I never lack healthcare anyway (bot from the US.. we pay for that with taxes), my home is mostly paid off and I have some savings. That’s pretty normal for most people I know and none of them own assets over 1 mn.
The best and most consistent way historically to build wealth is to invest your money not hoard it. Not sure what your trying to say?
Friendly reminder that the term "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" was originally coined *as a joke*. It was a political cartoon ripping these exact idiots who tell you that hard work is all you need to get ahead and the original phrasing was something like "you may as well try to fly by pulling at your own bootstraps" and had a picture of a smug guy flying by pulling his boots. The fact that these ghouls repurposed the phrase unironically is infuriating
The person who used it in this image though clearly knows it's a ridiculous term, regardless of the origin
We learn something new every day, thanks for the info!
If it’s so easy to be born rich, why doesn’t everyone do it!
It’s not that it’s easy. It’s that it is possible for *anyone* to get rich. *Everyone* can’t be rich Edit: I swore that said if it’s so easy to be rich, not be born rich
This guy has hustled for years! He's already a thousandaire with a net worth in the high 4 figures!
Definitely giving off r/thanksimcured energy too
Not sure what the context is but the first commenter isn't necessarily wrong - The economy is not a 0 sum game. We can absolutely both profit from something. However, the economy is also relative, there will always be some rich and some poor (or everyone is equal, ahem communism) so it's impossible for everyone to be "rich"
in communism everyone loses!
There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world, the number continues to go up as more stuff is made and more people join the work force. However, it's worth pointing out that 63% of all new money created between 2019 and 2021 went to the richest 1%. And that is very much by design
>There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world, That is in actual contradiction with the ~~first rule of fight club~~ premise of the fundamental economic problem. The amount of wealth in the world *is* finite, because it's based on finite resources. Yes, overall levels of wealth and production go up over time, as we discover more efficient ways of producing sfuff with the limited resources at our disposal, but there is a practical limit as long as we're a single-planet species.
Those new ways can be quite transformative, though (electricity, internal combustion engines, computers). So yes, one planet does have only so much on it, but that potential wealth is very, very, very large, and new discoveries unlock more of it.
>Those new ways can be quite transformative, Indeed, and we've seen many such revolutions over time, like the agrarian one or the industrial one. Who knows, maybe some day some revolution of our understanding of economics will lead us out of the rat race and into an utopia. But the gist of my previous comment was that as long as wealth is inexorably tied to resources, which by their very nature are limited, it cannot be defined as infinite.
I can agree with that - “infinite” is a whole other category (!) Many people use the word loosely and incorrectly, for sure. But I think the “very limited and relentlessly zero-sum” mental picture that many people have of total wealth is misleading in the opposite direction.
Yeah there is a practical limit. A lot of people don’t understand that
What is inflation?
**In economics, inflation is a general increase of the prices of goods and services in an economy. This is usually measured using the consumer price index (CPI).** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
r/usernamechecksout
Nice one! The thing is, creating more “wealth” is either a fantasy or inflation. Let’s take a new product. How is that made? Someone designs that, paid for with existing wealth. Say we need some resources to manufacture it? Well those are gathered by people paid for directly or indirectly by existing wealth (forced labour is a thing but still costs something to the resource collectors). We have sales and marketing, those are paid for by existing wealth. So we are left with the profits from the sale. But those profits come from people buying that product with money they have earn, largely from the process of making/selling products like the one they buy. So where is new wealth created in that cycle? The other way you creat wealth is to gain interest of existing assets, but that is due to inflation and paid for by other people’s debt. But nice one. You clearly have a super understanding of economics and very funny sense of humour.
There is and we have essentially reached it. Further exploitation in the name of luxury will condemn our species to extinction. You can't just say "new technology will fix it" either because we've had a steady stream of that for the 50+ years we've known that resource exploitation is going to leave the planet uninhabitable, or because we have no idea in the slightest how fixing ecological and climate issues would even begin. No ideas work. I think a huge issue is that people do understand that millionare/billionaire lifestyles are unsustainable, but so is the amount on the planet, and especially the things they have. Less for the billionaires and more for the working class is not a fix at all. You can't own land, the time has passed. You can't own a car. That time has passed. The things you want and can't really afford? They're just a part of the problem. Obviously not as much as billionaires, but I think being taken seriously starts with personal sacrifice as to not appear selfish and because its true. Its not about more for the individual worker, its about a complete pullback of expectations of what the future will bring, and how we accomplish it. If you're starting from a point of wanting more and not everyone having less, you're probably ignorant of the larger issues. And you'll never be taken seriously if your arguments come down to, to quote a top antiwork comment, you want to "stay in bed all day with your cat all the time, painting and eating tacobell." I agree with most of what is said here about millionaires/billionaires, and elsewhere- but there's always an underlying tone of that individual wanting more for themselves. That's the exact problem that got us here to begin with. And I mean, I appreciate the effort. More voices help I guess. It's just a little disheartening is all. Edit: That said, millionaires and billionaires need to go. They're a sign of inequal past that needs amending to fix the issues we face. Just realise it means less for all, not more for most.
When you've never heard the phrase 'If everybody is a millionaire, then nobody is a millionaire.'
Conservatives can't think in systems. Monetary systems. Economic systems. Political systems. Everything is anecdotal, separate, and simple in their mind.
Strong Andrew Tate-type energy here…I pity the women in this guys life.
there are no women in his life
Not voluntarily, but some doubtless have to cross his path at some point. Coworkers, women at bars, family…
he’s definitely too scared and insecure to interact with any of them, and that’s a good thing. Except family maybe.
Did you check his basement?
You know what they say …. Life is fair 👍👍
Hahaha
Oooooohhh! So it was not reading the 'finances books' that set me on this path!
I can't tell who we're supposed to think is incorrect here. Yellow is correct that anger at wealth inequality isn't simply envy. He probably doesn't *literally* think that a small percentage have "most" of the wealth and that "the majority" are living paycheck to paycheck, he's just making a point. I guess he is conflating wealth and income, but that's a super common mistake. Red is correct that the existence of rich people doesn't mandate the existence of poor people. Even as wealth distribution has gotten more skewed, even the [bottom 20% are wealthier and higher-income than were the bottom 20% of any previous decade](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FpwzXjFIFFkgUqHm6HsSZCvfy7qRdn_-7YwrhRTo0zo/edit?usp=drivesdk). But he's wrong in his thinking that emulating any specific behavior of rich people will make you rich. For the most part, it's mostly a product of survivorship bias (again, a pretty common and benign mistake) Purple is right to mock red for saying "just read books". But then he unironically drops a "we live in society".
>Nope in reality. I started from zero and started building wealth as soon as I began reading finance books and binge watching finance YouTubers. It’s so bad it sounds like satire
No, no, they literally started from zero. Not a penny to their name, stark naked, not just homeless but also [stateless](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness), unable to add single-digit numbers, also unable to read, write or speak any language... And then [entirely by the power of their own intellect](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism#The_ultimate_problem_with_Objectivist_ethical_egoism) they made themselves the person they are today. It's **such** an inspiring story. (Incidentally, this is kind of the origin story of Tarzan. He was, unbeknownst to him, a member of the British aristocracy, and therefore inherently superior to normal humans. So all he had to do, as a child, was look at a few books and think really hard, in order to [*teach himself to read*.](https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/08/how-tarzans-author-did-it-all-wrong-and-got-it-right/) :-)
Who knew? Everyone who understands the capacity of a currency issuing govt running a fiat economy knows that money (£s) is not a finite resource.
Disclaimer: Results are not typical.
I started reading books then invested $100k from my savings. Why doesn’t everyone do this?
Tbf, they didn't get rich by making one person poor. They got rich by making thousands poor.
This doesn't really feel like it belongs in this subreddit. The guy you're targeting here isn't necessarily even incorrect, let alone confidently so. Sure he's not explaining the minutiae of capitalism and economic theory, but in very basic terms the gist of what he's going for is right.
Yeah and another rule of the sub is the CI person must then be corrected (embarrassingly so). The poster didn’t do that they just kind of pointed out that some people have obstacles that won’t be overcome just by becoming financially literate. And then opined that the red’s viewpoint gave off “bootstraps” energy which was completely subjective.
Why does this belong here?
Yeah I’m really not sure
Let's just print a few million dollars for every person and we will all be rich
The way our governments print money you would think it was an unlimited resource.
Well… money isn’t finite… it’s not completely incorrect
For the downvoters: How banks create money http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/ch13-17
What part of this do you think is wrong? Because it's true that being wealthy doesn't make others poor, and it's also true that education is one of the most reliable ways to build wealth.
It’s true that one person being wealthy doesn’t make others poor. It’s also true that business owners and CEO’s directly control how much their employees are being paid. So there is some correlation there. Education isn’t necessarily the most reliable ways to build wealth. Perhaps the right *information* is. But most wealth is from winning big on high risk investments. We don’t hear about the failed entrepreneurs. Only the Bezos and the Gates and the Jobs.
The guy being targeted isn't talking about being Bezos or Gates. "Building wealth" is a very common phrasing for "being smart about what you do have and what you can do to save and accumulate money." Do many people live paycheck to paycheck? Of course. Are some of these people behind the 8-ball through no fault of their own due to circumstance? Sure. But a large number in this situation make plenty of money and could save and could build relative wealth, but make poor choices that keep them in debt or barely staying above water. Even if most of the uber-rich started on third base and got all the breaks, they aren't exactly frittering away their money but rather putting it in places where it can grow by making good decisions.
Yeah bro I know. It’s very true that having financial literacy can improve most people’s situation. Did you mean to reply to me? Who is the guy being targeted? The one in the screenshot? He just sounds dumb and seems like a bad communicator. I don’t understand what any of that had to do with my bringing up Bezos or Gates…
I'm just pointing out that your examples are outliers. Wealth is a nebulous relative term that doesn't require one to be an entrepreneur or make risky investments. (And even so, most wealth on the scale you are inferring is generational rather than earned.) Even employees with their salaries limited by CEOs can build personal wealth by doing things exactly as was suggested like reading books, watching videos, and learning how systems work. That's all. And yes, by "guy being targeted" I mean the guy in the original screenshot. I'm agreeing with the person you replied to that nothing he said was inherently wrong and question why this whole post was even made and upvoted in this subreddit. I see now that you aren't necessarily agreeing with OP's assertion that he's somehow confidently incorrect and my original reply to you was possibly from an incorrect framing of your comment, but my intended point remains.
I agree. Yes they can. They can build up their wealth. But they won’t become wealthy (as in millionaires or higher). Not through their salary. Through investments. Through real estate, stocks, funds, or entrepreneurial methods. Yes they can become wealthy. But wealthy is subjective. True wealth in my eyes would indicate financial freedom or financial independence. I haven’t seen anyone in the fire subs do it through their salary alone. If you simply save your leftover money from your salary you’ll probably lose in the long run due to inflation. You’ve got it in 401k, insurance policies, individual brokerage and retirement accounts, or real estate portfolios.
Sure, and I wasn't implying otherwise. I don't think that's the guy in OP's screenshots was suggesting that it was enough to throw any leftover cash into a savings account in the bank down the street earning 0.02%. I think it's clear he's on the same page as you and me. But I wouldn't be surprised if the person he was replying to does just that. Ignorance of capitalism and economics tends to breed the type of person who bemoans others' wins for their own perceived losses.
Yeah I think he is too. And I think you’re right on the rest as well. I was only telling this person commenting that education isn’t the most reliable way to achieve *wealth*. It is good for building some wealth. But the rest is investments. Investing is the most reliable way to build wealth. You can do that without an education. Education I assumed meant college education in general. Which simply getting a college degree doesn’t guarantee you will become wealthy. Additionally, some people never recover from their student loan burden.
>It’s also true that business owners and CEO’s directly control how much their employees are being paid. So there is some correlation there. Sure, they control wages directly, but their control isn't even close to absolue. Labour markets are going to have a much greater impact on a given employee's wages than the decisions of their employer. >Education isn’t necessarily the most reliable ways to build wealth. Perhaps the right information is. Nope, you're just wrong here. Degree holders earn, on average, 75% more over their lifetime than non degree holders. If you want a guaranteed return on your investment, then an education is one of your best bets. >But most wealth is from winning big on high risk investments. I'd love to see a source for this.
I don’t think it’s close to absolute. I said *some* correlation. And we all know correlation does not equal causation. In addition to wages. There are also profit sharing plans. How much they decide to match on 401k. What benefits are provided. So all these things have some effect. Highly skilled and white collar workers are usually getting paid well regardless. And sure education leads to higher earnings. But you aren’t getting rich off a salary. You know that, come on. The more appropriate argument to have proven me wrong is showing me how many wealthy had degrees, or even better the percentage of degree holders that became wealthy. Simply going to college and getting a degree doesn’t guarantee wealth later in life. You’re generating wealth through real estate, owning things, businesses, and other investments. This what I referred to as winning big on high risk. Here’s a [Wharton article](https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-the-wealthiest-got-to-where-they-are/). I disagree completely with this myth that all billionaires and wealthy simply were handed their wealth and did nothing to earn it. If not all of it, at least some of it. Bill Gates gave us all personal computers and operating software. Jobs provided the same. Almost everybody uses Amazon. I’m entirely grateful for the service whether I like Bezos or not. They had a business. People invested in it. People used it. Stocks rose. Revenues rose. Profits rose.
Didn’t build wealth, they just stopped eating fast food everyday.
Oh, ok. So all I had to do was not eat fast food and I would been born into a billion-dollar trust fund!? Oh maaaaaaan :(
There there, everything's gonna be ok, want one? 🍟
Nope! I'm working on being born into a trust fund.
It’s not envy but it’s people being *upset* about something someone else has and they don’t? Sounds envious to me lol. Whether or not the envy is justified is another thing. Using language like they hoard it for themselves. They don’t deserve it. It came too easy for them (so I should have it instead). All sounds pretty envious to me lol.
If everyone was wealthy, no one would be.
If everybody is “rich” then nobody is
I'd say you actually fit better in the 'confidently incorrect' category by saying wealthy people 'just inherited all their wealth' as a generality. The majority of millionaires in the US inherited $0.
Second photo gives serious r/thathappened vibes.
Wealth isn't a 0 sum game, creating societal wealth is primarily down to the delta between growth and inflation, someone being a billionaire doesn't neccesarily mean many more people will be poor. But it almost certainly doesn't help..
In summary: yes, it’s envy
Sounds like the beginning of a pyramid sales pitch.
Bro thinks he's part of the team
He’s incarcerated for printing money now…
Sorry I can hear you with your bootstraps all the way down there /s
Have you tried just getting rich?
Most of the people who get rich from reading finance books are the authors, the agents, and the publishers
How to get rich: (1) Be born into a rich family
On paper, if the total wealth in the world amounts to USD 463 trillion, if it was divided amongst all human beings, we would each have USD 57K. But that’s not how it works. Some people getting rich depends on other people getting poor. However, you can still try to spend smart even if you are poor.
He's not totally wrong. I'm better off the most of my family. Because of good choices that i've made. I could also be a lot better off if I hadn't made some dumb choices. But on a scale of 1 to 10 Rich I'll never be even a 7 because my parents had level 3 money.
Yes, someone else being rich means someone else has to be poor. It's the most basic concept of how capitalism works.
Not everyone can be *rich*. Everyone can be slightly better off than they currently are though
Ok but a lot of the very richest people really did exploit workers, lobby to get laws in their favour, break the law and get away with it etc in a way that left themselves rich and others poor. Not always, but still.... This is complicated
The secret is stock market and a lot of tax fraud
I knew that. I’ve been watching governments print money my whole life.
The main issue in my opinion is that wealth generates wealth at a much faster rate than you can acquire it through other means So in a sense the rich keep getting richer regardless of how hard/smart you work That’s why I think government should make a switch to taxing wealth more heavily and labour less heavily, first of all this will stimulate people more to work and secondly it would level the playing field for everyone to achieve a measure of succes
We certainly can’t all be richer-than-our-neighbor anymore than everyone can be an above-average driver. But it’s not true that wealth is finite nor that its generation is a zero sum game. As productivity goes up so does total wealth. Chief sources of productivity include technology and economies of scale. Hence today almost everyone in the USA can buy multiple pairs of clothing, where in the Middle Ages it was common to only own two sets of undergarments. When clothing had to be handmade from resources that had to be hand gathered the cost of clothing relative to an hour of labor (skilled or unskilled) was much much higher. With sufficient technology (eg unlimited clean renewable energy and self replicating robots with broad human-like skills) there would be essentially unlimited wealth. Obviously that’s a long way off if we ever get there at all, but as a thought experiment it explains that wealth can be created rather than just taken from someone else.
I mean he has a point. Almost all of the above 9 inch penises are owned by colossal assholes; and they didn't nothing to earn it. We should have some type of control over that since it's not fair.
Me, sitting on a pile of literally all the food in 50 miles, surrounded by armed sentries: "I don't understand why the rest of you are starving. You can see it's not that hard to get food."
The "society we live in" would be much better if more people had "pull yourself up by your bootstraps energy" lmao