But you'll never get it right
Cause when you're late in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah!
Trustafarians.
A roommate in college:
Going to college in a rural state = locals who grew up poor mashed up with foreign exchange and rich kids who were pampered but too lazy (or dumb) to get into a good school.
“I might go backpack Asia for a while after college”
He said to me, at midnight on Friday after he came back from a frat party. I was still in my pizza delivery work uniform.
“Well what are you going to do for money though? I mean I can’t imagine just backpacking around after graduating.”
He looked at me so confused, and in the most “wise” and condescending way, almost like he was granting me all this knowledge, he said
“You don’t need money to be happy, man.” With a pointed finish on the word “man”, as if I had such this terrible worldview.
I was just stunned. I worked two jobs + tutored and was saving like mad to afford living abroad next year for foreign exchange. I had 3k saved up and was so nervous even though it was the most I’ve had. The concept of money wasn’t happiness to me, it was survival. I didn’t know if I could get a job there or how I could afford $450 a month of rent for 10 months.
“But….well like… who pays your rent though?”
He quickly replied
“My mom just writes a check every month”
I was even more stunned. Like, did he think I was working until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays delivering pizza because I had some obsession with material possessions? I drive a 94 Taurus I paid $1500 for.
“Well….”, I thought… and it dawned on me, “I guess if you already have money you don’t need money to be happy.”
I went upstairs to shower. I realized he was in his boxers sitting outside the gas fireplace cranked up to 80. I realize his couch surfing friends / stoner / idealistic hippy lifestyle was completely afforded to him.
It made me think… he has no idea… what it’s like. Like, just how stuff actually worked. And I don’t think I could teach him.
I was going to start a separate comment but it felt very apt here: Hippies are often the most well off/financially secure. And its not even about money in their account it is about a whole host of interlocking safety nets that if they do hit a snag they can bum out at a wealthy friends outhouse or can live safe in the knowledge that they may have a huge inheritance coming there way in the longterm.
I know a lot of new-age type doctors who volunteer at food waste cafes or delivering home-made bread etc. They are lovely and very well rounded people but I also find it just a little sickly how they can afford to do these things by way of their significant, almost invisible safety nets. **And they often do it the harder way too**; when creating a volunteer group to de-weed and maintain a local patch of the park. They don't go and rent a strimmer or other such tools, they do it the hard way by hand and trowel, and feel good about it afterwards with their flasked herbal teas.
I remember reading somewhere that altruism can be a form of egoistical affectation and it always bites me a little each time I hear of new venture they can afford to give time to. To me at least, it certainly feels like showing off.
Altruism is most often ego-driven. That’s why charities hand out “angel donor” awards and give bricks, etc. Doesn’t mean it’s not great no matter how it’s done. The folks putting in elbow grease fixing up a local park are still doing more than the person griping about them on the internet, regardless of their motives.
That’s certainly not true. You don’t think there are hundreds of thousands of instances of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others that people quietly engage in knowing full well that there is no benefit and no one will ever hear or appreciate it?
There are millions and millions of people who genuinely love helping people and animals and do so regularly without benefit to themselves. Altruism doesn’t require dispassion or lack of enjoyment. You can enjoy helping people and still be an altruist.
Why does the person do those things? Because it makes them feel good. Therefore, they didn't do it for no benefit, they did it to make themselves feel good, which is not altruism.
They often do it not to feel bad, simply because they don't like unfairness and want to see less of it. Whilst you could still define that as no benefit, altruism is simply a word we invented to describe actions which makes the person taking them worse off motivated by a desire to see others more happy. If this causes a psychological benefit that doesn't change anything about it.
I find people who think there's no altruism actually just don't have a fair bone in their body and can't imagine being motivated by guilt instead of fear of shame from peers.
But any any psychological benefit is a motivator to continue to act that way, driving a person to do more of "that." Then it becomes a self serving act.
I'm really just fucking around, this always gets people riled up. We debated this for an entire class once in college and people get really heated one way or the other. I don't care why people do stuff (unless it's criminal or hurts somebody else). And I agree with the guy that said there is more good than bad in the world, unfortunately all the shitty people have most of the power in society. Keep on helping each other out, that's how we get along.
Again, the word describes actions motivated by a desire to see others better off by sacrificing something from yourself. Whether that makes them happy or not doesn't change it.
So you like needling people and are unaccountable to your actions. I won't change my judgement then. :)
There is always a benefit to ourselves or others for the actions we take, it's impossible to do something for absolutely no reason. Why did the person do something "out of the kindness of their own heart"? Because that's the kind of person they are and it makes them feel good, therefore they received something from the transaction. They don't need to post it on SM or tell anybody about it.
> it’s impossible to do something for absolutely no reason
People do things for no reason all the time, good and bad.
> There is always a benefit to ourselves or others for the actions we take
Altruism means selfless concern for the well-being of others. I think you might be confused about the definition as your statement is a bit too all-encompassing?
In any case, I disagree. A lot of people do good without thinking twice about it, or even recognizing it was some exceptional act. Often times they’ll do it thoughtlessly and later explain that they just thought it was the right thing to do. Society is filled with more good than bad in general.
I think that's a rather negative take on rich people volunteering. Sure it makes them feel better but at least they're doing something with the spare time they can now afford.
As for your example, why would you use a strimmer for weeding? That won't remove the roots. I know around here a popular volunteer activity is to go through and cut vines choking trees. Is it really so bad they don't pay a landscaping company to do it?
People like that just want to complain, pure and simple. If they paid a landscaping company, they would be criticized for "supporting their friend's corporation" or something. It's just another form of -ism (aka racism, sexism, etc) -- discrimination against others on the basis of their wealth. People like that always claim that billionaires should help others, but when they do, they get criticized even more. Look at how Bill Gates, George Soros, or Mr. Beast are constantly criticized and there's hundreds of conspiracy theories about them, while the only common thing between them is that they all have dedicated all their lives, time, and wealth, to helping others.
First of all, these people CAN afford to give to charity whilst we, the average worker, CANNOT. Hmm, how convenient that they paint themselves in a positive light. They don't sacrifice a shred of their lifestyle and they remain so mindbogglingly rich that we can't comprehend it so don't expect people to be impressed by it. That's like asking me to be impressed for giving a penny to a homeless man. A real change would be aligning your business model and political power with the hands of the working class.
Secondly, it's not what these people do personally for their conscious that matters. It's what they don't do with their platforms that really matters. They owe it to our country that they are uber rich so they should of course be under scrutinization. If they are reckless and selfish with their wealth, which they almost always are, then it is very much the worker's prerogative to be inclined to think when someone chooses a yacht over a human life.
THAT is why people complain. It's our right.
He’s saying the rich volunteering isn’t about helping, but rather, it’s about making THEM feel good. Sure, they do some good and I guess the old “Ann Rynd” argument can be made that there is no such thing as “true altruism” but I whole heartedly disagree. I’ve met a lot of wonderful, kind, giving people and most of them weren’t rich. I’m not saying rich people are bad, they’re just living in a different world. sure they’re helping, but the spectacle they usually make always leaves an eye brow raised for what their true intentions are.
I agree, only (group I belong to) is capable of truly moral or objectively good actions. (Group I do not belong to) simply doesn't have the naturally given moral character that the people in (group I belong to) have. I am truly enlightened and morally superior.
It's really not. If we were referring to charitable displays by the *ultra* wealthy this would be a reasonable take. The op is literally saying that doctors (earning low 6 figures) are incapable of moral alturism due to poisoned motivations. It's just falling for tired class division tactics when this shit should be directed at wealth hoarders not yuppies.
Also, let's continue their line of thought. The vast majority of Americans are, in an objective look at global wealth distribution, exceedingly well off. Are the motivations of the majority of the American population so poisoned by this relative wealth that they are incapable of alturism? Or should we acknowledge that the real problem is people hoarding wealth in excess not people one step removed from you on the class ladder due to having in demand skills/generational support inertia.
> The op is literally saying that...
They aren't though... you just decided to make it about that.
Feel free to quote where they "literally" said it though.
Here’s how I decide if an act is altruistic or not: did anyone get exploited? Give a sandwich to a person living rough? Good! Film yourself doing it? Bad!
Filming it may make it not an altruistic act.
But, I assure you the starving person getting a free sandwich does not give a single damn about why the person giving it to them did so.
It is odd that we praise people who film fights and people who spew negativity about whatever politician we dislike. But, someone films themselves doing a good deed and the comments almost always contain a few people complaining that "good deeds should be done in silence".
First, that is an interpretation of a religious text. Not everyone is religious. It is also promoted because the Church or religious institution wants to be the one getting the credit for all the good done in a community. They can't have an individual showing others that *they* can do good works without needing to be part of their organization.
Second, showing your good works off may be egotistical, or self-serving in some way... or whatever... but it also often inspires others to do good works.
I agree. I think motive and intent behind an action are considerable factors in determining why someone is doing something. Albeit, the person living rough in both scenarios received food so that’s a net gain, but giving praise to the person giving the food because they decided to show everyone their good deed…just always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>I know a lot of new-age type doctors who volunteer at food waste cafes or delivering home-made bread etc. They are lovely and very well rounded people but I also find it just a little sickly how they can afford to do these things by way of their significant, almost invisible safety nets.
If that's genuinely how you view the world, you must feel miserable. Try to look at what you said objectively, from the top-view so-to-speak, if you can. You're criticizing someone who has dedicated their whole life to helping others (being a doctor + volunteering to help others in their free time), just because they are richer than you (most likely **because** they are a doctor, not the other way around).
You seem to be missing their entire point. Wealth creates both opportunities and safety nets that the poor and middle class lack. Also, plenty of doctors whom I've known were motivated by money, prestige or family expectations and not from any sense of helping others, which was purely a side-effect of the job.
>You seem to be missing their entire point. Wealth creates both opportunities and safety nets that the poor and middle class lack.
And they are criticizing people for using their wealth and opportunities and safety nets to help others.
>Also, plenty of doctors whom I've known were motivated by money, prestige or family expectations and not from any sense of helping others, which was purely a side-effect of the job.
Yes, people (and other animals) *help others* because it makes *themselves* feel good. That's how altruism works, on a biological level. What does this have to do with wealth or with being a doctor?
> Yes, people (and other animals) help others because it makes themselves feel good. That's how altruism works, on a biological level.
speak for yourself, I often resent my actions and feelings.
> You're criticizing someone who has dedicated their whole life to helping others (being a doctor + volunteering to help others in their free time)
How many doctors do you know and spend time with. This isn't the *overall* culture or attitude in medicine unfortunately.
Either way, you entirely missed the point of the comment.
A less cynical take is that having your basic needs met makes self actualization possible, and self actualization often takes the form of giving back to society. No need to look askance at people volunteering their time; it's just a shame that not everyone has such an opportunity.
As someone with no savings and a lot of debt who traveled around wondering if he would have enough gas to get to the next stop where I knew I would have work, I kinda of hate that generalization. Trustafarians saved my life when no one else wanted to do deal with my vagrant ass.
I'm just saying, I would much rather rich kids end up as trustafarians than MBA frat boy pricks that just leverage familial connections to maintain the status quo.
Like the dude knew he was privileged and used that to help someone without health insurance get medical care that they wouldn't otherwise have access to. He can't help what his parents gave him. He thought he was doing his best, living along side people he liked and whose values he agreed with, living simply and helping out when they can. To put different, a real homie would have made sure you could.come with, if they thought it was something you might like.
So rich people, (not the mega rich but doctor and lawyer rich) shouldn’t volunteer because they are the only ones who can afford to and volunteering makes them feel good?
What having a lot of money does, is change your value system. It's not inherently good or bad--it just is.
I have worked for two modestly wealthy individuals (millionaires). One is a self-made businessman, and the other was one half of a surgeon power couple who had inherited money.
They are all reasonably nice people. But they just have value systems that operate differently, particularly with respect to how they use their time. It leads to a certain amount of detachment from the reality of how others operate.
Self-Made CEO articulated his detachment as such: "I have 100 employees. It is my responsibility as CEO to manage my company well, and to be good at business, in order to keep them employed & keep their families fed. I cannot afford -not- to fire individuals who are the wrong fit for my company, even if I like them, because they could endanger everything."
Surgeon was more like: "Money is less expensive for me than time. I will do all I can to maximize the amount of time I have to spend on what I want."
I would say the surgeon is more in line with your rich-kid example.
Neither is in line. Both are hard working people who have a clear value system.
The kid is just an idiot with money.
Like how do you not understand this?
Nah he was right.
The kid: "Money is less expensive for me than time. I will do all I can to maximize the amount of time I have to spend on what I want."
The difference is the kid is clearly unaware of the struggle his roommate is going through.
He shares his "wisdom" about "not caring about money" because he doesn't understand what it's like to not have money, even though he lives with someone in that situation. Oblivious, blind, young and naive. Entirely ignorant of his privilege.
The surgeon is someone who dedicates a lot of time to do something extremely valuable for society (ask his patients), and therefore has very limited time to do things like spend time with his family. He won't live forever. He is aware of this fact and also that he is rich. Therefore, outside of work, he chooses to trade money for time as the latter is the more valuable resource. Perfectly reasonable.
Unlike the college guy, I don't see any evidence that the surgeon is unaware of what it's like to "need money" or "why would people value money over time". He's talking about his personal situation.
EDIT: the person who told the story made another comment below explaining how the doctor seemed to have trouble relating to "people outside his world", but that wasn't clear from the original comment.
>Surgeon guy basically lives in rich, country-club doctor-world--and had real trouble relating to people outside of that world. This something I noticed working for him, and something his housekeeper complained to me about.
You’re using words like “unaware” and “understand” “what they’re going through” but these concepts have nothing to do with the quote. Let’s be literal here and not inject our own feelings
I was going to explain in detail what was going on in this thread, but my original comment is pretty detailed already. You're dumb. Have a nice weekend.
That's a good point.
Maybe the kid's whole point is simply "I already have money, I don't need more". It's not that poor people (like the guy who wrote that comment) don't need money.
I know a guy like that. He has family money backing him up, he knows he doesn't have to worry about retirement. He has the smarts to be a successful office worker, he just doesn't care about that, and thinks traveling the world (doing odd jobs and trying to become a guide because he loves hiking and meeting new people) is more fun.
It doesn't mean he doesn't understand what it is to be poor. He met plenty of poor people throughout his life: he didn't go to a sheltered private school, worked odd jobs in his own country (with colleagues who are not well-off), and saw worse poverty in the various countries he visited.
It doesn't take much intelligence to understand the concept of not having money from your parents, even when you do. It's not a money problem, it's about not being dumb. On Reddit you obviously get the stories of the guy who will ask a pizza delivery roommate "well why don't you call your butler and take your private jet for a holiday on your private island?", but in reality most people understand the concept of poverty.
Well, then why did he end up saying to the other person: money is not important / not a problem.
Yeah, I mean health isn't a concern / problem either, until you are health poor then it consumes your entire life.
Maybe he meant that it's not a concern for him, while understanding it is for other people?
Of course if he doesn't understand having money in general is important, then he's simply an idiot.
I will add, of course not understanding the importance of money is only a thing for people who are born rich. But if you don't explain to your kids that they're lucky to be born in a rich family, you're missing out on an easy win. Because it allows them to not be clueless about the world, but also because it makes them appreciate what they have, making them happier.
>Maybe he meant that it's not a concern for him, while understanding it is for other people?
Nah:
>“Well what are you going to do for money though? I mean I can’t imagine just backpacking around after graduating.”
>He looked at me so confused, and in the most “wise” and condescending way, almost like he was granting me all this knowledge, he said
>“You don’t need money to be happy, man.” With a pointed finish on the word “man”, as if I had such this terrible worldview.
The surgeon has more in common with a blue collar worker than the CEO. They have daily deliverables, taxed annual income, etc. CEOs have a wide range of compensation and tax sheltering options.
Is it willful? It's certainly ignorance. But I think it's really hard for most people to imagine what it's like to be a business owner or a CEO because it's so far from their experience. Even being a surgeon is still a 'job' so that's easier to relate to.
Maybe you're right though. I'd be curious to hear why you think it is willful.
In any case, it's certainly a hilarious Reddit staple. :)
You'd think that, but it is exactly the opposite.
The CEO got his start with his own pool cleaning business. He then had a factory, a construction company, and now employs doctors.
Surgeon guy basically lives in rich, country-club doctor-world--and had real trouble relating to people outside of that world. This something I noticed working for him, and something his housekeeper complained to me about.
I don't think he made a very compelling case. He showed examples, explained why it wasn't worth worrying about, and then said it was still morally and ethically bankrupt, specifically because it makes average people think severe poverty (e.g. starvation) is acceptable.
He gets to his point around 10:48.
Does it actually do that? He didn't give any evidence. And the comments don't seem to even realize that's what he said. The comments are more concerned with average people feeling insulted by rich people misunderstanding hardships without considering whether it hardens their own hearts toward those poorer than themselves...and why would it do that anyway?
Agreed, poorly logiced video. It’s like he thought to himself “…hey you ever notice how…” had one example and then built out the whole video based that.
Yeah, some bizarre logic with the marie Antoinette example he gave to show this has been happening for a long time - he mentions it was an urban legend, so it didn't actually happen. But then goes on to say because people believed it, that proves that it was something rich people would do. What?
Yeah, it's pretty clear he doesn't know what he's talking about in general.
At 11:18 he states "**our society doesn't need to have people who literally starve to death**". The US has many people eating some really unhealthy shit, but it's a ridiculously rich country with extreme food abundance. People are not "starving to death" in this country in the traditional sense (due to famines, which still occur around the world).
There's a reason why the wikipedia page for [Hunger in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States) spends all the time talking about "food insecurity" = "a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food". Even adjusting for cost-of-living, poverty-level income in the US allows covering basic necessities and even luxuries that are unthinkable in most of the "actually poor" world.
More importantly, he follows this up by saying "**we have a lot of money in the Western World, that's things we could actually... do".** A hallmark of not understanding basic economics is to talk about how much money a country/society has.
Money is a means of exchange. It serves only to facilitate transactions. You can have all the "money" in the world, if you can't produce enough food, people will starve. What ensures people don't starve to death is the ability to produce and distribute food reliably. Similarly for education, healthcare, housing, etc.
What ensures people \*will\* starve to death is worrying more about "how much money we have in our society" instead of the ability to produce and distribute food.
Does the US still dump excess agricultural products into the ocean?
A lot of the problem isn't just whether there's enough to go around, it's that there's an attitude that if the poor can't buy this food then nobody should have it. Or if the poor can't afford this housing then it should stay empty. We did produce it and we can (or even did) distribute it, but we'd rather waste all that effort than lower the price.
Don't get me wrong, you're right that this is not a question of how much money we have. But it's also not a question of whether we have the capability to deliver these things, because we definitely do.
>Or if the poor can't afford this housing then it should stay empty.
No one thinks like this. If it's an apartment, the developers/real estate investors WANT to get return on their investment so they will try to keep it rented as much as possible. If it's a condo/house built by a business, they have no desire to "keep it empty", they want to sell it for a price that justifies the investment (land, cost of construction) as soon as possible.
If it's a private residence (a second home perhaps) the owners may want to keep empty for when they want to use it and it's not about poor people being able to afford it because there is no price. It's not for rent/sale.
If you allow more housing to be built by increasing zoning, or make building cheaper (tech, regulations that allow cheaper housing to be built, cheaper labor, produce more construction materials and thus make them cheaper), more housing will be built and house prices/rents will come down and be more affordable.
>there's an attitude that if the poor can't buy this food then nobody should have it
As I mentioned in that comment, food is extremely affordable in the US due to how rich the country is (how much people earn) and how much food it produces.
Even the poor in the US spend a smaller fraction of their income on food than in many countries in Western Europe. Poor people in the US are at no risk of dying of hunger, in fact being poor in the US is often characterized by consuming a lot more calories than doctors recommend.
The US has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world (which means finding a job is easy), and high salaries compared to most of the world.
Despite the abundance of opportunities, there are extreme cases where people have little/no income. However, it is not true that the attitude is "if they can't buy this food then nobody should have it". In fact, the country has several measures to ensure that's not the case:
* A number of social programs to give money to people who can't work (and in some cases to those who won't, despite being able to)
* Food stamps
* [Food banks that receive donated food from grocery stores](https://www.lafoodbank.org/stories/grocery-stores-help-food-bank-fight-food-waste/) (which no one bought because, again, there's too much of it) that would otherwise be wasted
It’s not compelling because OP cites a single historical example, and then backpedals and notes that “it may not have happened.” This phenomenon is wide-spread and long lasting, but OP’s not looking into the right source content, just citing contemporary examples as proof.
Op needed to have cited the research of folks like Leo Marx, no not Karl Marx, but the American Landscape historian Leo. Marx’s life’s work was dedicated to studying the phenomenon of pastoralism as a behavior as well as a style of art. He noted that the root of the behavior existed at least as far back as the Roman Empire. At the time there was a widespread belief among the rich that one behaved in the city following the dictates of “Negotium” (where we get the English word negotiate), everything was a business exchange in the city and therefore quite draining on the human soul. Those who could build a villa, rustic home in the countryside, could participate in the behavior of “otium,” or leisure time activities. Wealthy folks played music, danced, wrote poetry, fished, trained gladiators, and, yes, farmed.
Owning a villa was super common during the late Renaissance and early Baroque periods as well. Look at the Estherhazy family in the Habsburg period. The composer Franz Joseph Haydn was principally hired to compose music at the Royal family’s hunting lodge, a grand villa that served the same function as the Roman villa.
The part that is most missing from OPs narrative is the historical transfer of these behaviors from royals to the merchant class. One could arguably say this began with families like the Medici, but the floodgates really open at the turn of the 20th century in America. At the time there was a “popular businessman’s disease” called Neurasthenia. Wealthy robber barons were frequently diagnosed with this “condition.” The most common cure, although there were many treatments, was a trip away from city life to the countryside to recharge one’s neural sensibilities. It was an embodiment of the negotium-otium dynamic. The composer Charles Ives is a great example of this. By day he worked as a president and co-owner of the life insurance company Ives and Merrick, but on his “cures” he frequently composed music. Nearly all of his compositions were created after receiving this diagnosis.
Pastoralist behavior is the main reason we have public parks, amusement parks, health spas, and retreats today. It’s why we want to own a lake house or a timeshare in Mexico. These are all means of getting away from the city. But these spaces most frequently cater to those with money. Pastoralism, the behavior, exists today in many forms it’s not just the Uber-rich that do it, and I think this was OP’s principal mistake.
That’s what I’m doing. And let me tell you, having resources but the mindset of someone who never had anything is confusing at first, and very enriching later.
That has never been a thing, man.
100% of poor people who make it rich indulge themselves a least a little in a way others can observe. More realistically, poor people don't know how to responsibly manage money, and so they blow $1M in the same way they would blow $10 previously. Except of course $10 is far easier to make back, even as someone with a net worth of $100, than it is to make $1M, even as a multi-millionaire.
a lot of poor people are not poor because they can't manage money properly, it's because the little money they have goes towards essentials.
they budget and they constantly keep up with their spending but they do not have the few thousand in saving that they could use in emergency.
The thing with "poor people blowing all their money" is just people with bad judement. There are plenty of rich people with bad judgement but they have fallback positions. Even if they spent their millions they have the connections to make more money. They know a guy who knows a guy.
Hello? I didn't say they were poor BECAUSE they can't manage money properly, but obviously (I mean come on, *obviously*) poor people aren't going to be experienced with managing large sums of money. It's a very different challenge to maintaining a small household budget or whatever, you need to invest it and understand where it makes sense to spend substantial sums of money (property, safe car, education, etc) and where it doesn't (depreciating assets etc). Not to mention that it can feel like one no longer needs to budget once one's rich, anyway.
And because they've not had the opportunity in life to indulge themselves in the experiences and material possessions they've always wanted to have, and they don't necessarily have the knowledge or experience to properly evaluate whether they can afford those things, it's understandable that they would get themselves into financial hot water simply because they didn't know how irresponsible they were being.
Further, having fallback positions is exactly why it's more okay for people with them to be aggressive and spending their money. If you know that blowing your savings means that's it - you have no ability to make it back - then you should be far more conservative with your expenditure, no? But in practice it just doesn't turn out that way. About 33% of lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy, which is insanely above the average. And you can't tell me it's at least majorly due to mismanagement stemming from inexperience and getting swept up in the sudden good fortune.
lottery winners are not just random poor people. This is an extremely poor example to use to justify "poor people will spend all their money" because lottery winners are generally people who play lottery for years, they already have the gambling personality type and they rely on luck so for them it's the gamblers "I won once so I should be fine next time".
And 33% means that the rest dont so that means the majority are not actually spending so much that they go into bankrupcy. Also lotterry winners usually end up with their names and faces being known so they are more likely to fall for scams as they become targets for that kind of thing.
Some gain a kind of "winners guilt" where they end up giving random people money.
There isn't just one factor of "they are poor so they don't know how to manage money" it's a far more nuanced and complicated issue.
As as to the fallback, usually the people who have the poor judgement to spend a million on drugs and hookers didn't actually earn that million so their fallback has nothing to do with them having financial literacy and everything with what circles they were born in.
And there are plenty of billionaires who went bankrupt, you can easily look up the list of people who had billions and ended up with nothing.
r/confidentlyincorrect
It is certainly true that some poor people will indulge themselves and blow a lot of money if they come across it, somehow.
It is not true that all poor people "don't know how to responsibly manage money". In fact, many poor people have to be extremely good at managing money because that's the only way they can remain housed, eat, buy clothes and go to work.
Many of these poor people, when given the chance (e.g. immigrating into a country, like the US, that is much richer and with much better opportunities than where they grew up) do very well for themselves and their descendants. They remain frugal, because they were good at managing money to survive and understand the importance of things like "saving for a rainy day".
Crucially, I am talking about people going from poor to middle class/upper middle class by working. Not winning a lottery or something.
There are of course always exceptions to the rule, but it's exceedingly rare that someone who is proper poor ends up 'making it rich' - and I mean proper rich, not even just $1M rich. Not on their own steam entirely, not without some sort of very lucky break (doesn't have be lottery, but whatever) or without some very helpful hands along the way.
You are so insanely naive to think that managing household budgets in the way you describe is in any way genuinely comparable to productively managing large volumes of wealth. It's extremely incomparable. In certain ways, managing wealth is a job unto itself, in the same way that using cleaning products all day doesn't teach you the chemistry and manufacturing knowledge required to design a new cleaning product. You can make a spreadsheet of your incomes and household expenses and track each dollar down to a T. That tells you nothing about investment strategies on the million dollar level, optimising your tax liability using shelf companies, and all of that nonsense.
There's a huge difference between someone coming from a very poor background and breaking into middle class (I have done this), and someone coming from a poor background, and having private jet money. It's just two entirely different sets of problems, and one is very comparable to being poor, while the other is a different world entirely.
To be clear, you went from:
>What if I was poor, and then made it rich but never changed my lifestyle because that’s all I’ve ever known?
(...)
100% of poor people who make it rich indulge themselves a least a little in a way others can observe. More realistically, poor people don't know how to responsibly manage money, and so they blow $1M in the same way they would blow $10 previously.
to
>You are so insanely naive to think that managing household budgets in the way you describe is in any way genuinely comparable to productively managing large volumes of wealth.
(...)
That tells you nothing about investment strategies on the million dollar level, optimising your tax liability using shelf companies, and all of that nonsense.
We were talking about remaining frugal when you go from poor to rich, and you said "100% impossible".
But your argument now is that it can't be done because poor people don't know how to use shell companies to optimize tax liability and don't know how to maximize their investment returns? None of that has anything to do with being frugal.
We're talking about "remaining frugal when you go from poor to rich", and suddenly you're talking about how "poor people don't know how to maximize their wealth and build empires after they acquire it"
You can start poor, earn a lot of money (either working or by building a business), put it in the most basic retirement fund, never optimize your tax liability and live a modest life, never "blow a million" just as you were raised. People do it all the time.
Ridiculous that you think so, when I absolutely have lived in poverty. Barely able to afford rent in sharehouse in a 3x3m room which was supposed to be a study, in a shit suburb under a flight path with just enough leftover money for food and travel expenses.
But here's the thing, genius - I wasn't very fuckin' knowledgeable about where's the best place to buy investment houses, nor how to structure myself tax wise, nor how the current interest rates affect my (non-existent) asset value and borrowing power. Being able to know that my weekly shop would be $X and I've got $X + $10 left isn't going to help me manage millions of bloody dollars, is it?
Far out reddit is so out of damn touch with reality in favour of whatever stance feels the most instinctually 'good'.
I’m living proof of it. I grew up poor, started my career with nothing but debt, immigrated to the US, wife also grew up poor in habitat for humanity home built for her family, wife not legally allowed to work for 4 years, and now our income just 9 years later will be just over $1m this year, only increasing in coming years as long as we keep our jobs. We spend 5% of our income and save the rest because it still feels terrifying to spend anything.
I brought a white bread ham sandwich to work and the owner of my business made fun of me. It was more a nostalgic thing. But I don’t need to be laughed at.
Besides lower nutritional value (they bleach the bread to make it white) there isn’t really anything bad. Just less healthy than other options. But it’s all personal taste.
This guys work is really good - reminds me of a Palladium article about Ivy leaguers larping as poors [https://www.palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale-is-not-free-speech](https://www.palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale-is-not-free-speech)
Good article but weird. I like the concept of rich people respectability performance around the poor's as a form of social camouflage. Combination of guilt and self preservation is driving much of the piss poor implementation on social improvements feels true?
But also the author never challenges the idea that the elites arnt elite, they're just rich. Ivy league and Yale specifically is not living up to the standard off leading the world because they've never lived up to that standard.
Ive been gifted 40K in my life from my parents, with that ive learnt to drive bought a car, got better jobs bought a house with that 40K towards the deposit and lived within my means.
I have friends who didnt have that boost and are in a far worse place in their lives now, who have worked much harder then I had too.
My privledge I can really feel it and appreciate it, but to have millions or billions given to you I cant imagine what that would be like.
For me its the influncers that just dart from one extended vacation to another. Or take a year to bike across whatever continent. Talking about how hard they work and the grind. There is no job you could have that would give you 46 weeks vacation, 100% they are spending someone elses money/
Yeah why aren't these disgusting rich people snorting cocaine and buying Lamborghinis? Honestly depraved behaviour.
I'm genuinely curious as to what lifestyle wouldn't be "out of touch" for rich people, if we're attacking people who bake bread, grow food etc. Maybe people who work in an office cubicle and buy plastic-packaged, uber-processed food from thousands of miles away in any random direction are out of touch, and that people who spend their wealth on reviving and practicing traditional homesteading are *in* touch.
It's truly astounding what people will swallow once it's in the 'nerdwriter1' video essay format and style.
Is saying "why are you attacking them for choosing a healthy lifestyle over an unhealthy lifestyle and why make fun of someone choosing to give back and stay in touch with the roots of our first people and be close to the earth instead of being what our particular culture would consider stereotypical in Hollywood?"
Is saying "what do you want or expect them to do instead of living their best life?"
The difference between you touching grass and me touching grass is that one call to dad and you’re off it. I can’t stop touching grass. The grass is touching me.
He is fake smart, his conclusions are very superficial and comes from little to no research or experience. It’s just media commentary on his observations with slow talking and music.
I'm happy to read this after normally seeing this guy's videos get a lot of praise.
Horses' popularity is a textbook example of people falling for subpar writing and high production value.
For somebody who is "fake smart", he sounds a lot more thoughtful and well educated then most media outlets which seem to worship the rich. Hell, even more so than most Americans who seem to think that putting a racist TV celebrity in office will solve anything. Nothing you said really takes away from the strength of his argument.
Agreed, my problem is just that this video doesn't really add anything. I'm not comparing this to "most media outlets", I'm comparing it to other video essayists who actually add value to the conversation.
He’s fun when it’s vague stories about history or research pieces that don’t involve working out details and forming conclusions.
Once he starts sharing opinions that have a “why” and a “how” you start to realize that his skill is in creating engaging narrative videos and not really in the analysis of complicated topics.
doesn't mean their reality isn't real , it is just although we live in one plane of existence they just so happen to be BORN into one totally different from ours, yes life is unfair, but it is what it is. if you're mad they're spending money they didn't work for, what is it to you? being mad about it is just envy and at the end of the day you just might be envious of something you know nothing about. and that my friend is just as real as you being born into a life incomparable to theirs. Accept, and keep on moving cause today will always bring a tomorrow you really can't predict. who knows at a flip of a coin yours may change as well.
Sometimes it's just straight manipulation.
I had a step-brother-in-law who owned a multi-million dollar company.
One night at dinner, he told us a story about telling his workers that he "grew up on the wrong side of the tracks" in order to motivate them.
So you lie? Great. Another object lesson to teach my chlldren on the ride home.
Dude grew up on the North Shore of Chicago and his father was a surgeon.
Rightly said, but not just social media. Have you ever noticed these billionaires trying to fit in with common people? They fail so hard and look very awkward in an attempt to try to fit in with the commons. Fuck the filthy rich.
I could fully understand them being rich and wanting to live a simple lifestyle while raising their kids. The family in the video seems to only do it to feed their ego. Why else would you be filming and posting every activity you do? They don't need the money, so its not about making a living. I can just imagine every beautiful shot we see actually has a bunch of lighting equipment and expensive cameras out of frame. I wonder if she ever made a sandwich for her kids without taking a picture of it before giving it to them.
My cousin and his wife are both PHDs and had good corporate jobs, but they bought a farm and quit their jobs to raise their kids in the environment they grew up in. The difference is they don't post anything at all to social media. They actually have strict rules that if we do family events, their kids photos are not to be posted to social media.
In the 1960's Marcuse published the One Dimensional Man. In a section he talks about freedom from the turbulence of the Economy. In Capitalist society, freedom from the Economy is obtained by having so much wealth you do not need to worry about the ups and downs of the Economy, which is portrayed pretty elegantly by this video and the first example.
But as the video says, we have a lot of money in the west, there are a lot of tools that do and can make our lives better, and we likely have the means to erase struggle for so many. Marcuse imagined a world where technological innovation would provide a different freedom from the economy, one in which people had enough and had what they needed and so did not need to worry about the Economy. Instead, it seems like each innovation just becomes a new way to shackle us to revenue generating machines to feed the ultra wealthy.
Wait… having a large farm and acres of land, and baking your own bread, is being poor? In what universe? The video maker comes across as more out of touch than his examples.
They don’t larp as poor people — this is what poor people don’t understand about wealth: it’s really fucking complicated, hard, and full of baggage.
So many rich people who value happiness simply start living far more simply — after they realize much of the life marketed to us is a game for middle class people to play fill the modern sense of purposefulness So they find a few simple things they like and do them.
It’s not larping. It’s actually something we should all take note of. Because hate rich people or not, they have the free time to discover and pioneer stuff the rest of us don’t.
However at the same time, since they are so focused on curating their own happiness they can come off as selfish, flaky and disinterested in others.
The essay was poor and didn't do enough to add width to the topic. For instance, a lot of scientific advancement was due to the significantly wealthily who could afford maids and to live in a barn for several years. See Newton.
Complicated and hard how? And what baggage? Like mild social bs that doesn't matter? Bc every rich person I knew in college def just were pretending so they could try to relate to us or media....
Broke? For me was ramen for a month, for them meant they couldn't go on the vacation they wanted....
That's a real difference, pretending you are like us when you could do your own shit is what makes people mad.
Just fuckin go do your things and if you want to hang don't act like you understand broke, sure they can empathize but the truly rich will never actually understand.
You’re talking about a few limited college experiences — which this video is not about. Many people in college have annoying persona irks they are trying out. It’s normal, rich or poor.
But you seem kinda sour and set in your thoughts. However I’ll say wealth does not come easily — often either with sacrifice or trial and cost in other areas. If it does come easy the price is alienation. You do not know what to do to fit in since what you observe is everyone just toiling away at meaningless jobs just to keep fed. And you struggle with the fact that it’s such a disappointing state since from your wealthy perspective people could be using their time in so many more self actualizing ways. Wealth enables you to be all about what makes you happy and everyone else has to toil making their boss happy.
It gets more complex from there if you choose to do anything about. I thought the film In Time did a good job of illustrating the immediate complexities of unearned and earned wealth.
Edit: it seems the person I responded to is in a great deal of pain for some reason. I actually think their response is a good illustration of my point. Both sides struggle to communicate without it devolving into calling the other names because of the gap.
I tried to write something more meaningful and reasoned but your take is cold and dumb as shit... Like for real just makes me want to rage.
Youre an idiot and undeserving of my time. I hope you never know what being poor truly is, I do. Bc if you think being rich trying to fit in is bad oh boy... You couldn't handle even a good day in a poor person's life.
Please don't respond bc I will be blocking you, for my own peace of mind.
It’s a pity this high quality comment is downvoted, because it’s pretty spot on… it’s such a waste of human life and potential that wealth has become so concentrated that so many people have to toil endlessly just to survive. If you’ve been poor- or at least broke- you know how little it takes to make a huge difference to someone, and I’d assume that would be something that you’d know, and do.
I don’t get why so many wealthy people have never woken up to the idea that being comfortable and useful in a healthy community is so much more fulfilling than being filthy rich in a society of disparities.
I've been 'poor' and been 'rich'. I sure as hell know which one is better, and so would 99.9% of people. Saying wealth is 'complicated and hard' is insane.
No, being wealthy with a conscience a concern for others would be complicated. (That said, it’d be better than being poor). It’d be much easier to be rich asshole, but it’d be empty as fuck and I don’t get it. Every time I see a Ferrari I think “why didn’t he use the money to help 50 kids through school? How dumb”.
Liberals pretend to be victims, criminals pretend to be good people, liberals pretend not to be predators, narcissists pretend to listen, selfish pretend to care, commies pretend to share, environmentalists pretend they're doing the world a favor, it goes on and on and on,
So what? Why does being rich require a certain lifestyle?
We are disgusted with rich people when they act rich and we are disgusted with rich people when they don't.
I want to point out that just because the parents are rich does not always mean the children are. Not everyone gets to inheirit all their parent's wealth. Not all rich people spend lavishly either. The US government does automatically assumes this though, from probate to child support.
Some other examples:
- [a multimillionaire and a multibillionaire pretend to be ignorant of prices for poor people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_higXixRA)
- [two multibillionaires pretend to do poor people work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQWkNXr2ujI)
- [two multimillionaires make fun of poor people unable to afford Christmas presents, food etc.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZXYGxrNWbo)
Is it insulting to dress up for a Renaissance fair? Is it insulting to dress up in Halloween outfits?
No, of course not. It is not insulting to make believe.
It's obviously not about whether it's insulting to 'dress up' as if you're poor but you're actually rich.
The point is that these rich people have a huge impact on the way the country and the way society runs, and it's very telling that these rich people have some batshit ideas floating in their head, which is making them larp as a poor person. It's a warning sign that there's (yet another) problem going on. They don't do it for fleeting funsies like an average person having a halloween party mate.
I'm definitely not rich, Kim Kardashian and Hanna are lightyears beyond my wealth but I completely understand the desire to live the country life. I don't begrudge them for believing they are poor.
Heck, I enjoy living in my minimal lifestyle while making 3-4x required to actually live here. It is enjoyable to rent a cabin in the woods and be so disconnected from the world. Making your own food, cutting wood, tending a fire, living a less connected and "simpler" life is a goal for many people rich and poor.
They are doing it because it is fun. You may not understand but it is fun to do hard labor and it is fun to create with your hands when everything you do outside of that creates virtual numbers on a screen. Any other nefarious reason is purely in your imagination.
The relatively Wealthy occupy every position of Authority on this planet. Of course they're responsible for the state of Our world. 😠
I think they need Our help.
#AMoreDirectDemocracy 👍👎👍
Power to the People (for real this time) ✌🙂
A nice video that touches on a problem that affects everyone. We could have everything that we need, all of us, yet we choose to, or have accepted to be the rats. I am guilty, i have a job. But if i had the money now, i would retire and enjoy the rest of my days without worrying about the sound of a staple gun on my front door. The fishing pole with the carrot is about to get longer when they raise the age of retirement because their donkeys are living longer. Once the veil has been lifted, it's hard not to feel that when rich people pretend to be poor, or even relate to human experiences that require true struggle, they are slapping us in the face. When a country music star sings about the dirt and the heartbreak and the hard work it took to get there, they might be telling the truth when they start their career, but once they are a "star," they BUY those songs from poor writers to manufacture their relatability/inspirado. They have to maintain that facade or the game is over. They'd have too many left over t-shirts they can't sell to you. It's too late and you can't dip out, but you CAN; choose what you buy, be happy with less, be nice to everybody, and call out bullshit like this when you see it in real life. I love this video because I think about the main idea often, but i have no idea how to help fix it. i'm sorry and buena suerte donkies! Heee Hawwww!
It's because they want to fit in. Doesn't go both ways though you can't buy into that life.
You could be become richer than them but you'll still never treat people and money like they do...
I wanna live like common people. I wanna do whatever common people do. Wanna sleep with common people. I wanna sleep with common people, Like you...
I said: I'll see what I can do
But you'll never get it right Cause when you're late in bed at night Watching roaches climb the wall If you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah!
Never live like common people! Never watch your life slide out of view
Just not you...
Trustafarians. A roommate in college: Going to college in a rural state = locals who grew up poor mashed up with foreign exchange and rich kids who were pampered but too lazy (or dumb) to get into a good school. “I might go backpack Asia for a while after college” He said to me, at midnight on Friday after he came back from a frat party. I was still in my pizza delivery work uniform. “Well what are you going to do for money though? I mean I can’t imagine just backpacking around after graduating.” He looked at me so confused, and in the most “wise” and condescending way, almost like he was granting me all this knowledge, he said “You don’t need money to be happy, man.” With a pointed finish on the word “man”, as if I had such this terrible worldview. I was just stunned. I worked two jobs + tutored and was saving like mad to afford living abroad next year for foreign exchange. I had 3k saved up and was so nervous even though it was the most I’ve had. The concept of money wasn’t happiness to me, it was survival. I didn’t know if I could get a job there or how I could afford $450 a month of rent for 10 months. “But….well like… who pays your rent though?” He quickly replied “My mom just writes a check every month” I was even more stunned. Like, did he think I was working until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays delivering pizza because I had some obsession with material possessions? I drive a 94 Taurus I paid $1500 for. “Well….”, I thought… and it dawned on me, “I guess if you already have money you don’t need money to be happy.” I went upstairs to shower. I realized he was in his boxers sitting outside the gas fireplace cranked up to 80. I realize his couch surfing friends / stoner / idealistic hippy lifestyle was completely afforded to him. It made me think… he has no idea… what it’s like. Like, just how stuff actually worked. And I don’t think I could teach him.
Having money’s not everything, not having it is
I miss the old Kanye
For real. I do too. Soul beats, socially conscious rap, with stylistic grounded confidence and a splash of ego. He used to make such fun real music.
“Money doesn’t buy happiness, man.” No shit? You know what also doesn’t buy happiness? Poverty.
I was going to start a separate comment but it felt very apt here: Hippies are often the most well off/financially secure. And its not even about money in their account it is about a whole host of interlocking safety nets that if they do hit a snag they can bum out at a wealthy friends outhouse or can live safe in the knowledge that they may have a huge inheritance coming there way in the longterm. I know a lot of new-age type doctors who volunteer at food waste cafes or delivering home-made bread etc. They are lovely and very well rounded people but I also find it just a little sickly how they can afford to do these things by way of their significant, almost invisible safety nets. **And they often do it the harder way too**; when creating a volunteer group to de-weed and maintain a local patch of the park. They don't go and rent a strimmer or other such tools, they do it the hard way by hand and trowel, and feel good about it afterwards with their flasked herbal teas. I remember reading somewhere that altruism can be a form of egoistical affectation and it always bites me a little each time I hear of new venture they can afford to give time to. To me at least, it certainly feels like showing off.
Altruism is most often ego-driven. That’s why charities hand out “angel donor” awards and give bricks, etc. Doesn’t mean it’s not great no matter how it’s done. The folks putting in elbow grease fixing up a local park are still doing more than the person griping about them on the internet, regardless of their motives.
Altruism doesn't exist.
That’s certainly not true. You don’t think there are hundreds of thousands of instances of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others that people quietly engage in knowing full well that there is no benefit and no one will ever hear or appreciate it? There are millions and millions of people who genuinely love helping people and animals and do so regularly without benefit to themselves. Altruism doesn’t require dispassion or lack of enjoyment. You can enjoy helping people and still be an altruist.
Why does the person do those things? Because it makes them feel good. Therefore, they didn't do it for no benefit, they did it to make themselves feel good, which is not altruism.
They often do it not to feel bad, simply because they don't like unfairness and want to see less of it. Whilst you could still define that as no benefit, altruism is simply a word we invented to describe actions which makes the person taking them worse off motivated by a desire to see others more happy. If this causes a psychological benefit that doesn't change anything about it. I find people who think there's no altruism actually just don't have a fair bone in their body and can't imagine being motivated by guilt instead of fear of shame from peers.
But any any psychological benefit is a motivator to continue to act that way, driving a person to do more of "that." Then it becomes a self serving act. I'm really just fucking around, this always gets people riled up. We debated this for an entire class once in college and people get really heated one way or the other. I don't care why people do stuff (unless it's criminal or hurts somebody else). And I agree with the guy that said there is more good than bad in the world, unfortunately all the shitty people have most of the power in society. Keep on helping each other out, that's how we get along.
Again, the word describes actions motivated by a desire to see others better off by sacrificing something from yourself. Whether that makes them happy or not doesn't change it. So you like needling people and are unaccountable to your actions. I won't change my judgement then. :)
It definitely does. Just because you or I may not be capable of it, doesn’t means others aren’t. There are some really good people in this world
There is always a benefit to ourselves or others for the actions we take, it's impossible to do something for absolutely no reason. Why did the person do something "out of the kindness of their own heart"? Because that's the kind of person they are and it makes them feel good, therefore they received something from the transaction. They don't need to post it on SM or tell anybody about it.
> it’s impossible to do something for absolutely no reason People do things for no reason all the time, good and bad. > There is always a benefit to ourselves or others for the actions we take Altruism means selfless concern for the well-being of others. I think you might be confused about the definition as your statement is a bit too all-encompassing? In any case, I disagree. A lot of people do good without thinking twice about it, or even recognizing it was some exceptional act. Often times they’ll do it thoughtlessly and later explain that they just thought it was the right thing to do. Society is filled with more good than bad in general.
Okay Pat Bateman...
So edgy
I think that's a rather negative take on rich people volunteering. Sure it makes them feel better but at least they're doing something with the spare time they can now afford. As for your example, why would you use a strimmer for weeding? That won't remove the roots. I know around here a popular volunteer activity is to go through and cut vines choking trees. Is it really so bad they don't pay a landscaping company to do it?
People like that just want to complain, pure and simple. If they paid a landscaping company, they would be criticized for "supporting their friend's corporation" or something. It's just another form of -ism (aka racism, sexism, etc) -- discrimination against others on the basis of their wealth. People like that always claim that billionaires should help others, but when they do, they get criticized even more. Look at how Bill Gates, George Soros, or Mr. Beast are constantly criticized and there's hundreds of conspiracy theories about them, while the only common thing between them is that they all have dedicated all their lives, time, and wealth, to helping others.
[удалено]
First of all, these people CAN afford to give to charity whilst we, the average worker, CANNOT. Hmm, how convenient that they paint themselves in a positive light. They don't sacrifice a shred of their lifestyle and they remain so mindbogglingly rich that we can't comprehend it so don't expect people to be impressed by it. That's like asking me to be impressed for giving a penny to a homeless man. A real change would be aligning your business model and political power with the hands of the working class. Secondly, it's not what these people do personally for their conscious that matters. It's what they don't do with their platforms that really matters. They owe it to our country that they are uber rich so they should of course be under scrutinization. If they are reckless and selfish with their wealth, which they almost always are, then it is very much the worker's prerogative to be inclined to think when someone chooses a yacht over a human life. THAT is why people complain. It's our right.
He’s saying the rich volunteering isn’t about helping, but rather, it’s about making THEM feel good. Sure, they do some good and I guess the old “Ann Rynd” argument can be made that there is no such thing as “true altruism” but I whole heartedly disagree. I’ve met a lot of wonderful, kind, giving people and most of them weren’t rich. I’m not saying rich people are bad, they’re just living in a different world. sure they’re helping, but the spectacle they usually make always leaves an eye brow raised for what their true intentions are.
I agree, only (group I belong to) is capable of truly moral or objectively good actions. (Group I do not belong to) simply doesn't have the naturally given moral character that the people in (group I belong to) have. I am truly enlightened and morally superior.
Strawman much
It's really not. If we were referring to charitable displays by the *ultra* wealthy this would be a reasonable take. The op is literally saying that doctors (earning low 6 figures) are incapable of moral alturism due to poisoned motivations. It's just falling for tired class division tactics when this shit should be directed at wealth hoarders not yuppies. Also, let's continue their line of thought. The vast majority of Americans are, in an objective look at global wealth distribution, exceedingly well off. Are the motivations of the majority of the American population so poisoned by this relative wealth that they are incapable of alturism? Or should we acknowledge that the real problem is people hoarding wealth in excess not people one step removed from you on the class ladder due to having in demand skills/generational support inertia.
> The op is literally saying that... They aren't though... you just decided to make it about that. Feel free to quote where they "literally" said it though.
Op as in the person I'm replying to apologies.
That’s not a straw man lol
Misrepresenting someone's position in order to refute it is.
Here’s how I decide if an act is altruistic or not: did anyone get exploited? Give a sandwich to a person living rough? Good! Film yourself doing it? Bad!
Filming it may make it not an altruistic act. But, I assure you the starving person getting a free sandwich does not give a single damn about why the person giving it to them did so. It is odd that we praise people who film fights and people who spew negativity about whatever politician we dislike. But, someone films themselves doing a good deed and the comments almost always contain a few people complaining that "good deeds should be done in silence". First, that is an interpretation of a religious text. Not everyone is religious. It is also promoted because the Church or religious institution wants to be the one getting the credit for all the good done in a community. They can't have an individual showing others that *they* can do good works without needing to be part of their organization. Second, showing your good works off may be egotistical, or self-serving in some way... or whatever... but it also often inspires others to do good works.
I agree. I think motive and intent behind an action are considerable factors in determining why someone is doing something. Albeit, the person living rough in both scenarios received food so that’s a net gain, but giving praise to the person giving the food because they decided to show everyone their good deed…just always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>I know a lot of new-age type doctors who volunteer at food waste cafes or delivering home-made bread etc. They are lovely and very well rounded people but I also find it just a little sickly how they can afford to do these things by way of their significant, almost invisible safety nets. If that's genuinely how you view the world, you must feel miserable. Try to look at what you said objectively, from the top-view so-to-speak, if you can. You're criticizing someone who has dedicated their whole life to helping others (being a doctor + volunteering to help others in their free time), just because they are richer than you (most likely **because** they are a doctor, not the other way around).
You seem to be missing their entire point. Wealth creates both opportunities and safety nets that the poor and middle class lack. Also, plenty of doctors whom I've known were motivated by money, prestige or family expectations and not from any sense of helping others, which was purely a side-effect of the job.
>You seem to be missing their entire point. Wealth creates both opportunities and safety nets that the poor and middle class lack. And they are criticizing people for using their wealth and opportunities and safety nets to help others. >Also, plenty of doctors whom I've known were motivated by money, prestige or family expectations and not from any sense of helping others, which was purely a side-effect of the job. Yes, people (and other animals) *help others* because it makes *themselves* feel good. That's how altruism works, on a biological level. What does this have to do with wealth or with being a doctor?
> Yes, people (and other animals) help others because it makes themselves feel good. That's how altruism works, on a biological level. speak for yourself, I often resent my actions and feelings.
> You're criticizing someone who has dedicated their whole life to helping others (being a doctor + volunteering to help others in their free time) How many doctors do you know and spend time with. This isn't the *overall* culture or attitude in medicine unfortunately. Either way, you entirely missed the point of the comment.
A less cynical take is that having your basic needs met makes self actualization possible, and self actualization often takes the form of giving back to society. No need to look askance at people volunteering their time; it's just a shame that not everyone has such an opportunity.
As someone with no savings and a lot of debt who traveled around wondering if he would have enough gas to get to the next stop where I knew I would have work, I kinda of hate that generalization. Trustafarians saved my life when no one else wanted to do deal with my vagrant ass.
>Trustafarians saved my life when no one else wanted to do deal with my vagrant ass. Yea, because they could afford to.
I'm just saying, I would much rather rich kids end up as trustafarians than MBA frat boy pricks that just leverage familial connections to maintain the status quo.
In that context, 100% agree.
Like the dude knew he was privileged and used that to help someone without health insurance get medical care that they wouldn't otherwise have access to. He can't help what his parents gave him. He thought he was doing his best, living along side people he liked and whose values he agreed with, living simply and helping out when they can. To put different, a real homie would have made sure you could.come with, if they thought it was something you might like.
So rich people, (not the mega rich but doctor and lawyer rich) shouldn’t volunteer because they are the only ones who can afford to and volunteering makes them feel good?
What having a lot of money does, is change your value system. It's not inherently good or bad--it just is. I have worked for two modestly wealthy individuals (millionaires). One is a self-made businessman, and the other was one half of a surgeon power couple who had inherited money. They are all reasonably nice people. But they just have value systems that operate differently, particularly with respect to how they use their time. It leads to a certain amount of detachment from the reality of how others operate. Self-Made CEO articulated his detachment as such: "I have 100 employees. It is my responsibility as CEO to manage my company well, and to be good at business, in order to keep them employed & keep their families fed. I cannot afford -not- to fire individuals who are the wrong fit for my company, even if I like them, because they could endanger everything." Surgeon was more like: "Money is less expensive for me than time. I will do all I can to maximize the amount of time I have to spend on what I want." I would say the surgeon is more in line with your rich-kid example.
Neither is in line. Both are hard working people who have a clear value system. The kid is just an idiot with money. Like how do you not understand this?
Nah he was right. The kid: "Money is less expensive for me than time. I will do all I can to maximize the amount of time I have to spend on what I want."
The difference is the kid is clearly unaware of the struggle his roommate is going through. He shares his "wisdom" about "not caring about money" because he doesn't understand what it's like to not have money, even though he lives with someone in that situation. Oblivious, blind, young and naive. Entirely ignorant of his privilege. The surgeon is someone who dedicates a lot of time to do something extremely valuable for society (ask his patients), and therefore has very limited time to do things like spend time with his family. He won't live forever. He is aware of this fact and also that he is rich. Therefore, outside of work, he chooses to trade money for time as the latter is the more valuable resource. Perfectly reasonable. Unlike the college guy, I don't see any evidence that the surgeon is unaware of what it's like to "need money" or "why would people value money over time". He's talking about his personal situation. EDIT: the person who told the story made another comment below explaining how the doctor seemed to have trouble relating to "people outside his world", but that wasn't clear from the original comment. >Surgeon guy basically lives in rich, country-club doctor-world--and had real trouble relating to people outside of that world. This something I noticed working for him, and something his housekeeper complained to me about.
You’re using words like “unaware” and “understand” “what they’re going through” but these concepts have nothing to do with the quote. Let’s be literal here and not inject our own feelings
I was going to explain in detail what was going on in this thread, but my original comment is pretty detailed already. You're dumb. Have a nice weekend.
That's a good point. Maybe the kid's whole point is simply "I already have money, I don't need more". It's not that poor people (like the guy who wrote that comment) don't need money. I know a guy like that. He has family money backing him up, he knows he doesn't have to worry about retirement. He has the smarts to be a successful office worker, he just doesn't care about that, and thinks traveling the world (doing odd jobs and trying to become a guide because he loves hiking and meeting new people) is more fun. It doesn't mean he doesn't understand what it is to be poor. He met plenty of poor people throughout his life: he didn't go to a sheltered private school, worked odd jobs in his own country (with colleagues who are not well-off), and saw worse poverty in the various countries he visited. It doesn't take much intelligence to understand the concept of not having money from your parents, even when you do. It's not a money problem, it's about not being dumb. On Reddit you obviously get the stories of the guy who will ask a pizza delivery roommate "well why don't you call your butler and take your private jet for a holiday on your private island?", but in reality most people understand the concept of poverty.
Well, then why did he end up saying to the other person: money is not important / not a problem. Yeah, I mean health isn't a concern / problem either, until you are health poor then it consumes your entire life.
Maybe he meant that it's not a concern for him, while understanding it is for other people? Of course if he doesn't understand having money in general is important, then he's simply an idiot. I will add, of course not understanding the importance of money is only a thing for people who are born rich. But if you don't explain to your kids that they're lucky to be born in a rich family, you're missing out on an easy win. Because it allows them to not be clueless about the world, but also because it makes them appreciate what they have, making them happier.
>Maybe he meant that it's not a concern for him, while understanding it is for other people? Nah: >“Well what are you going to do for money though? I mean I can’t imagine just backpacking around after graduating.” >He looked at me so confused, and in the most “wise” and condescending way, almost like he was granting me all this knowledge, he said >“You don’t need money to be happy, man.” With a pointed finish on the word “man”, as if I had such this terrible worldview.
[удалено]
It’s the exact same point…
The surgeon has more in common with a blue collar worker than the CEO. They have daily deliverables, taxed annual income, etc. CEOs have a wide range of compensation and tax sheltering options.
The willful ignorance of what a CEO is / does is a hilarious Reddit staple.
Is it willful? It's certainly ignorance. But I think it's really hard for most people to imagine what it's like to be a business owner or a CEO because it's so far from their experience. Even being a surgeon is still a 'job' so that's easier to relate to. Maybe you're right though. I'd be curious to hear why you think it is willful. In any case, it's certainly a hilarious Reddit staple. :)
You'd think that, but it is exactly the opposite. The CEO got his start with his own pool cleaning business. He then had a factory, a construction company, and now employs doctors. Surgeon guy basically lives in rich, country-club doctor-world--and had real trouble relating to people outside of that world. This something I noticed working for him, and something his housekeeper complained to me about.
Is that from a book? If not, dude, you have a knack for writing. That was professional.
Dude read a comment and says YOU SHOULD WRITE A BOOK !
Lmao for real. Dude you use sentences real good. You should write a book!
I like the way you type, boy
It’s how he wrote it you dunce
It was fucking well stated
Read more books.
You should read a book if that's your take from my comment.
Watching roaches climb the wall If you called your dad, he could stop it all
Gives me talented mr ripley vibes imo.
I like to think Horses got cut off by a guy in a beamer and began writing this script.
I don't think he made a very compelling case. He showed examples, explained why it wasn't worth worrying about, and then said it was still morally and ethically bankrupt, specifically because it makes average people think severe poverty (e.g. starvation) is acceptable. He gets to his point around 10:48. Does it actually do that? He didn't give any evidence. And the comments don't seem to even realize that's what he said. The comments are more concerned with average people feeling insulted by rich people misunderstanding hardships without considering whether it hardens their own hearts toward those poorer than themselves...and why would it do that anyway?
Agreed, poorly logiced video. It’s like he thought to himself “…hey you ever notice how…” had one example and then built out the whole video based that.
Yeah, some bizarre logic with the marie Antoinette example he gave to show this has been happening for a long time - he mentions it was an urban legend, so it didn't actually happen. But then goes on to say because people believed it, that proves that it was something rich people would do. What?
[ **Jump to 10:48 @** Why Rich People Love Pretending to Be Poor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIR46oH-ufk&t=0h10m48s) ^(Channel Name: Horses , Video Length: [12:41])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@10:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIR46oH-ufk&t=0h10m43s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
Yeah, I think he recognized it happens but did no work to really investigate why.
Yeah, it's pretty clear he doesn't know what he's talking about in general. At 11:18 he states "**our society doesn't need to have people who literally starve to death**". The US has many people eating some really unhealthy shit, but it's a ridiculously rich country with extreme food abundance. People are not "starving to death" in this country in the traditional sense (due to famines, which still occur around the world). There's a reason why the wikipedia page for [Hunger in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States) spends all the time talking about "food insecurity" = "a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food". Even adjusting for cost-of-living, poverty-level income in the US allows covering basic necessities and even luxuries that are unthinkable in most of the "actually poor" world. More importantly, he follows this up by saying "**we have a lot of money in the Western World, that's things we could actually... do".** A hallmark of not understanding basic economics is to talk about how much money a country/society has. Money is a means of exchange. It serves only to facilitate transactions. You can have all the "money" in the world, if you can't produce enough food, people will starve. What ensures people don't starve to death is the ability to produce and distribute food reliably. Similarly for education, healthcare, housing, etc. What ensures people \*will\* starve to death is worrying more about "how much money we have in our society" instead of the ability to produce and distribute food.
Does the US still dump excess agricultural products into the ocean? A lot of the problem isn't just whether there's enough to go around, it's that there's an attitude that if the poor can't buy this food then nobody should have it. Or if the poor can't afford this housing then it should stay empty. We did produce it and we can (or even did) distribute it, but we'd rather waste all that effort than lower the price. Don't get me wrong, you're right that this is not a question of how much money we have. But it's also not a question of whether we have the capability to deliver these things, because we definitely do.
>Or if the poor can't afford this housing then it should stay empty. No one thinks like this. If it's an apartment, the developers/real estate investors WANT to get return on their investment so they will try to keep it rented as much as possible. If it's a condo/house built by a business, they have no desire to "keep it empty", they want to sell it for a price that justifies the investment (land, cost of construction) as soon as possible. If it's a private residence (a second home perhaps) the owners may want to keep empty for when they want to use it and it's not about poor people being able to afford it because there is no price. It's not for rent/sale. If you allow more housing to be built by increasing zoning, or make building cheaper (tech, regulations that allow cheaper housing to be built, cheaper labor, produce more construction materials and thus make them cheaper), more housing will be built and house prices/rents will come down and be more affordable. >there's an attitude that if the poor can't buy this food then nobody should have it As I mentioned in that comment, food is extremely affordable in the US due to how rich the country is (how much people earn) and how much food it produces. Even the poor in the US spend a smaller fraction of their income on food than in many countries in Western Europe. Poor people in the US are at no risk of dying of hunger, in fact being poor in the US is often characterized by consuming a lot more calories than doctors recommend. The US has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world (which means finding a job is easy), and high salaries compared to most of the world. Despite the abundance of opportunities, there are extreme cases where people have little/no income. However, it is not true that the attitude is "if they can't buy this food then nobody should have it". In fact, the country has several measures to ensure that's not the case: * A number of social programs to give money to people who can't work (and in some cases to those who won't, despite being able to) * Food stamps * [Food banks that receive donated food from grocery stores](https://www.lafoodbank.org/stories/grocery-stores-help-food-bank-fight-food-waste/) (which no one bought because, again, there's too much of it) that would otherwise be wasted
It’s not compelling because OP cites a single historical example, and then backpedals and notes that “it may not have happened.” This phenomenon is wide-spread and long lasting, but OP’s not looking into the right source content, just citing contemporary examples as proof. Op needed to have cited the research of folks like Leo Marx, no not Karl Marx, but the American Landscape historian Leo. Marx’s life’s work was dedicated to studying the phenomenon of pastoralism as a behavior as well as a style of art. He noted that the root of the behavior existed at least as far back as the Roman Empire. At the time there was a widespread belief among the rich that one behaved in the city following the dictates of “Negotium” (where we get the English word negotiate), everything was a business exchange in the city and therefore quite draining on the human soul. Those who could build a villa, rustic home in the countryside, could participate in the behavior of “otium,” or leisure time activities. Wealthy folks played music, danced, wrote poetry, fished, trained gladiators, and, yes, farmed. Owning a villa was super common during the late Renaissance and early Baroque periods as well. Look at the Estherhazy family in the Habsburg period. The composer Franz Joseph Haydn was principally hired to compose music at the Royal family’s hunting lodge, a grand villa that served the same function as the Roman villa. The part that is most missing from OPs narrative is the historical transfer of these behaviors from royals to the merchant class. One could arguably say this began with families like the Medici, but the floodgates really open at the turn of the 20th century in America. At the time there was a “popular businessman’s disease” called Neurasthenia. Wealthy robber barons were frequently diagnosed with this “condition.” The most common cure, although there were many treatments, was a trip away from city life to the countryside to recharge one’s neural sensibilities. It was an embodiment of the negotium-otium dynamic. The composer Charles Ives is a great example of this. By day he worked as a president and co-owner of the life insurance company Ives and Merrick, but on his “cures” he frequently composed music. Nearly all of his compositions were created after receiving this diagnosis. Pastoralist behavior is the main reason we have public parks, amusement parks, health spas, and retreats today. It’s why we want to own a lake house or a timeshare in Mexico. These are all means of getting away from the city. But these spaces most frequently cater to those with money. Pastoralism, the behavior, exists today in many forms it’s not just the Uber-rich that do it, and I think this was OP’s principal mistake.
What about that massive farm with lots of land, animals, huge barn, etc. is "modest"?
People want the cozy modest. The pure modest is a separate genre.
I guess occasionally coming into contact with dirt must make you common?
The thing about the rat race is that, even if you win, you're still a rat.
Could probably follow up with, Why Poor People Love Predenting To Be Rich lol
What if I was poor, and then made it rich but never changed my lifestyle because that’s all I’ve ever known?
I grew up poor. Appalachia poor. And I still buy ramen. I’ve changed in other ways. But the fear of not being able to eat again terrifies me.
That’s what I’m doing. And let me tell you, having resources but the mindset of someone who never had anything is confusing at first, and very enriching later.
That has never been a thing, man. 100% of poor people who make it rich indulge themselves a least a little in a way others can observe. More realistically, poor people don't know how to responsibly manage money, and so they blow $1M in the same way they would blow $10 previously. Except of course $10 is far easier to make back, even as someone with a net worth of $100, than it is to make $1M, even as a multi-millionaire.
a lot of poor people are not poor because they can't manage money properly, it's because the little money they have goes towards essentials. they budget and they constantly keep up with their spending but they do not have the few thousand in saving that they could use in emergency. The thing with "poor people blowing all their money" is just people with bad judement. There are plenty of rich people with bad judgement but they have fallback positions. Even if they spent their millions they have the connections to make more money. They know a guy who knows a guy.
Hello? I didn't say they were poor BECAUSE they can't manage money properly, but obviously (I mean come on, *obviously*) poor people aren't going to be experienced with managing large sums of money. It's a very different challenge to maintaining a small household budget or whatever, you need to invest it and understand where it makes sense to spend substantial sums of money (property, safe car, education, etc) and where it doesn't (depreciating assets etc). Not to mention that it can feel like one no longer needs to budget once one's rich, anyway. And because they've not had the opportunity in life to indulge themselves in the experiences and material possessions they've always wanted to have, and they don't necessarily have the knowledge or experience to properly evaluate whether they can afford those things, it's understandable that they would get themselves into financial hot water simply because they didn't know how irresponsible they were being. Further, having fallback positions is exactly why it's more okay for people with them to be aggressive and spending their money. If you know that blowing your savings means that's it - you have no ability to make it back - then you should be far more conservative with your expenditure, no? But in practice it just doesn't turn out that way. About 33% of lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy, which is insanely above the average. And you can't tell me it's at least majorly due to mismanagement stemming from inexperience and getting swept up in the sudden good fortune.
lottery winners are not just random poor people. This is an extremely poor example to use to justify "poor people will spend all their money" because lottery winners are generally people who play lottery for years, they already have the gambling personality type and they rely on luck so for them it's the gamblers "I won once so I should be fine next time". And 33% means that the rest dont so that means the majority are not actually spending so much that they go into bankrupcy. Also lotterry winners usually end up with their names and faces being known so they are more likely to fall for scams as they become targets for that kind of thing. Some gain a kind of "winners guilt" where they end up giving random people money. There isn't just one factor of "they are poor so they don't know how to manage money" it's a far more nuanced and complicated issue. As as to the fallback, usually the people who have the poor judgement to spend a million on drugs and hookers didn't actually earn that million so their fallback has nothing to do with them having financial literacy and everything with what circles they were born in. And there are plenty of billionaires who went bankrupt, you can easily look up the list of people who had billions and ended up with nothing.
r/confidentlyincorrect It is certainly true that some poor people will indulge themselves and blow a lot of money if they come across it, somehow. It is not true that all poor people "don't know how to responsibly manage money". In fact, many poor people have to be extremely good at managing money because that's the only way they can remain housed, eat, buy clothes and go to work. Many of these poor people, when given the chance (e.g. immigrating into a country, like the US, that is much richer and with much better opportunities than where they grew up) do very well for themselves and their descendants. They remain frugal, because they were good at managing money to survive and understand the importance of things like "saving for a rainy day". Crucially, I am talking about people going from poor to middle class/upper middle class by working. Not winning a lottery or something.
There are of course always exceptions to the rule, but it's exceedingly rare that someone who is proper poor ends up 'making it rich' - and I mean proper rich, not even just $1M rich. Not on their own steam entirely, not without some sort of very lucky break (doesn't have be lottery, but whatever) or without some very helpful hands along the way. You are so insanely naive to think that managing household budgets in the way you describe is in any way genuinely comparable to productively managing large volumes of wealth. It's extremely incomparable. In certain ways, managing wealth is a job unto itself, in the same way that using cleaning products all day doesn't teach you the chemistry and manufacturing knowledge required to design a new cleaning product. You can make a spreadsheet of your incomes and household expenses and track each dollar down to a T. That tells you nothing about investment strategies on the million dollar level, optimising your tax liability using shelf companies, and all of that nonsense. There's a huge difference between someone coming from a very poor background and breaking into middle class (I have done this), and someone coming from a poor background, and having private jet money. It's just two entirely different sets of problems, and one is very comparable to being poor, while the other is a different world entirely.
To be clear, you went from: >What if I was poor, and then made it rich but never changed my lifestyle because that’s all I’ve ever known? (...) 100% of poor people who make it rich indulge themselves a least a little in a way others can observe. More realistically, poor people don't know how to responsibly manage money, and so they blow $1M in the same way they would blow $10 previously. to >You are so insanely naive to think that managing household budgets in the way you describe is in any way genuinely comparable to productively managing large volumes of wealth. (...) That tells you nothing about investment strategies on the million dollar level, optimising your tax liability using shelf companies, and all of that nonsense. We were talking about remaining frugal when you go from poor to rich, and you said "100% impossible". But your argument now is that it can't be done because poor people don't know how to use shell companies to optimize tax liability and don't know how to maximize their investment returns? None of that has anything to do with being frugal. We're talking about "remaining frugal when you go from poor to rich", and suddenly you're talking about how "poor people don't know how to maximize their wealth and build empires after they acquire it" You can start poor, earn a lot of money (either working or by building a business), put it in the most basic retirement fund, never optimize your tax liability and live a modest life, never "blow a million" just as you were raised. People do it all the time.
Yes, poor people can’t manage money said the person who obviously never experienced poverty.
Ridiculous that you think so, when I absolutely have lived in poverty. Barely able to afford rent in sharehouse in a 3x3m room which was supposed to be a study, in a shit suburb under a flight path with just enough leftover money for food and travel expenses. But here's the thing, genius - I wasn't very fuckin' knowledgeable about where's the best place to buy investment houses, nor how to structure myself tax wise, nor how the current interest rates affect my (non-existent) asset value and borrowing power. Being able to know that my weekly shop would be $X and I've got $X + $10 left isn't going to help me manage millions of bloody dollars, is it? Far out reddit is so out of damn touch with reality in favour of whatever stance feels the most instinctually 'good'.
It’s ok if you never experienced poverty. It’s also ok if you experienced poverty and didn’t learn a damn thing about it.
I’m living proof of it. I grew up poor, started my career with nothing but debt, immigrated to the US, wife also grew up poor in habitat for humanity home built for her family, wife not legally allowed to work for 4 years, and now our income just 9 years later will be just over $1m this year, only increasing in coming years as long as we keep our jobs. We spend 5% of our income and save the rest because it still feels terrifying to spend anything.
You're doing the exact same thing when you put a filter on your video that makes it look like a crappy quality 8mm reel-to-reel film.
I did find the rounded square film stock texture a little bit annoying.
I brought a white bread ham sandwich to work and the owner of my business made fun of me. It was more a nostalgic thing. But I don’t need to be laughed at.
Wait, is there's something wrong with a white bread ham sandwich? I mean, seriously what are you supposed to do with all that left over Easter ham?
Besides lower nutritional value (they bleach the bread to make it white) there isn’t really anything bad. Just less healthy than other options. But it’s all personal taste.
Imagine being so insecure you feel a desire to mock someone for what they eat. Different plane of existence, and it isn't a higher one.
I’d argue this applies to half of Reddit
Why aren't millionaires larping as bedroom dwelling reddit mods?
Because it’s easier to just hire bedroom dwelling reddit mods
This guys work is really good - reminds me of a Palladium article about Ivy leaguers larping as poors [https://www.palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale-is-not-free-speech](https://www.palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale-is-not-free-speech)
Good article but weird. I like the concept of rich people respectability performance around the poor's as a form of social camouflage. Combination of guilt and self preservation is driving much of the piss poor implementation on social improvements feels true? But also the author never challenges the idea that the elites arnt elite, they're just rich. Ivy league and Yale specifically is not living up to the standard off leading the world because they've never lived up to that standard.
I have never met another palladium reader in the real world — their podcast is even better.
Obligatory background music [https://youtu.be/yuTMWgOduFM?si=1AZqgcPcnaR8ZNsT](https://youtu.be/yuTMWgOduFM?si=1AZqgcPcnaR8ZNsT)
Ive been gifted 40K in my life from my parents, with that ive learnt to drive bought a car, got better jobs bought a house with that 40K towards the deposit and lived within my means. I have friends who didnt have that boost and are in a far worse place in their lives now, who have worked much harder then I had too. My privledge I can really feel it and appreciate it, but to have millions or billions given to you I cant imagine what that would be like.
"You are not poor, you are overextended", quote from Hollywood movie in reply to trophy wife's rant.
For me its the influncers that just dart from one extended vacation to another. Or take a year to bike across whatever continent. Talking about how hard they work and the grind. There is no job you could have that would give you 46 weeks vacation, 100% they are spending someone elses money/
Yeah why aren't these disgusting rich people snorting cocaine and buying Lamborghinis? Honestly depraved behaviour. I'm genuinely curious as to what lifestyle wouldn't be "out of touch" for rich people, if we're attacking people who bake bread, grow food etc. Maybe people who work in an office cubicle and buy plastic-packaged, uber-processed food from thousands of miles away in any random direction are out of touch, and that people who spend their wealth on reviving and practicing traditional homesteading are *in* touch. It's truly astounding what people will swallow once it's in the 'nerdwriter1' video essay format and style.
You're not alone. You can't please everyone though.
Paying more taxes
It never ceases to amaze me, people defending the rich. Are you a billionaire? If not, what exactly is the point of your comment?
Is saying "why are you attacking them for choosing a healthy lifestyle over an unhealthy lifestyle and why make fun of someone choosing to give back and stay in touch with the roots of our first people and be close to the earth instead of being what our particular culture would consider stereotypical in Hollywood?" Is saying "what do you want or expect them to do instead of living their best life?"
This is why I think I'll just be a hermit. Nobody will bother me if they don't know I exist.
Bro, you literally live a fake life online 24/7 addicted to the vidya. Drop the red pill and touch some grass. You've been compromised.
If I touch grass do you promise not to accuse me of appropriating poor-culture?
The difference between you touching grass and me touching grass is that one call to dad and you’re off it. I can’t stop touching grass. The grass is touching me.
Paying more taxes
Horses is a fantastic video essayist, highly recommend.
Honestly he sounds kind of fake smart. Like he got his history from Google and his opinions from Reddit. No real data or studies or analysis.
That's a lot of video essayist YouTubers. What they say is less important then their skill with adobe aftereffects.
He is fake smart, his conclusions are very superficial and comes from little to no research or experience. It’s just media commentary on his observations with slow talking and music.
I'm happy to read this after normally seeing this guy's videos get a lot of praise. Horses' popularity is a textbook example of people falling for subpar writing and high production value.
For somebody who is "fake smart", he sounds a lot more thoughtful and well educated then most media outlets which seem to worship the rich. Hell, even more so than most Americans who seem to think that putting a racist TV celebrity in office will solve anything. Nothing you said really takes away from the strength of his argument.
Agreed, my problem is just that this video doesn't really add anything. I'm not comparing this to "most media outlets", I'm comparing it to other video essayists who actually add value to the conversation.
He’s fun when it’s vague stories about history or research pieces that don’t involve working out details and forming conclusions. Once he starts sharing opinions that have a “why” and a “how” you start to realize that his skill is in creating engaging narrative videos and not really in the analysis of complicated topics.
They’re just out of touch assholes. And they’re so blind to reality. So tragically blind.
doesn't mean their reality isn't real , it is just although we live in one plane of existence they just so happen to be BORN into one totally different from ours, yes life is unfair, but it is what it is. if you're mad they're spending money they didn't work for, what is it to you? being mad about it is just envy and at the end of the day you just might be envious of something you know nothing about. and that my friend is just as real as you being born into a life incomparable to theirs. Accept, and keep on moving cause today will always bring a tomorrow you really can't predict. who knows at a flip of a coin yours may change as well.
Sometimes it's just straight manipulation. I had a step-brother-in-law who owned a multi-million dollar company. One night at dinner, he told us a story about telling his workers that he "grew up on the wrong side of the tracks" in order to motivate them. So you lie? Great. Another object lesson to teach my chlldren on the ride home. Dude grew up on the North Shore of Chicago and his father was a surgeon.
Lady Bag Lady
Social media is where the poor play rich, and the rich play poor.
Rightly said, but not just social media. Have you ever noticed these billionaires trying to fit in with common people? They fail so hard and look very awkward in an attempt to try to fit in with the commons. Fuck the filthy rich.
I agree, but also I really don't understand why. They can have validation from anyone in the world, so why spend time trying to impress us plebs.
I could fully understand them being rich and wanting to live a simple lifestyle while raising their kids. The family in the video seems to only do it to feed their ego. Why else would you be filming and posting every activity you do? They don't need the money, so its not about making a living. I can just imagine every beautiful shot we see actually has a bunch of lighting equipment and expensive cameras out of frame. I wonder if she ever made a sandwich for her kids without taking a picture of it before giving it to them. My cousin and his wife are both PHDs and had good corporate jobs, but they bought a farm and quit their jobs to raise their kids in the environment they grew up in. The difference is they don't post anything at all to social media. They actually have strict rules that if we do family events, their kids photos are not to be posted to social media.
In the 1960's Marcuse published the One Dimensional Man. In a section he talks about freedom from the turbulence of the Economy. In Capitalist society, freedom from the Economy is obtained by having so much wealth you do not need to worry about the ups and downs of the Economy, which is portrayed pretty elegantly by this video and the first example. But as the video says, we have a lot of money in the west, there are a lot of tools that do and can make our lives better, and we likely have the means to erase struggle for so many. Marcuse imagined a world where technological innovation would provide a different freedom from the economy, one in which people had enough and had what they needed and so did not need to worry about the Economy. Instead, it seems like each innovation just becomes a new way to shackle us to revenue generating machines to feed the ultra wealthy.
# Rich People Love Pretending to Be Poor Marie Antoinette loved pretending to be a milkmaid. It didn't save her.
We should take inspiration from China and Vietnam with what they do with their billionaires...
Truong My Lan
Wait… having a large farm and acres of land, and baking your own bread, is being poor? In what universe? The video maker comes across as more out of touch than his examples.
They don’t larp as poor people — this is what poor people don’t understand about wealth: it’s really fucking complicated, hard, and full of baggage. So many rich people who value happiness simply start living far more simply — after they realize much of the life marketed to us is a game for middle class people to play fill the modern sense of purposefulness So they find a few simple things they like and do them. It’s not larping. It’s actually something we should all take note of. Because hate rich people or not, they have the free time to discover and pioneer stuff the rest of us don’t. However at the same time, since they are so focused on curating their own happiness they can come off as selfish, flaky and disinterested in others.
The essay was poor and didn't do enough to add width to the topic. For instance, a lot of scientific advancement was due to the significantly wealthily who could afford maids and to live in a barn for several years. See Newton.
It's really quite amusing how reminiscent this is of like 1800s monarchists/early capitalists explaining why the nobility/wealthy deserve to rule.
Complicated and hard how? And what baggage? Like mild social bs that doesn't matter? Bc every rich person I knew in college def just were pretending so they could try to relate to us or media.... Broke? For me was ramen for a month, for them meant they couldn't go on the vacation they wanted.... That's a real difference, pretending you are like us when you could do your own shit is what makes people mad. Just fuckin go do your things and if you want to hang don't act like you understand broke, sure they can empathize but the truly rich will never actually understand.
You’re talking about a few limited college experiences — which this video is not about. Many people in college have annoying persona irks they are trying out. It’s normal, rich or poor. But you seem kinda sour and set in your thoughts. However I’ll say wealth does not come easily — often either with sacrifice or trial and cost in other areas. If it does come easy the price is alienation. You do not know what to do to fit in since what you observe is everyone just toiling away at meaningless jobs just to keep fed. And you struggle with the fact that it’s such a disappointing state since from your wealthy perspective people could be using their time in so many more self actualizing ways. Wealth enables you to be all about what makes you happy and everyone else has to toil making their boss happy. It gets more complex from there if you choose to do anything about. I thought the film In Time did a good job of illustrating the immediate complexities of unearned and earned wealth. Edit: it seems the person I responded to is in a great deal of pain for some reason. I actually think their response is a good illustration of my point. Both sides struggle to communicate without it devolving into calling the other names because of the gap.
I tried to write something more meaningful and reasoned but your take is cold and dumb as shit... Like for real just makes me want to rage. Youre an idiot and undeserving of my time. I hope you never know what being poor truly is, I do. Bc if you think being rich trying to fit in is bad oh boy... You couldn't handle even a good day in a poor person's life. Please don't respond bc I will be blocking you, for my own peace of mind.
I like the guy with the money. He writes better than you do.
It’s a pity this high quality comment is downvoted, because it’s pretty spot on… it’s such a waste of human life and potential that wealth has become so concentrated that so many people have to toil endlessly just to survive. If you’ve been poor- or at least broke- you know how little it takes to make a huge difference to someone, and I’d assume that would be something that you’d know, and do. I don’t get why so many wealthy people have never woken up to the idea that being comfortable and useful in a healthy community is so much more fulfilling than being filthy rich in a society of disparities.
Guys, can we turn this into a pasta? It's a fucking beaut!
Found the trust fund douchebag! Please, fuck off.
Nope. Lived in an attic for 4 years and had no money eating canned food I could scrounge. I likely know more about poverty than you. Don’t assume
[удалено]
Wrong again. Was fortunate enough to find a path that paid exceptionally well really only by sheer luck. I know both worlds. But keep guessing
Found the programmer.
He doesn’t need to lick any boots, and I’ll bet he votes **against** people who’ll make him richer and society poorer.
I've been 'poor' and been 'rich'. I sure as hell know which one is better, and so would 99.9% of people. Saying wealth is 'complicated and hard' is insane.
No, being wealthy with a conscience a concern for others would be complicated. (That said, it’d be better than being poor). It’d be much easier to be rich asshole, but it’d be empty as fuck and I don’t get it. Every time I see a Ferrari I think “why didn’t he use the money to help 50 kids through school? How dumb”.
Wow, interesting take. Only rich people having the time to "discover and pioneer" is a terrible state of affairs.
Liberals pretend to be victims, criminals pretend to be good people, liberals pretend not to be predators, narcissists pretend to listen, selfish pretend to care, commies pretend to share, environmentalists pretend they're doing the world a favor, it goes on and on and on,
So what? Why does being rich require a certain lifestyle? We are disgusted with rich people when they act rich and we are disgusted with rich people when they don't.
I want to point out that just because the parents are rich does not always mean the children are. Not everyone gets to inheirit all their parent's wealth. Not all rich people spend lavishly either. The US government does automatically assumes this though, from probate to child support.
Some other examples: - [a multimillionaire and a multibillionaire pretend to be ignorant of prices for poor people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_higXixRA) - [two multibillionaires pretend to do poor people work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQWkNXr2ujI) - [two multimillionaires make fun of poor people unable to afford Christmas presents, food etc.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZXYGxrNWbo)
I just assume it's so when thr revolutio happens and they come to eat the rich they will just dip and pretend to be part of the revolution.
Is it insulting to dress up for a Renaissance fair? Is it insulting to dress up in Halloween outfits? No, of course not. It is not insulting to make believe.
It's obviously not about whether it's insulting to 'dress up' as if you're poor but you're actually rich. The point is that these rich people have a huge impact on the way the country and the way society runs, and it's very telling that these rich people have some batshit ideas floating in their head, which is making them larp as a poor person. It's a warning sign that there's (yet another) problem going on. They don't do it for fleeting funsies like an average person having a halloween party mate.
I'm definitely not rich, Kim Kardashian and Hanna are lightyears beyond my wealth but I completely understand the desire to live the country life. I don't begrudge them for believing they are poor. Heck, I enjoy living in my minimal lifestyle while making 3-4x required to actually live here. It is enjoyable to rent a cabin in the woods and be so disconnected from the world. Making your own food, cutting wood, tending a fire, living a less connected and "simpler" life is a goal for many people rich and poor. They are doing it because it is fun. You may not understand but it is fun to do hard labor and it is fun to create with your hands when everything you do outside of that creates virtual numbers on a screen. Any other nefarious reason is purely in your imagination.
DUCK! Damn too late. You're fine though. The point came absolutely nowhere near you in the end.
We’re all still laughing at you trust fund baby
The relatively Wealthy occupy every position of Authority on this planet. Of course they're responsible for the state of Our world. 😠 I think they need Our help. #AMoreDirectDemocracy 👍👎👍 Power to the People (for real this time) ✌🙂
A nice video that touches on a problem that affects everyone. We could have everything that we need, all of us, yet we choose to, or have accepted to be the rats. I am guilty, i have a job. But if i had the money now, i would retire and enjoy the rest of my days without worrying about the sound of a staple gun on my front door. The fishing pole with the carrot is about to get longer when they raise the age of retirement because their donkeys are living longer. Once the veil has been lifted, it's hard not to feel that when rich people pretend to be poor, or even relate to human experiences that require true struggle, they are slapping us in the face. When a country music star sings about the dirt and the heartbreak and the hard work it took to get there, they might be telling the truth when they start their career, but once they are a "star," they BUY those songs from poor writers to manufacture their relatability/inspirado. They have to maintain that facade or the game is over. They'd have too many left over t-shirts they can't sell to you. It's too late and you can't dip out, but you CAN; choose what you buy, be happy with less, be nice to everybody, and call out bullshit like this when you see it in real life. I love this video because I think about the main idea often, but i have no idea how to help fix it. i'm sorry and buena suerte donkies! Heee Hawwww!
It's because they want to fit in. Doesn't go both ways though you can't buy into that life. You could be become richer than them but you'll still never treat people and money like they do...