|
Dexterous Spider posted:On a logical note all the financially stable people (because rich is a gimmick word), that I know and have talked to, tossed me some solid tips. May as well share a few. drat thanks I'll tell that to all the minimum wage people I know so they can invest their extra money they don't have
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
OP do you follow Notch on twitter because that dude has everything you're asking for and is clearly in constant misery
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:drat thanks I'll tell that to all the minimum wage people I know so they can invest their extra money they don't have Maybe they should stop paying for netflix and get smart with their salaries. Who do they think they are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
My extremely distant relations from indonesia recently moved to the US. They own a business and have absolutely never dealt with any of their counterparties in good faith. I was smarting over this until they told me they had a net worth of over 20 million dollars. That's what it takes to get rich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Facebook and Snapchat is, right now, becoming one - Facebook is basically relentlessly plagiarizing everything that Snapchat does. The new hotness in multiple-access point wifi - I believe eero was first or one of the first to have consumer units, they got knocked off by everyone, and basically got bought for a song because they were going to go under. Android is also a good example: apple developed the whole ios, android knocked it off, and android now dominates the market (though Apple's hilarious phone profits make it work out fine for Apple). These don't really seem like examples of a competitor being able to freely copy an industry leader. Facebook and Snapchat are valuable precisely because they have larger user bases, the more people that use these services the more valuable they are. A new entrant into the social media marketplace isn't able to freely copy that, it would likely be very expensive at this point to start from scratch and build up a rival social network or messaging system even if you did copy all the features that initially made Facebook or Snapchat attractive. The only companies that can compete on this level seem to be extremely large and well capitalized and most of the time they just buy up an existing company rather than starting something new. Also, outside the tech sector most sectors of the economy are dominated by a few monopolistic suppliers. Perhaps there's some room for competition with front end retailers but in very large areas of the economy there doesn't seem to be any real competition at all - behind the front line retailers are gigantic corporate oligopolies that are pretty firmly entrenched. I agree this really is probably usually less about first mover advantage and more of an antitrust/monopoly power issue but I also wouldn't go so far as to say that its easy in the current economy to challenge a competitor by freely copying whatever they do and then doing it better or cheaper. Most recent examples of a new entrants breaking into an already established market seem to involve massive companies dedicating substantial resources and being ready to adsorb lots of short term losses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Facebook itself was a late comer. Friendster and MySpace predate it, Facebook just added exclusivity (for a time) and cleaned it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:These don't really seem like examples of a competitor being able to freely copy an industry leader. Facebook and Snapchat are valuable precisely because they have larger user bases, the more people that use these services the more valuable they are. A new entrant into the social media marketplace isn't able to freely copy that, it would likely be very expensive at this point to start from scratch and build up a rival social network or messaging system even if you did copy all the features that initially made Facebook or Snapchat attractive. The only companies that can compete on this level seem to be extremely large and well capitalized and most of the time they just buy up an existing company rather than starting something new. each of them are a scenario where someone developed a new industry/product, moved into it, then got squashed by a second-mover that leveraged the capital it could deploy now that the concept had been proven and lessons about how to make it work in the public domain. that's actually precisely why i used facebook/snapchat (though I probably should have specified that I was talking about instagram, which is facebook-owned). snapchat was a new entrant to the whole social media/image sharing thing that got wildly popular through it's whole "actually maybe let's not make every picture forever". it started becoming a real threat to instagram, so facebook has been relentless in knocking off every feature of snapchat to try to squash it and it's in a tailspin as a result. snapchat is the sort of thing where you'd think first-mover advantage would be the strongest, because you're right: it's a network good. but they're still getting squashed by an entrenched company just looking at what they do, and stealing the good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Also you get to be rich by exploiting and extracting the surplus labour of your comrades, which is bad and don't do that. Why is the thread open after this lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 08:33
|
|
|
sim posted:I would agree that luck has a lot to do with it, because hiring is extremely flawed across all industries, but especially in tech. To start, there's the (often subconscious) biases in place that ends up filtering candidates down to only people that look like the existing employees, even if just on paper. This includes inherent bias either for or against self-taught engineers, depending on the background of the hiring manager. The best description of the tech hiring process I ever heard was "picture making a carpenter carve out a beautiful elaborate table in front of you to test him for a job cutting plywood sheets with a table saw".
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
I feel like for social media coming later may not be as big of a handicap, despite network effects, because there's seems to be this phenomenon where younger people want to be on a network/app that's cool, and as a network goes increasingly mainstream and gets more users well now mom and grandpa are on it, not really that cool anymore is it? So they look for the next thing. Whereas for utility-type apps and services, like Google Maps, that's not really a thing. It doesn't matter if Google Maps isn't cool, people only care that it's useful. AceOfFlames posted:The best description of the tech hiring process I ever heard was "picture making a carpenter carve out a beautiful elaborate table in front of you to test him for a job cutting plywood sheets with a table saw".
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
Dexterous Spider posted:On a logical note all the financially stable people (because rich is a gimmick word), that I know and have talked to, tossed me some solid tips. May as well share a few. This is a really long-winded way of saying "start out already having a bunch of money, and spend as much of it as possible on things that turn money into more money".
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
If you were able to make a cool thousand dollars every single day and somehow ignore inflation, you would need to have been saving up since the year 800 BC to reach a billion dollars now. That's 300 years before the founding of the Roman Republic. To reach a million you'd just need a bit under 3 years. You can't save your way into being rich lol, you have to inherit or luck out a one in a trillion chance or be a major sociopath and exploit the poo poo out of everyone else, the latter of which is incidentally the true source of most big fortunes
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:If you were able to make a cool thousand dollars every single day and somehow ignore inflation, you would need to have been saving up since the year 800 BC to reach a billion dollars now. Probably the best way to become rich as a non-rich person is to convince other rich people to invest in some company you make (during a time like the present when they're flush with cash and desperate to find places to invest it). Of course, convincing them to invest money in you largely depends upon you being a person they like and find competent (which generally requires being rich, or at least well-off, yourself).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
assuming no real leverage from parents or education, id say charisma. if youre charismatic enough, you start bumming off of people. or getting a job a youre not qualified for. you also need to be attractive or get enough money for plastic surgery to become attractive. then sugar daddy, sugar momma. no pre-nups OR you have to casually murder youre partner. youll have to dehumanize everyone into just the possibility of what they can get you. this or get into organized crime and work youre way to the top. but really it seems like youre gonna have to be an rear end in a top hat to people regardless
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:If you were able to make a cool thousand dollars every single day and somehow ignore inflation, you would need to have been saving up since the year 800 BC to reach a billion dollars now. Yeah, poo poo like that really drives home how ridiculous ultra-wealth can get. Consider someone with a million dollars net worth; you'd probably consider them rich, right? And if you made the same amount of money as everything they have put together, every single year after tax and living expenses, you'd still need a millennium to reach a billion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Being worth a million dollars (or a few million dollars, even) is the point where wealth is still understandable. When you move into billions, wealth translates directly into political power and becomes more or less unfathomable for anyone who isn't ultra-wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
If you have 10.000 dollars and you give a beggar 50 dollars, you're giving them 0,5% of your money. If you were a billionaire the same percentage would be 5 million dollars. If you are Bill Gates it would be 540 million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Probably the best way to become rich as a non-rich person is to convince other rich people to invest in some company you make (during a time like the present when they're flush with cash and desperate to find places to invest it). This has to be a large percentage of the economy. Some of the startups I've worked for were very up front about their goal of attracting someone from the 0.1% to open their wallet. We'd labour over some shiny trinket, lathering it in market speak and lofty aspirations, so we could pitch it to some investor who'd be our winning lottery ticket. So much wasted time and energy over a silly song and dance, but it's apparently a valid survival tactic in a world where the haves have way too much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:This has to be a large percentage of the economy. Some of the startups I've worked for were very up front about their goal of attracting someone from the 0.1% to open their wallet. We'd labour over some shiny trinket, lathering it in market speak and lofty aspirations, so we could pitch it to some investor who'd be our winning lottery ticket. So much wasted time and energy over a silly song and dance, but it's apparently a valid survival tactic in a world where the haves have way too much. I mean, there's a popular reality show where people grovel (sometimes literally doing a song and dance) in front of rich people for their money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
I mean "convince powerful person to sponsor your poo poo" has been a pretty reliable survival tactic throughout history. As long as hierarchy exists that one's going to work out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Prostrate yourself before your betters!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
In ancient Rome it was standard practice as a poor that literally the first part of your day would be paying calls around the on all city your rich patrons, just schmoozing in exchange for money, favours, or free food. The rich saw sponsoring the poor as a civic duty, and having a bunch of poors show up to your house was a status symbol. Most entry-level political offices were basically entirely focused on using your own money to fund programs for the city. It was a terrible unequal system but hey, at least they weren't hoarding all their gold in Rhodos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Also, becoming rich as gently caress is one of the ingredients for me to be happy. that's not really how it works
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
Thanks for necroing what is possibly the most shamefully low energy "deBaTe mE D&D!!!!" thread of all time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:only if part of your calculation of "quality of life" ignores "having to live in houston" This is what drives me loving nuts when people say, “Oh, just move to Idaho or Kansas or South Carolina”. That’s easy as gently caress to say if you’re a straight dude that doesn’t have to worry about getting fired for being LGBTQ or not needing access to an abortion clinic. I still remember one dude going on and on about have progressive Charleston was two weeks before the bathroom bill was passed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
My wife has a poverty attitude. I just got vested at a nice company. The value is substantial. My wife's first response? "What will that do to our taxes? Refuse it, we dont need it!" And I'm like, "Babe, we pay a percentage on it. Yes, we will pay more taxes but we come out with a lot more money." Be like me and not my wife.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:My wife has a poverty attitude. I just got vested at a nice company. The value is substantial. Alternatively, 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I just thought all the code schools were scams managed by idiots and it never occurred to me that I could make a better one. Many, many of the “coding” schools are mostly bullshit. If anything it might get you into a $40-60k entry or mid-level position but that’s still nothing to be disappointed about. Edx, Kahn Academy, HackBright, etc. are all very, very real but you are correct that it’s small hard target for anyone to hit yet the opportunity now exists. It didn’t before at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
im rich
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
i learnt to program as an accompanying skill to my graphic and print design degree, but because i had no family in the industry, my opportunities topped out at endless unpaid internships. i did thousands of dollars' worth of excellent work trying to earn the honour of a real job, but never quite made it to that point because there were three thousand equally talented, equally unconnected twenty-somethings clamouring to take my place as soon as i got fed up. which, after a whole year, i did. rent in sydney starts at $350/week - op, have you ever worked for a full year for nothing while trying to make $350/week appear magically out of nowhere? or is $350/week pocket change to you? your answer to that question will say more about you than you might expect keep in mind, i wasn't trying for a $150k position. my goal was to get to the same hourly rate i'd make working at mcdonalds. but it became clear it wasn't going to happen, not for me, not for any of the other unpaid interns i worked with; in fact, all any of us were accomplishing was to take someone else's potential job out of the market by doing it for free nankeen fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jan 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:A good piece of advice is to move to NYC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
nankeen posted:so are we still talking about how to get poor people out of poverty? NYC can be a very cheap city to live in. Its unique as a metro area in that way. I paid less in rent, eating out and groceries when I lived in NYC than i did when I lived in Indianapolis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:NYC can be a very cheap city to live in. Its unique as a metro area in that way. I paid less in rent, eating out and groceries when I lived in NYC than i did when I lived in Indianapolis. Yeah, dumpsters are magical things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
Eox posted:Yeah, dumpsters are magical things. They were until the fascists made it so we can't turn them into swimming pools anymore. That was the day freedom died in this country!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 04:11
|
|
|
Suck a million dicks and you’ll be a millionaire in no time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:NYC can be a very cheap city to live in. Its unique as a metro area in that way. I paid less in rent, eating out and groceries when I lived in NYC than i did when I lived in Indianapolis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:NYC can be a very cheap city to live in. Its unique as a metro area in that way. I paid less in rent, eating out and groceries when I lived in NYC than i did when I lived in Indianapolis. Indy is most definitely cheaper. I think a single room at the 92Y is the same rent as a 2br across from Rolls Royce. I also don't know of any moderately good restaurant in Indy that was worth a $50/plate bill like I would end up with in midtown. Everything is so cheap here if you don't drive all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:nyc is also not even remotely habitable compared to every other major american city unless you're hella fucken rich. the city is a giant creaking dumpster full of month-old trash, rats, and dogshit, but there are a few who experience it from limousines that take them between the met opera and their glass box in the sky, not that this is an especially pleasant way to live in reality. oh and gently caress the yankees. I don't know about that. Chicago's "nice" or non blighted places are being overrun by suburban kids with at least $200k of sunk cost from mom and dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
sports posted:Indy is most definitely cheaper. I think a single room at the 92Y is the same rent as a 2br across from Rolls Royce. On average, sure. But it isn't hard to make NYC cheap and the ceiling in NYC is much higher. I had done pretty much all you can do in Indy on 20K/yr. I went to all the good restaurants, was getting invited to restaurant openings, etc. Literal Lily exec's weren't living that different from me aside from nicer cars, houses and vacations. What's the point of more money? What keeps you hugey? After living in NYC, I was making 10x that and I still hadn't scratched the surface of what was possible. I moved from a $650/mo studio in Indy to a $500/mo bedroom in a 2 bedroom in the Bronx. At the start, I went from Goose, the ever changing place next to Saragas and Some Guys/Baz to Mamouns, Vanessa's and corner pizza. Much cheaper and aside from Goose which I still miss like a person, better too. I upgraded my life, my city and my horizon for less money. It was great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Hahahahaha $500/month rent in NYC ahahahah
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:57
|
|
