
What the Rich Won't Tell You - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront
======
vparikh
The problem that these people are experiencing is that they are in a very
special privileged position (weather through their own work or through
inheritance), yet they realize that most people they will interact with will
never attain their status.

It is not about hard work, or "bootstrapping" yourself. Its all about the
luck. And they have been lucky. They are reaping the benefits of their luck at
a disproportionate rate then the these other people. And they aren't doing
anything about it.

It is ridiculous that people who make $250K or more a year (and I don't care
where you live) think that they are "middle class". Bullshit. You are wealthy.
Most other people are not. The quicker you admit to it - the more the economic
disparity becomes obvious and something has to be done about it.

In Inequality for All—a 2013 documentary with Robert Reich in which he argued
that income inequality is the defining issue for the United States—Reich
states that 95% of economic gains went to the top 1% net worth (HNWI) since
2009 when the recovery allegedly started.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_for_All](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_for_All))

By continuing to state that they are 'normal' or 'middle class' or 'frugal' \-
they are really trying to convince themselves that they are not the on the
"taking" part of society.

~~~
nunez
> It is ridiculous that people who make $250K or more a year (and I don't care
> where you live) think that they are "middle class". Bullshit. You are
> wealthy.

If you are making $250k/year through a job, and you depend on that money for
daily life, you are not wealthy. You are a high-income earner. You can kind-of
put your kids through private school and maybe even get a rent-a-maid more
often than lower-earning folks, but if your yearly spend is close to
$250k/year, you're not wealthy.

If you are making $25M/year through a job, and you depend on that money for
daily life, you are _still_ not wealthy. You'll be classified as an ultra high
net worth individual by banks and money managers and qualify for a lot of cool
rich people shit. You'll probably trade American or Delta for NetJets or Delta
Private Planes (a benchmark a lot of folks in this article used as "elite
snobbery," which it really isn't in many cases), or you'll make the mistake of
buying your own jet, but if your yearly spend is >$25M/year, you're not
wealthy.

Why? If you lose your job in both cases, you are _screwed_.

Wealthy is never having to work for your money because your money works for
you. Having a high-income helps towards _getting to_ wealthy, but you can also
just buy more expensive shit with that income and just stay high-income.

The way I see it: you're wealthy when you can do, wear or say nearly whatever
the fuck you want and not worry about your money/lifestyle going away.

~~~
uoaei
>If you are making {$25M|$250k}/year through a job, and you depend on that
money for daily life

Here's the thing: the second half of this snippet doesn't make any sense. No
one _needs_ that much money to get along with their life. Living frugal is
precisely that: requiring much less expenditure than you make. It's entirely
possible to live on $40k in expenses per year. Many, _many_ people do that
every day with $40k or even lower.

How can one _depend_ on so much expenditure? There's no reason. That amount of
money minus absolutely vital expenses calculated according to minimum market
rates for healthcare, housing, and food will always be more than enough to
retire on very early if saved wisely.

If you set yourself up to be screwed even after making that much money, you're
making very poor decisions.

~~~
nunez
_You_ don't need that much money per year, but I'd be very happy with that
level of income (and I'm getting closer)!

------
Mz
What judgy bullshit. How about: Very rich people who have any brains
whatsoever realize that they are still human and their kids can be kidnapped
for ransom money or they can be robbed or otherwise targeted.

Like, you know, basic survival instinct kicks in at some point and you realize
downplaying it is the only way you can walk down the street without a big fat
target on your forehead.

The entire article has a subtext of "We should talk more about these things so
we can take away their extreme privilege." The entire thing is openly hostile
to their very existence.

Gee, I wonder why millionaires would go "Why, no, we aren't _rich_. We are
just, you know, _comfortable_." when talking to someone who openly wants the
rich to cease to exist somehow.

~~~
pdimitar
I agree. I don't see the point of the article -- it basically says "we should
discuss the rich some more" and nothing much else; I can't find any
constructive or productive conclusion in the article.

And I strongly disagree with the premise that the rich want to BS themselves
via euphemisms or hiding their income and thus they'll remove some imaginary
stain. I am sure _some_ of them do that, but what the author misses is that
many people who worked hard and/or inherited a ton of money aren't scumbags
and are actually down-to-earth. And as you pointed out, they also don't want
to paint a target on themselves. I don't want people knocking on my door
begging for money (relatives I haven't seen in 15+ years already do that, damn
it), or having an increased advertisement exposure (gods, please no!), or
having people trying to hack my website, invoicing system or whatever. I am
much better off living with my loved people and my money and chilling and
enjoying life instead of constantly working to tighten security from every
direction I am likely to be attacked from. No, thanks!

I have been gradually improving my financial life by working hard and picking
my battles and now that I can freely order two copies of the so-called iPhone
X (or Pro, we still don't know the moniker) without feeling much pressure... I
honestly am much more judgemental on how do I spent money.

The fact that you have money and you worked for them to me automatically means
you learn the value of money and don't want to just throw them in a black
hole.

 _(For what it 's worth though, I wouldn't feel guilty in front of a house-
maid... I'd either raise her wage by 50% or so and in doing so would make sure
that person remains loyal to me as long as she wants that kind of career for
herself... or I would discuss it once with my wife, we'd conclude we shouldn't
increase wages based on vague guilt feelings, and be done with that topic
forever.)_

------
mrguyorama
And yet, everyone knows it's those darn millennials with their avocado toast
that are the "problem"

Why doesn't Beatrice just pay her housekeeper more? Then instead of shame, she
could feel pride in helping bring up the world around her. Her shame is
evidence that she can afford it and "knows" she could improve the life of
another individual.

Also what benefit does the $6 bread confer? While I'm not sure I agree that $6
is "obscene" for bread (mine costs $3.50 or thereabouts), I don't understand
how you can buy something without heavily justifying its cost.

~~~
aaron695
RE: $6 bread.

Cheap bread is an issue with the poor. It's increadiably unhealthy.

But it tastes great, is cheap and keeps kids happy but doesn't have the
stigmata of lets say ice cream which is as bad.

I think if you are paying $3.50 you probably are having healther bread. $6 as
well.

You 'could' produce cheap healther bread in bulk, but we are not. So expensive
is healthy can be a good proxy on diet.

~~~
sowbug
You likely meant to use the word "stigma." Stigmata means something different.

~~~
wyldfire
I dunno, ice cream stigmata does sound pretty bad to me. Though, on second
thought it seems like it wouldn't be as bad as regular stigmata.

------
Eridrus
I feel like the best thing we could do for everyone living in these expensive
cities is to improve public transit and remove zoning restrictions.

Getting all the rich people to give up their nice houses is not going to have
a meaningful impact on prices for most of us.

When I think of the alternatives I think of Soviet Russia, where if you
weren't born in Moscow good luck moving there because (besides needing a
permit) there was a years long waiting list for apartments. Which is
essentially what you get when there is limited supply and no way of resolving
competition: everyone just gets put on the waiting list. Which is what we see
happening with subsidized housing programs in all major US cities, they exist,
but there's a years long waiting list.

~~~
crdoconnor
After the war the government built housing projects in NYC. Would it really be
that hard to do that again?

~~~
Eridrus
I think the verdict on housing projects, in the sense of high rises dedicated
to housing poor people, is a bit mixed, which is why many low income housing
authorities have subsidized housing instead.

If you're just talking about the government building houses and then acting as
a landlord, then that may have less downsides, but still has all the issues of
any government provided service not being very responsive to people's needs.

Personally I like the system that Singapore has where most property is owned
by the government and then leased to private entities, often for 99 years. It
means that the entity capturing the value of land in the long term is the
state, but still lets development get done by private entities.

But in terms of what is realizable, it seems more likely that we could relax
zoning than have NYC all of a sudden find the money to build lots of housing
and successfully execute on that project and not make it a hideous brutalist
disaster where people don't want to live in and continue to maintain that
property well. Maybe you are more of an optimist about government than I am,
but IME everything where the government actually has to do something, it's
done poorly. Not that private development is perfect, but there at least there
is some form of feedback from a well regulated market.

~~~
crdoconnor
>Personally I like the system that Singapore has where most property is owned
by the government and then leased to private entities

>But in terms of what is realizable, it seems more likely that we could relax
zoning than have NYC all of a sudden find the money to build lots of housing
and successfully execute on that project and not make it a hideous brutalist
disaster where people don't want to live in and continue to maintain that
property well. Maybe you are more of an optimist about government than I am,
but IME everything where the government actually has to do something, it's
done poorly.

In Singapore most property is built by the government and it's of a high
quality. It can be done well, it simply requires a political imperative.

The private sector reacts to this by building higher quality housing because
the government sets a floor on quality. Maybe you are more of an optimist
about the private sector than I am but I've lived in shitty private apartments
in Europe and decent government housing in Singapore. If the private sector
doesn't have discipline imposed upon it, you get slumlords.

Anyway, plenty of the government housing projects in NYC are nice.

------
Nomentatus
I've dropped this comment elsewhere here today, already, but:

All the more reason to enable people to signal their wealth (sexual fitness)
and raise taxes at the same time - by repurposing "Sumptuary Laws." For
example: If you want a car that's white, yellow or blue, no extra tax. If you
want a red car that's a significant tax. If you want a purple car, that's a
really big tax. Note that, with Sumptuary Taxes, you don’t have to be wasteful
or conspicuously consume, or pour a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere
in order to signal your wealth - the red paint and purple paint don’t cost
much more than blue or grey. So this is also a very green proposal.

With Sumptuary Taxes you can show people you're rich and they're not and help
the commonweal at the same time: showing that you're one of the responsible,
caring rich.

(Sumptuary – related to the word sumptuous, of course.)

Sumtuary Laws were tried in England in the Fourteenth Century, but for almost
the reverse purpose – merely to prevent poor people from wearing clothes that
resembled the clothes rich people wore. This didn’t raise any revenue and was
intended to save rich people money while increasing social barriers. The laws
weren’t very successful and they didn’t last long.

~~~
Trundle
I've thought for a while now that charities should do something similar and
get in on the wealth signalling market. Not so much cars but I think fashion
would be a great industry for them to take on. Instead of dropping $200 on a
shirt and feeling guilty, the rich person gets to drop $200 on a shirt and
feel good about it.

~~~
milkytron
The only problem I see with this is so-called "charities" charging $200 for a
shirt and claiming an obscured donation to charity. The person buying the
shirt can feel good about it, and the company selling the shirt can donate $1
and still keep their promise that they made a donation.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think with the current economy and business
practices going on that I have a right to be.

------
iamcasen
I think this phenomenon perpetuates false beliefs along the entire economic
spectrum as well. I grew up middle class, and myself and my friends always
considered movie stars as the richest people around!

When in reality, movie stars have nickels compared to executives, and old-
money families. Many folks just can't comprehend the difference between 5
million dollars in assets, to 500 million dollars.

Which begs the question: at what dollar amount does wealth become obscene and
unnecessary? It's a moving target, but if I had to throw a dart I would
probably pick 100 million as being the upper limit for wealth for an
individual. There is just no reason to have more than that.

~~~
cjlars
I don't think there's a threshhold. Take Bill Gates for example. He's done a
lot of good in his life. He built a huge company that transformed personal
computing, employed an army of people and then put billions of dollars into
poverty mediation programs that the world's governments didn't seem to be able
to handle. Along the way, he also payed billions in taxes. Without old Bill,
the world is many billions of dollars poorer.

I think there's a lot of value in letting people that are 10,000x better than
the average person at creating wealth do so. Maybe there should be something
to limit the excesses of luxurious consumption (I for one, favor a progressive
VAT), but I think trying to impose punitively high tax rates on very
successful people makes society worse off in most cases.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Bill did not build a company alone. He built it off the backs of employees.
His earnings are so substantial that it is fundamentally impossible for him to
earn it off of his own two hands and intelligence alone. No one man has enough
intelligence or physical ability to generate a billion dollars. Can one man
create the windows operating system? Can one man construct a boeing 747? If no
one man can construct a boeing 747 than how can their exist people who have
wealth greater than the worth of a passenger airliner? There is only one
explanation. This wealth was earned unfairly.

What Bill and all other billionaires do is utilize the labor of other people.
Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple are all group efforts where humanity
pools their collective power together to construct something greater than one
man can produce. The issue here is that, the leaders of these groups get
rewards that are disproportionate. There is no way one human can contribute
labor worth 50 billion dollars to the world. It it physically impossible. The
taxes that Bill paid is wealth generated by the employees, not Bill.

~~~
slededit
Bill was able to organize the labor of people into something more productive
than the sum of its parts. That is a relatively rare skill. Luck comes into
it, and we can debate how much of a factor time, place, family networks, etc
played into it. But regardless there were incumbents that were much more
likely to succeed than him at the start.

IBM had the biggest advantage here. Snatching defeat from the jaws of certain
victory is one of the largest blunders in modern business.

Gary Kildall failed to land a suitable deal with IBM, and would have been the
next in line to be Bill Gates. Even if he did make the deal his personality
made it unlikely he'd structure the deal as BillG did which enabled the clone
market.

Or Seattle Computer Products that owned the actual DOS BillG used.

Ultimately it was BillG that executed the vision and did so relentlessly for
multiple decades. Not many other executives were sleeping under their desks at
the time. This was particularly what impressed IBM enough to take a chance on
them. Their work ethic as a company was well noted in the industry. BillG set
that example from the top.

~~~
gertef
Bill G used a mixture of cuthroat and illegal activities to crush competition
and create a monopoly. In his absence, we may well hve had a thriving
ecosystem of compatible adn far more secure technology. Or some other
cutthrouat like Steve Jobs would have won. Just because the game is winner-
take-all doesn't mean the winner did nearly all the valuable work.

~~~
slededit
That was true in the 90s with netscape. Less so during the 80s when his
position was being cemented. He even sent IBM over to Gary Kildall initially.
It was only after that meeting failed that he went out and bought QDOS.

The point is that Microsoft wasn't always a monopoly. It took skill to get
there, and there were opponents that started with much better hands.

------
pascalxus
Some people don't understand that 250K a year is not rich in or near expensive
cities. If you live in the bay area and your mid/end career, 250K/houshold a
year is barely middle-class. And if you live in palo alto, 250K for a
household, you're almost eligible for low-income housing assistance. Perhaps
at 1 to 2 million per year or more, you can call it rich.

~~~
erentz
"...and inherited wealth of several million dollars..."

It's this part that definitely makes her rich.

~~~
fatjokes
+1. The key thing is that this takes a lot of stress off of her shoulders.
That 250k annual income is now spending money. She can spend it all and not
worry about savings. I make more than that but can't spend most of it because
I have to think about the future---buying a house, kids, rainy-day fund, etc.

------
fatjokes
> ... “with big price tags on them” that “have to be removed, or Sharpied
> over, so the housekeepers and staff don’t see them.”

This is silly? The staff already knows you're wealthy. How? You're paying
their paychecks.

EDIT: I kept reading. "Instead, such moves help wealthy people manage their
discomfort with inequality".

------
sjg007
I think the key here is "finance". Granted this is the New York times focusing
on New Yorkers.. but clearly the name of the gain is still finance.

------
nunez
I'm much more interested in learning about what they thought their lives would
have been like after becoming wealthy _before_ they became wealthy.

I'm interested in seeing how windfalls change people.

------
ttonkytonk
It's not that there shouldn't be rich people, the question is how many and by
how much. Obviously on some level we have finite resources.

Maybe it's crazy, but I had this idea that perhaps some reasonable limit could
be determined mathematically, say, the income of a given top ratio should not
exceed the income of the same bottom ratio by the square root of said ratio
(e.g. the top 10% should not make more than 3.16 times more than the bottom
10%).

~~~
cargo8
Fiat money is just a concept made up by governments, so no – the resource is
not finite, and I think that's the crucial point in lots of these
conversations. Innovators create and deliver value to large populations of
people and are rewarded for it economically – this is supposed to be fair, and
arguably is "the american dream" because the premise is that they are being
"fairly" compensated for the overall value they've delivered to society at
large.

The closer you get to individual transactions as examples, the easier it is to
ignore that it's not a zero-sum game. I think we all agree we're probably
paying too much for an individual iPhone X or whatever, but few disagree that
the creators of these devices deserve at least the amount of wealth that their
creations "gave back" to society through value, convenience, efficiency, and
so forth on a society-level scale.

------
crimsonalucard
Perhaps they are uncomfortable because subconsciously they know that they
don't deserve their wealth. The discomfort stems from another root emotion...
guilt.

~~~
sidlls
I don't think they subconsciously believe they don't deserve their wealth. I
think some may subconsciously feel guilty because they don't do more to help
with their wealth.

~~~
crimsonalucard
[https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocr...](https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming)

Here's a guy that consciously believes he doesn't deserve his wealth.

