Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

From lottery winners to inheritors of great fortune. I honestly believe becoming rich is pure luck. Read all the bios of great movie actors, singers, billionairs.

All of these people have that one luck factor that got them where they are now.

Then you have people who worked hard all their lives and never amounted to sh^t.

Who agrees

It's very much a case to case basis.

You can't really compare the heir to a billion dollar fortune to the entrepreneur who worked twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for ten years to create his multimillion dollar franchise.

Originally posted by Astner
It's very much a case to case basis.

You can't really compare the heir to a billion dollar fortune to the entrepreneur who worked twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for ten years to create his multimillion dollar franchise.

The vast majority is still luck

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
The vast majority is still luck
I'd argue the contrary. It's just that hardworking millionaires don't blow their money on fast cars and brand clothing, they have kids that do that for them.

There's an element of luck in it always (like, not being born in a particular war torn part of Somalia, for example), but I'd even agree that luck is a very huge factor in most people who are or become extremely wealthy.

It generally goes hand in hand though, you don't usually become rich if you aren't hard working or skilled...

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
The vast majority is still luck It could be both, as Bardock said.

Both is usually the case.

It's neither. Wealth is gained or lost by your ability to perform fellatio on strangers behind pubs.

Hence, the excessive wealth Backfire and I possess.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Both is usually the case.

This. But sound investing with a middle class job for about 30 years can make you a millionaire (or a multi-millionaire if you add a spouse doing the same). A big part of it is planning; though of course parental wealth increases your chances.

Hard work and pure luck are both acceptable answers.

I guess when factoring luck, it's not just scratch-off winnings or inheritance so much as being good at and pursuing a career in a field that society disproportionately rewards. After all, it might be lucky to get a career as a police cadet or a medical student, but even with hard work both career choices do not net millionaires. Luck seems entirely relative. But some guy throwing a football or some suit speculating on goods he possesses only in name may potentially be given more wealth than he can rationally deal with, because of both luck and society's bias towards that field. Even if what they do for society isn't worth the wealth they are being given.

The poll needs an option for "dumb topic"

I agree that we definitely need to get rid off the homosekshu-- oh, sorry, wrong thread.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It's neither. Wealth is gained or lost by your ability to perform fellatio on strangers behind pubs.

Hence, the excessive wealth Backfire and I possess.

Eh, neither of you was that good...

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It's neither. Wealth is gained or lost by your ability to perform fellatio on strangers behind pubs.

Hence, the excessive wealth Backfire and I possess.

Oh, you do it for money? Greedy shit.

It's all about the Money, Money, Money. Actually I think it is a bit of both hard work and luck.

It's also about lying, cheating and stealing. Just ask Madoff, Milken, Lay, etc, etc...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The poll needs an option for "dumb topic"

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t590168.html

There's a rebuttal to your "pure luck" theory (which sets up a false dichotomy anyway, but I'll ignore the flawed premise for the sake of argument). Although, to be fair, that thread is more about becoming wealthy (or at least comfortable...I don't know what your threshold is for "rich", not about starting wealthy, which is indeed a bit more of a product of one's birth and status.

It all starts and ends with hard work. Anyone can be rich. Sometimes luck happens upon a person and they find wealth or are born into it but without hard work that wealth will wane. Living fashionably doesn't necessarily mean one is wealthy. Poor people often live and spend far beyond their means. I believe, their is an ebonics term for that...,ghetto rich. Then there are the rich whom live the status life because it's all they know. Neither ways of life do very much living nor do they garner much influence of greatness.

I think for those who have the chance to go to college in America that the issuse isn't really relevant.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
It all starts and ends with hard work. Anyone can be rich. Sometimes luck happens upon a person and they find wealth or are born into it but without hard work that wealth will wane. Living fashionably doesn't necessarily mean one is wealthy. Poor people often live and spend far beyond their means. I believe, their is an ebonics term for that...,ghetto rich. Then there are the rich whom live the status life because it's all they know. Neither ways of life do very much living nor do they garner much influence of greatness.

That's semantics though. My coffee can be "rich"; that doesn't mean it's economically successful. Furthermore, the correlation between hard work and wealth is very very weak. While some people like Bill Gates are workaholics, you can have people serving you fries working their asses off who will never break even, much less be rich.

Living within your means is a separate issue entirely, since the system doesn't provide adequate means for everyone. It's like, to quote Wong, you place a bottle of hooch in front of a bunch of bums and tell them they all have an "equal chance" to get it.

I think it's about who you know in life rather than either hard work or luck alone. I've just added an option, I guess, but it's an important one.

That's true, who you know is pretty important as well.

Yeah, but that's one level higher. The way you get to know a person can be luck or hard work...I guess.

Well, part of luck is knowing the right people, or working hard to impress them. Or marrying into their family, whatever. I've seen a decent amount of nepotism in places I've worked, even if they're not family-owned businesses.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That's semantics though. My coffee can be "rich"; that doesn't mean it's economically successful. Furthermore, the correlation between hard work and wealth is very very weak. While some people like Bill Gates are workaholics, you can have people serving you fries working their asses off who will never break even, much less be rich.

Living within your means is a separate issue entirely, since the system doesn't provide adequate means for everyone. It's like, to quote Wong, you place a bottle of hooch in front of a bunch of bums and tell them they all have an "equal chance" to get it.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that one can be as rich as they want to be. Yes, semantics is important in this equation. The topic was a question of whether or not wealth comes from luck or hard work. There is a certain amount of luck involved in life but one generally makes their own luck. This comes from one's attitude and efforts. What ever goal you strive towards will become reality in some fashion, if you see it through. If money is what you want out of life, then you will receive money.

I was trying to convey that, even the rich are never rich enough. It's often the tale in life that the poor man lives a more wealthy life than the rich one. The poor envy the rich and the rich often envy the poor...,all without knowing it.

The system, however, does supply adequate means for those willing. Sometimes those who need it the most do get over looked and those that don't really need it at all abuse it. This isn't to say there shouldn't be a system because it's what makes us a community in many senses. The fact that there is a system at all is a great thing to appreciate.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Well, the point I was trying to make is that one can be as rich as they want to be. Yes, semantics is important in this equation. The topic was a question of whether or not wealth comes from luck or hard work. There is a certain amount of luck involved in life but one generally makes their own luck. This comes from one's attitude and efforts. What ever goal you strive towards will become reality in some fashion, if you see it through. If money is what you want out of life, then you will receive money.

Just to clarify: money is out there, agreed. Sufficient money, being money enough for people to live comfortably, is NOT out there, because a large majority of it is over-concentrated in a small minority.



I doubt that any rich truly envy the poor. That's a Hollywood cliche. While you could say "money doesn't necessarily equate happiness", it's a lot easier to deal with your life problems being economically stable than when working two to three jobs and barely making ends meet.



True. We need social support structures. Often, the arguments against said structures cite abuses, but this argument does not extend to other abuse-able things like guns, cars, and chocolate. There needs to be a balance; not too much reliance, and not too much indifference.

However, the problem with American society today (Or one of many) is that the cost of living increases often, and the wages of those needing to make ends meet does not increase at the same level. Meanwhile, the rich are getting much richer, and most feel entitled to their success and they complain when they feel like others expect more of a social responsibility from them. But the fact is that none of them developed and succeeded in a vacuum; they grew up with social structures like schools, hospitals, law enforcement etc., benefited from these pre-existing groups of people who made their lives possible, traveling on roads others paid for, living under lights subsidized by others, wearing clothes others wove and learning things others discovered.

From my POV, everyone has a social responsibility towards each other. Not an accountability so much as a pay-it-forward, which is necessary to keep the system going. The buck doesn't stop on your table and gather dust simply because you found your piece of success.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I doubt that any rich truly envy the poor. That's a Hollywood cliche. While you could say "money doesn't necessarily equate happiness", it's a lot easier to deal with your life problems being economically stable than when working two to three jobs and barely making ends meet.

Turns out this is testable. I'm sure I won't be able to find the study I saw on it, but you can test happiness and economic prosperity. And the results are mostly what you just described. Money CAN and DOES increase happiness up to a certain point. But at another point of wealth, it starts to have an inverse affect. So while it's statistically true that a really rich person is likely to be closer in happiness to someone in abject poverty than, say, a middle class citizen, it's also true that any amount of wealth equates to statistical likelihood of happiness over little or no wealth. The societal moral of the study seemed to be that we should all be aiming for upper middle class, but not filthy rich.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
True. We need social support structures. Often, the arguments against said structures cite abuses, but this argument does not extend to other abuse-able things like guns, cars, and chocolate. There needs to be a balance; not too much reliance, and not too much indifference.

However, the problem with American society today (Or one of many) is that the cost of living increases often, and the wages of those needing to make ends meet does not increase at the same level. Meanwhile, the rich are getting much richer, and most feel entitled to their success and they complain when they feel like others expect more of a social responsibility from them. But the fact is that none of them developed and succeeded in a vacuum; they grew up with social structures like schools, hospitals, law enforcement etc., benefited from these pre-existing groups of people who made their lives possible, traveling on roads others paid for, living under lights subsidized by others, wearing clothes others wove and learning things others discovered.

From my POV, everyone has a social responsibility towards each other. Not an accountability so much as a pay-it-forward, which is necessary to keep the system going. The buck doesn't stop on your table and gather dust simply because you found your piece of success.

You're hitting on much deeper topics here. But I think the responsibility should be institutionalized living wage (or some political equivalent) and an economic system that allows for both considerable economic freedom and a reasonable amount of upward mobility (something the US struggles with among other democratic and capitalist nations). I have no problem with the rich paying higher taxes and such, but I do have a problem mandating responsibility to individuals beyond what is needed to create the aforementioned system.

Those are themselves horrible simplifications. But as mentioned, it's too close to tangents we might not want to explore entirely.

Good points, Digi. And yes, I agree that upper middle class ought to be the goal. For myself, it's not the aspect of being 'filthy rich' that is appealing. Just the stability. That security is so difficult to attain for some, and yet it's the bottom of the hierarchy of needs, you know?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Good points, Digi. And yes, I agree that upper middle class ought to be the goal. For myself, it's not the aspect of being 'filthy rich' that is appealing. Just the stability. That security is so difficult to attain for some, and yet it's the bottom of the hierarchy of needs, you know?

That's what it comes down to, yeah. Like, I'm not living paycheck to paycheck exactly. But I also don't have a cushion if I were to lose my job and be unemployed for even a few months (that might not be entirely true, depending on unemployment funds, but you see my point). I'm still squarely at the level where wealth would buy me stability. And I feel that pressure. It's not overwhelming or oppressive, and I'm a happy guy, but it's there. I'm working on it though.

So yeah. Anyone who tells you money doesn't buy happiness isn't considering all factors. Usually what they mean, if they were to think it through, is "money isn't the sole determiner of happiness, and is often secondary to other factors."

Hard work, because oddly enough I have noticed that I have more money when I work the most and I have less time to spend that same money.

your not rich though

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
your not rich though

That is a common problem.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
your not rich though

Nope, but is because I used to expend a lot of money and I was not working enough.

Now, I am still expending a lot of money, but I work more, though I am looking for a way to save money, which implies reducing my expenses or make more money to save or another source of money.

I am not rich but I live better than before and I can afford a better quality of life because I work more. Though the key will be to save money.

Most of the rich people I know share a common thing, they work a lot and hard some of them work an average of 14 hrs daily, they dont procastinate at all.

I try to follow that example and I can tell you that now I have more than before.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
your not rich though

Your definition of rich is somewhat problematic though. Compared to the entire world, the fact that we're having this conversation over the internet means we're doing pretty well. The OP's definition of owning two houses is also somewhat arbitrary. I'd use this one: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

So as others have mentioned, your premise is a bit of a false dichotomy. For some, it's majority hard work. For others, majority luck. For many, varying amounts of both. Some need more work to get to the same place as others. Some counteract one with the other. There isn't a right answer to this question, because you're asking it in a way that any answer is false for a large percentage of people.

Originally posted by Digi
Compared to the entire world, the fact that we're having this conversation over the internet means we're doing pretty well.

Ah, not really. Over 1/3rd of people have access to the Internet now. Some of them live in poverty that's hard to imagine for you and me. I guess you can always find one person that's worse off, but still, I don't think that argument works anymore.

I agree with your greater point, just a little nit-pick

1/3rd is still a minority.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
From lottery winners to inheritors of great fortune. I honestly believe becoming rich is pure luck. Read all the bios of great movie actors, singers, billionairs.

All of these people have that one luck factor that got them where they are now.

Then you have people who worked hard all their lives and never amounted to sh^t.

Who agrees

My old Man is not pure rich, but, he has a good nest egg.

He owns a property on the beach and he has different investments (stock market, property (land) and superannuation).

He left school at 15 because he's Father died at 10 years old and his Mother died when he was 14.

He worked in the the trucking industry with his brothers, then he turned to the building industry. Power stations as a leading hand, then a site Manager.

After that!!! He worked as a builder.....carpenter, then foreman, then a Manager in different building sites. 30 years ago, he started his own building company. 20 years, there was 100 full time staff.....not sub-contractors. If you don't know what is a sub-contractor, well..............you're a lost cause

Originally posted by BackFire
1/3rd is still a minority.

Yes, but it's not about whether it is a minority or not. It is about whether people that have interne may live in what we could consider real poverty. And they do. There is people in African countries that live in what most people would consider poor conditions that do have Internet now.

Well then obviously they aren't actually living in poverty.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well then obviously they aren't actually living in poverty.

YOU CAN'T EAT THE INTERNET!


I tried.

You can eat the keyboard and mouse, though. Maybe even the whole computer that is allowing you to access the internet.

A significant amount of these people have smartphones, not traditional computers.

Cellphones have basically become as ubiquitous to life in Subsaharan Africa as in the developed world. In fact there are entrepreneurs in countries like Kenya who've made comfortable livings by creating charging stations (some of them are powered by handcranks) for cellphones for people who don't have electricity in their homes.

Yes, this.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, not really. Over 1/3rd of people have access to the Internet now. Some of them live in poverty that's hard to imagine for you and me. I guess you can always find one person that's worse off, but still, I don't think that argument works anymore.

I agree with your greater point, just a little nit-pick

Fair enough. But like you said, a nit-pick. The larger point still stands. I'll retire that particular example to make the point, though...thanks.

Digi is talking about relative poverty, I assume. What is poor in a First-World country is rich in a poor country. Technology is unevenly applied, in the case of internet connection and cell phones, but things like air conditioning, clean water, and safety from people brandishing AKs is scarce. Therefore, it's not a good indicator of relative poverty in itself.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Digi is talking about relative poverty, I assume. What is poor in a First-World country is rich in a poor country. Technology is unevenly applied, in the case of internet connection and cell phones, but things like air conditioning, clean water, and safety from people brandishing AKs is scarce. Therefore, it's not a good indicator of relative poverty in itself.

This.

So like I said, I just need a better example to make my point. The point itself is no less true.

This whole conversation bores me a bit though. Rather than bicker about what causes wealth, why aren't we talking about how we might be able to turn hard work into wealth? A shameless plug for my investing thread, I admit, but at least it represents an effort to escape an economic class via research and work. Like, I've gone into why I think this thread's entire premise is flawed. But even if we could "answer" it...who cares? Does luck or hard work cause wealth? Or what combination of the two? Who the **** cares?! What does that answer get us? A brief cathartic release to our ingrained persecution complex? Or maybe a pick-me-up pat on the back for those who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to make a living? Worthless, either one.

If you think wealth is caused by luck, go out and try to prove yourself wrong. If you think it's hard work, enjoy the fact that you have less competitors because the "luck" crowd is waiting for Jesus to give them a winning lotto ticket. Then go and prove yourself right.

That sums up my true feelings about this thread. My other posts were just acquiescing to the OP's terms of discussion.

Digi, are you rich?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Digi, are you rich?

No, not by most definitions of the word. Why do you ask?

Originally posted by Digi
No, not by most definitions of the word. Why do you ask?

I was reading your post, and that question came to mind.

Digi is loaded. He cleared out my Steam wishlist. Guy is 1337.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Digi is talking about relative poverty, I assume. What is poor in a First-World country is rich in a poor country. Technology is unevenly applied, in the case of internet connection and cell phones, but things like air conditioning, clean water, and safety from people brandishing AKs is scarce. Therefore, it's not a good indicator of relative poverty in itself.

Well, that's sort of what I said as well. At any rate, Digi made a very good point about needing to stay at least within the US to make some decent comparisons (and even then CoL is a huge factor, as his link points out).

Cost of living does change from state to state, and west coast (CA/OR/WA) generally has higher wages and CoL, as does NYC.

I'm not sure why this kind of issue exists, since it's not assumed that people in these areas are innately worth more nor do they work harder/better, but this is why I am not a bureaucrat.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was reading your post, and that question came to mind.

Ah, fair enough. I'd probably be considered lower middle class based on most accounts, and in others I might sneak into "middle middle." But I live within my means, and have some recently-expanded investment plans that I hope push me a bit north of where I'm at right now, even if the next few years carry with them the specter of some large purchases and costs that I'll need to pay (new car, grad. degree, etc.)

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Digi is loaded. He cleared out my Steam wishlist. Guy is 1337.

http://gaben.tv/

Originally posted by Digi
Ah, fair enough. I'd probably be considered lower middle class based on most accounts, and in others I might sneak into "middle middle." But I live within my means, and have some recently-expanded ... that I hope push me a bit north of where I'm at right now, even if the next few years carry with them the specter of some large purchases and costs that I'll need to pay (new car, grad. degree, etc.)...

Cool. I am currently middle to upper middle class, but I started out life at the bottom. My family was poor, poor. I didn't make my money because of luck or hard work (my father worked much harder then I do). What made the difference for me was education.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Cool. I am currently middle to upper middle class, but I started out life at the bottom. My family was poor, poor. I didn't make my money because of luck or hard work (my father worked much harder then I do). What made the difference for me was education.

A form of hard work, one might argue. But

Originally posted by Digi
A form of hard work, one might argue. But

Yah, I see that.

Originally posted by Digi

http://gaben.tv/

http://www.maximumpc.com/files/steam_deals_photo.png

Originally posted by Bardock42
There's an element of luck in it always (like, not being born in a particular war torn part of Somalia, for example), but I'd even agree that luck is a very huge factor in most people who are or become extremely wealthy.

It generally goes hand in hand though, you don't usually become rich if you aren't hard working or skilled... i agree. especially if we're talking going from poor/average to real rich and not just moderately well-off. you have to take advantage of certain unique opportunities for that to happen, which requires you being presented with them. that doesn't mean being presented with them is enough. you still have to be skilled and ambitious. but if you have the same skill and ambition without the same opportunities you are not to expect the same results.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://www.maximumpc.com/files/steam_deals_photo.png True true.

Out of a job at the moment and I still can't.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://www.maximumpc.com/files/steam_deals_photo.png

Even I have fallen victim to steam.

I alone remain untainted.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://www.maximumpc.com/files/steam_deals_photo.png

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I alone remain untainted.

You mean unblessed? Ye, verily, Lord Newell will lift us up at the reckoning, and his chosen people will be saved! Woe to the unbelievers! They thirst for salvation, yet know it not!

Wait, was there another Steam sale I didn't know about!?

We need a Steam rehab group here.

Of course, it would just allow us to better tempt one another into buying games. "Dude, just get it. It's 77.5% off. It will never be this cheap ever. Even if you can't fit it on your harddrive right now, maybe in the future you will find time!"

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
We need a Steam rehab group here.

Of course, it would just allow us to better tempt one another into buying games. "Dude, just get it. It's 77.5% off. It will never be this cheap ever. Even if you can't fit it on your harddrive right now, maybe in the future you will find time!"
Gaben bless you.

I'm so lucky I have a Mac. The lack of an excessive Steam library saves me so much money. Obviously another reason why Mac is superior.

I own about 75 games on Steam. Pretty sure I've played no more than seven of them.

Originally posted by BackFire
I own about 75 games on Steam. Pretty sure I've played no more than seven of them. I have 171.

May have a problem.

I have 117. 79 of those Mac games (and that doesn't include the Humble Bundles I haven't redeemed yet)

I'm so happy this turned into a Steam confessional.

I'm actually doing better than most of you. I haven't counted my games, but it's well under triple digits. Still, I'd be surprised if I've played more than about 15% of them.

I have ~50 and I played and finished most of them. I'm so proud of myself.

151 here, but over 2k screenies. I love that feature.

I have 20.

You guys need help.

I'm at about 35. But I kept a LOT of my old computer games from the last 15 years or so, so I have ~100 available to me via non-Steam channels. If I hadn't kept most of those, I would have nostalgia-bought so much more stuff on Steam. As it is, most of the 35 are nostalgia-driven bundles.

But I've been slowly weaning myself off video games. Didn't go cold turkey, but I've been dropping franchises and such systematically over the last few years. So I may be out of the rat race soon. Like, this past month I've spent more time "playing" stock market investment simulators than actual games. Shifting priorities and interests. I just have to avoid Steam during the massive sales and I'm good.

Quitters never win, sir. Gaben needs j00.