Being rich is not about hard work. Its about pure luck

Started by jinXed by JaNx5 pages

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 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.

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.

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.

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.