Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half' Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    I'll reiterate and simplify it since it didn't get through the first time. To get rich you either:

    Help lots of people in return for small payments
    Help a few people in return for high payments
    If you actually believe that you are deluded beyond help.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    If you actually believe that you are deluded beyond help.
    Ah, the typical response from people that don't know any better. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of accepting what is effectively facts.

    If I make an OS and sell it to millions for £100 then I'll be rich (Bill Gates)
    If I make a website that fulfills a niche, charge £4 and millions use it I'll be rich (Derek Sivers)
    If I offer a course for £50,000 and sell it to 200 people then I'll be rich (employed by lots of successful entrepreneurs)

    If I work as a bin man for minimum wage, help a few hundred people by taking their bins but ultimately am only helping my boss then I won't get rich. You are neither helping lots of people nor are you providing high value.

    Of course it's not just that, there are other important factors. But you will never get rich unless you either help loads of people and provide small value or help few people and provide large value. You can call me delusional all you like, it's a simple fact. But since you seem to think you know better do feel free to actually provide an argument rather than calling me names. Since you disagree, you must think it's possible for a small business that provides little value to somehow make millions? That's the opposite of what I'm saying. If you believe that then clearly you are the delusional one. Of course I can't blame you, most people don't think like this, hence why most people aren't rich.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Ah, the typical response from people that don't know any better. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of accepting what is effectively facts.

    If I make an OS and sell it to millions for £100 then I'll be rich (Bill Gates)
    If I make a website that fulfills a niche, charge £4 and millions use it I'll be rich (Derek Sivers)
    If I offer a course for £50,000 and sell it to 200 people then I'll be rich (employed by lots of successful entrepreneurs)

    If I work as a bin man for minimum wage, help a few hundred people by taking their bins but ultimately am only helping my boss then I won't get rich. You are neither helping lots of people nor are you providing high value.

    Of course it's not just that, there are other important factors. But you will never get rich unless you either help loads of people and provide small value or help few people and provide large value. You can call me delusional all you like, it's a simple fact. But since you seem to think you know better do feel free to actually provide an argument rather than calling me names. Since you disagree, you must think it's possible for a small business that provides little value to somehow make millions? That's the opposite of what I'm saying. If you believe that then clearly you are the delusional one. Of course I can't blame you, most people don't think like this, hence why most people aren't rich.
    I would say that LUCK is the defining factor to getting rich. It's not necessarily the case that most people don't think like rich people and that's why they don't get rich. A lot of people could work extremely hard and follow your method above without producing outstanding results. You need a lot of luck on your side to truly succeed in life.

    I know you say that there's other factors involved, but it's always worth mentioning the fact that there are lots of extremely rich people who were born into wealth and have inherited vast fortunes and business empires as a result (hello Donald Trump!) This is an important point that shouldn't be glossed over.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    I would say that LUCK is the defining factor to getting rich. It's not necessarily the case that most people don't think like rich people and that's why they don't get rich. A lot of people could work extremely hard and follow your method above without producing outstanding results. You need a lot of luck on your side to truly succeed in life.

    I know you say that there's other factors involved, but it's always worth mentioning the fact that there are lots of extremely rich people who were born into wealth and have inherited vast fortunes and business empires as a result (hello Donald Trump!) This is an important point that shouldn't be glossed over.
    Luck is not the defining factor at all. Luck is only relevant in cases such as winning the lottery or inheriting the money, both of which I ignored since the premise was originally about people who are earning millions. Most people do not think like the rich though. That is also coupled with the fact that most people are not willing to do what it takes to get rich. Most people are happy living out their life working 40 hour weeks for a comfortable life. They are not willing to work 100 hour weeks for a few years, making hard sacrifices and possibly failing several times. Most don't know how to get rich and the few that do are not usually not willing to try because it's hard. Hence why so few people get rich. I'm sure if you asked everyone in this thread the majority wouldn't have a detailed plan for getting rich and those that did probably wouldn't be able to follow through with it. The ones that could answer that are not here wasting their time. They're out there actually accomplishing their goals. I also don't discount myself there, I don't have a totally concrete plan in place because like I said, it's not easy.

    Successful people are not defined by the luck. Bill Gates didn't get rich because he got lucky. Mark Zuckerberg didn't get lucky with Facebook. People get rich because they can manipulate "luck". If someone relies on luck to get rich, it suggests there is nothing they can do to change the outcome. What actually happens is the people who are going to be successful look for ways to increase their chances. To say that luck is a defining factor is to completely gloss over all the hard work put in. Saying it was all down to luck is like saying "It doesn't matter than you worked really hard, you just got lucky".

    If you are not producing results then you are not following the method. Simple as that. If you are trying to sell a £10 product to a million people but only selling it to 50 then you aren't following the method. It's not an issue with the method, it's an issue with the work being put in to follow it. I can put thousands of hours into building the best product and sell it for £10. If I don't put effort into marketing, or do my marketing wrong, or whatever which results in nobody wanting to buy then I've messed up. The method is not at fault, I'm at fault for not executing it properly.

    If you are relying purely on luck then I can guarantee you won't succeed. What most people see as luck is usually a series of events that led up to success. X got lucky by meeting Y at some prestigious university and starting a company? But the reason they were at said university is because they worked hard. Sure it might have been luck that they met that specific person but then they improved those odds by working hard, getting into a good uni where they'd meet like minded people, taking a class where they'd find people with similar interests and so on. It looks like luck to an outsider but is actually a series of choices that improve their odds. Of course luck can play a part but it is not the defining reason and when it does come into play it is often the result of other choices.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Why shouldn't entrepreneurs make lots of money if people pay lots of money for their products?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diego Costa)
    Why shouldn't entrepreneurs make lots of money if people pay lots of money for their products?
    No reason.

    Do you not also think that they should pay taxes like everyone else? Currently the richest ones do not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Ah, the typical response from people that don't know any better. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of accepting what is effectively facts.

    If I make an OS and sell it to millions for £100 then I'll be rich (Bill Gates)
    If I make a website that fulfills a niche, charge £4 and millions use it I'll be rich (Derek Sivers)
    If I offer a course for £50,000 and sell it to 200 people then I'll be rich (employed by lots of successful entrepreneurs)

    If I work as a bin man for minimum wage, help a few hundred people by taking their bins but ultimately am only helping my boss then I won't get rich. You are neither helping lots of people nor are you providing high value.

    Of course it's not just that, there are other important factors. But you will never get rich unless you either help loads of people and provide small value or help few people and provide large value. You can call me delusional all you like, it's a simple fact. But since you seem to think you know better do feel free to actually provide an argument rather than calling me names. Since you disagree, you must think it's possible for a small business that provides little value to somehow make millions? That's the opposite of what I'm saying. If you believe that then clearly you are the delusional one. Of course I can't blame you, most people don't think like this, hence why most people aren't rich.
    The binmen have something that they don't always realise they have - the power to withdraw their labour and then allow society to discover how much it really values their services. When you are surrounded by mountains of rubbish and scurrying rats, please come back to tell us how lacking in value their work really is.

    This hidden social value of much useful work is systematically hidden, exploited and abused in a capitalist system.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Tax tf out of the rich redistribute the wealth
    Bowerychip1995
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Luck is not the defining factor at all. Luck is only relevant in cases such as winning the lottery or inheriting the money, both of which I ignored since the premise was originally about people who are earning millions. Most people do not think like the rich though. That is also coupled with the fact that most people are not willing to do what it takes to get rich. Most people are happy living out their life working 40 hour weeks for a comfortable life. They are not willing to work 100 hour weeks for a few years, making hard sacrifices and possibly failing several times. Most don't know how to get rich and the few that do are not usually not willing to try because it's hard. Hence why so few people get rich. I'm sure if you asked everyone in this thread the majority wouldn't have a detailed plan for getting rich and those that did probably wouldn't be able to follow through with it. The ones that could answer that are not here wasting their time. They're out there actually accomplishing their goals. I also don't discount myself there, I don't have a totally concrete plan in place because like I said, it's not easy.

    Successful people are not defined by the luck. Bill Gates didn't get rich because he got lucky. Mark Zuckerberg didn't get lucky with Facebook. People get rich because they can manipulate "luck". If someone relies on luck to get rich, it suggests there is nothing they can do to change the outcome. What actually happens is the people who are going to be successful look for ways to increase their chances. To say that luck is a defining factor is to completely gloss over all the hard work put in. Saying it was all down to luck is like saying "It doesn't matter than you worked really hard, you just got lucky".

    If you are not producing results then you are not following the method. Simple as that. If you are trying to sell a £10 product to a million people but only selling it to 50 then you aren't following the method. It's not an issue with the method, it's an issue with the work being put in to follow it. I can put thousands of hours into building the best product and sell it for £10. If I don't put effort into marketing, or do my marketing wrong, or whatever which results in nobody wanting to buy then I've messed up. The method is not at fault, I'm at fault for not executing it properly.

    If you are relying purely on luck then I can guarantee you won't succeed. What most people see as luck is usually a series of events that led up to success. X got lucky by meeting Y at some prestigious university and starting a company? But the reason they were at said university is because they worked hard. Sure it might have been luck that they met that specific person but then they improved those odds by working hard, getting into a good uni where they'd meet like minded people, taking a class where they'd find people with similar interests and so on. It looks like luck to an outsider but is actually a series of choices that improve their odds. Of course luck can play a part but it is not the defining reason and when it does come into play it is often the result of other choices.
    While hard work, perseverance and a detailed work plan should get you far in life, I am a bit sceptical about this idea that if you work to get rich then you WILL become rich. I think that's too simplistic a life view. 100 hour weeks and living and breathing the 'get rich' mentality will not necessarily get you what you crave. You may end up feeling even more of a failure if you don't succeed because you've put absolutely every fibre of your existence into the idea of BEING a success.

    I was too quick to make the claim that luck is THE defining factor in success. It's a significant factor, but there are numerous other important factors to becoming wealthy. Hard work, intelligence, drive, determination, consistency, but also passion, inspiration and imagination. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg didn't necessarily follow their career paths to get rich, their innovative ideas and creations got them where they are today. Same with J. K. Rowling, who came up with one idea that captured the attention of billions of readers all over the world. Luck was on her side, however, because while she may have believed in her idea there was nothing to suggest that the rest of the world would feel the same way.

    One can create and adhere to a detailed 'get rich' work plan as carefully and obsessively as possible, but if one is lacking in innovation and creativity they could end up getting nowhere...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The binmen have something that they don't always realise they have - the power to withdraw their labour and then allow society to discover how much it really values their services. When you are surrounded by mountains of rubbish and scurrying rats, please come back to tell us how lacking in value their work really is.

    This hidden social value of much useful work is systematically hidden, exploited and abused in a capitalist system.
    Do they though? Unless you are working as a binman because you enjoy the job, odds are it's a job for the sake of a job. Would they really risk quitting? Do binmen really come from the sort of background where they can jack in a job because they don't care?

    Once again this also assumes all binmen as a collective, not as individuals. One binman quitting has no power or value. It has no impact on their service and is not comparable to one successful entrepreneur. Yeah, collectively they are an important service but as individuals they are not valuable.

    And of course there's another false premise. You're assuming that if for some reason every binman in existence quit that everyone would just sit on their laurels and do nothing.

    And on top of that if a binman does quit that doesn't mean they'll get rich. Collectively they may have a small amount of leverage but using it will not result in anything close to what an entreprenur with leverage would accomplish.

    I really don't see why it's so difficult for people to understand. One (1, eins, un, uno, etc) binman does not provide the value that one entrepreneur provides. To get anywhere near the same value you need lots of binmen affecting lots of people. I really don't get why this is such a difficult concept to understand.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Do they though? Unless you are working as a binman because you enjoy the job, odds are it's a job for the sake of a job. Would they really risk quitting? Do binmen really come from the sort of background where they can jack in a job because they don't care?

    Once again this also assumes all binmen as a collective, not as individuals. One binman quitting has no power or value. It has no impact on their service and is not comparable to one successful entrepreneur. Yeah, collectively they are an important service but as individuals they are not valuable.

    And of course there's another false premise. You're assuming that if for some reason every binman in existence quit that everyone would just sit on their laurels and do nothing.

    And on top of that if a binman does quit that doesn't mean they'll get rich. Collectively they may have a small amount of leverage but using it will not result in anything close to what an entreprenur with leverage would accomplish.

    I really don't see why it's so difficult for people to understand. One (1, eins, un, uno, etc) binman does not provide the value that one entrepreneur provides. To get anywhere near the same value you need lots of binmen affecting lots of people. I really don't get why this is such a difficult concept to understand.
    You are not comparing like with like. Most entrepreneurs do not create earth-shattering change or invent entirely new and revolutionary products. In fact, what many of them do is channel existing social advantage (privileged education, access to specialist knowledge, insider information, etc) into the routes that capitalism provides for its more privileged members. Yes, most binmen do not radically alter the refuse picture but then again, most entrepreneurs don't invent anything new or change anything, they simply farm profits in what for them is a fairly easy manner.

    In a class society, like the ones we all have right now, prior advantage is everything.

    Even that would be acceptable but at the upper level, the adamant refusal to accept obligation to the society they have hugely benefited from marks out most of the super rich as nothing but parasites and abusers rather than net creators of public benefit.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    While hard work, perseverance and a detailed work plan should get you far in life, I am a bit sceptical about this idea that if you work to get rich then you WILL become rich. I think that's too simplistic a life view. 100 hour weeks and living and breathing the 'get rich' mentality will not necessarily get you what you crave. You may end up feeling even more of a failure if you don't succeed because you've put absolutely every fibre of your being into the idea of being a success.

    I was too quick to make the claim that luck is THE defining factor in success. It's a significant factor, but there are numerous other important factors to becoming wealthy. Hard work, intelligence, drive, determination, consistency but also passion, inspiration and imagination. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg didn't necessarily follow their career paths to get rich, their innovative ideas and creations got them where they are today. Same with J. K. Rowling who came up with one idea that captured the attention of billions of readers all over the world. Luck was on their sides, however, because while they may have believed in their ideas there was nothing to suggest that the rest of the world would feel the same way.

    One can create and follow a detailed work plan to get rich but if one is lacking in innovation and creativity they will get nowhere...
    I agree with this far more than your previous post, good job. Naturally the entire argument has to be simplified. It's not at all as simple as work hard, get rich. Plenty of people work hard and don't get rich. Plenty of people get rich because they stumble on something easy. There are of course far more factors than just work hard, some of which you've identified in the second half of your post. I simply don't have time or the desire to write an extended post detailing absolutely everything I know and everything that has worked for successful people.

    To make things worse, there's no one track road that leads you there. Everyone has different methods. Some people preach "say no" because it gives you more time to work on the things that matter to you. Others say "take every opportunity" because it is those opportunities that open new doors. Getting rich is a long journey and it is different for everyone. There are lots of things that rich people all have in common, such as working hard, dedication, helping lots of people for small amounts of money or helping fewer people for more money, among many others of course.

    Luck can be a defining factor but it is not strictly a matter of chance. You can say that Rowling got lucky with Harry Potter. But at the same time she worked hard to write the material, was unique and got turned down plenty of times before succeeding. To me that's not luck, that's a matter of perserverence and hard work. A lot of the luck and chance can be eliminated. Did she get lucky that people liked her work? Or did she write work that was good and appealing? Was she lucky to be doing it in an age where digital publishing wasn't prevelant? Or did she see a niche to fill? Luck is often a matter of perspective.

    Your last sentence sums it up pretty well, but unfortunately only applies to a handfull of people. Few people get as far as the plan, let alone the execution. And of course you can be lacking in any number of other things as well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You are not comparing like with like. Most entrepreneurs do not create earth-shattering change or invent entirely new and revolutionary products. In fact, what many of them do is channel existing social advantage (privileged education, access to specialist knowledge, insider information, etc) into the routes that capitalism provides for its more privileged members. Yes, most binmen do not radically alter the refuse picture but then again, most entrepreneurs don't invent anything new or change anything, they simply farm profits in what for them is a fairly easy manner.

    In a class society, like the ones we all have right now, prior advantage is everything.

    Even that would be acceptable but at the upper level, the adamant refusal to accept obligation to the society they have hugely benefited from marks out most of the super rich as nothing but parasites and abusers rather than net creators of public benefit.
    But this was never a comparison of most entrepreneurs to begin with. The original article was about people that have literally changed our lives. Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook are all revolutionary.

    That said, why is does it matter if the product or service is revolutionary? If I take an existing product, make it better and sell it to millions that's still a perfectly valid route to getting rich. I have still helped millions. It's not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Simply find a wheel that can be improved. Being innovative is not a prequiste for getting rich.

    Do you have an actual example of that claim? Because it seems like you are merely condemning the rich because they are rich. It highlights that you don't have a good relationship with money and that this more an issue of people being rich. What exactly are the super rich parasites and abusers of? If millions of people want to buy someone's product that is not parasitic or abusive. That is someone providing a something that lots of people want to buy. That is literally an example of providing for society.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You are not comparing like with like. Most entrepreneurs do not create earth-shattering change or invent entirely new and revolutionary products. In fact, what many of them do is channel existing social advantage (privileged education, access to specialist knowledge, insider information, etc) into the routes that capitalism provides for its more privileged members. Yes, most binmen do not radically alter the refuse picture but then again, most entrepreneurs don't invent anything new or change anything, they simply farm profits in what for them is a fairly easy manner.

    In a class society, like the ones we all have right now, prior advantage is everything.

    Even that would be acceptable but at the upper level, the adamant refusal to accept obligation to the society they have hugely benefited from marks out most of the super rich as nothing but parasites and abusers rather than net creators of public benefit.
    You haven't addressed the point made earlier in the thread.

    Capitalism has been the single greatest means of improving mankind's lot. It has developed technologies that allow us to live longer, healthier, better lives. It isn't perfect, it isn't fair, but it has been a tremendous force for good.

    Wherever you are now, whatever you are doing, is as a result of capitalism. Unless you opt out, join a commune and scratch together a living under some kind of barter system it is inescapable.

    And what drives this system? What has created all this? The profit motive. If you remove it, society stagnates. Look at Communism, look at Cuba. I went there on holiday to a supposed five star hotel when Castro was still alive. You had to wait an hour and a half to eat every evening. Ninety minutes! And the food was disgusting. This on a tropical island with the most wonderful natural ingredients gifted by God. Havana was falling apart. People didn't own property so no-one took care of it. The beautiful old town was crumbling to dust.

    People fought over beach towels, or kept them for days because the laundry couldn't wash them. And that was one of the top hotels, trying to gain valuable foreign currency. What must day to day life have been like for the locals?

    If everyone gets paid the same, if you have a centralised, non entrepreneurial economy, there are food shortages, huge queues in the shops, no technological innovation.

    People create things, work hard, better themselves to make money. No billionaire Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, no computer to read this post on.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)

    Because it seems like you are merely condemning the rich because they are rich. It highlights that you don't have a good relationship with money and that this more an issue of people being rich. What exactly are the super rich parasites and abusers of?
    The rich must become poor because it is unfair that they have more than others.

    That is all it comes to.

    And of course everyone suffers as a consequence.

    It was said earlier, it is just the politics of envy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    The rich must become poor because it is unfair that they have more than others.

    That is all it comes to.

    And of course everyone suffers as a consequence.

    It was said earlier, it is just the politics of envy.
    I'll honestly never understand why people think it is unfair for the rich to be rich. Life isn't fair anyway but the majority of the rich do far more to earn their money than the majority of everyone else. And not just in terms of doing more work.

    I guess it rings true, when someone is angry with you and you've done nothing to upset them it's because they want to be like you.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    I really cannot understand how anybody can even begin to justify this wealth, even if they believe in the delusional fantasy of trickle-down economics. What on earth could a person have possibly done to justify a wealth that is on the same order of magnitude as the combined wealth of half of the human race?
    You appear to consider the beginning, middle, and end of this issue to be who 'deserves' what. I'm afraid that sort of simplistic position could only be taken by someone who really hasn't thought about the matter at all.

    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Wonderful. They are still not worth the same as several hundred million people.
    How can you even type that and not realise how ridiculous it is?

    Never mind how people acquired their property; never mind whether the law allows them to acquire that property; never mind whether it is just to intervene in that state of affairs; never mind who should do so; never mind how they should do so; never mind whether it is to the advantage, and how it is to the advantage, of the population as a whole to do so; never mind the point at which it becomes appropriate to do so.

    You are the arbiter of who is 'worth' what, and that is the end of the matter, right?

    And anyone who doesn't immediately buy into your assessment is a 'robot with mindless faith in the cosmic omnipotence of the free market'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)

    It was said earlier, it is just the politics of envy.
    Oh here we go. "Politics of envy" - the standard war cry of right wing Tories down the ages. Yawn.

    It has **** all to do with envy. I don't even fancy a small yacht, let alone one the size of Belgium. It's to do with FAIRNESS.

    Sorry for the shouting, but really, this old swansong of envy as if you can use the threat of people accepting that they might be envious to distract attention from the massive injustice of our biggest wealth owners and earners paying effectively zero tax rates.

    The real issue is not envy, but why on earth we allow them to get away with it. Part of the answer lies in the deep confusions that posts like yours illustrate - driven no doubt by too much reading of the Daily Mail.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    I'll honestly never understand why people think it is unfair for the rich to be rich..
    I know.

    It is very much the British way, the Americans have a different culture.

    There if someone sees a flash car on the street people think "What a lucky guy! Maybe if I work hard and do well, one day I could have a car like that too!"

    In Britain someone runs their keys all down the paintwork.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Oh here we go. "Politics of envy" - the standard war cry of right wing Tories down the ages. Yawn.

    It has **** all to do with envy. I don't even fancy a small yacht, let alone one the size of Belgium. It's to do with FAIRNESS.

    Sorry for the shouting, but really, this old swansong of envy as if you can use the threat of people accepting that they might be envious to distract attention from the massive injustice of our biggest wealth owners and earners paying effectively zero tax rates.

    The real issue is not envy, but why on earth we allow them to get away with it. Part of the answer lies in the deep confusions that posts like yours illustrate - driven no doubt by too much reading of the Daily Mail.
    Life isn't fair! Haven't you worked that one out yet?

    Your point about the rich not paying tax is misplaced. Yes, the mega rich can structure their affairs in the most tax effective way, what else is new?

    But a tiny proportion of the wealthiest take most of the tax burden on society's behalf.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...on-rich-incre/
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.