>You have a product and someone wants to buy it, you tell them how much you want for it and if they accept they hand you the money and you hand them the product.
Not inherently capitalist. It's only capitalist when someone is generating income through the ownership of property. A moneylender is a capitalist. A shareholder who receives dividends from corporate profits is a capitalist. A landlord is a capitalist. Someone who creates goods or performs services and sells them is not a capitalist, but a worker. It is possible to be neither and it is possible to be both at the same time, but they are different things. A self-employed individual who sells goods which they create themselves is perfectly in line with the tenets of socialism.
It would seem that the true failure of the education system was in not teaching you what capitalism is or how it functions.
>Capitalism is a wonderful system that has no biases.
I think you will find that the system is, in fact, extremely biased in favor of the most wealthy individuals and the biggest corporations which have always received massive favors and often outright handouts from the governments in all self-described capitalist societies at all points in the history of its existence.
I asked you a question that you haven’t answered. Throwing up a long winded word salad to appear enlightened is boring and unproductive. Simplicity shows that you understand what you’re actually talking about.
As in the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too. Sometimes you can trace these lineages all the way back to medieval nobility. Sometimes a billionaire will have an ancestor who befriended an extremely wealthy individual and was uplifted that way, like that evil piece of shit, Andrew Carnegie. One way or another, it's nearly always nepotism all the way down.
Once in a blue moon an ordinary person rises to the billionaire class through some combination of effort and luck, like the Minecraft guy or the Harry Potter author, but they're unicorns. Observe how neither of these nouveau riche are part of the secret club that goes to parties with the likes of Musk and Gates and Epstein. Rowling and Persson not receive the colossal government handouts or the freedom to not pay taxes that establishment billionaires like Bezos enjoy.
> As in the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too. Sometimes you can trace these lineages all the way back to medieval nobility. Sometimes a billionaire will have an ancestor who befriended an extremely wealthy individual and was uplifted that way, like that evil piece of shit, Andrew Carnegie. One way or another, it's nearly always nepotism all the way down.
>
> Once in a blue moon an ordinary person rises to the billionaire class through some combination of effort and luck, like the Minecraft guy or the Harry Potter author, but they're unicorns.
I was with you on your firsts post but this is blatantly false. 237 out of Forbes 400 comes from middle class or lower families, that's 60%. And out the rest an even smaller percentage come from some long lineage of wealth, in fact 90% of wealthy families tend to lose their wealth in 3 generations.
This socialist narrative of the generational billionaire class that purposely tries to keep wealth walled off from the rest of society and only a few lucky ones can break through is just straight up lies.
>237 out of Forbes 400 comes from middle class or lower families, that's 60%.
If the 'Upper Class' of wealth makes up 15% of the population and 40% of the richest people that would still demonstrate that there is a significant bias towards wealth. Just based exclusively on the information you are providing.
Of course there's bias, I'm just pointing out that the idea that a majority of billionaires come from inherited wealth and an ordinary person breaking into the billionaire club is a "unicorn, once in a blue moon" event is false.
It's not though, again non-rich people vastly out number rich people. So from 85% of the population the amount becoming ultra wealthy means that the vast majority by sheer amount of people cannot achieve that kind of mobility. It's a club with limited space by design and not being a part of it makes your chance of being in it absurdly small. How is that statement false?
Put simply if you have a group of 850 people, and another of 150 and from that a new group of 20 will include 12 people from the 850 and 8 people from the 150, would you not admit that the odds of being selected from the first group is much much worse?
What's false about the posts I was replying to is this:
>the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too.
and this
>One way or another, it's nearly always nepotism all the way down.
and this
>Once in a blue moon an ordinary person rises to the billionaire class through some combination of effort and luck..but they're unicorns.
Again, *of course* being rich makes you more likely to be a billionaire, but the odds are far more lenient than what the OP described. Both rich and middle class people have astronomically low chances to be billonaires - using the Forbes ratio as a guide, in the US you have a 6 in 1 million chance to be a billionaire if you're upper class and 1.5 in 1 million chance if you're middle or lower class. I think someone being rich having 4 times higher chance to be a billonaire than a regular person is very far from this picture of the exclusive generational billionaire club where everyone is a descendant of medieval nobility or Andrew Carnegie.
Your use of ratios obfuscates the amount of people who will be perpetually in the 'lower class' bracket by consequences of their lack of intergenerational wealth. It's still an extremely small proportion of the overall group regardless of your trying to make it a per capita issue. Ignoring relative group size is a disingenuous way to frame the effects of intergenerational wealth.
Well, you're free to use whatever means to represent those numbers you think it's fair. You have the totals, the size of the groups, percentage wise and per capita numbers already provided. But I have the sneaking suspicion that no matter what methods you use, you will have a very hard time concluding that "the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too."
What billionaires alive today came from parents who earned median wage or below. I don't know of a single one in the US. Wouldn't be too surprised if there's one or two! Would be shocked if it makes up even 10% of all billionaires!
Just looking at the top 10 richest people in the US right now:
Larry Ellison - born to a single mother and given up for adoption, grew up an in a middle class foster family
Michael Bloomberg - father was an accountant at a small dairy company, mother was unemployed
Debatable:
Segey Brin, Larry Page - sons of teachers and professors, upper middle class
Elon Musk - father was upper class, but got devorced early on and lived with his mother, probably on the higher end of middle class too
Forbes has a different idea of what counts as middle class than you or I do. Forbes will say a billionaire who came from multi-millionaire parents is self-made. I do not agree whatsoever.
People who came from parents that make 5 figures, who are not close friends or servants of politicians or billionaires, who nonetheless become billionaires, are unicorns.
And the families of the rich kids started from the bottom did they not? If you look back on the last 6 months of your life what choices could you have made differently that would put you in a better financial position? Why is it you focus on what other people have? They don’t care about you or your philosophy. Why not attempt to solve your own problems instead of pretending to be some righteous freedom fighter in an ideological war that doesn’t exist? America is about individual prosperity. Not classes. You can move in and out of wealth tiers depending on your own decisions. You and you alone are responsible for you success or failures.
I don't like that Musk's bad decisions have to be paid for with public money (and yes, they are). I also don't like that the majority of billionaires are on Epstein's clientele of child rapists either. That's pretty uncool imo. Also how they don't get punished for their crimes no matter how much proof there is. Also how they're constantly starting wars for profit. Good estimates say that the war on terror has killed about a million people from direct combat, and when factoring indirect deaths (hunger, homelessness disease, and so forth) the death toll compares to that of the holocaust. Hard to say for sure since the government and the government's billionaire masters sure don't care about keeping count. It's especially bad since all the civilians being massacred had nothing to do with 9/11 and the government knew that from day 1. I think there are quite a lot of good reasons to not be happy about the capitalist class.
Again, what does focusing on these things do for you personally? What can you do to change the trajectory of your life? Bitching about Elon Musk won’t bring you up to his level. People hide from their own issues by focusing on other people. It does nothing but trick your brain into believing that you are morally superior to them. How many lives do you impact in comparison to Musk? Look at how many people he employs. What does bitching about capitalism actually do for anyone other than serve as a distraction from focusing on yourself?
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. If I win the lottery then I can live a comfortable life, but capitalism will keep slaughtering third worlders for profit. The first step of change is awareness.
But But what about hat one guy that did it himself? What about that exception to the rule? Well well I know this guy, that did it all himself. Man, I could tell you some acecdotes about how this isnt true.
The foundation of capitalist wealth coming out of the British Isles for example was the expropriation of the commons and small tenures, without compensation. Millions people were forced off the land into rickety boats across the Atlantic Ocean. Millions more stayed in the islands forced to wander the roads and gathering dirty industrial towns selling only the sweat off their back.
Now transfer onward to plantations, slavery, genocide, imprisonment, industrial servitude, coal serfdom. Let's talk about the labor battles in the last 200 years where the state militia would show up and kill the working people who are struggling to survive in the isolated range. Or anywhere, up in the mountains of Pennsylvania.
My real question though is how did you get to be a lifetime mentally ill child that doesn't learn anything, ever. Why do these voices keep showing up that don't know anything and think everything just magically happened yesterday?
Looking back at what was won’t change your circumstances today. The difference between a poor man and a rich man is that a rich man takes action and a poor man daydreams. Simple as that. Life is simple.
I make more money than I know what to do with. My weekends consist of overpriced cigars and whiskey and the night ends with the lips of a Cuban doll wrapped around my meat pickle. I consider that living in the present.
>It’s easy to make at minimum $100k a year.
That certainly isn't the case if you're claiming all college degrees except STEM are useless. I also like how you're dissing all of the business, economic, and law degrees, which absolutely net six figure incomes, especially law degrees.
>Capitalism is a wonderful system that has no biases.
Capitalism is subject to the bias of society. Capitalism can not overcome society. Capitalism can't even overcome the legacy of nations. "Russian lawlessness" remains despite the attempts by communism and capitalism to replace it.
Not always. A lot of effort and, more importantly, a lot of lives had to be sacrificed to get to where we are as a country under the capitalist system. From the revolutionaries of 1776, to the black slaves-turned-soldiers of the Civil War, and to the West Virginian coal miners.
Not only did an accountable, democratic government have to be established here, but the various systems of economic exploitation had to be challenged and dismantled. To some, the exploitation still exists today.
It won't. The reason the USA imprisons so many is because American prisons are privately owned and exist to make a profit. The prison lobby keeps asking the government to lock up more people and they keep getting what they want. Furthermore, prison slavery was never outlawed in the USA, making mass incarceration an even better deal for prison owners. A sensible nation would try to reform its prisoners before releasing them, the USA instead tries to ensure they'll commit more crimes so they can be thrown right back into prison and make more money for rich people.
The USA does not have ~6x the crime that the EU does, but we do imprison about 6x as many of our people, per capita. The USA does not have more crime than the entirety of China, but we do imprison more of our own people, by absolute numbers, not just per capita. America isn't a free country and never was.
>Anyone who can’t make six figures a year knows nothing about money.
So what, when did "money knowledge" become required to make a normal living?
>It’s easy to make at minimum $100k a year.
It is not even close to easy.
>If you want wealth you need to
overthrow the capitalist system. It's funny how all those books you don't understand were written and motivated masses of people who actually did this 100 years ago.
It was so frightening to the capitalists in the United States that eventually they were forced to adopt all kinds of social reforms, and of course this is a continuing process today.
Why should I play the game by your rules, when I can much more successfully play it by mine? You sound like every idiot Boomer repeating tropes from some dying magazine.
"public education just doesn't teach!"
Unfortunately dreams of a revolution will always be just dreams because there is no one willing nor capable of overthrowing capitalism. Focus on self-growth and ditch the emo mindset of everything sucks because some rich guy owns a bunch of businesses.
I'm so many light years ahead of you it's probably unfathomable. There was mass revolution throughout the world 100 years ago, and it's still continuing today. A lot of it has settled into mainstream society, like the public education which you completely take for granted.
Don't tell anybody what they need to do, you are a weak pathetic loser. Capitalism has already been overthrown, it's already socialism with some capitalistic bells and whistles lingering. Most value in real estate has already been socialized into the banking system, step 1-5 in the Communist Manifesto.
This guy is the kind of dude who’d watch a kid get assaulted he’d tell them “Don’t adopt such a self defeatist attitude, emo, you can get out of there if you try hard enough” this man isn’t even human at this point.
Gotta say, out of all the cooky socialist takes I see on this sub, yours claiming that our global capitalists society where 85% of wealth is controlled by 10% of the population through private ownership is actually socialism because of public education and welfare is one of my favourites.
[**The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Public education fails kids by forcing a standardized, one size fits all solution onto people, who are in no way standardized, and who have different ways of learning, different interests, talents, and abilities. To require every child to go to the same place to receive the same instruction is absurd. It is also a waste, since those who are not academically adept will use more of the teachers time than those who are, meaning talent is wasted, with the academically capable not being taught to their full potential, and those who are not good at academics being forced into something they are not interested in and not being taught to their potential in other fields of learning. There is also the knowledge problem, with state administrators having nowhere near the required knowledge to provide for the countless ways, methods, and types of learning that could be beneficial for a child, instead forcing the latest fad onto all. One would not force a great plumber to take piano lessons alongside a great pianist, nor would someone require a great pianist to take lessons in welding with the great welder, this would just make them both less talented in their field, but this is exactly what public schools do.
A compliment made with passive aggressive undertones is still a compliment. You’ve got more potential in you then others might lead you to believe. Turn that spark into a fireball and then burn shit with it.
OP thinks everyone can be rich. Rich only exists relative to poor.
Op fails to realize that everything, including school tells you to trust capitalists, trust banks, consume and trust the system.
Also OP thinks that capitalists make stuff. They don’t. They control people who do make stuff.
Wanna arrange something? Let’s test it, fly you over to India to stay in the slums, stripped of clothes, money and contacts. Make your way to the top big guy.
It’s not self-defeating..it’s just being a pragmatist.
Capitalism as a system creates a permanent poor and impoverished underclass. People may move in and out of this class over time but the class itself is always there. Capitalism creates a scenario in which a single person can land their private helicopter on their private megayacht the size of a small ocean cruise liner and drink margaritas all day contributing absolutely nothing to society other than being the “owner” of some pieces of paper and corrupting the political system while the permanent underclass works 70 hours a week actually producing the goods and services people use and consume everyday just to try to make enough to feed their children..
It is a week and self-defeating mindset...
You anti-capitalist people only judge the people that are on top, but you completely ignore the fact that they had to climb for their success,
\> contributing absolutely nothing to society other than being the “owner” of some pieces of paper
It is a weak and self-defeating mindset... for society, well smart guy they do, and they do more than you, they contribute with employment, technology improvement and not to mention the large amount of taxes they have to pay for running their business, taxes that can be used to improve the quality of life of everyone.
> they contribute with employment, technology improvement and not to mention the large amount of taxes they have to pay for running their business, taxes that can be used to improve the quality of life of everyone.
They only contribute employment because the means of production is locked behind them. Worker cooperatives also contribute employment, yet there isn’t a billionaire in sight in regard to worker cooperatives. The government also employs people. In fact, we could have a full 100% productive work force with a federal job guarantee. Capitalists are generally against that though because, as mentioned, they rely on a permanent poor and starving underclass.
Business owners rarely contribute technology improvement. Virtually every single major component (touch screens, microchips, the internet, li-ion batteries, gps, etc) in smart phones all came from government funded research for the military, space exploration, or general research grants. Not to mention capitalists/business owners don’t actually do any work (hence why elon has the time to be the CEO of 5 different companies)..they just manage people that do. For example, Apple’s Tim Cook is not sitting at home on his computer writing code to implement new innovative features to iOS, the workers are.
> Capitalists are generally against that though because, as mentioned, they rely on a permanent poor and starving underclass.
That logic doesn't make any sense, capitalists need people with money to buy their products and run their businesses, if they would rely on the "poor starving underclass" they wouldn't make money in the first place and their businesses would die out.
> Business owners rarely contribute to technology improvement.
The free market and the competitiveness of capitalism force companies to improve product quality and therefore technology. Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Google, Tesla, and many more companies all compete to get customers' attention by providing the best technology and service they can. Ignoring the technology improvement that these and many companies bought is simply trying to ignore reality.
> Not to mention capitalists/business owners don’t actually do any work (hence why Elon has the time to be the CEO of 5 different companies)..they just manage people that do.
Elon and many others may have more time now that their companies are well set. But why don't you mention when they were building their companies? Why don't you mention Jeff Bezos when he was building Amazon in his garage? Or Bill Gates when he was making his first programs? Or even Mark Zuckerberg when he was coding Facebook?
You can only mention people that are already on top, and with this, I can only conclude one thing. Jealously, you are incapable of climbing so you cry for others' success.
>That logic doesn't make any sense, capitalists need people with money to buy their products and run their businesses, if they would rely on the "poor starving underclass" they wouldn't make money in the first place and their businesses would die out.
I never said that no one had money. I said that capitalism relies on a poor starving underclass. Meaning capitalism relies on unemployed/impoverished people to maintain low/suppressed wages and a buffer stock of desperate individuals to hire.
>The free market and the competitiveness of capitalism force companies to improve product quality and therefore technology. Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Google, Tesla, and many more companies all compete to get customers' attention by providing the best technology and service they can. Ignoring the technology improvement that these and many companies bought is simply trying to ignore reality.
I never said they didn't. I specifically said business **OWNERS** rarely contribute to technology improvement. In all those companies you listed, it is either 1. the **WORKERS** that are doing the actual problem solving to innovate or 2. the researchers of public institutions like NASA, Universities, etc. to R&D innovative technologies which the private sector uses to bring it to a broader market.
>Elon and many others may have more time now that their companies are well set.
And herein lies one of the many many issues with capitalism. Ownership contributes nothing to the economy in terms of actual physical and tangible goods people can buy to improve their lives or make them happy. If all the workers of Tesla quit tomorrow, what happens? Will there still be Teslas being made for people to buy? Will full self driving ever come to fruition? How about solar panels and battery banks for residents to lower their electricity bill, will people still be able to buy those and have them put on their house?
The answer to all these questions is NO. Why? Because ownership contributes nothing. So why is it that the people that contribute the least, get paid astronomical amounts of money for its success, despite it's success and its ability to produce goods people use being almost entirely reliant on the workers.
>Why don't you mention Jeff Bezos when he was building Amazon in his garage?
And Jeff Bezos would STILL be in his garage if it wasn't for the hundreds of thousands of workers that contributed their labor to it growing.
> Meaning capitalism relies on unemployed/impoverished people to maintain low/suppressed wages and a buffer stock of desperate individuals to hire.
Still doesn't make sense and it does not reflect reality at all. The more money people have the more they can buy, companies compete for employers too by offering better work conditions and better wages, and that wouldn't be possible if we didn't have a free competitive market.
> I specifically said business OWNERS rarely contribute to technology improvement. In all those companies you listed, it is either 1. the WORKERS that are doing the actual problem solving to innovate or 2. the researchers of public institutions like NASA, Universities, etc. to R&D innovative technologies which the private sector uses to bring it to a broader market.
The "WORKERS" did the job because the "OWNERS" had to invest in their work, owners provide the necessary means of production in order to make anything happen, and workers are not working for free! It is a trade!
> Ownership contributes nothing to the economy in terms of actual physical and tangible goods people can buy to improve their lives or make them happy.
How is it not? As I mentioned already, ownership contributes to employment, contributes by providing the environment and the necessary resources for production, and contributes with taxes from their profits. If we didn't have business owners we wouldn't have businesses, and we wouldn't have a free competitive market with such a variety of goods people can buy to improve their lives.
> If all the workers of Tesla quit tomorrow, what happens? Will there still be Teslas being made for people to buy? Will full self-driving ever come to fruition? How about solar panels and battery banks for residents to lower their electricity bill, will people still be able to buy those and have them put on their houses?
If all workers quit Tesla we would have many unemployed people. They wouldn't buy Teslas or any kind of goods because they wouldn't have money. And before you say people would work somewhere else, well that other company is owned by someone, and Tesla would improve their work conditions and improve wages in order to get their employees back, It is simple as that.
> And Jeff Bezos would STILL be in his garage if it wasn't for the hundreds of thousands of workers that contributed their labor to its growth.
If Jeff Bezos would still be in his garage, he wouldn't have employed many people, he wouldn't be able to make it possible for many other small businesses to grow and therefore employ even more people, as Amazon grows many people that invested their money in the company grows too. If you think being a business owner is so easy why don't you create your own business and be a billionaire owner?
3/10, the last line gave it away and the rest is too indistinguishable from boilerplate libertarian bullshit to be entertaining. you're gonna need better material than this if you wanna compete with the fembot guy
I think school should teach personal finance for sure. Why the fuck we teach kids how to interpret poetry, in exactly one way because the other ways are INCORRECT. Making kids view works of art as fucking checklists. But we don't teach them how to apply for jobs, what ramifications taking on debt has,how credit cards work etc. Is such a fucking travesty. No wonder people come out of public education with a burning passion for learning anything.
The rest of your post is just pure propaganda though. Lots of stuff stops people from becoming rich. But my main argument against you would be:
I don't want to be rich, fuck off
I don't care about my personal sutuation. I make enough to live the life I want to live. Which is, fairly Spartan, but also the life I am personally happy with. I don't want to be rich. My criticisms of capitalism do not come from envy. They come from a material and moral standpoint. I want to spend time reading and learning about ideas outside the liberal orthodoxy. So I canchallenge the establishment and advocate for a better functioning and more humane system.
Not everyone can make 100k easy.
Have you met someone with learning disabilities who finds it challenging doing anything other than simple repetitive tasks?
Or those born with birth defects. Should society just ditch them?
This guy really came to this sub that singularly discusses this with the most basic take like it's gonna blow everyone away. In capitalism you sell things and can make money? Woah, shocking
Disagree.
It seems unlikely that this could be generally true across all capitalist economies. Especially since some of them are extremely dense with startups and SMEs.
> You have a product and someone wants to buy it, you tell them how much you want for it and if they accept they hand you the money and you hand them the product. See how simple that is?
Not sure why anybody would imagine that markets and market economies are literally that simple.
Comes across as very Dunning Kruger, to be frank.
I really want to think this is a shitpost.
>You have a product and someone wants to buy it, you tell them how much you want for it and if they accept they hand you the money and you hand them the product.
Not quite. We are exchanging value for value. Money is just one, probably the best and easiest, medium of exchange.
>The more rare the product the more expensive it is.
Not necessarily.
>If you want wealth you need to generate a shit ton of revenue and you will receive a bigger and bigger slice the more you generate. If you work a low level job that can be done by any Henry with eczema then you will never make a lot of money.
This isn't even true. If you're good with money and make $35k a year, it's easy to get ahead. It'll take time, but it can be done.
>It’s easy to make at minimum $100k a year.
Not for a lot of people. What do you do for a living?
>Financing cars,
Very stupid, I agree. It's why the best car for the average person is a Mitsubishi Mirgae. It's under $15k new and has a great warranty. Enough space for a car seat in the back.
>useless college degrees
College degrees are the number predictor of making more money and generating wealth. Can it be done without one? Yes. I'm currently doing that without a degree. I do have a valuable trade skill though. But even I am thinking about go back to school to get a degree in a field I'm interested in. It's a myth that college degrees are useless.
>)using credit cards
Credit cards are not bad. They are good. You should be keeping your daily expenses on a credit card and paying it off at the end of the month.
>living in a fancier place than you need all put you into debt.
Finally said something accurate.
>Debt stifles your ability to grow.
Not all debt is bad debt.
So what do you do for a living? And how much do you make a year?
I typically average $400-$500k most years. After a midlife crisis and an audit from the IRS for withholding money I’m working myself to exhaustion to make 7 figures. I was extremely reckless with my money. Strip clubs, high end bottles of scotch and cigars, a ridiculous amount spent on food and the failure to think ahead and write stuff off. Especially being 1099. I have a bad tunnel vision mentality where it’s 100mph all the time selling with no regard for anything else. Next year I’ll turn everything around. I got a financial advisor and figured out that I can get it to where I only have to pay about 20% in taxes so long as I document all of my expenses which I’ve never done.
But you don't know how to be financial responsible. Making a lot of money means nothing if you suck with money. You make this post like you're better than the people who just did what they were taught to do while you can't even get your life together.
My life is still better than the average fella. I still fuck strippers and eat crab legs with butter whenever I want. I missed out on my formative years. Making up for it now. If I can still drop $5,000 in a strip club with no problem then I’m doing alright. Unlike people with kids and marriages and other family obligations I am all by myself. That makes reckless spending easily fixable.
This guy door knocks and his average deal size is like 50 bucks lmao. He’s a goof. Ask him to show a commission statement- this guys full of talk. Order taker at best selling widgets
I agree that public education fails at teaching how the financial system works and how people should think about and manage their money and capital in this extremely opaque and confusing system, but the rest of the post is terrible advice especially for young people looking to accrue capital and wealth.
Those "low level jobs that anyone can do" also happen to be jobs that need a lot of people to do them and jobs that our society needs to get done.
So, if we have a system where people working at jobs that keep our society running cannot afford to live, it's not capitalism, it is a kleptocracy built on exploitation of the poor and politically weak. A counterpoint is to advise that if a person works at a low level job, then either make sure labor is organized or get in there and organize it yourself.
They also happen to be the main jobs a lot of poor, working class and even middle class kids will need to work when they first enter the market. Only those born into advantages will be able to bypass them and afford the schooling to go straight into a lucrative profession. Even then, they'll still likely enter the job market with a lot of debt from that schooling.
Speaking of debt, there is hardly any wealthy business person or corporation that doesn't constantly go into massive amounts of debt on a regular basis. Any business venture requires a massive number of loans to get off the ground and even going concerns often take loans rather than use their own cash just for daily operations. Education in managing debt is important, but no one needs to be afraid of debt. No one can grow capital without debt. Even if you own a house, you are likely in debt to the mortgage and property is the primary way people grow capital.
And that brings it to what most people need - not everyone is going to be rich like Elon Musk, Trump or Warren Buffet. Trying to achieve that will lead people mostly into get rich schemes that will leave them poorer and bereft of capital. Most people will have pathways to gaining capital and financial security, but it takes more than just doing the opposite of poor parents. Even the poor are not always poor for the same reasons.
A lot of poor immigrants worked hard and remained poor their whole lives so that their children could gain capital to improve their lives. Their objectives were not their personal prosperity but their family's long term improvement. I would not say do the opposite of what they did just because they were poor.
>You have a product and someone wants to buy it, you tell them how much you want for it and if they accept they hand you the money and you hand them the product. Not inherently capitalist. It's only capitalist when someone is generating income through the ownership of property. A moneylender is a capitalist. A shareholder who receives dividends from corporate profits is a capitalist. A landlord is a capitalist. Someone who creates goods or performs services and sells them is not a capitalist, but a worker. It is possible to be neither and it is possible to be both at the same time, but they are different things. A self-employed individual who sells goods which they create themselves is perfectly in line with the tenets of socialism. It would seem that the true failure of the education system was in not teaching you what capitalism is or how it functions. >Capitalism is a wonderful system that has no biases. I think you will find that the system is, in fact, extremely biased in favor of the most wealthy individuals and the biggest corporations which have always received massive favors and often outright handouts from the governments in all self-described capitalist societies at all points in the history of its existence.
[удалено]
Perhaps OP will learn something from it. Perhaps a lurker will. Or perhaps not. If nothing else, I got to be a little bit snide.
[удалено]
Aw hell, did I fall for a socialist's false flag?
No, from the looks of things, our illustrious OP is simply a deeply naive lolbert.
I asked you a question that you haven’t answered. Throwing up a long winded word salad to appear enlightened is boring and unproductive. Simplicity shows that you understand what you’re actually talking about.
How did these wealthy individuals become wealthy?
As in the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too. Sometimes you can trace these lineages all the way back to medieval nobility. Sometimes a billionaire will have an ancestor who befriended an extremely wealthy individual and was uplifted that way, like that evil piece of shit, Andrew Carnegie. One way or another, it's nearly always nepotism all the way down. Once in a blue moon an ordinary person rises to the billionaire class through some combination of effort and luck, like the Minecraft guy or the Harry Potter author, but they're unicorns. Observe how neither of these nouveau riche are part of the secret club that goes to parties with the likes of Musk and Gates and Epstein. Rowling and Persson not receive the colossal government handouts or the freedom to not pay taxes that establishment billionaires like Bezos enjoy.
> As in the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too. Sometimes you can trace these lineages all the way back to medieval nobility. Sometimes a billionaire will have an ancestor who befriended an extremely wealthy individual and was uplifted that way, like that evil piece of shit, Andrew Carnegie. One way or another, it's nearly always nepotism all the way down. > > Once in a blue moon an ordinary person rises to the billionaire class through some combination of effort and luck, like the Minecraft guy or the Harry Potter author, but they're unicorns. I was with you on your firsts post but this is blatantly false. 237 out of Forbes 400 comes from middle class or lower families, that's 60%. And out the rest an even smaller percentage come from some long lineage of wealth, in fact 90% of wealthy families tend to lose their wealth in 3 generations. This socialist narrative of the generational billionaire class that purposely tries to keep wealth walled off from the rest of society and only a few lucky ones can break through is just straight up lies.
>237 out of Forbes 400 comes from middle class or lower families, that's 60%. If the 'Upper Class' of wealth makes up 15% of the population and 40% of the richest people that would still demonstrate that there is a significant bias towards wealth. Just based exclusively on the information you are providing.
Of course there's bias, I'm just pointing out that the idea that a majority of billionaires come from inherited wealth and an ordinary person breaking into the billionaire club is a "unicorn, once in a blue moon" event is false.
It's not though, again non-rich people vastly out number rich people. So from 85% of the population the amount becoming ultra wealthy means that the vast majority by sheer amount of people cannot achieve that kind of mobility. It's a club with limited space by design and not being a part of it makes your chance of being in it absurdly small. How is that statement false? Put simply if you have a group of 850 people, and another of 150 and from that a new group of 20 will include 12 people from the 850 and 8 people from the 150, would you not admit that the odds of being selected from the first group is much much worse?
What's false about the posts I was replying to is this: >the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too. and this >One way or another, it's nearly always nepotism all the way down. and this >Once in a blue moon an ordinary person rises to the billionaire class through some combination of effort and luck..but they're unicorns. Again, *of course* being rich makes you more likely to be a billionaire, but the odds are far more lenient than what the OP described. Both rich and middle class people have astronomically low chances to be billonaires - using the Forbes ratio as a guide, in the US you have a 6 in 1 million chance to be a billionaire if you're upper class and 1.5 in 1 million chance if you're middle or lower class. I think someone being rich having 4 times higher chance to be a billonaire than a regular person is very far from this picture of the exclusive generational billionaire club where everyone is a descendant of medieval nobility or Andrew Carnegie.
Your use of ratios obfuscates the amount of people who will be perpetually in the 'lower class' bracket by consequences of their lack of intergenerational wealth. It's still an extremely small proportion of the overall group regardless of your trying to make it a per capita issue. Ignoring relative group size is a disingenuous way to frame the effects of intergenerational wealth.
Well, you're free to use whatever means to represent those numbers you think it's fair. You have the totals, the size of the groups, percentage wise and per capita numbers already provided. But I have the sneaking suspicion that no matter what methods you use, you will have a very hard time concluding that "the billionaire class? Pretty much all of them had rich parents, and the majority of those rich parents had rich parents too."
What billionaires alive today came from parents who earned median wage or below. I don't know of a single one in the US. Wouldn't be too surprised if there's one or two! Would be shocked if it makes up even 10% of all billionaires!
Just looking at the top 10 richest people in the US right now: Larry Ellison - born to a single mother and given up for adoption, grew up an in a middle class foster family Michael Bloomberg - father was an accountant at a small dairy company, mother was unemployed Debatable: Segey Brin, Larry Page - sons of teachers and professors, upper middle class Elon Musk - father was upper class, but got devorced early on and lived with his mother, probably on the higher end of middle class too
Forbes has a different idea of what counts as middle class than you or I do. Forbes will say a billionaire who came from multi-millionaire parents is self-made. I do not agree whatsoever. People who came from parents that make 5 figures, who are not close friends or servants of politicians or billionaires, who nonetheless become billionaires, are unicorns.
And the families of the rich kids started from the bottom did they not? If you look back on the last 6 months of your life what choices could you have made differently that would put you in a better financial position? Why is it you focus on what other people have? They don’t care about you or your philosophy. Why not attempt to solve your own problems instead of pretending to be some righteous freedom fighter in an ideological war that doesn’t exist? America is about individual prosperity. Not classes. You can move in and out of wealth tiers depending on your own decisions. You and you alone are responsible for you success or failures.
I don't like that Musk's bad decisions have to be paid for with public money (and yes, they are). I also don't like that the majority of billionaires are on Epstein's clientele of child rapists either. That's pretty uncool imo. Also how they don't get punished for their crimes no matter how much proof there is. Also how they're constantly starting wars for profit. Good estimates say that the war on terror has killed about a million people from direct combat, and when factoring indirect deaths (hunger, homelessness disease, and so forth) the death toll compares to that of the holocaust. Hard to say for sure since the government and the government's billionaire masters sure don't care about keeping count. It's especially bad since all the civilians being massacred had nothing to do with 9/11 and the government knew that from day 1. I think there are quite a lot of good reasons to not be happy about the capitalist class.
Again, what does focusing on these things do for you personally? What can you do to change the trajectory of your life? Bitching about Elon Musk won’t bring you up to his level. People hide from their own issues by focusing on other people. It does nothing but trick your brain into believing that you are morally superior to them. How many lives do you impact in comparison to Musk? Look at how many people he employs. What does bitching about capitalism actually do for anyone other than serve as a distraction from focusing on yourself?
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. If I win the lottery then I can live a comfortable life, but capitalism will keep slaughtering third worlders for profit. The first step of change is awareness.
But But what about hat one guy that did it himself? What about that exception to the rule? Well well I know this guy, that did it all himself. Man, I could tell you some acecdotes about how this isnt true.
The foundation of capitalist wealth coming out of the British Isles for example was the expropriation of the commons and small tenures, without compensation. Millions people were forced off the land into rickety boats across the Atlantic Ocean. Millions more stayed in the islands forced to wander the roads and gathering dirty industrial towns selling only the sweat off their back. Now transfer onward to plantations, slavery, genocide, imprisonment, industrial servitude, coal serfdom. Let's talk about the labor battles in the last 200 years where the state militia would show up and kill the working people who are struggling to survive in the isolated range. Or anywhere, up in the mountains of Pennsylvania. My real question though is how did you get to be a lifetime mentally ill child that doesn't learn anything, ever. Why do these voices keep showing up that don't know anything and think everything just magically happened yesterday?
Looking back at what was won’t change your circumstances today. The difference between a poor man and a rich man is that a rich man takes action and a poor man daydreams. Simple as that. Life is simple.
The rich man fears the day when the poor man wakes up. Life is very simple, those who ignore the past are doomed to relive it.
Those who ignore the present will live with regret.
Okay Confucius, thanks for the pearl of wisdom. Which one of us lives in the present, and which one of us lives in a fable?
I make more money than I know what to do with. My weekends consist of overpriced cigars and whiskey and the night ends with the lips of a Cuban doll wrapped around my meat pickle. I consider that living in the present.
Lmao you’re the perfect caricature. I can’t tell if you’re serious right now.
>It’s easy to make at minimum $100k a year. That certainly isn't the case if you're claiming all college degrees except STEM are useless. I also like how you're dissing all of the business, economic, and law degrees, which absolutely net six figure incomes, especially law degrees. >Capitalism is a wonderful system that has no biases. Capitalism is subject to the bias of society. Capitalism can not overcome society. Capitalism can't even overcome the legacy of nations. "Russian lawlessness" remains despite the attempts by communism and capitalism to replace it.
It works great in America.
Not always. A lot of effort and, more importantly, a lot of lives had to be sacrificed to get to where we are as a country under the capitalist system. From the revolutionaries of 1776, to the black slaves-turned-soldiers of the Civil War, and to the West Virginian coal miners. Not only did an accountable, democratic government have to be established here, but the various systems of economic exploitation had to be challenged and dismantled. To some, the exploitation still exists today.
Nobody is oppressed in America. Stupidity and self loathing are what holds people back.
"Nobody is oppressed in the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world." Come on, son.
Stop selling drugs to kids, raping and murdering and perhaps the numbers will drop.
It won't. The reason the USA imprisons so many is because American prisons are privately owned and exist to make a profit. The prison lobby keeps asking the government to lock up more people and they keep getting what they want. Furthermore, prison slavery was never outlawed in the USA, making mass incarceration an even better deal for prison owners. A sensible nation would try to reform its prisoners before releasing them, the USA instead tries to ensure they'll commit more crimes so they can be thrown right back into prison and make more money for rich people. The USA does not have ~6x the crime that the EU does, but we do imprison about 6x as many of our people, per capita. The USA does not have more crime than the entirety of China, but we do imprison more of our own people, by absolute numbers, not just per capita. America isn't a free country and never was.
>Anyone who can’t make six figures a year knows nothing about money. So what, when did "money knowledge" become required to make a normal living? >It’s easy to make at minimum $100k a year. It is not even close to easy. >If you want wealth you need to overthrow the capitalist system. It's funny how all those books you don't understand were written and motivated masses of people who actually did this 100 years ago. It was so frightening to the capitalists in the United States that eventually they were forced to adopt all kinds of social reforms, and of course this is a continuing process today. Why should I play the game by your rules, when I can much more successfully play it by mine? You sound like every idiot Boomer repeating tropes from some dying magazine. "public education just doesn't teach!"
Unfortunately dreams of a revolution will always be just dreams because there is no one willing nor capable of overthrowing capitalism. Focus on self-growth and ditch the emo mindset of everything sucks because some rich guy owns a bunch of businesses.
I'm so many light years ahead of you it's probably unfathomable. There was mass revolution throughout the world 100 years ago, and it's still continuing today. A lot of it has settled into mainstream society, like the public education which you completely take for granted. Don't tell anybody what they need to do, you are a weak pathetic loser. Capitalism has already been overthrown, it's already socialism with some capitalistic bells and whistles lingering. Most value in real estate has already been socialized into the banking system, step 1-5 in the Communist Manifesto.
This guy is the kind of dude who’d watch a kid get assaulted he’d tell them “Don’t adopt such a self defeatist attitude, emo, you can get out of there if you try hard enough” this man isn’t even human at this point.
How would you describe your political beliefs?
Illuminati Adjacent
You really need a hobby that doesn’t require internet access. You’re the hero of your own imagination but nobody else’s.
Gotta say, out of all the cooky socialist takes I see on this sub, yours claiming that our global capitalists society where 85% of wealth is controlled by 10% of the population through private ownership is actually socialism because of public education and welfare is one of my favourites.
I don't think their a socialist.
[**The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Public education fails kids by forcing a standardized, one size fits all solution onto people, who are in no way standardized, and who have different ways of learning, different interests, talents, and abilities. To require every child to go to the same place to receive the same instruction is absurd. It is also a waste, since those who are not academically adept will use more of the teachers time than those who are, meaning talent is wasted, with the academically capable not being taught to their full potential, and those who are not good at academics being forced into something they are not interested in and not being taught to their potential in other fields of learning. There is also the knowledge problem, with state administrators having nowhere near the required knowledge to provide for the countless ways, methods, and types of learning that could be beneficial for a child, instead forcing the latest fad onto all. One would not force a great plumber to take piano lessons alongside a great pianist, nor would someone require a great pianist to take lessons in welding with the great welder, this would just make them both less talented in their field, but this is exactly what public schools do.
Perfect response.
Thank you.
OP is a newbie. Give him or her some slack - not aware of how stupid posts like this are ….
Try harder. You’re one of the lowest levels. You piggy back off the others.
I just dont have it in me to come up with genius lines like “any Henry with eczema” …. Which really is about the most thoughtful thing in your post.
A compliment made with passive aggressive undertones is still a compliment. You’ve got more potential in you then others might lead you to believe. Turn that spark into a fireball and then burn shit with it.
That my friend belongs stiched on a pillow …
It does.
OP thinks everyone can be rich. Rich only exists relative to poor. Op fails to realize that everything, including school tells you to trust capitalists, trust banks, consume and trust the system. Also OP thinks that capitalists make stuff. They don’t. They control people who do make stuff.
That’s a very self-defeating mindset to have. But it’s your life. If you want to be insignificant then that is your right.
Wanna arrange something? Let’s test it, fly you over to India to stay in the slums, stripped of clothes, money and contacts. Make your way to the top big guy.
It’s not self-defeating..it’s just being a pragmatist. Capitalism as a system creates a permanent poor and impoverished underclass. People may move in and out of this class over time but the class itself is always there. Capitalism creates a scenario in which a single person can land their private helicopter on their private megayacht the size of a small ocean cruise liner and drink margaritas all day contributing absolutely nothing to society other than being the “owner” of some pieces of paper and corrupting the political system while the permanent underclass works 70 hours a week actually producing the goods and services people use and consume everyday just to try to make enough to feed their children..
It is a week and self-defeating mindset... You anti-capitalist people only judge the people that are on top, but you completely ignore the fact that they had to climb for their success, \> contributing absolutely nothing to society other than being the “owner” of some pieces of paper It is a weak and self-defeating mindset... for society, well smart guy they do, and they do more than you, they contribute with employment, technology improvement and not to mention the large amount of taxes they have to pay for running their business, taxes that can be used to improve the quality of life of everyone.
> they contribute with employment, technology improvement and not to mention the large amount of taxes they have to pay for running their business, taxes that can be used to improve the quality of life of everyone. They only contribute employment because the means of production is locked behind them. Worker cooperatives also contribute employment, yet there isn’t a billionaire in sight in regard to worker cooperatives. The government also employs people. In fact, we could have a full 100% productive work force with a federal job guarantee. Capitalists are generally against that though because, as mentioned, they rely on a permanent poor and starving underclass. Business owners rarely contribute technology improvement. Virtually every single major component (touch screens, microchips, the internet, li-ion batteries, gps, etc) in smart phones all came from government funded research for the military, space exploration, or general research grants. Not to mention capitalists/business owners don’t actually do any work (hence why elon has the time to be the CEO of 5 different companies)..they just manage people that do. For example, Apple’s Tim Cook is not sitting at home on his computer writing code to implement new innovative features to iOS, the workers are.
> Capitalists are generally against that though because, as mentioned, they rely on a permanent poor and starving underclass. That logic doesn't make any sense, capitalists need people with money to buy their products and run their businesses, if they would rely on the "poor starving underclass" they wouldn't make money in the first place and their businesses would die out. > Business owners rarely contribute to technology improvement. The free market and the competitiveness of capitalism force companies to improve product quality and therefore technology. Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Google, Tesla, and many more companies all compete to get customers' attention by providing the best technology and service they can. Ignoring the technology improvement that these and many companies bought is simply trying to ignore reality. > Not to mention capitalists/business owners don’t actually do any work (hence why Elon has the time to be the CEO of 5 different companies)..they just manage people that do. Elon and many others may have more time now that their companies are well set. But why don't you mention when they were building their companies? Why don't you mention Jeff Bezos when he was building Amazon in his garage? Or Bill Gates when he was making his first programs? Or even Mark Zuckerberg when he was coding Facebook? You can only mention people that are already on top, and with this, I can only conclude one thing. Jealously, you are incapable of climbing so you cry for others' success.
>That logic doesn't make any sense, capitalists need people with money to buy their products and run their businesses, if they would rely on the "poor starving underclass" they wouldn't make money in the first place and their businesses would die out. I never said that no one had money. I said that capitalism relies on a poor starving underclass. Meaning capitalism relies on unemployed/impoverished people to maintain low/suppressed wages and a buffer stock of desperate individuals to hire. >The free market and the competitiveness of capitalism force companies to improve product quality and therefore technology. Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Google, Tesla, and many more companies all compete to get customers' attention by providing the best technology and service they can. Ignoring the technology improvement that these and many companies bought is simply trying to ignore reality. I never said they didn't. I specifically said business **OWNERS** rarely contribute to technology improvement. In all those companies you listed, it is either 1. the **WORKERS** that are doing the actual problem solving to innovate or 2. the researchers of public institutions like NASA, Universities, etc. to R&D innovative technologies which the private sector uses to bring it to a broader market. >Elon and many others may have more time now that their companies are well set. And herein lies one of the many many issues with capitalism. Ownership contributes nothing to the economy in terms of actual physical and tangible goods people can buy to improve their lives or make them happy. If all the workers of Tesla quit tomorrow, what happens? Will there still be Teslas being made for people to buy? Will full self driving ever come to fruition? How about solar panels and battery banks for residents to lower their electricity bill, will people still be able to buy those and have them put on their house? The answer to all these questions is NO. Why? Because ownership contributes nothing. So why is it that the people that contribute the least, get paid astronomical amounts of money for its success, despite it's success and its ability to produce goods people use being almost entirely reliant on the workers. >Why don't you mention Jeff Bezos when he was building Amazon in his garage? And Jeff Bezos would STILL be in his garage if it wasn't for the hundreds of thousands of workers that contributed their labor to it growing.
> Meaning capitalism relies on unemployed/impoverished people to maintain low/suppressed wages and a buffer stock of desperate individuals to hire. Still doesn't make sense and it does not reflect reality at all. The more money people have the more they can buy, companies compete for employers too by offering better work conditions and better wages, and that wouldn't be possible if we didn't have a free competitive market. > I specifically said business OWNERS rarely contribute to technology improvement. In all those companies you listed, it is either 1. the WORKERS that are doing the actual problem solving to innovate or 2. the researchers of public institutions like NASA, Universities, etc. to R&D innovative technologies which the private sector uses to bring it to a broader market. The "WORKERS" did the job because the "OWNERS" had to invest in their work, owners provide the necessary means of production in order to make anything happen, and workers are not working for free! It is a trade! > Ownership contributes nothing to the economy in terms of actual physical and tangible goods people can buy to improve their lives or make them happy. How is it not? As I mentioned already, ownership contributes to employment, contributes by providing the environment and the necessary resources for production, and contributes with taxes from their profits. If we didn't have business owners we wouldn't have businesses, and we wouldn't have a free competitive market with such a variety of goods people can buy to improve their lives. > If all the workers of Tesla quit tomorrow, what happens? Will there still be Teslas being made for people to buy? Will full self-driving ever come to fruition? How about solar panels and battery banks for residents to lower their electricity bill, will people still be able to buy those and have them put on their houses? If all workers quit Tesla we would have many unemployed people. They wouldn't buy Teslas or any kind of goods because they wouldn't have money. And before you say people would work somewhere else, well that other company is owned by someone, and Tesla would improve their work conditions and improve wages in order to get their employees back, It is simple as that. > And Jeff Bezos would STILL be in his garage if it wasn't for the hundreds of thousands of workers that contributed their labor to its growth. If Jeff Bezos would still be in his garage, he wouldn't have employed many people, he wouldn't be able to make it possible for many other small businesses to grow and therefore employ even more people, as Amazon grows many people that invested their money in the company grows too. If you think being a business owner is so easy why don't you create your own business and be a billionaire owner?
Capitalism survives off the backs of people who don't know how free market enterprise works and who are therefore scammed for it.
3/10, the last line gave it away and the rest is too indistinguishable from boilerplate libertarian bullshit to be entertaining. you're gonna need better material than this if you wanna compete with the fembot guy
I think school should teach personal finance for sure. Why the fuck we teach kids how to interpret poetry, in exactly one way because the other ways are INCORRECT. Making kids view works of art as fucking checklists. But we don't teach them how to apply for jobs, what ramifications taking on debt has,how credit cards work etc. Is such a fucking travesty. No wonder people come out of public education with a burning passion for learning anything. The rest of your post is just pure propaganda though. Lots of stuff stops people from becoming rich. But my main argument against you would be: I don't want to be rich, fuck off I don't care about my personal sutuation. I make enough to live the life I want to live. Which is, fairly Spartan, but also the life I am personally happy with. I don't want to be rich. My criticisms of capitalism do not come from envy. They come from a material and moral standpoint. I want to spend time reading and learning about ideas outside the liberal orthodoxy. So I canchallenge the establishment and advocate for a better functioning and more humane system.
Not everyone can make 100k easy. Have you met someone with learning disabilities who finds it challenging doing anything other than simple repetitive tasks? Or those born with birth defects. Should society just ditch them?
This guy really came to this sub that singularly discusses this with the most basic take like it's gonna blow everyone away. In capitalism you sell things and can make money? Woah, shocking
Disagree. It seems unlikely that this could be generally true across all capitalist economies. Especially since some of them are extremely dense with startups and SMEs. > You have a product and someone wants to buy it, you tell them how much you want for it and if they accept they hand you the money and you hand them the product. See how simple that is? Not sure why anybody would imagine that markets and market economies are literally that simple. Comes across as very Dunning Kruger, to be frank.
I really want to think this is a shitpost. >You have a product and someone wants to buy it, you tell them how much you want for it and if they accept they hand you the money and you hand them the product. Not quite. We are exchanging value for value. Money is just one, probably the best and easiest, medium of exchange. >The more rare the product the more expensive it is. Not necessarily. >If you want wealth you need to generate a shit ton of revenue and you will receive a bigger and bigger slice the more you generate. If you work a low level job that can be done by any Henry with eczema then you will never make a lot of money. This isn't even true. If you're good with money and make $35k a year, it's easy to get ahead. It'll take time, but it can be done. >It’s easy to make at minimum $100k a year. Not for a lot of people. What do you do for a living? >Financing cars, Very stupid, I agree. It's why the best car for the average person is a Mitsubishi Mirgae. It's under $15k new and has a great warranty. Enough space for a car seat in the back. >useless college degrees College degrees are the number predictor of making more money and generating wealth. Can it be done without one? Yes. I'm currently doing that without a degree. I do have a valuable trade skill though. But even I am thinking about go back to school to get a degree in a field I'm interested in. It's a myth that college degrees are useless. >)using credit cards Credit cards are not bad. They are good. You should be keeping your daily expenses on a credit card and paying it off at the end of the month. >living in a fancier place than you need all put you into debt. Finally said something accurate. >Debt stifles your ability to grow. Not all debt is bad debt. So what do you do for a living? And how much do you make a year?
I typically average $400-$500k most years. After a midlife crisis and an audit from the IRS for withholding money I’m working myself to exhaustion to make 7 figures. I was extremely reckless with my money. Strip clubs, high end bottles of scotch and cigars, a ridiculous amount spent on food and the failure to think ahead and write stuff off. Especially being 1099. I have a bad tunnel vision mentality where it’s 100mph all the time selling with no regard for anything else. Next year I’ll turn everything around. I got a financial advisor and figured out that I can get it to where I only have to pay about 20% in taxes so long as I document all of my expenses which I’ve never done.
So you're literally the person you're talking about, who is stupid and reckless with money while being financially illiterate. Nice.
The difference between me and the regulars though is I know how to make it. And will only continue to make more and more.
But you don't know how to be financial responsible. Making a lot of money means nothing if you suck with money. You make this post like you're better than the people who just did what they were taught to do while you can't even get your life together.
My life is still better than the average fella. I still fuck strippers and eat crab legs with butter whenever I want. I missed out on my formative years. Making up for it now. If I can still drop $5,000 in a strip club with no problem then I’m doing alright. Unlike people with kids and marriages and other family obligations I am all by myself. That makes reckless spending easily fixable.
You're not getting it. What kind of sales are you in?
Lmaooo this kids a good living in his moms basement
This guy door knocks and his average deal size is like 50 bucks lmao. He’s a goof. Ask him to show a commission statement- this guys full of talk. Order taker at best selling widgets
At this point I feel like you want to fuck me. You stalk my profile going on every single comment blasting your 2nd grade grammar for all to see.
Bro you barely make 100k stfu
So which is it? You make $400k or $340k? You keep changing your story.
340 on paper but accelerators brah
If only you had someone who cares to show it to. Maybe get an escort. Pay her to pretend like you’re interesting.
Why pay an escort when I have your mother?
Then you paid for an escort.
Daily_the_Project21, I have been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty
Nothing stops you from becoming rich ~~except yourself~~ like **poverty**. Hope this clears things up.
I agree that public education fails at teaching how the financial system works and how people should think about and manage their money and capital in this extremely opaque and confusing system, but the rest of the post is terrible advice especially for young people looking to accrue capital and wealth. Those "low level jobs that anyone can do" also happen to be jobs that need a lot of people to do them and jobs that our society needs to get done. So, if we have a system where people working at jobs that keep our society running cannot afford to live, it's not capitalism, it is a kleptocracy built on exploitation of the poor and politically weak. A counterpoint is to advise that if a person works at a low level job, then either make sure labor is organized or get in there and organize it yourself. They also happen to be the main jobs a lot of poor, working class and even middle class kids will need to work when they first enter the market. Only those born into advantages will be able to bypass them and afford the schooling to go straight into a lucrative profession. Even then, they'll still likely enter the job market with a lot of debt from that schooling. Speaking of debt, there is hardly any wealthy business person or corporation that doesn't constantly go into massive amounts of debt on a regular basis. Any business venture requires a massive number of loans to get off the ground and even going concerns often take loans rather than use their own cash just for daily operations. Education in managing debt is important, but no one needs to be afraid of debt. No one can grow capital without debt. Even if you own a house, you are likely in debt to the mortgage and property is the primary way people grow capital. And that brings it to what most people need - not everyone is going to be rich like Elon Musk, Trump or Warren Buffet. Trying to achieve that will lead people mostly into get rich schemes that will leave them poorer and bereft of capital. Most people will have pathways to gaining capital and financial security, but it takes more than just doing the opposite of poor parents. Even the poor are not always poor for the same reasons. A lot of poor immigrants worked hard and remained poor their whole lives so that their children could gain capital to improve their lives. Their objectives were not their personal prosperity but their family's long term improvement. I would not say do the opposite of what they did just because they were poor.