A Look at the Ugly Side of Getting Rich | Hacker News Reader

A Look at the Ugly Side of Getting Rich

bloomberg.com

71 pointsthisisit62 comments

> In another, Imelda Marcos, the former first lady of the Philippines accused of stealing billions from state coffers, sits in her Manila apartment beneath a gold-framed Picasso

Everytime I read something like this, I feel ill.

What drives human beings to this level of greed and excess? Is there some primitive or primate instinct in all of us? Meanwhile, the beggar children in India don't even have a shirt on their back. True story: When I went back to India for the very 1st time after coming to America, I saw a shirtless kid on a train station begging for food. I opened my suitcase and gave him 1 of my oversized (for him) shirt. The look on his face was priceless.

What drives so many people throughout history over 100s of years to hoard stuff and waste (mostly) ill-acquired wealth?? Is there something in-grained in us, that we can't resist it??

Still searching for an explanation.

What in particular makes you feel ill about this? What is the strong emotion that affects you so upon reading of the wealth of a person you will never meet?

Normally when people say this, their tone makes it evident they are envious, but that's missing here and I'm curious.

There is no moral justification for accumulating more wealth than you and your family can spend in a lifetime. The only way to amass such an amount is by exploiting the labour of others. The extremely wealthy are a net drain on society.

I often wonder what would happen if there existed a public, self-updating list of every person on earth and their respective net worth.

Sounds like it's because he has seen the polar opposite, and is frustrated that the resources Marcos is spending on gold-framed Picassos and shoes are not used to improve the existence of the vast number of poor people in the region.

I'm not envious. I want to understand why such wealthy people wouldn't spend the money improving the lives of other human beings, and instead waste it on overprices sh*t like a $12,000 Hermes bag.

I grew up in India and the wealth disparity couldn't be any starker. I feel that if I was ever that wealthy, I would spend a lot of it trying to improve the lives of poor people and homeless people, instead of buying 4000 shoes or a 100 Hermes bags.

I know from close contact with Filipino Boxers, how broke and poor a large population of their country is. Meanwhile their President is stealing from her people and hoarding 4000+ shoes, when she can only wear 1 pair at a time :)

So I really want to know, is there some very primate (and hence hard to control) instinct in all human beings, which causes them to hoard useless stuff instead of using their wealth for 'greater causes'?

I would attribute that to a desire to raise oneself up at the expense of the others, stemming from basic lack of empathy and belief in superiority. This is often justified through societal constructs (economy, profession, race, caste…)

PS: cool boxing site! :)

One way to answer that might be to look inside ourselves.

Take me for example. I indulge myself with books, songs, apps, etc. Granted, it's on a completely different financial scale than Hermes bags, but I own more things than I can realistically consume. So let's call whatever I buy but can't consume "excess".

Whatever instinct causes me to buy stuff in excess instead of using that excess to help the poor more than I currently do is likely the same instinct that causes the rich to buy 4000 shoes and 100 Hermes bags instead of helping the poor more.

I don't introspect enough to know what that instinct is, but most of us here probably have similar very minor excesses in our lives and can get some clues by thinking about those.

The same reason people just don't care about everyone in the world and everything that happens around them.

For example: as a European, I am aware that both poverty in Africa and the war in Syria is an issue, but frankly and like many other people, it's not something I lose much sleep over. That doesn't mean I wouldn't help if I could (e.g. by donating money), but given these things are happening not that close to home, I accept them as a fact of life. The west isn't in a position to solve many of the issues in developing nations.

Also, just because someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily make them happy. There are plenty of unhappy wealthy people. Wealth often makes you lose your way in life, and for some it can be more of a curse than a blessing. Wealth aside, some people just don't care much for others. But on the flipside there are also plenty of amazing wealthy (and less wealthy) people that will go out of their way to help others.

Wealth accumulation doesn't come with a social contract that you have to try and fix social issues in society. Some people will, others won't. I don't see any issues with that.

This all said, obviously stealing is never acceptable. But I could understand how someone would own 4000 pairs of shoes, if they're compensating for say a loveless marriage, or some sort of emptiness in life.

Ironic that you're being downvoted for prompting half the discussion in this thread (at present).

I'm curious about this, too. Sibling comments are asking why any person or company would hoard that money when they could be donating it. A company I know just spent over a $1M USD on a domain name and got a lot of hate for it -- many complaints that the money could have been donated instead.

For reference, I grew up dirt poor, and still work insane hours every day in a continual effort to dig myself out of a pit I never asked to be in. And I still don't think it's fair to criticize how private entities spend their own money. I absolutely understand leveling the playing field, and using a position of privilege to benefit society. But if I get rich and blow my fortune on luxury goods so what?

> But if I get rich and blow my fortune on luxury goods so what?

This. Exactly. What prompted you to say this? Do you think if you do get filthy rich, you will follow through on blowing your forture on luxury goods? If so, what prompted you to feel this urge??

Not the poster, but for my part, the reason I find this kind of behavior revolting is that it is clear to me that material goods are intended for all; though men have a right to private property, that right is not to all property, but to sufficient property to provide for their needs and their state in life, and all else kept after that is waste.

> Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces.

> When what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documen...

It's dysfunctional, like a human version of the "paperclip maximizer" AI: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

Musk with his personal space programme at least makes "sense" of some sort. Imelda bought more shoes than she could wear in a lifetime: that's dysfunctional.

And it came with a real human cost. How many human QALYs did that collection cost the Philipines? Or, more personally, how many dead children is a Picasso worth?

To me it seems deeply shameful and embarrassing that these people can't think of a better use for their money. You could spend your fortune building something, starting a business, patronizing public works or artistic projects, funding scientific or medical research, or helping innumerable worthy charities. Instead, these people spend their money buying fancy labels and useless things.

Their inability to use their money well is contemptible and unfortunate.

accusing other people of envy is some seriously weaselly argumentation that seems designed to deflect away from real, rational, and salient criticisms about economic injustice

What's wrong with justified envy anyway?

Why is it ok to normalize 1 instinctual response (greed) but not the other (envy) ?

who's normalizing? Greed is understood as a "sin" (religious framework) or "vice" (secular framework) or "pathology" (psychological framework). Same with envy.

>What is the strong emotion that affects you so upon reading of the wealth of a person you will never meet?

That wasn't just a description of wealth, it was a description of a crime, and the extravagant purchases of the criminal.

Disgust is the emotion in question. It reminds me of a cat I had that would just keep eating till it puked, then eat the puke. Only the cat wasn't stealing the food, so it wasn't quite so gross as Imelda.

Did you miss the part about stealing billions from state coffers?

How would you not feel disgusted by that?

It's not like that money disappears, it just traded hands. Whoever sold the painting might use some of it for charity.

I'm not convinced it's as benign as that. Less equal societies tend to be less happy, at the top and the bottom as you can see in the article.

Hoarding during scarcity is quite a sensible strategy, you want to get through the winter season or drought.

What we don't seem able to do is turn that off in an environment of abundance. We can't seem to get past that evolutionary adaptation and it isn't doing us any good.

Some people are genetically greedier than others and greedier people are much more likely to get into positions of power.

To make matters worse, people tend to like people who are like them. So greedy people help other greedy people. This means that power and money becomes concentrated in the hands of the greedy.

"Some people are genetically greedier..."

That's a pretty bold claim that I am coming across for the first time. I did not know greed has its roots in genetics. Can you cite some references? I would love to read more about this.

Finding 1 here: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

> All psychological traits show significant and substantial genetic influence

Well, we're made up of DNA. Scientists unanimously agree that DNA is responsible for all of our characteristics. If you search the internet, you should be able to find plenty of papers and evidence which document the effects of specific genes on personality. Recently, I watched a lecture about a specific gene nicknamed the "Warrior gene" - Scientists found that people who carried this gene were more likely to become serial killers.

I would argue that the presence of this "warrior gene" would be strongly correlated with greed. Police officers will tell you that the serial killer mindset is about low empathy combined with a desire for power over other people - That sounds like a pretty good recipe for greed too.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were other genes that played a part in this personality trait we call greed. Having a materialist view of the world, I think it's pretty safe to say that everything which differentiates us from non-living objects can be attributed to chemical reactions which trace back to DNA itself.

The cultural/environmental aspects of greed are merely feedback loops that are rooted in the genetics of the members of any given group/culture.

>Scientists unanimously agree that DNA is responsible for all of our characteristics

Whoa there buddy. They agree no such thing. Upbringing makes a difference too, to name just one of the entire gigantic category known as "environmental factors".

I don't buy this. The behavior of the wealthy people profiled in the article seems like it is clearly in the column of social signaling. A big bank account is hoarding. A closet full of Hermes handbags is showing off your status.

Yeah, replace "we" with "some." Some contingent of the population are greedy scumbags. It's not the human condition. Everyone always wants to sidestep responsibility because "it's in our nature." Complete cop-out.

They aren't greedy scumbags, just people with rather sad lives.

Don't get ill. Sin brings its own punishment along with it.

Ask me how I know.

how do you know? (out of real interest)

> Is there some primitive or primate instinct in all of us?

I think so. An instinct exacerbated by marketing.

Most of us who aren't wealthy also spend a decent chunk of our incomes on unnecessary things. They might not be luxuries as extravagant as the ones described in the article, but they would still pay for plenty of shirts in India -- or my country. Why do we do this? Why do we eat at restaurants, go on vacations abroad or buy nice clothes instead of spending that money in a humanitarian way?

After that, it's just a matter of scale and of getting used to a lifestyle that includes 100s of ugly bags and tackily framed works of art.

A little different with that specific example though because the Marcos were criminals that stole billions.

I think the reason comes down to differences in values.

Values are the measuring sticks by which people quantify success in life. Whether or not we realize it, we constantly measure our actions against our values, and how we 'measure up' determines our self-worth.

If I had to guess, kindness and compassion are core to your values. As a result, when you see a greedy person, you feel disgust because you would feel worthless if you were in their shoes acting in such an unkind/selfish manner.

For better or worse, not everyone holds the same values. For example, some people value 'winning'. Individuals who value 'winning' want to be the best no matter what. There are many ways to measure the value of 'winning', but money/material possessions is one scoreboard/metric. If they accumulate more of it, they feel more self-worth.

Why do people hold less 'wholesome' value sets? Are certain values less worthy of others? Should we pass judgement on people who hold conflicting values?

These are interesting questions. On the topic of 'why', I'd expect environment plays a major factor. If you're brought up in an isolated bubble of wealthy individuals, it's quite easy to imagine how one would grow a value attachment to the associated luxuries.

Personally, I don't think there's inherent value in anything. As a result, no one value is 'truly' better than another. However, some values drive actions that harm other people, and those are worth passing judgement from a utilitarian standpoint.

> "Personally, it's hard for me judge other value sets because I see so much dissonance and irrationality in value norms, and I'd end up passing judgment on most people. My current belief is that there's no real inherent value in anything. As a result, no one value is truly better than another. I've found that this perspective makes me more understanding and tolerant of other people whom I previously would have been repelled by."

Most of your post was pretty well thought out, but you're likely getting downvoted because this last part just sounds strange, and intellectually lazy to boot. By the reasoning above, any behavior, including murder and rape, can be justified. "They just happen to have different values. Who am I to judge them?"

I agree that it's hard to judge the relative merits of different values, but just because it's hard doesn't mean we should give up and call it a day.

Thanks for the feedback - I'm still trying to sort out my beliefs :). Edited to more appropriately reflect what I learned by writing this response.

I really wish people would stop using the term "1%" to refer to the super-rich. They're actually talking about the 0.01%, or an even smaller group.

Heck, anyone making $30k/year is in the 1% globally. Even in the West, a good (not superstar) doctor or lawyer can expect to be in the 1%. If you're buying $300k handbags, you're way, way, way beyond the 1%.

Documentary works like this, mixing avaricious fascination with super-wealth as well as the morally-delicious feeling of superiority, always put me off a bit. It's sort of like the inverse of watching Hoarders - you get to be horrified and fascinated and feel superior at the same time.

"How could someone live like this?" you get to say. "I would never..." you get to say.

(Not saying that this photographer had that intention, specifically - I'm more commenting on the audience than the photog).

People are people; wealth is wealth; most people would act in these ways if they could.

And from the point of view of a kid starving in Delhi slums, your Prius looks a lot like Imelda Marcos' gold-framed Picasso.

That said... I'm looking at these photos with interest :)

I wish people would stop using the "1%" as a global entity. When people refer to the "1%" it is understood implicitly that they are referring to the 1% of the wealthiest individuals in the western world. By referring to the "1%" in the way you do, you demean people who struggle daily making 8 bucks an hour because "chin up, you're in the 1% hehe".

You think you're doing some good by making this argument, but really you're hurting more people than you understand.

> When people refer to the "1%" it is understood implicitly that they are referring to the 1% of the wealthiest individuals in the western world.

The people making minimum wage in the western world are, by your own definition, NOT in the 1%. They are very much NOT among the wealthiest individuals in the western world. It's not demeaning at all.

I think part of the problem is how often people idolize the rich just for being rich and not for what sort of person they are, it enables them.

Money doesnt impress me, good people impress me.

And there are plenty of good people with money, and without.

> Money doesn't make you happy. It makes you unhappy in a better part of town.

Great quote!

a friend of mine used to say "you can cry in a corolla, or in a Ferrari, but I sure as hell would want to cry in a Ferrari"

It's something only the fabulously wealthy can say. For almost everyone else, even if money doesn't directly make you happier, it removes the vast majority of barriers to attaining happiness (though clearly not all of them). I know I'm much happier now that I make six figures and don't have to worry as much about medical bills, rent, food and so on and have disposable income to direct into new hobbies I couldn't have afforded before (fishkeeping and hydroponics in my case).

A better quote, from eminent philosopher Kanye West, would be "Having money isn't everything; not having it is."

Most places in western countries provide citizens medical and food/shelter security without being wealthy.

Except the largest Western nation in the world...

also, not true

Money doesn't make you happy, but at least allows you to be unhappy in comfort

Bloomberg should retitle this article "The Ugly Side of Greed". But then we never would have read it. ;)

The people portrayed here are on the extreme end of greed & materialism.

I once worked with an almost-billionaire family. If you ran into them in a restaurant, you would never know. They were out of the mold of Sam Walton. Ok, they drove Cadillacs, but Cadillacs with well over 100,000 miles on them. The rest of their vehicles were Chevy Tahoes or Ford pickups.

Further, there are tons of millionaires who saved their money over their life. They don't act like this, and they probably live right near you, but you wouldn't notice because they don't go overboard on their materialism.

On the poorer end of the spectrum, there are tons of "credit-card millionaires" - as I call people who make $100-300,000 per year but have no real savings and spend all their money on "glamorous" crap that fills up their homes. To me, the article is about people just like this, but who have secured more money - their behavior is identical.

> I once worked with an almost-billionaire family. If you ran into them in a restaurant, you would never know.

One of my favorite books is The Billionaire Who Wasn't, about Chuck Feeney of DFS (Duty-Free Shoppers), and it keeps referencing his cheap Casio watch:

“Since my earliest days I have been frugal, but I am a frugal person in that I hate waste, at any level,” says Feeney, who always wears off-the-peg clothes, a cheap plastic watch, and reading glasses of the type sold in book-stores. “If I can get a watch for $15 that keeps perfect time, what am I doing messing around with a Rolex?”

https://www.amazon.com/Billionaire-Who-Wasnt-Secretly-Fortun...

[Incidentally, it means the $200 Pebble watch I wear & love is 13x more expensive/extravagant than that of a billionaire. Gives an interesting perspective.]

It actually makes more sense for the already successful and wealthy to not be interested in outward appearance. They have no one to impress and nothing to gain by showing off.

Your up and coming business man, however, may have some logical reasons to signal wealth. Either for networking purposes or convincing potential customers or partners that you are the type of successful person they might want to work with, conspicuous consumption can have its merits.

So what do you do when you have a ton of money? You can of course spend it on charity or investing in companies, but that requires work, and is not in everyone's interests. There are also only so many expensive things that they can buy in this world, so they buy all of them, and some more, and there is still a lot of money left to spend. Even if they do all of the above, there will be more money left, and the search for purpose and meaning will become more and more intense. Also, due to the nature of capitalism, the rich can't stop making more wealth than the rest.

When Fortune (or was it Forbes) introduced the list of 500 richest Americans (early 1970s?) many people on the list were angry and threatened to sue.

Now it's honor, a form a celebrity

That was in the age of the Red Scare. These people had reason to be seriously concerned that they may find themselves on the wrong end of a torch and pitchfork.

Maybe but it was also towards the end of an age when people generally considered it to be in poor taste to talk about money.

people are still sueing Forbes

  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-saudi-billionaire-idUSBRE9560Q020130607

Ha!

As was pointed out by a long-ago HN comment I've now failed to find, the tabloid "richest" lists measure particularly public forms of wealth. People who don't wish to be on such lists, now manage their wealth so they're not.

For those of you in LA, this work is being exhibited at the Annenberg Space for Photography in Century City. Highly recommended.

Interesting that "In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14194803

...was posted 3 hours before this one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com