Hacker News Reader

Comment by StavrosK | Hacker News Reader

Hmm, I'm missing your point. Are you saying that the definition of "rich" is "can live off their investments"? I would disagree with that.

View on HN

I'm guessing his point is your lifestyle changes very little between the bottom and the top of the middle class. You have four walls and a roof over your head. Have home internet. Eat out a few times a week. Have a smart phone, etc.

You still have to go to work every day like everyone else to sustain this lifestyle. You just have nicer "things" and "fancier" experiences?

That argument is extremely broad, though. It's easy to live off your investments if you live in a hovel, eat ramen every day and never go out. Is that classified as rich?

Sure, it's a continuum, but "not having to live hand-to-mouth" is a hell of a lot closer to rich than to poor.

I would say that true wealth does not have to work

Someone needs to maintain the wealth, keep avoiding taxes, keep an eye on regulations, foreign markets, looking for new investments.

Couldn't they pay someone to do that?

Yes. But this is VERY risky.

See this as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz The article does not give much details. But managers basically stole her wealth from her and siphoned it to themselves.

"She was supported in her claim by Thomas Middelhoff". In my opinion it was Middelhoff who badly advised her for his own gain.

Money management is a huge industry.

I've seen stats about wealth distribution in Germany and I'm in the top 7%. I could life of my saved money for 3 maybe 5 years if I'm very frugal.

I wouldn't consider this rich, wealthy yes, but not rich.

Also my money is probably more in the range of the 20% of the population that is "under me" in the stats than the 2% "over me".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com