Status vs. Wealth: Why the Rich Don't Act Rich
wealest.com
wealest.com
I feel like you could easily write something like this by doing a scrape(Naval's twitter) + scrape(buffet's wiki page) -> GPT3_summarize(that content) and you'd get this article.
I would love to hear some examples of wealth generation that do not take away opportunity or money directly or indirectly from other people
[edit] below commenters have some great points, i'm reconsidering my stance on this point
This is true when the computer replaced secretaries, when cars replaced the horse, when planes replaced the boats, internet replaced fax and phone calls, etc. Overall the quality of life of everyone improved even if a select few suffered each time progress was made, making even fewer rich, but everyone else better off.
You create wealth by providing value to others, value that exceeds the competition you have displaced. That's why wealth creation is a positive sum game.
Is there more wealth in the world today than 100 years ago? More than 1000 years ago?
If so, where did it come from?
> It’s really potential wealth
That's like saying that potential energy doesn't count as energy. If we extract our resources to create "wealth" that prevents us from doing something substantially more valuable in the future, we didn't create wealth. We destroyed it. But collectively we have such a short term mindset that this is hard to see.
I haven't researched it, but isn't a large portion (vast majority) of lumber we use these days to build things from forests that we plant and grow?
Do you think people 1000 years ago felt wealthy because of their natural resources and would feel that modern times are comparatively impoverished?
What are the wealthiest countries in the world?
I don't think the usage you're proposing matches any real usage of the word.
No, because we don't have access to those resources.
> Do you think people 1000 years ago felt wealthy because of their natural resources and would feel that modern times are comparatively impoverished?
I have no idea what people 1000 years ago felt like. I do know what it feels like to live in 2022.
> What are the wealthiest countries in the world?
I don't know.
> I don't think the usage you're proposing matches any real usage of the word.
I am being very literal with the dictionary definition. With every gallon of oil that we burn, we are destroying wealth. We are taking a material resource that has value, extracting that value and preventing it from ever being used again. You can argue that the byproduct of that extraction is more valuable than the oil, but I find that very unlikely given that technology is likely to improve over time. In other words, we should try to conserve as many natural resources as we can today because they will be even more valuable in the future when we can use them more efficiently.
Which is more valuable? Which would you rather want?
Essentially by just rearranging matter you can create wealth.
Today or in 50 years? I'm pretty sure an iphone in 50 years will be worthless but the raw materials that made it will probably be even more valuable than they are today.
In essence, wealth is a process that creates low entropy.
He posits three conditions that need to be met:
All value creating economic transformations and transactions
1) Irreversibility - are thermodynamically irreversible
2) Entropy - reduce entropy locally while increasing it globally
3) Fitness - need to be fit for human purposes.
On my recent trip, I saw mountains being broken and shipped off to distant places for construction. If it goes on, within a few decades they will cease to exist. The last one tells us that we can define what wealth means - to some the mountains and the ecosystem they harbour are wealth, to some the buildings and the resulting economic activity is wealth.
Variations: synthesising a new chemical, teaching someone a new skill.
House building is clearly a positive-sum game that benefits everyone.
The developer makes money building houses. Furniture maker makes money making furniture. Utilities make money providing power, water and plumbing. You make money renting your AirBnB or using it as a house for your family.
Not so fast. For any given project, what are the associated externalities? You can't build a house without exploiting the earth's resources. You can't build furniture without chopping down trees or digging up oil. You can't harvest energy without disrupting the environment in one way or another. Your renting your house on AirBnB is extracting more money from your guests than the time value of the house. Your guest must then do something exploitative to earn the money to pay you. The chain eventually will make its way back to the extraction of natural resources. It isn't possible to turn a profit without exploitation.
Do we really not care that we have burned up an unfathomable amount of precious, irreplaceable fossil fuels to prop up our industrial economy? We should be worshipping fossil fuels, and using them as sparingly as possibly, not frivolously wasting them.
Until we have an economy that doesn't rely on unsustainable extraction, it's hard to see any form of wealth creation as positive sum.
Our civilization is going to collapse long before the heat death of the universe, and honestly probably within the lifespan of people living today. We could at least try and soften the blow and stop doubling down on the same mindset that created most of the existential crises that face us today.
It will take near term lithium (and other) resources away from others competing for them but will benefit more overall in the long run.
Just a local (W.Australia) example.
yes people pay for it, but they get value from that time and money
though long term you capitalizing on a specific set of content takes away revenue from others looking to do the same, almost like a pyramid (i.e. MKBHD and Linus Tech Tips making loads of money for their reviews making it almost impossible to make a successful reviews channel, at least on YouTube. Same with the beauty vloggers like Tati), so I suppose all wealth generation approximates to positive-sum
I'm unaware of anyone whose money or opportunity is being reduced through this, perhaps apart from some minor reductions in turnover for fertiliser and pesticide companies.
You’d never know it, given his attire and evening job. But he is focused on keeping the cash flow growing.
His net worth is probably in the millions but few know it unless they really get him to open up (something I tend to be naturally good at).
I know a few folks like this. I call them the stealthy wealthy.
Easily one of the best jobs of my life. I like to say that my career satisfaction peaked early. It would actually be a pretty good gig if you're otherwise well-off and just looking for some socialization in your life.
He loves the shuttle job and makes good money— I tipped him well, for example.
I ended up grilling him about his commercial properties and how he did it, and it checks out. I know the town where he operates pretty well, and a familiar enough with the business he’s in to see that he knew his stuff.
He hates the single family homes. Way more hassle. So, he’s looking to exit that. The commercial properties are net leases with pretty long lease periods. No hassle at all: just cash flow.
He’s got a convenience store, a restaurant, a church, a strip mall, and I forget what else.
Anyway, I know a handful of people like him who are for a fact millionaires, with lots of cash flowing businesses (such as storage units) but who still hold down jobs that might surprise you.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In the long run you make a lot of money, but it is a long time before profits are enough to live off of. For the first years the money goes to paying the bank, insurance, taxes, and if you are lucky there is enough left to cover basic repairs.
> that’s a horrible waste of his clear talent for building wealth
I'd love to quit my job and do what I like, gardening, music, painting, whatever. If the guy enjoys driving shuttles then he shouldn't waste his life doing something else, given the opportunity.
I have a few friends who are into passive real estate investing, they claim they own an apartment complex. What they did is they gave money to a group of guys who pooled money got a loan and then bought an apartment complex under an LLC. My friends owns 0.001 percent of the LLC with no operational control of the apartment complex. My understanding they are called real-estate syndicates. It is a scam if you ask me. I don’t think most investors will get good returns on their investment.
also those rentals don't cash flow until they pay off their mortgage, so might be a long game kind of thing.
Ironically he taught me the importance of relationships and people after otherwise being the type of techy that only values technical acumen. Legitimately changed my whole life direction. Shame I didn’t take to the lesson entirely before I cut things off.
One of my few regrets.
Not sure this makes much sense. Do rich live in a cave and literally sit on their money and wait until they die? I don’t think so, they buy flight tickets, a house in the beach, a bigger yard to do gardening, better health care to live longer, pay a baby sitter,…
I feel money buys high quality time, not just time
That's a good tactics because middle class stuff has the best bang for the buck. Rich, status-displaying stuff delivers diminishing benefits for exponentially growing price.
In the area we were in[1], almost all the houses look the same, seriously unimposing, aggressively bland.
They'd point over to a (admittedly large sqft) boring looking house and say "oh yeah, some super rich guy lives there, heir to some fortune or another."
It was weird coming from the west coast where the front facade[2] of a house is itself a status symbol of sorts.
[1] A generally well to do nice area with a bit of history to it. [2] And sometimes just the front, hah! Horrible vinyl siding everywhere else...
That isn't to say that the rich don't spend on better things. It's that someone who's looking for a flashy sign of that wealth won't find one. If someone is flashy, the likelihood they're rich drops.
In general when you are settled down it is easier to care less about trying to gain additional romantic partners.
But almost always people are well-meaning when they make these comments about wealth as an abstract concept. It's just that their privilege makes it difficult for them to see how condescending it can come off as.
I think your reminder is valuable, and I appreciate you highlighting that. Maybe you might be able to give that perspective to people who don't have it yet.
Assuming fair competition based on innovation on efficiency of course. Corruption and coercion not apply
Common points he would repeat:
- There is no magic formula to find rich people or to become one
- They don't live above their means
- Beside poor impulse control, a habit of lottery ticket purchasing is the strongest signal negatively correlated with long-term wealth
- Rich people often married but rarely divorce because it's a more efficient lifestyle and financial suicide to split
- Rich people tend to meet their spouses in college where there's a better cohort to meet
"Stop Acting Rich" was a title of one of his books. Not sure if it's an accident or the remote possibility of a ripoff. It's an obvious title.
One interesting positive correlation with single-family, suburban, non-forest-interface home property values is the number of trees. It's not a perfect rule, but single-family home areas without trees tend to appear unappealing and are statistically less affluent (i.e., fake grass, plastic flamingos, wrought iron fencing, and bars on the windows). The exception to the rule is San Jose, California which is a horrible mix of unmaintained houses with overgrown weeds beside nice homes. If property owners there had leadership sense and wanted to maintain their property values, they would influence code enforcement to cite unkempt properties.
> Play wealth accumulation games, not status games.
> Twitter is the ultimate battleground for status games.
... and then proceeds to quote his own tweets.
He talks about the importance of living by an inner scorecard an then immediately transitions to claiming "the only game worth playing is the wealth accumulation game", which sounds a lot like an external scorecard.
Wealth is/can be private knowledge.
You assess your own score based on your own internal guidelines, not what other people think. The amount of wealth I feel I need to "pass" is unrelated to yours.
I mean, superyachts do exist. Mansions also visibly exist. Jeff Bezos does have not one but two private jets.
Now, I know some of this stuff is illusionary - there are private jets that don't fly and just act as photo studios. Loads of people can qualify for a loan to get a fancy car, if they're willing to pay a lot in interest.
I mean, I'd call someone with $10 million in the bank rich - but that's not enough money to own a superyacht. People who own superyachts aren't in my social circles, but they clearly exist.
Where the line between rich and middle class is, isn't well defined, but most of us could cross that line, but only those who don't act like will. However the total number of people just over the line is vastly greater than those well over who can afford the expensive toys.
Compare that yacht to the equivalent purchase of a well-off, working engineer (with, say, a $1M net worth): that's a $4000 purchase. It's a nice computer.
Point being, some people are so wealthy that even relatively "conservative" expenditures look extravagant.
The real difference is between new and old money. The nouveau riche like to show off because they're fixated with the idea that they've earned it themselves, very much on display among super rich techies. It's precisely the "non zero-sum" people who love to signal their wealth openly because they take it for granted that their wealth is based on merit.
It's your old money folks who have some sense of noblesse oblige who understand that wealth most of the time is indeed pretty zero sum and who think of flaunting wealth one as distasteful and secondly as potentially stupid if it attracts attention, which new money craves and old money does not.
I could argue that most wealth comes from optimizing the efforts to extract and transport resources, plus all the other optimizations on the paper shuffling we do after (e. g., Communication, entertainment, etc.).
Is it though? Even if it were true in aggregate, which I'm not ready to grant, there are clearly individual losers in the the "wealth creation" game.
When you gamble money there are winners and losers. When you create something that creates wealth.
Of course, because the tree has no value, right? As long as you call things you don't care about "externalities" you can trivially prove anything is a positive-sum game.
And I'm with you, I actually dislike the word "externalities", it smacks of calling employees "resources".
Naval won't have the status of Leonardo DiCaprio because he was never looking like him.
(Shaw? Nobel prize speech iirc, Acquisition<rivalry<vanity<power)
You generally can't know for certain, except in some cases such as a public figure. Lots of people expend vast amounts of energy projecting the image of wealth in a [pathetic] attempt to gain status, and they're faking it to the max.
As the saying goes:
"Mo' money, mo' problems."
Some years ago my wife was talking about a poor family we know: while looking their finacnces over realised if you subtract 401k (which they don't have) and house payment (my house was a lot nicer, though both of us should have it paid for in 30 years) I actually have less take home pay to live on in a month. Of course that difference means a nicer house to live in, and a very comfortable retirement plan.
The existence of instagrammers who rent $5 million apartments for a half hour photoshoot hardly refutes this.
I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but the “understating wealth” pattern of behavior is quite real and common.
Whether the way they act is congruent with the way the average person thinks they act is the question. From knowing a few "never going to have to worry about money in this or the next couple generations" families, they mostly fly private but go to great lengths to not post or boast about that.
I think he thought I was referring to ostentatious displays of status like top hats and monocles.
Most rich though are not as obvious about it. Warren buffet isn't the only one living in a modest house, you just don't know the rest.
Most rich are not at the level of the above either. Several million in various investment is enough for a comfortable modest life, but acting like money isn't a problem will soon spend it all.
Anyways, I have a family friend who is a doctor. He lives in a quiet neighborhood in a $400k house. It’s unassuming. He does drive a Panamera but he actually loves it and drives it because he loves it.
If you saw them in public you’d think they were just a regular middle class couple.
Last time I saw their /bank accounts/ (I do their IT work), not other assets like stocks or whatever, they had over $15million in cash.
It’s pretty wild. They probably have more money than most of the assholes living in the Country Club in McMansions here. And no debt.