Rich people love to distinguish between old and new rich. Am I supposed to somehow be impressed by this? Old rich just use their money for pleasure and status like new rich do, they just have different more obtuse ways to do it.
1. “New rich” is flashy and gaudy and that’s not perceived as a positive. Flaunting wealth is seen as trying to show off for the admiration/approval/jealousy of the less rich. Being old rich is to be above it, and so comfortable with money you don’t need to show it off.
2. “Old Rich” is a separate world, it’s like royalty, no amount of success today makes you old rich yesterday. Since having the right connections is an important factor in success, it’s another way to close doors for everyone but your kids.
3. I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that.
Thanks. I needed something to induce vomit.
I'm thinking of some Hiphop stars.
Over the top behaviour, perhaps, but I'll always respect that more than the old rich dripping in the unearned benefits of their generational wealth, connections and status worship. But I'm not bitter.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm curious as to how the Old Rich feel towards these non-New-Rich-but-newly-rich types. Are they still considered part of the New Rich riff-raff even if they do happen to be more sensible with their money? Or are they seen as honorary Old Rich out of respect? Or something else?
Hopefully some Old Rich HN commenter (we know you're there!) can give me some insight.
None of this crap really matters. There's plenty of old money types who spend on flamboyant crap and plenty of new money types who don't and trying to generalize based on how many generations they've had money is beyond a fool's errand.
I am not saying it’s an important distinction to me.
Such as? 4 dinner forks?
It is not about what you do have and what you do, but rather what you don’t do that distinguishes.
To say someone has the wrong 'qualities of tastes, behaviors or values' is arrogance. Everybody's culture is handed down, that's another weasel-phrase that just disguises bigotry.
But anyway ...
As a result of proximity over time, the 'old rich' have developed unique cultural habits that are easily recognized as different to 'new rich'. Every group does this. Sure, there is good and bad to it, but it's a natural and expected outcome.
1. old money is afraid to spend frivolously because (a) they are embarrassed because they know they didn't earn it themselves and (b) they don't believe they could make it on their own if they had to. Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.
2. because old money is the opposite of meritocratic (inheritance based) they have to come up with all kinds of gatekeeping strategies to maximize the advantage of their social position.
3. social rules that keep the old monied themselves in check, to slow down the inevitable reversion to the mean.
I think charity type stuff is seen a bit different than flashy ridiculously expensive cars and such. It's a way that might be seen as showing off but is not perceived as badly and so less likely to get you noticed in a less desirable way. Similarly those art collections unless lent/donated don't leave the estate and are hardly flashy
And the art world is small. People know who the collectors are.
I don’t bootlick billionaires and I generally consider wealth inequality a major societal failure, but I can recognize that someone who built immense wealth usually worked hard (and got very lucky!), and potentially possessed some entrepreneurial skill I lack. I also admire musicians because I have no musical ability, and I admire athletes because I have no athletic ability.
When you’re newly rich, this ability is yet unproven…
The folks that do nothing but own land and raise your rent every year are oh so classy, and the folks that actually work invent things that improve your life like idk wifi are oh so gauche.
Both are equally laughable. We shouldn’t put others in pedestals because of their wealth, full stop.
Middle class people have correctly concluded that hustling is not a virtue, and that hustling more is a fool's errand.
I personally don't aspire to work any harder than I already do, and given the choice, would strongly prefer to inherit my fortune over "earning" it.
Sheesh, those guys got skinned and mounted as trophies over a century ago.
Look up Pareto foxes and lions.
New rich on the other hand feel the need to display the fact that "they've made it", talking about money is important to them.
So there's a certain incompatibility between old and new rich, where old rich feel bothered by the talk about money.
Note. By rich here I am talking upwards of 100MM although it would appear B would soon be replacing M as the place to be money-wise in terms of wealth recognition.
Far nastier stuff than some nerd striking it rich by making a fun app.
I suppose you could call Amazon a fun app.
You should google the Pittsburgh steel strikes and Henry Frick.
You think someone who has to shoot their workers is more ethical?
It’s genuinely hilarious to see how poor HN’s grasp of history is.
You mean the guy who survived an assassination attempt by labor activists, who were running a totally illegal blockade of his business? And it’s not even like the laws have changed about it since then, their blockade strike would be totally illegal today as well.
Let me know if it's still legal to have your workers work with highly dangerous machinery for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (for wages that would be comparable to federal minimum wage today ~ although it's hard to find a good inflation calculator that tracks back to the 1880s).
I'm sure that's totally comparable to the plight that Google/FB/Amzn employees have to put up with.
Obviously I admire what he did with the Gospel of Wealth & his philanthropy, but that doesn't excuse his horrible treatment of workers.
Honestly, it's just so astonishing that you can even argue in support of Henry Frick.
You should read up about the Johnstown FLood and the failure of the South Fork Dam.
I feel like the HN crowd just skims the wikipedia bio and uses that to craft a hilariously terrible argument.
I am not so much arguing in support of Frick but rather against a completely dishonest narrative where he is villainized for “shooting workers”, while completely omitting the details as to what events led to that situation.
But looking over the fact that the advertising industry is fundamentally about the exploitation of cognitive biases in order to convince folks to buy things that more often than that they do not need just betrays a certain naïveté of what's going on out there.
I could go on.