[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
economics

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 8631)
Message
File  []
close
pg-21-social-classes-watt.jpg
863186318631
>> No. 8631 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 11:22 am
8631 How do people become wealthy?
I think I have a substantial gap in my knowledge that exists somewhere between personal finance and economics. Let me explain:

On the one side, there's literature on personal wealth, which ranges from "think yourself rich"-type snake oil to the lowest common denominator investment and savings advice. The better books here tend to be conservative and with a focus on basic financial stability and building "nest eggs" more than any analysis of how people actually accrue greater levels of wealth.

On the other side, I regularly read big-picture economic studies offering useful but still fairly broad observations like:
- the majority of wealth in the world is inherited
- people we think of as highly successful entrepreneurs often benefit indirectly from tremendous government (public) investment, either at the earlier, riskier stages of development or later when technologies are pushed to private markets
- social and cultural capital are important factors in accumulating wealth, and your class background can impact your earnings throughout your life even if you go to similar universities and work in similar industries
- certain countries are better settings for general social mobility and equality, but not necessarily becoming highly wealthy

What seems to be missing here is: how do the "socially mobile" become wealthy without large inheritances? What industries do they work in? Do they find a niche and start businesses? What sacrifices do they make to get there, and what did they have upon starting? How much must people rely on "angel investors" and already wealthy people? How far up the economic ladder can someone realistically expect to scale from a particular background, like say, a traditional working class family?

I feel like this is a difficult topic to properly look into because a) it draws attention to inequality and lack of meritocratic rewards, b) drawing attention to a niche would either immediately devalue it or it has already been capitalised on, c) research tends towards extremes of either social mobility as a whole or the case studies of the ultra-wealthy, and d) social mobility is generally on the decline, and there are fewer examples to study.

So where do I go for this, .gs? Where are the economic studies of how people from ordinary backgrounds make their wealth?
Expand all images.
>> No. 8632 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 11:29 am
8632 spacer
There is no particular route to becoming wealthy, if there was then everyone would do it. You can do a lot of the things you mention to optimise your chances but in the end that's all it is; chance. The right industries to work in varies depending on where and when you are. Sometimes having a niche works, sometimes you have better luck if you diversify.
>> No. 8633 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 11:35 am
8633 spacer
Wealth in this sense comes from earning money from means other than your own labour.

Either from returns on your 'investment' i.e. money working for you, or the labour of someone else with your cut sliced off the top. Once you work out a model you turn it into a 'meme' and replicate it, the real question then becomes one of how fast the meme will replicate.

The best investment in the UK probably is being a landlord, people give you more money than the mortgage and at the end you own a house which has gone up faster than the rate of inflation. I think that is an awfu, but that is probably the best model in our society.
>> No. 8634 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 11:35 am
8634 spacer
>>8632

Agreed, and yet I think if you were to treat the section of the population I'm describing (people from ordinary backgrounds that become moderately to very wealthy) as its own subgroup and study them, you would surely notice certain trends and commonalities between them?

Since this is .gs, you could also limit the subgroup to the UK or Western Europe. Do studies like this exist?
>> No. 8635 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 11:43 am
8635 spacer
>>8634
>I think if you were to treat the section of the population I'm describing (people from ordinary backgrounds that become moderately to very wealthy) as its own subgroup and study them, you would surely notice certain trends and commonalities between them?
Yes, that would be the chance-optimising. But I bet that while there are plenty of successful people who spent time studying successful people before they became a success themselves, there are far, far more people who studied the successful and never got there.
>> No. 8636 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 11:59 am
8636 spacer
>>8635

Again, I agree, but this still tells us nothing about the characteristics of the group I'm describing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from you is that you think the characteristics of the group that "make it" are so similar to a near-identical, much larger group that doesn't "make it" that it means the characteristics themselves aren't worth looking at.

I disagree with this, as there may be there are some important differences that aren't immediately apparent -- receiving a loan or a windfall at a particular time, or getting into a certain industry at an opportune moment, delaying having children. It's not hard to imagine that there may be subtle and really interesting differences that appear to us as "chance", but this "chance" occurrence just happens to be a lot more common among people in the "made it" group.

Taking things a step back from economics and statistics, though, I'm not even sure I've ever really found solid advice on what the "chance-optimising" characteristics are. What are they, in your view?
>> No. 8637 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 12:17 pm
8637 spacer

fff055c397b6fd0031368fa630bbd08f.jpg
863786378637
>How do people become wealthy?

You accumulate capital and then continue to accumulate capital without an expectation of becoming rich overnight. What you seem to have forgotten to ask though is what wealthy is. The 'conservative' works you've found all provide you with financial stability - that's wealthy in my book. It's reasonably possible to get into the top 10% of earners if you don't have shit for brains and don't mind the workload or alternatively you could win the lottery but all for nought if you're bad with money because you lack a concept of delayed gratification.

Beyond that there's two strategies I'd consider:

1. There are clearly set paths you can follow to acquire money if you're young and competent - the financial and advanced technical careers (nuclear and cyber/AI seem winners atm). Moving to the city is advisable so long as you appreciate costs and what you can get from it career-wise. You also want to continue to build up a toolbox over time particularly in accounting, management and tech.

2. If you're older then you take a step back as you've already done and realise that it's still a legacy game where you must provide your children with better opportunities. Old money thinking of clawing the way up over generations. That's currently the route I'm going but realise that I'm one little shit with a drug habit away from ruin.

For the record I'm highly sceptical of the great class survey methodology. Going to the opera doesn't make you wealthy ffs.

>Where are the economic studies of how people from ordinary backgrounds make their wealth?

They won't exist because the sample size is too small so you'll be right back at looking into the habits of successful people out of some self-help book.
>> No. 8638 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 12:53 pm
8638 spacer
>>8636
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from you is that you think the characteristics of the group that "make it" are so similar to a near-identical, much larger group that doesn't "make it" that it means the characteristics themselves aren't worth looking at.
I think the risk-reward ratio makes it not really worthwhile and you'd be better off re-examining your priorities.
>some important differences that aren't immediately apparent -- receiving a loan or a windfall at a particular time, or getting into a certain industry at an opportune moment,
I'm sure those things help but given that you can't control them, or even if you could, can't predict when they'd be most useful, what are you studying other than luck?

>What are they, in your view?
Overworking and behaving somewhat ruthlessly in emerging fields while living a threadbare existence in order to invest all your income into other emerging fields, which you would also be putting a great deal of effort into researching to get the best return on investment. Business acumen is presumably more important than any technical skill; you could be the best coder in the world but unless you're also a good business person then you're going to tend towards working for someone rather than being in charge.
>> No. 8639 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 1:01 pm
8639 spacer

0_Huddersfield-born-Yorkshire-Shepherdess-Amanda-O.jpg
863986398639
The answer is to marry someone rich and much older than you, proclaim your newfound wealth to be self-made and then call everyone else lazy for not being able to follow your path.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/todays-children-cant-look-after-themselves-says-tv-shepherdess-amanda-owen-xmrrpxx3l

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/06/parents-blame-snowflake-generation-says-social-media-star-mother/
>> No. 8640 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 1:02 pm
8640 spacer
>>8636
>receiving a loan or a windfall at a particular time, or getting into a certain industry at an opportune moment, delaying having children
Trying to replicate this is called timing the market, and there are very good reasons why people say you shouldn't do it.
>> No. 8641 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 1:48 pm
8641 spacer
>>8637
>They won't exist because the sample size is too small so you'll be right back at looking into the habits of successful people out of some self-help book.

I appreciate what you're saying, but we must be able to do slightly better than this. There's quite a range between a "handful of successful people" and a small sample of successful people; many scientific studies are written on the basis of just a few hundred cases, with statistically significant correlations. They require careful reading and interpretation, but they're certainly more useful than anecdote.

>>8638
>I'm sure those things help but given that you can't control them, or even if you could, can't predict when they'd be most useful, what are you studying other than luck?
>>8640
>Trying to replicate this is called timing the market, and there are very good reasons why people say you shouldn't do it.

These were just examples. The poster >>8637 brings up better examples of getting into specific industries and moving to the city. These are both good suggestions and are well within the power of many people.

It's also worth pointing out that while I'm obviously interested mainly in the factors which people can control, hence why I rule out big inheritances, even trends can be informative.

>>8638
>I think the risk-reward ratio makes it not really worthwhile and you'd be better off re-examining your priorities.

Then we're getting into a conversation about personal values and why I'm interested in this, which is a valid but very different question. I can reply to this if you like, but I just want to stress it's a really different conversation to have. For the moment, let's just assume that I'm an ambitious and (relatively) young person that's used to statistical thinking and making strategic choices, for whom this line of inquiry is worthwhile.
>> No. 8642 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 1:59 pm
8642 spacer
I'm curious how you'd account for factors that involve a risk-reward trade off.
For a quick example: Buying lottery tickets. if you win, you win big. So that's a choice you could make which would make you wealthy. But the odds are that you won't win, and with each ticket you buy you lose some money you could've invested more sensibly elsewhere.
Now any statistician can tell you a lottery ticket is a bad investment, but the same principle applies to a lot of things: Moving to the city could be good for your career progression which would give you a better base to build off, but if you're unlucky it could just bump up your cost of living while your career stagnates in a way that leaves you no better off than if you'd worked a poorer paying job in a rural area. None of us has a crystal ball that can predict those factors though.

It would be interesting to separate out the unambiguously helpful stuff (for example, there's not really any downside to saving money that I'm aware of.) that "everyone" should do regardless of whether they want to avoid worrying about their phone bills or become the next Bill Gates from the riskier moves that people take which usually backfire but which pay big when they succeed.
>> No. 8643 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 2:16 pm
8643 spacer
>>8642

You're right that accounting for risk-reward across every decision across every life would be impossible, but that's why I suspect a population-level study of a highly socially mobile group might be able to pick out things worth considering. It wouldn't be anything more than a series of correlations, but the strength and statistical significance of the association might be pretty informative.

Moving the question into the realm of personal choice, though, I suppose a big part of whether you as an individual would take that risk would be down to how much the reward is worth to you, and how much you could mitigate the risk. In your example, there's no way to mitigate the risk of losing when playing the lottery. But there are certainly steps to ensure that your career would not stagnate if you move to the city; e.g. are there multiple attractive companies within your industry that you could move between? Do you have enough savings to cover you, so that you could take further risks?
>> No. 8644 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 2:45 pm
8644 spacer
>>8639
I imagine there's something to be said about finding a wealthy partner however cynical that sounds. Obviously you have to make it work but it's a huge plus with there being plenty of single women in their 30s who put off settling down for their careers. I mean, objectively, if you must have a joint bank account with someone then that someone bringing in more is a plus - it's what your mother would advise and why you went to all those high-society balls in your prettiest ribbons and bows.

Something I've noticed anecdotally is couples who have irreparable splits and whole marriages destroyed when there's a sudden windfall or investment returns for one. Even when the money is ostensibly for saving. I can only theorise 1k (something I witnessed trigger the destruction of a marriage) is oh so much more funny or you at least have someone who has a good credit rating. Getting divorced being a rather ruinous exercise even if you're Jeff Bezos at any rate.

Sage because horrible advice. "Yeah, I'll just not put my dick in the fire. That's a lesson people are capable of learning."
>> No. 8645 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 2:55 pm
8645 spacer
>>8644
I used to work with someone, public school chap, and he used to have a scorecard that girls would have to meet for him to consider dating them.

From what I can remember they had to have a reasonable career (doctor, solicitor, accountant, etc.), have a certain level of education, like skiing holidays, be a certain dress size, be on the property ladder and not have any children. I think there were also questions about how much money their parents had.
>> No. 8647 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 4:12 pm
8647 spacer
>>8645
I now wonder if it's weird that I do something vaguely similar before I commit to a relationship. Not to that ridiculous degree but I'll consider what I like and dislike about a person using notepad, trying to think with a clear head rather than some scientific weighting.

I've assumed people in practice do the same when they discuss potential matches with friends. I don't think I'd be comfortable doing that as a bloke.
>> No. 8648 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 4:35 pm
8648 spacer
>>8647
Mate, ultimately you're just collating your thoughts. It's not weird at all. Might be weird if someone finds it, but then that's because of their issues and not yours.
>> No. 8649 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 5:04 pm
8649 spacer
>>8645
Most of those things are requirements for everybody with something going for them.
>> No. 8651 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 6:26 pm
8651 spacer
>>8649

Liking skiing is pretty much a deal-breaker for me. Bloody snow nonces.
>> No. 8652 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 7:35 pm
8652 spacer
>>8651
I feel like this with jigsaw puzzle enthusiasts. The entire concept of jigsaw puzzles makes me belligerent.

>I just spent £40 on cardboard
>You don't have to help me but I'll be quietly angry with you if you don't
>Just lose yourself in the pointless and tiresome task

Fuck off.

How did he find their dress size and why was it so important?
>> No. 8655 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 9:14 pm
8655 spacer
Work in sales. That's the job that pays 100 grand a year with very little effort, if you're good at it. If you're not, then that's a shame because I honestly don't think it's possible to get good at it if you aren't naturally that sort of person.

Alternatively, you need to be a do-er. Make big decisions. Live your life actively, not passively. The only way my job will pay me more is if I get lots of fancy IT certifications, and I could pick such a certification and study for it right now, but I'm not doing, and I never do that. At some point, you will have half a chance, and some people will take it and fail horribly, but every person who made themselves rich also took that half-chance, whatever it was, when it came to them. The bad news is: if you're posting here, it's unlikely that you are one to seize opportunities.

Option #3 is to just have a really firm passion, something you would happily do for free, but which people will pay you to do. If you really, really enjoy learning what blockchain is, you will probably find a job that pays a lot for all that knowledge you've gained. You can't fake this one either; if it feels like work, it's not the calling that will make you rich, because one day you'll stop working because you hate it, and the people who love it will overtake you.
>> No. 8665 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 4:53 am
8665 spacer
>>8655

Salesmen are bad enough, but ones who believe their own bullshit are by far the worst. Do be careful not to go over that line mate. The people making the real money in life do it off the back of gullible twats who believe this sort of spiel.

I've never seen anything as depressing in my life as the time I had to take a sales job and everyone there was one of these bizarre Del Boy pricks who thought they were going to climb the ladder and be top dog one day, and of course they all had their little side hustle selling a bit of coke or shite re-print t-shirts on Instagram... It was actually tragic.
>> No. 8666 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 8:02 am
8666 spacer
>>8665

They have a poor person's view of what rich is. It is all based around earning off your own labour and your boss paying you that much.
>> No. 8667 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 9:42 am
8667 spacer
>>8666

That's a harsh reality, yes. Maybe I should have done more to clarify what I mean by "wealthy" in the OP. What I was getting at is not just making a good living and earning a lot of money through your labour, but accumulating wealth, up to the point where you no longer have to work (in the traditional sense) and beyond.

That's maybe another reason why this gap in my knowledge exists. The social mobility research I've read tends to take income or professional categories as markers. As far as I know, there's not much written about the means by which people accumulate wealth.

Maybe >>8637 has a point in saying that it can be multigenerational. But how much of it is accumulated that way, and how? Business? Property? Technology? Belonging to a family of middle class savers?

This is still a really interesting gap for me and I've no idea where to read about it. I'd love to get my hands on some hard data about this kind of wealth accumulation.
>> No. 8668 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 10:04 am
8668 spacer
>>8667

The short answer is "inherit a shitload of land, or start a business and grow it".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list
>> No. 8677 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 8:29 pm
8677 spacer

1588170687766.jpg
867786778677
>>8666
Like this?
>> No. 8679 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 9:08 pm
8679 spacer
>>8667
My dad (the absolute pinnacle of "Established middle class" in your OP picture) told me something amazing recently which really blew my mind: "You can't get rich from wages." His income would have been over £100,000 a year for the majority of his life, and due to the absolute king of pensions, he gets a pension of like 90 grand. He grew up poorish, went to university, and then scored magically in such a way that neither of my parents have even the faintest clue of how they did it and they can't pass anything on to me at all (except a whopping inheritance one day, I guess). But the insight that you can't get rich from wages really impressed me, because it's true. Like I say, my parents are rich as shit (my mum probably made about 60 grand too, while I'm here in the high 20s several years after both parents retired), but they couldn't just quit and live off the interest. They're not millionaires. They're more or less the absolute apex of "employees", but if your definition of rich is someone who is so rich they never have to work, then that's not them. They could probably support me for my own whole life if necessary, because I am tight, but then my kids would be skint, so I don't think that counts. If they can't get rich from wages, nobody can get rich from wages.

>>8665
Pretty much every company I have ever worked for, the top boss in the whole company used to do sales. I have never worked anywhere where someone says, "I'm the Managing Director, and I built this company up from back when I was just the Head of Human Resources."
>> No. 8681 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 9:56 pm
8681 spacer
>>8679

I think you can get rich from wages, you've just got to A) have very good wages from the start and B) live as if you don't have good wages for a couple of decades. You also need to know how investing works or pay someone who does to do it for you.

The point you're making is still right, though, really. The sad truth is the only reliable way to retire early is on the backs of other people.
>> No. 8682 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 10:32 pm
8682 spacer
>>8677
Those photos give me the fear.
>> No. 8683 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 10:32 pm
8683 spacer
>>8679
>They're not millionaires.

They absolutely should be. This is where a little bit of financial planning can go a long way, the likes of budgeting rather than spending all of your income and investing your money rather than leaving it sitting in cash doing fuck all.
>> No. 8684 Anonymous
7th April 2021
Wednesday 10:45 pm
8684 spacer
Exsctly. Putting £150 a month into a fund that makes on average 15% a year for 30 years and you're at a million no bother.

Obviously those numbers I'm using for effect, but a couple making the amount otherlad mentions should be hammering away a lot more than that, even if 15% gain per year is very unrealistic, it's not really when you think about your 40k worth of pension tax relief etc etc.
>> No. 8686 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 1:27 am
8686 spacer
>>8679

>Pretty much every company I have ever worked for, the top boss in the whole company used to do sales. I have never worked anywhere where someone says, "I'm the Managing Director, and I built this company up from back when I was just the Head of Human Resources."

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the proportion of companies you have worked for is pretty slim compared to the total number of companies out there.

Musk, Bezos, Gates et al never worked in sales.
>> No. 8687 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 11:16 am
8687 spacer
>>8686
How do you think they got their early businesses off the ground?
>> No. 8688 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 1:08 pm
8688 spacer
>>8687

By working in sales?
>> No. 8689 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 1:09 pm
8689 spacer
>>8687

This is just from the top of my head, so maybe others can verify, but I think >>8686 is broadly correct.

My somewhat crude narrative from memory is: I believe Gates was a software developer, and the early years of Microsoft were essentially focused on making word processor, spreadsheet, and database software until the infrastructure of the ARPANET was essentially gifted over to private industry. When the internet was getting more traffic in the early 1990s, it still took Gates a few years act on this important development (supposedly he wasn't even attending early conferences regarding the internet and its transition over from a public/military-funded network until very late in the game). Windows 3 was really widely distributed, and this positioning finally allowed them to consolidate their success by developing and bundling in a web browser with later versions of Windows 1995, but they certainly weren't jumping on sales opportunities early. If I remember right, Netscape beat them to it and still died.

I think Musk similarly benefitted by latching onto an existing technology and popularising it with PayPal, which I believe was his first big success. I'm not clear on the details here, but it's not hard to see how a company like SpaceX is essentially capitalising on decades of Cold War research by bringing in former employees of a largely defunded NASA, and therefore privatising something which benefitted from years of public funding.

Not sure about Bezos, but I believe he himself describes his success as mostly down to logistics and overwhelming presence in the market rather than sales acumen. Amazon doesn't so much find a niche or customer base as brute force themselves as the omnipresent first vendor of choice in terms of pricing, delivery time, and search engine results.

There are also social factors that are common to Musk and Gates, in that they went to (and dropped out of?) elite U.S. universities and probably had the chance to rub shoulders with a lot of connected people with expertise and money. The idea of that lean, scrappy tech startup is a bit of a myth, in my opinion; you may be starting out with a few servers in a basement but you're probably getting your capital and prospects for growth from somewhere not available to the majority of other companies.
>> No. 8690 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 1:30 pm
8690 spacer

Untitled.png
869086908690
>>8689
>bringing in former employees of a largely defunded NASA

Musk is open that SpaceX wouldn't exist without NASA but let's not get silly. The US government is more than capable of wasting billions of dollars. You're also missing that his success was in joining Tesla which nearly drove him to bankruptcy and that he is fundamentally an engineer who takes things out to cut costs.
>> No. 8691 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 1:58 pm
8691 spacer
>>8690

I'm more than happy to be challenged on my ideas about Gates, Musk, and Bezos. These are more general impressions and things I've picked up from reading around various subjects, so I suspect other posters like yourself can chime in with specifics.

Your point about the budget is well taken, it seems "largely defunded" was an overstatement. As you say, though, whether this money is directed toward highly publicised missions or other objectives (or simply wasted) isn't clear from your figure. An overall loss of around 1/3 of a budget from its initial big push is also not insignificant.

I'm still not completely convinced that SpaceX is much more than a sly privatisation of certain ambitious sections of NASA -- a largely ideological message to the public that things are no longer achieved through collective effort but by entrepreneurial spirit. I won't say Musk or SpaceX's contribution is nil, they've achieved a remarkable amount in a short time, but even that remarkable amount is built on foundations which were set decades earlier.

Tesla seems like Musk's most "marketing" based role.
>> No. 8692 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 2:17 pm
8692 spacer
>>8691

>not completely convinced that SpaceX is much more than a sly privatisation of certain ambitious sections of NASA

SpaceX are just better at putting stuff in space than anyone else.

NASA didn't have any launch capability of their own after the shuttle was retired in 2011. The shuttle program went grotesquely over-budget, costing $211bn for a total of 133 successful launches. Musk charges NASA about $60m for a Falcon 9 launch, which is about half what they were paying the Russians for an R-7 launch and less than 10% of the cost of a shuttle launch. He's also drastically undercutting the competition from ULA (Lockheed/Boeing) and Ariane.

NASA invested a lot in SpaceX, but they got a fantastic return on their investment. They probably could have developed their own launch capability, but they'll freely admit that it would have cost more and taken longer.
>> No. 8694 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 3:23 pm
8694 spacer
>>8691
>As you say, though, whether this money is directed toward highly publicised missions or other objectives (or simply wasted) isn't clear from your figure.

It's fairly easy to extrapolate as space projects have high-upfront. You can visibly see dates such as Hubble and the aftermath of the challenger disaster.
https://history.nasa.gov/40thann/define.htm

Overall budget can be misleading but you're reading it backwards from that, NASA moved to a policy of all multinational missions in the 1980s which are cheaper as you have ESA and JAXA share cost. The real problem it faces are that politicians are children so NASA ends up legally tied to the ruinous SLS even for a mission to Europa because it sounded cool at the time:
https://www.space.com/nasa-sls-megarocket-shortage-artemis-europa-mission-delays

>An overall loss of around 1/3 of a budget from its initial big push is also not insignificant.

Unless SpaceX is recruiting from hospices I doubt the figures from the creation of NASA and space race are especially relevant for employees. NASA also retains its brightest and most innovative which live in the unmanned programmes - this is why exploration of Mars is getting so nuts with helicopters etc.

No NASA would not have developed reusable launch, the space shuttle was its closest attempt and it was a disaster. It was not on the cards and in nobodies minds which is why SLS exists and why ESA has a similar white elephant with Ariane 6. You can certainly blame corruption as part of that calculation but had any NASA rocket been attempted it would almost definitely go the route of the F-35 to end up overbudget, underperforming and delayed. Keep in mind I'm not saying the government has no role to play in space but public procurement is what it is.
>> No. 8695 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 3:35 pm
8695 spacer
>>8694
>this is why exploration of Mars is getting so nuts with helicopters etc.
It's basically one of these launched from a rover

don't get too excited about it.
>> No. 8696 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 4:16 pm
8696 spacer

_117003116_perserverance_landing_x2_640-nc.png
869686968696
>>8695
Exactly. It's everything we've come to expect from years of government training.
>> No. 8697 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 4:49 pm
8697 spacer

parachute-with-figure-soldier-toy-for-kids.jpg
869786978697
>>8696
I suppose that's... technically a technological advancement.
>> No. 8698 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 6:21 pm
8698 spacer
>>8689
>I think Musk similarly benefitted by latching onto an existing technology and popularising it with PayPal, which I believe was his first big success.
There was a fair amount of competition in the early days of paypal, but what they did was secure a load of investment which they spent on giving every new user a free $10 credit and it's this that completely trounced the rest of their competition.
>but it's not hard to see how a company like SpaceX is essentially capitalising on decades of Cold War research by bringing in former employees of a largely defunded NASA
I think he does deserve a lot of credit for spacex though, as all his achievements in that area have been down to an insane drive towards goals that everyone else thought were too difficult and willingness to take huge risks. The rest of the space industry is risk-averse to the core.
NASA is incredibly inefficient and burns through billions on single projects because perfection is demanded of them, any sort of high-profile failures result in politicians getting edgy and withdrawing their funding. Boeing, lockheed et.al. have a bit more freedom but have the same sort of threat from their shareholders.

>I'm still not completely convinced that SpaceX is much more than a sly privatisation of certain ambitious sections of NASA
You can accuse ULA of this thanks in part to decades of lucrative cost+ contracts and slow takeover of a lot of NASAs capability, Elon leap-frogged over ULA from a standing start basically.
>> No. 8699 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 8:19 pm
8699 spacer
>>8698

>There was a fair amount of competition in the early days of paypal, but what they did was secure a load of investment which they spent on giving every new user a free $10 credit and it's this that completely trounced the rest of their competition.

Also some really ingenious fraud-detection algorithms that stopped them from being blocked by the credit card companies. Most of their competitors ended up in a death spiral where fraud and chargebacks pushed up their credit card transaction costs, which increased their transaction fees, pushed legit customers to PayPal and increased their proportion of fraudulent customers. PayPal often get slated for being too eager to block accounts and freeze customer funds, but it's the only way to make the business work.

Peter Thiel went on to found Palantir, which applied the lessons learned at PayPal to wider security and intelligence issues.
>> No. 8700 Anonymous
9th April 2021
Friday 9:15 am
8700 spacer
OP here. I just spent a good bit of my morning searching for this using key phrases like "social mobility without inheritance", "social mobility of the nouveau riche", "sociological studies of wealth accumulation", "wealth accumulation among poor households", etc. in academic and non-academic search engines.

Maybe the only semi-useful thing I've found is this LSE paper looking at 1995 to 2005 (not even published?) about how household net worth is underpinned by housing prices in the UK, something which really shouldn't surprise anyone: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16379905.pdf

>This paper has shown that wealth is very unevenly distributed in Great Britain, with its inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient and using BHPS data, at 0.59 in 2005. Moreover, the analysis has highlighted the widening absolute gap between households with some wealth and those with none or negative wealth. Between 1995 and 2005 financial wealth became even more highly concentrated. Although housing wealth is less unequally distributed than financial wealth and became less concentrated over this period, it continues to be unevenly spread, its Gini coefficient equal to 0.56 in 2005. Over this period, it is particularly the gap between home owners and non-home owners which has increased. While some households in the middle of the wealth distribution increased their share of wealth by becoming home owners over the period, those without housing wealth at the beginning of the period fell further behind.

>[...] Most of the changes in the period were ‘paper gains’ caused by the house price boom. In one sense, this could be taken as meaning that little really has changed: for the most part, owner-occupiers were in the same houses in 2005 and 1995, enjoying the same way of life and the increase in their wealth only happened on paper. However, in the long term the house price boom – unless reversed (which does not look likely at time of writing) – will have effects. First, some of those who own what are now more valuable properties in cash terms will trade down and convert their paper gains into much larger financial assets than they could otherwise have done. Secondly, it means that inheritance flows will be much larger. In that sense, a lot will have changed, particularly for the next generation.

It's still not very informative my original question, as I assume there must also be people that "break through" in terms of financial wealth, as well. But it confirms what the majority of .gs observes in terms of housing and inherited wealth, and it's a place to start.
>> No. 8701 Anonymous
9th April 2021
Friday 11:54 am
8701 spacer
>>8700
I know for a fact that LSE published a big report on inequality in spring/summer 2019 because I attended the event. Although finding it now bedevils me which is annoying as its findings challenge many assumptions on matter such as what the rich study.

Something I should also bring up is geospatial inequality. London has already been mentioned but in general the South-East of England or Central Belt of Scotland are good places to get on the up and stay that way thanks to infrastructure, contacts and in general things simply being around. You don't have that when you're living in rural Wales or Birmingham, you'll only end up spending all your money on takeaways and hosting an obesity fetish website.
>> No. 8702 Anonymous
9th April 2021
Friday 6:45 pm
8702 spacer
>>8631
Who's the artist for that image? Something about the two with their eyes open is giving me deja vu of something I can't quite place.
>> No. 8703 Anonymous
9th April 2021
Friday 8:45 pm
8703 spacer
>>8702

The illustrator is named Andy Watt, I took it from an Independent article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-now-has-7-social-classes-and-working-class-dwindling-breed-8557894.html
>> No. 8704 Anonymous
9th April 2021
Friday 9:07 pm
8704 spacer
>>8703

Thanks. I think I'm mixing up some children's book that I can't recall and Dr Katz.
>> No. 8705 Anonymous
9th April 2021
Friday 9:17 pm
8705 spacer

molesworth.jpg
870587058705
>>8704
Are you thinking of the Molesworth books, by any chance?
>> No. 8706 Anonymous
10th April 2021
Saturday 2:40 am
8706 spacer
Have you answered to yourself where being rich turns into wealth? Because the latter has some connotations that matter.

As far as I am concerned, being "rich" means an income that affords you a surplus such that you can invest, while not being concerned day to day expenses with the expectation that erverything will be fine.

Being wealthy means you could take a sabbatical, work yourself out, try your hand and a couple of businesses and if they don't work out then no harm done, daddy (more accurately grand-daddy, wealth is generational).

Can you clarify?
>> No. 8709 Anonymous
11th April 2021
Sunday 6:40 pm
8709 spacer
>>8706

I'm talking mainly about the latter, essentially owning enough capital to make a living from that alone.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password