...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

Yeah... Shut up.

TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

Yeah... Shut up.

Doesn't mean the advice is bad.

It's kind of like a natural born Olympic level athlete telling the rest of us to exercise more. Sure, we'll never swim like Michael Phelps or run like Usain Bolt, but that doesn't mean that regular exercise won't make us more healthy.

It's true that as a group, the poor are much more likely to smoke, for example. In my state, you're looking at a minimum of $7 a pack. If you smoke a pack a day, that's $49 a week, or $208 a month. That's a car payment right there, going up in smoke. Over a year, that's nearly $2,500.

Also, the poor and uneducated tend to buy more lottery tickets:



This is a fools game, as it has been rightly pointed out that the lottery in all its forms is a "tax on people who are bad at math". On average, you'll never win back enough to make up for what you spend, not by a long shot. But the poor buy the damn things in droves. Whenever I see someone buying lottery tickets at a convenience store, it's not the person who just drove up in a BMW. It's the person who drove up in rusted out 1995 Ford Escort, or more likely, walked. 

Those are just a couple examples of some of the bad financial decisions that tend to keep the long-term poor in economic distress. They don't really necessarily know any better, though: People tend to stay in their socio-economic class. The rich who lose all their money don't generally fall into long-term poverty due to misfortune or the occasional misstep, though they can fall into short term poverty. They end up clawing their way back out of it. The flip side of that is that the long-term poor, when given a windfall like the occasional lottery winner, almost invariably find themselves back in poverty after a while because of poor financial decision making. 

The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financial skills to help them claw their way out of poverty.

That's comical. No one gets rich from hard work. You can inherit it, you can steal it, you can exploit flaws in the financial system, you can get lucky in the stock market (assuming you have a lot of money to invest in the first place), win the lottery etc. Working won't do it for you, working makes other people rich.

Besides, it is interesting to me that the wealthy people who think this way are almost always people who inherited their money. People like Warren Buffett seem to have more of a grasp of reality, since they actually had to do something to make their money.

Billionaires most likely work less then scientists, engineers, teachers, people who contribute stuff.

dittybopper: The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financial skills to help them claw their way out of poverty.

All of this is true, but it doesn't excuse the ultra-rich from buying political influence, for the express purpose of making sure they receive more money-making opportunities and pay less taxes, all at the expense of the poor and middle class. Which is really why everyone is pissed off at rich people; not because we're "jealous".

GAT_00: Just 'working more' will not make you a millionaire. If that was the case, grad students would all be incredibly rich when they got done.

Generally the people who work hardest are the poorest. You get rich by acquiring the right to the product of other people's wealth.

dittybopper: TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financ ...

It's nothing to do with the long term poor, she is talking about the middle class. The people who do the actual work that makes people like her rich.

She might actually do some work, but that's not where here money comes from, she simply inherited a company which gives her the right to take whatever the employees of the company produce and give them as little as she can get away with.

I have never understood why someone would be able to inherit an organization anyway, like it was a piece of furniture or something. It's almost like the feudal system where nobles inherit a manor and get to take a big share of what the serfs produce, simply because of birth.

When a millionaire/billionaire suggests that you need to be willing to 'work hard' in order to attain their level of wealth, what they really mean to say is 'have business ambition that is unwavering and single-minded, and sometimes ruthless.' Because that's what it seems to take for a person not born in wealth to gain a higher class in American society. Otherwise, any landscaper, nurse, janitor worker, strawberry picker would be a millionaire from all their hard work.

What if I'm not jealous of those with more money, and just want the arsholes that are super rich to stop farking everyone over?

dittybopper: The rich who lose all their money don't generally fall into long-term poverty due to misfortune or the occasional misstep, though they can fall into short term poverty. They end up clawing their way back out of it

There's no reason to believe your average billionaire who was born into it has any more financial sense than anyone else. They're just too big to fail. Of course you have your Zuckerbergs, Bill Gates, etc who built what they have but they're not the norm.

/happy being a multi-thousandaire
//never intentionally screwed over anyone for it

Mugato: dittybopper: The rich who lose all their money don't generally fall into long-term poverty due to misfortune or the occasional misstep, though they can fall into short term poverty. They end up clawing their way back out of it

There's no reason to believe your average billionaire who was born into it has any more financial sense than anyone else.

If you are born into wealth, it's very likely that you learned your money handling skills from your parents. Those skills might not be the kind necessary to *MAKE* a fortune, but they would at least be the kind that allow you to *RETAIN* one.

The same goes for the long-term poor, in that they generally learn their financial skills from their parents.

For good or ill, we generally learn most of our money handling skills from our parents, and to a lesser extent, our peers.

That's not to say you are predestined by accident of birth: My brother-in-law was born of modest means, but by dint of hard work *AND* sacrificing immediate gratification and unnecessary frills, he's actually doing quite well for himself and his family, certainly better than I and his sister (the distaffbopper).

Finally, the answer to Babwa Wawa's eternal question: "What I wouldn't do for a billion dollars."

Cythraul: shadownick: Cythraul: When a millionaire/billionaire

Also keep in mind that people who are not born in wealth but become wealthy are usually slaves to their jobs I've met a few people like this. "Workaholic" would be a kind word to describe their work ethic. After seeing the sacrifices these kinds make in order to get more wealth, I sometimes wonder if it isn't better to try and eek out a living off of a modest middle class life than to try and become a rags-to-riches millionaire.

That is true sometimes, but usually those people have more sympathy with people who aren't wealthy because they didn't just have it fall into their laps. The problem is that they have an obsessive compulsive disorder, and have an unhealthy obsession with grasping at money. Also, expending effort isn't the same thing as "work" unless you think of work as something other than productive labor.

Most people have a more balanced outlook on life and just want to have a comfortable middle class life. They aren't jealous of the uber wealthy, the problem is that you can't really benefit from working harder if you are in the middle class because someone else decides what your labor is worth.

In our economic system, unless you have a strong union you are either rich or cheap labor. There simply isn't any provision for someone who wants to work hard for 40 or so hours and then live a normal life spending time with their family

The reason that the executives of corporations make hundreds of times what the employees make is that they are in a position to determine what labor is worth. As much as possible for themselves and as little as possible for the people who actually produce things.

Carousel Beast: vpb: That's comical. No one gets rich from hard work. You can inherit it, you can steal it, you can exploit flaws in the financial system, you can get lucky in the stock market (assuming you have a lot of money to invest in the first place), win the lottery etc. Working won't do it for you, working makes other people rich.

Besides, it is interesting to me that the wealthy people who think this way are almost always people who inherited their money. People like Warren Buffett seem to have more of a grasp of reality, since they actually had to do something to make their money.

Are you willfully ignorant, or just inherently stupid?

He's not far off. Sure, one can start a business and work 120 hours a week at it, but at the end of the day, if the market doesn't want their product, they're not getting rich.

Bill gates sold the rights to MS-DOS to IBM before he owned MS-DOS. The the owner of MS-DOS at the time learned that, he might have ignored Gate's offer to buy it and then he could have sold it to IBM. That simple exchange of information, through no fault of Gates, would have cost him billions. That's not hard work - that's luck.

If Jobs didn't have the engineering genius of Wozniak (they met in high-school), he would have never had an Apple computer to sell. If Wozniak didn't have the marketing sense of Jobs, his computer would have never sold like it did. Again - luck.

You could argue they would have all been millionaires anyway, but that's just speculation. No way would they be billionaires. At best, you can with a healthy amount of certainty they could be in jobs making low 6 figures a year. That is doable through "hard-work," assuming you know how to get there (i.e. lucky enough to have parents to guide you in your teenage years), and have the talent for those jobs (again luck. Not everyone can be a Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer).

Mrs Rinehart, who has seen her fortunes rise after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance

Good-bye.

Visionmn2: dittybopper: The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financial skills to help them claw their way out of poverty.

Not just financial skills - also the motivation. I have offered several people $1000.00 to get started after they go down, get a student loan, and get an associates degree. I have yet to have anyone take me up on my offer. They simply don't want to leave their comfort zone and blame others for the shortcomings in their life while yes, buying a pack of smokes and a lottery ticket.

It is OK to have poor people, wealthy, and everything in between and why this country feels otherwise is ridiculous. We need people to work at McDonalds, do our dry cleaning etc. We are all wired to do something in life and we should not reward those who are wired to mooch and take from others - especially those who do get offered jobs and turn them down because they would not make as much as they do from Welfare and hand outs.

Your championing of the multi-class system is a bit strange to me, when just earlier in your post you criticize people for not wanting to leave their 'comfort zone.'

Also, I didn't know there were so many people claiming we need a one-class society in the U.S. What I have heard is people asking for the continuation of the health of our social programs which help make sure the poor do not suffer, which sounds reasonable to me.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Then I guess I'll start robbing rich people. If I work hard at it, I can be rich too.

That is one of the better ways. Lehman Brothers specialized in that, and a lot of people made big money that way.

Then I guess I'll start robbing rich people. If I work hard at it, I can be rich too.

Mining?  I would have guessed she was a cheesecake mogul.  Unless she owns the Big Rock Candy Mountain, then it would make perfect sense.

She sounds like a pleasant person.

TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

Yeah... Shut up.

...and THIS^

I want to use my multi-million dollar inheritance to become a corporate raider. You know shutting down lazy, socializing and drinking American factories and opening up new ones in hardworking China!

Jon Snow: If you happened to inherit a mining empire and put the money back into mining, like the ogre from TFA, it would be still more.

Wow.

I assumed she at least made a new business out of her inheritance. Nope. She just got the inheritance and took over the same business.

Must be a Dutch billionaire--he's got enough red herring there to supply the international market.

Although class warfare is often framed by the haves and their evil minions, the conservatives, as a matter of "envy", "jealousy", "laziness", innate stupidity, etc., these ad hominem arguments are feeble.

I don't like the rich, but I love their stuff. I worry that perhaps there would be none of this stuff if there were no rich. That would be a pity because the rich do seem to fill a niche, namely the early adopters of expensive new technology, ideas, lifestyles,e tc.

At least partly, the rich are a Good Thing and I can't deny they play a role in the ecology, just as that mountain lion that ate your precious snowflake last week plays an important role in another ecology.

But do not confuse envy or fear or hatred with a reasoned political, economic, cultural, social and religious animus against the rich.

It is one thing to say that there would be little or no great art if rich patrons, whether individual, family, religious or state, did not exist to sponsor them by paying the poor starving (or well-off, comfortable) artists enough to buy materials and eat while spending ten years on a single painting. It is another to say that anything goes and that we should leave leadership in all things to the rich.

Recently an asinine mole and his operator on the SCOTUS destroyed the United States Constitution, liberal democracy and a number of other cherished institutions with a few strokes of a pen. I won't mention any names but one of the felons rhymes with Barence Bowmass and the other has a name that reminds one of LaScalia in Milan.

Giving money the vote is the worst thing you can do to a democracy. Even slavery or a limited suffrage are small potatoes to unleashing oligarchy so that a handful of billionaires can subvert the Constitution and all political powers and decision-making with buckets and pallets of money.

You either have a democracy or an oligarchy. You now have an oligarchy. Democracy may not work all that great, but it is the very best of a very bad lot. Government by the rich is pretty much the worst seeing as it is pretty much all of the other forms of government: aristocracy, oligarchy, monarcny, tyranny, fascism, etc.

You can not fob me off with "oh, people who criticize the oligarchy are just jealous". Even a saint must be horrified by Government of the Rich, by the Rich and for the Rich. In fact, a saint must be MORE horrified than even the most envious person on Earth.

I do not love the rich, but I love their stuff. But this is not the issue. The issue is what kind of government we will have, and thus what kind of freedoms, people, lives, world.

JUST SAY NO TO OLIGARCHY. Say yes to one person, one vote.

Personally I think that the very rich should not be allowed to spend any money buying politicians, laws and government to suit themselves. There should be a cap on personal donations and no corporate donations. This is, in fact, what the Liberals put in place at the Federal level in Canada, much to their own cost, seeing as they were getting more money from the rich than even the Conservatives, who despite being illiberal and anti-democratic at every turn, do get most of their donations in relatively small dollops from farmers, business people and professionals--the middle classes proper.

Liberalism, democracy, equity, peace, order, good government--these are all traditional middle class and Canadian values which I cherish. And Americans have mostly cherished them also, albeit to a lesser extent because all the power and money is in the hands of the top 20% and the rest can go fark themselves.

In Canada, the top 20% mostly believe that the other 80% need our compassion, assistance and respect just as much or more than the rich. Even quite conservative people at least pay lip service to the idea that government and taxation are just fine if they are working to a good purpose. Most of the top 20% say they don't mind paying taxes, although they may be mealy-mouthed lying SOBs for all that.

At various times Canada and the US seem to lap each other in the race to the top (or the bottom) of the democratic, liberal, free, and happy leagues.

The Citizens United decision was the worst political decision in the history of America and possibly the world. The SOBs responsible (Barence Bowmass and LaScalia of Milan) should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on an electrified rail, sharpened to a very fine stainless steel edge.

But that doesn't mean that I am jealous of Donald Trump's truly grotesque Philistine taste in gold-plated ceilings or wish I had both salt and fresh water infinity pools all the way from the Pacific beach to the Atlantic shore. I might very well be envious, jealous, hateful, or what not, but that has nothing to do with my main animus against the rich, which is that the feckers are not to be trusted and are natural-born enemies of everything I value and esteem, including the things I can not have, or do, or be.

BgJonson79: signaljammer: Bill Gates grew up in one of two communities, as I did in the other, that made computers available to students at the time. His father was a patent attorney who was able to keep Microsoft private up to the 286 gen on his own dime. His mother was on the board of the Red Cross along with the president of IBM, so he got the contract for the PC OS. Sweat of his brow.

What you're saying, then, is that his parents aren't idiots. Weird how that works out. Smart kids have smart parents.

He sold MS-DOS to IBM before he owned MS-DOS. He had "connections."

MycroftHolmes: but he also put in 100+ hour week after 100+ hour week to achieve success.

A lot of people put a lot of work into their business, only to end up bankrupt. One's odds of having a business still operating after 4 years is equal to betting on "black" at a roulette table.

This idea that everybody can be rich if they just work hard is an illusion that needs to be dispelled.

At best, people can become middle-class and comfortable through hard work and halfway sound financial decisions.

Rich? That's pure luck of either birth or circumstance.

Okay. Let's say you're a typical, average, normal American, just very hard working. You are born to a middle class or lower-middle-class family. You get slightly above average grades (average intellect, but study hard). You work a part-time job in your teenage years.

You want to go to College to get ahead. Well, you've got two choices (since your parents aren't rich enough to pay for it all)

1. Go deep into student loan debt, racking up tens of thousands of dollars of debt in the hope your education will pay it off.
2. Join the military and use your GI Bill and/or Tuition Assistance to pay for College. This hopes that you can get into the military and don't have a disqualifying medical condition, or otherwise are suitable for military service.

So, once you've traded off either 6 years of your life, or a mid-five-figure range debt for a degree, what are you going to do?

Now, let's assume you followed the popular advice here on Fark and majored in a hard science, like Physics or Chemistry. Well, university calculus is pretty freaking hard, and so are upper-level hard science classes, so even though you're a hard worker, Mr. Average will barely pass and skate by with a mediocre GPA.

Okay, you're in the job market. . .now what? Job market stinks. That science degree makes you fit to hold the same jobs any other college graduate has, or to work as a lab assistant. A Bachelor's degree, or even a Master's degree in hard sciences doesn't guarantee a good job.

So, you can go to graduate school, and hope to get a Ph.D. and make your way into academia. . .but that isn't going to make you "rich", just mildly affluent (at best). Your average intellect will have trouble competing with the elite intelligentsia, no matter how hard working you are.

Hmm. You could open a business! That's it, a small business!

Oops, the vast majority of small businesses fail within the first year or two. You can be very hard working, but unless you get very lucky, that business will probably fail. You don't have the capitol to invest in a franchise of some big chain or something that is almost guaranteed to make a profit.

So, where in all this does just getting out and working hard make you rich?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success. Maybe just maybe she could have just sat on the money and not done a damn thing but live off the interest for the rest of her life. Instead she put people to work and make money while doing it. I can see why people around her would trash her for it.

I don't think people here are faulting her for building on her fortune. What they're faulting her for is her fundamental misunderstanding of challenges facing the lower middle class, and increasingly the middle class.

Rising out of poverty is not easily done, and with a few notable exceptions requires societal support (at a minimum in the form of education). This is a nut that the US and the rest of the first world has found tough to crack. We do a progressively sh*tty job as you move down the class structure.

Her sentiment that poor pull oneself out of poverty simply by working harder and more, while she advocates actually lowering minimum wage is at best laughably out of touch.

Debeo Summa Credo: bifford: So the 99% are all lazy idiots?

Well, those who identify themselves as part of "the 99%" are idiots.

Is this the "paint your opponent with your weakness thing?

Are you really stupid enough to think anyone ever got rich by working hard, or are you stupid enough to think that the financial shenanigans, fraud and similar things that actually make people rich are "work"?

Someone once asked Richard Branson what was the fastest way for someone to become a millionaire. His answer "Be a billionaire and start an airline"

I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success. Maybe just maybe she could have just sat on the money and not done a damn thing but live off the interest for the rest of her life. Instead she put people to work and make money while doing it. I can see why people around her would trash her for it.

Yeah, she's an asshat. It is extremely unlikely that working hard will ever make you a billionaire on its own, however working hard can get you to a very decent upper middle class life. My wife and her ex-husband worked the standard jobs and a ton of overtime. They saved and eventually were able to open their own business. They did very well, bringing in about 200k a year net. They were on their way to being millionaires, but a tragic motorcycle accident ended that dream.

The point is, it is possible to live a great life through hard work. They sacrificed a lot while building their business. Small house, used cars, no eating out or entertainment with every penny going towards getting the business. That and a lot of luck, no doubt, the right place, right time. However, no matter how hard they worked they were never ever going to be billionaires. Having a few million wasn't of reach in the long term, but rich isn't what I would have considered them.

But, as much as I don't like this billionaire, she does have a point. There are many a poor person who is kept poor by very bad decisions. New cars every two years, expensive clothing, big screen tv's. Saving is just not in most poor peoples state of mind. I see many waste what limited assets they have on things that have no value. However, it takes money to make money. Being poor sucks balls and getting out of it I'd difficult to damn near impossible.

So, I guess what I am saying is that both sides have valid points, although neither side understands each other. Man, I really need to get some sleep.

"When I refuse to give food to the poor, they call me a Republican. When I ask why the poor are so lazy and why don't they get a job, they call me a Republican."

"Are you employed sir?"

SpectroBoy: I have several friends who have kids and work multiple HARD jobs like waitress, bartender, etc

Sorry but no. You dont get to claim that being a waitress or a bartender is hard. I've worked with both, and that aint hard. Taring roofs, welding, or working a blast furnace now that hard. You know what else is hard? Worrying about making payroll, DOT compliance and dealing with workers comp. How that's hard. Someone being rude to you for forgetting the mustard? Doesn't match up.

If hard work and long hours made one a financial success then migrant farmworkers would be the richest people in the world.

It metal prices fall, and she loses billions, she we tell her to just work harder?

HotWingConspiracy: The poor people I know have 2 or 3 jobs.

Pick any laborer off of the street and they know more about hard work than this woman.

MOTHERFARKING THIS.

You know where people learn a real work ethic, biatch? When they're pregnant, seventeen, and Mom and Dad stopped fighting long enough to let them know they're getting kicked out next week when they turn eighteen.

And that never stops. If you don't get the chance to go to college, you end up the working poor. And that's your life. Don't you dare spit on it, because people just like you helped create it.

BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.

$10 is a shiat-ton of money?

But we're dealing with percentages here. Let's say she turned $2,000,000 into $20,000,000,000. That's a 20,000x increase. I don't care who you are and what you start off with, if you can get a 20,000x ROI, someone will invest a crapton of money with you!

Ever heard the saying "You've gotta have money to make money"?

Not technically true of course, but it's an lot easier to make a lot of money into more than make a lot out of a little.

And we're not talking about percentages (at least I never was). I'm talking about making a lot of money into more money.

Loadmaster: Her point is that hard work is a good thing, and that sloth and living off the dole are bad things. And she's correct.

Also exercise it good, as well as eating healthy.

Other good things include kittens, puppies and rainbows.

Now if she has something to say that people don't already know...

SweetBluebonnet: It's a crime obviously to be successful in the liberal world. Does being on food stamps and welfare make you a winner? According to Obama it does.

0.1/10

MycroftHolmes: So, you are saying that the principle of deferred gratification, hard work, and focus are not portable concepts? That she can't offer advice except to people with exactly the same situation?

*facepalm.jpg*

In her regular column in a mining industry magazine, the controversial magnate says billionaires and millionaires are doing more than anyone to help the poor by investing their money and creating jobs.

Corporate profits up, yet so is unemployment.

MycroftHolmes: Can you even remotely back this up?

You could do a little looking around. There are people who are making a shiat-ton of money, and with extremely few exceptions they are doing very little 'real work' themselves. They are moving around money made by people who are doing 'real work', and those workers aren't really going anywhere.

impaler: What if I'm not jealous of those with more money, and just want the arsholes that are super rich to stop farking everyone over?

No, you have to be rich or lazy. Just being a normal person who works for a living isn't something that wealthy people can get their heads around.

Carousel Beast: vpb: That's comical. No one gets rich from hard work. You can inherit it, you can steal it, you can exploit flaws in the financial system, you can get lucky in the stock market (assuming you have a lot of money to invest in the first place), win the lottery etc. Working won't do it for you, working makes other people rich.

Besides, it is interesting to me that the wealthy people who think this way are almost always people who inherited their money. People like Warren Buffett seem to have more of a grasp of reality, since they actually had to do something to make their money.

Are you willfully ignorant, or just inherently stupid?

The numbers for financial upward mobility say he's pretty right. Americans are working just as hard as they've ever been, and it's getting them nowhere.

MycroftHolmes: You are right, building up your network 100x is easy, and just because she started with something, she doesn't know anything about the benefits of hard work and perseverance.

We can say for certain she has no idea how to build up your net worth 100X if you already don't have millions of dollars. Her advice is useless to anyone that doesn't have millions of dollars.

Carousel Beast: vpb: That's comical. No one gets rich from hard work. You can inherit it, you can steal it, you can exploit flaws in the financial system, you can get lucky in the stock market (assuming you have a lot of money to invest in the first place), win the lottery etc. Working won't do it for you, working makes other people rich.

Besides, it is interesting to me that the wealthy people who think this way are almost always people who inherited their money. People like Warren Buffett seem to have more of a grasp of reality, since they actually had to do something to make their money.

Are you willfully ignorant, or just inherently stupid?

Is this the "paint your opponent with your weakness thing?

Are you really stupid enough to think anyone ever got rich by working hard, or are you stupid enough to think that the financial shenanigans, fraud and similar things that actually make people rich are "work"?

orclover: Mrs Rinehart, who has seen her fortunes rise after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance into a mining empire now worth more than $20 billion, blames anti-business and socialist policies for hurting the poor.

Some days I wish I could get my hands on gods throat.

There are some churches that actually tell people they're poor because they're not Christian enough. Ya rly.

cig-mkr: 1) You will never get rich working for someone else
2) You can't get rich by spending every dime you make on toys
3) You have to make your money work for you
4) Be frugal, but always buy the best you can afford
5) Set goals and stay the course to achieve those goals
6) Invest in the long term, (never met a rich day trader)

When does your book come out?

Mrs Rinehart, who has seen her fortunes rise after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance into a mining empire now worth more than $20 billion, blames anti-business and socialist policies for hurting the poor.

What is this? I don't even...

Really? It's that easy?! Well then, I'll get right to it!