are rich people less morally developed than poor people?

[Caldari Ghost]

are rich people less morally developed than poor people?

[Cyber2B]

Well you can't develop morals when there is no adversity present.

[Caldari Ghost]

Originalmente postado por Cyber2B:

Well you can't develop morals when there is no adversity present.

why do you think so

[Apollo702]

Again, people must make distinctions.

Rich= Think millionaire
Wealthy= Mega-millionaire to Billionaire

They are not the same.

[Soren]

Originalmente postado por Apollo702:

Again, people must make distinctions.

Rich= Think millionaire
Wealthy= Mega-millionaire to Billionaire

They are not the same.

I think most consider rich the billionaires. Millionaires are much less destructive to society. At least, if they aren't on the higher end like double or triple digit millionaire

[Xero_Daxter]

Who needs a billion dollars anyways?

[Rio]

If your morals keep you poor, maybe you should rethink them.

[Xero_Daxter]

Originalmente postado por ⛧:

If your morals keep you poor, maybe you should rethink them.

I’m laughing harder than I should. Lnfaoooo

[GunsForBucks]

I would say rich people are more likely to raise their children to care more about money than morality.

Not all. And if things go just fine no one may even notice.

This ends up warping a society over generations.

[Apollo702]

Originalmente postado por Soren:

Originalmente postado por Apollo702:

Again, people must make distinctions.

Rich= Think millionaire
Wealthy= Mega-millionaire to Billionaire

They are not the same.

I think most consider rich the billionaires. Millionaires are much less destructive to society. At least, if they aren't on the higher end like double or triple digit millionaire

Of course, all of this is subject to the individuals, however there are some general behavioral differences.

A simple way of breaking it down is the statement" Money talks. Wealth whispers."

The wealthy tend to play more defense and disguise their wealth. They may even own smaller houses and cars as it is not about nervously flashing or impressing anybody at this point. Their social circles tend to be among their own and the entire mentality now is about wealth preservation. They tend to not draw attention to themselves and choose people, places, situations... on a very defensive basis.

Among the rich, in a landslide, the most troublemaking group is the new money camp. If they don't have experience with money they nervously flash it and are prone to doing stupid things.

This city here Lost Wages was named that for a reason. We eat them for lunch.

Right now, on YT, I have another mansion tour in the background. This one- and there are reasons why these and this section of town is unusual:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOlTc3tj30U&pp=ygUSZGF2aWQgY2Fyb2xsIHByYWRv


The new money crowd are likely to buy poorly thought out and built mansions, hook up with the likes of gold-diggers, buy foolish splashy things... and end up within a matter of years have foreclosure and repo man showing up and towing the cars and mansions away.

Lottery winners, pro athletes, new celebrities fall into this basket frequently, and it's why vast numbers of them end up quickly going broke.

Having money is one thing. Knowing how to handle it is a whole different beast!

[Xero_Daxter]

News flash but a handful of homeless people are homeless by choice. I said some; not all.

[Apollo702]

For those who are interested, this YT channel is well worth watching;
https://www.youtube.com/@ArvinHaddadOfficial

What is different about this one is he sells mansions- but the channel really is about pointing out the real flaws of hyped up mansions- including some pretty brutal commentaries on some of the hype-artists videos.

Many of the mega-mansions get bought by the new money crowd and they end up selling them at huge losses- if they can unload them at all.

Again, it's classic new money syndrome behavior. They buy high priced flashy things without thinking it through and doing their homework and end up losing it all.

[Cyber2B]

Originalmente postado por Calamari Toast:

Originalmente postado por Cyber2B:

Well you can't develop morals when there is no adversity present.

why do you think so

Typically to get rich is to simply not care 100% how people feel about you. Even if its your own worker that makes you rich.

[Rio]

I know a lot of people like to say that "american public schools don't teach economics, because the system wants to keep people poor. And disguise how politicians are screwing everyone over."

And yet... my high school did teach marketing 1, 2, and business. Which I took all 3.

Course I do think I was taught, very, basic economics.

[Soren]

Originalmente postado por Ray Rook:

Originalmente postado por Soren:

They won the lottery with their search engine.

This is the entire reason you're wrong. Boiled down to one sentence. It's why most of you are wrong.

It's not winning the lottery. It's not luck.

They built it. They made decisions that ultimately resulted in it happening.

You didn't.

It is largely about luck if you're a start up (tech) company. 99% of the start ups just die. The 1% that succeed make 1000x profit and they use that to buy up large portions of the industry. What do tech companies generally do when they make one super successful product? They buy 100 companies until they win the lottery again.

If google had a high success rate among their business ventures. I'd agree it's largely skill with them. But when their failures and small companies they bought out outnumber their successes 100 to 1, I'd say it is luck. They don't know what they're doing. Otherwise they wouldn't fail so much while trying to establish their monopolies.

I'm not saying all wealth generated is luck. I'm saying it largely was with internet related businesses that blew up. And that the ultra wealthy only succeeded is making the internet a worse homogenised place as a byproduct because of all the monopolies they tried to create.

[Apollo702]

Originalmente postado por Soren:

Originalmente postado por Ray Rook:

This is the entire reason you're wrong. Boiled down to one sentence. It's why most of you are wrong.

It's not winning the lottery. It's not luck.

They built it. They made decisions that ultimately resulted in it happening.

You didn't.

It is largely about luck if you're a start up (tech) company. 99% of the start ups just die. The 1% that succeed make 1000x profit and they use that to buy up large portions of the industry. What do tech companies generally do when they make one super successful product? They buy 100 companies until they win the lottery again.

If google had a high success rate among their business ventures. I'd agree it's largely skill with them. But when their failures and small companies they bought out outnumber their successes 100 to 1, I'd say it is luck. They don't know what they're doing. Otherwise they wouldn't fail so much while trying to establish their monopolies.

I'm not saying all wealth generated is luck. I'm saying it largely was with internet related businesses that blew up. And that the ultra wealthy only succeeded is making the internet a worse homogenised place as a byproduct because of all the monopolies they tried to create.

With business investing it is normal to have at least a 1/3rd failure rate. This goes from venture investing to your corner restaurant. It always has been and always will be.

Venture investing(try watching Shark Tank!) has an even higher failure rate.

There really are 3 categories:

1. The rare unicorns that turn into mega-million to mega-billion successes.

2. The sem-sucesses. They go on for years and make a little. They lose a little. They probably make enough to be relatively steady for a long time.

3. They fail miserably. Something went horribly wrong. Perhaps it was a rip-off. The plan was doomed...

By far, investors want category 3- in a landslide.

That's right. Category 3. 2 is the worst.

Think about it. Category 2 means that one will have to continually pour time, effort, work, money... into something that is just hanging around. The opportunity cost is far greater than an outright failure.

When something fails, it should do so quickly. This way one can move right along and keep taking shots for the big breakthrough. If one is not willing to have a strong stomach and take their lumps they will never hit it big.