6 ms·

>Being rich is risking losing your job in order to negotiate a better contract with your boss If you have a 9-to-5, you're probably not rich.

by gragas 9y ago

gruez 9y ago
You obviously missed the point of the GP
- gragas 9y ago
  Yeah, didn't read it. Came straight to the comments to see all the righteous, selfless technocrats on HN tonight.
  - dang 9y ago
    You're basically trolling this thread. Would please not do that, and please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? We're hoping for a higher quality of discussion than that, and need all the help we can get.
chasing 9y ago
The average household income in the US -- one of the wealthiest countries in the world -- is, like, $55k/yr. If you've got some 9-to-5 job pulling down $80k/yr with no kids or dependencies, you're rich to a lot of people.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- uiri 9y ago
  Being rich is having enough capital to escape the trap of wage slavery that is a 9-to-5. It is really hard to fathom the idea of money working for you instead of you working for money when $15/hour sounds like a lot of money though so I understand where "a lot of people" are coming from. However, raising the highest marginal income tax rates isn't raising taxes on the rich. It is raising taxes on the upper middle class - the most highly paid of the wage slaves. The Micawber principle (from David Copperfield) comes to mind here: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery." 20 shillings to a pound, 12 pence to a shilling, so the difference between happiness and misery is a single shilling (or 1/20 of a pound).
- adamkruszewski 9y ago
  Remember hearing Dave Ramsey (who probably got it from someone else) saying that when your money makes more than you do, you're officialy rich. There might be something to it.

>Being rich is risking losing your job in order to negotiate a better contract with your boss If you have a 9-to-5, you're probably not rich.

by gragas 9y ago

>Being rich is risking losing your job in order to negotiate a better contract with your boss If you have a 9-to-5, you're probably not rich.

gruez 9y ago

You obviously missed the point of the GP

gragas 9y ago
Yeah, didn't read it. Came straight to the comments to see all the righteous, selfless technocrats on HN tonight.
- dang 9y ago
  You're basically trolling this thread. Would please not do that, and please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? We're hoping for a higher quality of discussion than that, and need all the help we can get.

chasing 9y ago

The average household income in the US -- one of the wealthiest countries in the world -- is, like, $55k/yr. If you've got some 9-to-5 job pulling down $80k/yr with no kids or dependencies, you're rich to a lot of people.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
uiri 9y ago
Being rich is having enough capital to escape the trap of wage slavery that is a 9-to-5. It is really hard to fathom the idea of money working for you instead of you working for money when $15/hour sounds like a lot of money though so I understand where "a lot of people" are coming from. However, raising the highest marginal income tax rates isn't raising taxes on the rich. It is raising taxes on the upper middle class - the most highly paid of the wage slaves. The Micawber principle (from David Copperfield) comes to mind here: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery." 20 shillings to a pound, 12 pence to a shilling, so the difference between happiness and misery is a single shilling (or 1/20 of a pound).
adamkruszewski 9y ago
Remember hearing Dave Ramsey (who probably got it from someone else) saying that when your money makes more than you do, you're officialy rich. There might be something to it.