• Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I agree fully, but I do want to know what the original image said before “birth lottery” was edited in

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Luck is the most generically accurate, but ultimately it does come down to birth lottery, as someone can just be born poor and disabled and no amount of post-birth luck is going to fix that.

        • wischi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Post birth luck can fix it. Wouldn’t call Eminem a winner of the birth lottery but he was definitely pretty lucky with dr dre

          • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Being lucky depends on being in the right situation and being able to grab the opportunity. Turns out that having rich connected parents means you get in more and better situations. Also, having money means a lot more chance to grab opportunities by easily moving for a job or go without income to take a chance without being evicted for not paying rent.

    • Troy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not rich. But I was born poor and am no longer poor. The Birth Lottery blessed me with a brain, and with that as my only asset, I learned esoteric skills which I can parley into a niche career.

      But more importantly, the social safety net in my country allowed me to get an education without becoming a wage slave for the rest of my life. Without that, I couldn’t have pulled this escape from poverty off.

      I now run my own business. We have no employees – only owners who have self-invested. Our business is growing and I anticipate a comfortable retirement. Haven’t got rich off the working class either.

      So, thank you Canada for the opportunities. I’ve tried to make the most of them.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        So can you answer his question or did you just see an opportunity to brag about yourself.

      • FritzGman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        How do you run a business without employees? What kind of business is that? Just because you call someone a self-invested owner doesn’t mean they aren’t an employee. The only types of businesses I’ve heard of like this are Mary Kay and AmWay (there may be others I don’t know). Basically a sales ponzi scheme where you are the wholesaler for a distributor and the “self-invested owner” bought their products from you instead of directly from the wholesaler.

        I do agree with your stance on the state of education today but not in the same way. Some people party all through school and live off loans while others work during school to avoid loans. For every 1 person that takes the opportunity seriously and busts their ass to make something of themselves, there are 9 people who don’t deserve the free pass. Making it free for everyone costs too much for those who have to pay for those 9.

        • Troy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It’s a specialized scientific equipment business. I build some equipment, do some customization and repairs on their party equipment, loan other equipment, train users… A high capital business where I wagered everything on my own success. It was six months between my first two customers, and now I average about six hours.

          No Mary Kay ponzi shit.

          E: should add, I started it because my previous employer owned the intellectual property on my prior device. I wanted to own my future work. Seizing the means of production (by quitting and going solo).

  • Zozano@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    You can literally just make the entire second pie chart “exploiting the working class”, because “birth lottery” is dependant on that.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Capitalism just has a feedback loop bug. In capitalism, resources are distributed based on capital. But capital is a resource. So you get more capital for having more capital. In any business, who gets the most money that business generates? Whoever had the most money to buy into it. No work, no expertise is involved in the equation.

  • realbadat@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Slightly more accurate may be combining both birth lottery and merciless exploitation.

    Since winning that lottery let’s them be the people who can mercilessly exploit people, who then have children who won that lottery, etc.

      • realbadat@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Oh, I read it as half the people won the birth lottery, the other half exploited people.

        As a 50/50 split for the person yeah that’s what it would be

        Just how I read the images sorry :)

  • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Own something valuable and then borrow against that thing. Easiest example would be to own stock worth say a thousand dollars and borrow a hundred dollars from that stock value you get to keep the stock worth nine hundred dollars growing in value while you pay the one hundred dollar “debt” off. If you ever get to where you could not pay it for some reason, you could always take $100 and pay it off immediately. I’ve heard this referred to as the buy borrow strategy and some people to avoid taxes will use this perpetually and they call it the buy borrow die strategy. Selling an asset often involves extremely heavy extortion from gangs that we call governments, where borrowing from the value of that asset does not incur such an extortion penalty.

    Edit: The most important part though is just to make more than you spend from whatever you do.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Tbf, most tax authorities haven’t been completely captured by billionaires and they recognise what your just described as a disguised remuneration package.

      • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It works even in the United States. If you sell a stock within a year of owning it, you get charged like 30% extortion. If you sell it after a year, you get charged your normal extortion rate. And if you borrow from it, you get charged zero extortion.

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Calling it taxes extortion makes you a temporarily embarrassed billionaire.

          • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Thats what taxes are though. Its men with guns telling you to give them some of what you worked for or else… Sounds like extortion to me.

            • Clent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yes, that’s the Iam14andThisIsDeep perspective of taxes. It’s what libertarians, aka diet-republicans say.

              Blaming taxes being too high as the reason for why the wealthy are wealthy is them performing mind control on you.

              And if that’s what not what you’re saying, check the thread you’re in.

    • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      To be completely fair that’s not pure luck. Those people took risks, why don’t you invest in new startups? Because it’s risky.

      But yes out of the people brave enough to invest, it’s mostly luck they picked the right startup

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        They took a risk and millions took risks in millions of other stocks and failed. So yea it’s luck.

        • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Billions didn’t take any risks by not investing in startups. That’s a zero chance, everyone else is a non zero chance.

      • Naz@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I like that downvoted comments are no longer hidden but Pareto would like to tell you the ratio is 80:20.

        4 in 5 people pick the wrong start-up and lose everything.

        The remainder are busy rationalizing their luck as skill.

        • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I know, my point still stands.

          It’s not lucky that they decided to gamble.

          They bought the lottery ticket and won, not everyone buys tickets.

          • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            This is a silly distinction you are trying to make and it serves no purpose. And I don’t even agree it is a real distinction… The act of deciding to gamble doesn’t in any way mean the payoff or losses are anything but luck.

            • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              You think the choice of deciding to play the lottery doesnt change your chances at winning it?

              If you truly think that you’re even more lost than I thought you were, not worth my time

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I hate to be that guy, but not always exactly this. I have relatives that were born dirt poor but are now rich. You can definitely say they exploited people to get that way but the birth lottery gave them nothing financially

    • young_broccoli@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The chart says that 50% get rich by exploitation and the other 50% by inheritance.

      Edit: NVM, Im dumb and misread the meme. Still I doubt they were litterally “dirt poor” so birth lottery still applies.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        For sure, never ever trust a wealthy person’s origin story. Even trump and Musk claim to be self made.

        Much better to go with the evidence of our eyes and ears.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          You know nothing. I’m describing my great uncle, so I would have no reason to lie. No one else in the family is what you would call rich. I’m simply providing a factual counterexample because generalizing is the surest way to not understand nuance

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Speaking of lacking nuance, claiming people “know nothing” isn’t exactly the smartest thing you’ve ever said.

            We have two things here:

            A: I’m describing my great uncle

            And

            B: so I have no reason to lie.

            How does one relate to the other? Is it unusual for people to lie about great uncles where you’re from? Does this rule apply to, say, regular uncles? How about a great aunt? Does it apply to them too?

            More seriously, the factual real world examples that can be proven and aren’t just “trust me bro” all point to never being able to trust a wealthy persons origin story, even if it is someone’s great uncle. However, that doesn’t mean its literally untrue in every instance or yours.

            The point is, even if 100% true in every capacity, it’s so ultra rare and against such a rigged game that it might as well not be true. That is, if we plan on appreciating the true nuance of the situation.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Idiot, the person I referenced claimed you can’t trust a rich person’s origin story. It’s not my story

              You’re just mad the simple narrative was threatened. I couldn’t give a shit less what you believe

              • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                What a childish and hilariously ironic reply. I’m the person who said you can’t trust a wealthy persons origin story. I said it because its true.

                You challenged nothing. All you didn’t was tell a baseless story that anyone could have made up. You give yourself too much credit if you think you either challenged anything anyone said or made me mad by it. It’s pretty pathetic to have to pretend you’ve upset people.

                Even if it was true, its like me saying “don’t jump out of a 10 storey building, you’ll probably die.” and you replying “yeah, well, my great uncle jumped out of a 10 storey building and he didn’t die.” Like, cool story bro but you still shouldn’t jump out of one and, also, no one cares about your tales.

                How about second cousins, would you lie about them?