> There is no “shortcut” to vast wealth, because if there were then everybody would be using it as the default and it would no longer be a shortcut.
Absolutely. I was not writing about shortcuts to vast wealth though.
> What are often described as “shortcuts” are highly situational opportunities with lower-than-typical risk, which by virtue of announcing them to others means the opportunity has passed and the risk has increased.
Of course the shortcuts are highly situational opportunities with lower-than-typical risk. "above median earner", "healthy", "dual income", "without dependents" are situational to a large extent. Yes, that means some people have more agency.
Some will play the personal finance game smart. They realise the smart way is to focus their game away from the situational, to where they have most control: on the expenses side.
Where we disagree is about announcing a shortcut to wealth equaling it disappearing. Not every informed actor decides to take the shortcut. Not all the situationally blessed want to ruthlessly focus on expenses.
> For there to be vast amounts of wealth hoarded by a few, there must also be vast amounts of exploited people desperately getting by on table scraps.
I share this analysis.
> There is a finite supply of wealth, and if we do not build systems to redistribute it equitably then it will always and inevitably by hoarded by the few lacking a moral compass or basic empathy for their fellow man.
Redistribution of wealth is a tricky problem. It requires a delicate balance between individual agency and collective force. Push too far towards either and humans will be suffering unnecessarily.
> There is no “shortcut” to vast wealth, because if there were then everybody would be using it as the default and it would no longer be a shortcut.
Absolutely. I was not writing about shortcuts to vast wealth though.
> What are often described as “shortcuts” are highly situational opportunities with lower-than-typical risk, which by virtue of announcing them to others means the opportunity has passed and the risk has increased.
Of course the shortcuts are highly situational opportunities with lower-than-typical risk. "above median earner", "healthy", "dual income", "without dependents" are situational to a large extent. Yes, that means some people have more agency.
Some will play the personal finance game smart. They realise the smart way is to focus their game away from the situational, to where they have most control: on the expenses side.
Where we disagree is about announcing a shortcut to wealth equaling it disappearing. Not every informed actor decides to take the shortcut. Not all the situationally blessed want to ruthlessly focus on expenses.
> For there to be vast amounts of wealth hoarded by a few, there must also be vast amounts of exploited people desperately getting by on table scraps.
I share this analysis.
> There is a finite supply of wealth, and if we do not build systems to redistribute it equitably then it will always and inevitably by hoarded by the few lacking a moral compass or basic empathy for their fellow man.
Redistribution of wealth is a tricky problem. It requires a delicate balance between individual agency and collective force. Push too far towards either and humans will be suffering unnecessarily.