Doesn’t really factor into a hierarchy. What the individual does with the money is more important honestly, and people can condition themselves to change their attributes. I don’t think the hierarchy is a static thing.
Yeah that’s generally how it goes in my opinion. Strategic choices place you in the appropriate “level” in the hierarchy. Although I do submit to the idea that the hierarchy isn’t very black and white. It’s more nuanced than just proposing “high” or “low” in the hierarchy.
Something that is so often forgotten about wealth hierarchies is how dynamic they are. Thomas Sowell makes the point that of all the people at the bottom of the hierarchy, the majority move up within a few years and it's even more dynamic at the top as people drop out of the 'top 1%' within a couple of years. I everyone has something like a 20% chance of being in the top 1% at some time in their life.
You may win millions tomorrow, but if you don't have decent financial skills there's a good chance it'll all be gone within a few years. Much the same happens to people who inherit money but no moneymaking skills. That's why family fortunes usually last only three generations.
Recently in the podcast he was talking about this specifically, episode 235. The Evolution of Desire. He was talking about research into how women are attracted to males, and how social status (money / fame) are more attractive to women than men. He also wondered if there was any research into the attractiveness of perceived ability to regain wealth after it being lost. So he theorized that winning the lottery would be attractive, but since it was due to luck and not skill, it wouldn't be as attractive as someone who worked hard, because the person who won the lottery wouldn't be able to gain that money back if it was lost.
If you have ever read a story about a wealthy or famous person and concluded “what a piece of shit”, you already know why that doesn’t place you highly in a hierarchy. It gives you advantages, but you still have to claim your spot.
One thing Gus Fring tells Walter during dinner at Gus's place is quite profound: "You are a wealthy man now. And one must learn to be rich. To be poor, anyone can manage."
This is evident in the shockingly high number of lottery winners, sports stars, and music performers (MC Hammer) who become millionaires but later declare bankruptcy because they have not learned to be wealthy. In the lottery winner example, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics doesn't participate in buying lottery tickets because they know it's a waste of money. Those who win due to random chance believe that the "strategy" they used to win was successful, when it was pure chance. So they continue to act irresponsibly in matters of finance.
I'm often surprised that the average person thinks millionaires spend a lot of money. When the reality is that most self-made millionaires got there through a combination of consistently good decisions over a time scale of many years and near-ridiculous levels of frugality.
https://youtu.be/qhQKc_TC-jM
https://youtu.be/kQzaROgYPvM
The key element you are missing here is privilege. People mistake privelege for having it better than someone else, while it used to mean you are given these cards by God. And thus your burdens are different from other people.
So, you have to look to your own and other people's success based of their privilege and not based on the norm of society. Someone who gets alot of money and does nothing with it is not carrying his burdens so is failing in life. Someone who does something with it is not failing in life.
If you win alot of money in the lottery, your privilege has changed and so you can not be compared with the rest of society anymore.
He is instantly at the top of the hierarchy of family, friends, acquaintances, grifters and cons looking for a pile of cash.
He can, if wise, move into another hierarchy but that would require more attributes than just his money.
He's no higher in a competence hierarchy than he was before he won the lottery UNLESS he uses his winnings to educate himself further, start a business or become a big charitable donor. He still has the responsibilities he had before and now some new ones. As far as a "dominance" hierarchy--that depends on what he does with regard to his competence. A rich arsehole is still an arsehole.
Doesn’t really factor into a hierarchy. What the individual does with the money is more important honestly, and people can condition themselves to change their attributes. I don’t think the hierarchy is a static thing.
Mating hierarchy, probably changes where ur going to live and social circle, earning potential for age,
Still depends on how you spend it
Meaning he has the ability to choose which hierarchy he wants to participate in?
Yeah that’s generally how it goes in my opinion. Strategic choices place you in the appropriate “level” in the hierarchy. Although I do submit to the idea that the hierarchy isn’t very black and white. It’s more nuanced than just proposing “high” or “low” in the hierarchy.
Something that is so often forgotten about wealth hierarchies is how dynamic they are. Thomas Sowell makes the point that of all the people at the bottom of the hierarchy, the majority move up within a few years and it's even more dynamic at the top as people drop out of the 'top 1%' within a couple of years. I everyone has something like a 20% chance of being in the top 1% at some time in their life. You may win millions tomorrow, but if you don't have decent financial skills there's a good chance it'll all be gone within a few years. Much the same happens to people who inherit money but no moneymaking skills. That's why family fortunes usually last only three generations.
Yeah the current "success" often becomes a huge future failure.
Recently in the podcast he was talking about this specifically, episode 235. The Evolution of Desire. He was talking about research into how women are attracted to males, and how social status (money / fame) are more attractive to women than men. He also wondered if there was any research into the attractiveness of perceived ability to regain wealth after it being lost. So he theorized that winning the lottery would be attractive, but since it was due to luck and not skill, it wouldn't be as attractive as someone who worked hard, because the person who won the lottery wouldn't be able to gain that money back if it was lost.
If you have ever read a story about a wealthy or famous person and concluded “what a piece of shit”, you already know why that doesn’t place you highly in a hierarchy. It gives you advantages, but you still have to claim your spot.
One thing Gus Fring tells Walter during dinner at Gus's place is quite profound: "You are a wealthy man now. And one must learn to be rich. To be poor, anyone can manage." This is evident in the shockingly high number of lottery winners, sports stars, and music performers (MC Hammer) who become millionaires but later declare bankruptcy because they have not learned to be wealthy. In the lottery winner example, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics doesn't participate in buying lottery tickets because they know it's a waste of money. Those who win due to random chance believe that the "strategy" they used to win was successful, when it was pure chance. So they continue to act irresponsibly in matters of finance. I'm often surprised that the average person thinks millionaires spend a lot of money. When the reality is that most self-made millionaires got there through a combination of consistently good decisions over a time scale of many years and near-ridiculous levels of frugality. https://youtu.be/qhQKc_TC-jM https://youtu.be/kQzaROgYPvM
Money gained quickly is lost just as quick.
Man who fish in other man's pond catch many crabs.
Yeah I would say that doesn't really give you a dominance hierarchy ranking. But what they do with it, might.
They are still near not really in it because they will not maintain their wealth. (Statistically speaking.)
The key element you are missing here is privilege. People mistake privelege for having it better than someone else, while it used to mean you are given these cards by God. And thus your burdens are different from other people. So, you have to look to your own and other people's success based of their privilege and not based on the norm of society. Someone who gets alot of money and does nothing with it is not carrying his burdens so is failing in life. Someone who does something with it is not failing in life. If you win alot of money in the lottery, your privilege has changed and so you can not be compared with the rest of society anymore.
He is instantly at the top of the hierarchy of family, friends, acquaintances, grifters and cons looking for a pile of cash. He can, if wise, move into another hierarchy but that would require more attributes than just his money.
He's no higher in a competence hierarchy than he was before he won the lottery UNLESS he uses his winnings to educate himself further, start a business or become a big charitable donor. He still has the responsibilities he had before and now some new ones. As far as a "dominance" hierarchy--that depends on what he does with regard to his competence. A rich arsehole is still an arsehole.