> I would rather live in a country where an individual can save and invest to become a billionaire.

Steinbeck has a dynamite line about this. It's a goofy point at any rate because there is no evidence that you can realistically _save_ to become a billionaire. It's typically inherited.

> Where is the growth and innovation in those countries?

Literally everywhere? A fun exercise is to read about some burgeoning Canadian or European tech companies and contrast them with eg Uber or WeWork.

> I want to live in a country with opportunity, not one of equality

Without public schools and healthcare, most people get no opportunity.

> Steinbeck has a dynamite line about this.

I'd appreciate you quoting it.

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

It's often attributed to Steinbeck but in my understanding, it's not entirely clear if that's true or not.

Ah right! Should've made the connection.

Since I have you for a moment, let me just say I admire the work you do for Rust.

Thank you!

I agree that there can be more equitable distribution. I struggle with why seizing wealth through taxes is the current war drum being beat. I think the most productive means to making wealth would be stressing the importance of investing and compound growth as part of the high school curriculum. Note: That's where my idea ends right now, I don't have a viable implementation path

Nobody gets rich through starting out with few resources, working diligently, and investing/compounding their wages. It's possible to become financially independent that way if one is smart and lucky, but not rich. By 'financially independent' I mean you can stop working for other people without putting your survival at risk.

If you want to be rich you either need to start out with money (giving you bargaining power in every negotiated investment decision) or innovate in some way and bargain very aggressively and successfully. And that doesn't just mean bargaining with your competitors and members of the investment class, but doing the same with employees in your organization. One of the most reliable ways to do this is to suggest that you got rich through a mixture of hard work and fiscal prudence and then get them to sign away most of their negotiating power on a contract drafted for your benefit.

How can you invest when you have to decide whether to fix the car or eat?

The rules aren't fair, they're made by the rich. Learning how to follow them won't make you richer because they're designed to increase the wealth at the top.

Almost no-one advocates seizing wealth hrough tax. Merely work (income). Since the rich have wealth and the poor work (earn income)

Either you're trolling or extremely naive. $48k/year ain't shit when a) you'll pay some of that back in taxes and b) in places where you can get $15/hour for retail you also need to shell out $30k/year just to have a small studio apartment.

Shell out 30k/year on a studio apartment? Get off the caosts and explore America. I spend less than 30k/year on my mortgage for a house and pushing carts at Costco will net you 15/hr

All of the retail workers should move to middle America. Good plan, econ prof.

I would also add:

1. 60 hours per week at $15/hr for 52.1429 weeks per year is $47k/year.

2. In this magical world where you can get 60 hours per week on the clock, you'd also be entitled to time and a half for 20 hours per week, which would actually be $55k/year. You're underselling it here!

3. And if you're talking about two+ 30 hour / week minimum wage jobs:

3a. Chances are you're now in the world where you also don't get employer healthcare. Hooray!

3b. Good luck getting all of your jobs to schedule in such a way that you actually get all 60 hours per week, without getting fired from your second job because of scheduling conflicts with your first.

For real. I was thinking back to this thread earlier today as I realized that ~25 years ago in SF I was making $14 or $15 an hour as a network technician...but my rent (for a large room in a house share) was only about $300/mo. A studio apartment would have been around $5-600 and I think my monthly travel bill was $50 or so. I don't remember enough to think out my whole budget but offhand food was maybe half or 2/3 of what it is now so your blue collar dollar went a great deal farther than it does now.

Try working for 60 hours a week at minimum wage with kids and let me know how much time you have left to spend managing investments.

So 30 hrs/week for each parent.... ? I personally work ~50-60 hours a week and have plenty of time for investments. It takes around 10 minutes a week to manage, could probably trim that to 10 minutes per quarter

Nowadays people are lucky if that entry level retail job will give them 40 hours a week, never mind 60.

The Affordable Care Act was a blow to entry level workers in that regard. Now its probably more likely to have 2 jobs at 29.5 hours each then one at 40. Maybe the healthcare debates going on can address this

I don't agree that wealth is the factor that should be measured instead of income. Income is the number that matters--wealth is just unspent income.

I think wealth is just chosen because the differences are more dramatic.