What is your attitude towards winners?

Off Topic
16yFollow

What is your attitude towards winners?

Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes

This is my first off-topic thread (I think) and I am starting it because I think it has a valuable lesson for newbie BP members who want to make it big.

As you guys know, I travel a lot internationally and, as a result, have to go through security-check and immigration at airports throughout the world. (I am writing this from the lounge at Houston after having just cleared security.) As you guys can imagine, the people who work at airports are not highly paid and are often government employees. As I typically travel by First or Business, I am often viewed by some of these people as a rich guy. (although I certainly don't feel that way)

One of the interesting things that I have noticed in my travels is the correlation between GDP growth and respect for the rich. I have noticed that the airport staff in countries with a high GDP growth rate are very respectful towards me. And the airport staff in countries with a low GDP growth rate tend to have a bit of an attitude.

Could that be a cultural factor that causes countries to decline? In countries where the poor look up to the rich and admire them and want their kids to become like them, it appears as if GDP growth is good. And in countries where the poor resent the rich and feel that the rich do not deserve their wealth or respect, growth seems to be poor.

Do you guys agree with me or do you think I am under the influence of the Chardonnay served by the cute girl at the bar? (She is quite pleasant and respectful!)

4Reply
15 views

Most Popular Reply

Account Closed
OR · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 845 votes
16y

[[[[......unclear what would happen if someone died with a 100% estate tax and their spouse was still living.....]]]]

Oh come off it, Bryon. How many times do couples die, both of them at exactly the same time? There will nearly always be a surviving spouse. There are sometimes handicapped children or elderly parents that survive and need to be cared for.

You are a very hard hearten person to be advocating that all their survivors be tossed into the gutter (the deceased probably even paid for his handicapped child's wheelchair, so the fed will take that too.)

And apparently, you believe that all the family pets should be shunted off to the pound and put to sleep, and no arrangements made for their care when their owner dies.

A good parent makes sure a child can make his own way. That is no reason to give all the acquired wealth to the government, so that they can hand it out for free to all the little welfare mamas who have done nothing of value but take drugs and watch the telly.

My heir is a hard-working businessman in his own right. That is NOT a good reason why Uncle Sam should get what I've worked for all my life instead of my child (or my church, or my best friend, or my favorite charity, or even my bleedin' dog, who happens to be a more worthy and honest being than our give-it-all-away president)

4Reply
See this reply in the discussion

22 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    16y

    I don't have any feedback on the question (not enough personal data), but I find the topic very interesting...thanks for posting your experiences...I'm going to start paying more attention to this sort of thing!

    Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
    0Reply
  • Bryan Hancock
    Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    16y

    I certainly can't add any perspective, but my guess would be that GDP growth is highly correlated with social mobility and thus this is why you observe this.

    BTW...You are a stone's throw from Austin. Why didn't you stop in and say hello?

    0Reply
  • Bill Gulley
    Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    16y

    V, I agree with you, there is a great deal of resentment toward Americans, it's not just the GDP, it's also that we are seen in many poorer countries as influencing economic development with a select few in thier country and/or world wide, through our foreign policy and capitalist structure, which we do that through such competition keeps others from advancing. You might find that over the past 50 years, attitudes have not changed much. Another aspect is that we have resources that other countries do not have and that our track record is pretty wasteful, another cause of resentment. Flying first class you'll likely be identified as one of "those" Americans. It also depends on the age of those you come in contact with.....older people may have a better understanding of the circumstances and are less likely to show as much distain as younger people might. Have you noticed a difference in attitudes between older (say over 60) and younger (30 to 50<) people ? I did.

    0Reply
  • Vikram C.
    OP
    Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    Sorry, Bryan, I had just an hour's stop-over at Houston on my way to Doha. (I am writing this from Doha.)

    Bill, I was referring to attitude towards the wealthy in general and not towards Americans. Most of these people have no clue that I am an American citizen and, thinking about it, most of the countries that I travel through generally have a favorable view of the U.S.

    But you make a very good point about the age issue. I must admit that most of the attitude issues are from younger people. Older people generally seem to either have a good understanding of what it takes to succeed or, perhaps, they were raised in an era when it was not appropriate to show someone an attitude.

    It seems to me that there are two ways in which poor people view the rich. On the one hand, we have the "resenters" who envy and resent the rich and feel that they got their wealth at the expense of the poor. These people probably support policies that are more focused on dividing the pie than on growing it.

    And then there are the "aspirers" who look up to the rich and want to be like them or to have their kids be like them. I think these people are more focused on raising their standard of living than on dividing the pie.

    A country's growth rate probably gets affected by the proportion of resenters to aspirers among its voters. The resenters may also be less likely to succeed as entrepreneurs because they focus so much on how much the other person is making.

    2Reply
  • Account Closed
    OR · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 845 votes
    16y

    [[[[......in countries where the poor resent the rich and feel that the rich do not deserve their wealth or respect, growth seems to be poor.....]]]]

    In countries where the rich are considered to be exploiters, you often find the laws tend hard toward socialism and the laws make it more difficult to start a business or hire and maintain employees. That discourages business start-ups and hurts the general economy.

    I can think of at least a couple of poor countries that have onerous import duties. Government raising funds without caring that they cut off new business start-ups. You can't start a business if you can't get the goods you need to run the business.

    The social situation in poor countries is often such that the poor can not get ahead, no matter whether they'd like to or not. I can see where that would cause resentment.

    1Reply
  • Bryan Hancock
    Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    16y

    I think the premise of the thread is a bit off from my perspective too. I don't really consider MANY of the rich people I know "winners." In fact I know a lot of rich people that are simply rich because they inherited wealth. They contribute very little to society and are spoiled to death.

    The people I consider successful are the ones that made it on their own while adding tangible value to society. I know a ton of people I consider winners that are not classically defined as rich.

    1Reply
  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    16y
    I second that Bryan!
    Podcast Guest on Show #130
    0Reply
  • Bill Gulley
    Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    16y

    Agreed!

    V, any American is wealthy compared to most everyone in some other countries.

    Well, if you're wearing Hagar slacks and a polo shirt.....(and look at your shoes!) they know you're an American.

    You can go to many countries where the average citizen does not make enoung all year to pay for what some of us wear in a day.

    Do you think the people working at the airport make enoungh money to fly somewhere and take a vacation?

    But when you get to Quatar, the attendant in the mens room probably makes more than the average American! Any looks you get there will probably be motivated by politics and religion rather than being based on your polo shirt.

    0Reply
  • Vikram C.
    OP
    Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    I really don't think this is an anti-American thing at all. In fact, the worst security and immigration people that I encounter are at U.S. airports. The Middle-East is a close second. I find that southern and eastern Asia is where the staff seems most professional and respectful.

    Bryan, there are different kinds of wealthy people. Those who have made it on their own, those who have inherited it, and those who have "stolen" it from shareholders, etc. I respect the first group, am neutral to the second group and dislike the third group.

    But, when you take wealthy vs poor people as a group, without knowing anything else, it is reasonable to suppose that the ones who are wealthy are, on the whole, more capable than the ones who are not. And if, like you, many people have the attitude that the rich as a group deserve no respect because so many of them may not have earned it, that's the exact problem I am talking about. It is that underlying assumption that seems to result in anti-wealth government policies.

    1Reply
  • Bryan Hancock
    Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    16y

    I certainly don't have the array of experience you have internationally, but the people I talk to pretty much respect group 1 people above. The second group could be the best folks in the world and they are robbed of respect because it is assumed they were gifted wealth. I guess that is the price they pay for having it good! Group 3 people are common criminals and should be behind bars.

    How many of the group 2 people do you think would give up their inherited wealth so that they can make it on their own and command respect? If we taxed everyone's inherited wealth at 100% and just let EVERYONE make it or their own merits how would that be unfair? Do you think group 2 people would be okay with that setup so that they could gain respect? Perhaps that setup would eliminate the disdain for wealthy people you find frequently.

    0Reply
  • Vikram C.
    OP
    Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    Bryan, regarding the inheritors, I think you are looking at it purely from the kid's perspective. And one can definitely make the case that they do not deserve the wealth and merely got lucky.

    But if you look at it from the parent's perspective, it is an issue of freedom. A person who works hard to earn money should have the ability to spend it as he sees fit. Some will spend it on their personal material comforts while others will be motivated by the possibility of leaving it to their kids. We should not reduce the incentive for hard work by taking away some of the prime motivators for creating wealth.

    0Reply
  • Bryan Hancock
    Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    16y

    That is fine and I understand the point. However, you were originally asking about the attitude toward the wealthy. My guess is that MANY people have a healthy disdain for folks that they ENVY because they inherited wealth. I don't share their disdain, but I can certainly appreciate where this argument comes from.

    We have already had the death tax debate so you know where I stand on it. Any system set up to encourage a meritocracy, even if it is at the expense of discouraging wealth accumulation in the waning part of one's lifetime is a good thing in my opinion. I am an extremely competitive person and think that people should succeed or fail based on their efforts alone and not on the backs of their family.

    In general I think the most successful people "make it" even if they start with a smaller set of initial conditions. People are bound by their abilities, but raw passion goes a long way in this world. Your story certainly demonstrates this.

    0Reply
  • Vikram C.
    OP
    Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
    That is fine and I understand the point. However, you were originally asking about the attitude toward the wealthy. My guess is that MANY people have a healthy disdain for folks that they ENVY because they inherited wealth. I don't share their disdain, but I can certainly appreciate where this argument comes from.


    Fair enough. My original point was no so much about the "why" as about the consequences of this attitude. I suspect that the countries where people have more respect for the wealthy and aspire to be like them have at least as many inherited wealthy people and crooked wealthy people as the rest of the world.

    As the countries that followed Marx showed, it is much better to harness the greed and ambition inherent in humans than to try to prevent it in an attempt to stop the small number of wealthy people who do not deserve their wealth.

    2Reply
  • Account Closed
    OR · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 845 votes
    16y

    I know a lot of people who inherited money.

    Unless they are widows, or extremely elderly, they work hard at maintaining the family fortunes.

    If they do not, if they just lounge around spending the wealth, they very soon have nothing. Multi-million dollar estates can be lost in a decade, never mind in a generation. I've seen it over and over. I know the people who have done it.

    I also know families where the family wealth is centuries old. They put in long hours, and their children are hard-working and not spoiled brats.

    The persons I know who squandered the family fortune were inevitably the children of new money. Sometimes those families make it, and sometimes they spoil their children to the point that they can not hang on to a fortune.

    You don't have to take a family's wealth to make people prove their merit. If they have no merit, the fortune is going back into the general pot, anyway.

    And Crikey, Bryan, I feel sorry for your widow, if you think she should be thrown out into the gutter with nothing as soon as you die.

    2Reply
  • Bryan Hancock
    Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    16y

    My wife is actually about 2X as smart and talented as I am. I am sure she would do just fine without me. It is, however, unclear what would happen if someone died with a 100% estate tax and their spouse was still living.

    I have always found it interesting that those who are able to amass wealth WANT to pass it along to the next generation. Why would you want to rob your offspring of the right to make it on their own merit?

    BTW…I agree that there are plenty of fine folks that inherit wealth. There are also plenty of spoiled rich kids that drift through life and provide little in the way of value to society. My suspicion is that the average Joe at the airport equates ALL rich folks with said spoiled rich kids that were gifted everything. A large proportion are just haters and envious too.

    0Reply
  • Account Closed
    OR · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 845 votes
    16y

    [[[[......unclear what would happen if someone died with a 100% estate tax and their spouse was still living.....]]]]

    Oh come off it, Bryon. How many times do couples die, both of them at exactly the same time? There will nearly always be a surviving spouse. There are sometimes handicapped children or elderly parents that survive and need to be cared for.

    You are a very hard hearten person to be advocating that all their survivors be tossed into the gutter (the deceased probably even paid for his handicapped child's wheelchair, so the fed will take that too.)

    And apparently, you believe that all the family pets should be shunted off to the pound and put to sleep, and no arrangements made for their care when their owner dies.

    A good parent makes sure a child can make his own way. That is no reason to give all the acquired wealth to the government, so that they can hand it out for free to all the little welfare mamas who have done nothing of value but take drugs and watch the telly.

    My heir is a hard-working businessman in his own right. That is NOT a good reason why Uncle Sam should get what I've worked for all my life instead of my child (or my church, or my best friend, or my favorite charity, or even my bleedin' dog, who happens to be a more worthy and honest being than our give-it-all-away president)

    4Reply
  • Vikram C.
    OP
    Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    When Byran talks about issues related to older people, I am reminded of Reagan's rejoinder to Mondale about not holding his youth and inexperience against him.

    I am sure Bryan will change his views on this topic in a couple of decades. He now has a baby (if I recall correctly) and once he accumulates some wealth, he will start seeing things in a different light.

    Young people often have strong views on subjects like this only to change their views somewhere along the path towards old age.

    1Reply
  • Bryan Hancock
    Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    16y

    Perhaps…time will tell. I certainly don’t expect my new baby daughter to get a free ride on the parent’s express though. Clearly there are issues that would need to be worked out.

    It is hard for me to believe that I will change my mind about people making their own way in the world without being gifted the keys to the kingdom. Regardless of my views…I think that the reason “winners†are not treated with the respect they think they deserve is that they are robbed of some of this respect by a system where financial success is not perfectly correlated with having made it on one’s own.

    0Reply
  • Bill Gulley
    Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    16y

    Good points.....

    To the OP...I really like self made winners, I don't discount those with old or new money either...but they may or may not be winners. I can admire others without money since in my mind, being a winner does not mean being rich...and what is rich? Bill Gates is rich in my book and he is also a winner. Joe Kennedy built a fortune, but he was not a winner in my book.

    If you look around, you'll find you don't have to travel far to be resented by someone, or to be immulated by others based simply on how you are preceived.

    Someone who has money and is a snob or arigunt or egotisical because of it is not a winner in my book. Most successful people have money, that seems to be the greatest standard by which we are measured, but not all winners have money. There are many "winners" who do great things without reward!

    What I mentioned above has more to do with perception and causes for them, IMO, not clearly but along the fringe.

    So in the OP, it appears an assumption of wealth is being made, but is that really the basis for the scorn?

    I grew up with Sky King and Roy Rogers, thinking of it now, both had large ranches, nice homes and one had an airplane, but they were not winners because of that at all!

    1Reply
  • Ken Sahid
    Portharcourt, 0 · Member since 2010 · 24 posts · 3 votes
    16y

    Vikram, happy economy means happy people, sad economy means sad people, in countries with low economic growth, the rich is always an object of all sorts of attacks. So your study is entirely correct for me. Though i think there is more to being a winner than having a fortune.

    1Reply
  • Rich Weese
    Real Estate Investor · the villages, FL · Member since 2008 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    16y

    Wow!!- This thread goes in various directions and takes off on tangents. Here are some of my thoughts.
    Agreed, money doesn't automatically make you a winner for reasons posted above. It does allow you choices, such as travel.
    I do appreciate those that had to "do it themselves" rather than just being born to Sam Walton, for example.
    I've visited 85 countries, and many more than once. I'm not sure I've seen any notable differences. I might have additional thoughts after a river cruise on the Danube in Oct. with new countries Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
    Countries that immediately come to mind where I felt treated extremely well were Egypt, China, Cuba, Japan, Vietnam, and Sigapore. A couple of these would be considered wealthy and others not.
    I was treated poorly in Morrocco, Jamaica, Russia and France.
    I'm sure if I took time, I could find more for each category.
    These thoughts are just from my experiences, and are not from tour guides, and those folks that have to be nice. From actual interaction with the local people.
    I've never flown first class, and never will. Not exactly Warren Buffet, but he owns the LARGEST fleet of private jets, yet always flies public airlines. I like interacting with the local people that are on same flights. Rich

    0Reply
  • Vikram C.
    OP
    Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    Rich, the countries you mention, with the exception of Cuba and Morocco, supports my hypothesis. The countries where you were treated exceptionally well also have high growth rates. And the countries where you were treated poorly have low growth rates.

    BTW, Buffett does fly in his private jets. He found that he could make more money doing that than by flying commercial. I find the same thing about flying business class (can't afford private jets). It actually allows me to work harder and make more money and therefore pays for itself.

    0Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free