Why aren't you rich /biz/?

My family.

>>1676329
Rich is a pretty subjective term.

>>1676341
Not really, unless you are a relativist.

>>1676344
Most intelligent people are.
If the definition is different for everyone asked, that's a textbook relative concept.

>>1676350
Well, some people matter more than others, so..

>>1676352
What is your point?
To someone barely scraping by, owning a home is "rich".
To someone making 250K a year, that's not rich at all.
These examples (and countless others) exist independent of "who matters more".

>>1676354
My point is that no one would call someone who owns a house and little more rich. Maybe "richer" than me, but no, not rich.

>>1676390
>no one would call someone who owns a house and little more rich
Really?
I suppose it doesn't matter where the house is located.
Monaco? Hong Kong? Bel Air?
I think you're mistaken if you believe "no one" would call such homeowners rich.

>>1676393
Ah, now we get to the root of it.
1. Buying something way overpriced makes you poorer.
2. We aren't going by the standards of people in poverty.

>>1676395
>Ah, now we get to the root of it.
The root of what?

>1. Buying something way overpriced makes you poorer.
Beside the point.

>2. We aren't going by the standards of people in poverty
Would those be "relative" standards. Lol.

>>1676404
In the civilized west we have higher standards than South East Asia or Sub Saharan Africa. Also, people's habits are not beside the point. It is what makes them rich versus temporary in control of a relatively small amount of resources.

>>1676408
>In the civilized west we have higher standards
A totally relativist argument.

>people's habits are not beside the point
Sure they are. Owning real estate does not prohibit one from being "rich".

>>1676413
>A totally relativist argument.
it's not a relativist argument if I believe our standards are correct

>>1676418
Even if this were true, you would have to all people in the "civilized west" agree on one standard for the definition of "rich".

They don't.

>>1676418
A true objective statement is correct whether you believe it or not. If you need belief for it to be true, then it's relative.

>>1676425
Even so, your original statement doesn't matter. Rich being subjective is outside the scope of this thread.

>OP should have said "Why aren't you rich by your own subjective standards /biz/?"

>>1676434
>Rich being subjective is outside the scope of this thread
No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly within the scope of this thread. No standards were specified in OP's post, so assuming one is incorrect.

>>1676439
Assuming that each person will answer with there own standards in mind is incorrect? Uh.. I don't think I can argue with the anon, you make no sense.

>>1676445
>Assuming that each person will answer with there own standards
Yeah, that's what I said. Everyone will answer with their own standards, given OP's lack of presenting one.
And why your statement "Rich being subjective is outside the scope of this thread" is the opposite of that, and thus completely incorrect.

>>1676452
Your original reply was just completely irrelevant and unnecessary. You might as well have said "rich people have money."

>>1676465
Not at all.
It was relevant, because not everyone understands subjectivity.
And it was necessary, because most replies would be met with idiotic arguments displaying a lack of said understanding ("That's not rich", etc.).

>>1676910
Perhaps you are right.

Laziness, lack of discipline

File: .jpg (580KB, 1280x1594px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1280x1594px

>>1676329
I'm a young 18 year old lad from Germany so I haven't quite had the chance yet. Parents are poor immigrants from Russia but I'm doing quite good in school. Any degree I should pursue that are more likely to make me rich? I'm beginning to read into economics right now but I'm not certain yet what field to study for guaranteed riches.

>>1676932
Can't say I was expecting that.

File: Account 2.png (19KB, 557x74px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 557x74px

I'm trying as hard as I can.