Tweet says: “not all founders are rich kids.” Angry mob responds: - “many founders are rich” - “being rich helps you as a founder” - “being not rich makes it harder” All of which have nothing to do with the original tweet.https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1129897694984646657 …
-
"they could not pay their rent" does not mean that they aren't "rich kids"... PG lost his argument the second he hit 'Tweet'
Sure, I suppose if you redefine rich as something other than “having access to lots of money,” then you can make his words mean whatever you like.
-
-
You don’t need to come up with new definitions. This is the whole concept of socioeconomic class. The 30 yo doctor who’s a child or New England socialites may have negative money due to student loans, yet he’s not poorer than the homeless guy with zero.
-
This topic is excruciatingly boring
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Commenters argued that his examples actually did have access to lots of money (eg credit, family resources, status), relative to the modal American. I think the crux of the argument is that viewed from outside the top 5%, “rich” starts at $150k/household and a line of credit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Rich also == the ability to take risk ! You're forgetting about the SAFETY-NET: Money/resources that you don't have 'present' access to, but 'would' have access to IF the risk did indeed result in financial damages. SAFETY-NET && NO-$ still == "RICH" U
your blind spot? -
Good argument, but I might suggest being less confrontational and more focused on your argument. Otherwise, great point!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.