/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>11194
That argument is alright but it's still possible to start a business while poor.

>Working dead-end job
>Have pickup truck
>Buy used roto-tiller
>Till gardens while off from regular job
>Buy trailer
>Do yard-cleanups and other work
>Sell trailer buy dump trailer
>Quit regular dead-end job
>Expand to paver brick patios, painting, powerwashing, anything outdoors
>Bring on extra crew

It can be done in a few years. I know people that did this and no longer even have to work during late fall and winter, they just go hunting for those seasons and make good money during the warm seasons. It literally takes a pickup truck and one piece of equipment to get started.

It's kind of a problem that people think that they can't do this. I was stuck in that mode for a long time, waiting for somebody to hand me a job or whatever. Endlessly applying for shit jobs and getting nowhere.

I'm still on that crew for the other guy but it's now apparent it doesn't take much to get started. Tougher if you already have a family and no money

It would be interesting to brainstorm all of the possible businesses that don't require a lot of capital to start

Off the top of my head, PC repair is another one, pretty much just need talent, transportation, a laptop, and a USB to SATA/IDE adapter kit.

But I've done that work and it's tough to make a living, I think there are better options like outdoor work

>>11198
>>11196
Construction and manual labor pays well and it is a shame that most of society shames "blue collar" work.

>>11200
I wish I had gotten into manual labor right out of high-school, or maybe even before that. At this point I feel slightly out of place on a manual labor crew but I'm learning a lot.

(Just brainstorming)
>Tree maintenance
>Swimming pool installation/maintenance
>Cleanup/hauling
>Painting powerwashing
>Landscaping, mulch
>Pavers (patio, walkway)
>Fence repair
>Horses (hauling away manure, feeding, maintaining paddock)
>Snow plowing
>Stone driveways (people need new stone hauled and spread every few years)

There's a lot more, some of the above are best if you are bonded and insured but none of them take a lot of equipment. Once you get a trailer and a tractor you can do a lot more a lot easier and places like Angies List are great for finding people with lots of work and too much money

>>11194
Why doesn't everyone just buy stock in their own company, and show up to shareholder meetings and vote/speak on decisions?

And as for your pic:
>rich people are distinguished from poor people simply by having more resources
No. If you take a rich person, take everything he owns (and even connections, qualifications, etc), then let him win the lottery, next year his net worth will be 10x the payout.

If a random poorfags wins the lottery… Well, they sometimes do, and I'm sure you've seen the results.

>if you have more resources you are better able to manage risk
Not true anymore. For instance, once upon a time you couldn't buy a stock market index, because that would mean buying several shares of each company. There are 500 companies in the SP500, and each one's shares traded at around $100 a pop.

But today there are cheap funds with minimal fees. They aren't even hard to get, you just walk into the bank with your ID and ask for a fund. The minimum deposit is very low, often $500, which is less than 2 weeks' salary on minimum wage.

All you gotta do is save for a couple of days and not spend frivolously. Everyone in the West spends frivolously - even the bums or welfare recipients buy cigarettes, drugs and booze (how hard is it to stay sober for a few weeks and invest the money?).

>3.
The key insight is that the rich are better at managing their money. They don't spend frivolously - they are much more strict about asking "How does this benefit me in the long term?" about their spending decision. For instance, a rich person would never spend his last $20 on a bottle of shitty whiskey he would instead buy something useful, but a poor person would do it in a heartbeat.

>4.
Don't need to start a business, can just buy index. 10% annual, from sitting on your ass. Requires no skill besides logging into your bank account, and clicking "buy index" every month. Even if the market crashes, just don't sell your stock for 1-2 years and it will come back up.

Being poor isn't about how much money you have, it's about lifestyle. When you do get money (and everyone does, even minimum wage fry cooks), you get to decide how to spend it. You can spend it on useless bullshit that doesn't help you, or you can spend it on things that benefit you more than the money. The people we call poor are poor because they make bad spending decisions.

>>11196
If you can get clients to pay on time, you are a consistent worker/salesman, and you have a reliable crew, you can definitely clean up in landscaping. I worked for a few years doing labor, installations (patios, flagstone or brick retaining walls), mowing and mulching, etc. - kept me in good shape and I got paid pretty well.

Now I'm finishing a phd in engineering, but nobody is biting on my resume (everyone wants M.S. grads; phds are "too hard to work with") Thought about going back to landscaping, but I got too lazy over the years. ayy

>>11206
My boss definately cleans up in landscaping. He tends toward yard cleanup, hauling, and stuff like pavers. Mowing is too competitive and in a lot of places is just dominated by immigrant workers.

I'm just trying to learn the business side of it, the bidding and prices, etc. That's what you need to know even more than stuff like sand, tamp, then place the pavers. The work is simple but it's learning how to find the work and bid on it.

He's busy as fuck from spring to fall if not working then maintaining the equipment or out bidding. But he makes more money in a year than most of the college grads I know, gets sunlight, and has tons of off-time during the cold seasons.

It's looking really appealing to me

>>11212
Definitely! Even in the cold seasons, stick a plow on your truck, and keep your pockets a little warmer in the winter.

>>11222
…But I did start picking back up on an idea I had back in undergrad for pap smear analysis (yeah, berjiners; ~29.4 million smears a year). Chinese microcontrollers are now so much cheaper than the Nat Inst controllers/software of the past. I won an award for the design years ago, but I could never afford the components w/o venture capital or loans until recently.

>>11225
That sounds like a good idea though but I have no idea how somebody would break into medical diagnostics with new equipment etc. Are you in the UK (..nat inst=NIH)?

Medical stuff all seems like there's so many barriers to entry

>>11193
>STEM graduates are better off than the average guy without a degree as a rule

In what way are they better off? Having a certificate that shows you can be a slave to the kikes isn't something that raises a man above his peers.

>>11232
There are a shitload of barriers to entry here in 'merca, but lowering the cost of the components made it a little easier…plus, now that I waited, I have a few close friends from college working as IP lawyers, so hopefully they can do some magic (a big maybe).

Basically the instrument is cheap as shit to build, but it also lowers any cross contamination that current machines are susceptible to…ya know, don't wanna give folks false positives for the cervical cancer. Current instruments cost about 3-40k USD to hospitals. Mine would cost about 150-500 to build, depending on how fancy I want to make it (e.g. add built in detectors/optics, etc.). But, staying low key for a while is the best bet to avoid unwanted attention. I have all the components I need, but I'm like 5 months away from defending my dissertation, so I really only have time for shitposting.

If I do get a decent paying job in the next several months, then I will def push this out, but I've been pretty poor for a long time since I've been a student for a while.

>>11203
>>Fence repair
And putting up fences. Doesn't usually require sophisticated tools and is great work that can get you future references for a broader construction business.

>>11234
Better off in terms of being able to get and keep full time employment that doesn't involve any physical labor.

Why does this sort of thread devolve into suggestions on how to get ahead using nigger and beaner tier work?

Nobody pay for high knowledge/information jobs, but the nigger tier yard and tree work gets big dollars or something?!

>>11194
My dad told me to start my own business when i couldnt get a job.

Boomers are delusional

>>11288
Think of the difference between work that revolves around something a select few civilized people are successful enough to own but need help operating and work that revolves around something everyone that has a property needs.

Want to ask fellow polaks, do you think there is any future in philology? While the need of European people who know East Asian languages will surely increase because of their economic growth , there is also a big rise of machine translators, which at certain point will be as good as humans, thus rendering all the human translators useles and jobless.

>>11322

For general fields I don't think so. I know two people who studied languages. One studied Japanese & Chinese, the other one studied Chinese & business administration. Both had problems getting jobs with their foreign language and now work in jobs which don't require knowing them.

However, I think there will be 2 fields which could be more interesting. With 2) being the strongest

1.) Technical translation. That is, you are going to learn engineering + language
2.) Commercial law + language;. Nobody is going to use machine translations for contracts in the near future, it's just too dangerious

But nonetheless, I recommend researching it by yourself. Get salary + unemployment data and talk with practitioners

>>11203

Here's another one I just saw which I only read about a fews years ago.

> Standing in line for money

I originally read about it about a Stanford entrepeneur class in which students did this in SF. But now there's a guy in Italy doing this (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/29/italy-patient-man-graduate-queuer-milan-giovanni-cafaro)

> Giovanni Cafaro is available to stand in line seven days a week 'for those who don't have the time or desire'

He's 42, got 13 years experience in marketing and an MBA - still no job.

So he decided to print some flyers and distributed them around the town and now he can be hired for 10 EUR/h to stand in line for you.

>>11330
>One studied Japanese & Chinese
>the other one studied Chinese & business administration
> Both had problems getting jobs with their foreign language

Well Im fucked then, but thanks for the info.

>>11300
I'm really surprised, and more than a little skeptical, when I see people suggest yard work as a good model for making money. I used to do that sort of work at school and you were just competing with immigrants for peanuts.

>>11322
Machine translations are a long, LONG way off being useful in a commercial context. There's just too much subtlety and context which surrounds language. Maybe it'll happen one day, but it's not something we're on the verge of.

That said, languages are mostly worthless, except in supporting your existing skillset. The entire world except the UK and US speaks more than one language, so it's nothing special. A language is only useful if you already have skills that make you valuable in your home country, and you want to then move to do the same job somewhere else.

>>11355

I studied Japanese and international law, I now work with the mentally disabled for peanuts.

Just throwing my story on top of the pile to really reinforce it.

>>11322
Your options are:
>simultaneous translation
>working at a company that does business with foreign companies

For 1, you're better off actually studying translation. For simultaneous, you need certification anyway, and usually you need to know like 5 languages to be competitive.

For 2, you would be much better off if you studied business or international commerce law so you're a guy who actually knows about shit, not just a dude who learned a language. I'd put technical translation under this as well, it's hard to make much money translating contracts, usually a company just has the person signing the contract speak the language himself (not exactly hard to find).

So I'd say philology is a suboptimal choice unless you want to be an academic (kek). Also I wonder if East Asian is not a great idea - there's tons of immigrants from the Far East in US who already speak their language, and they all get good business-related or whatever degrees.

>>11461
As someone who made a fair bit of money from translation, I'd like to add that machine translation is a red herring. Like you said there are tons multilinguals, and they all want to make money from it. As a result translation is an oversaturated market.

You can easily end up making way less than minimum wage, because you get paid by the page/word and you have to translate insanely fast to end up making anything significant.

Of course there's a guy who makes top quality translations with no errors and gets paid bigbux, but that guy has a lot of somain specific knowledge. If he works on legal translations he's probably a lawyer, if he works on translating documentation or specs he's probably an engineer. To the point where he could easily have a nice job if he didn't speak a language.

>>11205

plz tell me more about buying stocks. you said you can just walk into your bank and buy them? what exactly do I ask for?

>>11200
>
>Construction and manual labor pays well

Not really, you've got to be lucky and get some rich customers or be in a high-income area. Most normal-earner homeowners will only hire legit contractors as a last resort, since that mexican "construction crew" their neighbour knows work for less than half what a normal contractor takes just to stay in business and pay his own bills.

>>11205
>
>Being poor isn't about how much money you have

You're an idiot.

Most poor people are poor because they have no opportunity to become rich.

Their social/cultural background and often bad genes would hold them back if they ever got rich though.

>>11528
All you have to do is literally
>go to your bank
>ask to see your personal banker
>ask them how you can buy stocks
>if they ask, say you want to buy index fund
Preferably do this at a credit union so they don't scam you by talking you into other things you don't want.

If you don't have a bank you can go to Vanguard, Fidelity, or any one of thousands of brokers. You can even make the account online. It's literally that easy.

>>11467
>I studied Japanese and international law, I now work with the mentally disabled for peanuts.

Offer to translate some hentai manga or hentai games to dweebs on the chans or forums. They actually do pay for this.

>>11884
>Most poor people are poor because they have no opportunity to become rich.
In China, Africa, India, Middle East, South America, sure.

In the US or a similar country, you get paid over a grand a month on fucking minimum wage. It's really not hard to not be poor in America (barring things like severe disability or poor health) if by "not poor" you mean:
>not homeless
>at least healthy 3 meals/day
>8 hours of quality sleep every day
It is trivial in US. You have to try hard to fail.

I'd add access to books and internet for developing skills, but you can get those for free in libraries in the US anyway.

Of course, if by "not poor" you mean:
>2 BR house with yard
>nice car
>eat at fancy restaraunts
>plasma tv
>latest iphone
>back every kikestarter that shows up on frontpage of plebbit
>latest xbox and ps
>buy all the games you play
>support expensive drug/alcohol/smoking habit
Then no, it is challenging unless you have STEM degree or business sense.

Let's take the most extreme example, Jew York. According to this: http://www.numbeo.com/food-prices/city_result.jsp?country=United+States&city=New+York%2C+NY
You can feed yourself with healthy food for $390/mo.

According to http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=United+States&city=New+York%2C+NY
Utilities is $110/mo and monthly transit pass is $110/mo.

With this you spend $610/mo on essentials. Minimum wage in NY is $9/hour, at 40 hours you get $1440/mo. You have $830 left for rent. This easily enough to get a room in Queens, Bronx, or even Upper Manhattan if you're lucky. Looking on http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/roo , I see plenty of ads for $500-700, so you could even have $130 left for miscellaneous expenses.

But assuming you're not the bottom of the barrel who can't get anything better than a minimum wage job, Numbeo reports that average disposable salary (AFTER base expenses like rent and food) in NYC is $3.2k, and the lowest reported is $2.5k. And in case you think the people on this site must be unusually rich, remember that these same people reported $1.3k-3.5k for a 1 br apartment - so their disposable income is more than the rent they pay (highest disposable income reported is $3.9k).

>>11884
this post and
>>11205
this post are just blaming the victims
and unlike dumb sluts that call rape when they get drunk this is actual victim shaming

the image is right and just saying "NO IT ISNT NO IT ISNT" is not an argument

>>11196
Who is going to hire someone to till their garden?
Everyone I know who has a personal garden manages it themselves, including my grandfather in his 80s.

I assume most people are like this, they either take care of their garden themselves or want someone to take care of more than just the tilling.

Not disagreeing with the overall idea, but that part sounds stupid. They're going to have to do more than just till.

>>11205
>No. If you take a rich person, take everything he owns (and even connections, qualifications, etc), then let him win the lottery, next year his net worth will be 10x the payout.

>If a random poorfags wins the lottery… Well, they sometimes do, and I'm sure you've seen the results.

You are comparing someone with experience to someone without. Of course the person who has successfully started multiple businesses, with many failing, knows better about how to run a business than someone who has never been able to.

>>11998

That's the point he's trying to make. You need to gain experience and knowledge. You don't have to start a business to succeed. He directly states that near the end.

>>12000
No, read the last paragraph.

>Being poor isn't about how much money you have, it's about lifestyle. When you do get money (and everyone does, even minimum wage fry cooks), you get to decide how to spend it. You can spend it on useless bullshit that doesn't help you, or you can spend it on things that benefit you more than the money. The people we call poor are poor because they make bad spending decisions.


Anyway, assuming that was what he was trying to say, my point still stands, the rich already have the experience and knowledge thus if they were to win the lottery they'd know what to do while the poor would need to first learn that.


As for where they get that experience and knowledge, the majority of the rich are born into it. They can get experience easily by working with parents and getting money to start a business early on, whereas the poor must save for a long time and if they fail must save more.

>>12006

Yeah, some are born into it, others must work to get it. It's not impossible, it's a matter of making the effort.

> the poor must save

To a point, but then you have to take money saved up and make it work harder than you do.

The goal is to make your money start earning and growing, which turns into a cycle that increases exponentially. The returns start small, but slowly build up over time, like a snowball rolling. All you need to focus on is your return on investment being positive, rather than the amount being made. That is how you get rich.

Save, then invest. Not save, save, save.

Once again, you do not need a business to make money.

>>11998
>You are comparing someone with experience to someone without.
Well, experience counts, but even if the rich person was not allowed to do anything they are experienced in, they would still win out due to mindset and personal discipline.

Nobody is born with experience, and plenty of people start out born poor, with no family connections and still make it. It just takes focusing on important things and cutting out the frivolities.

What matters more than experience and knowledge is whether you have a drive to seek experience and knowledge. For instance, say you're poor and you like reading books. What do you read? Twilight and Harry Potter or the Intelligent Investor? They are literally the same amount of effort, but the latter immensely increases your knowledge.

Once again, just because you wish to seek knowledge doesn't mean there's knowledge to be found. In many third world countries libraries are not very good, gaining internet access is very hard, computers (even $200 chromebooks) are a luxury good, the stock market is hard to get into and the economy sucks. A lot of good books are written about US and don't apply. Up until recently if a book you want wasn't at a store nearby you'd be shit out of luck. Minimum wage may actually be so low that you are literally poor, as in can't afford to eat poor.

But if you live in a western country, none of these apply. You have the internet where you can obtain any knowledge for free within seconds. It's just a matter of having the discipline to sit down and learn that knowledge.

This is the main point where first world poors fail: They complain about not being rich, but they don't want to bother sitting down and reading a book about how to stop being rich.

In general, a symptom of poor psychology is that they have unrealistic expectations. One common quote is about the stock market: When you can just buy the index for a very nice, safe income, why do poor people sell their house and buy pump and dump penny stocks when it's the worst investment you could make? Why do they buy lottery tickets, which have about 47% ROI? Why do they gamble when the house clearly always win?

That's because the 10% annual return that Warren Buffet built his riches on is not good enough for the average poor person. They don't care about reasonable return over 10 years. Who wants to sit around waiting for 10 years, patiently investing small amounts, carefully gardening their portfolio, and in the end they only get to be middle class instead of Hollywood-rich. For a poor person to invest, the expected return has to be something like double your money by next Thursday. This is why they buy the penny stock, it's the only thing that offers what they want.

So, it's not really so much experience or knowledge or funds or connections. All of these can be obtained. The main difference is psychology: Patience, self-discipline, willpower, looking at future value rationally. Everything can be learned, except the patience to sit down and learn a thing. If you don't have that patience, you're a dead end.

>>12050

Thank you for responding to all of our bullshit. I only have one quick question.

How does one without experience figure who is feeding them false information and who is telling the truth?

>>12060
Generally, this is also something where you rely on the luck of being born intelligent enough.

Presumably after all this time on imageboards, you've developed at least a bit of a bullshit filter. An education in the sciences, math or philosophy also helps teach critical thinking (it's possible to just read up on ontology but that can be a lot of work for it to start paying off). Basically, going to college and studying a STEM or other "hard" degree (which is a good idea in any case) will help you a great deal. For example, you learn the importance of empirical proof.

After you are somewhat familiar with the relevant literature, you can see what consensus is among sources you do know to trust. For instance Buffet is very critical of buying IPOs - but there are hacks (especially in places like popular blogs) that say buying IPOs is a great idea. Who is right? Well, Buffet lays out clear, logical arguments explaining why he says they're crap, and why the other camp is wrong. The bloggers usually just hype it up with nonsense like "it's a paradigm shift" and couldn't care less about being intellectually honest. It's exactly like here on 8chan, how do you tell who is a shitposter and who is based?

But ultimately it comes down to reading. Once you read enough, you realize some of the things you read are higher quality than others. You realize certain hallmarks of quality information.

If you're starting from scratch, the best approach is probably to start with classics. Classics aren't always right (Das Kapital is a classic too) but they're often better than average and rarely a waste of time.

But yes, just like how if you're impatient you're fucked, you have to be not retarded. It's basically the only way you can make it. If you're retarded, no amount of learning will help you distinguish what you ask, you're only hope is to believe things at random and hope you end up believing the right ones.

>>12050
>Well, experience counts, but even if the rich person was not allowed to do anything they are experienced in, they would still win out due to mindset and personal discipline.


That's a nice philosophy and all, however you sound smart enough to know that you didn't refute the argument put forth in that image.

Take 1000 random people from a city population and after getting their income and work experience and controlling for age, gender you take them to a setting where they have no obligations. No family to support or old friends to distract.

Again split them randomly in to 4 groups giving them no money, lots of money, and two intermediate groups.
Put them into a social setting where they can not benefit from business contracts.

According to your belief you think that in short and long term all these individuals would mimic their original financial levels.

We obviously can't have a perfect study of this since many of these people will hold on to their life acquired baggage and many of them will have particular skills.

You don't believe anyone that has money was born into it or had better education which is a type of inheritance etc.

You tell us basically a bluepill that is widely accepted and supported by the bluepill narrative. In your version everyone is an honest worker as well.

How many people do you expect to trick that post here with that type of clearly flawed rhetoric?

>>12077
>According to your belief you think that in short and long term all these individuals would mimic their original financial levels.
What's so incredible about this?

>>12143
kek out of kek post, a+++++ would kek again

>>12094
It pushes the bluepill that everyne that has money worked for it and that inheritance and parent subsidized education doesn't exist.

>>12204
So you are begging the question.

>>12213
Begging the question would literally be assuming that everyone that has money must be better at making money because, clearly, they have money.

Please don't be a hypocrite

>>11892
I kinda agree with this. Minimum wage in my country is 200 Euro and we still survive. I really never understood westerners who get thousand of euros a month and still complain about how bad their life is. Fine I get it that prices in USA and the West are higher than those in Eastern Europe, but still…