[jjav]

> and yet sitll be considered poor.

Well, "poor", no. But if someone who inherited vast wealth used it all up on depreciating assets (even if it is superyachts instead of phones) then yes, they'll eventually end up with no wealth.

Of course, for sufficiently large amounts of wealth, it is effectively impossible to use it all up so it may take many generations. Jeff Bezos kids will never be able to be poor no matter what.

> Does that impact your stance in any manner?

No. The computer (depreciating asset) didn't produce any wealth. Your hard work and learning, while using it as a tool, is what produced wealth. The computer itself depreciated to zero.

[cloverich]

> The computer (depreciating asset) didn't produce any wealth. Your hard work and learning,

No amount of hard work and learning would have been sufficient without the computer though? The computer is an absolute requirement to become a programmer. No computer, no wealthy career in programming.

[jjav]

Amusingly, I learned to program on paper because I couldn't afford a computer. I'd write all these programs during the week on paper and then on weekends go to a friendly Radio Shack to type them in and test them.

[gmadsen]

it is still not wealth. A certain amount of wealth is even needed to do what you are talking about. You need sufficient housing, food, health, and free time to learn to program. All of which would scale with inflation