[nathanvanfleet]

Rich people love to distinguish between old and new rich. Am I supposed to somehow be impressed by this? Old rich just use their money for pleasure and status like new rich do, they just have different more obtuse ways to do it.

[vineyardmike]

I think there are implications or reasons i see this… (this is not an endorsement)

1. “New rich” is flashy and gaudy and that’s not perceived as a positive. Flaunting wealth is seen as trying to show off for the admiration/approval/jealousy of the less rich. Being old rich is to be above it, and so comfortable with money you don’t need to show it off.

2. “Old Rich” is a separate world, it’s like royalty, no amount of success today makes you old rich yesterday. Since having the right connections is an important factor in success, it’s another way to close doors for everyone but your kids.

3. I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that.

[gizmo]

The "new rich" counterpoints are that:

1. old money is afraid to spend frivolously because (a) they are embarrassed because they know they didn't earn it themselves and (b) they don't believe they could make it on their own if they had to. Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.

2. because old money is the opposite of meritocratic (inheritance based) they have to come up with all kinds of gatekeeping strategies to maximize the advantage of their social position.

3. social rules that keep the old monied themselves in check, to slow down the inevitable reversion to the mean.

[modo_mario]

>Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.

I think charity type stuff is seen a bit different than flashy ridiculously expensive cars and such. It's a way that might be seen as showing off but is not perceived as badly and so less likely to get you noticed in a less desirable way. Similarly those art collections unless lent/donated don't leave the estate and are hardly flashy

[gizmo]

Of course it's perceived differently, that's the entire point! A $2000 Brunello Cucinelli sweater is conspicuous consumption just like an oversized Gucci belt.

And the art world is small. People know who the collectors are.

[adamsmith143]

The difference is that every joe blow knows what Gucci looks like but only certain people, if any, can spot a sweater like that. You are signalling to completely different groups. Honestly I'd be surprised if anyone outside diehard fashion "experts" could spot a subdued Brunello sweater at all so the intent there is not to signal at all.

[LightG]

New rich can sometimes be a middle finger to the old rich.

I'm thinking of some Hiphop stars.

Over the top behaviour, perhaps, but I'll always respect that more than the old rich dripping in the unearned benefits of their generational wealth, connections and status worship. But I'm not bitter.

[nonethewiser]

But new rich means people are closer to the source of wealth. Someone who built a successful business is more admirable than someone who never worked, but their ancestors were very wealthy.

[andsoitis]

Why would one admire another human because they made money? Isn’t someone’s character the main reason to admire them?

[vineyardmike]

Oh come on, it’s easy. Firstly, everyone kinda wishes they won the lottery, intense wealth sounds fun.

I don’t bootlick billionaires and I generally consider wealth inequality a major societal failure, but I can recognize that someone who built immense wealth usually worked hard (and got very lucky!), and potentially possessed some entrepreneurial skill I lack. I also admire musicians because I have no musical ability, and I admire athletes because I have no athletic ability.

[lmz]

The same way you can admire a soccer player because they score lots of goals, despite what their character may be.

[FredPret]

What is “character” good for if not helping society in some way? For the most useful ways you could help society, you end up getting paid. So while making money != character, there’s a correlation.

[Mordisquitos]

While I believe that I mostly understand the distinction between Old Rich and New Rich (myself being neither of them), I wonder where individuals such as Warren Buffett fall in the social distinction. While it's obvious that in practice he's "new rich" in terms of family timeline, he is famously quite the opposite of the showy New Rich stereotypes. Furthermore, I'm sure there are countless more like him (though not quite so rich) that are virtually unknown precisely because they are so restrained and discreet about their wealth.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm curious as to how the Old Rich feel towards these non-New-Rich-but-newly-rich types. Are they still considered part of the New Rich riff-raff even if they do happen to be more sensible with their money? Or are they seen as honorary Old Rich out of respect? Or something else?

Hopefully some Old Rich HN commenter (we know you're there!) can give me some insight.

[dsfyu404ed]

You've got two bell curves that mostly overlap and a bunch of upper middle class know-it-alls who are trying to say profound things about the nature of the irrelevent little valley between the two summits.

None of this crap really matters. There's plenty of old money types who spend on flamboyant crap and plenty of new money types who don't and trying to generalize based on how many generations they've had money is beyond a fool's errand.

[gizmo]

Buffet's diet consists of coca-cola and hamburgers, and every year he throws a massive self-promotion and sales event in Omaha that lasts multiple days. By old money standards it's vulgar.

[ricardobayes]

And you believe that's not just advertisement for the brands he invests in.

[reducesuffering]

It’s legitimate. He doesn’t even own McDonalds but every day would get bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit for $3.17. It’s a comfortable, new money thing. You grow up on these things and a lot of the times it ends up being a familiar routine. Gates is the same way with burgers. God knows I’d still doing the same thing past a billionaire.

[no_wizard]

I’d akin old vs new rich is a much more European distinction than an American one

[vjulian]

‘Rich’ is a relative term but my family might qualify as ‘old rich’ and do tend to distinguish from ‘new rich’. The terms are misnomers. People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations. It is a relatively easy-to-observe distinction.

I am not saying it’s an important distinction to me.

[thrwwmbkpr]

This makes sense, and sounds reasonable. I think people are getting hung up on 'qualities of tastes', believing (I assume) it is a value judgement. I read it as 'characteristics'.

As a result of proximity over time, the 'old rich' have developed unique cultural habits that are easily recognized as different to 'new rich'. Every group does this. Sure, there is good and bad to it, but it's a natural and expected outcome.

[JoeAltmaier]

It's a term made up to embarrass newcomers. Cultural differences are not right or wrong, they just are.

To say someone has the wrong 'qualities of tastes, behaviors or values' is arrogance. Everybody's culture is handed down, that's another weasel-phrase that just disguises bigotry.

[Veen]

That's exactly what a parvenu would say. Not the done thing, old chap. Too chippy. You won't be invited to the best parties with that attitude.

[B1FF_PSUVM]

Bless his heart, poor fellow, I'm sure he means well. Perhaps he's not really a bolshevik.

But anyway ...

[vjulian]

It’s a poor term but one that simply refers to observable differences. It is unfortunate that there may be bigory or judgements accorded. I am inclined to suppose that those people are in the minority.

[nonethewiser]

> People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations

Such as? 4 dinner forks?

[andsoitis]

> Such as? 4 dinner forks?

It is not about what you do have and what you do, but rather what you don’t do that distinguishes.

[FpUser]

>"I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that."

Thanks. I needed something to induce vomit.

[andsoitis]

Being able to steer wealth over multiple generations vs squandering it is seen as positive and not an obviously easy thing to do.

When you’re newly rich, this ability is yet unproven…

[hahaxdxd123]

Middle class people putting old money on a pedestal and denigrating new money is so laughable to me.

The folks that do nothing but own land and raise your rent every year are oh so classy, and the folks that actually work invent things that improve your life like idk wifi are oh so gauche.

[otikik]

> Middle class people putting old money on a pedestal and denigrating new money is so laughable to me.

Both are equally laughable. We shouldn’t put others in pedestals because of their wealth, full stop.

[pnut]

I think it's more to do with what you imagine life could be, if money were no object.

Middle class people have correctly concluded that hustling is not a virtue, and that hustling more is a fool's errand.

I personally don't aspire to work any harder than I already do, and given the choice, would strongly prefer to inherit my fortune over "earning" it.

[sbm_au]

Ironically, WiFi was actually developed by an Australian public research institute. The patent earned over 400 million which went to the government.

[B1FF_PSUVM]

> do nothing but own land

Sheesh, those guys got skinned and mounted as trophies over a century ago.

Look up Pareto foxes and lions.

[qwertox]

I once read somewhere that the issue is that to the old rich money isn't a topic. It's something that exists and has existed for a long time, that gets used when needed, but doesn't get talked about.

New rich on the other hand feel the need to display the fact that "they've made it", talking about money is important to them.

So there's a certain incompatibility between old and new rich, where old rich feel bothered by the talk about money.

[cosmodisk]

I think in general money isn't a topic amongst the rich. Yes, there are exceptions, but in general it's a very boring thing to talk about once you reach a certain level.

[andsoitis]

Showing off is another way of talking. The need to show off is to compensate for something.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I personally think of it as a pure human need to somehow feel superior to their peers. Sure, they have the same amount of money, but are how did they get them and can we make their status lower ( and at the same time ours higher ) by pointing to that. The in-group/out-group dynamic is at play for everyone including apparently people, who have a lot of money. If I was a more charitable person, I would say that is a good thing. It means they are still connected to the human race.

Note. By rich here I am talking upwards of 100MM although it would appear B would soon be replacing M as the place to be money-wise in terms of wealth recognition.

[spaceman_2020]

I think the implication is that “old money” has aristocratic roots and thus, “noble blood”. Just plain old chauvinism and bigotry, but now applied to billionaires too.

[ulfw]

New rich = often earned their money (legitimately or not) Old rich = done nothing but inherit. Getting born is their only achievement.

[TotoHorner]

They’re incredibly smug about it too, as if getting born with a silver spoon in your mouth is somehow far more commendable?

[ergocoder]

Old rich also likely earned their wealth in a lot more unethical way.

[rayiner]

Quite the opposite. A Carnegie whose money comes from developing the American steel industry, or a Hershey whose money comes from chocolate, or the heirs of countless founders of companies that make real stuff, seems much more ethical than people today who make their money from one of the various heads of the advertising or finance hydras.

[TotoHorner]

Are you joking?

You should google the Pittsburgh steel strikes and Henry Frick.

You think someone who has to shoot their workers is more ethical?

It’s genuinely hilarious to see how poor HN’s grasp of history is.

[rayiner]

Stuff like that had negative localized effects, but the ad industry that fuels large segments of tech has negative effects across a much broader swath of the population and economy.

[tptacek]

You're trolling here, right? It is not actually your position that it is more ethical to be a steel baron who orders the shooting death of striking workers than it is to be an adtech CEO, right?

[xyzzyz]

> You should google the Pittsburgh steel strikes and Henry Frick.

You mean the guy who survived an assassination attempt by labor activists, who were running a totally illegal blockade of his business? And it’s not even like the laws have changed about it since then, their blockade strike would be totally illegal today as well.

[TotoHorner]

> And it’s not even like the laws have changed about it since then

Let me know if it's still legal to have your workers work with highly dangerous machinery for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (for wages that would be comparable to federal minimum wage today ~ although it's hard to find a good inflation calculator that tracks back to the 1880s).

I'm sure that's totally comparable to the plight that Google/FB/Amzn employees have to put up with.

Obviously I admire what he did with the Gospel of Wealth & his philanthropy, but that doesn't excuse his horrible treatment of workers.

Honestly, it's just so astonishing that you can even argue in support of Henry Frick.

You should read up about the Johnstown FLood and the failure of the South Fork Dam.

I feel like the HN crowd just skims the wikipedia bio and uses that to craft a hilariously terrible argument.

[quickthrowman]

A counter-example is John Jacob Astor, America’s first multimillionaire, who earned his fortune smuggling opium.

[andsoitis]

Opium was just a part, and my understanding not the main part of how he made his fortune.

[ergocoder]

Worse labor law, worse justice system, worse worker right, worse compensation, worse working condition.

I could go on.

[spaceman_2020]

A lot of the old rich are just old aristocrats. Most made their fortunes through war, conquest, or plain old exploitation of their subjects.

Far nastier stuff than some nerd striking it rich by making a fun app.

[markdown]

> ... plain old exploitation > ... some nerd striking it rich by making a fun app

I suppose you could call Amazon a fun app.