World's richest woman says poor should have less fun

[wautd]

and work harder

Just in case you were beginning to think rich people were deeply misunderstood and that they feel the pain of those who are less fortunate, here's the world's wealthiest woman, Australian mining tycoon Gina Rinehart, with some helpful advice.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."

Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she said by way of encouragement.

"Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others."

Boom. Almost too easy.

Why are people poor? Rinehart blamed what she described as "socialist," anti-business government policies, and urged Australian officials to lower the minimum wage and cut taxes.

"The millionaires and billionaires who choose to invest in Australia are actually those who most help the poor and our young," she said. "This secret needs to be spread widely."

And now it's out there.

Thank you, rich people. We're not worthy.

See? It's easy to become a billionaire. Just work harder (nevermind she inherited her billions).

But what's infuriating me the most is she wants to lower minimum wage (the poor gotta stay poor I guess?)

[Stark]

Lowering minimum wage will increase her own income so it's really a no-brainer. Just bear in mind for all the lols, some people actually beleive this.

[Haruko]

Wait, despite having so much money, her views on social policy and human behavior are naive? What!

[SVPD]

She's being rather tasteless, but if you're poor, you really should not be spending money on tobacco. You shouldn't even if you're rich, but if it's spending money you don't have AND giving you cancer that's worse than just cancer.

CBS

Smoking kills one person every 6½ seconds, and poor people tend to smoke more, the chief of the U.N. health agency warned Friday ahead of its annual World No Tobacco Day.

Lee Jong-wook, director-general of the World Health Organization, challenged "everyone to think of how we can help to break the vicious circle of the poor consuming tobacco more, and tobacco consumption increasing poverty."

Despite a WHO campaign, tobacco consumption is still rising, "mostly in developing countries, adding significantly to their burden of disease and poverty," Lee said. "The world cannot accept such easily preventable human and economic losses."

Many governments organize events every May 31 to commemorate World No Tobacco Day and spotlight the fight against smoking-related illnesses. No events are planned at the WHO's Geneva headquarters this year because Monday is a Swiss national holiday and U.N. offices here will be closed.

Tobacco use kills 4.9 million people annually, and that figure is expected to double in the next 20 years.

This week, the U.S. Surgeon General expanded the list of diseases linked to smoking to include acute myeloid leukemia, cancers of the cervix, kidney, pancreas and stomach, abdominal aortic aneurysms, cataracts, periodontitis and pneumonia.

WHO studies have long found that poorer people tend to smoke more in both developing and developed countries. They spend a higher proportion of their household income on tobacco products, often ahead of other basic needs such as food, health care and education.

"Consumption is inversely related to the socio-economic level — it goes up as the standard of living goes down," Lee noted.

The number of tobacco users is increasing and is expected to hit 1.7 billion in 2025, up from the current 1.3 billion.

Smoking is particularly widespread in developing countries, where 84 percent of smokers live. It places a huge burden on health services in countries which can ill-afford the extra cost.

In Egypt, WHO said, the annual cost of treating tobacco related diseases is estimated at $546 million.

WHO said tobacco can also damage countries' economies because of increased health care costs; loss of foreign exchange, as most countries are net tobacco importers; loss of tax revenue due to smuggling; and damage to the environment from tobacco cultivation.

Even tobacco farmers — particularly those in developing countries — are not benefiting from tobacco sales.

"A big part of the health and economic costs related to tobacco are endured by small farmers and their families that grow the tobacco crop," said Catherine le Gales-Camus, the WHO noncommunicable diseases chief.

Lee urged more countries to sign up to WHO's landmark anti-tobacco treaty, which aims to reduce the damage tobacco does to health and economies. WHO brokered the treaty in May 2003 after years of negotiations.

Of WHO's 192 member states, 118 — including the United States — have already signed the accord. Sixteen have ratified it, although U.S. lawmakers have not yet done so.

"Once the convention comes into force — 90 days after its 40th ratification — it will become a powerful means of controlling this entirely unnecessary threat to health and welfare," Lee added. "Countries should lose no time in signing and ratifying the convention."

Countries have until June 29 to sign the treaty, which also sets out provisions and minimum standards signatories will have to respect in their tobacco control programs.

The Surgeon General's report said current evidence is not conclusive enough to say smoking causes colorectal cancer, liver cancer, prostate cancer or erectile disfunction. Some research has associated those diseases with smoking, but Carmona said more proof is needed.

The evidence suggests smoking may not cause breast cancer in women but that some women, depending on genetics, may increase their risk of getting it by smoking, the report said.

Diseases previously linked to smoking include cancer of the bladder, esophagus, larynx, lung and mouth. Also tied to smoking was chronic lung disease, chronic heart and cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, peptic ulcers and reproductive problems.

According to the most recent available U.S. statistics, Americans consumed more than 2,500 cigarettes per adult in 1995 — the equivalent of 125 packs each, or more than two packs a week per person.

About 440,000 Americans die of smoking-related diseases each year. The report said more than 12 million people have died from smoking-related diseases in the 40 years since the first surgeon general's report on smoking and health was released in 1964.

"We've known for decades that smoking is bad for your health, but this report shows that it's even worse," said Surgeon General Richard Carmona, announcing his first official assessment of the effects of tobacco.

It may be rather uncouth for a multibillionaire to say it, but yes, if you don't have much money, you should spend less on entertainment.

[Stark]

Will this allow you to inherit billions? The joke is that those who inherit wealth (rather than making it themselves) arguably have LESS authority to discuss such issues. After all, her money came out of a hat and she has a squad of professionals who manage it for her.

[mr friendly guy]

Not to mention that Rineheart wants control of a trust fund for her children which was set up by her father, Lang Hancock, for the benefit of his grand kids (Rineheart's children). This is despite the fact the kids are well into adulthood, and she wants to retain effective control of it until the such time the kids would effectively be old in the tooth. There is a legal case in Australia over this.

So its not just a matter of inheriting the wealth, its also stopping her own children inheriting it.

Back to Stark's point, if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet mentioned that (they don't AFAIK) I might be inclined to look less favourably on them.

Edit - edited to phrase it better.

[mr friendly guy]

Lowering minimum wage will increase her own income so it's really a no-brainer. Just bear in mind for all the lols, some people actually beleive this.

To be fair to her, the mining companies pay very generous renumeration, so it most probably won't affect her income much. This call for lowering minal wage seems ideologically driven, unlike the attack on the carbon tax and mining taxes which is highly driven by financial motivations.

[Stark]

Depends on the role and location, but attacks on 'minimum wage' are pretty much attacks on workers rights or unions (both of which she probably thinks are 'socialist'). She probably simply repeats them because her fabulously wealthy friends say them at their yacht parties or whatever. Its not often someone manages to make Clive Palmer look good.

[K. A. Pital]

So working class poor, who have had a hard childhood and quite probably have a hard adulthood and a no less hard retirement smoke more than white-hand ultra-rich bourgeois, which were raised with so much luxury around that they could easily replace tobacco with purest cocaine if they wanted to, have access to the finest alcohol and finest food and, if they want to, can fulfil any sexual fantasy at will?

So working class poor shouldn't go to cinemas or theatres or sports events, since they are no longer humans, and their purpose is to be a biological machine meant to produce something and save money; nothing else? I'd actually say the value of entertainment rises when your life is hard as hell, but that's just me. Of course how can this even barely compare with the life of the ultra-rich, who don't even manage their funds, and yet have all the options from fucking poor Third Worlders in SEA who sell their bodies out for money to a party on the yacht in the middle of the Med or off the coast of Florida any day? I mean, surely if you can't afford that, no entertainment for ya, poor bitch.

And of course capitalists have the right to lecture the working class on how lazy they are at the same time these workers are breaking their backs at factories which the same capitalists own. Millions of workers should just all turn into capitalists and then the world will be a utopia. Who'll do all the work then? Why care!

[Justforfun000]

She's full of shit. People don't become rich just because of "hard work" and the opportunities to invest are only there if you actually make enough to funnel money into stocks, bonds and other major wealth builders for the ultra-rich..conveniently because they are taxed around 14% instead of the 36% of income they would actually have to pay if it was classic "income". They also don't pay any of the other bites like ..Social Security - (US), Canadian pension plan, Unemployment insurance, etc. That's another percentage taken from the whole.

People living in the poor to middling income brackets all share a similar problem. The majority of their income goes to fixed expenses like rent and food and utilities and the luxuries make up only so much of their left over income. Sure if you want them to take away ALL of their fun and have them invest the peanuts they have maybe in 20 years they might have built a modest amount..if they're lucky...but it's not even CLOSE to what the 1% and up can invest and the returns they pull in. It's not hard fucking work, it's being privileged by wealth in the first place!

[SirNitram]

Another person born on third base and think they just hit a triple.

[Channel72]

There are only so many paths to wealth and success in America, and they all require some combination of ambition, hard work, and intelligence. The problem is that (1) the poorer you are, the harder you have to work, and the more distractions you have on a daily basis, and (2) even if you're not poor, your ambition, hard work, and intelligence will only get you so far. With enough ambition, hard work and intelligence, you can achieve a salary of over $100K by going into medicine or law (after years of hard work), but becoming a millionaire doesn't ever happen without some element of sheer luck. Hard-working millionaires often don't want to admit this, (or at least they downplay it), because they see it as diminishing their hard work. Anyone can become a millionaire if (1) they work hard, and are extremely ambitious, and (2) they randomly happen to meet the right people at the right time to open the door to investment or opportunity. Anyone can work hard, but you have little or no control over the latter.

The best you can say is that certain people seem to be better at intuitively sniffing out opportunity than others - but this hardly justifies the conservative mythology that "anyone can become a millionaire in America if they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work hard." The mythology stays alive because there are so many anecdotes of people who started out with relatively little, worked really hard, and now have amazing success stories to tell. Yet almost all the famous success stories we hear about involve some element of pure chance. Bill Gates definitely worked very hard, but his absurd success only became possible because an early competitor randomly happened to behave like an asshole at a crucial historic moment.

[JME2]

Just read the article.

It's almost like she's channeling the ghost of Leona Helmsley.

[Spoonist]

There are only so many paths to wealth and success in America, and they all require some combination of ambition, hard work, and intelligence.

While some of her life decisions was, I wouldnt say that Anna Nicole Smith success required much intelligence.


Funfact, while americans are those most likely to agree that you can get success by working hard, they rate at the bottom with UK and France of western societies for social mobility.
Sometimes a dream is just a dream.

[Bright]

I don't understand how a successful businesswoman could say something as dumb-fuck stupid as "there is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire." Um, yes there is? It's basic economics that not everyone can be rich.

[Grumman]

Depends on the role and location, but attacks on 'minimum wage' are pretty much attacks on workers rights or unions (both of which she probably thinks are 'socialist').

She's full of shit. People don't become rich just because of "hard work" and the opportunities to invest are only there if you actually make enough to funnel money into stocks, bonds and other major wealth builders for the ultra-rich..conveniently because they are taxed around 14% instead of the 36% of income they would actually have to pay if it was classic "income". They also don't pay any of the other bites like ..Social Security - (US), Canadian pension plan, Unemployment insurance, etc. That's another percentage taken from the whole.

Just to remind people, she's an Australian. Our minimum wage is twice as high as the United States, our tax rates are different and just this week we've had scumbag unions actively trying to prevent non-union workers making a living.

She's still an obnoxious, offensive harridan, but it's a mistake to think America's problems are Australia's problems.

[Sarevok]

I don't understand how a successful businesswoman could say something as dumb-fuck stupid as "there is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire." Um, yes there is? It's basic economics that not everyone can be rich.

She inherited her wealth not made it so she does not have to be smart.

[mr friendly guy]

Just to remind people, she's an Australian. Our minimum wage is twice as high as the United States, our tax rates are different and just this week we've had scumbag unions actively trying to prevent non-union workers making a living.

She's still an obnoxious, offensive harridan, but it's a mistake to think America's problems are Australia's problems.

Keep in mind that our cost of living most probably are higher. This I base on what Americans who are in Australia tell me, and also some food like McDonalds appear cheaper when I was there.

Another way of looking at it (keep in mind I am not an economist) is to look at GDP / capita nominal vs GDP / capita PPP. In pure exchange rates ie nominal terms, our GDP / capita is higher than the US. However when you use GDP / capita in PPP terms (ie reflecting costs of living) the positions reverse. Not as much as half the US (unlike the minimum wage) but it still counts for something.

[mr friendly guy]

I don't understand how a successful businesswoman could say something as dumb-fuck stupid as "there is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire." Um, yes there is? It's basic economics that not everyone can be rich.

Well everyone can be a millionaire if there was hyperinflation.

But I think the word you are looking for is oligopoly rather than monopoly. However I agree with your main point.

[Zixinus]

Probably a bit off-topic, but it is interesting to consider how more likely you are to be rich if you truly, utterly put yourself into it. You will unlikely be "never have to actually do anything you don't want as you can always pay other people to do what you need to do" rich, but certainly in comfort. Now, problems of certain people and minorities aside, consider what it would have been like before the industrial revolution:

Statistically, you'd likely to be a peasant. That's it. Even then, there were measures of poverty. If you had a bit of luck, you'll stay a peasant till the end of your life. If you didn't, you'd become less than a peasant, a person without even land to make food on. Then you'd be a slave to whatever opportunity you can survive from to the next. If not literately become a slave.

The chances of becoming rich were practically non-existent.

Today, I wouldn't say that they are particularly high either. But somehow, I think that there are much more opportunities and chances for the average person to make a decent living than before.
Granted, this assumes that thy are not born in a ghetto, not member of a particular minority and lives in a country that hasn't been driven into the ground for one reason for another.

I don't understand how a successful businesswoman could say something as dumb-fuck stupid as "there is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire." Um, yes there is? It's basic economics that not everyone can be rich.

She is actually right.

All you have to do to become a millionaire is to change your money into Zimbabwean dollars.

You won't be actually rich and can't buy shit with them, but you'll certainly have millions and trillions.

More seriously, this is just a rich bitch that never had to lift a finger for her money refusing to even consider that she is just lucky. She wants think for her sense of self-worth that her only act of getting her massive fortune wasn't just coming out of the right vagina. No, she wants to think that she somehow is superior to the lazy, jobless poor people and only she can get her act together to actually work hard. Even though I am guessing that her "working" would make even SDN's laziest slacker it ever had look like a hyperactive squirrel on crack.

[fordlltwm]

Whilst not defending her statement if memory serves Rineheart has trebled(? if not more) her fortune since inheriting it, and is widely regarded as a sensibleish level headed business woman.

[General Zod]

Whilst not defending her statement if memory serves Rineheart has trebled(? if not more) her fortune since inheriting it, and is widely regarded as a sensibleish level headed business woman.

Making money with money is pretty easy if you have lots of money to start with.

[Block]

Whilst not defending her statement if memory serves Rineheart has trebled(? if not more) her fortune since inheriting it, and is widely regarded as a sensibleish level headed business woman.

Making money with money is pretty easy if you have lots of money to start with.

If you're a savvy business person, sure. If you're not it's very easy to lose it all too.

[General Zod]

Whilst not defending her statement if memory serves Rineheart has trebled(? if not more) her fortune since inheriting it, and is widely regarded as a sensibleish level headed business woman.

Making money with money is pretty easy if you have lots of money to start with.

If you're a savvy business person, sure. If you're not it's very easy to lose it all too.

You don't even have to be that savvy. Just be savvy enough to find some good advisors and have them do all the work.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I would agree with her on the smoking thing, but that's on general principle. On everything else, she can go fuck herself.