Seems like Ecclesiastes 5:12 playing out, once again: "Sweet is the sleep of the one serving, whether he eats little or much, but the plenty belonging to the rich one does not permit him to sleep."
In real life, rich people sleep better than poor people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/sleep-deficits-minorit...
An 8sleep costs a couple grand. They totally sleep better than sleeping in a tent on the streets.
It would be interesting to see if these measures are actually effective or just more security theater. For example, most rich people today at least in California live in a sort of walled/fenced/hedged compound, protected by essentially a garage door, and coated in security cameras. To them, this must have felt safe, secure, and the thing to do, since you can find wealthy neighborhoods where every single house is set up like this in such a defensive compound.
Only the compounds are entirely porous. Motivated criminals can and do regularly hurdle those fences or slip under those gates in moments, break and enter and leave the property in minutes.
This makes one question whether the next layer of "hardening" would actually be effective of if it is more of the same. The article cites armed guards. I would think there are very few people out there that are stable enough to be trusted to bear arms and patrol around your family but also stupid enough to actually put their life on the line for some jewelry that is probably already insured.
> The article cites armed guards. I would think there are very few people out there that are stable enough to be trusted to bear arms and patrol around your family...
Armed guards will be the ones running the show the moment when something will happen. Rich guy is respected only because he has money, if survival is on the line, rich guy becomes bottom feeders, because most of these rich guys can't survive in a real world.
Odds vs stakes argument, kinda. Is it perfect? no. Should you do something? probably.
In personal protective gear, you have ballistic helmets. They don't cover the face. They often have cutouts around your ears. They don't cover your neck. They can generally stop a low velocity handgun round, and anything more energetic except a glancing rifle round is usually going right through. Even if it doesn't penetrate, backface deformation may be lethal. They're still generally worn as the only game in town.
The attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband changed a lot about how some people think in California.
Likewise for the United Health CEO and NYC.
I think this article conflates (at least) two problems.
The first is that very few people (especially rich people) are anonymous. A motivated person who has had a psychotic break can be very dangerous, and if you’re even a little bit famous, the probability of that happening to you goes up substantially.
The second issue is the one that everyone is getting riled up about - wealth inequality.
These are distinct issues, and I think it does harm - in the form of polarization - to not explicitly call them out.
When a thing seals itself against its own destruction, it merely dies a different death.
Site blocked by Police, offending material.
Which police? Can you provide more details?
Opens fine in the US. FWIW, it's an archive website. The link goes to a mirrored copy of the WSJ article to make it available without the paywall.
It is cute that mega rich guys thinking that they will be able to survive in their mega mansions if something goes wrong with the society. Big house = big target. Logistics and maintenance are also bad for a big house. If you want to survive, you should be as invisible as possible with as little consumption as possible.
[dead]
they build bunkers and yachts, they never build long endurance submarines. why is that?
Harder to defend yourself from your slaves/servants/guards when you're locked up with them in a tin can at the bottom of the ocean.
For a deeper dive, Douglas Rushkoff wrote about this in Survival of the Richest https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fa...
Impenetrable?
Ain't no such thing.
The only question is what kind of threat is mitigated, and for how long.
And that's assuming they'll have the manpower to defend those fortresses. Which, given their belief we're moving towards the societal collapse (of their making), isn't a given.
Quote[1]: What I came to realise was that these men are actually the losers. The billionaires who called me out to the desert to evaluate their bunker strategies are not the victors of the economic game so much as the victims of its perversely limited rules. More than anything, they have succumbed to a mindset where “winning” means earning enough money to insulate themselves from the damage they are creating by earning money in that way. It’s as if they want to build a car that goes fast enough to escape from its own exhaust.
In the end, who'd want to stick up for those losers?
Tsar Nicholas II had great fortresses. So did Nicolae Ceaușescu.
Worked out swimmingly for both of them.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...
This happens in Robocop.
Makes sense. When governments can opt out of enforcing law, as some are claiming and doing now, people who can, will attempt to provide for their own safety.
You can see the same mechanisms - albeit with less available cash - in South African farms, such as general property defenses and safe rooms.
Spending a little as a hedge against anarcho-tyranny and its collateral damage showing up in your (gated) neighborhood seems rational for those who can afford it.
Except, these are the people buying government reps.
No, it's not Mark Zuckerberg demanding San Fran to let 30-time criminals out of jail.
Which criminals were sentenced 30 times and let out of jail?
Spending money on (poorly-trained, case-bungling) cops instead of courts and judges and support services and (etc) has exactly this effect.
Cases run too long and get dropped; cases have evidentiary issues and get dropped; etc.
So, how many times do you think Facebook/Meta have committed wage theft? If we're going to try to redirect to criminality, shouldn't than encompass crimes not prosecuted because of $billionaire$ interests?
"Ultra poor are banding together to raid the lairs of the ultra rich" would be an interesting read. Or "10 things you can do to secure the entry against low level adventurers".
WOW raiders finally catching their big break.
I cant wait till I get a job building the, cue mega volume, echo, monster reverb, IMPENETRABLE FORTRESS esss essss esssss
first we need an artilery range to test varios types of construction, or perhaps it will be faster to hire mercinaries and attack the other billioniars fortresses and take notes, it's just pen testing right ,we can get paid from both sides :)
Excellent. Easier for the public to make sure they stay there.
Cement over their bunker doors from the outside.
Park armed drones on the opposite side of their literal moat.
With the end of jobs coming, 10s of millions will be freed up to remind the tiny mega-rich portion of the species their meat suits were never essential. Just coddled by political handouts.
[flagged]
Oh no! A meaningless social credit score!
I have run afoul of the sensibilities of a sweatshop labor exploiting class of low-skilled but literate meat suits I have no obligation to serve!
How will I ever recover! My entire identity was wrapped up in being validated by people who will live and die without my noticing they ever were!
I wouldn't care about social credit either, but comments with unaligned points of view getting flagged and consecutively hidden under the pretense of being irrelevant to the discussion or not pertaining to the interests of the "community" (you can't see flagged comments at all without an account) can get old real fast.
I mean, we all write here because we want someone to read what we wrote; otherwise, why bother screaming into the void.
Anyways, I'm pleasantly surprised that your comment hasn't yet met that fate.
EDIT: mine did though, which, in a way, demonstrates that point, doesn't it?