The Paradox Of Acquiring Wealth

There is something deeply paradoxical about how acquiring wealth, not just in direct monetary form, but in things like objects, vehicles, properties, and so on, actually becomes simpler and more attainable as long as one already has more money.  In fact, it becomes less difficult in proportion to how much that wealth increases.  Shallow people, including those with their own extensive wealth, might seek you out or want to please you who would not otherwise show any sort of acknowledgment or offer any kind of financial, social, or other kind of support.  A legion of investment options, passive income opportunities, or more highly compensated jobs, all of them opportunities to make more money, open up to anyone who already has the money or extended wealth to pour into investments, yet someone who is already wealthy enough to do this does not have as dire a need for money as someone who is not even past the starting point.  Another factor is also quite helpful despite being denied to those who either have to work conventional, underpaid jobs.

Someone with enough wealth to engage in this easier multiplication of that wealth can almost certainly afford, quite literally in one sense, to not spend as much or any time in a professional job that would hold them hostage for much of the week.  As a consequence of this, there is more time to devote to managing and growing whatever wealth has already being accumulated, in addition to the other benefits of already having money and other assets to begin with.  Having to work without the significant safety net of pre-accumulated wealth could easily rob someone of the time and the willpower to utilize the resources they do have, as so much effort has to go towards maintaining the point they have reached that little is left to give to anything beyond that.  This, of course, only prolongs a less stable economic standing, leaving someone with fewer resources, less energy, and less general freedom to improve that standing.

The paradox of acquiring wealth is that it actually is likely to only get easier and easier as a person obtains more of it, sometimes because of logically necessary truths about the nature of money (you cannot invest money you do not have, short of deception), and sometimes because of idiotic social constructs (like the many arbitrary obstacles that make housing, banking, or even basic purchases more difficult for the poor).  It is the latter of these two categories that only is present because some people are so stupid in their philosophical apathy, hypocrisy, egoism, or cultural submission that they create or protect the barriers to escaping poverty.  They might want some people to financially suffer, experiencing all of the trials that stem from this, because it makes them emotionalistically feel better about themselves or because they only want to be the one with the power to be socially "above" the poor.  They might simply not care about anything of substance, or perhaps they are, like so many people, nothing but irrationalistic puppets of their random culture instead of servants of reason.

It is not necessarily easy to escape poverty by any means, even for someone willing and able to work so much that their whole outward life revolves around professional labor despite this being far from the core of reality.  However, if they can only somehow begin to amass more wealth than they will deplete through expenses or mishandling, obstacles to gaining more money and possessions can dissipate one by one.  There is a paradox to the acquisition of wealth indeed.  Again, as one can buy more durable but expensive things, the need to replace or repair them fades away.  As one gathers enough money to invest in non-monetary wealth or in more passive moneymaking ventures, the very need for more conventional work vanishes, which leaves one with more time and money with which to generate an even greater income or more valuable assets.  As one builds up financial security, people who might have otherwise withheld their support might form relationships that only make the process easier.

While money and extended wealth can still be squandered far faster than they are generated even for an "upper class" person, it would probably be far easier for those who already have wealth to conjure it back up even if they were to lose it: reputation and a prior association with wealth could work in their favor, as epistemologically, morally, and generally metaphysically meaningless as reputation inescapably is.  There is nothing intellectually or morally deficient about simply having wealth.  Yes, committed labor, or as some people call it, hard work, can help increase one's wealth, but so much of the starting point is decided by factors that are completely outside of a person's control in this life, including whether their family was already poor, the opportunities in their community, and whether they have any physical or mental impairments.  Not only is all of this the case, but having money or general wealth is what makes more money and extended wealth more accessible.  Poverty is in no way something that can only come about due to laziness, stupidity, and impulsiveness.