5 ms·

Would a self made billionaire include someone who inherited say 800 million and turned it into a billion?

bko 11y ago
From the article: > There’s no doubt that entrepreneurship is thriving globally. Fully 1,191 members of the list are self-made billionaires, while just 230 inherited their wealth. Another 405 inherited at least a portion but are still working to increase their fortunes. Not sure how "at least a portion" is defined, but I imagine less than half had significant inheritance. That's not to say the self-made billionaires were born middle class, but it does suggest that wealth does not necessarily beget wealth.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Again, 635 out of 1191 started out rich (either for the whole sum, or a portion of it). That's 53% of them. But even if 1190 of them had gone "rich from zero" and only 1 had inherited his wealth, it wouldn't be that comforting by itself. What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to become upper middle class, etc -- and of course most middle class to be stable and not fall into poverty. That is, things that affect the majority of the population. A society with a middle class that shrinks and worse prospects for 99% of kids compared to their parents is not absolved if it has 1000 billionaires emerge out of poverty (or middle class). A society with just 10 billionaires but far better social mobility (e.g. like in the 50's) would be much better to live in. That's just relevant as an opportunity to a mere .0002857% of the population.
  - JonFish85 11y ago
    >635 out of 1191 I know it's pretty minor, but it's actually 1,826 in total, so it's 35%. >A society with a middle class that shrinks and worse prospects for 99% of kids compared to their parents is not absolved if it has 1000 billionaires emerge out of poverty (or middle class). A society with just 10 billionaires but far better social mobility (e.g. like in the 50's) would be much better to live in. I don't follow this logic at all. Does number of billionaires created affect anything else? They seem somewhat unrelated to me, especially in light of what I said before about the rich constantly turning over.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >I know it's pretty minor, but it's actually 1,826 in total, so it's 35% A, thanks. Missed that, thought 1191 was the total given. I think the rest of the argument remains unaffected though, so wont change it. >I don't follow this logic at all. Does number of billionaires created affect anything else? Yes, I don't see the two things as "unrelated" events, but as the difference between a society set up to sustain and grow a strong middle class, and one that caters to a tiny majority of rich (regardless how they got there, by inheritance or bootstrapping) to the detriment of the middle class. That is, this outcome is not just the effect of random people going about their life more or less independently and succeeding or not, but of a society (laws, education, etc) that has been rigged towards sustaining and growing (but always to a negligible percentage of the total) the upper classes, and milking the middle class and the poor to oblivion.
      - bko 11y ago
        > This year, we gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from 1 to 10 — a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey. We also did the analysis for every 10 years going back to 1984. Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: in 1984, less than half of people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69% of the 400 created their own fortunes. [0] If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction. I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies. My opinion may not be popular, but I find it encouraging to think that so few can create such great wealth in today's society, even if the odds are against me creating such wealth. In many cases, that means that a product or service one person creates can benefit a large number of people and make you very wealthy. And I personally benefit from many of the products and services that were created by this generation of the wealthy individuals. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new...
  - marknutter 11y ago
    > What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to become upper middle class, etc -- and of course most middle class to be stable and not fall into poverty. I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Who cares about joining the middle class if most of their needs already being met. If, for instance, a replicator was invented that provided food and shelter to anyone who wanted it for free, a hell of a lot of people could live quite happily and comfortably without being middle class. So the goal should be to get to that sort of scenario as fast as possible. That is, a world in which the cost of covering our basic human needs is so small that nobody needs to be middle-class or higher to be happy.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Of course the target its moving. That means society is progressing in the aggregate. So why keep "desired standards of living" stuck in the past? In 1840 having no electricity and running water was considered acceptable. Today we think even internet is a kind of necessary good. So, with progress the definition of rich / middle class / poverty etc should move too. Who said poverty is some absolute measurable state? Obviously you shouldn't consider yourself "rich" or even middle class, if you live in a trailer park with $100/month, just because you have housing, electricity and lots of available food in Walmart, whereas 1200 A.D peasants and 10000 B.C cavemen had neither... What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in.
      - marknutter 11y ago
        > What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in. So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have.
bko 11y ago
From the article: > There’s no doubt that entrepreneurship is thriving globally. Fully 1,191 members of the list are self-made billionaires, while just 230 inherited their wealth. Another 405 inherited at least a portion but are still working to increase their fortunes. Not sure how "at least a portion" is defined, but I imagine less than half had significant inheritance. That's not to say the self-made billionaires were born middle class, but it does suggest that wealth does not necessarily beget wealth.

bko 11y ago

From the article: > There’s no doubt that entrepreneurship is thriving globally. Fully 1,191 members of the list are self-made billionaires, while just 230 inherited their wealth. Another 405 inherited at least a portion but are still working to increase their fortunes. Not sure how "at least a portion" is defined, but I imagine less than half had significant inheritance. That's not to say the self-made billionaires were born middle class, but it does suggest that wealth does not necessarily beget wealth.

coldtea 11y ago
Again, 635 out of 1191 started out rich (either for the whole sum, or a portion of it). That's 53% of them. But even if 1190 of them had gone "rich from zero" and only 1 had inherited his wealth, it wouldn't be that comforting by itself. What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to become upper middle class, etc -- and of course most middle class to be stable and not fall into poverty. That is, things that affect the majority of the population. A society with a middle class that shrinks and worse prospects for 99% of kids compared to their parents is not absolved if it has 1000 billionaires emerge out of poverty (or middle class). A society with just 10 billionaires but far better social mobility (e.g. like in the 50's) would be much better to live in. That's just relevant as an opportunity to a mere .0002857% of the population.
- JonFish85 11y ago
  >635 out of 1191 I know it's pretty minor, but it's actually 1,826 in total, so it's 35%. >A society with a middle class that shrinks and worse prospects for 99% of kids compared to their parents is not absolved if it has 1000 billionaires emerge out of poverty (or middle class). A society with just 10 billionaires but far better social mobility (e.g. like in the 50's) would be much better to live in. I don't follow this logic at all. Does number of billionaires created affect anything else? They seem somewhat unrelated to me, especially in light of what I said before about the rich constantly turning over.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >I know it's pretty minor, but it's actually 1,826 in total, so it's 35% A, thanks. Missed that, thought 1191 was the total given. I think the rest of the argument remains unaffected though, so wont change it. >I don't follow this logic at all. Does number of billionaires created affect anything else? Yes, I don't see the two things as "unrelated" events, but as the difference between a society set up to sustain and grow a strong middle class, and one that caters to a tiny majority of rich (regardless how they got there, by inheritance or bootstrapping) to the detriment of the middle class. That is, this outcome is not just the effect of random people going about their life more or less independently and succeeding or not, but of a society (laws, education, etc) that has been rigged towards sustaining and growing (but always to a negligible percentage of the total) the upper classes, and milking the middle class and the poor to oblivion.
    - bko 11y ago
      > This year, we gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from 1 to 10 — a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey. We also did the analysis for every 10 years going back to 1984. Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: in 1984, less than half of people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69% of the 400 created their own fortunes. [0] If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction. I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies. My opinion may not be popular, but I find it encouraging to think that so few can create such great wealth in today's society, even if the odds are against me creating such wealth. In many cases, that means that a product or service one person creates can benefit a large number of people and make you very wealthy. And I personally benefit from many of the products and services that were created by this generation of the wealthy individuals. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new...
- marknutter 11y ago
  > What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to become upper middle class, etc -- and of course most middle class to be stable and not fall into poverty. I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Who cares about joining the middle class if most of their needs already being met. If, for instance, a replicator was invented that provided food and shelter to anyone who wanted it for free, a hell of a lot of people could live quite happily and comfortably without being middle class. So the goal should be to get to that sort of scenario as fast as possible. That is, a world in which the cost of covering our basic human needs is so small that nobody needs to be middle-class or higher to be happy.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Of course the target its moving. That means society is progressing in the aggregate. So why keep "desired standards of living" stuck in the past? In 1840 having no electricity and running water was considered acceptable. Today we think even internet is a kind of necessary good. So, with progress the definition of rich / middle class / poverty etc should move too. Who said poverty is some absolute measurable state? Obviously you shouldn't consider yourself "rich" or even middle class, if you live in a trailer park with $100/month, just because you have housing, electricity and lots of available food in Walmart, whereas 1200 A.D peasants and 10000 B.C cavemen had neither... What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in.
    - marknutter 11y ago
      > What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in. So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have.

bko 11y ago