30 ms·

>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

>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...
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction. No, "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" is not my concern -- I think I made that clear in the comment. Upward mobility to middle class, middle class stability (to going back to poverty), and upward mobility from middle class to upper middle class are my concerns. To which "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" could even be working against -- while itself concerning a very tiny majority. >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. What I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference though between: "we could only make 10 non-rich people ultra-rich in 1950, whereas we have 1000 non-rich made ultra-rich today". Which might be all well and good, but this "upward mobility" only concerns a tiny minority, and having a healthy "upward mobility" and social stability for the large masses.
- bcassedy 11y ago
  I feel like looking at how the 0.01% got ultra-rich is mostly focusing on the wrong thing. The problem is that the rich and ultra-rich are getting richer while everyone else is stagnating or regressing

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...
- coldtea 11y ago
  >If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction. No, "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" is not my concern -- I think I made that clear in the comment. Upward mobility to middle class, middle class stability (to going back to poverty), and upward mobility from middle class to upper middle class are my concerns. To which "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" could even be working against -- while itself concerning a very tiny majority. >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. What I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference though between: "we could only make 10 non-rich people ultra-rich in 1950, whereas we have 1000 non-rich made ultra-rich today". Which might be all well and good, but this "upward mobility" only concerns a tiny minority, and having a healthy "upward mobility" and social stability for the large masses.
bcassedy 11y ago
I feel like looking at how the 0.01% got ultra-rich is mostly focusing on the wrong thing. The problem is that the rich and ultra-rich are getting richer while everyone else is stagnating or regressing