3 ms·
> And power is surely a big factor, too. Reading someone like Mr. Graham, you might imagine that America’s wealthy are mainly entrepreneurs. In fact, the top 0.
by bko 11y ago
> And power is surely a big factor, too. Reading someone like Mr. Graham, you might imagine that America’s wealthy are mainly entrepreneurs. In fact, the top 0.1 percent consists mainly of business executives, and while some of these executives may have made their fortunes by being associated with risky start-ups, most probably got where they are by climbing well-established corporate ladders. And the rise in incomes at the top largely reflects the soaring pay of top executives, not the rewards to innovation.
Most probably got there by climbing well established corporate ladders? Is there a source for this? It seems "Executives, managers and supervisors (non-finance)" is rather broad and does not address whether these are corporate structures that can "set their own compensation".
- pc86 11y agoWho decides the classification? Is it the IRS, the taxpayer, or some third party? Mark Cuban would probably categorize himself as "Entrepreneur not otherwise classified." Someone else may very well put him in that "Executives, managers and supervisors (non-finance)" category.
- paulddraper 11y ago" most probably got where they are by climbing well-established corporate ladders. And the rise in incomes at the top largely reflects the soaring pay of top executives, not the rewards to innovation." Then why the heck are you here? If you want piles of money, shouldn't you be climbing the uncreative, guaranteed ladder to wealth? If being the 0.1% were really that easy, it wouldn't be the 0.1% anymore.