4 ms·

> That's only because 1% is too big a number. Square it and look again. Sure. Not exactly 0.01% but you can look at Forbes 400 and where they got their wealth

by bko 10y ago

> That's only because 1% is too big a number. Square it and look again. Sure. Not exactly 0.01% but you can look at Forbes 400 and where they got their wealth and any trends. > 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] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/#3e573e5b2aff https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-ne...

coldtea 10y ago
>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. They make it sound like some triumph of the American dream, when it's at best a humble change. After 3 decades of what has been a huge change in economy, moving to the "information economy" and the "digital age", and with all the celebrated tech moguls being added to the world's richest people, there's only ~20-25% more self-made rather than inherited fortunes. As if the digital age just impacted/disrupted 1/4 of the established wealth. Meanwhile, the part they've missed, is that the American dream is not about getting to the "Forbes Top 400", but in general to moving up from poor/working class/lower middle class, and this has been problematic for decades, with increasingly less people making more than their parents.
- bko 10y ago
  The point that I was trying to make is that most of the inequality and wealth concentration we're seeing is due to entrepreneurship rather than passive growth of wealth. I'm hopeful that the trend continues and leads to a more equitable distribution of opportunity
marcosdumay 10y ago
In times of fast technological change, that's something you should expect. It is still a winner takes all environment.

by bko 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>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. They make it sound like some triumph of the American dream, when it's at best a humble change. After 3 decades of what has been a huge change in economy, moving to the "information economy" and the "digital age", and with all the celebrated tech moguls being added to the world's richest people, there's only ~20-25% more self-made rather than inherited fortunes. As if the digital age just impacted/disrupted 1/4 of the established wealth. Meanwhile, the part they've missed, is that the American dream is not about getting to the "Forbes Top 400", but in general to moving up from poor/working class/lower middle class, and this has been problematic for decades, with increasingly less people making more than their parents.

bko 10y ago
The point that I was trying to make is that most of the inequality and wealth concentration we're seeing is due to entrepreneurship rather than passive growth of wealth. I'm hopeful that the trend continues and leads to a more equitable distribution of opportunity

marcosdumay 10y ago

In times of fast technological change, that's something you should expect. It is still a winner takes all environment.