4 ms·
That's true, though I like that it presents "self-made" as a scale rather than something binary. It allows acknowledging differences that would have been glosse
by slavik81 9y ago
That's true, though I like that it presents "self-made" as a scale rather than something binary. It allows acknowledging differences that would have been glossed over on a binary scale.
There are big differences between how Laurene Jobs (1), Charles Koch (5), Bill Gates (8) and Oprah Winfrey (10) became as wealthy as they are, and it reflects that.
- batbomb 9y agoThe Laurene Jobs (1) is a bit dumb since she was raising the family, but whatever.
- sidlls 9y agoThe fact that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg aren't 5 or lower means this scale is not credible. Both of these individuals had access to substantial capital and social connections, well above any meaningful definition of "middle-class", to jumpstart their businesses.
- ameister14 9y agoI don't think that's entirely fair - let's say your parents made $500,000 a year; if you made 90 billion, wouldn't that still be self-made? Sure, it's not as self-made as Carnegie or Rockefeller who would have been 10/10 as child-laborers turned wealthiest men in the world, but it's not exactly Trump or JP Morgan Jr., either.
- sidlls 9y agoThey're closer to Koch or Trump than anybody who labored from nothing. Your hypothetical is why I agree a scale is better than a binary classification. I guess we might just disagree on the grade.
- ryandrake 9y agoWhen your parents are among the top 1% in the country (and, presumably, act as a risk-cushion in case you were to fail), it is difficult for me to buy that you are self-made.