3 ms·
1. Of course not, I referenced unintelligent wealthy people ("dumb nobility") in my post. 2. 70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation, 9
by praha14 9y ago
1. Of course not, I referenced unintelligent wealthy people ("dumb nobility") in my post.
2. 70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation, 90% by the third. [A]
3. IQ is a greater predictor of income than parental SES. Someone in the 95th percentile for IQ has a higher EV for earnings than someone born into the 95th percentile for wealth.
4. A number of revolutions have happened. If you don't believe that modern France or Japan are freer than their feudal predecessors then I agree that we are probably not on the same page.
A. http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
- jhundal 9y agoI would not use the Time article as a reliable source, it cites the 70/90% figures a study by the "Williams Group wealth consultancy", which of course is trying to sell its services to wealthy clients. I've seen the statistic quoted in so many places, yet have never found a link to the actually study. No info on sample size; we don't even have a definition of 'wealth' used in the study.
- marnett 9y agoThe sample size is 2000 families over 20 years. Better submarine piece here [1]. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324662404578334663271139552 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324662404578334...