5 ms·

This idea of the idle wealthy is a stereotype that harbors envy despite the fact that it does not match reality. In The Millionaire Next Door by Dr. Thomas J. S

by gbacon 8y ago

This idea of the idle wealthy is a stereotype that harbors envy despite the fact that it does not match reality. In The Millionaire Next Door by Dr. Thomas J. Stanley, the author found that 80% of American millionaires had parents who were not millionaires and inherited no more than ten thousand dollars.

Latteland 8y ago
look at the children of donald trump, they basically don't do much other than hang around their father's company.
- gbacon 8y ago
  Perhaps Trump’s kids don’t work, but the existence of some idle wealthy people does not mean all or even most wealthy people are idle — any more than some Asians being good at math means all or most are good at math.
  - tankenmate 8y ago
    If there was a sufficiently high estate tax then almost no millionaires would be gifted that status from their parents.
    - gbacon 8y ago
      What else given by parents ought to be neutralized or otherwise taken away? Work ethic? Polite manners? Good looks? Family connections? Education? Computer skills? Cooking skills? Healthy lifestyle? Dominant presence, at least for sons? Social skills? Athletic ability? If it’s only money that ought to be “evened out,” what makes it special vis-à-vis these other valuable areas? What is the underlying system of ethics that justifies this intervention? The Millionaire Next Door devotes an entire chapter to Economic Outpatient Care, that is, continually paying their adult kids’ bills and otherwise bailing them out. For all their skill at building and growing businesses, American millionaires do not seem to be any good at passing these skills on to their children. What that means is through the natural course of things, millionaires’ kids tend to squander their gifted status without outside help from egalitarians.
      - Latteland 8y ago
        The difference is that inheriting huge amounts of money leads to a group of people that have power from their money (if they have a lot), but they aren't invested or aligned with society getting better. They are against the success of regular people., who can believe that their success is aligned with using their power to change society to their own benefit. This doesn't always happen of course, but these rich people can believe irrational things, they can screw up society. You can be this way even if self made, but I think if you were self made the things that worked for you on the way up help you be connected to the real world.
    - kamaal 8y ago
      Why do you think there should be high estate tax. The focus should be on making poor people rich, not making rich people poor.
      - tankenmate 8y ago
        America was partly founded upon the reaction to injustices foisted on the populace by people who largely had power based on their familial lineage. These people who inherited their power were largely insulated from making mistakes, and hence one could say they were less likely to learn. They were also more insulated from poor fortune making them less likely to be empathetic. So I would suggest if you want to be ruled by people who are less learned and less empathetic then doing away with high estate taxes might be a way to achieve that.
nickthemagicman 8y ago
Yeah. I looked into that book. His sample size was 345 people on a 'self reported' survey the authors randomly sent to rich neighborhoods. Any self respecting scientist would blow their brains out with a shotgun if they were forced to use these results to draw enough conclusions to write a 200 page book with.... This scumbag presents ratios the entire book instead of actual numbers,then at the very end tells you his sample size. That book is the biggest money grab crock of shit on earth and is as conclusive as a two year olds explanation on why the sky is blue. If you ever reference that book as a talking point you should be absolutely ashamed of your self because you're a garbage person who is using fake science to fit their bullshit narrative of the poverty being an individuals fault instead of a systemic issue.
- gbacon 8y ago
  Yes, self-reported results will have biases. We might also note selection bias if all the surveys went to neighborhoods in the same city or even the same state, for example. Americans have (or at least had) cultural mores against discussing the topics of personal finance, income, and net worth at all. Where would you suggest starting? Statistics requires training and does have some intuitively nonobvious results, such as determining sample size[0]. If you prefer more interactive, Survey Monkey has a form[1] that lets you select population size, confidence, and margin of error. For the U.S. population of 325 million at 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, the necessary sample size is 385 — not far from your figure Stanley’s. The topic warrants future study, but Stanley’s book does destroy the notion that all millionaires are a bunch of Paris Hiltons and Thurston Howells — for those readers who are willing to challenge their own prejudices. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination [1]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/ https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/
  - nickthemagicman 8y ago
    The site doesnt go any higher than 385 and it says you need that for anywhere from 100,000 people to 20 billion people, which may be true if the sampling was completely random and there were multiple studies done. How did he determine the sampling was random? How can you confirm the self reported data was correct? Also this was ONE SINGLE unreproduced study...no scientist in the world would write a 2 page paper based on one study much less 200 pages. That worthless book destroys NO notions. That book is propaganda selling a false narrative based on extremely shoddy science and it would do you well to throw it directly into the garbage.

by gbacon 8y ago

Latteland 8y ago

look at the children of donald trump, they basically don't do much other than hang around their father's company.

gbacon 8y ago
Perhaps Trump’s kids don’t work, but the existence of some idle wealthy people does not mean all or even most wealthy people are idle — any more than some Asians being good at math means all or most are good at math.
- tankenmate 8y ago
  If there was a sufficiently high estate tax then almost no millionaires would be gifted that status from their parents.
  - gbacon 8y ago
    What else given by parents ought to be neutralized or otherwise taken away? Work ethic? Polite manners? Good looks? Family connections? Education? Computer skills? Cooking skills? Healthy lifestyle? Dominant presence, at least for sons? Social skills? Athletic ability? If it’s only money that ought to be “evened out,” what makes it special vis-à-vis these other valuable areas? What is the underlying system of ethics that justifies this intervention? The Millionaire Next Door devotes an entire chapter to Economic Outpatient Care, that is, continually paying their adult kids’ bills and otherwise bailing them out. For all their skill at building and growing businesses, American millionaires do not seem to be any good at passing these skills on to their children. What that means is through the natural course of things, millionaires’ kids tend to squander their gifted status without outside help from egalitarians.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      The difference is that inheriting huge amounts of money leads to a group of people that have power from their money (if they have a lot), but they aren't invested or aligned with society getting better. They are against the success of regular people., who can believe that their success is aligned with using their power to change society to their own benefit. This doesn't always happen of course, but these rich people can believe irrational things, they can screw up society. You can be this way even if self made, but I think if you were self made the things that worked for you on the way up help you be connected to the real world.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    Why do you think there should be high estate tax. The focus should be on making poor people rich, not making rich people poor.
    - tankenmate 8y ago
      America was partly founded upon the reaction to injustices foisted on the populace by people who largely had power based on their familial lineage. These people who inherited their power were largely insulated from making mistakes, and hence one could say they were less likely to learn. They were also more insulated from poor fortune making them less likely to be empathetic. So I would suggest if you want to be ruled by people who are less learned and less empathetic then doing away with high estate taxes might be a way to achieve that.

nickthemagicman 8y ago

Yeah. I looked into that book. His sample size was 345 people on a 'self reported' survey the authors randomly sent to rich neighborhoods. Any self respecting scientist would blow their brains out with a shotgun if they were forced to use these results to draw enough conclusions to write a 200 page book with.... This scumbag presents ratios the entire book instead of actual numbers,then at the very end tells you his sample size. That book is the biggest money grab crock of shit on earth and is as conclusive as a two year olds explanation on why the sky is blue. If you ever reference that book as a talking point you should be absolutely ashamed of your self because you're a garbage person who is using fake science to fit their bullshit narrative of the poverty being an individuals fault instead of a systemic issue.

gbacon 8y ago
Yes, self-reported results will have biases. We might also note selection bias if all the surveys went to neighborhoods in the same city or even the same state, for example. Americans have (or at least had) cultural mores against discussing the topics of personal finance, income, and net worth at all. Where would you suggest starting? Statistics requires training and does have some intuitively nonobvious results, such as determining sample size[0]. If you prefer more interactive, Survey Monkey has a form[1] that lets you select population size, confidence, and margin of error. For the U.S. population of 325 million at 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, the necessary sample size is 385 — not far from your figure Stanley’s. The topic warrants future study, but Stanley’s book does destroy the notion that all millionaires are a bunch of Paris Hiltons and Thurston Howells — for those readers who are willing to challenge their own prejudices. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination [1]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/ https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  The site doesnt go any higher than 385 and it says you need that for anywhere from 100,000 people to 20 billion people, which may be true if the sampling was completely random and there were multiple studies done. How did he determine the sampling was random? How can you confirm the self reported data was correct? Also this was ONE SINGLE unreproduced study...no scientist in the world would write a 2 page paper based on one study much less 200 pages. That worthless book destroys NO notions. That book is propaganda selling a false narrative based on extremely shoddy science and it would do you well to throw it directly into the garbage.