3 ms·

0.001% of the world is about 75k people [1], there are about 2200 dollar billionaires [2], so only(!) ~3% of these people are billionaires. Not a real point to

by jerrre 8y ago

0.001% of the world is about 75k people [1], there are about 2200 dollar billionaires [2], so only(!) ~3% of these people are billionaires. Not a real point to make, but I was wondering, and it might save someone else time. [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.001%25+*+world+population https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.001%25+*+world+popul... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires

lazyasciiart 8y ago
The article is about families, so if you say the average size of these families is 3-4 people, they're all in it.
rorykoehler 8y ago
They mention the magic number of $100m in the article.
emn13 8y ago
As that wiki link points out, wealth isn't entirely public or measurable; so the list isn't complete. It explicitly excludes dictators and royalty (so, hey, saudi family!), and " excluding and ranking against those with wealth that is not able to be completely ascertained" That makes perfect sense of course; but all those excluded parties from that ranking still need to manage wealth, so getting exact or even estimated numbers here is going to be tricky. And then there's the family != person disconnect - although it seems to me that most people in this situation got lucky somehow, so it's rather unlikely there are multiple original sources of wealth in such families. If there are several individually wealthy family members it's probably more likely due to dilution. But yeah, you'd assume the median family wealth of a the top 0.001% of people is likely below 1 billion. But how much? Who knows.
- ascar 8y ago
  > If there are several individually wealthy family members it's probably more likely due to dilution. While this is probably true in general, there are at least two famous exceptions from Germany. There is the notable case of Adolf "Adi" Dassler, founder of Adidas, and his older brother Rudolf Dassler, founder of Puma, who separated from their joined shoe manfucaturing business and independently built two of the largest shoe (and now sports equipment) manufacturing companies in the world. Both still headquartered in the tiny 23000 people city Herzognaurach, Germany (close to Nuremberg). And the similar story of Karl and Theo Albrecht, founders of Aldi (Albrecht Discount), which was split in Aldi Nord (north) and Aldi Süd (south), both growing their company in billion dollar businesses and each becoming billionaires. Granted though they had slightly different styles of running their business, their success was based on the same innovative business idea and a geographic non-compete agreement.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    In both of those instances, wasn’t there onebusiness that they split into two? That’s still one source of wealth. They just divided it earlier than death.
    - joncrane 8y ago
      The point is that the vast majority of the wealth was generated after the split.
      - EADGBE 8y ago
        Do people write about failed divided businesses?

by jerrre 8y ago

lazyasciiart 8y ago

The article is about families, so if you say the average size of these families is 3-4 people, they're all in it.

rorykoehler 8y ago

They mention the magic number of $100m in the article.

emn13 8y ago

As that wiki link points out, wealth isn't entirely public or measurable; so the list isn't complete. It explicitly excludes dictators and royalty (so, hey, saudi family!), and " excluding and ranking against those with wealth that is not able to be completely ascertained" That makes perfect sense of course; but all those excluded parties from that ranking still need to manage wealth, so getting exact or even estimated numbers here is going to be tricky. And then there's the family != person disconnect - although it seems to me that most people in this situation got lucky somehow, so it's rather unlikely there are multiple original sources of wealth in such families. If there are several individually wealthy family members it's probably more likely due to dilution. But yeah, you'd assume the median family wealth of a the top 0.001% of people is likely below 1 billion. But how much? Who knows.

ascar 8y ago
> If there are several individually wealthy family members it's probably more likely due to dilution. While this is probably true in general, there are at least two famous exceptions from Germany. There is the notable case of Adolf "Adi" Dassler, founder of Adidas, and his older brother Rudolf Dassler, founder of Puma, who separated from their joined shoe manfucaturing business and independently built two of the largest shoe (and now sports equipment) manufacturing companies in the world. Both still headquartered in the tiny 23000 people city Herzognaurach, Germany (close to Nuremberg). And the similar story of Karl and Theo Albrecht, founders of Aldi (Albrecht Discount), which was split in Aldi Nord (north) and Aldi Süd (south), both growing their company in billion dollar businesses and each becoming billionaires. Granted though they had slightly different styles of running their business, their success was based on the same innovative business idea and a geographic non-compete agreement.
- code_duck 8y ago
  In both of those instances, wasn’t there onebusiness that they split into two? That’s still one source of wealth. They just divided it earlier than death.
  - joncrane 8y ago
    The point is that the vast majority of the wealth was generated after the split.
    - EADGBE 8y ago
      Do people write about failed divided businesses?