6 ms·

Most people on US Forbes top 500 came from poverty and / or other disadvantage.

by zavi 8y ago

jsmeaton 8y ago
I find this hard to believe. Do you have a source?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  GP seemed like obvious irony to me. 7 HN folks don't agree...
leadingthenet 8y ago
I will definitely need a source for that claim.
shrimp_emoji 8y ago
This statement is saved by the "and / or other disadvantage" because that includes the subconscious guilt that they ultimately owe all of their accomplishments to their wealthy parents, which is indeed a disadvantage that I struggle with daily. :'c
burkaman 8y ago
I don't think this is true. Forbes says 67% of their list is "self-made", meaning they're a 6-10 on the 10 point scale defined here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2018/10/03/the-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-bootstrappers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2018/10/03/the-forbe... As you can see, only a 9 or 10 should really count as coming from significant disadvantage. Mark Zuckerberg is an 8 on the scale (where 10 is most disadvantaged), and I think we can all agree he did not claw his way out of poverty. I'm having trouble finding overall numbers for each rank, but I'm certain 9s and 10s are not a majority of this list if 6-10 is only 67%.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  Yeah, I mean Mark Zuckerberg was the son of a doctor and a dentist in White Plains. We called people of those means "rich" when I was a kid.
peeters 8y ago
Seemed like a dubious claim, so tried to find a source and found this old article: Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'? https://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533 https://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533 Trimming a lot: "United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says - 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background... - 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. - 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member. - 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base. - 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list." So less than 35 percent would be coming from poverty, if this study is to be believed. This is for the 400 billionaires list though.
- rudolph9 8y ago
  I honestly expected significantly less (I figured home plate would be the largest group) but was not surprised at all to learn 3rd base was the smallest group.
  - weliketocode 8y ago
    Yeah, inheriting $50mm+ seems like more than enough to disincentivize risk and innovation.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    Looking more in depth at their ranking though, virtually everyone from 1st base to home plate I'd consider "rich" to start (perhaps differing degrees of "employed rich", e.g. doctors/lawyers, to sheik rich). I mean, it considers Donald Trump, whose father died with a net worth of about $300 million to start on 2nd base!!
- Retric 8y ago
  If anything it’s intentionally misunderstanding the actual advantages from having connections. Gates did not directly inherit vast wealth. But, most people’s parents don’t know the CEO of IBM back when it was the computer company. That bottom 35% is a little doubious. Larry Ellison was put in that category, though he was adopted at a young age. Further, his adopted family had recently been wealthy which is a much better than average background for becoming rich. Finally, the category they place Trump in vastly underplays the amount of direct family support he received. The initial gift was under 50 million, but was just the first of many. He would have become a billionaire simply putting the money given to him into the S&P 500.
danielsju6 8y ago
I don't know about the Forbes list, but it seems the share of wealth being inherited is pretty high & increasing at a good clip: On the Share of Inheritance in Aggregate Wealth: Europe and the USA, 1900–2010 http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2017.pdf http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2...
nerdponx 8y ago
Do you have a source for that? "Most" seems hard to believe. I would also be hesitant to take the top 500 as representative of the top, say, 5 million.

Most people on US Forbes top 500 came from poverty and / or other disadvantage.

by zavi 8y ago

Most people on US Forbes top 500 came from poverty and / or other disadvantage.

jsmeaton 8y ago

I find this hard to believe. Do you have a source?

jessaustin 8y ago
GP seemed like obvious irony to me. 7 HN folks don't agree...

leadingthenet 8y ago

I will definitely need a source for that claim.

shrimp_emoji 8y ago

This statement is saved by the "and / or other disadvantage" because that includes the subconscious guilt that they ultimately owe all of their accomplishments to their wealthy parents, which is indeed a disadvantage that I struggle with daily. :'c

burkaman 8y ago

I don't think this is true. Forbes says 67% of their list is "self-made", meaning they're a 6-10 on the 10 point scale defined here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2018/10/03/the-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-bootstrappers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2018/10/03/the-forbe... As you can see, only a 9 or 10 should really count as coming from significant disadvantage. Mark Zuckerberg is an 8 on the scale (where 10 is most disadvantaged), and I think we can all agree he did not claw his way out of poverty. I'm having trouble finding overall numbers for each rank, but I'm certain 9s and 10s are not a majority of this list if 6-10 is only 67%.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Yeah, I mean Mark Zuckerberg was the son of a doctor and a dentist in White Plains. We called people of those means "rich" when I was a kid.

peeters 8y ago

Seemed like a dubious claim, so tried to find a source and found this old article: Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'? https://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533 https://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533 Trimming a lot: "United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says - 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background... - 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. - 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member. - 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base. - 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list." So less than 35 percent would be coming from poverty, if this study is to be believed. This is for the 400 billionaires list though.

rudolph9 8y ago
I honestly expected significantly less (I figured home plate would be the largest group) but was not surprised at all to learn 3rd base was the smallest group.
- weliketocode 8y ago
  Yeah, inheriting $50mm+ seems like more than enough to disincentivize risk and innovation.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  Looking more in depth at their ranking though, virtually everyone from 1st base to home plate I'd consider "rich" to start (perhaps differing degrees of "employed rich", e.g. doctors/lawyers, to sheik rich). I mean, it considers Donald Trump, whose father died with a net worth of about $300 million to start on 2nd base!!
Retric 8y ago
If anything it’s intentionally misunderstanding the actual advantages from having connections. Gates did not directly inherit vast wealth. But, most people’s parents don’t know the CEO of IBM back when it was the computer company. That bottom 35% is a little doubious. Larry Ellison was put in that category, though he was adopted at a young age. Further, his adopted family had recently been wealthy which is a much better than average background for becoming rich. Finally, the category they place Trump in vastly underplays the amount of direct family support he received. The initial gift was under 50 million, but was just the first of many. He would have become a billionaire simply putting the money given to him into the S&P 500.

danielsju6 8y ago

I don't know about the Forbes list, but it seems the share of wealth being inherited is pretty high & increasing at a good clip: On the Share of Inheritance in Aggregate Wealth: Europe and the USA, 1900–2010 http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2017.pdf http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2...

nerdponx 8y ago

Do you have a source for that? "Most" seems hard to believe. I would also be hesitant to take the top 500 as representative of the top, say, 5 million.