5 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoYeah, inheriting $50mm+ seems like more than enough to disincentivize risk and innovation.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y agoLooking 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 agoIf 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.
- StudentStuff 8y agoBill Gates went to Lakeside School here in Seattle and grew up in a nice house along the shoreline in Sand Point (a rich neighborhood of Seattle). He is hardly self made, and comes from an upper crust Seattle family that could afford the finest education and residences in Seattle. Had Bill Gates gone to Seattle Public Schools at the time, its doubtful that he would have gained similar contacts or become notable at such an early age.
- refurb 8y ago35% of the top 400 came from poverty? That’s actually much higher than I thought it would be and pretty dam remarkable. At least in the US, less than 35% of the population actually lives in poverty.
- sobani 8y agoThose 35% are (lower) middle class. Apparently none of the top 400 billionaires came from poverty.