4 ms·

They started as white guys, besides Oprah of course. EDIT: Perhaps I should have been clearer. Given the average age, they were significantly advantaged by the

They started as white guys, besides Oprah of course. EDIT: Perhaps I should have been clearer. Given the average age, they were significantly advantaged by the color of their skin and patriarchal state of society, so they didn't start with "nothing." They took advantage of the many opportunities afforded to white males at the time. I'm not saying they were lazy or don't deserve their wealth, but Bloomberg seems to be painting them in the best possible light.

nhangen 16y ago
Would downvote if I could.
- rbranson 16y ago
  Care to explain? Clearly there is a correlation here. Do you believe it's just coincidence that there is one non-white person and one non-male in the entire group?
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    Perhaps they thought you were insinuating that it's more difficult/impossible for people that aren't white and male to become millionaires. Given their age, however, perhaps it was more that, when they were growing up, it was easier to become great, as societal pressures, presumptions and restrictions were very different. I would hope that in another 70 years, the collection of previously less-privileged trillion/quadrillionaires (read: inflation) is more representative of society as a whole.
    - rbranson 16y ago
      I agree with you. Edited my comment above to reflect my full opinion.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
- pepsi_can 16y ago
  The average age of these men is 70+. They would have been starting their businesses or making important contacts before the Civil Rights Act of 1966, an era with limited opportunities for non-whites.
  - nhangen 16y ago
    True, but why do we always, always, always have to turn everything into a race issue. I'm tired of "he's white" being the first thing anyone mentions. Forget about hard work or good ideas...it's all about being white right?
    - rbranson 16y ago
      It's only a race issue because it started out that way. Nobody is turning it into anything that it wasn't already. The whole "turning everything into a race issue" is a copout used by those who'd rather forget the past and justify their ignorance. People too quickly forget that it was only two generations ago that non-whites were mostly deprived of civil liberties. The massive disadvantages of minorities and their families will continue to ripple through US society for decades, possibly centuries to come. Despite having 403 billionaires, there is only one black billionaire in the US, even though blacks make up 12.4% of the population. Do you think this is a coincidence?
      - nhangen 16y ago
        This is hacker news, if I wanted discussions like that I'd go to CNN or the Huffington Post. Why can't we focus on the good that these men/women did instead of their race? Of all the white people in the world, very few are rags to riches billionaires...why can't we talk about that?
        shard 16y ago
        You make it sound like it's not possible to talk about both the good they did and the effect race has on their success.
zzzeek 16y ago
agree, nobody starts with "nothing". Being raised in the woods by wolves is close, though.
- defen 16y ago
  Romulus: the entrepreneur's entrepreneur.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
cookiecaper 16y ago
Also note the progress of their dozens of millions of white-guy contemporaries. I think that being a white guy, even in the pre-civil-rights era, is probably not especially significant to the financial success of these people. If it were, I think many more white guys would be billionaires, right? I'm sure what they did was easier because they were white males, but it definitely feels like a cop-out to bring that up like it was a major factor and not just another in the myriad of advantages anyone has to have to reach such financial excellence. You might as well complain that "but they all have entrepreneurial dispositions and personalities!", like their success was unfair or diminished because they had certain inclinations. We're all born into different circumstances and we're born with different gifts; some make certain things harder and some make certain things easier. I don't see the point in whining about it all the time.
- rbranson 16y ago
  Oh please. How else can you explain that despite being 12% of the US population, only one out of the 403 US billionaires is black? That's more than a small advantage, it's practically a requirement. I'm not saying they didn't try hard or they weren't significantly gifted, but success comes much easier when the odds aren't totally stacked against you by the proud human tradition of racism. Your comparisons of race to personality traits are particularly curious. Being born white (and male) isn't a "gift" unless patriarchal white society enforces it. This isn't sports -- there is no significant correlation between genetic advantages and being rich.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    Being born white and male is, however, a circumstance. Shall we remember the mantra "correlation is not causation"? A high incidence of white male billionaires does not necessarily make white maleness "practically a requirement" for billionaireship. >This isn't sports -- there is no significant correlation between genetic advantages and being rich. I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to make this statement definitively, and that it's also untrue. Those with "genetic" predispositions that lend toward perseverance, independence of thought and action, etc., are much more likely to become rich than those who don't have or eventually acquire such traits.
usaar333 16y ago
1) At least two are middle eastern. 2) Several are Jewish 3) Both the above groups encountered more discrimination than the regular WASP. Obviously not to the level of being black though. 4) White males represented probably 40% of the population at this time. These individuals landed in the top 0.001% of their group; I think we can agree something far more significant occurred than just being a white male.
najirama 16y ago
The subtext of your comment was ambiguous until I stumbled upon this little gem on your website: http://rickbranson.com/ptw/ http://rickbranson.com/ptw/ Your unfunny, offensive, 'parody' page, full of 'n-bombs' and a picture that is nothing if not racist, tidily explains your summarily trollish and unintelligent comment.
greedo_first 16y ago
On the flip side, white guys individually are ALSO seen as the biggest threat to the existing white-guy corporate power structure. Being either non-white or non-male can be an advantage to a certain point, because the power structure doesn't see you as a threat to "go all the way". Thus it can be easier to rise to a high level, even if the glass ceiling is there just below the top. You can see the same behavior in other species. The direct threat to a dominant, territorial male is another male of the same type who is encroaching on his territory. They will tolerate or even befriend animals of other species. For every beachmaster elephant seal with a harem of 20 females, there are 19 other bachelor seals. The great thing about advancing technology is that our results will depend less and less on being "allowed" to do things by other people. And what are you comparing? Just dollar amounts? Better to be a middle-class college student now than a king in medieval Europe. Better to be YOUNG than a 93-year-old billionaire. You have more access to source code and opportunity now than the whitest of white people did even 20 years ago. It is very easy to have less worry and to sleep better than these billionaires. The dollar metric is very misleading. There are Buddhist monks who are far happier than these billionaires. How much more enjoyment can you really get from a billion than 100 million? 10 million? Doesn't it imply a very poor enjoyment function if it requires ENORMOUS resources to enjoy life? One funny thing about a lot of rock stars and movie stars is that they tend to be miserable. It looks glamorous, but that's an image they are selling. Really it's quite common for them to be complete emotional wrecks. "Successful" businessmen often live with enormous stress and ill health. If you are driven to keep on accumulating wealth endlessly, odds are you don't even have the psychological capacity to enjoy the fruits of it. There are various mushy real-life examples I could use, but perhaps this is more straightforward: People who play certain online games because they are addicted, and don't enjoy it anymore (EverCrack, WoW, FarmVille, etc.). White people have certainly never had a monopoly on psychological well-being (Eastern philosophies were already way ahead thousands of years ago) or physical health (the typical Western diet; hackers' physical condition?) Just some things to consider.

nhangen 16y ago

Would downvote if I could.

rbranson 16y ago
Care to explain? Clearly there is a correlation here. Do you believe it's just coincidence that there is one non-white person and one non-male in the entire group?
- sukuriant 16y ago
  Perhaps they thought you were insinuating that it's more difficult/impossible for people that aren't white and male to become millionaires. Given their age, however, perhaps it was more that, when they were growing up, it was easier to become great, as societal pressures, presumptions and restrictions were very different. I would hope that in another 70 years, the collection of previously less-privileged trillion/quadrillionaires (read: inflation) is more representative of society as a whole.
  - rbranson 16y ago
    I agree with you. Edited my comment above to reflect my full opinion.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
pepsi_can 16y ago
The average age of these men is 70+. They would have been starting their businesses or making important contacts before the Civil Rights Act of 1966, an era with limited opportunities for non-whites.
- nhangen 16y ago
  True, but why do we always, always, always have to turn everything into a race issue. I'm tired of "he's white" being the first thing anyone mentions. Forget about hard work or good ideas...it's all about being white right?
  - rbranson 16y ago
    It's only a race issue because it started out that way. Nobody is turning it into anything that it wasn't already. The whole "turning everything into a race issue" is a copout used by those who'd rather forget the past and justify their ignorance. People too quickly forget that it was only two generations ago that non-whites were mostly deprived of civil liberties. The massive disadvantages of minorities and their families will continue to ripple through US society for decades, possibly centuries to come. Despite having 403 billionaires, there is only one black billionaire in the US, even though blacks make up 12.4% of the population. Do you think this is a coincidence?
    - nhangen 16y ago
      This is hacker news, if I wanted discussions like that I'd go to CNN or the Huffington Post. Why can't we focus on the good that these men/women did instead of their race? Of all the white people in the world, very few are rags to riches billionaires...why can't we talk about that?
      - shard 16y ago
        You make it sound like it's not possible to talk about both the good they did and the effect race has on their success.

zzzeek 16y ago

agree, nobody starts with "nothing". Being raised in the woods by wolves is close, though.

defen 16y ago
Romulus: the entrepreneur's entrepreneur.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

cookiecaper 16y ago

Also note the progress of their dozens of millions of white-guy contemporaries. I think that being a white guy, even in the pre-civil-rights era, is probably not especially significant to the financial success of these people. If it were, I think many more white guys would be billionaires, right? I'm sure what they did was easier because they were white males, but it definitely feels like a cop-out to bring that up like it was a major factor and not just another in the myriad of advantages anyone has to have to reach such financial excellence. You might as well complain that "but they all have entrepreneurial dispositions and personalities!", like their success was unfair or diminished because they had certain inclinations. We're all born into different circumstances and we're born with different gifts; some make certain things harder and some make certain things easier. I don't see the point in whining about it all the time.

rbranson 16y ago
Oh please. How else can you explain that despite being 12% of the US population, only one out of the 403 US billionaires is black? That's more than a small advantage, it's practically a requirement. I'm not saying they didn't try hard or they weren't significantly gifted, but success comes much easier when the odds aren't totally stacked against you by the proud human tradition of racism. Your comparisons of race to personality traits are particularly curious. Being born white (and male) isn't a "gift" unless patriarchal white society enforces it. This isn't sports -- there is no significant correlation between genetic advantages and being rich.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  Being born white and male is, however, a circumstance. Shall we remember the mantra "correlation is not causation"? A high incidence of white male billionaires does not necessarily make white maleness "practically a requirement" for billionaireship. >This isn't sports -- there is no significant correlation between genetic advantages and being rich. I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to make this statement definitively, and that it's also untrue. Those with "genetic" predispositions that lend toward perseverance, independence of thought and action, etc., are much more likely to become rich than those who don't have or eventually acquire such traits.

usaar333 16y ago

1) At least two are middle eastern. 2) Several are Jewish 3) Both the above groups encountered more discrimination than the regular WASP. Obviously not to the level of being black though. 4) White males represented probably 40% of the population at this time. These individuals landed in the top 0.001% of their group; I think we can agree something far more significant occurred than just being a white male.

najirama 16y ago

The subtext of your comment was ambiguous until I stumbled upon this little gem on your website: http://rickbranson.com/ptw/ http://rickbranson.com/ptw/ Your unfunny, offensive, 'parody' page, full of 'n-bombs' and a picture that is nothing if not racist, tidily explains your summarily trollish and unintelligent comment.

greedo_first 16y ago

On the flip side, white guys individually are ALSO seen as the biggest threat to the existing white-guy corporate power structure. Being either non-white or non-male can be an advantage to a certain point, because the power structure doesn't see you as a threat to "go all the way". Thus it can be easier to rise to a high level, even if the glass ceiling is there just below the top. You can see the same behavior in other species. The direct threat to a dominant, territorial male is another male of the same type who is encroaching on his territory. They will tolerate or even befriend animals of other species. For every beachmaster elephant seal with a harem of 20 females, there are 19 other bachelor seals. The great thing about advancing technology is that our results will depend less and less on being "allowed" to do things by other people. And what are you comparing? Just dollar amounts? Better to be a middle-class college student now than a king in medieval Europe. Better to be YOUNG than a 93-year-old billionaire. You have more access to source code and opportunity now than the whitest of white people did even 20 years ago. It is very easy to have less worry and to sleep better than these billionaires. The dollar metric is very misleading. There are Buddhist monks who are far happier than these billionaires. How much more enjoyment can you really get from a billion than 100 million? 10 million? Doesn't it imply a very poor enjoyment function if it requires ENORMOUS resources to enjoy life? One funny thing about a lot of rock stars and movie stars is that they tend to be miserable. It looks glamorous, but that's an image they are selling. Really it's quite common for them to be complete emotional wrecks. "Successful" businessmen often live with enormous stress and ill health. If you are driven to keep on accumulating wealth endlessly, odds are you don't even have the psychological capacity to enjoy the fruits of it. There are various mushy real-life examples I could use, but perhaps this is more straightforward: People who play certain online games because they are addicted, and don't enjoy it anymore (EverCrack, WoW, FarmVille, etc.). White people have certainly never had a monopoly on psychological well-being (Eastern philosophies were already way ahead thousands of years ago) or physical health (the typical Western diet; hackers' physical condition?) Just some things to consider.