8 ms·

Majority of the world's richest people are self-made, says new report

32 points by hirundo 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago
People wail on Zuckerberg, Gates and Bezos but you have to respect them more than people who inherit and tonne of money and just sit on it or watch it grow on its own...
- rvz 6y ago
  Which is by their own merit, their empires were built from scratch, which I do respect. I find it less respectable if this wealth was immediately inherited and yet they contribute nothing. Wealth that is 'won' or 'inherited' seems to get spent quicker than if it was 'earned'. Question is, however, is for the former: are they smart enough to make it recurring income.
  - lowtolerance 6y ago
    Microsoft’s first product ever was a port. MS-DOS was literally just someone else’s product, rebranded. Bill Gates’ wealth was built on the backs of many, many people, many of whom he just flat-out screwed over. Microsoft was anti-competitive almost from the very start, that’s why Gates is wealthy, not because he built himself up from nothing.
    - ahazred8ta 6y ago
      MS made its money selling Bill's 4K/8K BASIC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_BASIC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_BASIC for six years before he bought QDOS/MSDOS
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  Gates is not a self-made man. His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother was on the board of directors at a bank. He was already basically guaranteed to be successful, even without forming Microsoft.
  - jbverschoor 6y ago
    Wasn’t she on the board of IBM?
    - csixty4 6y ago
      She served on an executive committee at the United Way with John Opel, the CEO of IBM at the time the PC was being born.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    My point is more that if your parents have a few million, and you become the world's richest man, that's a lot more than if your parents are billionares and you become a billionaire...
  - icedchai 6y ago
    He built one of the world's largest and most successful companies from the ground floor. That is orders of magnitude greater than just "being successful."
perfmode 6y ago
> The market research firm analyzed the state of the world’s ultra-wealthy population — or those with a net worth of $30 million or more. The report, which is based on 2018 data, “showed muted growth” in the number of ultra-wealthy people that year, “rising by 0.8% to 265,490 individuals,” says Wealth-X. > Of those folks, 67.7% were self-made of the ~1600 people who crossed a threshold of $30M, 67% are self made. this is 1000 people. does anyone else feel this is a statement intended to shape public perception? does anyone feel that a reader might be misled into coming to a different conclusion than what the data actually indicates?
- valuearb 6y ago
  Since there are political groups who promote the opposing ideas that the actual ratio of self made wealth is nearly 100%, or close to 0%, it’s good to have actual data for the discussion.
  - perfmode 6y ago
    I agree with you except I'd point out the promoted percentage is 67%.
- claudiulodro 6y ago
  I agree. Good data about the nuances around this seems tricky to find. In addition to reading The Millionaire Next Door a long time ago, I just did a little further research and found: > A 2017 survey from Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of millionaires are self-made.[1] I'm not sure if there's anything super motivational about knowing that most millionaires are professionals near retirement age, though. :) [1] https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/articles/7-myths-about-millionaires https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/articles/...
- knightofmars 6y ago
  Wealth-X is the company that did the initial research. I would say, yes that they are indeed attempting to shape public perception. "Wealth-X partners with prestige brands across the financial services, luxury, not-for-profit and higher-education industries to fuel strategic decision-making in sales, marketing and compliance."
Chinjut 6y ago
There's no way they're self-made. They may not have inherited it all, but you get rich, truly rich rich, only by having a bunch of other people do work for which you are paid.
BrendanD 6y ago
"Self-made" is an hyperbolic oxymoron propagated by blind worship of the false god named "Exceptionalism". Everyone stands on the shoulders of humanity's past, for better or worse.
heimatau 6y ago
Btw, this 'report' isn't new. It's almost a year old based on 2 years old data. The pandemic has changed some things.
droidno9 6y ago
Arnold would disagree: https://youtu.be/RJsvR_gSEjg?t=270 https://youtu.be/RJsvR_gSEjg?t=270
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
What defines a "self-made" man? IMO, you don't have to directly inherit a large sum of cash or assets to disqualify you from being considered self-made. People consider Bill Gates to be self-made because he founded Microsoft, but his father was a prominent lawyer and his mother was on the board of directors for a bank and the United Way. His parents were already millionaires with connections. Bill was already very likely to be successful.
- MR4D 6y ago
  You make a good point. Doing a quick bit of estimating, if his parents were worth $10MM USD, and he reached $100billion in net worth, then he increased their wealth 10,000 times. Note that it is not yet inherited, as he achieved that wealth while both parents were alive. I'd surmise that anyone that increases their wealth 10,000 times more than their parents is self made. If Bill's parents only had $100, and he reached a million (10,000 times higher), then he'd still be "self-made". To me at least, anyone who increases that much is impressive, regardless of what they started with - it's the multiple that is key. So I guess the question is what is the probability of the child of a multimillionaire increasing their wealth by 10,000 times?
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    Simplifying it down to "multiplying wealth by 10,000x" is naive. It's a lot easier to turn $10M into $100B than it is to turn $100 into $1M. With $10M, you already have the basics handled. You can have a house and car that are paid off and enough cash stashed away to handle living expenses for the rest of your life and still have $7M+ to piss away. If you're smart and never dip into the funds reserved for lifetime living expenses, it's impossible to fail. With only $100, you're struggling to put food on the table. Possibly even working two jobs with no time to work on building a business. And here, I haven't even touched on the concept of "connections". Someone with an 8-figure bank account likely knows who to talk to when it comes to getting a product in front of the right people. If Bill's parents had only $100 and turned it into $1M, then definitely, he'd be self-made. But since he started with likely an 8-figure backing, he's definitely not.
strikelaserclaw 6y ago
I think most people's problem is that an initial winner is more likely to win next time in the system. these self made men certainly had some attributes which made them "win", it wasn't all luck, but as the game goes on, the playing field becomes more and more unfair. Not to mention how a certain segment of wealthy people influence politics and media to completely further their advantage. I think at the root of the issue is the idea of "meritocracy" and "fairness." Sam Walton was a great man, but are his children? Yet, they still control a vast amount of wealth and influence regularly ranking in the top 20 richest people in the World.
FatDrunknStupid 6y ago
And so are their friends.
adventist 6y ago
This is great to hear!

32 points by hirundo 6y ago

People wail on Zuckerberg, Gates and Bezos but you have to respect them more than people who inherit and tonne of money and just sit on it or watch it grow on its own...

rvz 6y ago
Which is by their own merit, their empires were built from scratch, which I do respect. I find it less respectable if this wealth was immediately inherited and yet they contribute nothing. Wealth that is 'won' or 'inherited' seems to get spent quicker than if it was 'earned'. Question is, however, is for the former: are they smart enough to make it recurring income.
- lowtolerance 6y ago
  Microsoft’s first product ever was a port. MS-DOS was literally just someone else’s product, rebranded. Bill Gates’ wealth was built on the backs of many, many people, many of whom he just flat-out screwed over. Microsoft was anti-competitive almost from the very start, that’s why Gates is wealthy, not because he built himself up from nothing.
  - ahazred8ta 6y ago
    MS made its money selling Bill's 4K/8K BASIC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_BASIC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_BASIC for six years before he bought QDOS/MSDOS
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
Gates is not a self-made man. His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother was on the board of directors at a bank. He was already basically guaranteed to be successful, even without forming Microsoft.
- jbverschoor 6y ago
  Wasn’t she on the board of IBM?
  - csixty4 6y ago
    She served on an executive committee at the United Way with John Opel, the CEO of IBM at the time the PC was being born.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  My point is more that if your parents have a few million, and you become the world's richest man, that's a lot more than if your parents are billionares and you become a billionaire...
- icedchai 6y ago
  He built one of the world's largest and most successful companies from the ground floor. That is orders of magnitude greater than just "being successful."

perfmode 6y ago

> The market research firm analyzed the state of the world’s ultra-wealthy population — or those with a net worth of $30 million or more. The report, which is based on 2018 data, “showed muted growth” in the number of ultra-wealthy people that year, “rising by 0.8% to 265,490 individuals,” says Wealth-X. > Of those folks, 67.7% were self-made of the ~1600 people who crossed a threshold of $30M, 67% are self made. this is 1000 people. does anyone else feel this is a statement intended to shape public perception? does anyone feel that a reader might be misled into coming to a different conclusion than what the data actually indicates?

valuearb 6y ago
Since there are political groups who promote the opposing ideas that the actual ratio of self made wealth is nearly 100%, or close to 0%, it’s good to have actual data for the discussion.
- perfmode 6y ago
  I agree with you except I'd point out the promoted percentage is 67%.
claudiulodro 6y ago
I agree. Good data about the nuances around this seems tricky to find. In addition to reading The Millionaire Next Door a long time ago, I just did a little further research and found: > A 2017 survey from Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of millionaires are self-made.[1] I'm not sure if there's anything super motivational about knowing that most millionaires are professionals near retirement age, though. :) [1] https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/articles/7-myths-about-millionaires https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/articles/...
knightofmars 6y ago
Wealth-X is the company that did the initial research. I would say, yes that they are indeed attempting to shape public perception. "Wealth-X partners with prestige brands across the financial services, luxury, not-for-profit and higher-education industries to fuel strategic decision-making in sales, marketing and compliance."

Chinjut 6y ago

There's no way they're self-made. They may not have inherited it all, but you get rich, truly rich rich, only by having a bunch of other people do work for which you are paid.

BrendanD 6y ago

"Self-made" is an hyperbolic oxymoron propagated by blind worship of the false god named "Exceptionalism". Everyone stands on the shoulders of humanity's past, for better or worse.

heimatau 6y ago

Btw, this 'report' isn't new. It's almost a year old based on 2 years old data. The pandemic has changed some things.

droidno9 6y ago

Arnold would disagree: https://youtu.be/RJsvR_gSEjg?t=270 https://youtu.be/RJsvR_gSEjg?t=270

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

What defines a "self-made" man? IMO, you don't have to directly inherit a large sum of cash or assets to disqualify you from being considered self-made. People consider Bill Gates to be self-made because he founded Microsoft, but his father was a prominent lawyer and his mother was on the board of directors for a bank and the United Way. His parents were already millionaires with connections. Bill was already very likely to be successful.

MR4D 6y ago
You make a good point. Doing a quick bit of estimating, if his parents were worth $10MM USD, and he reached $100billion in net worth, then he increased their wealth 10,000 times. Note that it is not yet inherited, as he achieved that wealth while both parents were alive. I'd surmise that anyone that increases their wealth 10,000 times more than their parents is self made. If Bill's parents only had $100, and he reached a million (10,000 times higher), then he'd still be "self-made". To me at least, anyone who increases that much is impressive, regardless of what they started with - it's the multiple that is key. So I guess the question is what is the probability of the child of a multimillionaire increasing their wealth by 10,000 times?
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  Simplifying it down to "multiplying wealth by 10,000x" is naive. It's a lot easier to turn $10M into $100B than it is to turn $100 into $1M. With $10M, you already have the basics handled. You can have a house and car that are paid off and enough cash stashed away to handle living expenses for the rest of your life and still have $7M+ to piss away. If you're smart and never dip into the funds reserved for lifetime living expenses, it's impossible to fail. With only $100, you're struggling to put food on the table. Possibly even working two jobs with no time to work on building a business. And here, I haven't even touched on the concept of "connections". Someone with an 8-figure bank account likely knows who to talk to when it comes to getting a product in front of the right people. If Bill's parents had only $100 and turned it into $1M, then definitely, he'd be self-made. But since he started with likely an 8-figure backing, he's definitely not.

strikelaserclaw 6y ago

I think most people's problem is that an initial winner is more likely to win next time in the system. these self made men certainly had some attributes which made them "win", it wasn't all luck, but as the game goes on, the playing field becomes more and more unfair. Not to mention how a certain segment of wealthy people influence politics and media to completely further their advantage. I think at the root of the issue is the idea of "meritocracy" and "fairness." Sam Walton was a great man, but are his children? Yet, they still control a vast amount of wealth and influence regularly ranking in the top 20 richest people in the World.

FatDrunknStupid 6y ago

And so are their friends.

adventist 6y ago

This is great to hear!