6 ms·

Wealth is the correct metric to look at, because wealth generates the most unequal amounts of income, from unequal amounts of work, and even if not spent, is re

Wealth is the correct metric to look at, because wealth generates the most unequal amounts of income, from unequal amounts of work, and even if not spent, is responsible for inequality perpetuating itself over multiple generations.

WalterBright 6y ago
85% of American millionaires are self-made (didn't inherit it). See the book "The Millionaire Next Door".
- joppy 6y ago
  “Self-made”: if you come from a well-off (not necessarily “wealthy” family), you’re more likely to attend university, get a well-paying job, etc. If you come from a worse-off family you’re less likely to do those things. Upbringing and socioeconomic class are still a huge factor in how wealthy one ends up (even excluding inheritance entirely), showing that in the vast majority of cases people tend not to be self-made, but products of their environment.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Before you judge the book, why not pick it up? You can get it for $5.48 from Amazon. You can get it for $0.00 at the local public library around here. The book basically lays out common strategies ordinary people employ to become millionaires. It's well worth your time.
    - joppy 6y ago
      I apologise for not having read the book, but that wasn’t the gist of my comment: my point was that wealth or income levels tend to run in families anyway just because of socioeconomic class and similar environmental factors. The book you mention would not help many people in the lower-class neighbourhoods around mine because people there don’t tend to read books on personal finance (perhaps because that is not valued in their social circles, which in turn are products of their environment). The distinction between wealth and income in the book is not so helpful for comparing inequality I think. You can be well-off by having access to enough money: whether this is by having a lot in the bank and a small income, or a little in the bank and a large income, you are still far better of than having neither. I contest the term “self-made” since in particular, socioeconomic status is transmitted from parents to children (there are many studies of this). Sure, there are exceptional self-made individuals. But in a world where the income bracket of a child can be fairly reliably predicted from their parents, is calling a large group of people “self-made” meaningful?
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        > would not help many people in the lower-class neighbourhoods Pretty much nobody I've recommended the book to, and I recommend it a lot, ever reads it. The only one who has is following its recommendations and is well on his way to being a millionaire as a young man. > I contest the term That's pretty much denying that people have free will. For example, the public schools teach people to read. I recommend the book. The book is available for free. They don't read it. That's their choice, not fate. BTW, I'm old. I've noticed a common correlation between peoples' attitudes and their wealth over the years. The ones who believe they are hapless victims of fate, never manage to get anywhere. The ones who see themselves as having choices are very likely to accumulate wealth. You are who you choose to be.
        inter_netuser 6y ago
        Excellent logic. What next, paraplegics can become NBA champions, they are just not willing it hard enough? Motivation is a pre-requisite, but far from the only one. I don't know anyone who accumulated significant wealth who was: 1) dumb 2) had significant health issues.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > NBA champions Being a sports champion means you must be better than anyone else. The rules are deliberately set up so only one can succeed. This is quite unlike free markets. You don't even have to be better than average to do quite well in the free market. > dumb Donald Trump? :-) > significant health issues People who's health is so bad they can't work have my sincere sympathies. But this is a pretty small percentage of the population. The overwhelming majority are of sound mind and body.
        pharmakom 6y ago
        As individuals I think we should all strive to succeed, and employ any clever strategies we can find. However, the statistics around this suggest that it isn’t viable for everyone to do this.
  - lostmsu 6y ago
    Just curious. Was wealth proven to be the root cause there? How about genetics?
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  You can flip that for Europe where the wealth is almost always inherited.
- pharmakom 6y ago
  Becoming a millionaire is easy with right start in life: - slightly above average intelligence - stable home - fancy degree - modicum of work ethic - first world passport But these things put you into the wealthiest 10% of the world as a starting point.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    The book is about opportunity in America, and how ordinary middle class people can and do become wealthy.
- IndySun 6y ago
  The USA has a route to being wealthy, but with 2 caveats - for those in the know, and at the expense of others. This wider world, into which every person and thus potential millionaire is born, is, alas, not a level playing field. This is why global inequality must be addressed. It will result in more innovation, less violence, more choice, less corruption. But even more generally - the situation is a lot more complicated.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > for those in the know, The book I mentioned will put you in the know. > and at the expense of others Only if you believe the economy is zero-sum. But that wouldn't explain the overall rising wealth that's been going on in the US for over two centuries.
    - IndySun 6y ago
      None of that is false. You just forgot to mention the overall rising inequality in the USA (over a shorter, more relevant, time period, ie not two centuries) whilst other, some might say more forward thinking countries, are levelling out. Let's hear the whole story.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        I'm not concerned if other people have more dollars than I do. They are not accumulating wealth at my expense - they are creating wealth. As a byproduct of the wealth they produce, I have nice things like computers and the internet and can work at home and watch an incredible smorgasbord of stuff on TV and push a button and whatever I want gets dropped on my doorstep the next day. I can take MIT courses for free on youtube. Oh, and I get to talk with people all over the world on HN, for free. Most of the boom is coming from the tech sector, as tech is revolutionizing productivity in all sorts of endeavors. They didn't steal the money from you or I. I can even buy shares in those tech companies for $0 commission and get a cut of the wealth they create. We're living in a golden age in the US. Even poor people have a computer in their pocket with instant access to the world's information. How cool is that?
- djrobstep 6y ago
  Misleading and flat out wrong, as this link shows: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/inheritance-wealthy-one-percent https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/inheritance-wealthy-one-perce... What motivates you to defend and apologize for inequality anyway?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Your link doesn't show that. > inequality Every society that attempted to make everyone equally wealthy succeeded only in making everyone miserable.
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      You didn't read it, did you? > Every society that attempted to make everyone equally wealthy succeeded only in making everyone miserable. Wrong. For instance, people in Norway are doing fine.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        > You didn't read it, did you? I did, and you are welcome to cite the actual statistic you are relying on from it. > people in Norway are doing fine Pumping 20% of their GDP out of the ground. Besides, they didn't try to make everyone equally wealthy.
        djrobstep 6y ago
        You didn't, otherwise you wouldn't still be saying that inherited wealth isn't a problem. Norway is equal because of high redistribution, actually. It's sad that you're so politically motivated to do apologetics for the rich that you'll refuse to learn some basic facts about a country that does it better than yours.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > You didn't, otherwise you wouldn't still be saying that inherited wealth isn't a problem. You're moving the goalposts.

WalterBright 6y ago

85% of American millionaires are self-made (didn't inherit it). See the book "The Millionaire Next Door".

joppy 6y ago
“Self-made”: if you come from a well-off (not necessarily “wealthy” family), you’re more likely to attend university, get a well-paying job, etc. If you come from a worse-off family you’re less likely to do those things. Upbringing and socioeconomic class are still a huge factor in how wealthy one ends up (even excluding inheritance entirely), showing that in the vast majority of cases people tend not to be self-made, but products of their environment.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Before you judge the book, why not pick it up? You can get it for $5.48 from Amazon. You can get it for $0.00 at the local public library around here. The book basically lays out common strategies ordinary people employ to become millionaires. It's well worth your time.
  - joppy 6y ago
    I apologise for not having read the book, but that wasn’t the gist of my comment: my point was that wealth or income levels tend to run in families anyway just because of socioeconomic class and similar environmental factors. The book you mention would not help many people in the lower-class neighbourhoods around mine because people there don’t tend to read books on personal finance (perhaps because that is not valued in their social circles, which in turn are products of their environment). The distinction between wealth and income in the book is not so helpful for comparing inequality I think. You can be well-off by having access to enough money: whether this is by having a lot in the bank and a small income, or a little in the bank and a large income, you are still far better of than having neither. I contest the term “self-made” since in particular, socioeconomic status is transmitted from parents to children (there are many studies of this). Sure, there are exceptional self-made individuals. But in a world where the income bracket of a child can be fairly reliably predicted from their parents, is calling a large group of people “self-made” meaningful?
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > would not help many people in the lower-class neighbourhoods Pretty much nobody I've recommended the book to, and I recommend it a lot, ever reads it. The only one who has is following its recommendations and is well on his way to being a millionaire as a young man. > I contest the term That's pretty much denying that people have free will. For example, the public schools teach people to read. I recommend the book. The book is available for free. They don't read it. That's their choice, not fate. BTW, I'm old. I've noticed a common correlation between peoples' attitudes and their wealth over the years. The ones who believe they are hapless victims of fate, never manage to get anywhere. The ones who see themselves as having choices are very likely to accumulate wealth. You are who you choose to be.
      - inter_netuser 6y ago
        Excellent logic. What next, paraplegics can become NBA champions, they are just not willing it hard enough? Motivation is a pre-requisite, but far from the only one. I don't know anyone who accumulated significant wealth who was: 1) dumb 2) had significant health issues.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > NBA champions Being a sports champion means you must be better than anyone else. The rules are deliberately set up so only one can succeed. This is quite unlike free markets. You don't even have to be better than average to do quite well in the free market. > dumb Donald Trump? :-) > significant health issues People who's health is so bad they can't work have my sincere sympathies. But this is a pretty small percentage of the population. The overwhelming majority are of sound mind and body.
      - pharmakom 6y ago
        As individuals I think we should all strive to succeed, and employ any clever strategies we can find. However, the statistics around this suggest that it isn’t viable for everyone to do this.
- lostmsu 6y ago
  Just curious. Was wealth proven to be the root cause there? How about genetics?
ChuckNorris89 6y ago
You can flip that for Europe where the wealth is almost always inherited.
pharmakom 6y ago
Becoming a millionaire is easy with right start in life: - slightly above average intelligence - stable home - fancy degree - modicum of work ethic - first world passport But these things put you into the wealthiest 10% of the world as a starting point.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  The book is about opportunity in America, and how ordinary middle class people can and do become wealthy.
IndySun 6y ago
The USA has a route to being wealthy, but with 2 caveats - for those in the know, and at the expense of others. This wider world, into which every person and thus potential millionaire is born, is, alas, not a level playing field. This is why global inequality must be addressed. It will result in more innovation, less violence, more choice, less corruption. But even more generally - the situation is a lot more complicated.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > for those in the know, The book I mentioned will put you in the know. > and at the expense of others Only if you believe the economy is zero-sum. But that wouldn't explain the overall rising wealth that's been going on in the US for over two centuries.
  - IndySun 6y ago
    None of that is false. You just forgot to mention the overall rising inequality in the USA (over a shorter, more relevant, time period, ie not two centuries) whilst other, some might say more forward thinking countries, are levelling out. Let's hear the whole story.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      I'm not concerned if other people have more dollars than I do. They are not accumulating wealth at my expense - they are creating wealth. As a byproduct of the wealth they produce, I have nice things like computers and the internet and can work at home and watch an incredible smorgasbord of stuff on TV and push a button and whatever I want gets dropped on my doorstep the next day. I can take MIT courses for free on youtube. Oh, and I get to talk with people all over the world on HN, for free. Most of the boom is coming from the tech sector, as tech is revolutionizing productivity in all sorts of endeavors. They didn't steal the money from you or I. I can even buy shares in those tech companies for $0 commission and get a cut of the wealth they create. We're living in a golden age in the US. Even poor people have a computer in their pocket with instant access to the world's information. How cool is that?
djrobstep 6y ago
Misleading and flat out wrong, as this link shows: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/inheritance-wealthy-one-percent https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/inheritance-wealthy-one-perce... What motivates you to defend and apologize for inequality anyway?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Your link doesn't show that. > inequality Every society that attempted to make everyone equally wealthy succeeded only in making everyone miserable.
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    You didn't read it, did you? > Every society that attempted to make everyone equally wealthy succeeded only in making everyone miserable. Wrong. For instance, people in Norway are doing fine.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > You didn't read it, did you? I did, and you are welcome to cite the actual statistic you are relying on from it. > people in Norway are doing fine Pumping 20% of their GDP out of the ground. Besides, they didn't try to make everyone equally wealthy.
      - djrobstep 6y ago
        You didn't, otherwise you wouldn't still be saying that inherited wealth isn't a problem. Norway is equal because of high redistribution, actually. It's sad that you're so politically motivated to do apologetics for the rich that you'll refuse to learn some basic facts about a country that does it better than yours.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > You didn't, otherwise you wouldn't still be saying that inherited wealth isn't a problem. You're moving the goalposts.