4 ms·
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
by 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 agoExcellent 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 agoAs 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.
- WalterBright 6y agoThe statistics are 85% of American millionaires are self-made. Statistics also show that Americans are increasingly unfit and overweight. These are choices, not predestinations.