5 ms·

Being able to work to increase your own wealth isn't really controversial. In fact most Americans over-estimate the amount of economic mobility that we have, wh

by sp332 5y ago

Being able to work to increase your own wealth isn't really controversial. In fact most Americans over-estimate the amount of economic mobility that we have, which is probably what the article is referring to. And rich families tend to have their wealth eroded in just 2-3 generations. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-do-70-of-families-lose-their-wealth-in-the-2nd-generation-2018-10 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...

b9a2cab5 5y ago
> In fact most Americans over-estimate the amount of economic mobility that we have Your link seems to say otherwise. If economic mobility were low then most rich families would not see their wealth meaningfully eroded for generations. This was the case in feudal Europe and many ancient empires like Rome. The fact that most families lose wealth in 3 generations due to mismanagement implies someone else is gaining that lost wealth - ergo economic mobility should be high. Personally I feel the economic mobility afforded by high paying jobs and widespread capital in the US is unmatched. I started making more money than my parents by my junior year in college and genuinely feel like I have a non-zero chance at hitting 25 million USD net worth during my life. I have friends who have gotten millions of dollars in startup funding and have 10+ paid employees. You can't say the same if you live in Europe.
- sp332 5y ago
  Here's one source for the over-estimation thing https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/11/13/americans_overestimate_social_class_mobility_and_the_effect_is_more_pronounced_among_conservatives_109450.html https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/11/13/ame...
- amcoastal 5y ago
  You think the people gaining the wealth that some rich families are losing are people that need high economic mobility and not just other rich people?
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    How does the fact that 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth within 3 generations gel with wealth being lost to other rich people? That doesn't logically make sense. If that was the case then there would slowly be ever fewer rich people who become ever richer. But if you look at the richest people in the world that isn't the case.
    - amcoastal 5y ago
      Because the rich that arent losing their wealth are getting richer at ridiculous rates? And where is that money coming from?
      - b9a2cab5 5y ago
        If what you're saying is true we'd see the number of rich decrease exponentially. That is objectively not the case. > Where is that money coming from? Not sure what you mean by this?
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > where is that money coming from? They're creating it. Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
      - TheGigaChad 5y ago
      - sp332 5y ago
        If you own several similar assets, and sell one for a large profit, it brings up the value of the others on paper. Stock shares for example.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    I think they're losing to the middle class, yes. Folks like Bezos and Zuckerberg didn't start rich.
    - 5y ago
synthos 5y ago
Until dynasties with extremely large Southh Dakota in-perputuity Trusts make it almost impossible for wealth to erode in 2-3 generations or even longer. There's a good reason why trusts were restricted to ~100 years but now the world has lost that legal fight. In 100, 150 years, just how much power will the trust holders of these perpetual trusts have over the rest of society?
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The age of dynasties is over; the 1990s tech billionaires will achieve immortality and in 150 years, the very same people will own everything.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Impossible is a bit of a joke there considering the instability this country has has had on those timescales. 3 generations ago South Dakota being a state was a novelty.
throwaway55421 5y ago
The statements are not symmetrical, though. Let's use the less emotionally charged example of the gym rat. An individual who sets out with the goal and drive to become substantially physically stronger can be successful with high probability. But not everyone will do that. Most will give up or just not even bother in the first place. Lots of people don't even care, despite it being almost strictly superior. It would be logically incorrect to use that fact in order to argue that muscle mass is likely to be unchangeable. It is changeable, it's just not the path of least resistance. edit: or, to put it succinctly - prevalence is not probability

by sp332 5y ago

b9a2cab5 5y ago

> In fact most Americans over-estimate the amount of economic mobility that we have Your link seems to say otherwise. If economic mobility were low then most rich families would not see their wealth meaningfully eroded for generations. This was the case in feudal Europe and many ancient empires like Rome. The fact that most families lose wealth in 3 generations due to mismanagement implies someone else is gaining that lost wealth - ergo economic mobility should be high. Personally I feel the economic mobility afforded by high paying jobs and widespread capital in the US is unmatched. I started making more money than my parents by my junior year in college and genuinely feel like I have a non-zero chance at hitting 25 million USD net worth during my life. I have friends who have gotten millions of dollars in startup funding and have 10+ paid employees. You can't say the same if you live in Europe.

sp332 5y ago
Here's one source for the over-estimation thing https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/11/13/americans_overestimate_social_class_mobility_and_the_effect_is_more_pronounced_among_conservatives_109450.html https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/11/13/ame...
amcoastal 5y ago
You think the people gaining the wealth that some rich families are losing are people that need high economic mobility and not just other rich people?
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  How does the fact that 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth within 3 generations gel with wealth being lost to other rich people? That doesn't logically make sense. If that was the case then there would slowly be ever fewer rich people who become ever richer. But if you look at the richest people in the world that isn't the case.
  - amcoastal 5y ago
    Because the rich that arent losing their wealth are getting richer at ridiculous rates? And where is that money coming from?
    - b9a2cab5 5y ago
      If what you're saying is true we'd see the number of rich decrease exponentially. That is objectively not the case. > Where is that money coming from? Not sure what you mean by this?
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > where is that money coming from? They're creating it. Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
    - TheGigaChad 5y ago
    - sp332 5y ago
      If you own several similar assets, and sell one for a large profit, it brings up the value of the others on paper. Stock shares for example.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  I think they're losing to the middle class, yes. Folks like Bezos and Zuckerberg didn't start rich.
  - 5y ago

synthos 5y ago

Until dynasties with extremely large Southh Dakota in-perputuity Trusts make it almost impossible for wealth to erode in 2-3 generations or even longer. There's a good reason why trusts were restricted to ~100 years but now the world has lost that legal fight. In 100, 150 years, just how much power will the trust holders of these perpetual trusts have over the rest of society?

DarylZero 5y ago
The age of dynasties is over; the 1990s tech billionaires will achieve immortality and in 150 years, the very same people will own everything.
kortilla 5y ago
Impossible is a bit of a joke there considering the instability this country has has had on those timescales. 3 generations ago South Dakota being a state was a novelty.

throwaway55421 5y ago

The statements are not symmetrical, though. Let's use the less emotionally charged example of the gym rat. An individual who sets out with the goal and drive to become substantially physically stronger can be successful with high probability. But not everyone will do that. Most will give up or just not even bother in the first place. Lots of people don't even care, despite it being almost strictly superior. It would be logically incorrect to use that fact in order to argue that muscle mass is likely to be unchangeable. It is changeable, it's just not the path of least resistance. edit: or, to put it succinctly - prevalence is not probability