6 ms·

> 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 r

> 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.
  - elvatoloco123 5y ago
    Yes they did. Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg were all rich
    - vpilcx 5y ago
      In another discussion, someone tried to make the argument that Buffet was a real-life rags to riches story. Like, my guy, his father worked as a stock broker, and he used to hang out at his dad's office when he was a kid, and his dad eventually became a Congressman. I don't know why people think that's "rags to riches". I might be misinterpreting the facts but Gates got the deal to sell DOS to IBM because his Mom knew someone or was on the board. Bezos went from a successful career in finance to start Amazon. Zuckerberg started Facebook at -Harvard- and partly, the success of Facebook was predicated on Harvard's social prestige. I just don't understand where people come up with these weird bootstrap narratives from.
      - throwaway55421 5y ago
        They're not saying that he was poor. They're saying that he didn't start a billionaire. He multiplied his wealth by a factor of a thousand or more.
        marcosdumay 5y ago
        Some did. Most started as multimillionaire. The ways one can use to multiply millions by a thousand aren't open to people that only owns thousands. And you really don't want to multiply your possessions by a thousand if they are negative.
        angrais 5y ago
        Yes, but the point is that they started with wealth. Multiplying 1 mil to 1 billion is more reasonable possible than 1k to 1 mil. Simply because if you've such wealth already you're most likely in a position to take risks, etc.

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.
- elvatoloco123 5y ago
  Yes they did. Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg were all rich
  - vpilcx 5y ago
    In another discussion, someone tried to make the argument that Buffet was a real-life rags to riches story. Like, my guy, his father worked as a stock broker, and he used to hang out at his dad's office when he was a kid, and his dad eventually became a Congressman. I don't know why people think that's "rags to riches". I might be misinterpreting the facts but Gates got the deal to sell DOS to IBM because his Mom knew someone or was on the board. Bezos went from a successful career in finance to start Amazon. Zuckerberg started Facebook at -Harvard- and partly, the success of Facebook was predicated on Harvard's social prestige. I just don't understand where people come up with these weird bootstrap narratives from.
    - throwaway55421 5y ago
      They're not saying that he was poor. They're saying that he didn't start a billionaire. He multiplied his wealth by a factor of a thousand or more.
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
        Some did. Most started as multimillionaire. The ways one can use to multiply millions by a thousand aren't open to people that only owns thousands. And you really don't want to multiply your possessions by a thousand if they are negative.
      - angrais 5y ago
        Yes, but the point is that they started with wealth. Multiplying 1 mil to 1 billion is more reasonable possible than 1k to 1 mil. Simply because if you've such wealth already you're most likely in a position to take risks, etc.