6 ms·

That's not how most generational wealth was created. From mobsters that went "legit" (Bronfmans, Kennedys...) to people who build their fortunes off war profite

That's not how most generational wealth was created. From mobsters that went "legit" (Bronfmans, Kennedys...) to people who build their fortunes off war profiteering, slavery, genocide, child labor... They weren't grinding away for 40-100 years at some labor job. They exploited people, captured the gains, then used the power law to stay on the top.

czbond 4y ago
Sure - those are some very specific examples. But whatever town you're in, drive around the nice areas. Those $1M-$5M houses with BMW's or etc. Are they gangsters and warlords? No, they're just normal people who tried and took a different path. Some by luck, some by skill, some by experience. Just as one can't judge a person who's on the streets - one can't judge a wealthy person with such lenses.
- wootland 4y ago
  The vast majority of those people are middle/upper-middle class people in massive debt. The kind of upper-class Harvard grad that VCs like are most definitely of the old money variety.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    >The kind of upper-class Harvard grad that VCs like are most definitely of the old money variety. Do you have any evidence for this? [edit] Of course, you'll likely be able to find a single case and that's any evidence. So how about is there sufficient evidence to support your conclusion that "old money" is getting all the VC funding?
    - wootland 4y ago
      I don't think there's been research done on generational wealth of funded founders, but there's plenty that shows highly skewed investment patterns: https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/29/diversifying-startups-and-vc-power-corridors/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/29/diversifying-startups-and-...
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Similar to the other post, Every American who passes a house to their decendents has built some level of generational wealth. There are a lot more people in this bucket than the Kennedy wealth bucket
- wootland 4y ago
  We're talking about wealthy entrepreneurs that raise millions of dollars from VCs, not average homeowners. One house passed down to 4 kids, isn't going to get those kids invited to Marc Andreessen's bbqs.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    To the contrary, the parent post you respnded was talking about what options middle class families have to make it to the upper class. This is a seperate question than what option middle class familes have to get to an Andreesen BBQ. Maybe it is just a confusion over the definition of "multi generational wealth". Many if not most people consider getting a house, inheretence, or small business "multi generational wealth", especially in economic literature. You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper class in the US.
    - wootland 4y ago
      I think multi generational wealth would mean that people are a member of the capital class and not the labor class (i.e. they don't have to work for a living). Those are the people who go on to be serial entrepreneurs, because, why not? Nothing to lose other than effort. Anyone else is taking on risk of becoming destitute if they repeatedly try to start businesses. Even a small business can drain a million dollars very quickly. > You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper class in the US. I think you do since that's about the level where you don't have to work anymore, especially if you're talking about passing that money down to multiple children and keeping them in the upper class.
      - czbond 4y ago
icedchai 4y ago
How do you define generational wealth? 7 figures? 8? 9? There are many small to medium sized family businesses that were not built on criminal or immoral activities.
- wootland 4y ago
  I'd say 8,9 or 10. Generally people who would be considered LPs for VCs and have political and/or media influence. It is the children of these people that are highly over represented in the executive and funded entrepreneur ranks.
ameister14 4y ago
That doesn't describe most generational wealth. A family house is generational wealth. Most people who at age 65-75 are worth over $1 million dollars didn't get there by using the power of law to stay on top or profiteering from slavery or genocide. That's insane.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > didn't get there by using the power of law NIMBYism is the power of law. Mortgage interest deduction is the power of law. Without either, that million dollars of wealth, much of it in the home, would be a lot less.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    Even if I take that as true, it's still not "using the power of law" to follow the law. "Using the power of law" implies some degree of control over the law.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      People vote, and on some issues they vote as blocks.
    - wootland 4y ago
      I said "power law" not "power of law", meaning winner take all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
      - ameister14 4y ago
        That's not what the power law means, though. It's not a thing you 'use' to stay on top. It describes things, it doesn't influence things. Just because 20% earn 80% doesn't mean that you can use the Pareto distribution to keep in that 20%.
        4y ago

czbond 4y ago

Sure - those are some very specific examples. But whatever town you're in, drive around the nice areas. Those $1M-$5M houses with BMW's or etc. Are they gangsters and warlords? No, they're just normal people who tried and took a different path. Some by luck, some by skill, some by experience. Just as one can't judge a person who's on the streets - one can't judge a wealthy person with such lenses.

wootland 4y ago
The vast majority of those people are middle/upper-middle class people in massive debt. The kind of upper-class Harvard grad that VCs like are most definitely of the old money variety.
- ameister14 4y ago
  >The kind of upper-class Harvard grad that VCs like are most definitely of the old money variety. Do you have any evidence for this? [edit] Of course, you'll likely be able to find a single case and that's any evidence. So how about is there sufficient evidence to support your conclusion that "old money" is getting all the VC funding?
  - wootland 4y ago
    I don't think there's been research done on generational wealth of funded founders, but there's plenty that shows highly skewed investment patterns: https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/29/diversifying-startups-and-vc-power-corridors/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/29/diversifying-startups-and-...

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Similar to the other post, Every American who passes a house to their decendents has built some level of generational wealth. There are a lot more people in this bucket than the Kennedy wealth bucket

wootland 4y ago
We're talking about wealthy entrepreneurs that raise millions of dollars from VCs, not average homeowners. One house passed down to 4 kids, isn't going to get those kids invited to Marc Andreessen's bbqs.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  To the contrary, the parent post you respnded was talking about what options middle class families have to make it to the upper class. This is a seperate question than what option middle class familes have to get to an Andreesen BBQ. Maybe it is just a confusion over the definition of "multi generational wealth". Many if not most people consider getting a house, inheretence, or small business "multi generational wealth", especially in economic literature. You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper class in the US.
  - wootland 4y ago
    I think multi generational wealth would mean that people are a member of the capital class and not the labor class (i.e. they don't have to work for a living). Those are the people who go on to be serial entrepreneurs, because, why not? Nothing to lose other than effort. Anyone else is taking on risk of becoming destitute if they repeatedly try to start businesses. Even a small business can drain a million dollars very quickly. > You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper class in the US. I think you do since that's about the level where you don't have to work anymore, especially if you're talking about passing that money down to multiple children and keeping them in the upper class.
    - czbond 4y ago

icedchai 4y ago

How do you define generational wealth? 7 figures? 8? 9? There are many small to medium sized family businesses that were not built on criminal or immoral activities.

wootland 4y ago
I'd say 8,9 or 10. Generally people who would be considered LPs for VCs and have political and/or media influence. It is the children of these people that are highly over represented in the executive and funded entrepreneur ranks.

ameister14 4y ago

That doesn't describe most generational wealth. A family house is generational wealth. Most people who at age 65-75 are worth over $1 million dollars didn't get there by using the power of law to stay on top or profiteering from slavery or genocide. That's insane.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> didn't get there by using the power of law NIMBYism is the power of law. Mortgage interest deduction is the power of law. Without either, that million dollars of wealth, much of it in the home, would be a lot less.
- ameister14 4y ago
  Even if I take that as true, it's still not "using the power of law" to follow the law. "Using the power of law" implies some degree of control over the law.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    People vote, and on some issues they vote as blocks.
  - wootland 4y ago
    I said "power law" not "power of law", meaning winner take all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
    - ameister14 4y ago
      That's not what the power law means, though. It's not a thing you 'use' to stay on top. It describes things, it doesn't influence things. Just because 20% earn 80% doesn't mean that you can use the Pareto distribution to keep in that 20%.
      - 4y ago