2 ms·
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).
by 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 agoDisagree. You're not mentioning something just as important, and even more powerful than work. Compounding
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI don't think you are using a conventional definition of upper class, or that it is interchangeable with capital class. I also don't think these are the definitions for the Post you were responding to. That said, I agree eight figures is about the right number for when a family would not have to work assuming that the capital assets are managed appropriately. I think high value labor is the main path between lower class and middle class. High value labor plus smart investment of surplus capital gets families from middle class to high class. The path from high class to Capital class, as you call it is, primarily return on Capital management. To get from Capital class to Kennedy class requires a significant windfall or luck, as you would expect for tail end of a Pareto distribution.