3 ms·
As would I, but I think there's some pretty straight forward logic in favor of it. The richest of the rich tend to have a healthy number of children, both in th
by somenameforme 3y ago
As would I, but I think there's some pretty straight forward logic in favor of it. The richest of the rich tend to have a healthy number of children, both in the past and in the present. Bezos has 4, Musk has 11, Sam Walton had 4, Vanderbilt had 13, and so on. When people die they are going to be distributing their wealth not only to their children, but also their grand children, and perhaps even further along. And then this happens over and over again, each generation. If your children fail to have children, the fortune is gone. If your children don't grow the fortune, it's gone. If your children spend the fortune, it's gone.
Another issue is that I think we take living modestly for granted. Somebody born to the super-rich probably has a very different perspective on money and costs. It has to be quite the lesson to try to teach somebody the value of something when they have what likely seems like a practically unlimited amount of it, and but one life to live. So I think we can add another one to the above - if your values don't successfully transfer, it's gone.