4 ms·

I'm not an expert here but my understanding is that most generational wealth is gone by the third generation anyway. Even if you outlawed inheritance entirely i

I'm not an expert here but my understanding is that most generational wealth is gone by the third generation anyway. Even if you outlawed inheritance entirely it seems like it wouldn't make a huge marginal difference?

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
I don't think there's been 3 generations to test this across, since the post-war boom. Sure there's data from before, but society hasn't been "at scale" for very long. It sure seems like the recently emerged mega-economies have a few star powers, ever consolidating their hold. Squeezing out other wealthy families isn't helping the total distribution, if that is the case. Companies keep getting bigger and bigger & the ultra rich get ultra-richer. Families could keep falling like flies, but wealth could still be ever more owned by ultra-wealthy.
vlovich123 3y ago
Historically true but definitely not once rich people figured it out. They created all sorts of financial and societal instruments to solidify this (various trusts and non profits as examples). There are many many families that are much older than 3 generations at this point.
gumby 3y ago
Today's rich families in Florence, Italy, were rich 700 years ago: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-floren... Inheritance in a republic is disgraceful.
alexawarrior23 3y ago
Three generations of wealth is a common belief, but the research doesn't bare it out. Try 28 generations. https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been-running-the-show-for-800-years https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been...
jackcosgrove 3y ago
That is a truism that applies mainly to the US, if it applies anywhere. The US differs from a lot of places in, say, Europe in that partible inheritance is almost universally practiced. That is, inheritances are divided equally between children. This accelerates the drawdown of the fortune. In Europe I have heard it is more common, although perhaps not a norm, to practice a meritocratic form of primogeniture. One child, who is not necessarily the eldest son but who is seen as the best steward, is chosen to receive most of the fortune, and is trained how to maintain it. Other children may receive much smaller amounts. The fortune is much more likely to persist if not divided, preventing the liquidation of large holdings and more importantly managing expectations among the gaggle of heirs about how much they'll get.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
Maybe the median family does, but where do you think the money they lose ends up? In the hands of the families who don't squander their wealth, further concentrating it into generational wealth.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

I don't think there's been 3 generations to test this across, since the post-war boom. Sure there's data from before, but society hasn't been "at scale" for very long. It sure seems like the recently emerged mega-economies have a few star powers, ever consolidating their hold. Squeezing out other wealthy families isn't helping the total distribution, if that is the case. Companies keep getting bigger and bigger & the ultra rich get ultra-richer. Families could keep falling like flies, but wealth could still be ever more owned by ultra-wealthy.

vlovich123 3y ago

Historically true but definitely not once rich people figured it out. They created all sorts of financial and societal instruments to solidify this (various trusts and non profits as examples). There are many many families that are much older than 3 generations at this point.

gumby 3y ago

Today's rich families in Florence, Italy, were rich 700 years ago: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-floren... Inheritance in a republic is disgraceful.

alexawarrior23 3y ago

Three generations of wealth is a common belief, but the research doesn't bare it out. Try 28 generations. https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been-running-the-show-for-800-years https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been...

jackcosgrove 3y ago

That is a truism that applies mainly to the US, if it applies anywhere. The US differs from a lot of places in, say, Europe in that partible inheritance is almost universally practiced. That is, inheritances are divided equally between children. This accelerates the drawdown of the fortune. In Europe I have heard it is more common, although perhaps not a norm, to practice a meritocratic form of primogeniture. One child, who is not necessarily the eldest son but who is seen as the best steward, is chosen to receive most of the fortune, and is trained how to maintain it. Other children may receive much smaller amounts. The fortune is much more likely to persist if not divided, preventing the liquidation of large holdings and more importantly managing expectations among the gaggle of heirs about how much they'll get.

xboxnolifes 3y ago

Maybe the median family does, but where do you think the money they lose ends up? In the hands of the families who don't squander their wealth, further concentrating it into generational wealth.