4 ms·
They're talking about these people's origins, not their current wealth.
by pg 13y ago
They're talking about these people's origins, not their current wealth.
- Florin_Andrei 13y agoLet me emphasize it again - perhaps by sheer repetition, the main point will become obvious: It's not something relevant to the general population, the middle class in general, or the concept of social mobility, IF IT ONLY APPLIES TO 1 PERSON IN 1 MILLION.
- klochner 13y agoThe article presents that caveat straightforwardly: The popular view of America's upper class is that of an ossified aristocracy. But research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shakes up this view, at least among America's richest individuals. And elaborates: Over the last 30 years, income inequality has grown and intergenerational mobility has decreased. The rich are getting richer and drawing up the ladder to the upper class with them. The story differs for the members of the Forbes 400 List. So I'd say you're in violent agreement with the author.
- vidarh 13y agoThe problem is that on one hand the try to talk about "America's upper class", on the other hand they restrict themselves to looking at members of the Forbes 400. In other words: They're seemingly trying to make the story sound more relevant than it is, by framing it as if they have something to say about "America's upper class", when the data they look at consists only of a tiny subset of extreme outliers.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoBingo. Bill Gate entered the upper class based on birth. His own efforts brought him yet higher. But Bill Gates proves exactly nothing about how hard working people move into the upper class, because he never ever did so himself.
- pg 13y agoPlease don't use uppercase for emphasis. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (It's especially unnecessary when replying to someone who already understands the point you're making.)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- balsam 13y agoAlright, pg, I had enough. I looked at the list of Russia's billionaires. At least 5 of them had humble backgrounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gutseriev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gutseriev) 1 has a Muslim father. Some have Jewish sounding last names. Some of them had no early data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_people_by_net_worth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_people_by_net_w... EDIT: Will check my hypothesis that Communist politburo members had an even more varied background, to support some extreme conclusions.
- gph 13y agoWell I'd think that Russia is rather unique in that their power structure semi-collapsed during the 90's and during the chaos of America trying to turn the country to capitalism there were some who were able to jump into the power vacuum and rise to the top. Most of them have since been disposed (like the guy you linked to) or brought into the fold of the new power structure that arose around Putin.
- balsam 13y agoI will do a more comprehensive study soon, but my comments about politburo members (especially late soviet ones) was meant to preempt such points as yours. If you look at the billionaires from other countries, it is also as diverse if not more so than the US. In fact it makes some sense (to me at least) that a survey of any extreme outlier populations should show such diversity, it is rather the opposite (a homogeneity) that is interesting...