5 ms·

> The top 0.0001% gained their wealth not by inheriting it How did you come to that conclusion? I looked for that in the figures, but I couldn’t find what perc

> The top 0.0001% gained their wealth not by inheriting it How did you come to that conclusion? I looked for that in the figures, but I couldn’t find what percentage came into money from an inheritance. Perhaps it’s placed in the 12% ‘Diversified/Other’ category, but the impression I got from the article was that they tallied how the money was earned in the first place, not where the ones holding the purse got it from. I believe your interpretation of the article in this aspect is incorrect. For instance, 4 of the top 10 spots are taken up by members of the Walton family. Those people inherited their wealth from Bud and Sam Walton, the founders of Wal*Mart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family

alnis 13y ago
From the article: > Kaplan and Rauh find that America’s wealthiest are no longer a collection of Rockefellers and Carnegies. During the period the researchers investigated, the number of individuals on the Forbes 400 who were the first in their family to run a business rose from 40% to 69%. Sixty percent of individuals on the list grew up wealthy in 1982 while only 32% did in 2011. > Although being born into wealth is less and less necessary for admission to the club of America’s wealthiest individuals, ...
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  Thanks for your input, but the comment I was responding to was: > The top 0.0001% gained their wealth not by inheriting it Your contribution does not cover that.
  - thwarted 13y ago
    That's the assertion from the priceonomics.com article, covered by the paragraphs from the article quoted by alnis.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
walid 13y ago
Do some math. According to Wikipedia the population of the USA is 316,856,000. The 0.0001% of the population is 31685 after removing partial human beings caused by mathematical division. If the Forbes 400 list is used as a sample space for the rest of the 0.0001% then the numbers seem plausible. Note that I'm just playing "mathematician" and I haven't analyzed the 400 people in the list or did anything deeply scientific.
- amitutk 13y ago
  0.0001% of 316,856,000 is 317 (after rounding partial human beings caused by mathematical division), close enough to 400.
  - walid 13y ago
    Yup my bad, I just multiplied 316,856,000 by 0.0001 without dividing by 100.

alnis 13y ago

From the article: > Kaplan and Rauh find that America’s wealthiest are no longer a collection of Rockefellers and Carnegies. During the period the researchers investigated, the number of individuals on the Forbes 400 who were the first in their family to run a business rose from 40% to 69%. Sixty percent of individuals on the list grew up wealthy in 1982 while only 32% did in 2011. > Although being born into wealth is less and less necessary for admission to the club of America’s wealthiest individuals, ...

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
Thanks for your input, but the comment I was responding to was: > The top 0.0001% gained their wealth not by inheriting it Your contribution does not cover that.
- thwarted 13y ago
  That's the assertion from the priceonomics.com article, covered by the paragraphs from the article quoted by alnis.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

walid 13y ago

Do some math. According to Wikipedia the population of the USA is 316,856,000. The 0.0001% of the population is 31685 after removing partial human beings caused by mathematical division. If the Forbes 400 list is used as a sample space for the rest of the 0.0001% then the numbers seem plausible. Note that I'm just playing "mathematician" and I haven't analyzed the 400 people in the list or did anything deeply scientific.

amitutk 13y ago
0.0001% of 316,856,000 is 317 (after rounding partial human beings caused by mathematical division), close enough to 400.
- walid 13y ago
  Yup my bad, I just multiplied 316,856,000 by 0.0001 without dividing by 100.