4 ms·
"Becoming rich" and "being smart" are entirely unrelated except by the occasional chance correlation. The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy o
by Iftheshoefits 13y ago
"Becoming rich" and "being smart" are entirely unrelated except by the occasional chance correlation. The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy or born into affluence. Very few individuals ever "become rich" when starting out in the middle- or lower classes, regardless of their intelligence.
- Crito 13y ago> "The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy or born into affluence" I would expect that depends on what bar we set for "rich". Is the bar: "1%"er billionaires? Then you are probably right. Is the bar: "SF Tech workers"? Well newsflash, most google employees are not trust-fund babies.
- Iftheshoefits 13y agoThat gets into Heritage Foundation semantics over "what does rich mean." Of course we can shift the definition of "rich" around until everybody (or nobody) is "rich," but I don't think that leads to any meaningful discussion (unless the point of the discussion is, of course, to engage in a semantics argument over that meaning).
- Crito 13y agoDefining "rich" is important because if we don't do that, then we cannot have a sensible conversation. Anyway, I am not the person that wants "rich" to be defined with such a low bar. Rather it is the SF protesters and their supporters who are setting that low bar. To them, the bog-standard tech worker is "rich", hence their objections. Personally, I prefer a much higher bar for rich. The "1%er billionaire" is closer to my preferred definition.