3 ms·
I don't have any particularly large sampling with which to draw statistics from, but here's an article which uses Forbes lists to draw some stats: http://www.c
by Mikeb85 12y ago
I don't have any particularly large sampling with which to draw statistics from, but here's an article which uses Forbes lists to draw some stats: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/magazine/summer-2013/billionaires-self-made http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/magazine/summer-2013/bi...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/09/18/how-self-made-forbes-400-billionaires-earned-their-money/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/09/18/how-self-...
I'd guess it's harder to poll millionaires since most don't own enough of a public company for it to be reported.
Regardless, stats do a poor job of presenting possibility, and my guess would be most poor stay poor, if for no other reason than a defeatist attitude they inherited...
- taeric 12y agoHow would you propose to test this "defeatist" attitude hypothesis? More interestingly, how would you reconcile it with the core hypothesis of this article. That is, that people can create their own luck. Also, many of the numbers in those articles are... interesting. To call Bill Gates a "self made" individual is rather... cute. He is far from a poor family. Pretty much everyone they have that is a "self made" rich person came from "upper middle class" families. (The articles words.) This is concerning, as a large part of the problem that many fear in this nation is precisely how far the gap has grown between "merely middle class" and "upper middle." Consider, the vast majority of the "self made" rich people it lists are people that had early access to technology. Something that was decidedly situational related. Sheer numbers wise, it is on the level of winning the lottery.