4 ms·

> Maybe it's time to consider that "being successful" currently has little to do with formal education or with skills, but instead has more to do with family mo

by lutusp 12y ago

> Maybe it's time to consider that "being successful" currently has little to do with formal education or with skills, but instead has more to do with family money. Consider a list of recent, spectacularly successful entrepeneurs -- Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and others. Most of them are not at all reliant on inherited wealth, often quite the contrary. I think the "family money" idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny, indeed in my experience those born to wealth don't accomplish much at all.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Elon Musk: judging by the fact that he went to a traditional English "public school" (what Americans would call a private school, actually), his family was well-off. Went to the University of Pennsylvania. Richard Branson: born the son of a barrister and grandson of a knighted member of the High Court. Also attended an English public school. Exceptional for not attending university. Steve Jobs: son of a mechanic/carpenter (finally someone blue-collar!) and... oh no wait, an accountant who worked as a payroll clerk at one of the first Silicon Valley high-tech companies. Attended an expensive private college. Bill Gates: son of lawyers, got Microsoft's first OS contract for MS-DOS through his mother's connections to the board of IBM. Attended the University of Washington. Being merely well-off to start with is also family money.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Steve Jobs: son of a mechanic/carpenter ... Sorry, no. Steve Jobs was an orphan. > Attended an expensive private college. Dropped out of Reed College. > Richard Branson: born the son of a barrister and grandson of a knighted member of the High Court. These are genetic references, not financial ones. Genetics isn't the issue under discussion. You managed to overlook the fact that none of the examples had inherited money at the time of their greatest success. Attending an exclusive school is certainly no assurance of later success, often the contrary, and can't be equated with the classic case of inheriting family money. > Being merely well-off to start with is also family money. That twists the earlier premise so far as to render it meaningless. And how can the orphan Steve Jobs be described as "well-off to start with"?
- rpedela 12y ago
  In the US, universities were far more affordable when Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc were that age. Harvard like other Ivy League schools was probably still expensive, but many were not. My father (slightly older than them) was able to pay tuition by working in a factory during the summer. He didn't need any loans. Unfortunately that isn't possible anymore. There was a time when you could be blue collar and still get a great education if you were willing to work hard while not being burdened with massive debt after graduation.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Yes, fine, but my point is: pretending that these men rose to become business magnates despite lacking wealth and background is completely incorrect. Even the lowest of them started within the professional upper-middle class (roughly where you and I probably are), which is already most of the way up the class scale, in percentile terms.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > Yes, fine, but my point is: pretending that these men rose to become business magnates despite lacking wealth and background is completely incorrect. Not so, and certainly not so in the case of Steve Jobs, an orphan. Each of the stories is of someone who certainly wouldn't have succeeded to the degree they did without personal qualities that transcended their origins, rather than family wealth, the original argument. Richard Branson didn't build his present empire by buying it with his family's money -- he created it out of his wits. Elon Musk is another story of the same kind -- it's hyperbolic to argue that he became successful because of inherited wealth as opposed to personal ingenuity and drive. > Even the lowest of them started within the professional upper-middle class (roughly where you and I probably are), which is already most of the way up the class scale, in percentile terms. But this isn't about class -- it might be about genetics, and it certainly isn't about family money, the original offered explanation. For these stories, class and family background are correlations, not causes. What we're talking about here are stories of exceptional success with no obvious cause apart from personal drive and ingenuity. They can't be dismissed as resulting from high birth or privilege -- it would be more consistent with logic to examine them on their self-evident merits.

by lutusp 12y ago

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

Elon Musk: judging by the fact that he went to a traditional English "public school" (what Americans would call a private school, actually), his family was well-off. Went to the University of Pennsylvania. Richard Branson: born the son of a barrister and grandson of a knighted member of the High Court. Also attended an English public school. Exceptional for not attending university. Steve Jobs: son of a mechanic/carpenter (finally someone blue-collar!) and... oh no wait, an accountant who worked as a payroll clerk at one of the first Silicon Valley high-tech companies. Attended an expensive private college. Bill Gates: son of lawyers, got Microsoft's first OS contract for MS-DOS through his mother's connections to the board of IBM. Attended the University of Washington. Being merely well-off to start with is also family money.

lutusp 12y ago
> Steve Jobs: son of a mechanic/carpenter ... Sorry, no. Steve Jobs was an orphan. > Attended an expensive private college. Dropped out of Reed College. > Richard Branson: born the son of a barrister and grandson of a knighted member of the High Court. These are genetic references, not financial ones. Genetics isn't the issue under discussion. You managed to overlook the fact that none of the examples had inherited money at the time of their greatest success. Attending an exclusive school is certainly no assurance of later success, often the contrary, and can't be equated with the classic case of inheriting family money. > Being merely well-off to start with is also family money. That twists the earlier premise so far as to render it meaningless. And how can the orphan Steve Jobs be described as "well-off to start with"?
rpedela 12y ago
In the US, universities were far more affordable when Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc were that age. Harvard like other Ivy League schools was probably still expensive, but many were not. My father (slightly older than them) was able to pay tuition by working in a factory during the summer. He didn't need any loans. Unfortunately that isn't possible anymore. There was a time when you could be blue collar and still get a great education if you were willing to work hard while not being burdened with massive debt after graduation.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Yes, fine, but my point is: pretending that these men rose to become business magnates despite lacking wealth and background is completely incorrect. Even the lowest of them started within the professional upper-middle class (roughly where you and I probably are), which is already most of the way up the class scale, in percentile terms.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Yes, fine, but my point is: pretending that these men rose to become business magnates despite lacking wealth and background is completely incorrect. Not so, and certainly not so in the case of Steve Jobs, an orphan. Each of the stories is of someone who certainly wouldn't have succeeded to the degree they did without personal qualities that transcended their origins, rather than family wealth, the original argument. Richard Branson didn't build his present empire by buying it with his family's money -- he created it out of his wits. Elon Musk is another story of the same kind -- it's hyperbolic to argue that he became successful because of inherited wealth as opposed to personal ingenuity and drive. > Even the lowest of them started within the professional upper-middle class (roughly where you and I probably are), which is already most of the way up the class scale, in percentile terms. But this isn't about class -- it might be about genetics, and it certainly isn't about family money, the original offered explanation. For these stories, class and family background are correlations, not causes. What we're talking about here are stories of exceptional success with no obvious cause apart from personal drive and ingenuity. They can't be dismissed as resulting from high birth or privilege -- it would be more consistent with logic to examine them on their self-evident merits.