4 ms·

> it found that less than one tenth of the 1982 list was still on the list in 2012 It doesn't seem like a good argument. It's not because they're not at the v

• yummyfajitas 12y ago
  >a significant majority of members of the 1982 list would have qualified for the 2012 list if they had accumulated wealth at a real rate of even 4 percent a year. This part of the quote, which you snipped, is in fact a good argument that they didn't accumulate much. As I said before, that's far less than I earn from trading.
• zo1 12y ago
  Well, it could simply just mean that others have surpassed them in terms of overall wealth, sure. Not that they lost the wealth.
  • dageshi 12y ago
    Presumably very few people in that list are rich in purely cash or near cash terms. They're rich because they own businesses at the apex of their valuation? As technology changes businesses rise and fall which probably accounts for the turnover in the list.