|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 04 2014 03:29 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +The term "self-made" is somewhat subjective in the world of wealth. Sure, there are billionaires who came from true poverty to strike it rich. But plenty of other so-called self-made rich people started out with affluent families and elite, expensive educations.
.....
To try to fill in the gray areas, Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires. It's like a sliding scale of self-madehood. A score of 1 means they inherited everything. A score of 10 means they grew up poor and overcame "significant obstacles."
.....
Of the current Forbes 400, there were 34 with a top score of 10; 64 with a score of 9; 130 with a score of 8; 37 with a score of 7; and only 10 with a 6. On the inherited side, there were 28 with a score of 1; 24 with a 2 score; 19 with a 3; 20 with a 4; and 34 with a five SourceSource69% of the 400 "mega rich" are self made according to Forbes.
LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg)
Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes...
This does more to prove the point about the 'self made myth' than it does to refute it...?
So basically you only have to be at the bottom of the top 1% to be seen as being 'self made' in Forbes eyes. So essentially ~99% of the population was only able to capture 69% of the top 400 spots (at best) while at least the other 31% started in the top 1%
EDIT: upon closer inspection it's only the people who scored a 10 that would fall outside of the 1% 34/400= 8.5%
Bill Gates got a 'Self-made' score of 8 with a million dollar trust fund... like wtf?
Probably worth noting 40% of the top 10 did practically nothing to be the wealthiest people in America..
You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'.
So really you are looking at less than 10% of the Forbes 400 being what most people would consider 'self made'. (despite those people making up ~90-95% of the population. So 90%+ of the Forbes 400 come from a very tiny slice of America (~1% of the population).
It's sad that someone would take this propaganda to heart...
|
LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg)
A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status.
Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes...
Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime.
Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from.
The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place.
You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'.
Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class."
|
"crooked or inherited from the crooked" is not the allegation. "wealthy or inherited from wealth" is.
|
On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Show nested quote +Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. Show nested quote +You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class."
Yeah, it kinda does disqualify them from self-made status when their parents are able to provide them with an excellent education. I think the programming is a bad example because you can't hold good parenting against him, but if you limit it specifically to money, yeah if your parents are rich I don't think you can claim your wealth is self-made, sorry, unless they literally give you nothing after high school and you don't inherit any money from them until after you have made your fortune.
This mythical "self-made" definition is people trying to find a rags-to-riches story in real life and GH is right, they're much rarer than Forbes would have you believe. How many people on the list have parents that didn't go to college or didn't go to college themselves?
I don't have a problem with people inheriting wealth or advantages from their parents, but I do have a problem with people claiming that somehow that is self-made wealth when it isn't.
|
On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:
Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class."
It's not his invention, "working class" is commonly used synonymously with "proletariat" or people who work averagely paid blue or white collar jobs. If you make six figures you are already part of a small minority.
+ Show Spoiler +
If you grow up in such an affluent environment you can already consider yourself lucky. The "Top 400" are only self-made in the sense that they now have more money than they inherited, but on average they already inherited millions of dollars to begin with. The people that really started with nothing and made it on that list you can probably count on one hand.
|
On October 04 2014 06:06 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class." Yeah, it kinda does disqualify them from self-made status when their parents are able to provide them with an excellent education. I think the programming is a bad example because you can't hold good parenting against him, but if you limit it specifically to money, yeah if your parents are rich I don't think you can claim your wealth is self-made, sorry, unless they literally give you nothing after high school and you don't inherit any money from them until after you have made your fortune. This mythical "self-made" definition is people trying to find a rags-to-riches story in real life and GH is right, they're much rarer than Forbes would have you believe. How many people on the list have parents that didn't go to college or didn't go to college themselves?
I don't have a problem with people inheriting wealth or advantages from their parents, but I do have a problem with people claiming that somehow that is self-made wealth when it isn't.
That's pretty much the gist of it.
LOL @ "how is being a senior lawyer at a NYC lawfirm not working class". "Working class" as in that they are working. But that's about it. Lady Gaga goes to the studio to record a new album every once in a while, shoot videos and throws big concerts - is she working class too?
|
On October 04 2014 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 03:29 Wolfstan wrote:The term "self-made" is somewhat subjective in the world of wealth. Sure, there are billionaires who came from true poverty to strike it rich. But plenty of other so-called self-made rich people started out with affluent families and elite, expensive educations.
.....
To try to fill in the gray areas, Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires. It's like a sliding scale of self-madehood. A score of 1 means they inherited everything. A score of 10 means they grew up poor and overcame "significant obstacles."
.....
Of the current Forbes 400, there were 34 with a top score of 10; 64 with a score of 9; 130 with a score of 8; 37 with a score of 7; and only 10 with a 6. On the inherited side, there were 28 with a score of 1; 24 with a 2 score; 19 with a 3; 20 with a 4; and 34 with a five SourceSource69% of the 400 "mega rich" are self made according to Forbes. LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... This does more to prove the point about the 'self made myth' than it does to refute it...? So basically you only have to be at the bottom of the top 1% to be seen as being 'self made' in Forbes eyes. So essentially ~99% of the population was only able to capture 69% of the top 400 spots (at best) while at least the other 31% started in the top 1% EDIT: upon closer inspection it's only the people who scored a 10 that would fall outside of the 1% 34/400= 8.5% Bill Gates got a 'Self-made' score of 8 with a million dollar trust fund... like wtf? Probably worth noting 40% of the top 10 did practically nothing to be the wealthiest people in America.. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. So really you are looking at less than 10% of the Forbes 400 being what most people would consider 'self made'. (despite those people making up ~90-95% of the population. So 90%+ of the Forbes 400 come from a very tiny slice of America (~1% of the population). It's sad that someone would take this propaganda to heart...
I don't think you understand the methodology. It's not just a matter of what you started out with, but what you ended up with as well. Even if Bill Gates had a million dollar trust fund (source? you seem to be playing very loose with your facts), a million dollar trust fund cannot turn into tens of millions in a couple decades without Bill Gates doing something exceptional with it.
|
On October 04 2014 06:06 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class." Yeah, it kinda does disqualify them from self-made status when their parents are able to provide them with an excellent education. I think the programming is a bad example because you can't hold good parenting against him, but if you limit it specifically to money, yeah if your parents are rich I don't think you can claim your wealth is self-made, sorry, unless they literally give you nothing after high school and you don't inherit any money from them until after you have made your fortune. This mythical "self-made" definition is people trying to find a rags-to-riches story in real life and GH is right, they're much rarer than Forbes would have you believe. How many people on the list have parents that didn't go to college or didn't go to college themselves? I don't have a problem with people inheriting wealth or advantages from their parents, but I do have a problem with people claiming that somehow that is self-made wealth when it isn't. To shame, all of you claiming a good upbringing with good parenting is some kind of privilege story. You clearly do have a problem with advantages, because your issue is with parents doing a good job. Clearly, you wish harm upon their children, because you would deny them their success and their hard work since their parents weren't in your worshiped categories: "disadvantaged" or "uneducated." You seek to disparage success and hard work because you assert they are a fiction, and I pity you if this methodology you apply to your own life.
|
On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Show nested quote +Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. Show nested quote +You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class."
We've been over this before...
The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked".
Is just a straw man.
The rest of your argument misses the point as usual.
Several people have tried to explain the parenting thing to you multiple times and that's not getting through so I'm not going to try.
I wasn't saying 6 figures means one wasn't working class, just a NYC Senior Partner in a law firm wouldn't be in the first 100 'working class jobs' someone listed... Welder would probably be in there...
Finally I am not discounting the efforts of those who actually did make significant efforts to expand their wealth, but I am trying to put them in a bit of perspective.
No one disputes that people near the top of the ladder tend to move up, the issue is what impact where you start on the ladder has on your chances (regardless of your efforts and intentions).
Surely you don't think the Waltons 40% of the top 10, who inherited their fortune, (SMS-1) are there as a result of anything other than their 'starting rung' on 'the ladder of success'?
If you can understand that some people are on that list exclusively as a result of their birth circumstances, why is it so hard for you to fathom that some people find themselves practically trapped between rungs lower on the ladder as a result of different birth circumstances?
|
On October 04 2014 06:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:06 ZasZ. wrote:On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class." Yeah, it kinda does disqualify them from self-made status when their parents are able to provide them with an excellent education. I think the programming is a bad example because you can't hold good parenting against him, but if you limit it specifically to money, yeah if your parents are rich I don't think you can claim your wealth is self-made, sorry, unless they literally give you nothing after high school and you don't inherit any money from them until after you have made your fortune. This mythical "self-made" definition is people trying to find a rags-to-riches story in real life and GH is right, they're much rarer than Forbes would have you believe. How many people on the list have parents that didn't go to college or didn't go to college themselves? I don't have a problem with people inheriting wealth or advantages from their parents, but I do have a problem with people claiming that somehow that is self-made wealth when it isn't. To shame, all of you claiming a good upbringing with good parenting is some kind of privilege story. You clearly do have a problem with advantages, because your issue is with parents doing a good job. Clearly, you wish harm upon their children, because you would deny them their success and their hard work since their parents weren't in your worshiped categories: "disadvantaged" or "uneducated." You seek to disparage success and hard work because you assert they are a fiction, and I pity you if this methodology you apply to your own life.
Where does he say he is against good upbringing?
He is saying that those people do not qualify as self-made in the context given.
No where is anyone saying that having good parents is bad or should be punished...
|
On October 04 2014 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 03:29 Wolfstan wrote:The term "self-made" is somewhat subjective in the world of wealth. Sure, there are billionaires who came from true poverty to strike it rich. But plenty of other so-called self-made rich people started out with affluent families and elite, expensive educations.
.....
To try to fill in the gray areas, Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires. It's like a sliding scale of self-madehood. A score of 1 means they inherited everything. A score of 10 means they grew up poor and overcame "significant obstacles."
.....
Of the current Forbes 400, there were 34 with a top score of 10; 64 with a score of 9; 130 with a score of 8; 37 with a score of 7; and only 10 with a 6. On the inherited side, there were 28 with a score of 1; 24 with a 2 score; 19 with a 3; 20 with a 4; and 34 with a five SourceSource69% of the 400 "mega rich" are self made according to Forbes. LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... This does more to prove the point about the 'self made myth' than it does to refute it...? So basically you only have to be at the bottom of the top 1% to be seen as being 'self made' in Forbes eyes. So essentially ~99% of the population was only able to capture 69% of the top 400 spots (at best) while at least the other 31% started in the top 1% EDIT: upon closer inspection it's only the people who scored a 10 that would fall outside of the 1% 34/400= 8.5% Bill Gates got a 'Self-made' score of 8 with a million dollar trust fund... like wtf? Probably worth noting 40% of the top 10 did practically nothing to be the wealthiest people in America.. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. So really you are looking at less than 10% of the Forbes 400 being what most people would consider 'self made'. (despite those people making up ~90-95% of the population. So 90%+ of the Forbes 400 come from a very tiny slice of America (~1% of the population). It's sad that someone would take this propaganda to heart... I don't think you understand the methodology. It's not just a matter of what you started out with, but what you ended up with as well. Even if Bill Gates had a million dollar trust fund (source? you seem to be playing very loose with your facts), a million dollar trust fund cannot turn into tens of millions in a couple decades without Bill Gates doing something exceptional with it.
No, the point is that the methodology is flawed. It's not an accurate representation of the word "self-made." I agree that Bill Gates did some exceptional things to turn a million dollar trust fund into his current portfolio, but he still started with a million dollar trust fund. That's not rags-to-riches, that rich-to-filthy rich. Still impressive, but it's not really applicable when trying to make the point that anyone in America, no matter how poor, can become wealthy, and to claim that 69% of Forbes' Top 400 is self-made is kind of laughable.
The saying "you have to have money to make money" exists for a reason. You can make a fortune from nothing, and Zuckerberg is almost a good example of this except that his parents were still middle class and were able to provide him with benefits and amenities that only a percentage of kids in America actually get.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — For the third time in recent years, the Supreme Court will consider taking away a powerful legal tactic the Obama administration and others have used to combat housing discrimination.
The justices agreed Thursday to take up a Texas case that challenges the theory that certain housing or lending practices can illegally harm minority groups, even when there is no proof of intent to discriminate.
The court tried to tackle the issue twice before, but those cases were settled out of court in 2012 and 2013, just weeks before oral argument.
Those settlements, including one brokered by the Justice Department, cheered civil rights groups that hoped to avoid a setback from court conservatives. But the agreements disappointed banks and mortgage companies that believe federal housing laws should punish only intentional acts of discrimination.
The legal theory is known as disparate impact. It allows the government or private plaintiffs to use statistics to show that seemingly race-neutral policies disproportionately harm racial minorities.
While this tactic routinely has been used in employment discrimination cases, it is not explicitly covered under the Fair Housing Act.
Source
|
On October 04 2014 06:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:06 ZasZ. wrote:On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class." Yeah, it kinda does disqualify them from self-made status when their parents are able to provide them with an excellent education. I think the programming is a bad example because you can't hold good parenting against him, but if you limit it specifically to money, yeah if your parents are rich I don't think you can claim your wealth is self-made, sorry, unless they literally give you nothing after high school and you don't inherit any money from them until after you have made your fortune. This mythical "self-made" definition is people trying to find a rags-to-riches story in real life and GH is right, they're much rarer than Forbes would have you believe. How many people on the list have parents that didn't go to college or didn't go to college themselves? I don't have a problem with people inheriting wealth or advantages from their parents, but I do have a problem with people claiming that somehow that is self-made wealth when it isn't. To shame, all of you claiming a good upbringing with good parenting is some kind of privilege story. You clearly do have a problem with advantages, because your issue is with parents doing a good job. Clearly, you wish harm upon their children, because you would deny them their success and their hard work since their parents weren't in your worshiped categories: "disadvantaged" or "uneducated." You seek to disparage success and hard work because you assert they are a fiction, and I pity you if this methodology you apply to your own life.
Wow. Way to completely misrepresent my post. I have no issues with good parenting, and I'm not sure how many muscles you pulled trying to twist my post around to present that point of view. I even say in my fucking post that you can't hold good parenting against him. You can, however, hold financial help against the claim that he is "self made."
I'm not denying anyone's success. Obviously everyone on that list is successful for one reason or another. Almost all of them but the lowest rated on this metric scale have also improved their wealth, even if they inherited or were blessed with certain advantages. But just because they were able to turn money into more money doesn't mean they are "self-made," it goes against the very definition.
Where the fuck did I assert that success and hard work are a fiction? Please point me to that part of my rather short post. That list runs the gamut from either end: some of them haven't done shit to get their money and still don't do shit with it, and some of them started with nothing and are extremely wealthy now due exclusively to their hard work. But to claim 69% of the list "self-made" their wealth is not honest.
But maybe it's just my definition of "self-made" is different from yours. Let's use my own personal anecdote as an example: My parents would probably be considered upper middle class by most people, and I consider them to have done a pretty good job raising me. They were also able to send me through school and I graduated with absolutely no loan debt. Just recently, as a wedding present, they helped us with the down payment for a house. I work hard as an engineer day in and day out, but I won't claim that my accumulated wealth at this point in my life is "self-made" because I've gotten a lot of financial help along the way, just like many people on that list did. My conclusion would be different if I had worked my way through school because my parents could not, or did not want to help me. Thankfully I didn't have to do that, and I won't disparage them or myself for that.
Zuckerberg has obviously worked very hard to build his empire, but to suggest he came from nothing is incorrect. More power to his parents for helping, supporting, and nurturing him, and they absolutely should do that as good parents, but it does mean that his wealth is not entirely "self-made." That's just the fact of it.
|
On October 04 2014 06:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:06 ZasZ. wrote:On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class." Yeah, it kinda does disqualify them from self-made status when their parents are able to provide them with an excellent education. I think the programming is a bad example because you can't hold good parenting against him, but if you limit it specifically to money, yeah if your parents are rich I don't think you can claim your wealth is self-made, sorry, unless they literally give you nothing after high school and you don't inherit any money from them until after you have made your fortune. This mythical "self-made" definition is people trying to find a rags-to-riches story in real life and GH is right, they're much rarer than Forbes would have you believe. How many people on the list have parents that didn't go to college or didn't go to college themselves? I don't have a problem with people inheriting wealth or advantages from their parents, but I do have a problem with people claiming that somehow that is self-made wealth when it isn't. To shame, all of you claiming a good upbringing with good parenting is some kind of privilege story. You clearly do have a problem with advantages, because your issue is with parents doing a good job. Clearly, you wish harm upon their children, because you would deny them their success and their hard work since their parents weren't in your worshiped categories: "disadvantaged" or "uneducated." You seek to disparage success and hard work because you assert they are a fiction, and I pity you if this methodology you apply to your own life.
Changing the argument into something else you are bound to win. A classic.
No one is against good parenting or a good upbringing... but calling a spade a spade. You are NOT working class if your dad is a top lawyer. Or you have a trust fund of 1 million like Bill Gates apparently did. That's great if their children succeed or you become the fucking richest man on the planet because your genius work paid off tremendously, right on! You still were upper/middle class and not working class.
|
On October 04 2014 06:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:06 ZasZ. wrote:On October 04 2014 05:49 Wolfstan wrote:LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) A parent who uses spare time to teach their children to get ahead instead of letting television and public schools raise their children? Having a parent who gives a shit and uses spare time wisely shouldn't disqualify you from self made status. Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... Likewise, having a parent who understands how money works and is able to tell what a balance sheet and income state are, doesn't take away from a self made 100000% wealth return over a lifetime. Propaganda? The article refutes the myth that all wealth is "either crooked, or inherited from the crooked". There are more important things than where you start from. They are, what you are taught by parents who give a shit, knowing how money works, and hard work following your mission statement in life. A capitalist society allows people to end up anywhere, regardless of where they come from. The left disregarding the success of anyone who started in a better place than they are now really stunts personal growth and encourages not even trying but looking for ways to preemptively admit defeat. The Forbes 400 is admittedly too small a sample size but there are many stories in my neighborhood who are at the "6 figures income, million dollar wealth" that is much closer to home of coming from nothing, climbing the ladder to a good place. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. Why is that not working class? Their lifestyle was certainly not paid for by income producing assets and they had to put in long hours working for whats theirs. In my part of the world, there are many tradespeople who have similar wealth and income to those working class professionals. Or does having a absentee welder father who makes 6 figures disqualify me and my 2 welder brothers from "self made" status. Currently, civil engineers, welders, truckers and lawyers all occupy the same rung on the social ladder, please don't disqualify those who get up in the morning and work hard as not "working class." Yeah, it kinda does disqualify them from self-made status when their parents are able to provide them with an excellent education. I think the programming is a bad example because you can't hold good parenting against him, but if you limit it specifically to money, yeah if your parents are rich I don't think you can claim your wealth is self-made, sorry, unless they literally give you nothing after high school and you don't inherit any money from them until after you have made your fortune. This mythical "self-made" definition is people trying to find a rags-to-riches story in real life and GH is right, they're much rarer than Forbes would have you believe. How many people on the list have parents that didn't go to college or didn't go to college themselves? I don't have a problem with people inheriting wealth or advantages from their parents, but I do have a problem with people claiming that somehow that is self-made wealth when it isn't. To shame, all of you claiming a good upbringing with good parenting is some kind of privilege story. You clearly do have a problem with advantages, because your issue is with parents doing a good job. Clearly, you wish harm upon their children, because you would deny them their success and their hard work since their parents weren't in your worshiped categories: "disadvantaged" or "uneducated." You seek to disparage success and hard work because you assert they are a fiction, and I pity you if this methodology you apply to your own life. You're the one who brought up the word "privilege", and I think this speaks volumes; none of the liberal posters have begrudged the advantaged their advantage. All that is being discussed is the importance of recognizing the reality of one's upbringing, good or bad, and how that plays into the coalescence of success. There is a tacit disavowal of the realities of a disadvantaged upbringing in the telling of a success story that isn't humbled by its own good fortune, and pretending that folks who think that the rich misunderstand the source and chance of their wealth wish nothing but harm against the advantaged is to miss the point entirely and retreat into the cover of populist indignation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
another factor in wealth concentration is simply network effect coupled with random chance. i tend to see this stuff as a basic feature of the exclusive property system + agency.
|
On October 04 2014 06:40 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 03:29 Wolfstan wrote:The term "self-made" is somewhat subjective in the world of wealth. Sure, there are billionaires who came from true poverty to strike it rich. But plenty of other so-called self-made rich people started out with affluent families and elite, expensive educations.
.....
To try to fill in the gray areas, Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires. It's like a sliding scale of self-madehood. A score of 1 means they inherited everything. A score of 10 means they grew up poor and overcame "significant obstacles."
.....
Of the current Forbes 400, there were 34 with a top score of 10; 64 with a score of 9; 130 with a score of 8; 37 with a score of 7; and only 10 with a 6. On the inherited side, there were 28 with a score of 1; 24 with a 2 score; 19 with a 3; 20 with a 4; and 34 with a five SourceSource69% of the 400 "mega rich" are self made according to Forbes. LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... This does more to prove the point about the 'self made myth' than it does to refute it...? So basically you only have to be at the bottom of the top 1% to be seen as being 'self made' in Forbes eyes. So essentially ~99% of the population was only able to capture 69% of the top 400 spots (at best) while at least the other 31% started in the top 1% EDIT: upon closer inspection it's only the people who scored a 10 that would fall outside of the 1% 34/400= 8.5% Bill Gates got a 'Self-made' score of 8 with a million dollar trust fund... like wtf? Probably worth noting 40% of the top 10 did practically nothing to be the wealthiest people in America.. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. So really you are looking at less than 10% of the Forbes 400 being what most people would consider 'self made'. (despite those people making up ~90-95% of the population. So 90%+ of the Forbes 400 come from a very tiny slice of America (~1% of the population). It's sad that someone would take this propaganda to heart... I don't think you understand the methodology. It's not just a matter of what you started out with, but what you ended up with as well. Even if Bill Gates had a million dollar trust fund (source? you seem to be playing very loose with your facts), a million dollar trust fund cannot turn into tens of millions in a couple decades without Bill Gates doing something exceptional with it. No, the point is that the methodology is flawed. It's not an accurate representation of the word "self-made." I agree that Bill Gates did some exceptional things to turn a million dollar trust fund into his current portfolio, but he still started with a million dollar trust fund. That's not rags-to-riches, that rich-to-filthy rich. Still impressive, but it's not really applicable when trying to make the point that anyone in America, no matter how poor, can become wealthy, and to claim that 69% of Forbes' Top 400 is self-made is kind of laughable. The saying "you have to have money to make money" exists for a reason. You can make a fortune from nothing, and Zuckerberg is almost a good example of this except that his parents were still middle class and were able to provide him with benefits and amenities that only a percentage of kids in America actually get.
There is no accurate definition of 'self made'. You could argue that anyone growing up in the rich world isn't really 'self made' because of all the advantages that come from winning the genetic lottery and being born here.
I still haven't seen a source on the million dollar trust fund. Gates has said that he never had one, and Google only shows cheap looking blogs that claim it's true. Regardless, you'd have to make an argument that the trust fund mattered. Did it finance Microsoft? Or did it just have some ephemeral impact that was 'big' because 'reasons'.
|
On October 04 2014 06:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:40 ZasZ. wrote:On October 04 2014 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 03:29 Wolfstan wrote:The term "self-made" is somewhat subjective in the world of wealth. Sure, there are billionaires who came from true poverty to strike it rich. But plenty of other so-called self-made rich people started out with affluent families and elite, expensive educations.
.....
To try to fill in the gray areas, Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires. It's like a sliding scale of self-madehood. A score of 1 means they inherited everything. A score of 10 means they grew up poor and overcame "significant obstacles."
.....
Of the current Forbes 400, there were 34 with a top score of 10; 64 with a score of 9; 130 with a score of 8; 37 with a score of 7; and only 10 with a 6. On the inherited side, there were 28 with a score of 1; 24 with a 2 score; 19 with a 3; 20 with a 4; and 34 with a five SourceSource69% of the 400 "mega rich" are self made according to Forbes. LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... This does more to prove the point about the 'self made myth' than it does to refute it...? So basically you only have to be at the bottom of the top 1% to be seen as being 'self made' in Forbes eyes. So essentially ~99% of the population was only able to capture 69% of the top 400 spots (at best) while at least the other 31% started in the top 1% EDIT: upon closer inspection it's only the people who scored a 10 that would fall outside of the 1% 34/400= 8.5% Bill Gates got a 'Self-made' score of 8 with a million dollar trust fund... like wtf? Probably worth noting 40% of the top 10 did practically nothing to be the wealthiest people in America.. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. So really you are looking at less than 10% of the Forbes 400 being what most people would consider 'self made'. (despite those people making up ~90-95% of the population. So 90%+ of the Forbes 400 come from a very tiny slice of America (~1% of the population). It's sad that someone would take this propaganda to heart... I don't think you understand the methodology. It's not just a matter of what you started out with, but what you ended up with as well. Even if Bill Gates had a million dollar trust fund (source? you seem to be playing very loose with your facts), a million dollar trust fund cannot turn into tens of millions in a couple decades without Bill Gates doing something exceptional with it. No, the point is that the methodology is flawed. It's not an accurate representation of the word "self-made." I agree that Bill Gates did some exceptional things to turn a million dollar trust fund into his current portfolio, but he still started with a million dollar trust fund. That's not rags-to-riches, that rich-to-filthy rich. Still impressive, but it's not really applicable when trying to make the point that anyone in America, no matter how poor, can become wealthy, and to claim that 69% of Forbes' Top 400 is self-made is kind of laughable. The saying "you have to have money to make money" exists for a reason. You can make a fortune from nothing, and Zuckerberg is almost a good example of this except that his parents were still middle class and were able to provide him with benefits and amenities that only a percentage of kids in America actually get. There is no accurate definition of 'self made'. You could argue that anyone growing up in the rich world isn't really 'self made' because of all the advantages that come from winning the genetic lottery and being born here. I still haven't seen a source on the million dollar trust fund. Gates has said that he never had one, and Google only shows cheap looking blogs that claim it's true. Regardless, you'd have to make an argument that the trust fund mattered. Did it finance Microsoft? Or did it just have some ephemeral impact that was 'big' because 'reasons'.
Ye I too have heard that trust fund business for the first time. Looking at wikipedia it's not unlikely since Gates' both his parents were highly educated and successful people, his granddad even a national bank president. Though without a source I am still not completely sold on it.
+ Show Spoiler +Gates was born in Seattle, Washington, in an upper-middle-class family, the son of William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates. His ancestral origin includes English, German, and Scots-Irish.[16][17] His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way. Gates's maternal grandfather was JW Maxwell, a national bank president.- Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
|
On October 04 2014 07:07 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 06:40 ZasZ. wrote:On October 04 2014 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 03:29 Wolfstan wrote:The term "self-made" is somewhat subjective in the world of wealth. Sure, there are billionaires who came from true poverty to strike it rich. But plenty of other so-called self-made rich people started out with affluent families and elite, expensive educations.
.....
To try to fill in the gray areas, Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires. It's like a sliding scale of self-madehood. A score of 1 means they inherited everything. A score of 10 means they grew up poor and overcame "significant obstacles."
.....
Of the current Forbes 400, there were 34 with a top score of 10; 64 with a score of 9; 130 with a score of 8; 37 with a score of 7; and only 10 with a 6. On the inherited side, there were 28 with a score of 1; 24 with a 2 score; 19 with a 3; 20 with a 4; and 34 with a five SourceSource69% of the 400 "mega rich" are self made according to Forbes. LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... This does more to prove the point about the 'self made myth' than it does to refute it...? So basically you only have to be at the bottom of the top 1% to be seen as being 'self made' in Forbes eyes. So essentially ~99% of the population was only able to capture 69% of the top 400 spots (at best) while at least the other 31% started in the top 1% EDIT: upon closer inspection it's only the people who scored a 10 that would fall outside of the 1% 34/400= 8.5% Bill Gates got a 'Self-made' score of 8 with a million dollar trust fund... like wtf? Probably worth noting 40% of the top 10 did practically nothing to be the wealthiest people in America.. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. So really you are looking at less than 10% of the Forbes 400 being what most people would consider 'self made'. (despite those people making up ~90-95% of the population. So 90%+ of the Forbes 400 come from a very tiny slice of America (~1% of the population). It's sad that someone would take this propaganda to heart... I don't think you understand the methodology. It's not just a matter of what you started out with, but what you ended up with as well. Even if Bill Gates had a million dollar trust fund (source? you seem to be playing very loose with your facts), a million dollar trust fund cannot turn into tens of millions in a couple decades without Bill Gates doing something exceptional with it. No, the point is that the methodology is flawed. It's not an accurate representation of the word "self-made." I agree that Bill Gates did some exceptional things to turn a million dollar trust fund into his current portfolio, but he still started with a million dollar trust fund. That's not rags-to-riches, that rich-to-filthy rich. Still impressive, but it's not really applicable when trying to make the point that anyone in America, no matter how poor, can become wealthy, and to claim that 69% of Forbes' Top 400 is self-made is kind of laughable. The saying "you have to have money to make money" exists for a reason. You can make a fortune from nothing, and Zuckerberg is almost a good example of this except that his parents were still middle class and were able to provide him with benefits and amenities that only a percentage of kids in America actually get. There is no accurate definition of 'self made'. You could argue that anyone growing up in the rich world isn't really 'self made' because of all the advantages that come from winning the genetic lottery and being born here. I still haven't seen a source on the million dollar trust fund. Gates has said that he never had one, and Google only shows cheap looking blogs that claim it's true. Regardless, you'd have to make an argument that the trust fund mattered. Did it finance Microsoft? Or did it just have some ephemeral impact that was 'big' because 'reasons'. Ye I too have heard that trust fund business for the first time. Looking at wikipedia it's not unlikely since Gates' both his parents were highly educated and successful people, his granddad even a national bank president. Though without a source I am still not completely sold on it. + Show Spoiler +Gates was born in Seattle, Washington, in an upper-middle-class family, the son of William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates. His ancestral origin includes English, German, and Scots-Irish.[16][17] His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way. Gates's maternal grandfather was JW Maxwell, a national bank president.- Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
It's not too likely either though. Lawyer pays well, serving on a board of directors not so much, and a million dollar trust fund is pretty huge. And as I said before, whether it's a real fact or not I'd like a compelling argument that the trust fund played a major roll.
|
On October 04 2014 06:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 06:40 ZasZ. wrote:On October 04 2014 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 03:29 Wolfstan wrote:The term "self-made" is somewhat subjective in the world of wealth. Sure, there are billionaires who came from true poverty to strike it rich. But plenty of other so-called self-made rich people started out with affluent families and elite, expensive educations.
.....
To try to fill in the gray areas, Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires. It's like a sliding scale of self-madehood. A score of 1 means they inherited everything. A score of 10 means they grew up poor and overcame "significant obstacles."
.....
Of the current Forbes 400, there were 34 with a top score of 10; 64 with a score of 9; 130 with a score of 8; 37 with a score of 7; and only 10 with a 6. On the inherited side, there were 28 with a score of 1; 24 with a 2 score; 19 with a 3; 20 with a 4; and 34 with a five SourceSource69% of the 400 "mega rich" are self made according to Forbes. LMAO well when being born to a doctor and a dentist who taught you Atari BASIC Programming in their spare time gets you a 'self made score' of 8 it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the population would score an 8 or higher. (Zuckerburg) Hell you can be born to a Wall Streeter who makes 6 figures, grow up in a million dollar house and still be 'truly self-made' (Meg Whitman) according to Forbes... This does more to prove the point about the 'self made myth' than it does to refute it...? So basically you only have to be at the bottom of the top 1% to be seen as being 'self made' in Forbes eyes. So essentially ~99% of the population was only able to capture 69% of the top 400 spots (at best) while at least the other 31% started in the top 1% EDIT: upon closer inspection it's only the people who scored a 10 that would fall outside of the 1% 34/400= 8.5% Bill Gates got a 'Self-made' score of 8 with a million dollar trust fund... like wtf? Probably worth noting 40% of the top 10 did practically nothing to be the wealthiest people in America.. You can be born to a senior partner in a NYC law firm and still get 'self made score' of 9... (Edward Lampert) (Not what most people think of when they hear 'working class'. So really you are looking at less than 10% of the Forbes 400 being what most people would consider 'self made'. (despite those people making up ~90-95% of the population. So 90%+ of the Forbes 400 come from a very tiny slice of America (~1% of the population). It's sad that someone would take this propaganda to heart... I don't think you understand the methodology. It's not just a matter of what you started out with, but what you ended up with as well. Even if Bill Gates had a million dollar trust fund (source? you seem to be playing very loose with your facts), a million dollar trust fund cannot turn into tens of millions in a couple decades without Bill Gates doing something exceptional with it. No, the point is that the methodology is flawed. It's not an accurate representation of the word "self-made." I agree that Bill Gates did some exceptional things to turn a million dollar trust fund into his current portfolio, but he still started with a million dollar trust fund. That's not rags-to-riches, that rich-to-filthy rich. Still impressive, but it's not really applicable when trying to make the point that anyone in America, no matter how poor, can become wealthy, and to claim that 69% of Forbes' Top 400 is self-made is kind of laughable. The saying "you have to have money to make money" exists for a reason. You can make a fortune from nothing, and Zuckerberg is almost a good example of this except that his parents were still middle class and were able to provide him with benefits and amenities that only a percentage of kids in America actually get. There is no accurate definition of 'self made'. You could argue that anyone growing up in the rich world isn't really 'self made' because of all the advantages that come from winning the genetic lottery and being born here. I still haven't seen a source on the million dollar trust fund. Gates has said that he never had one, and Google only shows cheap looking blogs that claim it's true. Regardless, you'd have to make an argument that the trust fund mattered. Did it finance Microsoft? Or did it just have some ephemeral impact that was 'big' because 'reasons'.
Obviously there is no accurate definition since we are debating it. I would argue that anyone growing up in the rich world isn't really 'self made' unless their parents made a concerted effort to not provide them with any of the benefits of that upbringing, which seems unlikely to ever happen. If people have the opportunity to provide their child with a privileged life, they almost certainly do so. That fact doesn't detract from their wealth or success, in my opinion, but it does seem dishonest to claim that when they become even more wealthy, that wealth is self-made. That wealth was almost certainly a little easier to come by than it would be for almost anyone else on the planet, whether they worked hard for it or not.
As for the Bill Gates thing, I don't know whether he had a trust fund or not, it's not really relevant to my argument. If he obtained that kind of money young and it helped him jump-start Microsoft, a strong argument could be made (and I would make it) that today his empire is not entirely self-made wealth. If he didn't see a dime of that money until after he had made it big (or indeed, it never existed at all), then you can make a stronger case for self-made. The definition is still the same. He is still only one man on that list of a lot of people who either inherited a lot of their money or were granted privileges growing up that only a small percentage of people actually get.
We're just trying to get people like Danglars to acknowledge the fact that the circumstances of your upbringing plays a huge role, even if you can circumvent it. We've all heard of millionaire children squandering their fortune and we've also heard of people who start their own business with no education becoming billionaires. But when Forbes says over two-thirds of their top 400 wealthiest people are "self-made," they're going to draw some criticism for that and rightfully so. It would suggest that those people are as wealthy as they are purely because they've worked hard and made smart decisions along the way, and that's not really true for that many people on that list.
EDIT: Assuming that the trust fund story is true, I would say the burden of proof would be on someone claiming it didn't make an impact. A million dollars is a lot of money, and he would have had to get it over a long time in small amounts or well after Microsoft took off for it not to affect how much money he was able to make later on down the road. It doesn't matter if it funded Microsoft, if it let him stay unemployed while he thought about making Microsoft it helped just as much. All it has to do is pay his bills and it's allowed him to free up time and resources that an ordinary individual without a trust fund wouldn't have access to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Income_America.png)
