|
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. |
United States44336 Posts
I assumed the trust fund comment was meant purely to place him within a group of individuals who are predisposed towards receiving excellent educations, freedom from crippling personal issues (no need to abandon plans to deal with crises, care for family, become primary breadwinner etc) and have excellent connections and credit. The advantage is not literally the trust fund, the trust fund is a symbol of the advantaged class.
|
The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.
Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.
“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.
“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”
Earlier this year, Scalia joined the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, which held that the New York town could continue opening legislative sessions with sectarian prayers.
Scalia has since used the case to press for the approval of public prayers in schools, legislatures and courtrooms.
Source
|
On October 04 2014 07:24 ZasZ. 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'. 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.
Well as far as I'm concerned self-made simply means that you played the primary role in your own wealth creation. Having $1B after inheriting $1B isn't self made, but having $1B after inheriting $100K is. I think Forbes captures the reality about as good as anyone can.
*shrug* It's all pretty subjective though, so to each his own on this one.
|
The claim is supposed to be in this book:
Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry--and Made Himself the Richest Man in America
Though I didn't read it myself so I can't say for sure.
I'll accept that I can't prove he had a $1 million trust fund but it's rather irrelevant to my points.
The ~$250,000 dollar private secondary schooling and the opportunity for a full ride to Harvard from his father is pretty sufficient to put him in the 1%
The Bill Gates story has a lot of exactly what I and others talk about regarding the advantages of wealth.
Lawyer pays well, serving on a board of directors not so much
Well serving on a generic board and serving on a board of a bank your father started are pretty different... And with the equivalent of a quarter million dollar education and a free ride to Harvard it's not like they were pinching pennies...
convincing them that he and his company could meet their needs. The only problem was that Microsoft had not developed the basic operating system that would run IBM's new computers. Not to be stopped, Gates bought an operating system that was developed to run on computers similar to IBM's PC. He made a deal with the software's developer, making Microsoft the exclusive licensing agent and later full owner of the software but not telling them of the IBM deal. The company later sued Microsoft and Gates for withholding important information. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but neither Gates nor Microsoft admitted to any wrong doing.
My personal favorite part of his story is the old 'I made a shit ton of money off of a shady deal with you, and since you are suing me I will give you an undisclosed amount of the money if we agree that I had no reason to give it to you'.
I don't begrudge hard work but there being less separation (score wise) between Lampert and Oprah than Lampert and Murdoch says a lot...
|
I think the only way you're going to get religion out of the government is if atheists convert to Satanism and demand Satanic prayers and monuments all over the place. I'm sick of the attitude that "Religion belongs in government... as long as it's my religion."
|
Just out of curiosity, is anyone pleased with how Obama is handling the Ebola crisis?
|
On October 04 2014 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:The claim is supposed to be in this book: Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry--and Made Himself the Richest Man in America Though I didn't read it myself so I can't say for sure. I'll accept that I can't prove he had a $1 million trust fund but it's rather irrelevant to my points. The ~$250,000 dollar private secondary schooling and the opportunity for a full ride to Harvard from his father is pretty sufficient to put him in the 1% The Bill Gates story has a lot of exactly what I and others talk about regarding the advantages of wealth. Well serving on a generic board and serving on a board of a bank your father started are pretty different... And with the equivalent of a quarter million dollar education and a free ride to Harvard it's not like they were pinching pennies... Show nested quote +convincing them that he and his company could meet their needs. The only problem was that Microsoft had not developed the basic operating system that would run IBM's new computers. Not to be stopped, Gates bought an operating system that was developed to run on computers similar to IBM's PC. He made a deal with the software's developer, making Microsoft the exclusive licensing agent and later full owner of the software but not telling them of the IBM deal. The company later sued Microsoft and Gates for withholding important information. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but neither Gates nor Microsoft admitted to any wrong doing. My personal favorite part of his story is the old 'I made a shit ton of money off of a shady deal with you, and since you are suing me I will give you an undisclosed amount of the money if we agree that I had no reason to give it to you'. I don't begrudge hard work but there being less separation (score wise) between Lampert and Oprah than Lampert and Murdoch says a lot...
I think you're defining 'self-made' quite a bit differently. It makes more sense to me to define 'self-made' as in 'how much of your wealth comes from your own efforts' rather than 'did you grow up middle class or lower or not'.
Like I said before, there's a lot of subjectivity here. But I really don't see how 'private HS' translates into 'ofc he's a multi-billionaire' as if private school is an auto ticket to the top 0.000001%.
|
On October 04 2014 09:28 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is anyone pleased with how Obama is handling the Ebola crisis?
About the same as ISIS.
But no, by all means, lets keep complaining about trust fund babies.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 04 2014 09:28 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is anyone pleased with how Obama is handling the Ebola crisis?
know too little to form a judgement either way. seems like he's got the pentagon on the case.
|
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. llion 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'.
Being born into a wealthy family meant Gates got to go to Lakeland High, an exclusive Seattle Area High School instead of an average one which then pipelined him into Harvard, pushing him further along a path of success. And of course it was also a high school so rich that it could afford a computer in the 1970s. If he just went to an average high school, no computer for Bill and he is a successful tax attorney somewhere.
|
On October 04 2014 09:28 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is anyone pleased with how Obama is handling the Ebola crisis?
I am more concerned about how badly prepared DHS seems to be in handling a biological crisis. If Islamists werent such backward idiots they could have just sent 5-10 of their suicide bombers to West Africa, then had them fly to America and just hangout in malls for 20 days, then go crawl away to die at some homeless shelter.
|
On October 04 2014 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:The claim is supposed to be in this book: Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry--and Made Himself the Richest Man in America Though I didn't read it myself so I can't say for sure. I'll accept that I can't prove he had a $1 million trust fund but it's rather irrelevant to my points. The ~$250,000 dollar private secondary schooling and the opportunity for a full ride to Harvard from his father is pretty sufficient to put him in the 1% The Bill Gates story has a lot of exactly what I and others talk about regarding the advantages of wealth. Lawyer pays well, serving on a board of directors not so much Well serving on a generic board and serving on a board of a bank your father started are pretty different... And with the equivalent of a quarter million dollar education and a free ride to Harvard it's not like they were pinching pennies... convincing them that he and his company could meet their needs. The only problem was that Microsoft had not developed the basic operating system that would run IBM's new computers. Not to be stopped, Gates bought an operating system that was developed to run on computers similar to IBM's PC. He made a deal with the software's developer, making Microsoft the exclusive licensing agent and later full owner of the software but not telling them of the IBM deal. The company later sued Microsoft and Gates for withholding important information. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but neither Gates nor Microsoft admitted to any wrong doing. My personal favorite part of his story is the old 'I made a shit ton of money off of a shady deal with you, and since you are suing me I will give you an undisclosed amount of the money if we agree that I had no reason to give it to you'. I don't begrudge hard work but there being less separation (score wise) between Lampert and Oprah than Lampert and Murdoch says a lot... I think you're defining 'self-made' quite a bit differently. It makes more sense to me to define 'self-made' as in 'how much of your wealth comes from your own efforts' rather than 'did you grow up middle class or lower or not'. Like I said before, there's a lot of subjectivity here. But I really don't see how 'private HS' translates into 'ofc he's a multi-billionaire' as if private school is an auto ticket to the top 0.000001%.
I don't think it's the self part that we are caught on, it's the 'made'. For all intents and purposes he was already 'made' (albeit not a billionaire) long before he even touched a computer. He's obviously a smart and talented person so even had he been born poor he probably would of done fine for himself.
But we're lying to ourselves if we think the Bill Gates story happens if he goes to a typical High School instead of Lakeside.
It's not that Bill Gates suddenly would be stripped of the raw talents and work ethic, just that he wouldn't have had the opportunities that led him to be able to capitalize on them.
If he goes to an average school he never even has access (in school) to the systems that led to his success.
Somewhere out there are more 'Bill Gates' that just didn't happen to be born to well off parents, and they won't have access to some tech or service that could of led them to be the next 'Bill Gates'. Instead someone who may or may not be as talented but was born to parents with access will beat him/her to it.
The difference in the level of their success will not be their talents or work ethic but simply where they started the race to their success.
I'm pretty sure more people would be on board with removing social programs for adults if children didn't start from such disparate starting points beyond their control.
How many great minds have we lost because they were just in shitty situations out of their control?
|
On October 04 2014 09:28 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is anyone pleased with how Obama is handling the Ebola crisis?
Crisis? What Crisis? I'm much more concerned about the Flu Crisis......
The flu kills about 36,000 people a year in the United States, according to the CDC, though the range varies greatly each year. Most deaths are caused by complications from the flu
Wouldn't think you guys would be riding the ratings train?
|
On October 04 2014 10:34 Sub40APM 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. llion 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'. Being born into a wealthy family meant Gates got to go to Lakeland High, an exclusive Seattle Area High School instead of an average one which then pipelined him into Harvard, pushing him further along a path of success. And of course it was also a high school so rich that it could afford a computer in the 1970s. If he just went to an average high school, no computer for Bill and he is a successful tax attorney somewhere.
So what percentage of Lakeland High students became multi-billionaires?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
obviously bill gates and others have done some things to get the monies. but self made has a whole mythological aspect in american culture. it's all the cultural baggage of the term
|
On October 04 2014 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 10:34 Sub40APM wrote: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. llion 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'. Being born into a wealthy family meant Gates got to go to Lakeland High, an exclusive Seattle Area High School instead of an average one which then pipelined him into Harvard, pushing him further along a path of success. And of course it was also a high school so rich that it could afford a computer in the 1970s. If he just went to an average high school, no computer for Bill and he is a successful tax attorney somewhere. So what percentage of Lakeland High students became multi-billionaires?
Its 100% higher than graduates of an average American high school.
|
On October 04 2014 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 10:34 Sub40APM wrote: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. llion 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'. Being born into a wealthy family meant Gates got to go to Lakeland High, an exclusive Seattle Area High School instead of an average one which then pipelined him into Harvard, pushing him further along a path of success. And of course it was also a high school so rich that it could afford a computer in the 1970s. If he just went to an average high school, no computer for Bill and he is a successful tax attorney somewhere. So what percentage of Lakeland High students became multi-billionaires?
Couldn't tell you that but 100% of their graduates are accepted and enroll in 4 year post secondary schools. Class sizes of 16 with a total pop of ~825
We have a conservative draw policy in which we draw an average of only 4 percent per year....Lakeside’s endowment today is worth approximately $188 million, fluctuating with market performance. Our endowment now covers approximately 25 percent of the cost of educating our students. Lakeside has no debt and has been able to expand its programs dramatically due to the increase in endowment, while still keeping tuition in a competitive range among Pacific Northwest schools.
Some napkin math puts that at about 4% of 188,000,000 = $7,520,000 from endowment
$7,520,000 = ~25% of cost of educating students.
$7,520,000 * 4 = ~100% of the cost to educate students =$30,080,000
30,080,000 / number of students ~825 = $36,460 per student.
Source
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jtcqp8Y.jpg)
You are not suggesting he would of seen the same success from an average public high school are you?
|
On October 04 2014 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:The claim is supposed to be in this book: Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry--and Made Himself the Richest Man in America Though I didn't read it myself so I can't say for sure. I'll accept that I can't prove he had a $1 million trust fund but it's rather irrelevant to my points. The ~$250,000 dollar private secondary schooling and the opportunity for a full ride to Harvard from his father is pretty sufficient to put him in the 1% The Bill Gates story has a lot of exactly what I and others talk about regarding the advantages of wealth. Lawyer pays well, serving on a board of directors not so much Well serving on a generic board and serving on a board of a bank your father started are pretty different... And with the equivalent of a quarter million dollar education and a free ride to Harvard it's not like they were pinching pennies... convincing them that he and his company could meet their needs. The only problem was that Microsoft had not developed the basic operating system that would run IBM's new computers. Not to be stopped, Gates bought an operating system that was developed to run on computers similar to IBM's PC. He made a deal with the software's developer, making Microsoft the exclusive licensing agent and later full owner of the software but not telling them of the IBM deal. The company later sued Microsoft and Gates for withholding important information. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but neither Gates nor Microsoft admitted to any wrong doing. My personal favorite part of his story is the old 'I made a shit ton of money off of a shady deal with you, and since you are suing me I will give you an undisclosed amount of the money if we agree that I had no reason to give it to you'. I don't begrudge hard work but there being less separation (score wise) between Lampert and Oprah than Lampert and Murdoch says a lot... I think you're defining 'self-made' quite a bit differently. It makes more sense to me to define 'self-made' as in 'how much of your wealth comes from your own efforts' rather than 'did you grow up middle class or lower or not'. Like I said before, there's a lot of subjectivity here. But I really don't see how 'private HS' translates into 'ofc he's a multi-billionaire' as if private school is an auto ticket to the top 0.000001%. I don't think it's the self part that we are caught on, it's the 'made'. For all intents and purposes he was already 'made' (albeit not a billionaire) long before he even touched a computer. He's obviously a smart and talented person so even had he been born poor he probably would of done fine for himself. But we're lying to ourselves if we think the Bill Gates story happens if he goes to a typical High School instead of Lakeside. It's not that Bill Gates suddenly would be stripped of the raw talents and work ethic, just that he wouldn't have had the opportunities that led him to be able to capitalize on them. If he goes to an average school he never even has access (in school) to the systems that led to his success. Somewhere out there are more 'Bill Gates' that just didn't happen to be born to well off parents, and they won't have access to some tech or service that could of led them to be the next 'Bill Gates'. Instead someone who may or may not be as talented but was born to parents with access will beat him/her to it. The difference in the level of their success will not be their talents or work ethic but simply where they started the race to their success. I'm pretty sure more people would be on board with removing social programs for adults if children didn't start from such disparate starting points beyond their control. How many great minds have we lost because they were just in shitty situations out of their control?
The problem I have with this argument is that you're preventing the term from ever being used.
The whole point is to draw a distinction from someone who is rich because he / she inherited their wealth vs someone who earned it themselves. But you seem to be using the term to make broader points about inequality and privilege.
|
On October 04 2014 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 10:34 Sub40APM wrote: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. llion 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'. Being born into a wealthy family meant Gates got to go to Lakeland High, an exclusive Seattle Area High School instead of an average one which then pipelined him into Harvard, pushing him further along a path of success. And of course it was also a high school so rich that it could afford a computer in the 1970s. If he just went to an average high school, no computer for Bill and he is a successful tax attorney somewhere. So what percentage of Lakeland High students became multi-billionaires? Couldn't tell you that but 100% of their graduates are accepted and enroll in 4 year post secondary schools. Class sizes of 16 with a total pop of ~825 Show nested quote +We have a conservative draw policy in which we draw an average of only 4 percent per year....Lakeside’s endowment today is worth approximately $188 million, fluctuating with market performance. Our endowment now covers approximately 25 percent of the cost of educating our students. Lakeside has no debt and has been able to expand its programs dramatically due to the increase in endowment, while still keeping tuition in a competitive range among Pacific Northwest schools. Some napkin math puts that at about 4% of 188,000,000 = $7,520,000 from endowment $7,520,000 = ~25% of cost of educating students. $7,520,000 * 4 = ~100% of the cost to educate students =$30,080,000 30,080,000 / number of students ~825 = $36,460 per student. Source+ Show Spoiler +You are not suggesting he would of seen the same success from an average public high school are you?
Spending per pupil has little to do with student performance.
|
On October 04 2014 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:The claim is supposed to be in this book: Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry--and Made Himself the Richest Man in America Though I didn't read it myself so I can't say for sure. I'll accept that I can't prove he had a $1 million trust fund but it's rather irrelevant to my points. The ~$250,000 dollar private secondary schooling and the opportunity for a full ride to Harvard from his father is pretty sufficient to put him in the 1% The Bill Gates story has a lot of exactly what I and others talk about regarding the advantages of wealth. Lawyer pays well, serving on a board of directors not so much Well serving on a generic board and serving on a board of a bank your father started are pretty different... And with the equivalent of a quarter million dollar education and a free ride to Harvard it's not like they were pinching pennies... convincing them that he and his company could meet their needs. The only problem was that Microsoft had not developed the basic operating system that would run IBM's new computers. Not to be stopped, Gates bought an operating system that was developed to run on computers similar to IBM's PC. He made a deal with the software's developer, making Microsoft the exclusive licensing agent and later full owner of the software but not telling them of the IBM deal. The company later sued Microsoft and Gates for withholding important information. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but neither Gates nor Microsoft admitted to any wrong doing. My personal favorite part of his story is the old 'I made a shit ton of money off of a shady deal with you, and since you are suing me I will give you an undisclosed amount of the money if we agree that I had no reason to give it to you'. I don't begrudge hard work but there being less separation (score wise) between Lampert and Oprah than Lampert and Murdoch says a lot... I think you're defining 'self-made' quite a bit differently. It makes more sense to me to define 'self-made' as in 'how much of your wealth comes from your own efforts' rather than 'did you grow up middle class or lower or not'. Like I said before, there's a lot of subjectivity here. But I really don't see how 'private HS' translates into 'ofc he's a multi-billionaire' as if private school is an auto ticket to the top 0.000001%. I don't think it's the self part that we are caught on, it's the 'made'. For all intents and purposes he was already 'made' (albeit not a billionaire) long before he even touched a computer. He's obviously a smart and talented person so even had he been born poor he probably would of done fine for himself. But we're lying to ourselves if we think the Bill Gates story happens if he goes to a typical High School instead of Lakeside. It's not that Bill Gates suddenly would be stripped of the raw talents and work ethic, just that he wouldn't have had the opportunities that led him to be able to capitalize on them. If he goes to an average school he never even has access (in school) to the systems that led to his success. Somewhere out there are more 'Bill Gates' that just didn't happen to be born to well off parents, and they won't have access to some tech or service that could of led them to be the next 'Bill Gates'. Instead someone who may or may not be as talented but was born to parents with access will beat him/her to it. The difference in the level of their success will not be their talents or work ethic but simply where they started the race to their success. I'm pretty sure more people would be on board with removing social programs for adults if children didn't start from such disparate starting points beyond their control. How many great minds have we lost because they were just in shitty situations out of their control? The problem I have with this argument is that you're preventing the term from ever being used. The whole point is to draw a distinction from someone who is rich because he / she inherited their wealth vs someone who earned it themselves. But you seem to be using the term to make broader points about inequality and privilege.
Well for clarifications sake I think it's important to have words to separate Someone like the Walton heirs from someone like Gates. I just don't think 'self made' carries the appropriate connotations or common interpretations when used to describe someone who went from the top 1% to the top .000001%
But having a scale where 1-9 are children of 1%ers then everyone from the top 2%ers (parents) to the poorest persons (parents) on the list all get the same score it kind of makes the scoring pretty ridiculous.
Spending per pupil has little to do with student performance. But parents income has a lot to do with success?
The picture and the numbers just help further dispel the 'my slice of pie doesn't make yours smaller' One kid doesn't deserve a better education than another, yet we have a system where some kids get an education that under no circumstances could every other student (who is just as entitled) possibly receive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
