|
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 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9
'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership?
|
On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership?
What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point?
|
On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point?
I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm.
You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence.
Do better.
|
On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better.
You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being?
I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm.
The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth.
Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine.
|
On October 05 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better. You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being? I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm. The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine.
"Partner" doesn't mean anything other than you are part owner in a firm. The firm can be worth $0 and you're still a "partner".
Yes, it's suspect to call a lawyer with his own practice 'working class' but it may still be apt. We don't know when he started his own practice or what he did before that. So either provide some more info on this or stop acting as if you have good data here.
|
On October 05 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better. You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being? I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm. The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine. "Partner" doesn't mean anything other than you are part owner in a firm. The firm can be worth $0 and you're still a "partner". Yes, it's suspect to call a lawyer with his own practice 'working class' but it may still be apt. We don't know when he started his own practice or what he did before that. So either provide some more info on this or stop acting as if you have good data here.
Well then lets look past the stuff you don't like/agree with and just focus on the stuff that you don't dispute so I can make my point clear (even though I doubt you disagree with it anyway).
Let's start by you defining where you imagine the rough upper and lower limits of 'middle class' to be?
|
On October 05 2014 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better. You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being? I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm. The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine. "Partner" doesn't mean anything other than you are part owner in a firm. The firm can be worth $0 and you're still a "partner". Yes, it's suspect to call a lawyer with his own practice 'working class' but it may still be apt. We don't know when he started his own practice or what he did before that. So either provide some more info on this or stop acting as if you have good data here. Well then lets look past the stuff you don't like/agree with and just focus on the stuff that you don't dispute so I can make my point clear (even though I doubt you disagree with it anyway). Let's start by you defining where you imagine the rough upper and lower limits of 'middle class' to be?
Class definitions are pretty squishy. I'm not sure what the point of setting limits would be. You are claiming fixed points, 1%, 2%, 10$, whatever, and then not substantiating with credible evidence.
To address your broader point: The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth.
the Forbes 1-10 ranking isn't a ranking of 'class at birth'. It's trying to qualitatively differentiate between self-made and inherited wealth. So complaining that a 9 or a 10 doesn't translate to poverty is a red herring. That is not a thing that it is trying to do.
Nor should it be. 'Self-made' doesn't mean 'made' as in, you're a 'made man' aka someone who is 'set for life.' 'Self-made' means that the preponderance of your accomplishment came from your own efforts. That is of course a subjective thing. If you give a person more tools, they can generally do more, so separating that from effort or talent is hard. Yet we're talking about billionaires here, so starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive.
|
On October 05 2014 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better. You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being? I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm. The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine. "Partner" doesn't mean anything other than you are part owner in a firm. The firm can be worth $0 and you're still a "partner". Yes, it's suspect to call a lawyer with his own practice 'working class' but it may still be apt. We don't know when he started his own practice or what he did before that. So either provide some more info on this or stop acting as if you have good data here. Well then lets look past the stuff you don't like/agree with and just focus on the stuff that you don't dispute so I can make my point clear (even though I doubt you disagree with it anyway). Let's start by you defining where you imagine the rough upper and lower limits of 'middle class' to be? Class definitions are pretty squishy. I'm not sure what the point of setting limits would be. You are claiming fixed points, 1%, 2%, 10$, whatever, and then not substantiating with credible evidence. To address your broader point: Show nested quote +The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. the Forbes 1-10 ranking isn't a ranking of 'class at birth'. It's trying to qualitatively differentiate between self-made and inherited wealth. So complaining that a 9 or a 10 doesn't translate to poverty is a red herring. That is not a thing that it is trying to do. Nor should it be. 'Self-made' doesn't mean 'made' as in, you're a 'made man' aka someone who is 'set for life.' 'Self-made' means that the preponderance of your accomplishment came from your own efforts. That is of course a subjective thing. If you give a person more tools, they can generally do more, so separating that from effort or talent is hard. Yet we're talking about billionaires here, so starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive.
Well I was wrong, we do disagree.
starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive.
Try to focus... The impressiveness is not something that should be commented on, as it is completely irrelevant to anything.
The part about you thinking the difference between $100 and $100,000 'isn't too material' is the part you could not be more wrong about. Really, it is the crux of my issue with the scoring, and is representative of the larger issue.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the difference between growing up in a household that earns between $100k and $100 "is not too material" when it comes to becoming a Forbes 400 member (or to their SM-score)? Because that's what it looks like, but I don't want to assume that's what you meant.
|
On October 05 2014 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %. That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous. But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better. You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being? I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm. The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine. "Partner" doesn't mean anything other than you are part owner in a firm. The firm can be worth $0 and you're still a "partner". Yes, it's suspect to call a lawyer with his own practice 'working class' but it may still be apt. We don't know when he started his own practice or what he did before that. So either provide some more info on this or stop acting as if you have good data here. Well then lets look past the stuff you don't like/agree with and just focus on the stuff that you don't dispute so I can make my point clear (even though I doubt you disagree with it anyway). Let's start by you defining where you imagine the rough upper and lower limits of 'middle class' to be? Class definitions are pretty squishy. I'm not sure what the point of setting limits would be. You are claiming fixed points, 1%, 2%, 10$, whatever, and then not substantiating with credible evidence. To address your broader point: The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. the Forbes 1-10 ranking isn't a ranking of 'class at birth'. It's trying to qualitatively differentiate between self-made and inherited wealth. So complaining that a 9 or a 10 doesn't translate to poverty is a red herring. That is not a thing that it is trying to do. Nor should it be. 'Self-made' doesn't mean 'made' as in, you're a 'made man' aka someone who is 'set for life.' 'Self-made' means that the preponderance of your accomplishment came from your own efforts. That is of course a subjective thing. If you give a person more tools, they can generally do more, so separating that from effort or talent is hard. Yet we're talking about billionaires here, so starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive. Well I was wrong, we do disagree. Show nested quote +starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive. Try to focus... The impressiveness is not something that should be commented on, as it is completely irrelevant to anything. The part about you thinking the difference between $100 and $100,000 'isn't too material' is the part you could not be more wrong about. Really, it is the crux of my issue with the scoring, and is representative of the larger issue. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the difference between growing up in a household that earns between $100k and $100 "is not too material" when it comes to becoming a Forbes 400 member (or to their SM-score)? Because that's what it looks like, but I don't want to assume that's what you meant.
Yes, absolutely. Very, very few people who come from $100K households become Forbes 400 members. Conversely, it's not too uncommon for someone who comes from a Forbes 400 family to end up a Forbes 400 member.
|
On October 05 2014 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous.
But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9 'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better. You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being? I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm. The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine. "Partner" doesn't mean anything other than you are part owner in a firm. The firm can be worth $0 and you're still a "partner". Yes, it's suspect to call a lawyer with his own practice 'working class' but it may still be apt. We don't know when he started his own practice or what he did before that. So either provide some more info on this or stop acting as if you have good data here. Well then lets look past the stuff you don't like/agree with and just focus on the stuff that you don't dispute so I can make my point clear (even though I doubt you disagree with it anyway). Let's start by you defining where you imagine the rough upper and lower limits of 'middle class' to be? Class definitions are pretty squishy. I'm not sure what the point of setting limits would be. You are claiming fixed points, 1%, 2%, 10$, whatever, and then not substantiating with credible evidence. To address your broader point: The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. the Forbes 1-10 ranking isn't a ranking of 'class at birth'. It's trying to qualitatively differentiate between self-made and inherited wealth. So complaining that a 9 or a 10 doesn't translate to poverty is a red herring. That is not a thing that it is trying to do. Nor should it be. 'Self-made' doesn't mean 'made' as in, you're a 'made man' aka someone who is 'set for life.' 'Self-made' means that the preponderance of your accomplishment came from your own efforts. That is of course a subjective thing. If you give a person more tools, they can generally do more, so separating that from effort or talent is hard. Yet we're talking about billionaires here, so starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive. Well I was wrong, we do disagree. starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive. Try to focus... The impressiveness is not something that should be commented on, as it is completely irrelevant to anything. The part about you thinking the difference between $100 and $100,000 'isn't too material' is the part you could not be more wrong about. Really, it is the crux of my issue with the scoring, and is representative of the larger issue. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the difference between growing up in a household that earns between $100k and $100 "is not too material" when it comes to becoming a Forbes 400 member (or to their SM-score)? Because that's what it looks like, but I don't want to assume that's what you meant. Yes, absolutely. Very, very few people who come from $100K households become Forbes 400 members. Conversely, it's not too uncommon for someone who comes from a Forbes 400 family to end up a Forbes 400 member.
Well see the thing is... that's about 80% of Americans and would lump an orphan's SM-score with a kid with a dad who makes 6 figures with a stay at home mom and private schooling.
Move it up to people making under $250k and now we are talking ~98% of Americans.
Donald Trump Inherited millions of dollars along with all the other advantages and he got a 5... So ~99% of Americans couldn't not be 'self-made' if they wanted to.
So when ~99% of Americans couldn't get on the Forbes 400 list without being considered 'Self-Made' (score of 6 or higher) it's misleading as all hell to claim "69% of the Forbes 400" are 'self-made' without drawing attention to the fact that ~99% of Americans would come from a potential 'self-made' background.
Additionally having 2-3 numbers that represent the starting points for ~99% of the population (from Orphans to Children of Doctors and Lawyers) and the other 7-8 numbers representing the remaining ~1% says a lot.
|
On October 05 2014 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
'Senior Partner' doesn't tell you much unless you know what organization you're talking about. Are we talking about 3 guys in a modest office or a large partnership? What are you even talking about? What difference does it make to the point? I'm talking about what you are talking about and it could make a large difference to your point. A small law firm doesn't give you the same pay or prestige as a large firm. You're saying things like "Forbes is wrong because if I Google Edward Lampert, Wikipedia cites a wedding notice that his dad was a 'Senior Partner' at a NYC law firm and I assume that means he's a big shot" as if that's some kind of smoking gun type evidence. Do better. You still haven't told me where you imagine the ends of upper and middle class being? I really don't get your point. No one is suggesting that being partner at a small firm (even if it has your name on it) is the same as being a partner at a huge firm. The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. Just being a Lawyer would put him in the top 20%, add to that he is a partner, then add to that the firm has his name on it, then add to that it was based in NYC, and I really, really, don't get your point and you clearly don't get mine. "Partner" doesn't mean anything other than you are part owner in a firm. The firm can be worth $0 and you're still a "partner". Yes, it's suspect to call a lawyer with his own practice 'working class' but it may still be apt. We don't know when he started his own practice or what he did before that. So either provide some more info on this or stop acting as if you have good data here. Well then lets look past the stuff you don't like/agree with and just focus on the stuff that you don't dispute so I can make my point clear (even though I doubt you disagree with it anyway). Let's start by you defining where you imagine the rough upper and lower limits of 'middle class' to be? Class definitions are pretty squishy. I'm not sure what the point of setting limits would be. You are claiming fixed points, 1%, 2%, 10$, whatever, and then not substantiating with credible evidence. To address your broader point: The point is that you could get a 9 out of 10 on Forbes 'self-made' scale starting in the top tiers of economic birth. the Forbes 1-10 ranking isn't a ranking of 'class at birth'. It's trying to qualitatively differentiate between self-made and inherited wealth. So complaining that a 9 or a 10 doesn't translate to poverty is a red herring. That is not a thing that it is trying to do. Nor should it be. 'Self-made' doesn't mean 'made' as in, you're a 'made man' aka someone who is 'set for life.' 'Self-made' means that the preponderance of your accomplishment came from your own efforts. That is of course a subjective thing. If you give a person more tools, they can generally do more, so separating that from effort or talent is hard. Yet we're talking about billionaires here, so starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive. Well I was wrong, we do disagree. starting out with $100 or $100,000 isn't too material. Turning either of those figures into billions is very impressive. Try to focus... The impressiveness is not something that should be commented on, as it is completely irrelevant to anything. The part about you thinking the difference between $100 and $100,000 'isn't too material' is the part you could not be more wrong about. Really, it is the crux of my issue with the scoring, and is representative of the larger issue. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the difference between growing up in a household that earns between $100k and $100 "is not too material" when it comes to becoming a Forbes 400 member (or to their SM-score)? Because that's what it looks like, but I don't want to assume that's what you meant. Yes, absolutely. Very, very few people who come from $100K households become Forbes 400 members. Conversely, it's not too uncommon for someone who comes from a Forbes 400 family to end up a Forbes 400 member. Well see the thing is... that's about 80% of Americans and would lump an orphan's SM-score with a kid with a dad who makes 6 figures with a stay at home mom and private schooling.
I don't think that's correct. A rating of 10 is supposed to be poor and significant adversity. 7 and up is supposed to be beyond upper middle class.
Move it up to people making under $250k and now we are talking ~98% of Americans.
Donald Trump Inherited millions of dollars along with all the other advantages and he got a 5... So ~99% of Americans couldn't not be 'self-made' if they wanted to.
What? I think you may have worded this wrong.
So when ~99% of Americans couldn't get on the Forbes 400 list without being considered 'Self-Made' (score of 6 or higher) it's misleading as all hell to claim "69% of the Forbes 400" are 'self-made' without drawing attention to the fact that ~99% of Americans would come from a potential 'self-made' background.
Eh? Self-made isn't a 'background'. Obviously only a tiny fraction of the population can inherit their way into the Fortune 400.
Additionally having 2-3 numbers that represent the starting points for ~99% of the population (from Orphans to Children of Doctors and Lawyers) and the other 7-8 numbers representing the remaining ~1% says a lot.
I don't understand your point here. The numbers don't represent socio-economic 'backgrounds'. They also aren't quantitative values you can do math with. I.e. you can't say that a 6 is three times as self-made as a 2. They're just qualitative descriptors that allow the reader to draw distinctions.
|
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A judge struck down part of Missouri's gay marriage ban for the first time on Friday by ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, saying state laws banning the unions single out gay couples "for no logical reason."
The order means such couples will be eligible to sign up for a wide range of tax, health insurance, veterans and other benefits now afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who has defended the state's ban on gay marriage, said his office was reviewing the ruling.
The decision comes in a lawsuit filed by 10 same-sex couples who legally married outside the state, including Arlene Zarembka and Zuleyma Tang-Martinez. The St. Louis couple, who married in Canada, said Friday's ruling could boost their household income, and they plan to apply Monday for Zarembka to receive Social Security benefits as Tang-Martinez's spouse.
Source
|
Obviously only a tiny fraction of the population can inherit their way into the Fortune 400.
Only a tiny fraction of 1% 'can' inherit their way onto the Forbes 400 yet even by their standards 31% (7% 28 billionaires [4 out of the top 10] if you only want to count the people who literally inherited the actual spot) of the people on the list do.
Some people see that as a flaw others a feature of our economic system, I think you've made it clear which side you are on.
|
On October 05 2014 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Obviously only a tiny fraction of the population can inherit their way into the Fortune 400. Only a tiny fraction of 1% 'can' inherit their way onto the Forbes 400 yet even by their standards 31% (7% 28 billionaires [4 out of the top 10] if you only want to count the people who literally inherited the actual spot) of the people on the list do.Some people see that as a flaw others a feature of our economic system, I think you've made it clear which side you are on.
Which is why that factor is considered important.
Maybe you're starting to understand?
|
On October 05 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Obviously only a tiny fraction of the population can inherit their way into the Fortune 400. Only a tiny fraction of 1% 'can' inherit their way onto the Forbes 400 yet even by their standards 31% (7% 28 billionaires [4 out of the top 10] if you only want to count the people who literally inherited the actual spot) of the people on the list do.Some people see that as a flaw others a feature of our economic system, I think you've made it clear which side you are on. Which is why that factor is considered important. Maybe you're starting to understand?
You are the one who doesn't seem to understand... Either way I'm done discussing it with you.
|
On October 05 2014 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2014 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Obviously only a tiny fraction of the population can inherit their way into the Fortune 400. Only a tiny fraction of 1% 'can' inherit their way onto the Forbes 400 yet even by their standards 31% (7% 28 billionaires [4 out of the top 10] if you only want to count the people who literally inherited the actual spot) of the people on the list do.Some people see that as a flaw others a feature of our economic system, I think you've made it clear which side you are on. Which is why that factor is considered important. Maybe you're starting to understand? You are the one who doesn't seem to understand... Either way I'm done discussing it with you.
Actually I actually understand perfectly. You made statements that were either unsupported or illogical. Since you couldn't defend the things you said, you're trying to change the topic and label me.
It's the same tired shit you always pull and at this point I'm very familiar with it.
|
This is all a piss poor vision of reality. Starting with 100 000 $ doesn't mean much. What you need to consider is : the education (cultural capital), the network (social capital) and the economic capital. All those three are needed to succeed. There are plenty of people that could get their hands on 100 000 but who would not know the people that could help them find the right investment.
This is why Fortune's article is a joke, because you cannot say that someone is "self made" if you don't take into consideration his scolarship (which is both financial capital, since you need to pay for it, but also social and cultural since it gives you access to those two things). A kid that made Harvard is not self made and that is a pretty obvious thing to say.
Now maybe, maybe, if you take all that into consideration, you will find one or two people who actually came from the working mass and became millionnaire, or billionnaire - people that you can consider "self made" - and that is just pure luck and hasard, the kind of things that happens and exist in reality.
For the rest in the list, it is just another way to acquire the benefit of your capitals, not only monetary, but also cultural and social.
I'll give you an exemple. Mr Macron is the new minister of economy in France and is a millionnaire. He was just another public workers with a high degree (he came from a french school that product shit mass media politicians who run and ruin the country since 30 years) and gaining 4k € a month but, because he is a cock sucker, sucked the right person and got into a commission. In this commission he then met a guy (Jacque Attali, a shitbag economist who is still somehow interviwed because he has the social capital you know) who proposed him to get into a job at the rotschild bank. He agreed and continued his carreer of cocksucking, and got into the rotschild where he participated to a deal between nestlé and I dont know which company, a billion dollars deal where he got a certain amount to the point that he is now a millionnaire.
Explain me, what's so amazing about this ? Where or when did he create any wealth ?
That's how rich people are made today. We're not talking about entrepreneurship, for the most part, but just people that use the variety of their capitals (social, cultural and economical) to get in a position where they just have to stretch the hand to get filthy rich. And to me that's both a moral and an economic problem.
|
On October 05 2014 10:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A judge struck down part of Missouri's gay marriage ban for the first time on Friday by ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, saying state laws banning the unions single out gay couples "for no logical reason."
The order means such couples will be eligible to sign up for a wide range of tax, health insurance, veterans and other benefits now afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who has defended the state's ban on gay marriage, said his office was reviewing the ruling.
The decision comes in a lawsuit filed by 10 same-sex couples who legally married outside the state, including Arlene Zarembka and Zuleyma Tang-Martinez. The St. Louis couple, who married in Canada, said Friday's ruling could boost their household income, and they plan to apply Monday for Zarembka to receive Social Security benefits as Tang-Martinez's spouse. Source
So states against gay marriage have to recognize marriage licenses from states that are OK with gay marriage, but states who're big on gun control don't need to recognize carry licenses from all other states? Nice double standard SC.
|
Marriage and guns are different, particularly when it comes to probate issues. Nice false equivalency, Millitron.
|
On October 06 2014 01:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 10:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A judge struck down part of Missouri's gay marriage ban for the first time on Friday by ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, saying state laws banning the unions single out gay couples "for no logical reason."
The order means such couples will be eligible to sign up for a wide range of tax, health insurance, veterans and other benefits now afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who has defended the state's ban on gay marriage, said his office was reviewing the ruling.
The decision comes in a lawsuit filed by 10 same-sex couples who legally married outside the state, including Arlene Zarembka and Zuleyma Tang-Martinez. The St. Louis couple, who married in Canada, said Friday's ruling could boost their household income, and they plan to apply Monday for Zarembka to receive Social Security benefits as Tang-Martinez's spouse. Source So states against gay marriage have to recognize marriage licenses from states that are OK with gay marriage, but states who're big on gun control don't need to recognize carry licenses from all other states? Nice double standard SC.
Gun licenses aren't federal. Because of the gun lobby. No double standard, it's just that gun owners...
+ Show Spoiler +shot themselves in the foot
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
