Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The central thesis of this post is that poor people are poor because they give their money to the rich. Then, the post pivoted to the false claim that 80% of millionaires are self-made.
They are. My spouse and I are just two examples out of many. We were both so low-income/poor in college and for a year or so thereafter (we both worked our way through school - no help from parents because they didn't have the money for it, either - and we did it WITHOUT student loans, which was a smart as hell decision even though that meant several years of lifestyle hardships) that we lived in a tiny apartment in Chicago that would only heat up to 59 degrees in the winter. I became VERY adept at layering clothes for warmth. Served me extremely well on our camping trip "vacations," the only kind we could afford for years. But FUN times!
Of course they aren't the same thing; hence both qualifiers are in the sentence.
Ivanka is neither the first generation nor self-made.
I am talking about people like Steve Jobs.
Do you have any proof to your 20%? My 80% has been well reserached and well documented.
Well researched and documented? LOL. Sorry, but no. Its a myth that is often reported as being true. When actual research is done on it, it turns out that "self made" has a amazing blind spot.
Take the 2011 forbes list of the wealthiest 400 that WAS looked at. 40% of them received significant advantage by inheriting a large asset, or by marrying someone wealthy. MORE then 20% on the list received sufficient wealth to make the top 400 list just from their inheritance.
The net worth of the top 400 grew 15 fold from 1982 to 2011, while wealth stagnated for the average household.
I became a right-winger as soon as learned Economics 101. The way to grow wealth is to PRODUCE more than you CONSUME. Then you LOAN your SAVINGS to people who CHOOSE to go into DEBT and their money flows up to you. As soon as you realize this, you understand why income inequality exists.
For example, 61% of millionaires drives Honda, Toyotas and Fords. Jazz Bezos drives a Honda Accord and Bill Gates drives a Ford Focus. But as soon as you drive into a poor area you see Cadillacs and Lexuses.
The rich are buying up all property available and then building "affordable" housing. But the thing is there is nothing affordable about it. The rich in my area are land lords and charge outrageous rent. People can stop going to Starbucks if they want to save money, or stop going out to dinner every night to save a few bucks, but they have no choice in paying whatever the land lords charge for rent.
I personally know someone who is a land lord. This person got ripped off not too long ago in a leather jackets / Milan Italy scam. Since this land lord is so money hungry, they thought they would buy up a dozen or so jackets and then turn around and sell them for x times the amount they paid. After buying the jackets they found out that they were all fake and worth nothing. No problem, the land lord just raised the rents at the properties roughly $100.00 per month. Land lord's money hungry problem solved! Passed the scam down to the tenants to pay. Just one example of the rich injecting themselves into everyone's life for the benefit of monetary gain.
The actual answer seems to lie across all of the answers above.
Most of the millionaires in this country are self-made through working high income jobs and savings. Can this be sustained by their inheriting children? I would think not in most cases and that this wealth mostly dissipates and is refreshed in the next generation.
But as wealth climbs, so do the chances that you inherited your money - if not all of it, at least enough to get you well on your way - where investing then lifts you higher.
A CNBC article broke down the Forbes 400 this way (using the baseball analogy):
35% are born in the batter's box - they truly made it on their own.
22% were born on first base of comfortable parents and might have received start up capital
11.5% born on second base inheriting a small company or over $1M
7% Born on Third inheriting a big company or over $50M
THAT is true, though one can LEARN to be financially literate as my spouse and I did so.
Surprisingly, a LOT of financial literacy is common sense. Some examples: Live below your means and save/invest the surplus. Read purchase contracts very carefully, especially for anything that will be paid for in installments (some stores will get you to buy by offering 0% financing for a specific amount of time, make sure the entire amount is paid off in full before the 0% APR term expires). NEVER, EVER, EVER revolve a balance on a credit card. Pay the full balance EVERY month.
IDK, but to me... that's all ridiculously obvious and very self-explanatory.
The central thesis of this post is that poor people are poor because they give their money to the rich. Then, the post pivoted to the false claim that 80% of millionaires are self-made. I simply illustrated that a first-generation millionaire isn’t necessarily self-made. And no, someone who was given a large sum of money does not deserve the title self-made. I don’t know why that’s a point of controversy. I like to speak honestly, and using the “self-made” on who isn’t is simply a lie. If you would like to continue engaging in a dishonest discussion. That’s on you, but you should probably do so without all the sanctimony.
I apologize for appearing sanctimonious. It is extremely frustrating to read all the posts about rich people with "ill-gotten" gains because someone else decides they are not "deserving" due to the method of enrichment. That is a bit sanctimonious in itself is it not? If you worked all your life and saved $1mil, you are no different to me than the guy who inherited his father's $1mil house. Neither of these people affect me personally. If you are either person all I can say is "Good on ya'"
Reflecting on the OP's post. I live in an area with some of the wealthiest people in the country. A lot of these folks with rock solid financial assets are surprisingly frugal. If you drive through some of the nicest neighborhoods in this town Like La Jolla or Coronado you will see beaters or sub compacts parked in the driveways. Old Accords and Camrys. Some higher end cars like a Mercedes or BMW but 10 years old or older.
The wealthy are rich because they don't spend money?
Bill Gates may drive a (relatively) cheap car but he lives in a $125 million dollar house. And Jeff Bezos used to own an old Honda even after he got rich, but he owns several homes that are worth $25 million each and oh, yeah, a $65 million dollar jet.
I'm sorry, what was your point again?
When he drives through poor neighborhoods, they all have Gulfstreams, not the much more reasonable Learjets.
I apologize for appearing sanctimonious. It is extremely frustrating to read all the posts about rich people with "ill-gotten" gains because someone else decides they are not "deserving" due to the method of enrichment. That is a bit sanctimonious in itself is it not? If you worked all your life and saved $1mil, you are no different to me than the guy who inherited his father's $1mil house. Neither of these people affect me personally. If you are either person all I can say is "Good on ya'"
I wasn’t insinuating that his gains were ill-gotten. I certainly don’t resent the guy. He’s one of my best friends. I was in his wedding, I’ve recommended him for employment, and I’ve invested in his start-up. I resent the fact that we pretend that poverty is a choice, and that successful people who had a lot of help are somehow “self-made”. It’s dishonest and leads to more income equality. My wife and I actually made the climb from poverty to upper-middle class, so I know EXACTLY how hard it is. I also know that most of our current peers didn’t have the same struggle. That doesn’t mean they didn’t work hard. No one makes it where we have, in our fields without hard work.
We have a higher incomes and a very good savings rate, but our peers are going to hit a net worth of 1 million for sooner than we will. Some already have.
We have a higher incomes and a very good savings rate, but our peers are going to hit a net worth of 1 million for sooner than we will. Some already have.
So speaks the inner resentment...
So what? Who cares if your peers attain a specific level of financial status before you? Does it change your financial status somehow?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
