> There’s no doubt that entrepreneurship is thriving globally. Fully 1,191 members of the list are self-made billionaires, while just 230 inherited their wealth. Another 405 inherited at least a portion but are still working to increase their fortunes.
Not sure how "at least a portion" is defined, but I imagine less than half had significant inheritance. That's not to say the self-made billionaires were born middle class, but it does suggest that wealth does not necessarily beget wealth.
Again, 635 out of 1191 started out rich (either for the whole sum, or a portion of it). That's 53% of them.
But even if 1190 of them had gone "rich from zero" and only 1 had inherited his wealth, it wouldn't be that comforting by itself.
What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to become upper middle class, etc -- and of course most middle class to be stable and not fall into poverty.
That is, things that affect the majority of the population.
A society with a middle class that shrinks and worse prospects for 99% of kids compared to their parents is not absolved if it has 1000 billionaires emerge out of poverty (or middle class). A society with just 10 billionaires but far better social mobility (e.g. like in the 50's) would be much better to live in.
That's just relevant as an opportunity to a mere .0002857% of the population.
I know it's pretty minor, but it's actually 1,826 in total, so it's 35%.
>A society with a middle class that shrinks and worse prospects for 99% of kids compared to their parents is not absolved if it has 1000 billionaires emerge out of poverty (or middle class). A society with just 10 billionaires but far better social mobility (e.g. like in the 50's) would be much better to live in.
I don't follow this logic at all. Does number of billionaires created affect anything else? They seem somewhat unrelated to me, especially in light of what I said before about the rich constantly turning over.
>I know it's pretty minor, but it's actually 1,826 in total, so it's 35%
A, thanks. Missed that, thought 1191 was the total given.
I think the rest of the argument remains unaffected though, so wont change it.
>I don't follow this logic at all. Does number of billionaires created affect anything else?
Yes, I don't see the two things as "unrelated" events, but as the difference between a society set up to sustain and grow a strong middle class, and one that caters to a tiny majority of rich (regardless how they got there, by inheritance or bootstrapping) to the detriment of the middle class.
That is, this outcome is not just the effect of random people going about their life more or less independently and succeeding or not, but of a society (laws, education, etc) that has been rigged towards sustaining and growing (but always to a negligible percentage of the total) the upper classes, and milking the middle class and the poor to oblivion.
> This year, we gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from 1 to 10 — a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey. We also did the analysis for every 10 years going back to 1984. Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: in 1984, less than half of people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69% of the 400 created their own fortunes. [0]
If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction. I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies.
My opinion may not be popular, but I find it encouraging to think that so few can create such great wealth in today's society, even if the odds are against me creating such wealth. In many cases, that means that a product or service one person creates can benefit a large number of people and make you very wealthy. And I personally benefit from many of the products and services that were created by this generation of the wealthy individuals.
>If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction.
No, "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" is not my concern -- I think I made that clear in the comment.
Upward mobility to middle class, middle class stability (to going back to poverty), and upward mobility from middle class to upper middle class are my concerns.
To which "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" could even be working against -- while itself concerning a very tiny majority.
>I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies.
What I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference though between:
"we could only make 10 non-rich people ultra-rich in 1950, whereas we have 1000 non-rich made ultra-rich today".
Which might be all well and good, but this "upward mobility" only concerns a tiny minority, and having a healthy "upward mobility" and social stability for the large masses.
I feel like looking at how the 0.01% got ultra-rich is mostly focusing on the wrong thing. The problem is that the rich and ultra-rich are getting richer while everyone else is stagnating or regressing
> What you generally want in a society is: lots of poor people to be able to get out of poverty (into middle class), middle class to have a decent chance to become upper middle class, etc -- and of course most middle class to be stable and not fall into poverty.
I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving. Who cares about joining the middle class if most of their needs already being met.
If, for instance, a replicator was invented that provided food and shelter to anyone who wanted it for free, a hell of a lot of people could live quite happily and comfortably without being middle class. So the goal should be to get to that sort of scenario as fast as possible. That is, a world in which the cost of covering our basic human needs is so small that nobody needs to be middle-class or higher to be happy.
>I hear this a lot but I really don't understand the logic. Because the middle class is a subjective and proportionate categorization, your target is always going to be moving.
Of course the target its moving. That means society is progressing in the aggregate. So why keep "desired standards of living" stuck in the past? In 1840 having no electricity and running water was considered acceptable. Today we think even internet is a kind of necessary good.
So, with progress the definition of rich / middle class / poverty etc should move too. Who said poverty is some absolute measurable state? Obviously you shouldn't consider yourself "rich" or even middle class, if you live in a trailer park with $100/month, just because you have housing, electricity and lots of available food in Walmart, whereas 1200 A.D peasants and 10000 B.C cavemen had neither...
What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in.
> What was the case "in the past" doesn't come into play when people compare their status to other contemporaries -- and the level of the society they live in.
So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have.
>So then it's all about envying those who have more, no matter how comfortable a life you happen to have.
You could use the moralistic conception of "envy", and make it sound bad, like telling kids "you should not envy your brother other".
Or you could:
1) see that envy and egoism is considered a primary motivator for advancement (if you like free market theories, e.g. Adam Smith and the "egoism of the butcher", etc.)
2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories).
If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them?
> 1) see that envy and egoism is considered a primary motivator for advancement (if you like free market theories, e.g. Adam Smith and the "egoism of the butcher", etc.)
I agree it's a primary motivator for advancement, but if the government redistributes wealth it destroys that motivation and the benefits that come along with people having it (new businesses, higher productivity, increased education, etc).
> 2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories).
I think at some point there's little point to everyone increasing their standard of living. We're already reaching a point here in the US where people are simply bored. Would we all be better off as a society if everyone had an extra 500 sq. ft. added to their homes, or a Tesla in their garage, or designer clothes? We are reaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to material possessions, unless it's all about envy like I suggested in my previous reply.
> If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them?
Well, I'm not being "given" my internet access, I pay for it. But yes, if I could no longer afford to pay for my internet access I would still thank my lucky stars I have electricity and running water. Duh?
