When you have the assurance that you'll get wealth handed down to you, it opens up the possibility to explore things you're good at and take on more risk to amass greater wealth.
So really, it's a push and pull situation. Billionaires do indeed know how to get rich but they're from stable backgrounds which permits them to do so.
Meanwhile, most of us are stuck at 9-to-5 jobs and worried about making good on our interest payments.
This is the conclusion of Thomas Picketty's 2013 book, "Capital in the 21st Century." Due to the historical averages of the rate of return on capital, he concluded empirically that wealth will continue to concentrate to the point to inheritors, to the extent that individuals become increasingly unable through labor to achieve parity to the inheritors. The book was very provocative in economist circles, but even the c…
We are devolving to the status quo from the nineteen century and before. A couple owners of inherited wealth and huge dispossessed masses.
Assuming we're not talking "I have a retirement plan and a house so my net-worth is over a million" type of millionaire, isn't passing oneself off as a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire a distinction without a difference? I guess I don't run in those circles, but it's still fabulous wealth either way.
Statistically, many "average" upper middle class people are very able to become low tier multimillionaires through a well educated upbringing and a good job, and good financial decisions over a long period of time. But many of those people take their entire lives to go from "pretty well off" to "technically a multi millionaire, after many years of hard work, and planning" and got there from very reasonable expectatio…
Assuming we're not talking "I have a retirement plan and a house so my net-worth is over a million" type of millionaire, isn't passing oneself off as a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire a distinction without a difference? I guess I don't run in those circles, but it's still fabulous wealth either way.
Statistically, many "average" upper middle class people are very able to become low tier multimillionaires through a well educated upbringing and a good job, and good financial decisions over a long period of time. But many of those people take their entire lives to go from "pretty well off" to "technically a multi millionaire, after many years of hard work, and planning" and got there from very reasonable expectatio…
> Statistically, many "average" upper middle class people are very able to become low tier multimillionaires through a well educated upbringing and a good job, and good financial decisions over a long period of time.
That's why I addressed that. Retirement savings and home is a different sort of millionaire than someone with 50 million in the bank. What lifestyle choices are going to be visible in someone with 50 million vs a billion? The number of private jets they own?
And yet 70% of generational wealth is gone by the 2nd generation.
How is generational wealth defined in that statistic? I know many people who had parents whom I would consider wealthy, but the kids don't make as much and the family are taken down a notch as the kids reach middle age. However, these "wealthy" people were doctors or lawyers, they did well and probably were in the top 2% of earners in their prime, but they were never worth many tens of millions. On the other hand, I think a billionaire's wealth can last for generations if set up properly in trusts, etc.
This is the conclusion of Thomas Picketty's 2013 book, "Capital in the 21st Century." Due to the historical averages of the rate of return on capital, he concluded empirically that wealth will continue to concentrate to the point to inheritors, to the extent that individuals become increasingly unable through labor to achieve parity to the inheritors. The book was very provocative in economist circles, but even the c…
It's an interesting model and in my opinion, provides a much better model for the 'fourth turning' pattern than the mechanism put forward by the authors. The predictable return on capital Picketty points to after all only happens during times of stability, during times of instability wealth disparities actually decrease. If too much concentration of wealth leads to crisis and crisis is a 'distributing' mechanism this…
>> If too much concentration of wealth leads to crisis and crisis is a 'distributing' mechanism this is basically a self-correcting dynamic.
Doesn't this imply that economic hardships lead to unrest and wars?
It certainly seems so and seems like a logical conclusion.
It may be primarily anecdotal, but the last 100 years or so seem to confirm it.
This is the conclusion of Thomas Picketty's 2013 book, "Capital in the 21st Century." Due to the historical averages of the rate of return on capital, he concluded empirically that wealth will continue to concentrate to the point to inheritors, to the extent that individuals become increasingly unable through labor to achieve parity to the inheritors. The book was very provocative in economist circles, but even the c…
I also think it's worth calling out that his follow-up, "Capital and Ideology" in its latter sections includes several suggestions for counteracting the trend to increasing inequality. One of these is basically that _every_ person should have a windfall inheritance when they're in their early adulthood, which would give them opportunities to pursue education, try starting a business, or whatever else. And naturally, this needs to be funded by taxes on the very wealthy.
Statistically, many "average" upper middle class people are very able to become low tier multimillionaires through a well educated upbringing and a good job, and good financial decisions over a long period of time. But many of those people take their entire lives to go from "pretty well off" to "technically a multi millionaire, after many years of hard work, and planning" and got there from very reasonable expectatio…
In the US a billion is 1,000 million, not one million million.