It's also hard to stay on top, and it gets harder the closer you are: the turnover of individuals in these extreme upper brackets is high [0].
The composition of the very top income groups changed dramatically over time. Less than half (39% or 42% depending on the measure) of those in the top 1% in 1996 were still in the top 1% in 2005. Less than one-fourth of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in that group in 2005.
Bill Gates shouldn't be listed as someone who inherited his wealth: he did not inherit it. The $100 billion he'll give away was of his own creation, spurred from effort of his own mind, from a company born of his own fingers and imagination. We're having this conversation thanks to the Internet, probably via relatively inexpensive tools/gadgets. Which means we've all inherited an extraordinary privilege - courtesy of…
>> His mother didn't make the deal with IBM (in fact Ballmer was arguably most instrumental in the nuanced legal structure that gave Microsoft its position) Just for the sake of discussion: if his mother and her relation to the IBM top executive had a critical part in IBM's biggest business mistake ever - doesn't it make sense that they won't want to share those details ?
Quotation needed about mother's involvement.
The story that I've read was that IBM had the hardware but didn't think they could make software on time so they went shopping for the OS. First they went to Digital Research who didn't want to do it. Microsoft jumped in and promised to deliver what would become MS-DOS. The rest is history.
In no way was Gate's mother instrumental in the process.
Bill Gates shouldn't be listed as someone who inherited his wealth: he did not inherit it. The $100 billion he'll give away was of his own creation, spurred from effort of his own mind, from a company born of his own fingers and imagination. We're having this conversation thanks to the Internet, probably via relatively inexpensive tools/gadgets. Which means we've all inherited an extraordinary privilege - courtesy of…
Buffet made his initial nut by raising a sort of "Friends & Family" round for a mini-hedge-fund type thing. You can read about his wealthy Aunts and extended family in Snowball. He was doing this on the side while working at his daddys Buffett-Falk & Co as an investment salesman. He did well and after stalking Graham was able to get a gig in NYC for a few years before returning to running "mini-hedge-fund" type partn…
Connections aren't results. Getting an introduction won't help you one iota if you can't deliver.
The only thing that ultimately matters in investing is results. Buffett is the absolute worst example you could use to claim privilege results. Unless your theory is that his father's friends made all those investment decisions for him.
Just about the hardest thing to do in business would be to generate a $300 billion company on the back of one man's dozens of investment decisions. Trying to rob Buffett of that stunning success because his grandfather owned some tiny stores in Omaha, is beyond ridiculous.
Surest way is real estate. Just buy real estate and rent it. Repeat over 3 or 4 generations. Congratulations. You created a rich family. All other ways involve luck.
What you're saying is "The surest way to get rich is to be rich."
Real estate is just a way to invest money you already have. It doesn't generate wealth unless you have access to capital and can put deals together to develop properties and take a chunk. But that might as well put you in the "Finance" category.
Bill Gates shouldn't be listed as someone who inherited his wealth: he did not inherit it. The $100 billion he'll give away was of his own creation, spurred from effort of his own mind, from a company born of his own fingers and imagination. We're having this conversation thanks to the Internet, probably via relatively inexpensive tools/gadgets. Which means we've all inherited an extraordinary privilege - courtesy of…
It's not that he inherited his wealth, it's that he grew up in a privileged environment that gave him opportunities most other people didn't have.
Everyone has unique opportunities. We'll never have perfect equality of opportunity or social connections. Buffett and Gates weren't born into the lower strata of society, but nor were they born into the very upper elite. How many of Gates's classmates at his prep school or at Harvard did nearly as well as he? How often do children of congressmen/women become multibillionaires? We can divy up privilege endlessly (for having a lawyer dad, for having decent parents at all, for being born in the first world, for surviving infancy), but the only point of the article was to show whose wealth was inherited and whose was not.
The first paragraph says: > The popular view of America's upper class is that of an ossified aristocracy. But research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shakes up this view, at least among America's richest individuals. Not much has shaken up this view. Half of the list inherited $400 million or more upon turning 18. Even the other half of the list are from among a small percentage of America's upper midd…
Bill Gates shouldn't be listed as someone who inherited his wealth: he did not inherit it. The $100 billion he'll give away was of his own creation, spurred from effort of his own mind, from a company born of his own fingers and imagination. We're having this conversation thanks to the Internet, probably via relatively inexpensive tools/gadgets. Which means we've all inherited an extraordinary privilege - courtesy of…
> Bill Gates shouldn't be listed as someone who inherited his wealth: he did not inherit it.
According to Philip Greenspun, Bill Gates started off with a million-dollar trust fund:
"William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle's National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III."
Buffet made his initial nut by raising a sort of "Friends & Family" round for a mini-hedge-fund type thing. You can read about his wealthy Aunts and extended family in Snowball. He was doing this on the side while working at his daddys Buffett-Falk & Co as an investment salesman. He did well and after stalking Graham was able to get a gig in NYC for a few years before returning to running "mini-hedge-fund" type partn…
Connections aren't results. Getting an introduction won't help you one iota if you can't deliver. The only thing that ultimately matters in investing is results. Buffett is the absolute worst example you could use to claim privilege results. Unless your theory is that his father's friends made all those investment decisions for him. Just about the hardest thing to do in business would be to generate a $300 billion co…
Buffett is a perfect example of the problem: to be in the position to have those opportunities, you need a base and you need seed money. Having a family and friends round means you don't have the same type of pressure (they are generally far more willing to tolerate risk, give more room for experimentation, and are willing to write off lots of losses)
Let me emphasize it again - perhaps by sheer repetition, the main point will become obvious: It's not something relevant to the general population, the middle class in general, or the concept of social mobility, IF IT ONLY APPLIES TO 1 PERSON IN 1 MILLION.
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (It's especially unnecessary when replying to someone who already understands the point you're making.)
I wonder when we will have the first dollar trillionaire. (Rockefeller doesn't count) It's likely that some people will own entire planets in the future.
I remember a documentary by a wealthy persons son who interviewed one of the founders of Kinkos who makes a comment something along the lines of wanting to look down on Earth from the Moon someday and being able to say, "I own (part?) of that."
It's not that he inherited his wealth, it's that he grew up in a privileged environment that gave him opportunities most other people didn't have.
Are you suggesting his privilege wrote his software for him? Much less had the vision to start a software company in the 1970s - which his parents thought was a bad idea. They did not like the idea of him dropping out, he did it anyway. Paul Allen didn't come from any kind of privilege. So is the theory that he should be robbed of his amazing success and effort also, by association with Gates' association with his fa…
I think you miscategorize the opposition here. The argument isn't that Gates didn't work hard. The issue is that by din of his family's socioeconomic status, he was presented with opportunities that most people didn't have.
If you want to put it in numerical terms: going from 100M to 100B is arguably easier than going from -10K to +100M (even though there is less money involved)