patrick.net

Fucking White Male says

Seems I live a much more diverse life than you.

Certainly not if you define it that way. You don't think that a lot of the first generation immigrants you run into at the commerce or that work at asian restaurants in SGV are undocumented ? Really ?

marcus says

Fucking White Male says

Seems I live a much more diverse life than you.

Certainly not if you define it that way. You don't think that a lot of the first generation immigrants you run into at the commerce or that work at asian restaurants in SGV are undocumented ? Really ?

lol that's your counter? Ok then I agree with you. They should get deported too!

Here is a good read about the differences within the 1% from an investing manager from 2011. He breaks down the differences between the upper and lower halves of the 1%. The second link is the 2014 update

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

The Lower Half of the Top 1%

The 99th to 99.5th percentiles largely include physicians, attorneys, upper middle management, and small business people who have done well...

The Upper Half of the Top 1%

Membership in this elite group is likely to come from being involved in some aspect of the financial services or banking industry, real estate development involved with those industries, or government contracting...The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor as do most in the bottom 99.5%. They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. These opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.

...Folks in the top 0.1% come from many backgrounds but it's infrequent to meet one whose wealth wasn't acquired through direct or indirect participation in the financial and banking industries....The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the uber-wealthy who hire them...

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager_2014.html

...Thus, an average physician — while doing very well by most people's standards — is unlikely to earn or accumulate enough to place him or her in the top 1% by income or net worth at the end of their career. Opportunity for most Americans, even physicians, is decreasing, even while net worth and income accelerate for those at the very top of the system. If an average physician today is unlikely to make it into the top 1% (Piketty and Saez's end-of-2012 data show that the 1% income line is crossed with an income of $396k per year), then it seems pretty clear that crossling that line via income, savings, and investments will be impossible for nearly every American in the future."

Fucking White Male says

nor has anyone linked an article supporting the idea that most of the rich inherited the money, an opinion shared by several posters in this thread and backed with not one relevant fact.

Here, I did your research for you.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533

The Forbes list is an annual ode to the American dream. The roster of richest Americans is filled with stories of entrepreneurs who started with little (or at least not a lot) and built a business and personal fortune through hard work, good ideas and perfect timing.

Recent additions include Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sara Blakely, the founder of Spanx.

But a new report claims that the story of self-made wealth on the Forbes list is just that – a story. The report, from the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy, says that 40 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited a “sizeable asset from a spouse or family member.”

Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely “self-made.”

“The truth is that Americans have never had an equal opportunity to become wealthy. Rather than concocting fables about our ‘opportunity society,’ the editors of Forbes should be examining the birthright privileges enjoyed by many of those on the list,” the report stated.

On its face, the question of whether a couple dozen billionaires made or inherited their wealth seems trivial. And even by United for a Fair Economy's calculations, the number of "self-made" rich is rising. In 1997, the group calculated that 50 percent of the Forbes list inherited all or part of their fortune.

But the question of what counts as “self-made” is now in the political spotlight after President Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments and attacks on Mitt Romney’s family privilege.

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.

How do you define “self-made” wealth? Can you inherit your dad’s company and still be self-made?

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires-made-it-themselves.html?view=story&%24DEVICE%24=native-android-tablet

Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires.

Here is Forbes' scoring system and billionaire examples for each score.

Inherited fortune, but not working to increase it: Laurene Powell Jobs
Inherited fortune, and has a role managing it: Forrest Mars Jr.
Inherited fortune, and helping to increase it marginally: Penny Pritzker
Inherited fortune, and increasing it in a meaningful way: Henry Ross Perot Jr.
Inherited small- or medium-size business, and made it into a 10-digit fortune: Donald Trump
Hired or hands-off investor, who didn't create the business: Meg Whitman
Self-made, who got a head start from wealthy parents and moneyed background: Rupert Murdoch
Self-made, who came from a middle- or upper-middle-class background: Mark Zuckerberg
Self-made, who came from a largely working-class background; rose from little to nothing: Eddie Lampert
Self-made, who not only grew up poor, but also overcame significant obstacles: Oprah Winfrey

"The truth is that Americans have never had an equal opportunity to become wealthy," the report said. "Rather than concocting fables about our 'opportunity society,' the editors of Forbes should be examining the birthright privileges enjoyed by many of those on the list."

Unprecedented government bailouts during the 2008-10 era enabled many to get rich or stay rich. TARP, QE, ZIRP, corrupt "robo-signing" settlements, HAMP, etc. Democrats declared they were "helping homeowners" when in fact they were helping bankers, landlords, and real estate developers. Almost nobody in commercial media pointed out that these programs were hurting Democrats' traditional constituencies, i.e. renters and savers. Prior to those interventions, Alan Greenspan had predicted that real estate prices would go "a lot lower," and they would have done so if the unprecedented interventions had not occurred. So, in that sense, the perception that connections and cheating enabled some few to preserve capital is correct.

Indiana Jones says

Inherited small- or medium-size business, and made it into a 10-digit fortune: Donald Trump

He has prospered, turning nine figures into probably ten, but I wonder how much of that resulted from the bailouts during 2008-10. Democrats pushed a fake news narrative claiming he had underperformed VOO, which didn't even exist at the time when at least one "journalist" wrote that he should have bought it. Democrats did not want to raise the issue of what would have happened to real estate prices (and thus his fortune) if the bailouts had not occurred. I suspect Democrats' unprecedented interventions to prop up real estate prices may have enabled Donald Trump to preserve much more of his capital than he could have otherwise, and thus enabled him to become President.

Indiana Jones, read my original postings and you'll see I already posted exactly what you did about the richest of the rich....That of the few hundred of the very wealthiest around 35-49% inherited the money and the rest certainly got a leg up.

So once again I do not understand the point you are making other than you are content to bitch about how much others have and don't care to explain how the other four million less rich got to be that way.

Indiana Jones says

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires-made-it-themselves.html?view=story&%24DEVICE%24=native-android-tablet

Forbes has come out with a "self-made score" for its billionaires.

Here is Forbes' scoring system and billionaire examples for each score.

Inherited fortune, but not working to increase it: Laurene Powell Jobs

Inherited fortune, and has a role managing it: Forrest Mars Jr.

Inherited fortune, and helping to increase it marginally: Penny Pritzker

Inherited fortune, and increasing it in a meaningful way: Henry Ross Perot Jr.

Inherited small- or medium-size business, and made it into a 10-digit fortune: Donald Trump

Hired or hands-off investor, who didn't create the business: Meg Whitman

Self-made, who got a head start f...

The original post was how the rich got that way. No one said anything about billionaires.

This insistence by some that hard work is the main factor in getting rich looks to me like virtue signaling. Which is pretty ridiculous in an anonymous discussion. Both the claim and the action (practiced anonymously) are quite telling of their (lack of) intelligence.

Fucking White Male says

So once again I do not understand the point you are making

Did you read the article you linked? In it, the author Tanner defends the entire 1% (not just the lower 1/2 of the 1%) as self-made and hardworking. This is not true:

"By and large, the wealthy have worked hard for their money. NYU sociologist Dalton Conley says that “higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do.”"

He then goes on to lament the loss of wealth by the super-rich. This is not true:

"Because so much of their income is tied up in investments, the recession has hit the rich especially hard...

Among the “super-rich,” the decline has been even sharper: The number of Americans earning more than $10 million a year has fallen by 55 percent. In fact, while in 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income here, that figure has declined to just 16 percent. Inequality in America is declining."

He keeps defending the wealthy: "if the rich don’t create jobs, who will? How many workers have been hired recently by the poor?

...shouldn’t public policy be based on something more than class warfare, envy and stereotypes?"

What I don't understand is why you quote this cato institute article, if you are in agreement that the ultra-wealthy did not get there from hard work alone, because that is what this Tanner guy is saying.

It seems clear to me that hardworking individuals can make it to the top percentile up to 99.5%, whether a first generation immigrant or 13th generation American. But besides the likes of Oprah Winfrey, it is extremely rare for someone to make it to the very top rungs on their own. Also, if you read the article from the investment manager I posted above, it states that even those in the bottom 1% can experience a level of financial insecurity.

Who knew poor people are the most honest/have the best understanding of reality. 90% of wealth is inherited, so the rich are full of shit. Yes, there are a few who worship money enough to pull themselves up, but most people get it in a trust fund, or make the right connections. Success is the workplace is based FAR more on knowing what people want, than working hard.

FP says

This insistence by some that hard work is the main factor in getting rich looks to me like virtue signaling. Which is pretty ridiculous in an anonymous discussion. Both the claim and the action (practiced anonymously) are quite telling of their (lack of) intelligence.

As is the lack of cited study supporting your point of view(other than the richest few hundred or so which I readily acknowledged early on in this thread....before anyone else pointed it out).

Fucking White Male says

As is the lack of cited study supporting your point of view

Considering what the conversation is about, this must be one of the dumbest comments I've seen on PatNet.

FP says

Fucking White Male says

As is the lack of cited study supporting your point of view

Considering what the conversation is about, this must be one of the dumbest comments I've seen on PatNet.

You: x
Me: y because....link provided
You: x
Me: prove x
You: derp.