Without clinically going through each and every rich/super rich persons full history, including everything I previously listed and Isaacs few extra adds, this debate largely consists of opinion, guesswork, bias, emotions, angst between have nots and the haves. One thing is true though. Either they are self-made, or are continuing family wealth. If anyone fails, or finds themselves lacking the skills required to lift themselves up, to create some family wealth, then they, their children, their childrens children, will always be the have nots. Accepting this brings inner peace and the ability to enjoy what we have, rather than demanding to be equal without putting in the same work. How is that fair to the person who works 60+ hours a week at a job and learning management/leadership skills, and is on call 24 hours a day for a career they love? Specialist consultants can earn £500 to £1000 (even more if the best of the best) per day. If they invest this money then their income receives even bigger returns. This is one very quick example of how a guy who works in a factory earning up to £500 a week compares to someone whose specialist skills are in demand and can ask for special returns in terms of pay. Most importantly --- It is very very true, money makes money. For someone with nothing, it takes a special kind of person to dedicate themselves to gaining something that will become an investment later on. Marketing campaigns to the poor can take some of the blame. Buy lottery tickets to become rich (poorer). Drink this alcohol to become socialable (poorer). Go on package holidays every year to de-stress (poorer). Get married and have kids early in life (much much poorer!). Move out from our parents houses asap to be independent (poorer). Every time we spend money on stuff to make us happy, it is less in the pot for a deposit on a house/flat - rental is a total waste and benefits only a landlord. It is less money in a pot for investing in good returns. But largely it is our own spending decisions to blame for not having an investment pot. Saving for a deposit on a house? Saving towards a pension? Working 60+ hours per week, and never say no to the boss, meaning they can rely on us, and we benefit from promotions? Looking for the next course of learning to increase our skillset? Delaying starting a family until the foundation of a good career and investments has been created? When starting a business we all know that usually it is beans on toast every night and no social life, and no holidays for at least 3 years. It is no different to lifting ourselves up in careers. Without dedication we should enjoy having less, and enjoy whatever it is. We're not on this planet to constantly envy everyone else. We're here to enjoy what we earn, and what luck might throw at us now and again. Regarding the financial collapse - we all agree - we're all extremely pissed off - a financial market created a long long time ago to make money from nothing (carbon credits anyone?) collapsed (again) under the strain of greed. The people responsible were dirty, greedy and careless. But the rich and super rich are mainly hard working, clever, shrewd people, and/or from families with existing wealth ---- or, they are the start of their families wealth! Unless you can think of examples that are not ........... ? (Disclaimer: i have banged out this reply off the top of my head and not checked. It may contain plenty to pick over)
If I were to offer a great bit of advice to those wanting to start investing for a rainy day ... Save everything penny/cent you can right now and build whatever size pot you can - for the next big collapse. It might not come for 5 to 10 years, or more ... or less even. But when it comes, if you have a small pot to invest and get into a SAFE share on the markets at the bottom, you can turn £5k into £20k within 5 years. Think in terms of a deposit for a flat, and to get out of rental money wastage. Its a start.
So basically you're saying it's either/or: the super rich got there by hard work or by family wealth. Well, duh. What people forget is that sheer luck also factors into it hugely. Bill Gates for instance, as a teenager ended up in one of the few schools with a computer. It was an accident of fate. But it gave him a springboard to becoming the coder and businessman he is today. For every hardworking super rich there are thousands of hardworking people who are just reasonably well off, and thousands of hardworking people who ended up destitute nonetheless. We like to deny that --we don't like to acknowledge that luck actually plays a role; that perhaps people don't always earn their wealth but just got lucky, and conversely that people don't always earn their destitution but just got unlucky. A more pertinent question is: when you are super rich, what do you do with all that money? How many millions do you actually need to live a comfortable and secure life? At what point does another million stop making an appreciable difference to that? At what point is it time to spread the wealth to those who perhaps work just as hard but were not as lucky? When you look at the distribution of wealth in the world you see an obscene skew towards a tiny elite minority. In fact, when in a US survey citizens were asked what they thought the distribution of wealth in the US was, and should be, the answers came out thus: - most people felt that the distribution was skewed way too far towards the rich. - most people felt that there should be a skew to reward hard work and effort, but north as much as they thought there was. The poorer should have a bit more; the rich a bit less. - Everybody hugely underestimated how much wealth was skewed towards the rich. - Democrats and Republicans gave exactly the same answers --they had the same ideas about fairness in the distribution of wealth. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone being rich. Being selfish and greedy, yes.
You forgot lucky and knowing people who know people, otherwise known as nepotism. As much as we like to think the rich and super rich only get where they are by hard work and being the best of the best, sadly it's often a case of who you know and not what you know.
It seems that you have very much internalised the neoliberal logic of the entrepreneurial self. Tell me, what does self made mean? Dont you think that self made is a myth if one considers how much others have invested and worked for that person to realise their wealth? I'm talking about this particular person's education, their parents, friends, employees, government subsidies or grants, property rights that enabled them to even their own their wealth or business assets,etc. My personal tirade doesn't come out of envy but anger that the superrich actively use their wealth to degrade the lives of everyone else by for example corrupting the government so it can privatise the NHS . Ever seen any of the superrich advocating discreetly or indiscreetly for the NHS to not be privatised?
Yup. A good example to this would be the minecraft guy who recently expressed his despair at how isolating being wealthy was. Ha! I wonder if one showed them how poor the poor are and how rich the superrich are, and how the latter unfairly manipulate the wealth distribution process towards themselves, they would definitely change their mind. In fact, I recently saw another US based article saying that a lot of people that they surveyed didn't even want the superrich to be living in the US. That wasn't unexpected. Well doesn't that come with being superrich? I cant imagine being superrich without being selfish and greedy. And by selfish and greedy I mean beyond what the general populace would deem to be normal.
