
Why the “Self-Made” Success Story Is a Myth - prostoalex
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a26091060/money-millennials-parents-career-success/
======
darawk
This is such nonsense. First of all, there are absolutely people who come from
dirt poverty and become wildly successful. Second of all, plenty of people
receive lots of help from their parents and amount to precisely nothing. IMO
it's fair to refer to your success as "self made" if you exceed the median
success level of your class peer group by a substantial margin.

If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree
and an upper middle class income - that's self made success. If you're born in
the US and your entire family is lawyers, maybe that same accomplishment is
not "self made success". But if you say, start Microsoft and become a
billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.

I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely
from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of
advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure
to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down.
Whether or not self-made success is a thing, self-made failure certainly is,
and i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it.

~~~
honkycat
> First of all, there are absolutely people who come from dirty poverty and
> become wildly successful. Second of all, plenty of people receive lots of
> help from their parents and amount to precisely nothing.

There are way more people who are born wealthy and continue being wealthy.
There are way more people who go from poor to poor. Social mobility is piss
poor right now in the US.

If "having a nice family and a wonderful house and a great life" is amounting
to nothing, I will take it.

> If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree
> and an upper middle class income - that's self made success. If you're born
> in the US and your entire family is lawyers, maybe that same accomplishment
> is not "self made success". But if you say, start Microsoft and become a
> billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.

First of all, Bill Gates had a TON of opportunity and privilege funneled to
him from his parents.

Second of all, we are not talking about Bill Gates or Elon Musk. We are
talking about the legions of Bradleys going from Georgetown Prep to ivy league
schools to finance to the executive class.

You cannot POSSIBLY believe that there is no wealth disparity in the US? That
there is not a disparity in opportunity between the wealthy and the middle
class/poor?

> I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost
> entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born
> with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify
> their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other
> people down. Whether or not self-made success is a thing, self-made failure
> certainly is, and i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for
> it.

This is just completely unfounded. You think this entire discussion is propped
up by other failed millionaires?

I can't speak to this person's reason for writing the article, but the reason
the "self-made success is a myth" is a trope is that people SEE the research,
SEE the disparity around them, and smell the bullshit.

~~~
natalyarostova
> First of all, Bill Gates had a TON of opportunity and privilege funneled to
> him from his parents.

He absolutely did. And yet even conditional on that category, the probability
of becoming a billionaire is extremely low. Therefore, according to the parent
comment, that counts as self-made.

> You cannot POSSIBLY believe that there is no wealth disparity in the US?
> That there is not a disparity in opportunity between the wealthy and the
> middle class/poor?

You're not following the parent comment's argument, and as a result your
response isn't targeted at their _specific_ point. Their specific point is
invariant to wealth mobility. Even if you give me an extremely extremely
unequal society, their definition of self-made success persists: The ability
to exceed the median expectation for your category.

If you're born dirt poor in a slum, and end up running a small laundromat,
whereas most of your peers are still scavenging in the slum, you're self-made,
because you beat your peers. If you're born as a privileged white kid to
millionaires, but end up becoming a billionaire, you're self-made.

Having morally invariant definitions for words is useful, because it's nice to
have terms to describe things, without having to stop using terms because they
offend peoples moral sensibilities.

Your argument that self-made success literally doesn't exist in any facet, and
all is deterministic, so we should never use that term or consider it a
phenomena, strains credulity, and makes it hard to describe certain elements
of reality.

~~~
heurist
You'd have to be precise in targeting the social network in which the subject
individual wields influence. Networks are more important than money in many
ways. An individual who is friends or whose family has friends in VC or PE has
a better starting position in an entrepreneurial career than someone who has
no connections, even if they have money.

You also need to consider the social implications of your category choice.
Choosing a category of "US citizens" vs "millionaires" has vastly different
implications. A millionaire in the set of US citizens can invest their wealth
in mutual funds, do nothing for 10 years, and come out with vastly more
wealth. Someone emerging from poverty who starts a small business and actively
contributes economic value might take home $50k/year. The millionaire doubles
their wealth by doing nothing and the small business owner fights tooth and
nail to bring home a modest income. The millionaire also has the option of
leveraging their wealth and time to make even more money, where the self-made
individual doesn't. Capital is a gravity well.

You can limit your subject set to individuals with $1M-2M in no-strings-
attached cash at the start of the study, but why would you? Gates has done a
lot to build his wealth but there is no way to know how many individuals would
have done better than Gates if they'd started in the same position. You can
start to consider that when you expand the set of individuals in the study
beyond the arbitrary wealth filter and account for social mobility. Then when
you figure out how many people could have done better, you can come up with a
"self-madeness" score. Though the whole thing is silly IMO. No one exists in a
vacuum.

~~~
prostoalex
> The millionaire doubles their wealth by doing nothing and the small business
> owner fights tooth and nail to bring home a modest income.

If a large group of millionaires reads your comment, sees the light and
shamefully decides to do _something_ by pulling their investable assets out,
the small business owner will likely face high capital costs and in many cases
be simply unable to raise any money at interest rates attractive to him/her.

~~~
heurist
That's what happens when unrestrained capitalism moves production of goods
outside of the local economy and into distant foreign economies which are more
difficult to access. Capital aggregates in the few international trade hubs
and starting a new business becomes more difficult as various gates are put in
front of the newly foreign production. As capital becomes more centralized,
fewer people are in charge of the decisions to invest and innovation becomes
more difficult because rather than being distributed across the range of
economies and lifestyles in the US (or any country) it is invested in the few
who have access to the gatekeepers. Usually that requires physical access over
time, which means living in an increasingly expensive city and successfully
competing with an increasing amount of individuals vying for a limited amount
of investor attention. Innovation comes from people responding to a wide
variety of different problems and situations - how is that going to happen if
everyone lives in the same place and is competing to solve the same problems
that the relatively few available investors want to put money in? Markets that
retain capital are much easier to find money in than markets which leak it.

If an American with wealth wants to help the US economy, they should focus on
rebuilding the production capacity of underfunded economies across the US by
redistributing wealth from the main international hubs into smaller domestic
markets. It probably won't produce optimal returns, which scares off most
investors. I have seen a couple funds starting to do this, for what it's
worth.

P.S. Banks used to be small and local! Look at how far we've fallen:

\- [https://ilsr.org/number-banks-u-s-1966-2014/](https://ilsr.org/number-
banks-u-s-1966-2014/) \- [https://ilsr.org/vanishing-community-banks-national-
crisis/](https://ilsr.org/vanishing-community-banks-national-crisis/)

~~~
prostoalex
I am not sure your observation is correct - in industries such as oil and gas
the investment community was quick with redistributing wealth to previously
underfunded rural areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Alaska, or North Dakota. Another
example is Las Vegas, which prior to hospitality industry investments was
essentially a piece of desert.

And those are just the big-name examples. Some extended family of mine lives
in a rural area of Central Washington, which anecdotally in the past decade
has experienced high growth in manufacturing, driven primarily by Japanese
money.

~~~
heurist
Oil money is a start, though my understanding is the workers go where the work
is and take the money home when the work runs out. Those also tend to be in
places people don't want to live for long. Most of the oil money is also
extracted to major cities like Houston, so it's not a complete solution
because it's an extremely leaky bucket.

Some places are doing better than others. But are they building products that
solve local problems, or are they trying to primarily sell to a national or
global market? Are they funded by local capital? Will the benefits of their
production stay local?

------
Isamu
>She told me, “I was curious, but I don't know how a single person in America
who doesn't have family money could buy anything, I really don’t, if they're
not working in finance or they're not a doctor. ”

Easy, there are vast areas of America where housing is more affordable. I
certainly got zero cash from family when I bought a home. My family put money
into giving me food and shelter growing up though.

This is kind of like that cartoon of a New Yorker's view of the US, where
Manhattan looms large, then there's New Jersey, and at the fringes there is
the rest of the nation.

~~~
latencyloser
This reminds me of when I was working at Microsoft and a colleague said to me:
"I don't know how anyone raises a family off less than $130k/year." I laughed
and asked him if he'd ever been anywhere in the US outside of Seattle before.
Turns out, he hadn't and assumed the insane cost of living we're subject to in
this area also exists in the rest of the country.

My point of reference is my family's house in a rural area that is about 2x
the size of mine (the property is 10x) and costs 1/3 as much. I wish my career
as a software engineer better enabled this type of living but, alas, my
corporate overlords require I am ass in desk every day in a metro area.

~~~
cableshaft
Between the cost of daycare, health care/insurance, pet care, car payments and
maintenance, student loan payments, and then a mortgage (even a cheap
mortgage) on top of that, not to mention saving _something_ for retirement,
forget the 10x your salary by the time you retire or whatever, and once every
2-3 years go on a vacation at least to the next state over, I do sometimes
wonder how households can make ends meet on less than $100k a year, and have
no idea how a household can get by on the average $60k a year.

I know living in certain areas are a lot cheaper, but the salaries are usually
a lot lower in those areas as well.

Not to mention get married (wedding costs are insane, going through that right
now) or other life events.

We make more than that, have no children, and we're still shuffling money
around to make it all work. I can't wait to finally pay off my student loans
in a couple of years. My fiancee might never get hers paid off, she's barely
making a dent in hers.

~~~
heydonovan
As someone who has come from poverty, it still blows my mind that folks who
make more than $70k struggle at all. A few of the things you mentioned are
strictly luxuries. College, pets, new cars, vacations are all put on the back
burner until it's financially reasonable to do so. I've met many folks making
more than $100k who are in more debt than someone making $40k. Just ignorant
of finances.

~~~
cableshaft
Making more money means more people will be willing to give you the rope to
hang yourself with. People aren't as willing to lend money to people who don't
have a means to pay it back, but someone can be doing well, take out a decent
amount of debt ("buy" a car, "buy" a house, take out loans for education,
etc), suffer a health or career setback, long periods of unemployment, and it
starts a debt that spirals out of control.

I went through a period of near poverty myself (seriously considered declaring
bankruptcy a couple of times), and it seemed like the first year or two of any
new job I had was just digging myself out of the hole from last time (only to
get laid off right as I was starting to get back to a 'normal' amount of debt,
and thus be forced to dig myself back deep into debt while I made the next job
work). It can be a vicious cycle. I'm finally free of it, but if I was forced
not to work for six months or so due to a health issue I could very easily be
back in the midst of it again.

~~~
heydonovan
Makes sense! Currently going through this right now. Got laid off, have maxed
out all my credit cards, and spend my days studying for additional certs or
spamming LinkedIn/Indeed/Angel. Nest egg is completely gone, and at this
point, might just start applying for minimum wage jobs just to get some form
of income coming in. That also means less time focusing on studies and
applying for jobs, so it's a lose lose.

~~~
cableshaft
Sorry you're going through that right now. I've been in a similar situation.
It can be really stressful and seems to take forever to get out of that hole.

If you have friends or family that want to help out, try not to be too proud
and let them (at least as far as accepting free meals and whatnot). I always
felt uncomfortable "mooching" off people, but it really helped me get through
that period without being totally miserable. I never asked for it, but I did
accept it when offered.

As a side effect of what I went through, once I paid off my credit cards I
have yet to take out another one (still haven't) years later, and I avoided
taking on any new debt as much as possible. I was really hesitant to "buy" a
house and bought one a lot later than I probably should have, and thus
forewent years and years of building up equity (I only bought a house a year
ago, and probably could have 5 or 6 years ago, in retrospect). It really
screwed with my head, mentally.

------
dahfizz
I am constantly surprised at people's inability to imagine that other people
lives are different than thier own.

Just because real estate is expensive in the center of a big city doesn't mean
it's impossible to buy a house anywhere in the entire country.

Just because you can't support yourself as a writer doesn't mean nobody can
support themselves no matter what.

Just because you got free money from your parents doesn't mean everyone gets
lots of free money from thier parents.

~~~
the_gastropod
Yes! This. People get a really distorted view of reality, hanging around
people earning 6 figure salaries, spending 90+% of them. Even in major cities,
the median salaries are typically in the ~$50k range, and people do live and
raise kids just fine. Instead of wondering how they do that, people tend to
just throw up their hands, and declare it's impossible.

------
ip26
I came away from this feeling like it's a very short jump from "Maybe some of
the people doing impossibly well got help" to "Everyone who is doing better
than me must have gotten help".

I can't help but feel this element of dismissal is present even in this piece.
E.g., Pierson turned a $15,000 loan into a business with $300,000/yr in
revenue. She says, _her biggest fear was hearing “she’s only successful
because of her parents.”_ And this piece seems to suggest, or at least gently
lead, the reader in that direction- ignoring the many many people who turned
$15,000 loans into failed businesses.

~~~
captainbland
Sure, it's impressive enough to turn $15k into a profitable business but most
people could only take that plunge once or maybe twice, realistically. How
many successful businesses were started by people who could do that ten times
or a hundred times? Or more pertinently: how much of the market has been
captured by such people? That's the real differentiator.

------
awakeasleep
I understand the use of 'millennials' as click-bait, but when a serious author
tries to tie 'millennials' into some larger explanation of sociology I just
have to stop reading.

What the hell is going on in [the author]Jen Doll's head where she thinks that
the myth of self-made success is a millennial phenomena? Does she suffer from
amnesia? Is this just 4000 words of disinterested bullshit to get paid?

~~~
samwhiteUK
Yes. Her writing career is unreliable, she said so herself. She has to take
every opportunity

------
honkycat
I like that we keep talking about privilege, no matter how much it irks the
hacker news elite. I have a previous comment about this[0], so I will not go
into too much detail.

Nobody thinks they are rich or privileged. Now, the Hendersons down the
street? THOSE PEOPLE are rich! I feel that people underestimate the huge
effect of having a safety net under them.

It is the difference between going to the amazing state school and the local
community college.

It is the difference between paying attention and learning in class and
sleeping through it because you had to get up at 6 am to work an 8-hour shift.

It is the difference between living in a studio apartment, 45 minutes from
school in the bad part of town and living in the beautiful two-bedroom top-
floor loft in Logan Square.

It is the difference between a data entry job, and an unpaid research
internship with your professors.

It is the difference between sleeping on a couch for 3 months while you look
for your first job, and having a place to stay and prepare.

It is the difference between taking the first job you can get, and holding out
until you find a better one.

It's the difference between a loan for a house and a loan to your parents to
pay off medical debt.

Think about every step, every decision you have made in your life and consider
if you would have made the same choices if your life was different.

0:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19098317](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19098317)

~~~
fireflash38
Every time I see privilege come up, people start denying it, or excusing it.
Saying things like "I still had to work hard for this!"

It's a tricky subject to talk about, as the article references, specifically
because it's hard to differentiate between what you got from privilege and
what you got from hard work.

I find analogies best to talk about it. Your goal is to reach the top floor of
a building. Some people start at the penultimate floor. Some start on the 2nd
floor. Others are in the basement. Every single one takes effort to climb the
steps. But some have a big head start, and can even fail down a few floors and
_still_ have it easier than other people.

~~~
projektfu
There's very little that's more impertinent than telling an American he didn't
earn what he has. Can't speak for other cultures.

------
radmuzom
Resonates strongly with me. Many of my school friends went to the best
colleges in my country - all the time attributing their success solely to
"hard work". However, they always seemed to ignore the fact that their parents
paid a lot of money for them to attend the best tuition outside of school. I
did not have that option and did not get admitted to any of the famous
colleges (I am discounting the constant mental tension associated with poverty
here). Luckily, I have done quite well for myself (till now) - but I am under
no illusion that it was solely due to me. For example, I got my first data
science job via a personal contact - without that I would forever be stuck in
less paying jobs.

Edit: typos

~~~
yunyu
I received much better financial aid offers from top schools than the local
state university. While the ability to pay tuition definitely is a factor,
keep in mind that many students do not pay even close to sticker price.

~~~
dragontamer
Different states have different amounts of financial aid. I fortunately have a
state school that is highly ranked in Comp. Sci.

My family didn't get much financial aid, but I managed to put mostly on a loan
and pay it back afterwards. I do realize that having a family rich enough to
disqualify from financial aid is the "advantage" this article is probably
talking about...

But still, it wasn't like it was easy to take the SAT like 5 or 6 times
through practice regiments. Memorizing word-lists from 3 different "SAT-word
list books" to master analogies / reading sections was incredibly rigorous, it
was the hardest studying I ever did in my life. By the end of the program, I
memorized well over 20,000 "difficult words" over a period of 6-months to
improve my SAT score (and promptly forgot about them after the test). Its not
easy to do.

There were plenty of other people in my SAT Prep classes who were unable to
score as high as me... and there were plenty of people I know who worked
harder than I did and scored higher than I. So there is certainly something to
be said about "self-driven effort".

But I fully recognize that my family's values and money helped me achieve what
others couldn't. I also know of friends who were unable to afford multiple
test-prep classes year after-year during high school... multiple years of
"Kumon Math", and other such extracurricular after-school academic classes.
Only now as an Adult do I realize how expensive all those after-school test
prep classes are.

\------------

There's give and take for sure. The opportunity is money-driven, but the
achievement is still personal. All the money and test-prep classes in the
world won't help if the child is disinterested or lazy.

------
ryandrake
> A recent study from Merrill Lynch and Age Wave reported that 79 percent of
> the parents surveyed are providing financial support to their adult
> children, at an average $7,000 a year

Wow, this can’t be right. I mean I’ve had friends whose parents paid for their
university and stuff like that, and mine helped me a little bit with tuition
at a cheap state school, too, for which I’m grateful. But ongoing financial
support, year after year? And 4 out of 5 parents? Yow! Guess I’m naive, but I
had no idea it was that common. Maybe age is part of it. I was lucky enough to
go to uni before the days of 6 figure student loan debt.

I know exactly one adult whose parents pay for all their bills, including
rent. We’re friends so I give him hell about it. “You’re a grown-ass man with
a decent job. Let mommy and daddy retire already!” I think once you start down
those tracks and get used to the “extra funding” lifestyle, it’s hard to get
off the train.

~~~
DigiMortal
Yeah I am a bit surprised, though I do see many of these examples around me. I
have several peers into their late 20's receiving support, many in the NYC
area as well.

My parents put a roof over my head, valued education, helped with most all of
my tuition for undergrad (over 100k), I have 7k of student loan debt left to
pay off and I am 26. Right now, I am only left on their phone plan, which I
just venmo my dad monthly for, 50 bucks for unlimited on Verizon and I bought
my phone off of Swappa for 200 bucks (I recommend Swappa as well, save your
money)

I've also seen parents feed junkies, so there's that. I don't understand the
ones not working, yet going out all the time, no money management, doing
drugs....parents sending money... WHY?!?!

------
bwang29
It’s not just about the money, there is also the intangible experience when it
comes to information and family education. I’d argue that will put an even a
stronger influence on a kid’s mindset so if a parent is giving a 15k loan to a
child it doesn’t mean the kid isn’t helped significantly to bootstrap her
otherwise. On the contrary, it feels even more like a status symbol of
demonstration from the parents to illustrate to society how confident they
were about the kids paying the loan back.

------
mountainofdeath
The one thing that personally really angers me is that many institutions are
exponentially harder to break into unless you come from a specific, moneyed
background. You basically need to go to an elite preschool, to go to an elite
primary school (usually private), to go to an elite secondary school, to get
into an elite university, to get into an elite company in an elite sector
(consulting, investment banking, arguably SV tech more often than not). To
this class of people, spending $60k+ a year __*, per child is nothing since
they have been spending that much since the child was born. I 've met more
than a handful of these people that I wonder what, if anything, they learned.

------
smallgovt
I think a more interesting question to ask is: Why do we care who is
responsible for our success?

Is it so that we know how to engineer more success? Or, is it to validate our
egos? And, if the latter, aren't we asking the wrong question?

~~~
ls612
We care because if a lot of people don’t believe they can succeed they will
generate substantial social unrest, which has often ended poorly throughout
history.

~~~
smallgovt
But this article is working in the opposite direction -- attempting to take
people's ego down a notch and convince them success is not a result of their
agency.

I get the feeling that the article is steeped in a value system based around
the ego. But, if we take it for granted that the ego is important, shouldn't
we be happy when people have elated egos? Why try to bring them down?

And, if we don't agree that the ego is important, why even ask these questions
to begin with?

~~~
ls612
Sorry, I wrote that poorly. The well-off people who defend the ideal of the
self made person do so because of their desire to not be on the wrong end of
pitchforks (metaphorical or otherwise). Not necessarily to massage their egos.

------
markvdb
In some parts of the world, it's very often the other way round: kids
financially supporting their parents. Or what would you do when your parents'
savings and pension had all disappeared in the collapse of the USSR? That's
exactly the scenario some friends of mine are in...

------
mAEStro-paNDa
I am not quite sure why the author narrows in on millennials in this piece,
this is something happening among varying age groups.

It also appears from my experience on this forum that the prevailing opinion
here is that this story is not a myth at all, but I understand there is
variance here.

The issue with cost of living is an obvious one that is made in comments here,
but that still does nothing to address the individuals/families who _still_
struggle in areas that are much cheaper to live. Yes, the insular view of one
who has not lived outside SF is troublesome, but it's dishonest to argue as if
there is still not real existing poverty in places with a lower cost of
living.

While there are many different ways the socioeconomic status of ones family
and upbringing can assist in their own success, there are a myriad of ways in
which this is also influenced by systemic features to our society, as well as
the historical context of that. Think of racially discriminatory housing
policies that have helped lead to wealth gaps in the present.

While rags to riches makes a good story, we also don't talk about failures in
business as much as we do the successful enterprises. Referring to individual
actions in tandem with family assistance, coming to terms with the subject of
meritocracy in our society and individual success, I'd propose we're looking
at it the wrong way. The part to evaluate is not how much these things have to
do with success, but rather how much can they come back from failure? This
paints a rather different picture, as those with more financial security are
in a much better position to take risks, make poor decisions, while not being
pulled into poverty.

Finally, I'd like to point out that there is a growing skepticism of the
liberal world order, the mainstream consensus, status quo, whatever you want
to call it. More people are realizing now the varying degrees of ways the
system is rigged against common working people. With it comes skepticism of
the legitimacy of meritocracy in our current social order. This isn't just
coming out of a vacuum.

------
djschnei
"My life was like this, therefore everyone's was." \- Jen Doll

------
rocgf
I am perpetually amazed by how often people feel the need to put a label on
something, even if that doesn't _really_ matter.

As far as I have noticed, the self-made "myth" is mainly a media trick. For
some reason (maybe intrigue, maybe hope, maybe something else), people love
rags to riches stories, be it an immigrant to the US with "five dollars in her
pocket", a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk. The people who write those stories
don't do it to get the word out, they do it to sell you something, so of
course they will try to make it as dramatic as possible.

Now there's a counter-movement to balance things out. Bill Gates was actually
born in a wealthy family and had a trust fund with millions in it; taking
risks with his company was not really a risk. A lot of people like Cara
Delevingne (who is constantly advertised everywhere for some reason) are
actually part of a family with big ties in their respective industries. They
are not truly self-made, but they are not just propelled to the top without
significant amounts of work or talent either. The truth is generally somewhere
in the middle, with outliers at both ends.

In the end, does it really matter? I feel like social media is full of either
stories like this or people pretending to live a perfect life. In short,
things that are unattainable for most people even if they were to live a
hundred lives. Dreaming big is a wonderful thing, but it definitely won't pan
out for the vast majority of people, while making them less happy in the
process. That's just my view, maybe wrong in some aspects.

------
norswap
"why do millennials act like it doesn't exist?"

Hhm, do they really?

~~~
jccalhoun
That was my first thought. What makes any of the article unique to
millennials?

------
DoreenMichele
I spent nearly six years homeless. During that time, I basically taught myself
to make money online.

I still don't have much, but I'm off the street. I read articles like this and
imagine a future where I'm wealthy and powerful and everyone will talk about
my _privileged_ background and pooh pooh the idea that I'm _self made._

If I ever figure out how to address affordable housing in some meaningful way,
no one will laud me as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. No, they will
most likely label me a _slumlord._

Of course, no one is entirely _self made._ Of course, it's helpful to know
what resources were genuinely involved in actually creating x, y or z. You
have no hope of doing something similar if you have what amounts to
misinformation about how it got done.

But we value the concept of a self made person because we've all had to fight
to be free. We all struggle to take the hand life dealt us and turn it into a
thing we desire. We all look to others who somehow accomplished that for clues
to find our way into the unmapped future and try to make it a thing we don't
loathe overly much.

------
throwaway-1283
Can we stop talking about "millennials" like we're still kids? I'm pretty sure
by definition "millennials" are almost 40.

------
40acres
Rising inequality and the expansion of the welfare state have transformed
"self-made" into an aspiration. Even prior to the gilded age being "self-made"
was rare.. only a few people were able to pull themselves up to success. If
you want to read an American self-made tale pick up "Up From Slavery".

Anyway, I grew up lower-middle class. My parents were immigrants and we came
from the poorest country in the western hemisphere (Haiti) with no
generational wealth. I don't consider myself 'self-made', I'd say there was a
mix of luck, support from the state (rent control, FAFSA, EITC, etc.) and self
directed hard work.

It sounds like to me that the author got some "generational help" and feels
like they were not able to capitalize, unlike some of the other profiled in
this article. And thus is taking a zero-sum view of the concept of "self-
made".

Most parent's would do anything for their kids lives to end up better than
theirs did. I won't have any qualms about paying my kids tuition or helping
with a down payment when the time comes.

------
Gpetrium
There is a fundamental limitation in the human ability to assess success.

Humans inheritably live in different worlds therefore, their perception of key
factors such as self-actualization, esteem, belonging, love, safety &
physiological needs will be invariable different.

I would argue that if everyone started out with the same mindset and base
opportunities, with time, the environment and its scarcities would cause some
to deviate towards being 'richer' and others towards being 'poorer', partially
by luck, and partially by other factors within and outside each person's
control.

Someone that is self-made will mostly see itself's success as their personal
actions and will mostly overestimate that side (E.g. I saved money while my
peers were burning it on consumer goods) while others looking from outside
will mostly push the (E.g. He was lucky or the environment he was in made him
succeed) usually underestimating the person's personal actions.

------
socrates1998
Not a great article, but it certainly does illustrate the idea that we are
helped to a certain extent.

It's hard to measure one's success accurately.

A $15k loan paid back almost immediately is really nothing in the grand scheme
of things, she probably could have gotten a regular loan or at least used some
credit cards to float her for it.

A much bigger help was her parents paying for college. THAT's significant.

It meant she knew that starting a business was an option because she could
live cheaply after she graduated instead of being forced to get a job.

For the most part, the most successful people in America have been helped
significantly by their parents, in my opinion.

Whether it's through paying for an education or networking or outright buying
them a business (like a franchise).

Growing up upper-middle class in America puts you way ahead of almost everyone
else on the planet as far as advantages goes.

------
nkingsy
Just adding my data point.

My grandfather gave me a college fund and I went to public college, leaving me
with the difference between that and private college. The little nest egg that
remained in that account was a weight around my neck. I had many enjoyable
experiences in my 20's (eg traveling the world earning a living playing online
poker for 3 years), but I felt no urgency to pursue a career.

In my late 20's I spent most of the money attempting to write a novel (living
expenses) and gave the rest away. Within months of approaching zero in my bank
account, I rediscovered programming, found a career I love and was able to
afford children.

My recollections may be colored by history, and I may have just been someone
that took a long time to mature, but that's how I feel about it today.

------
staunch
The term self-made is just too imprecise to be useful. The three major factors
involved in an individual's success are:

#1 Genetics - High general intelligence, ambition, etc.

#2 Environment - Highly educated well-off parents, etc.

#3 Opportunity - Support of powerful people, etc.

You probably can't do much without at least one of these factors. Most people
that do big things have all three working in their favor.

People like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Peter Theil, Elon Musk,
Reid Hoffman, and Paul Graham had all three.

On the other hand, people like Steve Jobs, John Carmack, Palmer Luckey, and
Larry Ellison only had #1 working for them, which is why their success is so
much more impressive.

------
afpx
I always thought it was common knowledge that most people 'making a living' on
journalism, academia, literature, art, etc. were being subsidized by either
their or another's independent wealth.

------
jxramos
Isn’t there a stat that says something like at most 10% of millionaires
inherited their money/assets. The rest were supposedly “self made”

~~~
treyfitty
This article goes a little deeper in exploring the definition of "self-made."
Did those millionaires who didn't inherit money have their college paid for?
Did they get help from their parents for a down payment? ...etc. The author
makes a valid point by exploring this definition, and it suggests that most
people, especially the well off received some substantial help that isn't
available to many.

~~~
jxramos
There's an interesting exchange Milton Friedman has about the inheritance of
social capital
[https://youtu.be/hoFdVuqrMZw?t=3928](https://youtu.be/hoFdVuqrMZw?t=3928) The
video cuts off an interesting follow up exchange

"""FRIEDMAN: Well, the major source of inheritance is the inheritance of human
qualities not of physical assets."""
[https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collection...](https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/BP_1978_2.pdf)

He talks about the inheritance of talent here [https://youtu.be/YRLAKD-
Vuvk?t=650](https://youtu.be/YRLAKD-Vuvk?t=650)

I think in all the exchanges he makes a point about how none of it is fair,
just as much as an inheritance of a negative hindrance of some kind also isn't
fair. I think another person would play as, "there's no cosmic justice"

------
arendtio
> Financial help from parents comes in many forms, and it’s the basis of so
> many success stories. So why do millennials act like it doesn't exist?

Because never before your chances of becoming wealthy without help from your
parents were so good? At least that is my impression without knowing any
facts.

------
sagartewari01
Even if it is a myth, it's a myth worth believing.

------
arwhatever
The increasing prevalence of this type of material really rankles me. I fear
that it just provides the uninitiated fodder to rationalize their lack of
initiative.

------
ralusek
> So why do millennials act like [financial help from parents] doesn't exist?

I would argue the exact opposite. I would argue that with the rise of
socialist tendencies among millennials, and the hyper fixation on gender,
racial, and economic privilege, there is almost an outright rejection of the
existence of merit at all. I think that the position is so extreme, that many
millennials believe the output of an individual belonging to a group they
consider to be universally privileged is almost entirely the consequence of
their group's privileges or disadvantages.

No person in their right mind wouldn't acknowledge the privileges we can be
afforded. You can be tall, attractive, smart, have both parents at home, not
need to work jobs to help your parents take care of your many siblings, have
parents that don't abuse you, have access to a network of successful people
willing to take financial risks on your behalf. These things are inconceivably
helpful. There is a reason that the public's reaction to Donald Trump's "with
a small loan of a million dollars and [inheriting my dad's business and
network]" was almost unilaterally one of repulsion.

Most sane people don't object to the concept of individual privilege
(inherent, universal group privileges are a different discussion). What people
object to is the disregarding of merit altogether; the extent to which we are
divorcing consequence from actions. Where you start _matters_ , but so do the
choices you make.

~~~
learc83
>Where you start matters, but so do the choices you make.

Of course it does...but the single largest predictor of future income is
parental income.

>I would argue the exact opposite. I would argue that with the rise of
socialist tendencies among millennials, and the hyper fixation on gender,
racial, and economic privilege, there is almost an outright rejection of the
existence of merit at all. I think that the position is so extreme, that many
millennials believe the output of an individual belonging to a group they
consider to be universally privileged is almost entirely the consequence of
their group's privileges or disadvantages.

And I would argue that this is the right-wing clickbait version of
millennials. Not that people like this don't exist, but that their size and
impact has been vastly exaggerated.

>People don't have a problem acknowledging privilege.

That doesn't match my personal experience with people.

~~~
ralusek
Most people don't have a problem acknowledging individual privileges they have
been afforded. People object to broad assumptions made on their behalf by
using their race or gender as a proxy.

~~~
learc83
>Most people don't have a problem acknowledging individual privileges they
have been afforded. People object to broad assumptions made on their behalf by
using their race or gender as a proxy.

You're painting one side as, "they don't have a problem with acknowledging
privilege", and the other side as "they don't even acknowledge merit".

For every millennial who believes that racial privilege is 100% responsible
for success, I'll show you a baby boomer who believes that they are 100%
responsible for their own success and have had zero privileges. You'll find
some of them arguing here right now. I've argued with many of them in the
past.

In fact surveys show that there is a large chunk of the population that
believes that being a white male makes it _harder_ to succeed.

>People object to broad assumptions made on their behalf by using their race
or gender as a proxy.

Privilege isn't about absolute life difficulty scale. Of course there is a
given white man who has had a harder time than a given black woman.

Privilege is about relative advantages. The average white man would be less
successful if he were a black woman--all else being equal.

------
bedhead
The author clinging to a 100% literal translation of "self made" is mind-
numbingly stupid.

------
Kiro
This is objectively false. I know a lot of successful people who haven't had
any help whatsoever, starting with $0 and building their later successful
business on the side while working full-time. In fact, I barely know anyone
who had their rent paid by their parents at all (since that seems to be the
argument here).

------
isoskeles
So is this entire article about how some successful people got help from
parents? (And therefore, all must have gotten help from their parents.) Seems
pretty easy to cherry-pick the stories you research and write about here.

Let me skip all the way to the end, spoiler alert:

> If you have the privilege of not having to pay 50 percent of your rent
> because your parents are paying, how can you advocate for interns to make a
> decent-enough salary, or for scholarships to support an intern or fellow?
> That’s where the change comes in.”

I don't understand this thesis. These are the exact type of people who would
advocate for "decent-enough salary" because _money comes to them for free_.
The magical thinking required to just demand decent-enough salaries are thrown
about by businesses (or other authority figures) that must have bottomless
pockets looks very similar to how they think about getting a free ride from
mommy and daddy.

Can we find examples of people who get free money from their parents and
openly say that everyone else needs to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? I
think "Trump" might be the only person others will respond with, cynically at
that, given I don't think Trump has said such a thing--he's just a Republican.
But otherwise, where are all these trust-fund babies who believe everyone else
needs to be a self-made person? Those people don't exist as far as I know.

------
jonbarker
So the author's parents encouraged leverage by subsidizing a down payment on
real estate, an asset class which underperforms index funds. The story doesn't
seem to end well; it is probably self correcting in the long run.

~~~
briandear
Real estate underperforms index funds? Perhaps in capital appreciation, but in
terms of cash on cash returns, nothing beats real estate. If you can turn a
$50k downpayment into a $250k property netting $300 per month after
mortgage/expenses, plus get capital appreciation on top of that — you’ll make
far more money on that $50k than the same money invested in an index fund.
Statements such as “indexes out-perform real estate” might be true for an
owner-occupied residence, but it certainly isn’t true when the real estate is
an actual cash-flowing investment and not your own residence. What people fail
to grasp is that a $250k house doesn’t cost $250k in cash. It costs $50k in
cash. While the bank owns the other $200k in value, that $50k gives you
control of that asset and the cash flow that comes from it. If that $250k
house goes up to $300k in value, then you just earned a 100% return on your
cash plus the cash-flow revenue. Even if the house goes down in value, if you
are still cash flow positive, you are still making money. A $300 net per month
is $3600 per year which is a 7% return on your $50k cash, however on top of
that 7%, you also get a “free” house since your tenant is paying the note and
expenses. On top of that, you get depreciation, which in many cases can make
that $3600 per year tax free when the depreciation exceeds the income from the
rent.

Indexes outperforming real estate is a highly simplistic view and doesn’t
accurately reflect cash on cash returns, tax advantages and cash flow. $50k in
an index vs $50k as a down payment on a cash flow property— the property is
going to make as much in cash as your entire capital appreciation for the
index. For an index to be better, it’s going to have to both appreciate at a
higher rate than the house as well as pay dividends equal to the annual net
from the house.

Comparing indexes and real estate shouldn’t discount the value of leverage,
nor should it discount the cash flow from the asset. (In the situation you are
commenting on though, the author buying a residence, I don’t disagree; I am
commenting on real estate as an asset class in general.)

~~~
lotsofpulp
$50k downpayment on real estate has a lot more risk and a lot more work than
$50k in an index fund, hence the possible higher return. It's up to the
investor to determine their risk profile and whether or not they want to
invest time in buying and selling real estate, finding and dealing with good
tenants, maintenance issues, liability issues, spending time figuring out tax
incentives and/or spending money on accountants.

There is no guarantee that property values will go up, or even stay stable.
Ask the people in NJ/CT/IL/KY and other non-booming places facing skyrocketing
property taxes and stagnant home sale prices. Who knows, maybe an earthquake
erases all those plump west coast gains tomorrow. The index fund investment is
placing bets on economic activity as a whole, not picking winners and losers
of real estate markets.

------
malvosenior
I think I found the problem:

 _" Take a look around you at the lives you envy, the ones that make you boil
with resentment, or fill you with insecurity about your own subpar existence:
That adorable Brooklyn brownstone or chic-but-rustic upstate home; the career
that YOU want (and you should have, what are you doing wrong?); the impeccable
wardrobe; the mid-century modern furniture; the international vacations; the
time spent flitting between gorgeous hotels or going to boutique fitness
classes or (seemingly) not working at all."_

Do people really envy others like this and make themselves miserable over it?
Other than the time not working, that list reads like pure hedonism, much of
which is probably best avoided all together.

I also don't think it's such a mystery as to who has come from money and who
hasn't. Hint: poor people aren't freelance writers living in Brooklyn and they
know those who are come from a different class altogether (since they probably
don't even value half of those things).

------
dev_dull
It's really quite amazing to see the attacks lately against successful people.
I can't help but feel we're being prepped to accept a new tax structure (or
possibly new economical model), and the first step is to whip up everyone
against the future fodder (wealthy individuals).

 _The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man:

"I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was
equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together."

"But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two
months, and what would you do then?"

"Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!"_

~~~
titanomachy
Ayn Rand is back from the dead, and she's posting on HN!

In all seriousness though, the excesses of certain rich people are pretty
gross. I once saw a guy spend $20k (of inherited money) on a fancy showerhead.
Kids who go into foster care are 3x more likely to go to prison and unlikely
to reach higher education. "Equal opportunity" indeed.

~~~
dev_dull
Who cares what someone wastes their money on? If you believe a “fool and their
money are soon parted” then the _only_ explanation for life-long wealthy
people is that they _don’t_ waste it.

There are many problems in our country. Are you doing something personally to
make it better, or just attacking others and asking someone else to fix it for
you?

~~~
titanomachy
Wealthy people can afford to waste much more (in absolute terms) without
losing their wealth. The extreme is European royalty before revolution, and
eventually it was shown that people did not have an unlimited tolerance for
inequality.

"There are many problems in our country..." I probably don't live in your
country, but I try to work towards solving problems. There are also people in
my society whose job it is to solve social problems, and I help fund the work
of those people just by being economically productive and therefore paying
taxes.

