
Being Born Rich Still Leads to Success More Than Working Hard in School (2017) - yamrzou
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evbgqk/sorry-being-born-rich-still-leads-to-success-more-than-working-hard-in-school
======
esotericn
This was posted before and is just as silly as it was then.

Being born rich _is_ success.

Wealth and income, and derivations thereof are the primary metrics by which
most societies define success.

You don't have to agree on a personal level (I have issues with it), but the
rest of the world continues onwards.

~~~
gridlockd
You will have trouble finding anybody who would agree that being _born_ rich
equals success. Being born rich and then _not blowing it_ is success.

Families that have been wealthy over generations have figured out how to do
this, while the "noveau riche" often fail after one or two generations.
There's many stories of famous actors or musicians or lottery winners who went
from rags to riches and then right back to rags.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
It’s very hard to blow it if you’re born rich. Examples are over-represented
in media since they usually involve celebrities & there’s a measure of savage
entertainment in the general population, but these outcomes are exceedingly
rare. If you’re rich (and in America if you’re also white or male) you just
get chance after chance after chance, and you can do horrible things like
manslaughter or sex crimes or large-scale fraud and never be penalized, or be
penalized in a relatively minor way and bounce right back, usually with family
money.

Meanwhile if you’re not born rich, then even completely innocuous mistakes by
your parents, like taking out a mortgage in the wrong place / wrong time, or
having a sick family elder / child to pay for, can just instantly nuke your
chances at college or adequate opportunities / networking that could enable
entrepreneurship, etc.

~~~
gridlockd
> It’s very hard to blow it if you’re born rich.

It's actually extremely easy to blow money on poor investments, and it happens
all the time. People don't just get born with the skill to handle money well.

Over multiple generations, there is no risk-free asset that will beat
inflation, and inflation will easily eat up your wealth in that timespan, even
if your family lives a modest lifestyle.

Of course the matthew principle still applies, but that's besides my point
here.

~~~
buqler
I think the point is that the ability to achieve success ought not be so
skewed towards those whose ancestors achieved success, but rather towards
individuals that have worked for it and have legitimate merit in society.

If you’re suggesting that it’s easy to go from being rich to being poor, I
think it would be useful to find data that examines how many people born rich
become poor over time, and how many people born poor stay poor over time.
Like, backing that claim up would make it more believable.

Anecdotally, I don’t think it’s that hard for rich people to be born and then
stay rich. Especially considering all the things that money can buy that helps
one make even more money. Like a better education, for example.

~~~
gridlockd
> If you’re suggesting that it’s easy to go from being rich to being poor, I
> think it would be useful to find data that examines how many people born
> rich become poor over time, and how many people born poor stay poor over
> time. Like, backing that claim up would make it more believable.

It's not easy to get data on the very rich. However, the top fifth of the
population is about as likely to become poorer over time as the the bottom
fifth is likely to get richer over time (page 6):

[https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe...](https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf)

In total, only a minority (~40%) maintain their status over the course of a
single generation.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
You need something like decile transition probabilities, not merely
directional changes. Going from the top decile of wealth to the second or
third from top is not a significant loss of wealth. Even if “most rich people
lost money” over their lifetimes, it would say nothing about how easy it is to
go from rich to poor.

How many people who are born into the top decile of wealth end up below the
poverty line in total assets + income?

~~~
gridlockd
> You need something like decile transition probabilities, not merely
> directional changes.

That's exactly what's in the linked article. The probability of going from the
top to the bottom _in one generation_ is 8%, to second-to-bottom 10%. That's a
significant chance.

> Going from the top decile of wealth to the second or third from top is not a
> significant loss of wealth.

I disagree. Going to the third decile likely puts you in the bottom half.

> How many people who are born into the top decile of wealth end up below the
> poverty line in total assets + income?

Roughly 8%, as the bottom decile roughly coincides with the poverty line.

------
tomohawk
Not according to this: [https://www.daveramsey.com/research/the-national-
study-of-mi...](https://www.daveramsey.com/research/the-national-study-of-
millionaires)

* 8 out of 10 millionaires invested in mutual funds through 401k

* 79% did not receive an inheritance

* top 5 careers include engineer, teacher, accountant, manager, attorney

~~~
jmole
can't help but think that this is sampling bias.

~~~
tomohawk
Echoes many of the findings of the Millionaire Next Door.

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-you-can-be-
the-m...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-you-can-be-the-
millionaire-next-door-2015-07-14)

------
Mikeb85
I just find it amusing that anyone ever thought otherwise. At the end of the
day, having capital means you don't have to have a job while you're in school,
you can do extracurriculars to gain a leg up, you can start a business, or
you'll have friends in high places or who own business to network with and get
jobs from.

Self-preservation is in everyone's nature. If you're rich, you're going to do
the most for your family, your children and you're going to make sure it stays
that way.

Education doesn't lead to social mobility, redistribution of wealth does. The
countries with the most social mobility as well as the most equality have
fairly 'socialist' political and economic systems. Of course, going full
communist has been shown to have disastrous effects, so there's obviously a
balance somewhere, but it seems that in the US and UK for sure the systems are
still tipped a little too much towards the rich.

~~~
pgcj_poster
As a software engineer who makes $150,000 per year, I'm wondering why you
assume that inequality is bad? It's possible that we could improve the
conditions of the poor while also increasing inequality, so that means that
there's never any reason to discuss wealth redistribution as a possible
solution to poverty. Also, it's human nature to want to help your offspring,
so therefore it's immoral to ever even think of doing anything to reduce the
advantages that rich kids get. After all, I'm for equality of opportunity, not
outcome.

If you really want to help the poor, the priority should be growing the
economy, which should be measured by how well my stocks are doing. This
article should be flagged as a propaganda piece from the far-left publication
_Vice_.

~~~
ken
This all sounds rather tone deaf. What is the point, in your mind, of
"equality of opportunity" if it doesn't result in any outcome? How exactly are
people at the poverty level helped, this month, by the performance of the
stock market?

When someone making more than triple the median salary in this country (who
I'm guessing has never had to live on minimum wage) says we don't need to
discuss wealth redistribution, but without offering any concrete suggestions
about how to help the poor _today_ , I find it hard to take that seriously.

~~~
throwawaycanada
Equality of opportunity means that if a homeless person and a rich kid work
exactly as hard and get the same grades on the same tests and both perform the
same at work they end up in the same place. That means if they both do great
they could both end up well off, and if they both decide they don't need to
work and skirt their responsibilities they can both end up out of a job and
not in a good place, at least until they start doing better at their jobs
again.

Equality of outcome means a lazy drunk who never cracked a book would get the
same as an industrious person who makes great sacrifices for their career and
education.

