So true. This is also the 'Dilbert Theory of Value Creation' that I have used to great profit. Scott Adams likes to say, he is not the funniest guy around but funnier than most people. At best, he'd be a mediocre comedian. He can also draw better than most but hardly a Picasso. And yet, by combining both skills he has something "rare and valuable" that has led to enormous financial success.
He also adds that it easier to do this (combining two or more skills) than it is to be the very best at one thing e.g. an NBA player--it is actually easier, statistically, to become a billionaire than it is to become an NBA player.
There are more than 2,000 billionaires worldwide but only about 480 NBA players (32 teams with roughly 15 people on the roster). And if you think about it, becoming a billionaire usually involves multiple skills (good at programming + business, bill gates. Good at research/analysis + cultivating a rare temperament that allows you to act on the insights produced by the research even when everyone around you is losing their shirt, Warren Buffett etc, etc).
Being an NBA player requires one skill at a minimum. Being tall!
> There are more than 2,000 billionaires worldwide but only about 480 NBA players (32 teams with roughly 15 people on the roster). And if you think about it, becoming a billionaire usually involves multiple skills (good at programming + business, bill gates. Good at research/analysis + cultivating a rare temperament that allows you to act on the insights produced by the research even when everyone around you is losing their shirt, Warren Buffett etc, etc).
That's not really true. Once you are billionaire you can stay a billionaire for decades. Meanwhile most NBA players don't have long careers, many stay in the league only for a few years. I'd expect that over 10-20 years there have been more NBA players than billionaires.
You have a point but there is also quite a bit of churn in the billionaire ranks. So if you include all that have been billionaires in the last 10 - 20 years you'll have many more than just 2,000. And for practical purposes, having $500 million vs. $1 billion is really the same league of wealth. So if we make the criterion $500 million my point is absolutely true! 5,000 at any given time vs 480.
The path to billionare is unique and can't be copied and involves luck and usually some business skills and almost always communication skills or skills to get others to do work for you.
Being an nba player involves luck and hard work and a high spacial iq.
Anyone could become a billiarie with luck (powerball lottery in one extreme). Only 100,000 people in the world would even have a chance to compete to be an nba player.
You do realize there are 6 foot NBA players right. Hardly 100000 in the world. So if you're gonna go to the power ball extreme on one end then you must extend the analogy just as far on the other side of the argument.
Most billionaires were born in top 0.01 percentile of their respective population pool. And had to be lucky and smart amongst other traits.
He also adds that it easier to do this (combining two or more skills) than it is to be the very best at one thing e.g. an NBA player--it is actually easier, statistically, to become a billionaire than it is to become an NBA player.
There are more than 2,000 billionaires worldwide but only about 480 NBA players (32 teams with roughly 15 people on the roster). And if you think about it, becoming a billionaire usually involves multiple skills (good at programming + business, bill gates. Good at research/analysis + cultivating a rare temperament that allows you to act on the insights produced by the research even when everyone around you is losing their shirt, Warren Buffett etc, etc).
Being an NBA player requires one skill at a minimum. Being tall!