[extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...

[Robert Lindauer]

J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

>On 7/28/05 11:10 AM, "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>What I want to know was how it was defined for the sake of the study
>>referenced.  This is a fair question.  Different studies make different
>>definitions and paying attention to them is important when drawing
>>conclusions.
>>    
>>
>
>
>The definitions are pretty straightforward if you bothered to put even the
>slightest effort in learning about this.  Around 3.5% of households in the
>US are millionaire households, and only around an average of 10% of the
>total wealth of those households is in their house -- these are not real
>estate bubble millionaires.  Most own their own small businesses.
>  
>

Hey, that's great, could you post a reference to the study?

>According to the most commonly cited sources,
>

Which sources?  My sources say otherwise, I already posted one source.  
If you don't like the source, perhaps you could explain what was wrong 
with their study for everyone so we can clear up the discrepancies?

> 80% of millionaires are "first
>generation", meaning that they do not come from wealthy families.
>

What's the source of this statistic?

>  Another
>10% or so have wealth in the family, but never received any financial
>support from the family and bootstrapped their own wealth.
>

You wouldn't count the simple advantages that wealthy kids have like 
getting christmas presents and decent meals everyday as "financial 
support"?  They certainly provide an advantage over people who have 
welfare christmas' for instance.

>  The remaining
>10% became millionaires via windfalls from various sources, including
>inheritance.
>
>I come from a family with many millionaires in it, but a long tradition of
>no financial support whatsoever for the children and modest lifestyles.  No
>allowances (you have to work for your money), and when you graduate from
>high school you have to make your own way in the world, including paying for
>your own college (while being disqualified from financial aid by this fact).
>Nonetheless, it has produced generation upon generation of wealthy
>individuals, including individuals who ended up in the rarified air of
>ultra-wealthy with nothing more than a high school diplomas and day labor
>jobs.  In case you are wondering where all that money goes when people die,
>the estate invariably gets donated to charitable organizations.
>
>When I look at my extended family and the consistent wealth it has produced
>from generation to generation, the pattern is obvious: they work very hard,
>they are pretty bright, and children are never coddled or spoiled.  Being
>financially self-made is a badge of honor, and expected.
>  
>

Okay, that's one very talented family, bully bully for you.  How does 
that pan out against the 400,000,000 or so americans and the 4 billion 
people worldwide?

>>The myth I'm trying to bust here is the "if you work hard, have
>>discipline and drive, you will probably be born in the projects and make
>>a million dollars", when in fact the odds are so far against this that
>>it's absurd.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Being smart helps too, but is only moderately important.  The problem is
>ultimately that very few people work hard or have drive and discipline.  The
>vast majority of people are comfortable and do not feel the need to work
>hard or have discipline.
>  
>

Or perhaps they direct their energies to other worthy goals like helping 
poor people or triathalon running or being good at playing the piano or 
something.

>You are not busting any myths, you are pointing out the problem.
>  
>

"The problem"?  What problem?

>
>  
>
>>I've recently been told that 98% of millionaires were born
>>millionaires in the US, from "Lies my teacher told me:  Everything your
>>high school history book got wrong."
>>    
>>
>
>
>Obviously a load of crap, since such a "fact" would have a number of
>interesting consequences that are not in evidence.
>  
>

Well, at least you can objectively look it up yourself and see how the 
study was done and if you have nits to pick you could explain why.   I'd 
like to have a look at your study that says 90% and 60% of millionaires 
are self-made.

>>I await the source of the 60% of millionaires are self-made as well as a
>>definition of "self-made" for the sake of the study.
>>    
>>
>
>
>90%, not 60%.  
>  
>
Last time you said 60%, typo?  why not just post a reference to the 
study in question?

Robbie Lindauer