The biggest predictor of success in the modern economy is FAMILIAL WEALTH and connections. Nothing else is even close. If your parents are loaded, then you'll probably do quite well in life. If not, you're going to have to struggle.
The distribution of wealth is becoming more and more skewed due to centralization and "network effects" - it is possible using technology to simply "move" money from one part of the country to another electronically. In the past, robber barons actually had to at least build factories or mines in a place in order to loot it.
Network effects include several different aspects, including the concentration of wealthy individuals into specific cities, the tendency of their children to marry each other rather than "commoners," etc. This further concentrates assets.
People HATE taking this particular redpill, because it makes things seem unfair and hopeless, and because it is undeniably true - and is becoming more true as time goes on.
But that's how it is. Unless you have a decent amount of wealth, I would not even bother starting a family - you're taking a huge risk of condemning your kids to economic misery.
Where do you think all the heroin/meth-addicts came from? They weren't all born into "broken homes;" many were middle-class as kids. But their parents lacked familial wealth, and there was no economic defense against sliding down the ladder and into all kinds of depravity.
Only have kids if you are rich. Anything else is simply cruel. That's your redpill for today.
You can have mediocre, lower-middle class parents and be successful. You can be born into a wealthy family, and squander your inheritance and become broke. Success is not based on income.
Connor Hernandez
> Wall of text > No citations or data
Dylan Hall
>Muh outliers! Muh exceptions.
Good luck with that. Bill Gates is a good example - his dad was a wealthy lawyer, and he used that comfortable background to get into things like computer technology that was mostly inaccessible in the late-60's/early-70's to poorer kids.
Very few people with actual wealth ever "go broke." That's an artifact of the past, and is an outdated stereotype. Modern asset diversification and professional wealth management means that even fuckups will often see their net worth increase over time rather than fall.
This isn't 1890 anymore when a wealthy idiot might actually blow his fortune on a single stupid idea.
Michael Cruz
The wealth distribution stats speak for themselves, but consider something like the falling life expectancy in the US - something unknown in the modern developed world.
That is because an increasing number of people are hopeless and are numbing themselves with drugs and booze, which destroys them over time.
Now, if you are wealthy, your life expectancy continues to rise. You don't have to worry about such things.
John Wilson
How the fuck is this related to the original topic? Tangentially maybe, show some actually data with a direct correlation and implication to what you originally said, the top earners in America and any economy aren't the top earners for very long for the most part because their money is tied up in volatile assets.
Blake Bell
>Very few people with actual wealth ever "go broke."
This is more a result of state collusion with powerful corporations and interests than anything else. During the crisis of 08 a vast quantity of uber wealthy would have been taken to the cleaners had the banks been allowed to properly fail and the worst of those kikes been imprisoned and divested of their assets.
Andrew Wright
Bump
Jonathan Long
THE BIGGEST TRAIT INHERITED IS IQ
GET THOSE NEURONS FIRING /thread status debunkered
Faggot
Connor Nelson
You have to understand how network effects fit in here - as wealth becomes more concentrated, the major "players" become more cloistered, and in a certain way "secede" from the rest of society.
They will not only protect their own interests, but due to the nature of modern organizations, they will have the legal and economic power to do so effectively.
It's directly related. And the question is one of wealth, not income in any given year. The point is that for people up to the top centile, their wage income is so minimal as to be basically insignificant with regard to the wealth of people beyond that level.
You can make the household median of $55,000 for years, save up, invest wisely, and end up with a lifetime net worth that wouldn't even cover a few weeks of capital gains for an actual wealthy person.
And that's a "good" outcome - the bad outcomes involve drugs, insolvency, and early deaths.
Ayden Campbell
IQ is an element of the trend via "assortive mating," in which people who went to the same universities/work at the same corporations increasingly marry each other.
But there are more high-IQ individuals than there are wealthy ones.
Jace Sullivan
>You have to understand how network effects fit in here - as wealth becomes more concentrated, the major "players" become more cloistered, and in a certain way "secede" from the rest of society.
There is nothing wrong with "seceding" from the rest of society. Deliterious societal effects only begin to occur when those who have wealth begin obtaining wealth not through calculated risks, but by systemic manipulation of government systems.
There is nothing wrong with a billion whose lost half his fortune at some point in time due to bad dealings and then rebuilt his fortune with the other half, so long as the reclaimed wealth was accomplished through real economic risk taking, as it is still possible for the man to lose his money yet again. The economic power to preserve wealth is meaningless so long as it done through real investment.
Once you cross into the domain of the legal, however, is when bad things begin to happen, as in the legal it is often the case, that there is only an upside of meddling with the system, and no downside to losing. Thus, you begin to create a class of frauds who accrue and maintain wealth not through economic risk taking but by manipulating advantages in the system which they themselves create. When gaming the system becomes the fastest way to accrue wealth, society will suffer problems, as typically under this type of wealth accrual, you do in fact "steal" money from someone else, as in the case of the bankers in '08.
Caleb Garcia
Actually most families lose their wealth by the 2nd generation. There's a 70% chance of rich families losing their wealth by the 2nd generation, and a 90% chance of them losing it by the 3rd.
Nope. That's an outdated stereotype. If you look at something like the Forbes list, it has been getting increasingly-stable over time, as wealth calcifies into specific dynasties.
This is due to the nature of modernity, in which it is easier to both track one's assets and to protect them.
Elijah Reed
Meanwhile Sup Forums will continue shilling for a billionaire making policies benefiting mainly the rich.
Stay cucked.
John Scott
My aunt is a millionaire so I guess my family is the 1% and I can have kids
Isaac Carter
"Self-made" is meaningless, because it includes cases of someone from a rich family becoming even richer. For example, Bill Gates, who was rich, but not super-rich.
The relevant number would be billionaires who came from middle-income or lower backgrounds and who did not inherit family money.
Matthew Martin
>You can have mediocre, lower-middle class parents and be successful.
It's possible, but it doesn't happen very often. People born at the bottom usually stay there for the rest of their lives.
>You can be born into a wealthy family, and squander your inheritance and become broke.
It's possible, but it doesn't happen very often. People born at the top usually stay there for the rest of their lives.
John Hughes
This is why it's a "redpill" - people naturally want to believe that their current circumstances won't determine their future outcomes; that there is a chance of improvement and increase.
But just as a statistical matter, you'll probably end up close to where you began.
Perhaps you are exceptional. Perhaps...
William King
The goal isn't to start at the bottom and become ultra wealthy, you want to take a step up the ladder, even just one, so that your children can take the next step.
Even if it's 6 generations before you build real familial wealth, the goal is to take that step. OP is simply opining about lazy people.
Parker Bennett
>Guys just don't have kids okay? Just don't bother, it's not worth it, they'll only end up as drug addicts. We're not scared of the amassing swarm of fed-up commoners that will drag us out of our mansions when SHTF, honestly we're just looking out for you, we don't want your kids to suffer! Have less kids please!
Jayden Mitchell
Oy vey he shut it down
Wyatt Gonzalez
The point is, your kids are as likely to backslide down "the ladder" than to make continual progress toward some greater goal.
