Bestbank Tiger
Deity
Warren Buffett grew up in a modest home in Omaha.
Howard Schultz grew up in the projects.
Howard Schultz grew up in the projects.
Self Made Billionaire: Myth or Reality?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Ooh! Ooh!
Pick me! Pick me! 
I know the answer! This is an easy one! Like I've said earlier, the underlying idea behind the question is "deserve", so the answer is easily... No. You absolutely don't "deserve" to have over 90,000 times you "fair share" of global GDP based on what you actually did... which boiled down to basics, is you collected a few dozen cans, that you didn't even buy, but were in fact, actually bought by others. Then you went and "cashed in" the cans, which were essentially garbage and you could only "cash in" because of a government created recycling program that you had nothing to do with the creation or implementation of. Then you bought a piece of paper with numbers on it, to essentially gamble. Then you won the gambling contest, which was totally random and required no skill or work whatsoever on your part. Then you went online and clicked a few buttons on the computer, to do what was essentially another gamble, which you again won, which was again random, not based on any skill or work on your part. You then had the good sense to cash out when you had obviously won the gamble.So to recap, the only thing that can be attributed to your actual "work" or "skill" is you picked up a couple pounds / kilo of garbage and then had the good sense to cash out when your gamble on crypto paid off. So no you obviously don't "deserve" a billion dollars for that. You're not "self made" because you didn't "make" anything. What "made" you is a couple government programs and essentially a private online casino, where you placed one bet. You didn't "make" the casino or the government programs, so you had virtually no agency in "making" your riches. You just had improbably good luck. That's not "self made" by any stretch of the imagination.
Last edited:
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
A little bit of devil’s advocate here but breaking it down further let’s look at the chain of actions.
Work: can collection
Transaction: cans for $
Transaction: $ for ticket
Risk: loss of $
Transaction: ticket for $$
Transaction: $$ for crypto
Risk: loss of $$
Transaction: crypto for $$$
There are at least two parties here (maybe the recycling plant owner is a degenerate gambler who runs his own lottery and cryptocurrency as a result of breathing in aluminum dust.)
The other parties are all making transactions with their own risks, however they are measured. No one along this chain has been coerced into these transactions; in fact, each party involved believe themselves to be better off having made them, otherwise they wouldn’t have done so in the first place.
Work: can collection
Transaction: cans for $
Transaction: $ for ticket
Risk: loss of $
Transaction: ticket for $$
Transaction: $$ for crypto
Risk: loss of $$
Transaction: crypto for $$$
There are at least two parties here (maybe the recycling plant owner is a degenerate gambler who runs his own lottery and cryptocurrency as a result of breathing in aluminum dust.)
The other parties are all making transactions with their own risks, however they are measured. No one along this chain has been coerced into these transactions; in fact, each party involved believe themselves to be better off having made them, otherwise they wouldn’t have done so in the first place.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,308
I pretty much agree with Narz's take. The basic concept of "self made" means that you earned the wealth yourself, versus inheriting it. Besides not inheriting it, the means by which you acquired it historically has not been relevant to determining if you are self-made. Although you could make a decent argument that it shouldn't count if the means weren't legal.
So, many would be self-made. A few points/arguments I'd make:
- Having parents who are financially successful shouldn't preclude you from being "self made". Bill Gates' parents were financially successful and he went to a good school. But they weren't responsible for him becoming a billionaire. He did that himself, just like the NBA player whose parents gave him good genes and signed him up for youth basketball leagues still deserves credit for making the pros.
- At a certain point, inheriting a lot of wealth, even if it's less than a billion dollars, means you aren't really "self made". What that threshold is can be debated. But for example, Donald Trump received hundreds of millions of dollars in inheritances from his dad's real estate empire, adjusted for inflation, so he's clearly a silver spoon. Managing to double that at one point in time isn't enough to qualify him as self made.
- Everyone gets some help along the way. Being good at finding that help, and knowing who is a legitimate partner, and who is just trying to get a cut of your money, is part of reaching that billionaire's club (and more generally, good at business).
As for what that "certain point" is, I'll also note that it's relative, and since the subject is billionaires, the point is higher than if we were discussing whether an Ivy League kid was self-made or a silver spoon. If Sally's parents own a small business worth $2.5M making $400K in profits a year, you could argue she's a silver spoon. But if she graduates Yale with $5000 in her bank account, doesn't inherit any additional money from her parents, and through a successful career becomes a billionaire, she's still self-made on the billionaire scale. More able to take risks since she has that family cushion if she fails, but I'd still call that self-made.
It's a different question whether any given billionaire made their fortune in an ethical way, and in many cases a more complex question.
It's also a different question whether, as a society, we should allow the types of financial dealings that can result in scenarios like El_Machinae described. I agree with Sommerswerd that the scenario doesn't really fit the spirit of being self made, but would say technically that is self made, albeit with an extreme dose of luck.
So, many would be self-made. A few points/arguments I'd make:
- Having parents who are financially successful shouldn't preclude you from being "self made". Bill Gates' parents were financially successful and he went to a good school. But they weren't responsible for him becoming a billionaire. He did that himself, just like the NBA player whose parents gave him good genes and signed him up for youth basketball leagues still deserves credit for making the pros.
- At a certain point, inheriting a lot of wealth, even if it's less than a billion dollars, means you aren't really "self made". What that threshold is can be debated. But for example, Donald Trump received hundreds of millions of dollars in inheritances from his dad's real estate empire, adjusted for inflation, so he's clearly a silver spoon. Managing to double that at one point in time isn't enough to qualify him as self made.
- Everyone gets some help along the way. Being good at finding that help, and knowing who is a legitimate partner, and who is just trying to get a cut of your money, is part of reaching that billionaire's club (and more generally, good at business).
As for what that "certain point" is, I'll also note that it's relative, and since the subject is billionaires, the point is higher than if we were discussing whether an Ivy League kid was self-made or a silver spoon. If Sally's parents own a small business worth $2.5M making $400K in profits a year, you could argue she's a silver spoon. But if she graduates Yale with $5000 in her bank account, doesn't inherit any additional money from her parents, and through a successful career becomes a billionaire, she's still self-made on the billionaire scale. More able to take risks since she has that family cushion if she fails, but I'd still call that self-made.
It's a different question whether any given billionaire made their fortune in an ethical way, and in many cases a more complex question.
It's also a different question whether, as a society, we should allow the types of financial dealings that can result in scenarios like El_Machinae described. I agree with Sommerswerd that the scenario doesn't really fit the spirit of being self made, but would say technically that is self made, albeit with an extreme dose of luck.
Zardnaar
Deity
That's why I said reasonably modest means. No ivy league schools and middle class at best or lower.
So you have some advantages in a way (not being born in the third world) but no more than any other typical inhabitant of your nation.
Ha! So a kid who grows up in a lower class black neighborhood, but goes on to get into an Ivy League school and eventually becomes a billionaire is disqualified from being considered "self-made", specifically because he (or his parents) got into, and graduated from an Ivy League school?
That seems like some pretty dubious reasoning, but this is actually fascinating to me, so I have another question.1. Can you explain, in one sentence, or less, what defines an "Ivy League" school?; and
2. Can you list the names of the schools, in your view, that are in this list of "Ivy League" schools that supposedly disqualify their attendees from being, in your view, defined as "self-made"?
Feel free to use Google if you need to... given your above statement I don't expect you to know those answers off the top of your head and I suspect you might surprise yourself.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
Ha! So a kid who grows up in a lower class black neighborhood, but goes on to get into an Ivy League school and eventually becomes a billionaire is disqualified from being considered "self-made", specifically because he got into, and graduated from an Ivy League school?
1. Can you explain, in one sentence, or less, what defines an "Ivy League" school?; and
2. Can you list the names of the schools, in your view, that are in this list of "Ivy League" schools that supposedly disqualify their attendees from being, in your view, defined as "self-made"?
Feel free to use Google if you need to... given your above statement I don't expect you to know those answers off the top of your head and I suspect you might surprise yourself.
Scholarship maybe I was referring to the usual inhabitants.
Ivy league. Harvard, Yale, Cornel etc and the other rich colleges like Oxford in UK.
The old boy network type places.
If you get in via scholar and become a billionaire that would count as self made imho.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,308
Ah, I missed the "middle class". Well, in that case, it's a bit more limited, but in less than 10 minutes I found a likely candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duncan Son of a farmer, mother and brother died when he was 7, served in the Army, went to a business college afterwards. Whether he truly qualifies depends on how prosperous of a farmer his father was, but no Ivy league schools.
Ha! So a kid who grows up in a lower class black neighborhood, but goes on to get into an Ivy League school and eventually becomes a billionaire is disqualified from being considered "self-made", specifically because he (or his parents) got into, and graduated from an Ivy League school?
1. Can you explain, in one sentence, or less, what defines an "Ivy League" school?; and
2. Can you list the names of the schools, in your view, that are in this list of "Ivy League" schools that supposedly disqualify their attendees from being, in your view, defined as "self-made"?
Feel free to use Google if you need to... given your above statement I don't expect you to know those answers off the top of your head and I suspect you might surprise yourself.
I'd agree that simply getting into an Ivy League school shouldn't disqualify one, particularly if it's on scholarship. But there's no reason to bring race into it, as race should have no bearing on whether someone can be considered self-made.
What do you mean by "etc"? I asked you to name all the specific schools that you think are "Ivy League". "Etc" doesn't cut it. Harvard and Yale are most certainly Ivy League. Oxford is most certainly not. Being one of "The old boy network type places" has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a school an Ivy League school. There is certainly some correlation there, but not causation. "Ivy League School" is not a term of art. There is one very specific thing that causes a school to be an Ivy League school, that has nothing to do with what you think. Cornell is also an Ivy League school, but as a trivial aside is the one Ivy League School that lacks a very historically significant distinction that the other Ivy League schools all have, but that doesn't matter, because the one thing Cornell lacks is not the one thing that makes a school an Ivy League school.
EDIT: Rather than be a prick and drag this out, I will just explain. There are 8 Schools who make up "The Ivy League" NCAA D1AA football conference. Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Brown, UPenn, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Cornell. The schools in that conference are the Ivy League schools. Any school not in that conference is not Ivy League. That's it. This is not common knowledge, but that's all it is.
The rest is just correlation built up by people associating as you say "the old boy network" and a bunch of other arbitrary factors to essentially subjectively classify whatever school they want as "Ivy", "Baby Ivy" and so on, to associate other schools with the ones in the football conference, by comparing other similar factors between the school and the ones in the conference. For various reasons, some of which are obvious, people want the classification "Ivy League" to be fluid... in this case, you wanting to assert that "Ivy League" grads have some sort of unfair advantage that makes them unworthy of being considered "self-made" and by extension "deserving" of what they have. You want "Ivy League" to mean whatever you say it means. But it doesn't. It's just a football conference. nothing more, nothing less. Again, I realize that this is not common/conventional wisdom. Most people are totally unaware of this.
I disagree, there is every reason to bring race into it, as race is definitely often made a factor in whether someone is perceived as "self-made", or more specifically "deserving" of their achievements, wealth, status, ie, the view that a person only got into said Ivy League school because of affirmative action, as just one example. Furthermore, being white is often perceived/portrayed as an advantage in a person's ability to become "self-made" or again, "deserving" of what they have acquired. So you're wrong to say race has no bearing. It has every bearing, despite the fact that race is of tertiary importance to the point I am making, specifically that Zarddnaar has no idea what an "Ivy League School" is, despite apparently basing his position on his misperception.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,308
To some extent, we might be disagreeing over semantics. I believe race should have no bearing on whether someone is considered self-made. In the real world, you're right, there are certainly cases where it does play a role in whether someone is perceived as self-made.
Remembering that Zardnaar is from New Zealand, naming three of the Ivy League schools is not bad, although I'm sure Brown, Columbia, Darthmouth, UPenn, and... whatever the eighth one is... would like to be remembered. It is a fraught boundary, though, particularly as the Ivy League is fundamentally a sports conference, albeit one that focused on academics when deciding which schools to admit. MIT, UChicago, Stanford, and probably a several other schools could also make a case for excluding you from being self-made if "attending an elite school while not on scholarship" is a disqualifier. But where does one draw that line? Swathmore is a good school, but doesn't have nation-wide name recognition, does it count? Is it any school above a certain admission threshold? Can a high-end public school like the University of Michigan be good enough to disqualify you? What if you pay the out-of-state tuition to go there?
I guess I agree that Zardnaar needs a better definition than Ivy League. He probably means it as "expensive, elite school", but if someone can pay $50,000 a year in tuition, room, and board, I don't see any reason that going to Brown should disqualify someone any more than paying that same amount to George Washington University.
Another factor that makes it tougher (and may not be apparent to someone outside the U.S.) is needs-based scholarships, and that those can vary significantly by school. You don't necessarily have to win a traditional academic scholarship to get a major discount at an expensive school, potentially enough to swing it with only federal government loans and a part-time student job. Though again, this varies a lot by school and circumstance.
Edit: I am curious what Cornell lacks that the other Ivy League schools have. Could it be a law school? I know several of the others have one, but don't know whether Cornell does or not. I know it has a grad school, but not whether it has a law (or, for that matter, business) school. Edit 2: Although I don't know why those would be historically significant.
Remembering that Zardnaar is from New Zealand, naming three of the Ivy League schools is not bad, although I'm sure Brown, Columbia, Darthmouth, UPenn, and... whatever the eighth one is... would like to be remembered. It is a fraught boundary, though, particularly as the Ivy League is fundamentally a sports conference, albeit one that focused on academics when deciding which schools to admit. MIT, UChicago, Stanford, and probably a several other schools could also make a case for excluding you from being self-made if "attending an elite school while not on scholarship" is a disqualifier. But where does one draw that line? Swathmore is a good school, but doesn't have nation-wide name recognition, does it count? Is it any school above a certain admission threshold? Can a high-end public school like the University of Michigan be good enough to disqualify you? What if you pay the out-of-state tuition to go there?
I guess I agree that Zardnaar needs a better definition than Ivy League. He probably means it as "expensive, elite school", but if someone can pay $50,000 a year in tuition, room, and board, I don't see any reason that going to Brown should disqualify someone any more than paying that same amount to George Washington University.
Another factor that makes it tougher (and may not be apparent to someone outside the U.S.) is needs-based scholarships, and that those can vary significantly by school. You don't necessarily have to win a traditional academic scholarship to get a major discount at an expensive school, potentially enough to swing it with only federal government loans and a part-time student job. Though again, this varies a lot by school and circumstance.
Edit: I am curious what Cornell lacks that the other Ivy League schools have. Could it be a law school? I know several of the others have one, but don't know whether Cornell does or not. I know it has a grad school, but not whether it has a law (or, for that matter, business) school. Edit 2: Although I don't know why those would be historically significant.
Last edited:
My position has been, and remains, that "self-made" is just a euphemism for "deserving" and all the discussions we have all been having about it seem to bolster that point. My other point is that "deserving" is essentially an illusion, because as the saying goes, "no man is an island unto himself". Everyone got help from someone, or something to get to where they are, no matter where that is, whether its the palace, or the alley behind the dumpster.
It's still a fun thought exercise, but I think that ultimately, "self made billionaire" is just nonsense... it doesn't exist. It can't exist. We just use the term to separate the ones who we subjectively feel "deserve" the money, and more importantly, should therefore be exempt from our disdain, contempt etc., and even more importantly, our efforts to "redistribute" their wealth. The thought process goes... "Well if so-and-so is a self-made billionaire, then he/she earned their wealth, so they deserve it, so we should be more thoughtful about taking it away from them and/or hating them for being so wealthy... But those silver spoon ***holes who aren't self-made... screw them, they suck, they don't deserve their wealth because they didn't earn it, so we should have no guilty feelings about taking it away from them for the greater good, or whatever else."
It's still a fun thought exercise, but I think that ultimately, "self made billionaire" is just nonsense... it doesn't exist. It can't exist. We just use the term to separate the ones who we subjectively feel "deserve" the money, and more importantly, should therefore be exempt from our disdain, contempt etc., and even more importantly, our efforts to "redistribute" their wealth. The thought process goes... "Well if so-and-so is a self-made billionaire, then he/she earned their wealth, so they deserve it, so we should be more thoughtful about taking it away from them and/or hating them for being so wealthy... But those silver spoon ***holes who aren't self-made... screw them, they suck, they don't deserve their wealth because they didn't earn it, so we should have no guilty feelings about taking it away from them for the greater good, or whatever else."
Zardnaar
Deity
Dartmouth and Columbia I knew of I wouldn't have got the others.
I used Ivy League as shorthand for expensive/posh.
So if you've been sent to one or equivalent eg Oxford or Cambridge.
Scholarships being an exception. I figured my OP with modest means and middle class at best background would cover it.
Sure.
But that is my point. Its an arbitrary, self serving, and ultimately meaningless distinction... it basically amounts to saying that people who go to a school that you subjectively think is really good therefore don't "deserve" to be rich because they had an unfair advantage, because they got into that really good school. It's nonsense.
Cornell, unlike the other 7 Ivy League Schools is not one of the original 9 Colonial Colleges. William & Mary and Rutgers are the other 2 original Colonial colleges, but neither is an Ivy League school.
I know. It's incorrect. Now you know too. "Ivy League" is not shorthand for expensive/posh. It has a very specific meaning. It's an athletic conference.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,308
Interesting, I hadn't known there were nine colonial colleges in the U.S., nor that Rutgers was anywhere near that old. And I also hadn't realized William & Mary was a public university.
It's also interesting to think whether "self-made" is a synonym with "deserving". There's definitely some correlation there. They're both subjective, as you say. Which also means it's probably not a good distinction to base policy on. You can have general inheritance taxes, and you can have taxes based on income or potentially wealth, but it would be a slippery slope to say, "because you inherited your wealth, you owe more taxes, even after the initial inheritance tax."
It's also interesting to think whether "self-made" is a synonym with "deserving". There's definitely some correlation there. They're both subjective, as you say. Which also means it's probably not a good distinction to base policy on. You can have general inheritance taxes, and you can have taxes based on income or potentially wealth, but it would be a slippery slope to say, "because you inherited your wealth, you owe more taxes, even after the initial inheritance tax."
Zardnaar
Deity
Think people are over analysing it. Throw some names up then argue over the merits or how ethical they made money.
As long as the money was legal I suppose. No cocaine narco lord's or maybe Russian oligarchs or kleptocrats lol.
As long as the money was legal I suppose. No cocaine narco lord's or maybe Russian oligarchs or kleptocrats lol.
But you raise another point with that suggestion, that has been brought up before. If I am a child of a person who is running a "family business", let's say, a farm... and because of the nature of a farm, there is a lot of land involved in running this business, and I have been the one getting up at 4AM everyday to keep the farm running for the last 10 years while my Dad, the "owner" of the land has been essentially confined to his bed with illness. And then my Dad dies, leaving me the farm, that has been supporting our family for decades, making me "inherit" all this land. To then charge me an "inheritance tax" on all this "wealth" that I've suddenly acquired... I mean its just the same farm I grew up on and worked everyday while Dad was sick. So now to pay the "inheritance tax" I have to sell all or part of the farm and lose our family's livelihood, because... Dad died? I mean, he didn't leave me a storehouse full of gold doubloons, he left me a bunch of tallow fields that need to be cared for.
Another example. Dad and I have been working side by side fixing up houses since I was old enough to hammer a nail. I've spent whole summers on a ladder as free(ish) labor to help keep my Dad's business running. Dad gets arthritis and cant do it anymore, so I take over and run the job sites that I've been working my whole life. Part of what Dad does is buy real estate, fix it up, and flip it. Dad dies of a heart attack suddenly and he has several properties he owns that were being fixed for sale. So I have to pay "inheritance tax" on those properties? I don't have the money for that. So what do I do? Sell all the properties to pay the tax? So then what? I've no more properties to fix and sell to live on.
Zardnaar
Deity
Inheritance taxes the amounts usually high enough that the family farm is safe.
Think Trump doubled the amount you could inherit and inheritance taxes usually easy to avoid anyway.
Nope. Too late for all that. YOU said:
We're talking about Kim Kardashian. Self made or not... you said she had money. I said her gender nullifies that, plus she was an industry pioneer. I'm not letting you retreat backj into philosophical BS. You've already conceded that ground.
Do you or do you not like Kim Kardashian (as a rich person) and why? That is the real point of this thread, so let's get to it. I want to hear your feelings on Kim Kardashian.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
I set out my guidelines earlier.
No she isn't as she didn't come from a middle class background. She totally had a huge amount of built in advantages due to her family.
If you're born into the upper class it's a lot easier to amass wealth and/or inherit the knowledge and connections to do it.
Eh, but she is a woman, and women are indisputably inherently disadvantaged, so she deserves a minus X modifier, so turning to a sex tape to become famous becomes... well.. I report, you decide.
My view is that she essentially strong-armed herself into being famous for essentially being famous, so she totally deserves credit. She basically pioneered inventing an industry.
