Sign up  |  Log in

According to one estimate, wealthy couples in NYC need $190 million to keep their heads above water

Who said anything about being “self made”? This sort of definition loses meaning after a while anyway. Is Bill Gates self made? He came from a rich family who trained him to go to Harvard. Zuckerberg too. The measure of someone’s productivity is what they accomplish relative to their starting point. For people who are born in privilege, that standard is merely higher.

It should be clear from my above reasoning that I consider family accomplishment to be a team effort spanning across generations, provided that each generation has the knowledge and disposition of perpetuating wealth. My parents will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than their parents did/will, since they never drew from their parents’ assets. I will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than my parents will leave for me, as I do not need to draw from their assets either. 

Of course, this might terminate at some point - for instance, if my children do not adopt the same values as their predecessors. My earlier comment just points out the possibility of wealth accumulation across generations and what I consider to be a reasonable achievement for an “above average” but not necessarily brilliant line of people. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

^ some good points. gates and zuckerberg still get kudos from going from upper class to the modern day kings of the world but not as much kudos as say ford or rockefeller who came from a literal crap heap to become similar figures in their time.

you can debate trump’s potential tens of millions and financial guarantees turned into what, a couple billion?, as being not so great over a few decades but it’s hard to say gates and zuckerberg who weren’t given much capital from family and created a fortune of nearly $100 billion as not being self-made.

more importantly is acheivement. is buffett on the same level as gates and zuckerberg? in my mind no. they’re worth about the same but their influence on the world and the luck involved in their achievements is much different.

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

more importantly is acheivement. is buffett on the same level as gates and zuckerberg? in my mind no. they’re worth about the same but their influence on the world and the luck involved in their achievements is much different.

you don’t like buffett?

"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."
- Ernest Rutherford

ohai wrote:

Who said anything about being “self made”? This sort of definition loses meaning after a while anyway. Is Bill Gates self made? He came from a rich family who trained him to go to Harvard. Zuckerberg too. The measure of someone’s productivity is what they accomplish relative to their starting point. For people who are born in privilege, that standard is merely higher.

It should be clear from my above reasoning that I consider family accomplishment to be a team effort spanning across generations, provided that each generation has the knowledge and disposition of perpetuating wealth. My parents will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than their parents did/will, since they never drew from their parents’ assets. I will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than my parents will leave for me, as I do not need to draw from their assets either. 

Of course, this might terminate at some point - for instance, if my children do not adopt the same values as their predecessors. My earlier comment just points out the possibility of wealth accumulation across generations and what I consider to be a reasonable achievement for an “above average” but not necessarily brilliant line of people. 

Aren’t you supposed to be off work today?

Mike79 wrote:

ohai wrote:

Who said anything about being “self made”? This sort of definition loses meaning after a while anyway. Is Bill Gates self made? He came from a rich family who trained him to go to Harvard. Zuckerberg too. The measure of someone’s productivity is what they accomplish relative to their starting point. For people who are born in privilege, that standard is merely higher.

It should be clear from my above reasoning that I consider family accomplishment to be a team effort spanning across generations, provided that each generation has the knowledge and disposition of perpetuating wealth. My parents will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than their parents did/will, since they never drew from their parents’ assets. I will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than my parents will leave for me, as I do not need to draw from their assets either. 

Of course, this might terminate at some point - for instance, if my children do not adopt the same values as their predecessors. My earlier comment just points out the possibility of wealth accumulation across generations and what I consider to be a reasonable achievement for an “above average” but not necessarily brilliant line of people. 

Aren’t you supposed to be off work today?

lol classic 

"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."
- Ernest Rutherford

ohai wrote:

Who said anything about being “self made”? This sort of definition loses meaning after a while anyway. Is Bill Gates self made? He came from a rich family who trained him to go to Harvard. Zuckerberg too. The measure of someone’s productivity is what they accomplish relative to their starting point. For people who are born in privilege, that standard is merely higher.

It should be clear from my above reasoning that I consider family accomplishment to be a team effort spanning across generations, provided that each generation has the knowledge and disposition of perpetuating wealth. My parents will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than their parents did/will, since they never drew from their parents’ assets. I will probably leave behind a larger inheritance than my parents will leave for me, as I do not need to draw from their assets either. 

Of course, this might terminate at some point - for instance, if my children do not adopt the same values as their predecessors. My earlier comment just points out the possibility of wealth accumulation across generations and what I consider to be a reasonable achievement for an “above average” but not necessarily brilliant line of people. 

I didn’t imply you were self made, but your insights into it are lacking.  The flaw in your earlier line of reasoning is it really all comes down to Person Zero, in the chain, the self made root case.  That is by a mile, the hardest step in the chain of events for anybody who has experience with the standing of what it takes to dig out from median status.  Its not necessarily about intelligence either, it could be luck too, so pointing out that a root person became wealthy while not being genius doesn’t really disprove my point about difficulty.  

To highlight my point, you start with this assumption:

ohai wrote:

I think something like $50 million sort of wealth is attainable in 3 generations, or maybe 2 generations, among people who are merely talented to a slightly above average level. For instance, if I leave $10 million…

This is where you have a logical fallacy because you start with “people who are merely talented to a slightly above average level” saving $10M.  Which sort of shows your complete lack of understanding of that situation I pointed out earlier.  The average American’s lifetime earnings are $1.4M.  Slightly above average, maybe gets you to $3M, so they save $10M from $3M, seems legit.  Of course they could save a lot early on while earning $48k a year, but I think that’s somewhat mathematically unreasonable and regardless would be a topic outside your realm of direct experience.

It’s a classic proof by induction from a faulty base case, as they say ex falso quodlibet.

Flowing from that into this:

ohai wrote:

…my heir compounds it at 7% for 25 years and adds their own $10 million, we can achieve that somewhat reliably in 2 generations. This is how all those old money European aristocracies became so rich, and it’s why the first son inherits everything. The fortune lasts longer than one person. 

Of course, people are rarely able to resist spending money, especially money that they did not work for themselves. Furthermore, they might say the money has no value if they cannot experience its use in their lifetimes. So this plan might be harder than I make it out to be. People do say in general that wealth disappears in three generations, rather than the opposite.

Again, huge props from what you have accomplished, its arguably as difficult in its own very different way going from the top 2% to the top 1% or however you would characterize your career (being serious), but its kind of a “let them eat cake” moment listening to you opine on the topic of the root case (the self made person that begins the family transition).

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

imagine being born to poor parents LOL

"You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???"

RIP

Nerdyblop wrote:

Actually my great grandfather was apparently a business man in the logging industry. He used it to buy a **** ton of land. My grandparents inherited that land but had nothing to do with business. Grandfather was a doctor for instance. Business eventually died by the time my dad was alive and they started selling of land little by little. When they got that big pay day. My dad and grandma tried to get into other businesses but failed or got cheated by people and has shifted focus to just enjoying life and squandering my inheritance. Dad is well aware of my disappointments. It’s kind of funny, like a reversal of roles. Annyways it went to 0 by the time I was in high school. And now my job is to rebuild and bring honor to my family.

I know I will easily exceed 50m. I was bred for it.

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

If you don’t like my numbers, then just change it to generation one leaving $1 million, ending in $5 million to $10 million in three generations, or whatever you want. There are many books about variations of “millionaires next door”.  Make it five generations, not 3 generations if you want. This is attainable by let’s say a third of American families. The point is that wealth can accumulate over generations, but this attitude is simply the opposite of American mentality. People here would rather buy Ford F-150s than leave an inheritance. 

Anyway, if you do not appreciate my perspective, that is fine. However, my perspective also suggests that you could benefit from being a bit less narrow minded and think about possibilities for your life rather than being negative and focusing on discrediting others who are merely sharing what they have learned. You can be inspired or put up more intellectual walls. That’s your choice. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

You need 4.5m in the top 2 percent and 8.1m for top 1 percent. It’s amazing how large it is in nominal terms, but it’s literally just an 80 percent increase. You can achieve that in 7 years on average.

You can also use history to judge each generations contributions. 

The greatest generation or those born 1900 to 1920 ww2 are often credited for Americas success. But their success was really due to industrialization that allowed our country to become more productive in the 1830s. 1920 to 1960 contributed to American dominance in terms of gdp market share. But We stopped gaining market share from then on. The gen x had a work hard attitude unfortunate they did not work smart so we still were in moderate decline. Anyways with millennials leading the way, things are getting a lot worse a lot faster. Only a matter of time until the Chinese beat us. I blame the baby boomers for terrible parenting of millennials really.

anyways I will end all this rant with a nice Buffett quote:

Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.

It’s always good to grow assets right. But it is more important to grow your dynasty. If you feel you are becoming too rich then it is time to make a baby. That’ll definitely cut the net worth per capita. Almost equivalent to making yourself poorer!

for example. john d rockefeller died with a net worth of 1.4b at death in 1937. on top of that he also gave away about 530m. and estate tax was about 20%  so his dynastic wealth was roughly 1.1b.  overall market CAGR is about 10% or 2.7 trillion. if we assume that they spent 4% per year. his family’s net worth should be 130b today. however, his entire dynasty is just worth 11b now. he does have 150 descendants. anyways this is why you should keep money consolidated with power only given to the most capable. everyone else gets a stipend. power is better when it is consolidated.

https://nypost.com/2017/04/02/with-the-death-of-a-patriarch-have-the-rockefellers-lost-their-power/

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

lol tank Ohai, I will remember your kind words in my time of despair.  I will try not to build intellectual walls halting the immigration of your boundless knowledge!

As a fun fact, I’m not as far behind you in these regards as you probably flatter yourself with and I’m a little closer to the P(0) case than you seem to be.  Both in the regard that I actually grew up on a farm in an average to below average part of the country, born into a double wide and because I witnessed my parents, P(0) go from born below the poverty line to sound eight figure wealth within a generation.  As such, I also grew up in a circle of these types, but I’ll be sure to relay your wise wisdom though!  Everything you’re saying is virtually the opposite of what any of those people would recount particularly in terms of challenge and long odds involved, and they’d each tell you a healthy dose of luck was involved first and foremost.  Anecdotes aside, statistics also bare out in my favor.

Ok, so we’ve established you were basically making up numbers to go with your platitudes since you just cut your third generation amount by 80-90% in one post.  Even in that hacksaw model you failed to account for multiple kids.  The reality is wealth in the first to second generation phase is fragile and it takes very little, a misstep or two, some back luck, to set a family back to start (as Nerdy can attest) and I think the key difference in my position is that I’m not so delusional about the realities of starting on square one.  It is also the case that you’re opining on two things that you have zero familiarity with, the plight of the median income family incorporating the earnings perspective and the realities of starting on the bottom without the benefits of generations of knowledge or the accompanying opportunity set.

Had you entitled your theory, “Making millions is not difficult for mildly above average people when starting at the finish line, an autobiography” and advised the poors to just be born rich and pipelined into an elite education, it would be more apt, and therefore less silly.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Related image

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

lol tank Ohai, I will remember your kind words in my time of despair.  I will try not to build intellectual walls halting the immigration of your boundless knowledge!

As a fun fact, I’m not as far behind you in these regards as you probably flatter yourself with and I’m a little closer to the P(0) case than you seem to be.  Both in the regard that I actually grew up on a farm in an average to below average part of the country, born into a double wide and because I witnessed my parents, P(0) go from born below the poverty line to sound eight figure wealth within a generation. 

Is the boundless knowledge “immigrating” or “emigrating”? I always get those two confused.  Who knew BS has his own hillbilly elegy,  our own JD Vance. 

im confused. i thought farmers actually made decent money. how were you a poor farmer in the us?

also are you saying that starting from the bottom now we here is a better story than started from the top, then the botttom, but now we back at top is an inferior story.

how much siblings you got bs? how much you stand to inherit? **** i often fantasize about inherting a lot of money. i ****ing hate working for ****.

anyways what i would hate is say i had a net worth of a billion when i died. and i left it to my 4 children. and 1 child at their death, decides that since i am dying and  had an awesome life, im going to give my money to charity and not to my blood relatives. that would make me really mad and disappointed. cuz they are giving away **** that imo doesnt belong to them. gotta run the family wealth like a corporation.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Commercial farmers in the mid west make decent money.  The smaller east coast (especially mid-Atlantic) family farms make no money, nearly every family I knew that made their income that way lived below the poverty line.  The farm wasn’t our main source of income though, my parents actually bought that after they got the business running and ran it as a highly labor intensive side gig which now that I think about it is kind of an unusual decision.  My parents were always adamant about not wanting to be seen as wealthy or have their kids think of themselves that way so I think part of their thought process was that we would grow up throwing hay bales and I think they just liked the idea of the farm.

As far as which story is “better”, I have no idea.  All I’m saying is that whether you’re the one bringing a family back from the bottom or the first time up from the bottom, the heavy lifting is done by the first in the line.  There’s a reason for the saying, “The first million is the hardest.”  Interesting story in that regard, my Dad started his business around 16 and my grandfather sold a large part of the family land to give him the $1,000 to start it and told him “the first thousand is the hardest” and he told me he remembers thinking, “How am I ever going to make another thousand dollars?”

Two siblings, not 100% sure on how it all shakes out, I try to tune that out and live independently of it not letting it factor into my decisions.  I know success is a relative term, but I feel pretty confident I would not have achieved what I have if I had had to start from his place.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017