# How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2023, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503 "2023-12-12T19:17:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2023, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/61 "2023-12-17T12:18:35Z")
> [@epbrown](#): > > The typical judgey comments on such people are that they should have spent more money instead of saving it, or implications that people that don’t are noble for choosing to “enjoy life” (though they seem to complain an awful lot about money problems). Isn’t this itself a judgey comment? > [@epbrown](#): > > I feel that’s similar about wealth in a free market - it’s less about vast conspiracies by The Man to keep people down and more about most people not wanting to scrimp, save, learn and all the other hassles that come with building wealth. Scrimp and save does not apply to the vast majority of the wealthy or those with rising wealth. Study finds that returns on wealth is a large factor wealthy inequality. I.e., generally speaking, you need to wealth to acquire more wealth. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122000580](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122000580) Being from a healthy family helps considerably in getting a higher education, which leads to more opportunties. > **[wealth\_and\_education\_2.pdf](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/89976/wealth_and_education_2.pdf)** > > 228.77 KB Further confirms that wealth inequality leads to poor social mobility (wealth return is found to be a significant contributing factor, you need wealth to acquire wealth). > **[w21721.pdf](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21721/w21721.pdf)** > > 399.28 KB Finding an example or two of a janitor simply does not speak to the system as a whole. If you’re born poor, then you’re likely to remain poor. If you’re born wealthy, then you’re like to see your wealth grow. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2023, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/62 "2023-12-17T19:54:47Z")
> [@epbrown](#): > > You’d have to ask Elon, who’s currently got FIVE full-time jobs. If he’s busy, you can ask Warren Buffett while he’s still working at age 94. > > It’s a sort of ironic socialist fallacy. Rich people’s biggest argument against a Universal Basic Income is that people that are just given the bare necessities will stop working - ignoring the fact that **they’re** swimming in money and leave their mansions for work at 6 a.m. I have no problem in principle with a universal basic income, but I’d want to see the evidence that it’s the most effective means of mitigating poverty, which I’m not completely convinced it is. To play devil’s advocate for a moment, consider that those of the very wealthy who became that way as a result of businesses they started are typically highly motivated workaholics (Elon Musk is a workaholic to the point of psychopathic dysfunction). Would we see the same profile among those eligible to receive a UBI? ---
**Author:** ![epbrown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47774/32.png) [@epbrown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2023, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/63 "2023-12-18T01:17:22Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > Finding an example or two of a janitor simply does not speak to the system as a whole. If you’re born poor, then you’re likely to remain poor. If you’re born wealthy, then you’re like to see your wealth grow. I’ll try again with my marathon analogy. A small percentage of ordinary people that _could_ run marathons actually _do_ run them (0.2%). A small percentage of ordinary people that _could_ invest their way to modest wealth actually _do_ it. My belief is that _both_ are equally possible for most people with jobs - running marathons and getting rich. Most people don’t do either, but reasonable people are willing to acknowledge that most anyone in average health could run a marathon. Yet when you say the same thing about ordinary low income people being able to achieve wealth, out come the studies and demographic breakdowns on education levels, income levels, and economic backgrounds. All that the data really says is “these people are the type that currently get rich.” What it doesn’t say is that getting rich is limited to these groups. There’s nothing about Read, Holt, or Steve Hartman (the Indiana man profiled on CBS Morning today who left $13 million to charity after years working at the VA) that says anyone in similar, fairly common, circumstances couldn’t do the same. They had a steady income, lived below it, and invested. Wouldn’t that work for anyone? In my experience, yes. People get offended by that idea. Unlike the probably just-as-rare behavior of few ordinary people running 26.2 miles, everyone seems to take the behavior of few ordinary people investing their way to millions as proof it _can’t_ be done. Instead it seems they are rare for the same reason: both are something most people can’t be bothered to do. The difference in attitude seems to be that not getting rich has a whiff of personal accountability to it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2023, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/64 "2023-12-18T02:05:16Z")
> [@epbrown](#): > > Earlier this year Geoffrey Hold in Hinsdale NH left behind nearly $4M after working as a driving instructor and trailer park manager, About a decade ago there were similar stories about Robert Read in Virginia invested the money he earned as a janitor up to $8M. And to them I say good for them. They earned their wealth. But people like them are still a drop in the bucket. Among the truly wealthy, the billionaires and the like, you’ll find hardly any who were ever as low as middle class (J. K. Rowling might be the one exception). We’re not talking about running a marathon; we’re talking about running to geosynchronous orbit. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2023, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/65 "2023-12-18T02:50:09Z")
> [@epbrown](#): > > My belief is that _both_ are equally possible for most people with jobs - running marathons and getting rich You know what they say “Facts don’t care about your feelings”. > [@epbrown](#): > > Yet when you say the same thing about ordinary low income people being able to achieve wealth, out come the studies and demographic breakdowns on education levels, income levels, and economic backgrounds. I take it you didn’t actually read my cites? > [@epbrown](#): > > Wouldn’t that work for anyone? In my experience, yes. Your experience is strictly anecdotal at best. Now if you have some actual real cites by experts that have studied it that would be something. Or is this a case of “I’m rejecting the expert’s reality, and substituting my own”? > [@epbrown](#): > > The difference in attitude seems to be that not getting rich has a whiff of personal accountability to it. Citation needed. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2023, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/66 "2023-12-18T12:11:42Z")
> [@epbrown](#): > > I’ll try again with my marathon analogy. A small percentage of ordinary people that _could_ run marathons actually _do_ run them (0.2%). This illustrates the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Macroeconomics is not just microeconomics x 1,000,000. Sticking with your analogy, yes, an overwhelming majority of ordinary people could run a marathon, if they have the dedication to do so. What would the NYC marathon look like if 6,000,000 arrived on race day? What would NYC look like day after day if 6 million residents committed to training for the marathon? We don’t have a system setup to handle 60% of the population attempting to run a marathon. Yes “anyone” can run a marathon, as long as only 0.2% of the population will actually do it. We can support a larger number of runners only if we invest in our marathoning infrastructure. Until then, individuals can still strive for running one, but it’s unrealistic to think that everyone can collectively achieve it. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2023, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/67 "2023-12-20T01:13:35Z")
> [@epbrown](#): > > I’ll try again with my marathon analogy. A small percentage of ordinary people that _could_ run marathons actually _do_ run them (0.2%). A small percentage of ordinary people that _could_ invest their way to modest wealth actually _do_ it. My belief is that _both_ are equally possible for most people with jobs - running marathons and getting rich. Most people don’t do either, but reasonable people are willing to acknowledge that most anyone in average health could run a marathon. > > Yet when you say the same thing about ordinary low income people being able to achieve wealth, out come the studies and demographic breakdowns on education levels, income levels, and economic backgrounds. All that the data really says is “these people are the type that currently get rich.” What it doesn’t say is that getting rich is limited to these groups. There’s nothing about Read, Holt, or Steve Hartman (the Indiana man profiled on CBS Morning today who left $13 million to charity after years working at the VA) that says anyone in similar, fairly common, circumstances couldn’t do the same. They had a steady income, lived below it, and invested. Wouldn’t that work for anyone? In my experience, yes. > > People get offended by that idea. Unlike the probably just-as-rare behavior of few ordinary people running 26.2 miles, everyone seems to take the behavior of few ordinary people investing their way to millions as proof it _can’t_ be done. Instead it seems they are rare for the same reason: both are something most people can’t be bothered to do. The difference in attitude seems to be that not getting rich has a whiff of personal accountability to it. Someone training for a marathon is training in actual fitness, not just to beat an arbitrary number on a timekeeper’s stopwatch. They’re creating the physical fitness version of wealth, not money. Someone who got rich investing in the stock market didn’t create wealth, they just made money. That’s the difference. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2024, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/68 "2024-01-03T22:54:34Z")
Personally, I would make no ceiling, just a floor. You can earn or hoard as much as you want, so long as nobody in your society (defined how you want, but I lean towards nation-state) involuntarily goes without basic human necessities, like food, utilities, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education or transportation. This isn’t your _personal_ responsibility, but society’s in general. Nevertheless, society _will_ need some of your money to accomplish the job, and that’s going to cut into your bottom line. A minimal but sufficient quality of life for _all_ members of society should be guaranteed. That alone will lower income inequality considerably, if only by massively increasing the bargaining power of every laborer and worker. But if you can still amass billions despite that, more power to you. You have my blessing. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2024, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503/69 "2024-01-03T23:05:26Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Problem is, that money could still do a lot of good put to some other use. Even if everyone has access to essentials and reasonable comforts of life, if you have one super-rich guy with $1 trillion, that’s a lot of wasted money. It’s not wasted if it was given to him voluntarily in return for something of value. Nor is it hoarded if it is then invested in something of value. The problem with the status quo is that the threat of economic catastrophe (homelessness, say, or starvation, preventable or untreated health problems, etc.) is behind every decision we make. Take that threat away and the fiction that our economic decisions are voluntary suddenly becomes reality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-wealthy-would-the-wealthiest-person-be-in-your-ideal-society/994503.md?page=3)