Actually about 70% of billionaires are self made. Now I assume most were raised in wealth and luxury the way most of us were raised. That is to say “not on the street” or “post apocalyptic”.
The billionaire bunker owners might get more loyalty from their security lackeys and other staff if they made provisions for the security of the families of their staff. Not necessarily in the same bunker (which probably isn’t large enough) but other ones nearby?
Max Brooks’ non-fiction World War Z features interviews with a security guard who was working for a wealthy guy in his billionaire bunker during the zombie apocalypse. When refugees start showing up the bunker’s owner orders them to shoot the guards refuse, quit, and just walk away. They assumed they’d be shooting mauraders, looters, and terrible people but they weren’t willing to shoot desperate people trying to keep their children safe.
I tend to think most of these billionare bunkers are living a fantasy just as many of their middle class prepper compatriots are. Nobody’s going to survive by going it alone and hunkering down in a bunker until the trouble blows over. They’re going to survive by banding together and working towards some common goals. The same way we’ve been surviving since the dawn of man.
I’m assuming that statistic is based on the Forbes article. But it’s misleading. It describes a billionaire as self-made if they didn’t inherit the family business. So Bill Gates, for example, is a self-made man because his father was a lawyer and his grandfather was a bank president and Gates made his fortune in software. But Gates grew up in a family that was able to send him to a private school where he had access to computers back in 1970 and then pay his tuition to Harvard.
I don’t know about you but I wasn’t raised in that kind of wealth and luxury.
That’s the central problem with the society in The Handmaid’s Tale: an elite class needs another class to provide security for them, but only the elite class gets to breed with fertile women. In reality, the security team would either steal the fertile women, or cuckold the women to have sex with them so as to prolong their genetic line (which is a plot line in the book…) In the same way, why would a billionaire’s security team be trusted if their families are doomed?
I would imagine they might set up something similar to a feudal system where the security teams live like lords with their families in exchange for providing security for the Billionaire.
In any event, I suspect these bunkers are just little BS projects for the billionaires to pass the time and spend their money. Possibly as a getaway from any temporary civil unrest. I don’t expect they are building self-contained Fallout-style Vaults to keep civilization running. Maybe at best in the event of civilization collapsing, the Billionaires and their friends can spend their last days Epsteining away.
The valid point has been made that as soon as the “apocalypse” occurs the billionaires aren’t. However, it is not necessary to imagine Global Thermonuclear War or an equally extreme scenario. The fact is, they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, and I believe billionaires are well aware of it. (If someone does not, is it possible to be successful in business while being that mindless?)
Anything that people value will be – wait for it – valuable. And a functioning economy can be as simple as barter, there doesn’t have to be a world-wide market mechanism setting the price that everyone pays. People who have any kind of surplus anything might value gold enough to trade some of their surplus for it.
I think it would be a mistake to depend much on luxury valuables to survive in a real upheaval, but if you can last long enough to come out the other side of chaos, they might help you to establish something more than a subsistence existence, for yourself if not for a lot of other people.
Once everyone emerges from their bunkers, the ones that anticipated BEFORE THE EVENT that the only currency of value is their personal charisma and their ability to get along with and influence people without them ever feeling that they’re being manipulated or screwed are the ones that will survive and ultimately, thrive.
The problem is that money only has value if there’s something to buy with it, and in a state of affairs where agriculture itself has more or less come to a halt, food is going to be much more valuable than shiny rocks.
America is one of the two least social mobile industrialized nations, along with Britain. As was said upthread, they started wealthier, and got wealthier from there.
An issue with a lot of proposals like that is that while they are sensible, they require the billionaire in question to be something other than a psychopathic narcissist. They’d never pick a tactic that involves helping somebody else, they’re psychologically incapable of it.
Easily. You don’t succeed at business by working hard or being clever, you succeed by starting out wealthy, having the right connections, and having zero concern for consequences or for other people. The smart people are the ones who work for the rich people. If anything being stupid is an advantage as it makes it easier to not think about how much harm you are doing.
Which relates to the point of the bunkers; they’re a scam. They are a way to siphon off large sums of money from extremely wealthy, extremely vile, extremely stupid people, in a society that selects for stupidity and evil in whom it rewards.
I don’t think many billionaires actually, deep down, believe other people they don’t personally know and care about are actually real. I reckon to most of them, this is a game and they’re winning, other people they know are rival players and the rest of us are just NPCs or mindless goons.
They think they’ll continue to win if civilisation collapses because they’re winners, so obviously amazing. Many of them probably kind of want civilisation to collapse because they’re bored now; they already won and the game stopped being interesting.
What may be more important than any personal qualities may be the willingness to take a risk combined with sheer luck. We read about the genius investor who staked most of his assets on a throw of the dice on three occasions, and threw two sixes every time. We are unaware of the 46.655 investors, equally intelligent and courageous, who failed to do that. We wrongly assume, and the genius investor also does, that there is some inherent quality that made him succeed and that will continue serve him (only, luck will not do that).
Yes. Luck is vastly more important than most people want to believe, especially people who owe their success to it.
Obviously they’ve never heard about the Chinese curse of living in interesting times or figure it wouldn’t apply to them.
Well, at some point I’m sure there would be plans to rebuild civilization, and, especially in the early years of rebuilding, gold would likely still be valuable as a de facto currency.
I guess the degree of the apocalypse would matter. If it was a ‘soft apocalypse’ where, say, a plague had destabilized society but there were still plenty of people and infrastructure left on the outside, and rebuilding in a generation or less would be reasonable, gold should hold its value. But if the rest of the world outside the bunker was a glowing radioactive ruin, then yes, shelf-stable food and medical supplies would be much more valuable than a soft, shiny metal.
emphasis added for emphasis
I agree, but that makes survival of dubious value, and if I were both super-rich and a human being, I would be wondering about what comes after. Am I going to live out my life in a metal box because I can’t go outside? Am I and my family going to survive for 30 years (term picked at random) and then live on as subsistence farmers? If things are truly that hopeless, I don’t know what my reaction would be.
Since both the OP and the first response linked to a 5-year-old article, this modern variant of the doomsday bunker question has obviously been floating around for a long time. Older versions also abound. Go back and look at the bunker mentality during the Cold War and you’ll see the same questions and same answers, although then a short-term bunker to ride out a Hiroshima-style event made about 1% more sense.
If there is nowhere to go when you come out of the bunker, you’re just prolonging a painful death. Why do you think Musk is insane about a Mars colony? He thinks a self-sustaining colony will insulate him from the terrors because he knows there’s no answer on Earth.
Ironically, a colony on Mars would not
be much different than being in a bunker on a post-apocalyptic Earth. The colony will have to be underground, I’ve heard, since without a rotating molten metal core like Earth’s to create a magnetic field that protects against solar radiation, you’d only be able to walk on the surface for short periods in your space suit. So you’re stuck underground in a bunker with no place to go. And in addition, eventually suffering from loss of bone density and atrophied limbs because Mars has only a fraction of Earth’s gravity.
You don’t give enough credit to the worm in Musk’s brain. AI’s will develop radiation-proof domes. Hyperloops will connect them. Underground cities will be built by Boring machines. Solar panels will cover the planet and provide energy to batteries. The low gravity will ease all construction. It all comes together, like a 5-D jigsaw puzzle. Or do I mean a Jigsaw puzzle?