And that is very difficult. It isn’t just the “one generation can screw it up” but because generations tend to grow you split the wealth. Its very hard (without something like primogeniture) to maintain wealth when each generation splits it…unless the generations themselves increase the wealth.
That sounds like something you read in Wired or Fast Company like ten years ago.
Before dot.coms, there were 80s stockbrokers.
Before that you had industrialists and robber barons of the Guilded Age.
You know there was history before 1995. And in fact the concept, if not the term, dates back to ancient Greece.
The idea of “new money” vs “old money” is related to the petty concept that those who are born with something are somehow more legitimate or deserving than those who have perform such unseemly acts as actually working for it.
OTOH, there is also the sense of tradition and history that comes from owning and maintaining generations of wealth created from scratch by great grandpa VonMoneybags. Whereas you have new money people who have essentially “won the lottery” (ether figuratively or literally) and bought their way in.
As it happens, my GF and I are vacationing this weekend in Newport, RI. Lot of Old Money up here. I don’t know if the Vanderbilt’s are Old Money, but they certainly had a shitload of it.
They are now, but it took the third generation. The first two generations still had the smell of commerce hanging about them.
Although I think some of the self made man being rejected from high society was a lot of sour grapes. The new wealth was SO MUCH wealthier than the old wealth.
Mostly it’s a throwback to the old aristocracy concept of where the only people suited to be the custodians of vast wealth were those with the proper “breeding” and education who grew up with it. But mostly it’s just a way of legitimizing privilege.
I don’t know how much relevancy the “old money” world has these days anyway. There are so many people who have amassed first generation fortunes in technology, finance, entertainment and business.
Does not matter? Tell that to the
Kennedys
Rockefellers
Johnson (Johnson and Johnson)
Duponts
Bush’s
Astors
Rothchilds
etc.
Money is at the root of class, you cannot stay upper class long if you do not have it, though the first couple of generations that lose it may try to hang on. You cannot get into the upper class without it. Vulgar as it is, that’s the the fact, jack.
Not really sure about your point. You basically just listed a bunch of famous wealthy families. Fact is if you look at Forbes list of the top wealthiest Americans, a significant number are self made men. 50 years from now they will be saying the same thing about other Old Money families like the
Bezos
Beckhams
Bloombergs
Buffets
Carters (AKA Jay-Zs)
Gates
Paulsons
Sandlers
Woods
Zuckerburgs
There’s no question in my mind that the Gates family will be “Old Money.” They’ve already made clear that they intend to have a serious and positive impact on society. I would say that they are definitely “High Class”, and it only remains to be seen whether their children will follow suit.
In the end I think it goes back to the most basic human dichotomy: A life of the body or a life of the mind. Which do your people tend toward, and for how many generations has this been sustained?
Old Money, High Class, it’s a life of the mind. A thoughtful and society-oriented use of time and resources throughout one’s life and across generations. The Kennedys never became Old Money because their Grandchildren chose a life of physical pleasures and chemical highs.
That’s a whoosh, right?
Cite please.
Actually, probably not. The Gates don’t intend to leave their children really wealthy (they won’t starve, but they won’t be left intergenerational income). Neither will the Buffets. Both the Gates and the Buffets are working to donate 95% of their net worth. So has Mark Zuckerburg - although he is young and might change his mind.
Quick SAT question:
How much is 5% of $50 billion?
Old money doesn’t have to demonstrate merit to get into college, peasant.
Nitpick: The Gateses …
Not enough to establish the sort of intergenerational wealth its going to take to get through four or five generations - unless the generations are SMALL and continue to grow the wealth. Especially if the generations continue the tradition of philanthropy.
One of my friends is the great grandson of one of the richest ten people at the turn of the century. With 60 odd decedents, inflation, a culture of philanthropy and only some people having good money management skills, his generation won’t starve - and have college funds - but they aren’t independently wealthy unless the generations between them and great grandpa grew their wealth.
Besides, its Gates and Buffets stated goal not to leave their children intergenerational wealth. If they have to give away 98% of it to get to some sort of “this is plenty for my kids” point, I suspect they will.
Sure it is. 5% of 50 billion is 2.5 billion, still enough money to put someone in the top 500 wealthiest people on the planet. And if *that *generation gave away 95% of that 2.5 billion, they’d still be left with 125 million, a quite respectable fortune that would allow you to live like a prince without ever working a day in your life. Even giving away 95% of 125 million will leave you a little over 6 million – a far larger inheritance that most people will ever see.
The very rich are very rich indeed.
Sure, but $6 million - especially after three generations of inflation and exponential heir growth - isn’t enough to make you wealthy enough to be classed as “old money.” And you are missing that inheritances are seldom straight line. Bill has two kids. They may each have two or four or a dozen kids.
I’m not saying these people are poor - I’m saying that they the Gateses (right this time) aren’t intending to leave their kids enough for them to become “old money” - which would be another generation of wealth. They have a stated intention NOT to do that. They believe people should work for wealth. They intend to fund their philanthropy now, not leave that task to their great grandchildren.
I think the Gateses will be an interesting family to watch. Bill was already second or third generation - Bill Sr being new ‘old money’ in his own right. I would be shocked if Bill and Melinda did not send their children to private schools as well - another benefit they offer is higher security, and their child are definitely high-value targets. I cannot see them walking the halls of a public high school, no matter how high the quality of education. As to what careers they will follow, I have no idea, and I can’t see their parents pressuring them in any direction except not to follow the footsteps of the Hiltons and Kennedys.
While each generation does work to increase their wealth to avoid too great a dilution, they do not have to work as hard as new money does to obtain it.
I think this is very true, and they have a very hard time understanding blue-collar workers that prefer a life of the body. Historically, they were also very particular about what kind of ‘life of the mind’ was proper and were not kind to independent institutions they did not control. That has changed over the last century, especially with the Ford and Rockefeller foundations supporting a much broader class of groups than the old old money did. Carnegie’s vision of public libraries also played a great factor in removing the monopoly of the ‘life of the mind’ by the monied classes.
Carnegie, Gates, and the Rockefellers, I hate the way they made their money, but I do admire the way the spent it.
I think you’ll have to work harder than that. A claim like this calls for an extensive study of all the descendants of “Mr. Life-of-the-Mind Rich Dude” and “Mr. Life-of-the-Body Rich Dude.”
As it stands, it sounds like horsefeathers to me. On its face, I get this –
(1) There is nothing more “life-of-the-body” than the making and spending of money. Show me an old-money patrician who didn’t use at least some of that money for life’s comforts, including alcohol, which is absolutely the quintessential life-of-the-body substance there is.
(2) How many of the Kennedys do you actually know about and what exactly do you know that leads you to draw these conclusions? On the face of it, it seems to me that what Joseph Kennedy’s descendants lacked was not “life of the mind,” but rather, any interest in making huge sums of money.
(3) Let’s see a properly sampled and analyzed study of who exactly is more likely to indulge in “chemical highs” and other of life’s pleasure, and who isn’t.
As it stands, this is poppycock.
That is true and it leads to the class/wealth/culture differentiation. As you said, by some measures Bill himself is “old money.” Their kids, like Bill himself, likely go to private high schools - so even if they don’t inherit “buy a private island” kind of money, they will retain many of the class features of “my great grandfather was wealthy.”
In fact, a lot of the “self made” billionaires come from pretty well off families.