I keep hearing the same comment over and over. Some people are rich because they work hard while others are rich because they are lucky.
Not being much of believer in luck, I’m wondering what that expression means.
I would certainly understand a comment that claimed that some people are wealthy because they were born into wealth. But I would hardly attribute that to luck. I would, however, strongly attribute that to normal biological reproductive function by the said person’s parents. Otherwise I would be lead to believe that in some cases, extremely poor luck would cause an otherwise wealthy child to be born into abject poverty, while some other kid stumbles into the womb of a shipping tycoon heiress.
Am I the only one who objects to the term “lucky” in this context unless it’s immediately followed by the phrase, “…bastard - won 14 million samolians in the last state lottery!”
And, of course, people who become wealthy via investment rather than productivity are usually heavily indebted to luck. Here’s what one guide for investors says about the role chance plays in creating market winners:
When people say that getting rich requires mostly luck a few things are usually going on.
they are trying to establish that the rich did not “earn” their money and therefore do not have a right to it. (because they want to take their money away and spend it on themselves.)
If getting rich requires mostly luck, no one has to feel bad about not being rich. After all, if luck is the main fator in being wealthy, then the poor aren’t lazy or dumb, just unlucky.
I doubt very much if anyone saying that the rich are merely lucky is actually rich. It is easy to belittle the successes of others to make one’s self feel better. Much easier than admitting that others have worked harder and smarter.
Mr. Z.: *When people say that getting rich requires mostly luck a few things are usually going on. *
Actually, that wasn’t the claim that the OP was remarking on. QuickSilver said: “I keep hearing the same comment over and over. Some people are rich because they work hard while others are rich because they are lucky.”
Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me. Nothing in there about “getting rich requires mostly luck.”
On the contrary Kimtsu, it’s the “lucky” part of getting rich that I object to. The “mostly” part was a poetic license that Mr. Z took, but I think he had the essence of what I was getting at in this thread.
I tend to agree that the luck component tends to:
a) trivialize a person’s accomplishements (unless the wealth actully did come from a lottery windfall)
b) absolve the poor person of any potential responsibility for his long term inability or unwillingness to improve his financial position.
But isn’t the ascription of wealth to luck quite accurate in some cases? What about the source I cited above? Here’s somebody who’s trying to advise investors how to make money—hardly an anti-wealth fanatic—and he’s quite definite in his opinion that many “successful” brokers and fund managers just got lucky. Are you disagreeing with his assessment? How come? It’s one that many economists and market analysts share.
I’m certainly not trying to say that all rich people “just” got lucky (of course, they, as well as all the rest of us, had some good luck in the process, such as not getting struck down by a debilitating and expensive disease); and I’m not even trying to estimate the comparative importance of the two factors. But are you seriously saying that “[some rich people] are rich because they are lucky” is an objectionable or inaccurate statement?
I don’t think that you could ever take luck out of an equation. Maybe you got rich from your own work, but you couldn’t have done so if you were born in Russia, or if a truck had hit you, or if you were really stupid, or disabled…and so on.
You need to have some luck. Surely some people just get lucky and make piles of money. I don’t think it really matters that much.
I do think that when peiople say that someone is rich merely because of luck, they are probably trying to belittle that person’s wealth somehow. The millionaires that I know have had good luck at some level, but they worked their asses off.
One fine point: luck only works if you are actually playing the game. Maybe someone got lucky on an investment, but they had to be investing in the first place to cash in, so the key ingredient was a willingness to take risks, not luck.
Isn’t the definition of luck “when a chance event goes your way” ?
It’s no chance that your parents are who they are, but given your existence, there’s a definite probability of whether or not your parents are rich (however we choose to define it).
What exactly do you think JFK, jr. did to achieve the great wealth he had? (just to pick an example).
Whether it’s what you meant or not, I agree with the way it was phrased in the OP. Some people (most people, to my mind) who are very wealthy got that way through some more-or-less admirable trait like talent, skill, industry, or a combination thereof. Some people got lucky, like lottery winners. If you don’t want to include heirs as lucky, then you should make a third category, because there is no way that inheriting wealth is an admirable trait by itself.
And that is what I think most people mean when they dis people who got rich by being “lucky”.
That’s the key. And I personally think it is just changing the terminology.
This may not mean anything to anyone but me, but it is a theory my friend came up with in high school. There is no such thing as a luck shot in pool. You approached a static situation, applied your force, and the ball went into the hole. While you may have a hard time reproducing the same shot, it is possible and it was through the energy you exerted that it worked.
I’m still not convinced that luck is a player in any serious or measurable way when talking about an individual’s self achieved financial success.
Discounting the lottery winfall and any inheritance from crazy aunt Clarice, acquiring wealth or general success in your endeavours is directly tied to effort, tallent and perseverence not luck.
As someone said, if you are in the game, then you will eventually find that golden opportunity that everyone calls chance or luck. If you do not, perhaps you are in the wrong game or you don’t know the rules as well as you think. Or perhaps you need to change the odds to favour you by enhancing your skills. There are any number of variables that a person seeking success can recognize and tweak. The only thing that limits a person is his/her imagination, desire to succeed and commitment.
Now I know I’m sounding like Tom Robins or Steve Covey or something like that - I personally don’t go for all that hype they spew. But, maybe, if you cut through all that marketing crap, they may have something at the core of their theory that has an element of truth.
Now keep in mind, I’m not suggesting that anyone not being able to reach the Trump/Gates/Buffet level is a loser. Without pulling some silly $ value out of a hat, success might be measured as reaching the pinnacle of your own capabilities. Not everyone can be the queen bee. Some people are destined to be worker bees all their life. However, some worker bees are capable of much more but never quite figure out the formula to be(e!) more.
And as for the billiard ball analogy… that’s not luck, that’s physics. All things being equal, the ball will sink in the pocket every time if the forces & conditions at play don’t vary.
QuickSilver, isn’t that part of the very essance of your capabilities - being able to figure out the formula. In other words, knowing what to do is almost as important as being able to do it.
If you look at it from another point of view, those who are called lucky are the ones who are percieved to have what they want, whith apparently little effort. (Those who put forth considerable effort are called “hard working”). But they (the ‘lucky ones’) may have put in considerable effort in “figuring out” what to do to reach their goals. That is one aspect in todays (US) economy - those who come up with a good plan can see quick rewards, especially with the Internet, Start-ups, etc. The person I would call lucky is the secratery or the janitor who worked for one of these overnight successes, and received stock worth a million dollars. Not because their work is not important, but because they expect to work for a small salary, and become relatively wealthy (beyond their expectations) overnight.
I’m not sure how much of that janitor come millionair is true and how how much is urban legend. We keep hearing those kinds of stories thrown around but I’ve not seen hard evidence - certainly not on the scale of the numbers of these stories. It’s become almost a cliche. But in the cases where it’s true, I’d like to think that the secretary in question evaluated the risks in taking a job with an upstart company that offered shares vs paying top sallary. He or she must have had some knowledge of the company business to forgo an sure paycheque somewhere else in exchange for ownership shares in a new venture. That person took initiative. I believe that far more failed than succeeded at this but they all took a certain amount of risk and played the game to the best of their ability.
And yes, often a good plan is better than brute force and ignorance. You can dig ditches all day long and break your back or you could get a back-hoe and be done in an hour with minimal physical effort.
Understanding the game and demonstrating inginuity and initiative will almost always get you moving in the direction you want to go. Working eight hours a day while performing the same repetitive duty flawlessly only demonstrates your ability to perform that task very well. You may earn plenty of employee of the month plaques but don’t expect to rise above your station without showing some ability to do or be more. No amount of luck will get you a promotion to VP without some pretty aggressive initiative taking. Similarly, you could be a company man all your life and maybe get a gold pocket watch at your retirement party, or you could strike out on your own and buy that gold Rolex way before you are ready to retire.
It isn’t fickle luck that grants you success. It’s taking a risk, recognizing and/or creating your opportunities, tailoring your skills to suit market demand.
Now I hasten to add that I personally am convinced that many if not most rich people are, to quote Groucho Marx, “fine upstanding fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, and a love of their fellow man that out-Saroyans Saroyan”; but it must be confessed that there are a few bad apples out there as well.
A 1990 article by socioeconomist Amitai Etzioni commented on recent U.S. Sentencing Commission hearings on corporate crime:
And those are just the ones who got caught. Mind you, none of this should be considered to disparage the achievements of the many if not most rich people who are fine upstanding fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, etc. etc., and owe their success to their own honest efforts. But when we talk about the different factors that make people wealthy, or wealthier, we ought not to overlook the often very effective strategy of violating the law.
I submit that being a good crook takes ingenuity as well. I mean it takes some doing to outsmart the armies of IRS public servants doing the their darndest to separate you from your money. In fact, much of the tax code depends upon the honour system. You’ve got to volunteer certain information so that you may be assesed accordingly. Often the tax people cannot really find out your entire financial picture. Also, some parts of the tax code are open to interpretations, especially when it comes to R&D and legitimate business expenses.
Human nature being what it is, it’s not entirely surprising that rules are bent (and broken) on a regular basis. In fact the entire tax process has become a game in itself. The rules keep changing but you cannot quit the game. It’s all cat and mouse stuff.
Show me a person who has never attempted to maximaize advantage on his taxes and I’ll show you a person who works for (or damn near) minimum wage with very few significant material assets.
