Aren’t these the same thing? I’m confused.
Nevermind, I see the difference. Kind of. Basically you are trying to distinguish between parent non-M with kids-M versus population at large (which could include parent-M), right? But, 80% is supposed to be of all M, the parent non-M, now I’m lost again.
In case anyone else is confused, the difference is between (Number of first-generation millionaires/Number of millionaires) and (Number of first-generation millionaires/Number of people whose parents weren’t millionaires). Same numerator, different denominator.
But that won’t tell us who inherited their wealth vs creating it. The original percentages tell the whole story.
Of the people that are millionaires, 80% did it themselves, 20% inherited.
What **Indistinguishable **is saying is how many people who are the children of millionaires remain millionaires?
But I say those people haven’t succeeded (unless they really increase the family wealth); they just haven’t failed.
Well, I wanted to compare (Number of first-generation millionaires/Number of people whose parents weren’t millionaires) to (Number of first-generation millionaires/Number of people whose parents were millionaires). If you want to know whether millionaire parents make you more likely to be a millionaire yourself, these numbers are the ones to look at. The 80% figure doesn’t answer that question. It answers another question. But looking back at the post where it was originally introduced, perhaps that other question was the one being asked anyway. So, … alright.
response removed, thinking.
Understood
Just because you are annoying me with your perception of greatness, wouldn’t George W. be the greatest, having spent far more than any other in a war effort?
That is consistant with the stat quoted in The Millionare Next Door
For people who believe that wealth and success are largely a function of birth, I am curious as to what you feel is keeping you from being sucessful and what it is they are keeping you from being successful at?
I haven’t been following this thread, but I saw an op-ed piece in today’s paper on the subject.
My favorite graph is:
My own view? I’m inclined to go along with the old phrase, “Pluck and Luck”. You certainly won’t accomplish much without some ability and some effort, but given that you’re not the only fish in the pond, other factors will affect the outcome.
Bill Gates certainly fits this mold. He was one of a few people who knew how to code for microcomputers, and he certainly was an aggressive cuss. But there was no way we could have shoved his operating system down IBM’s throat; and neither he nor IBM then had any reason to presume that the PC/DOS combination would become the de facto industry standard.
I agree. It seems to me that no single factor is sufficient and no single (non-trivial) factor is necessary.
There are at least three questions in this thread:
- What is the number one reason why some people succeed in life?
- What was the reason for the success of “every person in history who has ever achieved something significant to the lives of millions”?
- Why did people like Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, and Martin Luther King succeed?
For #1, the answers depend on what it means to “succeed in life”.
#2 would include top entertainers, all of whom were overnight successes, but for some of them, the night lasted a few decades.
#3 lists three American men, with very different types of “success”. (I notice that most
I’ve compiled the various traits and factors from posts in this thread. Here are most common, along with how many times each was mentioned:
Luck or circumstances (8)
Perseverance or persistence (7)
Desire to succeed (5)
Determination and drive (5)
Connections (3)
Hard work (3)
Skill (3)
Attitude (2)
Clear, definite purpose (2)
Dedication (2)
Exploitation of strengths (2)
Focus (2)
Intelligence (2)
Trying and willing to risk failure (2)
It’s not always clear, though, which factors are close enough to be considered the same.
Here are the rest (edited):
Ability to learn from past mistakes and defeats in order to find one’s purpose
Ability to fake it
Ability to relentlessly and effectively self-promote
Ability to surround yourself with really good people
Belief in actively controlling the events that affect one’s life
Believing in yourself
Clairvoyance
Combination of looks, intelligence, drive, and charm will lead to strong goals, and the means to achieve them.
Common sense
Confidence
Deep pockets
Desire for Power
Desire to help others
Detachment
Find something that’s difficult for most people to do, and become good enough at it that it looks easy
Flexibility
Good match of capabilities to the circumstances
Individuality
Knowledge that success is relative
Lack of fear
Leadership ability
Personality to always ask questions, always wonder why, always strive to improve.
Practice
Risk taking
Ruthlessness
Social skills
Stubbornness
Talent and opportunity
Wisdom to see the opportunity and courage to seize it when it happens.
Does consensus determine success? :dubious:
The ‘whole story’ includes how much better your odds are of being a millionaire if your parents are wealthy. (In fact, that’s all we care about for the purposes of this thread.)
If 20% of people have millionaire parents, then the 80/20 spread indicates that having millionaire parents is no help to becoming a millionaire. If 50% of people had millionaire parents, having them would be a hindrance to becoming a millionaire yourself. What do you suppose the actual numbers are?
Yep, I see that is what he/she was getting at now, although I was making that assumption to begin with, so I was confused.
I was just responding to gonzomax’s post that the number one way to get rich is to inherit, the 80/20 counters that. It may be easier to get/remain rich if you inherit, but it’s not the number one way that it happens (if you trust the trivia guy at the deli I go to).
I thought occured to me that successful people probably internalize the reasons for their success while unsuccessful people externalize the reasons for their lack of it. IOW, a successful person would probably assume that their success is based more on their hard work and intelligence than luck or circumstances.
I’ve read that British Prime Minister William Gladstone attributed his success to the fact that he chewed each and every bite 32 times. Really.
Probably not. Committes tend not to be terribly creative.
Evolution is a description of what happens, it’s not in any way a moral imperative for individuals.
If by “success” you mean happiness, having kids is a dubious strategy. As my cite shows, those who think they are going to make themselves happier by having kids are probably mistaken.
Was George Washington a failure because he didn’t have kids? What about Socrates? Are they both losers compared to Jim Bob Duggar?
Everyone’s got it all figured out now, but just to fix my mistake, clearly, the second numerator here should have been “Number of second-or-later-generation millionaires”.
This is entirely subjective. If george Washington had wanted children and he and his wife couldn’t have any, his success ratio would have been diminished, and the same goes for Socrates. If, however, they didn’t want children, and managed to avoid having any, their success ratio would have been augmented.
I love children, and always wanted a dozen, but my body would only let me have eight. I’m incredibly grateful for the eight we were given and don’t feel my personal success paradigm was lessened appreciably by the absence of the four we weren’t able to have.
One man’s success is another man’s failure. I wouldn’t care to be the CEO of… any company or corporation, but I love my place in the world, which makes me happy, and allows me to spend my time engaged in pursuits that enrich the lives of others. Obviously not all others, but then, the same holds true of happiness as of success. One man’s happiness is another man’s misery, etc.
Our degree of success and failure in life is determined by our desires and goals and how close we come or came to meeting them.
Love - Jesse.
I cannot even begin to count the number of times my mother told me it wasn’t worth it to have children. She was an extremely unhappy woman. Having children certainly did not make her a success in her eyes, and indeed she lived a bitter life. I decided that was the one thing she was probably right about, opted out of children for myself and ended up insanely happy. Children = success or happiness is not even remotely plausible.