You tell me - why are rich people Rich?

No takers to my simplistic questions here?  I would assume someone out there knows the answers to these simple questions.

Um, I'll have a go at it!

1. Why? Because they went into a profession that provided them with opportunities for growth, promotion, and pay raises.
2. Um, because they can afford to? I don't know, charity is always nice, but compelled? I don't think so.
3. To me, rich means people who can afford a Rolls Royce without getting into debt up to their eyeballs. Well-to-do just means that you comfortably have the necessities of life and you can afford to have a little "fun" with your extra cash.

But that's just me.

Generally? Rich people make better economic decisions than non-rich people. Over time, this creates a positive feedback loop.

Still generally but a little more specific:

I'll use an article I found online about the EU and the US.

The EU commentator was commenting that the EU is just as rich as the US and that the only reason why the US has more money is because Americans, in general, work more than Europeans.

That is true on an individual level. Rich people tend to work more. Poor people tend to work less.

There are many factors that can determine how much money an individual makes. Being born with physical or mental abilities that allow someone to excel in a certain job. Having an intense interest in a field giving a person focus at a young age often leads to wealth, especially when combined with natural ability. Smart decisions as has been mentioned however luck is most often the difference between a smart decision and a dumb one. Being born into opportunity is obviously a big help. Pure capitalism most often rewards unscrupulous and deceitful behavior so dancing on the edge of right and wrong often leads to wealth.

"That is true on an individual level. Rich people tend to work more. Poor people tend to work less"

I don’t know about that, for one thing, what you’re counting as work most would consider play, or things done while they’re awake. You may say you put in 100 hrs a week but that’s only equal to 40 or 50 hrs of manual labor. Try working construction for 100 hrs a week and you’ll understand that. The wealthy usually retire earlier as well, hell that’s what most of the dot comers did, so even if you work more hours having to work an extra 10 or 20 years makes up for that. Hard work can definitely make up for a lack of natural talent or opportunity, and while it may not make you wealthy it can at least make you successful.

I don't think you are being fair here. You can't really compare jobs based on how much more muscle you put into it. Jobs are basically based on how much you can produce. If a 19 year old with a computer and Internet can make $50,000 a year on eBay (an example) you can't discount his ability simply because he didn't lift a brick or a bag of cement thru out the whole year. Some people are smarter than others, some people are better at certain things. Everyone has a job that is needed (other wise the job wouldn't exist), it's up to the individual who does the job to decide if the job is worth the money and if they can do better.

People usually retire for 1 of 2 reason, they made enough money to live without working anymore or because they can't do the job anymore. Just because a rich person secures their lifestyle at a young age and decides to retire should not have to be judged just because he is rich. That to me sounds more like envy than a point.

Because they prey upon the poor, of course, and take what is rightly theirs.

Silly, terp...

Talent, dedication, ambition, and opportunity.



To a reasonable extent, it's good (and necessary) for us all to contribute to the welfare of our nation. There are some things we cannot do as individuals that we can accomplish as a collective.



It really, really depends on location (cost of living), family situation, and a ton of other factors.

A rich person to me would be someone who can afford most any luxury they could desire while still being able to maintain a large pool of money with which to invest and save.

In my mind wealthy and rich are different.

I have friends I consider wealthy. They live in high cost of living areas but make several 100ks a year. Even these friends can't just go and spend as they please. They may have a Coach bag where I have a Nine West from Ross, but they still have to save and work on their finances to upgrade their home or buy a new vehicle just like any other family.

Rich to me is more money than you can reasonably conceive of spending in your lifetime, even if you try really hard (and I would!). Haha.

I don't expect to ever be rich. I enjoy money as much as the next person, but I'm not willing to make the sacrifices involved to become wealthy (ha, and I lack the talent and foresight necessary as well, LOL).

Ah yes, manual labor is real work. Working in an office isn't. 

Having worked my share of menial manual labor jobs, I don't see the distinction.

I noticed you provide nothing to back up your claims. You just say that the wealth usually retire earlier. Based on what? Do you have any evidence for that?

The census data from 2004 was pretty dramatic: Wealth was directly related to # of hours per week the respondant reported typically working.

That is so true. But the key word in you comment is "all". You see, they are wanting a certain group of people, let's be honest here, rich people, to be the ones to contribute to the welfare of our nation. Even more, they believe that the welfare of our nation is to make sure that whether you have the skills or not, the education or not, the abilities or not, that all should have the same wealth.

At this point I have to question, if a poor person deserves to have money given to them simply because they can not make enough on their own, why should my children have to educate themselves? Why should I bother sending my child to college, spend all that tuition and school material money, if when not educated and not spending the tuition and school material money will get you a paycheck anyways. A paycheck that you could live on since that is basically what what people like Loca and thinkAload want. Why bother tryibg to become better people when all we have to do is be in this country. Hell, you don't even have to be a citizen of this country. You need only to claim not to be capable of producing enough money.

Exactly.

And as ThinkAloud showed in the other thread, significant portions of our society are largely ignorant of the actual, specific things that make our economy work.

The burden of making a functionality society is increasingly dependenent on smaller and smaller groups. 

When someone says "You relied on our society to succeed" I agree.  But our society doesn't necessarily equate to all the biomass subsisting in the borders of our country. Significant chunks of our society are essentially free riders on the produce of the rest. Historically, the non-productive were simply poor but did not have much impact.  But not anymore. Now they're learning to use the levers of democratic power to vote in politicians who will transfer the produce from our society to themselves.

Thinkaloud tries to argue elsewhere that we only succeed because we need all the "resources" of society. As if the bottom 20% of our population is really contributing anything.  Oh yea, if it weren't for the homeless or the welfare mothers or the dead beat dad druggie, we'd be screwed...

The end result is: People who do stuff matter in a society. People who don't do stuff don't matter. I don't mean that in a moral or philosophical way, I mean it in a literal social evolution way. The people who don't do stuff are as relevant as any other form of dead wood.

Why are people wealthy?

Here's a few reasons.

1. Born into wealth. This is the traditional method. Most wealthy people are the children of wealthy people or born into a family which has regularly thrown up wealthy people. You could subdivide it into trust fund rich people and hereditary skills/attitudes rich people, but the difference is arbitrary for the question - they're both rich/wealthy because of their folks rather than a solely personal struggle against the universe.

2. The right idea at the right time with the right marketing abilities. This is commonly mistaken as luck, but really it's not so random. If you know what your idea is worth and release it properly, you'll be wealthy without having to work all that hard after the release.

3. Astute financial nous and instinct. This is your classical rich merchant personality. They know the value of everything and where and when to sell it for the best results.

4. Political nous. They have connections which lead to wealth. Their greatest asset is their personality, which is gregarious enough to attract attention and trust. These rich people are swindlers, politicians and some CEOs. Their actual abilities and the amount they work are irrelevant compared to their ability to make friends and influence them.

5. Military nous. These people are leaders of men. In the past they would go and conquer somewhere and rape it to extract the wealth. Today that sort of activity is frowned on. Mercenaries and corporate takeover specialists are the modern equivalents.

There are probably more, but these are the ones I can think of now.

why should they share their wealth with others?

Because it's the morally right thing to do and because it will do more for keeping the peace and protecting their wealth than any amount of security forces. Historically hoarders of wealth have lost everything to the peasants, the plague or foreign invaders. If money isn't circulating - whether through expenditure or taxation - money is wasted.

Fools and their hoards will be parted, whether for the right reasons or the wrong ones. That's human nature at work.

Define rich

Being conspicuously more wealthy than your fellows.

That's unwise. The poor matter because they are numerous and because their numbers grow quickly when not attended to appropriately.
The poor roused will topple any nation. You shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that just because the poor aren't dangerous now they never will be. Every fallen society has thought that right up until the minute when the rioters have busted open the palace gates.
It's a dangerous way to be thinking.
They may not be useful to you, but they aren't dead wood - they're a potential threat that for development reasons you can't afford to meet early and to protect your future can't afford to ignore entirely.

Virtually all Americans who are in the top 10% tile got there in their generation through their own work.

Nearly all of the wealthy in the United States (in terms of number of individuals) are small business owners.

Regarding why people should share their wealth

What does this have to do with what we're discussing. We're not talking about hoarding wealth. We're talking about money being exchanged for goods and services.

People who would take up arms and try to form a revolution are obviously people of action. In a healthy normal economy, like we have today and have had since the end of World War II (and for most of US history other than the great depression and the panic of the late 19th century) people of action are very successful.

The bottom 10% tile on the other hand, aren't going to revolt. They aren't going to do anything. You can barely get them to get off their asses and vote.  The bottom 40% tile are largely in that category too. They ain't revolting. If they're not motivated enough to get a job, they're certainly not going to be motivated to try to take down the government or revolt or whatever you imagine. It's a canard.

 

 

The original post merely asked why wealth should be shared. I was answering that question.



They won't lead the revolt, but someone of action might, and stupid, lazy people can be fanaticised into blaming practically anything for their stupidity and laziness. It works everywhere, from Iraq (do you think there were no lazy, stupid people involved in the insurrections there over the years) to Russia (the Soviet revolution was full of ignorant people).

As you say though it won't happen in a healthy economy. But who's to say the economy will be healthy forever? It's what happens to society in disaster - such as the Great Depression - that is the measure of a country's social cohesion. And disaster could be any minute anyway.

If we have a great depression, then by all means, the government should help. But when we're not in a depression, the government should scale back.  Right now, it's consuming about 20% of the GDP which is awful.

So true.

Sure there are folks who are rich because of Mommy and Daddy, but they're the exception to the rule.

Whenever this topic comes up, I see a few common reactions to explain why people are "rich"

Some have listed off "right place, right time" as being some unfair method, as if it was sheer luck that the person chanced upon the situation and somehow magically profited from it.  I know a lot of people who were in the right place and the right time but didn't bother to DO anything about it.  Luck and opportunity will only get you so far, after that you need to actually DO something.

Others have implied that it's due to increased mental or physical abilities, and that those advantages are also somehow unfair.  I know a lot of super-smart people who can't get a job.  Won't get a job really because they're not motivated to do anything. 

Then there's the whole "they won it at the expense of others!"  Unless we're talking about a sweatshop, or some illegal method, they didn't win it at the expense of others.  Just because those others couldn't realize and act on the opportunity doesn't mean that they're somehow victims of those who do.

It comes down to actually acting and doing.  You can have all the opportunity/luck in the world, but if you never recognize it and actually put in the work to accomplish whatever it is, then you're going to be stuck riding on the coattails of those who did make the leap.

Are they morally obligated to support those beneath them?  Absolutely not.  If I have two sandwiches, and you have none, it's not my responsibility to give it to you.  I may share it out of a sense of decency, but to tell me that I'm compelled to give that second sandwich up is ridiculous.  There is a difference between helping because you want to and helping because you are forced to.  One is charity, the other is bordering on theft.

I will never understand why people like cacto, thinkAloud and Loca just simply feel the need to excuse the poor people who chose to be ignorant and lazy. And I'm not talking about all poor people but lets be realistic here. I am part of that 40% Brad speaks of and from experience most only want to do so much and be rewarded for that little bit of effort that they do as if they somehow deserve more than they make.

Most people in the poor range don't want millions dollar homes and brand new Mercedes Benz. But they like buying house that look like a million bucks and buy used Mercedes Benz with hundreds of engine problems just because they wanna pass themselves as people with money. Poor people on average are not about making a true better life for themselves, they are about creating the illusion of having a better life but without the extra effort of educating themselves and trying harder at work to move it.

You want real life facts? Ask me, I live the life and while I don't always make the best decision when it comes to my money, I at least am trying to move up and am getting there little by little.

1. Born into wealth. This is the traditional method. Most wealthy people are the children of wealthy people or born into a family which has regularly thrown up wealthy people. You could subdivide it into trust fund rich people and hereditary skills/attitudes rich people, but the difference is arbitrary for the question - they're both rich/wealthy because of their folks rather than a solely personal struggle against the universe.

This has been shown time and time again to be false (it may be in a Monarchial society filled with Dukes and Lords, but not in a meritocracy).  I have to ask why, given the preponderance of empirical data that shows the opposite, that this myth is perpetuated.

So you don't think the way you were raised has any effect on you? I guess it's an interesting opinion, but it doesn't explain why most middle class people have middle class children, poor people have poor children and the rich have rich or middle class children. Surely if parental influence wasn't important we'd see a more even spread across each 'class' that isn't dependent at all on who the parent was.

But we don't tend to see that, which makes me think parental influence - whether it's through encouraging education, good saving habits or reading - is a positive and permanent influence on a child's life that will have an effect on their future wealth.

Of course, I'm running off my definition of rich here.

I agree that the values we are raised with matter.

Culture is the secret to success. If you have bad culture, you won't be very successful.

It's not having wealthy parents as much as having parents that instill values that lead to success.

I might point out that one of the reasons why conservatives tend to be very over-represented in the wealth demographic is because conservatve values are much more constructive to leading a successful life in the general sense.  People don't become conservatives because they become successful. They become successful because of conservative values.

Those values include working hard, having delayed gratification, perseverence, investing wisely.

Heck, these days, you can basically split the population up between people who are capable of delayed gratification and people who aren't.  The people who aren't we call Democrats.

Excuse me? I am suppose to be dirt poor because I was raised that way?

Dont know about the land down under, but it has been sbown repeatedly that MOST poor are there only temporarily before moving into the middle class (in this country), or higher. And while some may say that Paris Hilton is rich, would you call her that? Or poor by almost every other definition.

Besides, we were talking rich. ANd the rich, in studies done in the states, clearly show that most made their wealth, they were not born into it. That is the myth I was referring to.

My mom was raised poor by parents who blew what little money they had on crazy stuff and really didn't care if their kids went to school, had decent clothes to wear and certainly didn't plan to help their kids in the future or plan for their own future. My mom was the only one of her siblings who graduated high school (with straight As at that), got married before getting pregnant and has never been on welfare. The difference between my mom and her siblings? She always took responsibility for herself and her own future. The rest excused every bad decision they made by the way they were raised.

I think when it comes to how you start out, the question is how do you stay poor/rich? Just because you come from wealth it doesn't mean you have the tools to stay that way. Just because you come from poverty doesn't mean you can't rise above on your own merits.