1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

An old law school friend of mine spent 2 years working between 2nd and 3rd shift in a ketchup factory while he was working during the day to establish his business. After a couple years he was able to quit and hiave his loans paid off. He was vastly overqualified to be filling ketchup packages but he said it was one of the most enriching experiences he has had. 

 

There are a million stories out there where people willingly work OT and/or second jobs in order to achieve long-term goals.  NPR and Twitter never report on these people.  Honestly the only place I know where people are celebrated for exercising self-discipline and achieving a long-term goal is the Dave Ramsey Show. 

6 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Wear a mask.  Tens of millions of people have gone to work every day this year and not gotten sick. 

A mask doesn't protect the person wearing it. Anyway, you are really just making things up based on feelings. You have provided no data. 

7 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

There are a million stories out there where people willingly work OT and/or second jobs in order to achieve long-term goals.  NPR and Twitter never report on these people.  Honestly the only place I know where people are celebrated for exercising self-discipline and achieving a long-term goal is the Dave Ramsey Show. 

People always look at the millionaire with envy and chastise them for not giving them their fair share of his/her wealth. These are the same people who looked at him/her with derision and laughed at them as they worked 12-15 hour days doing unglorious work building their empire.

28 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

People always look at the millionaire with envy and chastise them for not giving them their fair share of his/her wealth. These are the same people who looked at him/her with derision and laughed at them as they worked 12-15 hour days doing unglorious work building their empire.

LOL. People are not using chastising the millionaire next door types who truly built their own wealth. We chastise people like Trump who inherit hundreds of millions then use fraudulent methods to get out of paying their fair share. Self made millionaires are not nearly the same as the 1% who control a lot of wealth.

9 minutes ago, freefourur said:

LOL. People are not using chastising the millionaire next door types who truly built their own wealth. We chastise people like Trump who inherit hundreds of millions then use fraudulent methods to get out of paying their fair share. Self made millionaires are not nearly the same as the 1% who control a lot of wealth.

Most people do not make a distinction. People chastise Bezos too. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. 

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Most people do not make a distinction. People chastise Bezos too. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. 

 

Guys like Bezos and Bloomberg who are uber wealthy from meager beginnings are the exception rather than the norm when it comes to billionaires. 

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

Guys like Bezos and Bloomberg who are uber wealthy from meager beginnings are the exception rather than the norm when it comes to billionaires. 

But I specifically mentioned millionaires and multi-millionaires. There are a lot more examples of them rising up by bootstrapping and building businesses and becoming successes. They are also the ones that the Bernies of the world and AOC's pick on when in fact they bootstrap and work their way up and build their businesses while Bernie is sleeping in a commune and AOC doing shots with her patrons at the bar. 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But I specifically mentioned millionaires and multi-millionaires. There are a lot more examples of them rising up by bootstrapping and building businesses and becoming successes. They are also the ones that the Bernies of the world and AOC's pick on when in fact they bootstrap and work their way up and build their businesses while Bernie is sleeping in a commune and AOC doing shots with her patrons at the bar. 

Nobody builds everything completely on their own. and you are also projecting your ideas onto what some people might say. The truth is that we tax labor more than we tax capital. That is a system that favors wealth or work.  

Bootstraps are a much better way to kill yourself than they are to get rich. Columbus is full of bootstrap widows. 

13 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Or they are not willing to risk their lives for part-time minimum-wage no-benefits.

 

I stopped at the Sheetz in Cambridge over the weekend while charging my car.  Cambridge, OH is not Cambrige, MA (or Cambridge, UK) in terms of cost of living.  Sheetz is not life-threatening work.  They were advertising on the store doors for both entry-level store associates at $12+ and managers at $13.50+, well above minimum wage.

 

13 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

And many of the companies with those low-wage jobs won't take someone so overqualified because they know they'll jump ship as soon as possible.  Assistant night manager isn't a career path for them.  Those jobs likely pay less than unemployment too.  

 

Well, I think that last part was basically jmecklenberg's point.  Most people work because they have to, not because they want to.  Productivity needs to be incentivized.

 

  

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

People always look at the millionaire with envy and chastise them for not giving them their fair share of his/her wealth. These are the same people who looked at him/her with derision and laughed at them as they worked 12-15 hour days doing unglorious work building their empire.

 

Perhaps.  But generational progress is the more common scale of advancement, which gives socialists their shot at the grandkids who "didn't earn what they have."  They'll doubtless level that charge against my kids, ignoring the fact that I earned it for them.  My grandparents died essentially with a zero balance sheet (no savings but no debts, basically never bought anything if they didn't have the cash); no matter how many hours they worked, a tool & die maker and a hairdresser weren't going to retire millionaires.  But my parents retired middle-class, my wife and I will retire multimillionaires (which, sadly, isn't as much today as it was as recently as 2000, let alone 1970), and maybe my children will be able to turn that into some real money.

 

As the old adage goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.

^ how many jobs ae actually available at sheets?  There are not enough job openings right now.  That is the cause of unemployment. There are not enough openings because a pandemic is depressing spending and reducing demand. No amount of making life more difficult for those that are unemployed will change that.  

2 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Perhaps.  But generational progress is the more common scale of advancement, which gives socialists their shot at the grandkids who "didn't earn what they have."  They'll doubtless level that charge against my kids, ignoring the fact that I earned it for them.  My grandparents died essentially with a zero balance sheet (no savings but no debts, basically never bought anything if they didn't have the cash); no matter how many hours they worked, a tool & die maker and a hairdresser weren't going to retire millionaires.  But my parents retired middle-class, my wife and I will retire multimillionaires (which, sadly, isn't as much today as it was as recently as 2000, let alone 1970), and maybe my children will be able to turn that into some real money.

 

As the old adage goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Exactly, I agree completley with you. It take time and it is a slog. You and I have very similar backgrounds and trajectories.  I was fortunate enough to have a hard working parent who was able to get me a good education and i was able levy that into a business I was able to build through my hard work and bootstrapping. Things were not always easy growing up, my father lost his job and took a job out of town for a few years to support the family and was not around much during my high school years. The job paid a lot less too so we had to figure out how to strecth things.  It changed my way of thinking about life and career and sent me on an more entrepreunial track. It allowed me to meet my wife who is also very hardworking and does well. I will never apologize for any of this nor do I feel any sense of remorse for this.   

 

I recognize that yes, we all achieve some form of help to succeed. Whether it be a parental help, business partner or mentor, we all come at our level of successes differently. However, the one key takeaway that I have seen in talking to many other small business owners and self made individuals is that they all possess a couple key qualiites.

1) the willingness to play the long game and build something up over the course of years or a generation or two.  (Very few people hit the lottery) and

2) a tenacity and desire to succeed. there seems to be an inate quality that you see in many people  where they are able to overlook the setbacks and keep moving forward.  - You hear this out of people who make it big in Hollywood all the time. Nobody sees the multiple rejections and failures they went through early on or the sacrifices both personal and physical they made to become the perceived success they are. Same with business owners. Nobody cares when they are working out of their parents garage or their one room apartment, but when their efforts pay off, people are quick to come with their hands out demanding their "fair share" and claiming that what that particular person earned was somehow stolen from others. 

It's funny that you guys view the "left" as wanting to punish the rich. People see that those like Trump pay nothing in taxes. They are smart enough to know who has to pay the taxes that the wealthy do not pay. And the fact that people build wealth through generational progress is not a way for "socialists" to take a shot.  Those on the right fail to understand that those that "worked hard" and made it had help along the way from various government policies. My belief is that we mostly all benefit through government policies. The leas we can do is to pay it forward when we can afford to do so. This will allow those coming after to us to benefit from the same programs. 

Variations in product demand (and input supply) don't give a f*ck about your bootstraps and have far more of an effect on a business than the work of one individual.

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

It's funny that you guys view the "left" as wanting to punish the rich. People see that those like Trump pay nothing in taxes. They are smart enough to know who has to pay the taxes that the wealthy do not pay. And the fact that people build wealth through generational progress is not a way for "socialists" to take a shot.  Those on the right fail to understand that those that "worked hard" and made it had help along the way from various government policies. My belief is that we mostly all benefit through government policies. The leas we can do is to pay it forward when we can afford to do so. This will allow those coming after to us to benefit from the same programs. 

 

This is all a part of the complete lie that the Right constantly pushes that rich people are being paid in wages.

Also Jeff Bezos is the most overrated businessperson of the 21st century. All he did was put the Sears catalog on the internet, create an R&D slush fund so that Amazon has little to no tax burden then get into streaming 5 years after Netflix did and webhosting 10 years after Yahoo did and treat employees like crap like the coal mines did.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

 

This is all a part of the complete lie that the Right constantly pushes that rich people are being paid in wages.

 

This is a joke, right?  Where have you ever seen "the right" push that?  One of the buzzwords of right-wing talking points, even the really shallow ones, is "small business owner."  Owner.  Ownership matters.  One of George W. Bush's signature concepts was that of the "ownership society."

That's when they're talking to building trades and auto-related businesspeople that don't see through their crap since those businesses' success is based far more on their sales ability and technical skills rather than market analysis.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

This is a joke, right?  Where have you ever seen "the right" push that?  One of the buzzwords of right-wing talking points, even the really shallow ones, is "small business owner."  Owner.  Ownership matters.  One of George W. Bush's signature concepts was that of the "ownership society."

 

If they really cared about small business, they would do something about healthcare, which is a huge boat anchor for most small business owners.  

^Exactly, because even millionaires notice $1000 a month leaving. The Rs don't give a crap about someone until they are worth $5-10M. They try to make anyone who makes more that $40K feel like they're rich and just a few years away from being filthy rich and "taxed to death".

 

"In only 6-18 months..."

4 hours ago, freefourur said:

Guys like Bezos and Bloomberg who are uber wealthy from meager beginnings are the exception rather than the norm when it comes to billionaires. 

 

Bezos founded Amazon with $1 million in funding provided by his parents and wealthy friends. His story is similar to Trump's. That said, it's still impressive. I know more than a handful of people who have lost hundreds of thousands of their parents money with bad business ventures. What people like Trump and Bezos did - turn a generous investment from wealthy parents into a massive fortune - isn't all that easy. Plenty of people blow it, which is where we get the saying "wealth skips a generation." Really, generational wealth is a pretty big misconception - it's estimated that 70% of wealthy families have kids that will lose the wealth. 90% of wealthy families lose it by the third generation.

6 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

Bezos founded Amazon with $1 million in funding provided by his parents and wealthy friends. His story is similar to Trump's. That said, it's still impressive. I know more than a handful of people who have lost hundreds of thousands of their parents money with bad business ventures. What people like Trump and Bezos did - turn a generous investment from wealthy parents into a massive fortune - isn't all that easy. Plenty of people blow it, which is where we get the saying "wealth skips a generation." Really, generational wealth is a pretty big misconception - it's estimated that 70% of wealthy families have kids that will lose the wealth. 90% of wealthy families lose it by the third generation.

Trump actually did blow it though. He got bailed out by Celebrity Apprentice and has nearly blown that money too. Plus, you are directly refuting Brutus's contention of the self made Bezos.  

46 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

Bezos founded Amazon with $1 million in funding provided by his parents and wealthy friends. His story is similar to Trump's. That said, it's still impressive. I know more than a handful of people who have lost hundreds of thousands of their parents money with bad business ventures. What people like Trump and Bezos did - turn a generous investment from wealthy parents into a massive fortune - isn't all that easy. Plenty of people blow it, which is where we get the saying "wealth skips a generation." Really, generational wealth is a pretty big misconception - it's estimated that 70% of wealthy families have kids that will lose the wealth. 90% of wealthy families lose it by the third generation.

 

FTFY.

 

Trump has posted losses for many more years than he's enjoyed gains, and lost most of the gains from years when he did have them.

 

He'd probably have done better if he'd put his family inheritance/investment into an S&P 500 index fund when he got that money in the 1980s.

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Also Jeff Bezos is the most overrated businessperson of the 21st century. All he did was put the Sears catalog on the internet, create an R&D slush fund so that Amazon has little to no tax burden then get into streaming 5 years after Netflix did and webhosting 10 years after Yahoo did and treat employees like crap like the coal mines did.

 

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

 

Bezos started a company selling books online before most Americans felt safe buying things online, and before most Americans even had an internet-connected computer in their home. He expanded their product offerings and built up the company over time, and today, people don't have any hesitancy about buying things online.

 

Companies have offered "web hosting" since the beginning of the World Wide Web, but what Amazon did with AWS is on a completely different level. 15 years ago, any company that wanted to launch an app or complex e-commerce website would have needed to invest millions of dollars to buy or build their own web servers, hire an entire staff of IT guys to manage them, build their own data center, hire a security staff to patrol the facility 24/7, buy battery backups and diesel generators to power the data center in the event of an outage, pay for redundant connections to multiple ISPs in case any one of them went down, etc. etc. etc. Today, anyone can create a virtual server in an AWS data center in like 3 minutes. It truly revolutionized the internet by allowing anyone creating an app or website to have all of that power available to them instantly with no up-front capital cost.

 

Now, of course, that's not to say that there aren't a ton of problems with the way Amazon treats warehouse and delivery workers, tax avoidance, deceptive business practices on the Amazon store, etc. Just wanted to point out that Bezos is in fact responsible for a lot of innovation and "deserves" to be rich a lot more than many other CEOs.

2 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Trump has posted losses for many more years than he's enjoyed gains, and lost most of the gains from years when he did have them.

 

Wasn't there an article a few years ago about how Trump would be richer today if he simply invested his inheritance in CDs and stock market index funds? The idea that he is now or has ever been a genius businessman is simply not backed up by reality.

Also, Bezos may not have been 100% self-made, but he's close enough to have earned the label:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos

 

Bezos was born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on January 12, 1964, the son of Jacklyn (née Gise) and Ted Jorgensen.[8] At the time of his birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student and his father was a bike shop owner.[9] After his parents divorced, his mother married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.[10] Shortly after the wedding, Mike adopted four-year-old Jorgensen, whose surname was then changed to Bezos.[11] The family moved to Houston, Texas, where Mike worked as an engineer for Exxon after he received a degree from the University of New Mexico.[12]

 

He accepted an estimated $300,000 from his parents [in 1994] and invested in Amazon.

 

==============================================

 

So, yes, most people don't have $300,000 from their parents to get their garage business off the ground.  But let's just say that his return on that investment has been significantly higher than Trump's return on the hundreds of millions in assets that Trump got from his father.  Also, by that time, Bezos was already the senior vice president of a hedge fund.  I think he probably brought some money of his own, not from his parents, to this little startup online bookseller.

4 hours ago, freefourur said:

It's funny that you guys view the "left" as wanting to punish the rich. People see that those like Trump pay nothing in taxes. They are smart enough to know who has to pay the taxes that the wealthy do not pay. And the fact that people build wealth through generational progress is not a way for "socialists" to take a shot.  Those on the right fail to understand that those that "worked hard" and made it had help along the way from various government policies. My belief is that we mostly all benefit through government policies. The leas we can do is to pay it forward when we can afford to do so. This will allow those coming after to us to benefit from the same programs. 

Because there are a lot of loud voices on the left that say just that. Bernie thinks Billionaires should be banned. AOC has consistently attacked the wealthy as stealing from the working class and seeks to divide people. Warren proposed a wealth tax which is nothing more than an arbitrary and punitive tax that does little to raise funds for the treasury but is primarily intended to punish success. So yes, it is out there.  

The thing is, in the US, the vast majority of wealth is not passed down from generation to generation. It is first generation wealth.  

4 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Variations in product demand (and input supply) don't give a f*ck about your bootstraps and have far more of an effect on a business than the work of one individual.

And it takes the individual owner to recognize these trends and develop a plan to capitalize on them. Take Bezos for example, as you point out, he essentially put the Sears catalog on the internet and made billions. That may be true to a certain extent, but he actually did it. Many others could have come up with the idea, but he was able to execute on it. That is what separated him from everyone else. 

13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The thing is, in the US, the vast majority of wealth is not passed down from generation to generation. It is first generation wealth.  

 

The next post here in which you actually cite your claims will be your first.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-like-estate-tax-whole-lot-more-when-they-learn-how-wealth-is-distributed/

 

18 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Warren proposed a wealth tax which is nothing more than an arbitrary and punitive tax that does little to raise funds for the treasury but is primarily intended to punish success.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z9141

Quote

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

 

A majority of *Republicans* support a wealth tax.

Basically, users here are inadvertently pointing out what happens when people who went to college hear when they hear certain things from their sources that are aimed at people who went to college, while either not understanding or ignoring the rhetoric's effect on people who didn't go and the very different sources they obtain their information from.

 

This is how the R's lost so many college graduates -- not because of liberal professors. The hillbilly stuff took over the party and shouted down the Connecticuts to a degree that college graduates get grossed out at the 2nd grade insults and elementary school explanations.

 

The problem with bootstraps is that they keep people from being smart and thinking about big ideas like strategy and networking and instead on endless operational tasks. This is where brutus' AOC bartender insult comes in. Had AOC just taken the menial, dead-end warehouse job at one of these bottom-heavy huge companies for half as much per hour as bartending that would be far more respectable. That way she'd work twice as much for the same amount of money and be denied the networking opportunities and sales skills that come with bartending. That way she'd still be in the warehouse instead of the House and could not terrorize brutus. When everyone takes on the bootstrap mentality they all stay cogs and the value of human labor is decreased -- the real goal. There are no big ideas when you bootstrap.

4 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

The next post here in which you actually cite your claims will be your first.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-like-estate-tax-whole-lot-more-when-they-learn-how-wealth-is-distributed/

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z9141

 

A majority of *Republicans* support a wealth tax.

a majorfity of people do not understand a wealth tax or what wealth actually is. Almost every European country that has tried a wealth tax in the past has repealed it because it was overly burdensome, too difficult to enforce and did not bring in much to the treasury and actually cost more. Why do you want to push a failed policy that has been tried and failed in numerous places in the past. This is just populist sentiment that is not grounded by economic realities. 

1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

Basically, users here are inadvertently pointing out what happens when people who went to college hear when they hear certain things from their sources that are aimed at people who went to college, while either not understanding or ignoring the rhetoric's effect on people who didn't go and the very different sources they obtain their information from.

 

This is how the R's lost so many college graduates -- not because of liberal professors. The hillbilly stuff took over the party and shouted down the Connecticuts to a degree that college graduates get grossed out at the 2nd grade insults and elementary school explanations.

 

The problem with bootstraps is that they keep people from being smart and thinking about big ideas like strategy and networking and instead on endless operational tasks. This is where brutus' AOC bartender insult comes in. Had AOC just taken the menial, dead-end warehouse job at one of these bottom-heavy huge companies for half as much per hour as bartending that would be far more respectable. That way she'd work twice as much for the same amount of money and be denied the networking opportunities and sales skills that come with bartending. That way she'd still be in the warehouse instead of the House and could not terrorize brutus. When everyone takes on the bootstrap mentality they all stay cogs and the value of human labor is decreased -- the real goal. There are no big ideas when you bootstrap.

You can bootstrap and be a bartender, you can work in a warehouse. Bootstraping is a means to an end. It is not the job or type of job that matters. As much as I knock AOC, she effectively is a product of this and did not realize it. She worked nights bartending and traded her bartending in for a shot at Congress and big raise and platform. She is able to spew her venom and idoicy on a national level now but at the end of the day, she actually was someone who bootstrapped her way to success. 

19 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

The next post here in which you actually cite your claims will be your first.

 

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent

https://bic.financial-planning.com/news/1-in-3-us-millionaires-foreign-born-or-first-gen-americans

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0810/7-millionaire-myths.aspx

https://www.guidevine.com/newsroom/eighty-percent-millionaires-first-generation-millionaires-wasting-time-garbage/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/10/05/a-record-number-of-the-u-s-billionaires-are-immigrants/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

 

Here is some reading for you. There are many more sources. I know this directly contradicts your narrow worldview of things but maybe it may help you open your mind a bit more. 

Problem is bootstrapping is a gamble rather than a guarantee. It's a big risk. I have worked far too many jobs where the other people would never make anything of themselves despite boostrapping. It ruined their lives.

3 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Problem is bootstrapping is a gamble rather than a guarantee. It's a big risk. I have worked far too many jobs where the other people would never make anything of themselves despite boostrapping. It ruined their lives.

Life is about taking risks and chances. There is no set guarantee in anything. Those who succeed often take the biggest risks. Bezos had a 6 figure Wall Street job with a prestigious firm that he gave up to start Amazon. That is pretty risky, but he wanted to be an innovator. This is why risk takers are rewarded. 

39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

a majorfity of people do not understand a wealth tax or what wealth actually is. Almost every European country that has tried a wealth tax in the past has repealed it because it was overly burdensome, too difficult to enforce and did not bring in much to the treasury and actually cost more. Why do you want to push a failed policy that has been tried and failed in numerous places in the past. This is just populist sentiment that is not grounded by economic realities. 

 

The poll question spelled out what a wealth tax is.  Just because it didn't give you the results you wanted or were expecting doesn't mean you should insult people's intelligence.  Unless you're an elitist, I guess.

6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Life is about taking risks and chances. There is no set guarantee in anything. Those who succeed often take the biggest risks. Bezos had a 6 figure Wall Street job with a prestigious firm that he gave up to start Amazon. That is pretty risky, but he wanted to be an innovator. This is why risk takers are rewarded. 

 

Bootstrap rhetoric doesn't acknowledge that and instead treats it as a guarantee.

Just now, GCrites80s said:

 

Bootstrap rhetoric doesn't acknowledge that and instead treats it as a guarantee.

I don't think any business owner or anyone who has achieved a high level of success recognizes that this is just about bootstrapping. Hard work is an essential element but it is not the only factor. You need to have some understanding of the market and timing has to be right. There is a lot that can still go wrong. You can build an emerging hospitality business and then it comes crashing down when the government shuts down things for COVID. Bootstrapping and hard work get you so far, but yes, there are other factors too such as timing that come into play. Just hard work and bootstapping will not guarnatee you success. Nothing in life is guaranteed. 

Just because you dont smoke does not mean you wont die of lung cancer.

Just because you are a world class athlete does not guarantee you the hall of fame. 

I get the sense that you want some type of roadmap to success or contract that if I do my part, I will achieve. It may be nice if life worked like that but it never has. 

 

21 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent - This is a Koch Brothers foundation lmao.  It provides no sourcing to their claims or survey.

https://bic.financial-planning.com/news/1-in-3-us-millionaires-foreign-born-or-first-gen-americans - an online survey of 482 people.

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0810/7-millionaire-myths.aspx - I see a theme building here.

https://www.guidevine.com/newsroom/eighty-percent-millionaires-first-generation-millionaires-wasting-time-garbage/ - yep, same theme.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/10/05/a-record-number-of-the-u-s-billionaires-are-immigrants/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

 

Here is some reading for you. There are many more sources. I know this directly contradicts your narrow worldview of things but maybe it may help you open your mind a bit more. 

 

So a few things:

1) Good job posting links.  That might be a first.

2) I think the question here is what constitutes "self made."  If my parents pay for my college education, give me a $100k grant (or even interest free loan), and then I become a millionaire...am I self made?  What if paid back that loan?  Did I really "earn it all on my own?"  What if I inherit $200k from my parents and then I become a millionaire?  Am I 80% self-made?  Surely not given my starting point is so much greater than someone at $0.  So I think there is some inherent flaws in the wording of the questions and how people interpret it.

2) The graph I cited comes from scholarly work, not random surveys.  Full details with analysis is here - http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2017.pdf

 

I will assume at this point we'll agree to disagree.  I'll trust the scholars and you'll trust the random surveys.

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I get the sense that you want some type of roadmap to success or contract that if I do my part, I will achieve. It may be nice if life worked like that but it never has. 

 

No, it's the fact that other people, many who are not businesspeople, are tricked (or the rhetoric is trying to trick them) into thinking that boostrapping is that very thing.

1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

2) I think the question here is what constitutes "self made."  If my parents pay for my college education, give me a $100k grant (or even interest free loan), and then I become a millionaire...am I self made?  What if paid back that loan?  Did I really "earn it all on my own?"  What if I inherit $200k from my parents and then I become a millionaire?  Am I 80% self-made?  Surely not given my starting point is so much greater than someone at $0.  So I think there is some inherent flaws in the wording of the questions and how people interpret it.

 

 

Or even if some car breakdowns that wouldn't have happened if their folks bought them a reliable car intervened and kept them from being where they needed to be reliably.

6 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

So a few things:

1) Good job posting links.  That might be a first.

2) I think the question here is what constitutes "self made."  If my parents pay for my college education, give me a $100k grant (or even interest free loan), and then I become a millionaire...am I self made?  What if paid back that loan?  Did I really "earn it all on my own?"  What if I inherit $200k from my parents and then I become a millionaire?  Am I 80% self-made?  Surely not given my starting point is so much greater than someone at $0.  So I think there is some inherent flaws in the wording of the questions and how people interpret it.

2) The graph I cited comes from scholarly work, not random surveys.  Full details with analysis is here - http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2017.pdf

 

I will assume at this point we'll agree to disagree.  I'll trust the scholars and you'll trust the random surveys.

I thought we may get to the point where we could have an actual discussion but you seem to not be able to resist trying to get a petty dig in. Sad. 

 

It is nice you cite this work, but even the authors admit that there are number of theories when it comes to measuring inheritance. As with the social sciences, the individual methodologies and hypothoeses they use are not grounded in hard fact but rather assumptions based on their bias. 

 

So, that is fine if you want to believe these professors. It still does not make your point any more right despite how you may otherwise try and convince yourself. 

Theres tons of people that work hard 12+ hours a day and never get rich. We shouldn't equate being rich with working hard.  There is more to it. And things like luck, family, talent pay s bigger role than just hard work.

Yeah we all get that certain career fields are all about networking - there is absolutely no meritocracy.  Also, some people have parents who literally pay for them to live in the most expensive cities where they can do unpaid internships.  For these people the job is about their identity, not about the money, since they already have money.  

 

But there are also a lot of people who are just plain lazy and don't want to work...ever.  

12 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Theres tons of people that work hard 12+ hours a day and never get rich. We shouldn't equate being rich with working hard.

 

I dont think people do.. It is an important element but not the only element. Working hard is extremely important, working smart is even more important.

Rightie rhetoric leaves off that part. People who went to college know that. Again, different sources for people who went and who didn't plus different interpretations by people who went and those who didn't.

7 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Problem is bootstrapping is a gamble rather than a guarantee. It's a big risk. I have worked far too many jobs where the other people would never make anything of themselves despite boostrapping. It ruined their lives.

 

There are a ton of ways to make money in the United States without being a schmoozer/sell-out. 

 

In addition to a primary job, for the past 5-10 years I have also had some combination of:

-job #2

-tenant #1

-tenant #2

-royalties

-direct sales

-periodic freelance income

-stock/reit dividends

-periodic stock and real estate speculation proceeds

-I played exactly one paying music gig this year before the shutdown where I earned $60 cash 

 

I don't have to kiss anyone's ass, ever.  I just show up to my jobs, do the job, don't engage in workplace gossip or drama, and go home.  The catalyst for everything listed below job #2 was job #2.  I hate networking and the b.s. conversations with b.s. people that it entails.  Polished people tend to be crackpots behind the scenes. 

 

 

 

Double digit money-outs are worth worrying about; double digit money-ins aren't unless there are many, many of them -- unless you are in poverty where they make all the difference in the world.

 

Also, networking events are far more important in a city like Columbus where nobody knows each other in contrast to Cincinnati where everybody does. I still feel like I am better networked in Cincinnati than Columbus despite having left Cincinnati 11 years ago. Obviously the fact that I have been pinned in my stores instead of having office jobs that offer networking opportunities other than 19-year-old gamers attaching themselves to me during that time plays a factor. The less time I spend in the stores the better I do.

 

EDIT: to clarify, I mean ACTIVE double digit stuff due to schedule disruptions, costs associated with them and opportunity cost. I'll take any passive double digit stuff. 

Edited October 1, 20204 yr by GCrites80s

8 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

There are a ton of ways to make money in the United States without being a schmoozer/sell-out. 

 

In addition to a primary job, for the past 5-10 years I have also had some combination of:

-job #2

-tenant #1

-tenant #2

-royalties

-direct sales

-periodic freelance income

-stock/reit dividends

-periodic stock and real estate speculation proceeds

-I played exactly one paying music gig this year before the shutdown where I earned $60 cash 

 

I don't have to kiss anyone's ass, ever.  I just show up to my jobs, do the job, don't engage in workplace gossip or drama, and go home.  The catalyst for everything listed below job #2 was job #2.  I hate networking and the b.s. conversations with b.s. people that it entails.  Polished people tend to be crackpots behind the scenes. 

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of things that people do not consider about the bootstrapping that is not really discussed because it adds complexity and nuance. As Jake correctly points out, there are a lot of ways to make income but each individual circumstances determine how feasible it is. Certainly, a single mother with young kids would not have a practical time working 2-3 jobs and caring for kids. However, if you are single and only responsible for your time, that is a good option.  When you are 20 and starting out, stock and real estate speculation proceeds may not be an option, but publishing and royalties are certainly feasible for many people to achieve if they put their minds to it.  For me, I would never make a dime on a music gig, but there are other ways that allow me to generate income both passive and active. 

 

Certainly, bootstrapping is a simplistic term, but the beautiful thing about it is that it encompasses a ton of activities that people can do to raise their lot in life. Many often do not require much investment, many have low startup costs, and if people are willing to be creative and invest in themselves (regardless of going to college) they can achieve some level of success and independence in their lives.  Jake does a good job of laying out numerous ways that work for him, but his roadmap does not have to be specific to everyone.

We have multiple passive and semi-passive income streams that have helped us significantly, but since we inherited them I don't count them for this discussion. That information doesn't help anyone that doesn't have that advantage.

17 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I thought we may get to the point where we could have an actual discussion but you seem to not be able to resist trying to get a petty dig in. Sad. 

 

It is nice you cite this work, but even the authors admit that there are number of theories when it comes to measuring inheritance. As with the social sciences, the individual methodologies and hypothoeses they use are not grounded in hard fact but rather assumptions based on their bias. 

 

So, that is fine if you want to believe these professors. It still does not make your point any more right despite how you may otherwise try and convince yourself. 

 

Not much to add to the discussion (there is disagreement among surveys and scholars about what % of millionaires or "the top 1%" is first generation wealth) but just underlining the points here to show that irony is dead.