If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?

[ZiprHead]

Turns out it’s just chance.

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

 

[PyramidHead]

Turns out it’s just chance.

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

The sad thing about the meritocracy argument is that even if it were true, which it isn't, nobody should be okay with wealth being divided that way, when wealth is what determines one's survival prospects and access to the benefits of living in a developed nation. Merit should kick in long after the basic necessities and even luxuries of human civilization are guaranteed to all. We all have family members and friends who aren't particularly smart or talented. And we love them, and want them to be okay, and want them to live happy and fulfilled lives. As long as wealth is the barrier for entry to those outcomes, meritocracy of wealth should be opposed everywhere except at the margins.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Turns out it’s just chance.

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

The sad thing about the meritocracy argument is that even if it were true, which it isn't, nobody should be okay with wealth being divided that way, when wealth is what determines one's survival prospects and access to the benefits of living in a developed nation. Merit should kick in long after the basic necessities and even luxuries of human civilization are guaranteed to all. We all have family members and friends who aren't particularly smart or talented. And we love them, and want them to be okay, and want them to live happy and fulfilled lives. As long as wealth is the barrier for entry to those outcomes, meritocracy of wealth should be opposed everywhere except at the margins.

Agreed. This is why I think we should have a wealth tax, and not just an income tax.

I don't think it should probably kick in until one's net worth goes over some set value (say ~$5 million), which would still allow for some very opulent living, to be sure. Let the super billionaires whine about all they want. They can always move to the middle east.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Maybe because most of us didn't have granddaddies who ran whorehouses and daddies who handed us millions and taught us how to con the real estate market.

 

[RVonse]

Maybe because most of us didn't have granddaddies who ran whorehouses and daddies who handed us millions and taught us how to con the real estate market.

If you are talking about Trump, that is NOT how he made his fortune. Trump did well because he took an incredible risk with his Dads business by buying into Manhattan properties. Howard Hughs got rich by risking his inheritance in the same way. There are a lot of people who do not appreciate how rare and difficult it is to take on that kind of risk. Most people would rather live modestly and work for someone else than to take on that kind of risk.

And yes. Luck plays a big role as well. But without being able to take on the risk in the first place there is never any chance for the luck to come into play.

Most people would rather work for someone else and play it safe. And those are the people (most of us) who will never get rich.

 

[PyramidHead]

Maybe because most of us didn't have granddaddies who ran whorehouses and daddies who handed us millions and taught us how to con the real estate market.

If you are talking about Trump, that is NOT how he made his fortune. Trump did well because he took an incredible risk with his Dads business by buying into Manhattan properties. Howard Hughs got rich by risking his inheritance in the same way. There are a lot of people who do not appreciate how rare and difficult it is to take on that kind of risk. Most people would rather live modestly and work for someone else than to take on that kind of risk.

And yes. Luck plays a big role as well. But without being able to take on the risk in the first place there is never any chance for the luck to come into play.

Most people would rather work for someone else and play it safe. And those are the people (most of us) who will never get rich.

What determines whether someone has the capital to risk in the first place, genius?

 

[RVonse]

The sad thing about the meritocracy argument is that even if it were true, which it isn't, nobody should be okay with wealth being divided that way, when wealth is what determines one's survival prospects and access to the benefits of living in a developed nation. Merit should kick in long after the basic necessities and even luxuries of human civilization are guaranteed to all. We all have family members and friends who aren't particularly smart or talented. And we love them, and want them to be okay, and want them to live happy and fulfilled lives. As long as wealth is the barrier for entry to those outcomes, meritocracy of wealth should be opposed everywhere except at the margins.

Agreed. This is why I think we should have a wealth tax, and not just an income tax.

I don't think it should probably kick in until one's net worth goes over some set value (say ~$5 million), which would still allow for some very opulent living, to be sure. Let the super billionaires whine about all they want. They can always move to the middle east.

But if all the greedy people leave, who will be left to create and sustain middle class employment?

I dont want them to leave. I just want the tax policy to encourage them to invest in more employment for everyone else instead of their own consumption.

 

[Trausti]

It’s not chance. If that were so, then we’d find people of low to average IQ with the same “chance” of being wealthy as those with high IQ. But we don’t. And just because a person has an above average to high IQ doesn’t mean they’ll be wealthy. Other factors are at play: tolerance of risk, personal preference, etc.

 

[RVonse]

Maybe because most of us didn't have granddaddies who ran whorehouses and daddies who handed us millions and taught us how to con the real estate market.

If you are talking about Trump, that is NOT how he made his fortune. Trump did well because he took an incredible risk with his Dads business by buying into Manhattan properties. Howard Hughs got rich by risking his inheritance in the same way. There are a lot of people who do not appreciate how rare and difficult it is to take on that kind of risk. Most people would rather live modestly and work for someone else than to take on that kind of risk.

And yes. Luck plays a big role as well. But without being able to take on the risk in the first place there is never any chance for the luck to come into play.

Most people would rather work for someone else and play it safe. And those are the people (most of us) who will never get rich.

What determines whether someone has the capital to risk in the first place, genius?

If you don't have a rich dad, it will be your credit worthiness. Showing the bank you are determined to pay them back with interest.

 

[PyramidHead]

What determines whether someone has the capital to risk in the first place, genius?

If you don't have a rich dad, it will be your credit worthiness. Showing the bank you are determined to pay them back with interest.

 

[Treedbear]

What determines whether someone has the capital to risk in the first place, genius?

If you don't have a rich dad, it will be your credit worthiness. Showing the bank you are determined to pay them back with interest.

You must mean instead of having the car repaired, or tooth filled, or kids' school supplies, or pay the rent on time. I'm a capitalist, but I want capitalism for everyone. When the system makes it nearly impossible for many people to obtain enough capital so they can invest in the future and take advantage of the typical day to day opportunities that the rest of us take for granted it's not capitalism. And leveling the playing field isn't socialism. Unless you insist on calling it that. But then don't be surprized when people decide they might like socialism.

 

[dismal]

Turns out it’s just chance.

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

This news would have been far more useful before I worked hard in high school to get into a good college, worked hard in college to get an engineering degree, worked hard in graduate school, and worked hard in all my jobs.

If I had known I could have been just as successful sitting on a couch in my parents basement drinking beer I might have lived my life differently.

 

[ZiprHead]

The sad thing about the meritocracy argument is that even if it were true, which it isn't, nobody should be okay with wealth being divided that way, when wealth is what determines one's survival prospects and access to the benefits of living in a developed nation. Merit should kick in long after the basic necessities and even luxuries of human civilization are guaranteed to all. We all have family members and friends who aren't particularly smart or talented. And we love them, and want them to be okay, and want them to live happy and fulfilled lives. As long as wealth is the barrier for entry to those outcomes, meritocracy of wealth should be opposed everywhere except at the margins.

Agreed. This is why I think we should have a wealth tax, and not just an income tax.

I don't think it should probably kick in until one's net worth goes over some set value (say ~$5 million), which would still allow for some very opulent living, to be sure. Let the super billionaires whine about all they want. They can always move to the middle east.

But if all the greedy people leave, who will be left to create and sustain middle class employment?

I dont want them to leave. I just want the tax policy to encourage them to invest in more employment for everyone else instead of their own consumption.

Where will they go? Most of the first world countries have much higher taxes on the wealthy than the USA, even with a paltry wealth tax.

 

[ZiprHead]

Turns out it’s just chance.

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

This news would have been far more useful before I worked hard in high school to get into a good college, worked hard in college to get an engineering degree, worked hard in graduate school, and worked hard in all my jobs.

If I had known I could have been just as successful sitting on a couch in my parents basement drinking beer I might have lived my life differently.

Really? How many millions do you have in your bank account? How many Ferraris in your garage? How many $80 million dollar bunnies do you have?

 

[dismal]

This news would have been far more useful before I worked hard in high school to get into a good college, worked hard in college to get an engineering degree, worked hard in graduate school, and worked hard in all my jobs.

If I had known I could have been just as successful sitting on a couch in my parents basement drinking beer I might have lived my life differently.

Really? How many millions do you have in your bank account? How many Ferraris in your garage? How many $80 million dollar bunnies do you have?

Well, at least the Democrats think I'm rich.

 

[ZiprHead]

This news would have been far more useful before I worked hard in high school to get into a good college, worked hard in college to get an engineering degree, worked hard in graduate school, and worked hard in all my jobs.

If I had known I could have been just as successful sitting on a couch in my parents basement drinking beer I might have lived my life differently.

Really? How many millions do you have in your bank account? How many Ferraris in your garage? How many $80 million dollar bunnies do you have?

Well, at least the Democrats think I'm rich.

Why? Will you be affected by the wealth tax being proposed? Why are you bring so evasive?

 

[PyramidHead]

Turns out it’s just chance.

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

This news would have been far more useful before I worked hard in high school to get into a good college, worked hard in college to get an engineering degree, worked hard in graduate school, and worked hard in all my jobs.

If I had known I could have been just as successful sitting on a couch in my parents basement drinking beer I might have lived my life differently.

You're in the upper-right quadrant of the plot that has "hardness of work" on the X axis and "access to wealth" on the Y axis. This article isn't saying nobody should be in that quadrant, it's saying that there are too many people in the upper-left and lower-right parts.

For my part, I think that almost everybody should be in the lower-left.

 

[dismal]

Well, at least the Democrats think I'm rich.

Why? Will you be affected by the wealth tax being proposed? Why are you bring so evasive?

Jeez, it's a tough call. Do I want to broadcast my personal financial details to leftist assholes on the internet for no particular benefit or not?

 

[Trausti]

Well, at least the Democrats think I'm rich.

Why? Will you be affected by the wealth tax being proposed? Why are you bring so evasive?

Jeez, it's a tough call. Do I want to broadcast my personal financial details to leftist assholes on the internet for no particular benefit or not?

Silly. Your property doesn’t belong to you.

 

[PyramidHead]

Jeez, it's a tough call. Do I want to broadcast my personal financial details to leftist assholes on the internet for no particular benefit or not?

Silly. Your property doesn’t belong to you.

This, but unironically