FARK.com: (6681156) Just how do the top 400 richest Americans make their money?

		Just how do the top 400 richest Americans make their money? (dailykos.com)		179
		More: Interesting

• • •

7568 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2011 at 2:08 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6681156

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

179 Comments (+0 »)

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

IgG4

2011-10-27 09:09:26 AM

Let me guess, they inherited it?

St_Francis_P

2011-10-27 09:12:25 AM

No one ever got rich by working.

Cythraul

2011-10-27 09:12:46 AM

By eating babies in a horrific sacrifice to their master, Satan!

xiaodown

2011-10-27 09:28:44 AM

If it said "Did", I would say the majority of them inherited it, probably. Or, bounced from board of directors to board of directors.

But it says "do".

So the answer is that they invest it. They have money, so some people will essentially give them more money for having money.

It's nice to be at the top.

EatHam

2011-10-27 09:55:38 AM

xiaodown: I would say the majority of them inherited it, probably

You would be wrong. That's a myth. Some did, certainly, but over 80% did not. I mean, it's not like they came from a life of poverty, but neither BIll Gates, nor Warren Buffet inherited anything significant.

Cythraul

2011-10-27 10:02:37 AM

Bloody William

2011-10-27 10:04:57 AM

EatHam: xiaodown: I would say the majority of them inherited it, probably

You would be wrong. That's a myth. Some did, certainly, but over 80% did not. I mean, it's not like they came from a life of poverty, but neither BIll Gates, nor Warren Buffet inherited anything significant.

That's mostly because of the tech boom of the last few decades that put BHill Gates and Larry Ellison on the list. Out of the top 20 of the Forbes 20, you know how many inherited their position, resources, and wealth?

8. 8 of the 20 richest people in the country are children of industry magnates. Out of the others, 8 made it big in technology, and the remaining 4 got their wealth through speculation and other economics bullshiat.

EatHam

2011-10-27 10:05:41 AM

Cythraul: EatHam: xiaodown: I would say the majority of them inherited it, probably

You would be wrong. That's a myth. Some did, certainly, but over 80% did not. I mean, it's not like they came from a life of poverty, but neither BIll Gates, nor Warren Buffet inherited anything significant.

Citation please.

My number was wrong, it was 69%. here is the survey.

PNC's fourth annual Wealth and Values Survey revealed that 69 percent of Americans with $500,000 or more in investable assets accumulated most of their fortune by earning it through work, business ownership or investments. This compares to the 6 percent who attained their wealth primarily through inheritance. The remaining 25 percent gained their wealth through a combination of inheritance and earnings.

IgG4

2011-10-27 10:38:00 AM

EatHam: Cythraul: EatHam: xiaodown: I would say the majority of them inherited it, probably

You would be wrong. That's a myth. Some did, certainly, but over 80% did not. I mean, it's not like they came from a life of poverty, but neither BIll Gates, nor Warren Buffet inherited anything significant.

Citation please.

My number was wrong, it was 69%. here is the survey.

PNC's fourth annual Wealth and Values Survey revealed that 69 percent of Americans with $500,000 or more in investable assets accumulated most of their fortune by earning it through work, business ownership or investments. This compares to the 6 percent who attained their wealth primarily through inheritance. The remaining 25 percent gained their wealth through a combination of inheritance and earnings.

$500,000? Please. if you are talking about the top 400 in the USA you need to be talking about many MILLIONS of dollars, not 500K. A solid middle class income could result (or used to anyhow) in 500K in savings by retirement quite easily. That isn't exactly wealth these days though. This survey is about the 1%, not the 99%

EatHam

2011-10-27 10:46:01 AM

IgG4: $500,000? Please. if you are talking about the top 400 in the USA you need to be talking about many MILLIONS of dollars, not 500K. A solid middle class income could result (or used to anyhow) in 500K in savings by retirement quite easily. That isn't exactly wealth these days though. This survey is about the 1%, not the 99%

Fine. here. This is from 2007, but the numbers don't really change that much, as the names don't really change that much either.

Wealth isn't inherited, it's earned: Only 74 (18.5%) members of the Forbes 400 inherited their entire fortune, and 56 (14%) inherited at least a portion of their fortune. A large majority (270, or 68%) were entirely self-made billionaires who started from little or nothing. The average net worth of the self-made Forbes 400 is $3.9 billion.

Bloody William

2011-10-27 10:51:43 AM

EatHam: IgG4: $500,000? Please. if you are talking about the top 400 in the USA you need to be talking about many MILLIONS of dollars, not 500K. A solid middle class income could result (or used to anyhow) in 500K in savings by retirement quite easily. That isn't exactly wealth these days though. This survey is about the 1%, not the 99%

Fine. here. This is from 2007, but the numbers don't really change that much, as the names don't really change that much either.

Wealth isn't inherited, it's earned: Only 74 (18.5%) members of the Forbes 400 inherited their entire fortune, and 56 (14%) inherited at least a portion of their fortune. A large majority (270, or 68%) were entirely self-made billionaires who started from little or nothing. The average net worth of the self-made Forbes 400 is $3.9 billion.

Not to get off topic, but I'd love to see the circumstances for the people who made their own fortunes. Who their families were, where they went to school, what class they grew up in. I'm not moving the goalposts and this isn't part of the argument, but I'd like to know how many of the Forbes 400 came from upper class households, even if not the wealthiest. Bill Gates is self-made, but he was also raised by a prominent banker in Seattle and went to very exclusive schools.

EatHam

2011-10-27 10:54:02 AM

Bloody William: Who their families were, where they went to school, what class they grew up in. I'm not moving the goalposts and this isn't part of the argument, but I'd like to know how many of the Forbes 400 came from upper class households, even if not the wealthiest. Bill Gates is self-made, but he was also raised by a prominent banker in Seattle and went to very exclusive schools.

From the same survey:

Ivy League education isn't essential to making it big: Only 93 (23%) graduated from a top Ivy League school, such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale or Princeton. Many of the super-wealthy are self-made and self-educated.

Now, I wouldn't argue that there are very few (if any) that came from poverty, but there is a principle here that there is a *huge* difference between "horrible" and "good enough", but not a very big difference at all between "good enough" and "excellent" when it comes to schools, upbringing, family, etc.

Bloody William

2011-10-27 11:05:04 AM

EatHam: Ivy League education isn't essential to making it big: Only 93 (23%) graduated from a top Ivy League school, such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale or Princeton. Many of the super-wealthy are self-made and self-educated.

Now, I wouldn't argue that there are very few (if any) that came from poverty, but there is a principle here that there is a *huge* difference between "horrible" and "good enough", but not a very big difference at all between "good enough" and "excellent" when it comes to schools, upbringing, family, etc.

They could have ended that statement after the statistic.

Only 93 (23%) graduated from a top Ivy League school, such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale or Princeton.

Fair. That's a pretty limiting and frankly disingenuous distinction that precludes many other prestigious business, legal, and other schools in the nation, and 23% of them being Ivy League graduates is still not a small amount, but at least it's a number I can't reasonably dispute.

Many of the super-wealthy are self-made and self-educated.

This is where the phrasing becomes masturbatory and shows some extreme bias. If there were statistics to go with the self-made/self-educated part, especially the self-educated part (I have no doubt many Ivy League graduates are self-made, but they still started with money and opportunities many others don't), that would be one thing, but that paragraph is basically laying down a half-assed statistic, and then trying to turn that statistic into support for an almost unrelated and completely unsupported contention.

There's lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there's rhetoric bolstered with statistics.

EatHam

2011-10-27 11:08:22 AM

Bloody William: This is where the phrasing becomes masturbatory and shows some extreme bias.

well, it is an article about the 400 wealthiest people...

Bloody William

2011-10-27 11:10:21 AM

EatHam: Bloody William: This is where the phrasing becomes masturbatory and shows some extreme bias.

well, it is an article about the 400 wealthiest people...

ONLY 1 in 4 of them went to an Ivy League school. That proves many are self-made and self-educated!

EatHam

2011-10-27 11:14:31 AM

Bloody William: ONLY 1 in 4 of them went to an Ivy League school. That proves many are self-made and self-educated!

So what kind of numbers can you come up with to say that almost all of them inherited their wealth? There was a request for a citation, I came up with a couple. If you want me to admit that of the 400 wealthiest people none of them were penniless and naked until they left home, attended no school, no college, and had zero interaction with anyone including parents, fine.

sweetmelissa31

2011-10-27 11:17:07 AM

Bloody William: They could have ended that statement after the statistic.

Only 93 (23%) graduated from a top Ivy League school, such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale or Princeton.

That's actually a huge percentage... there are only 8 Ivy League schools in the country, but the only ones they're considering, it seems, are Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (and Stanford, which is not an Ivy). So out of the thousands of universities in the US, 23% of 400 richest Americans went to one of those four. What would the number be if they included the "bottom" Ivy League Schools?

/disclaimer: I work at Brown so I'm slightly bitter

EatHam

2011-10-27 11:20:44 AM

sweetmelissa31: but the only ones they're considering, it seems, are Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (and Stanford, which is not an Ivy).

They did say "such as". I don't know exactly what schools were considered, but the language at least indicates that they were giving examples, not an exhaustive list.

Bloody William

2011-10-27 11:30:21 AM

sweetmelissa31: Bloody William: They could have ended that statement after the statistic.

Only 93 (23%) graduated from a top Ivy League school, such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale or Princeton.

That's actually a huge percentage... there are only 8 Ivy League schools in the country, but the only ones they're considering, it seems, are Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (and Stanford, which is not an Ivy). So out of the thousands of universities in the US, 23% of 400 richest Americans went to one of those four. What would the number be if they included the "bottom" Ivy League Schools?

/disclaimer: I work at Brown so I'm slightly bitter

My dad had it worse. He went to UPenn.

9 out of 10 reactions to saying "I went to the University of Pennsylvania:" "Oh. State school?"

EatHam: Bloody William: ONLY 1 in 4 of them went to an Ivy League school. That proves many are self-made and self-educated!

So what kind of numbers can you come up with to say that almost all of them inherited their wealth? There was a request for a citation, I came up with a couple. If you want me to admit that of the 400 wealthiest people none of them were penniless and naked until they left home, attended no school, no college, and had zero interaction with anyone including parents, fine.

I'm not saying any of that. I'm just saying that even if only a big chunk, non-majority part of the wealthiest inherited their wealth, a vast majority had valuable resources and opportunities that the majority of Americans don't have. You're right, there is a big gap between horrible and pretty good, and a small gap between pretty good and great. The problem is it's possible to jump from pretty good to great, while the rhetoric is that it's possible to jump from horrible to great (which is extremely unlikely to the point of lightning bolt, meteor hit possibilities).

IgG4

2011-10-27 12:17:39 PM

What a "self-made-man" may look like:

www.ohthoseboys.com

GAT_00

2011-10-27 12:23:18 PM

EatHam: Fine. here. This is from 2007, but the numbers don't really change that much, as the names don't really change that much either.

Which says absolutely nothing about how they are making their money, or that this is not generally an upwardly mobile society. A few people being able to move does not prove society as a whole is mobile.

chimp_ninja

2011-10-27 01:10:46 PM

GAT_00: EatHam: Fine. here. This is from 2007, but the numbers don't really change that much, as the names don't really change that much either.

Which says absolutely nothing about how they are making their money, or that this is not generally an upwardly mobile society. A few people being able to move does not prove society as a whole is mobile.

Sad chart is sad:

In the bottom 40%? You have over a 3% chance of making it into the top 40% next year! Yay, American Dream!

unyon

2011-10-27 01:19:19 PM

Bloody William: EatHam: IgG4: $500,000? Please. if you are talking about the top 400 in the USA you need to be talking about many MILLIONS of dollars, not 500K. A solid middle class income could result (or used to anyhow) in 500K in savings by retirement quite easily. That isn't exactly wealth these days though. This survey is about the 1%, not the 99%

Fine. here. This is from 2007, but the numbers don't really change that much, as the names don't really change that much either.

Wealth isn't inherited, it's earned: Only 74 (18.5%) members of the Forbes 400 inherited their entire fortune, and 56 (14%) inherited at least a portion of their fortune. A large majority (270, or 68%) were entirely self-made billionaires who started from little or nothing. The average net worth of the self-made Forbes 400 is $3.9 billion.

Not to get off topic, but I'd love to see the circumstances for the people who made their own fortunes. Who their families were, where they went to school, what class they grew up in. I'm not moving the goalposts and this isn't part of the argument, but I'd like to know how many of the Forbes 400 came from upper class households, even if not the wealthiest. Bill Gates is self-made, but he was also raised by a prominent banker in Seattle and went to very exclusive schools.

Here's a somewhat dated but accurate article about US social mobility. Yes, your suspicions are entirely accurate.

Walker

2011-10-27 01:19:35 PM

The old fashioned way......stealing it.

mysticcat

2011-10-27 01:19:49 PM

So the wealthiest 400 people have hugely successful companies in which they own lots of stock.

Duh.

Sleeping Monkey

2011-10-27 01:20:44 PM

Exploitation?

EatHam

2011-10-27 01:28:02 PM

GAT_00: Which says absolutely nothing about how they are making their money, or that this is not generally an upwardly mobile society.

That's right, it doesn't. I wasn't making any comment on that - in fact, the fact that the names don't change from survey to survey confirms what you're saying. All I was saying is that the majority of the super-wealthy, or even the wealthy, don't inherit all of their money, that's all.

gerrymander

2011-10-27 01:30:25 PM

This is the part that makes me sad: If they sat in a chair for another decade -- and did absolutely nothing other than reinvest their yearly passive income

The chart shows that 58% of the income comes from capital gains -- as in, the buying and selling of capital assets. In other words, brain work. It is not passive, and it is not easy. For whatever reason, the diary author thinks that using intelligence isn't work.

DamnYankees

2011-10-27 01:46:50 PM

Bloody William: 8. 8 of the 20 richest people in the country are children of industry magnates. Out of the others, 8 made it big in technology, and the remaining 4 got their wealth through speculation and other economics bullshiat.

Aren't half of those the Walton siblings?

GAT_00

2011-10-27 01:48:23 PM

EatHam: GAT_00: Which says absolutely nothing about how they are making their money, or that this is not generally an upwardly mobile society.

That's right, it doesn't. I wasn't making any comment on that - in fact, the fact that the names don't change from survey to survey confirms what you're saying. All I was saying is that the majority of the super-wealthy, or even the wealthy, don't inherit all of their money, that's all.

So you were just putting up a strawman. At least you can admit it.

strapp3r

2011-10-27 02:10:46 PM

Rolander

2011-10-27 02:11:24 PM

rent seeking?

monoski

2011-10-27 02:12:37 PM

Now all they need to do is convince the poor that the only way to economic prosperity is to do away with capital gains taxes...

colon_pow

2011-10-27 02:13:09 PM

we should cry and stomp our feet till they give us their money.

problem solved.

proteus_b

2011-10-27 02:13:31 PM

sweetmelissa31: That's actually a huge percentage... there are only 8 Ivy League schools in the country, but the only ones they're considering, it seems, are Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (and Stanford, which is not an Ivy). So out of the thousands of universities in the US, 23% of 400 richest Americans went to one of those four. What would the number be if they included the "bottom" Ivy League Schools?

/disclaimer: I work at Brown so I'm slightly bitter

that's kind of a dis, eh? well, at least it's not "38% went to top ivy league schools, such as harvard, yale, princeton, columbia, dartmouth, penn or cornell"

/went to a symposium at brown once, had a fantastic time
//in fact, always had a great time visiting ivy league campuses. campi.

Philip Francis Queeg

2011-10-27 02:14:49 PM

Having people in Asia make cheap crap under horrific working conditions?

PonceAlyosha

2011-10-27 02:15:09 PM

strapp3r: [www.seriously-maybe.com image 389x476]

Buff chest thread?

img2.timeinc.net

/I'm helping

Testiclaw

2011-10-27 02:16:27 PM

colon_pow: we should cry and stomp our feet till they give us their money.

problem solved.

What? Where did you pull that idea out of, Colo- oh.

Cubicle Jockey

2011-10-27 02:16:49 PM

gerrymander: In other words, brain work. It is not passive, and it is not easy.

Are you under the impression that these folks sit in front of Ameritrade all day, instead of paying someone else do it for them?

nobodyUwannaknow

2011-10-27 02:17:14 PM

too many of them got rich from hedge funds & leveraged buyouts (new window)

MaudlinMutantMollusk

2011-10-27 02:17:35 PM

Does the name Faust strike a familiar note?

Headso

2011-10-27 02:17:38 PM

colon_pow: we should cry and stomp our feet till they give us their money.

problem solved.

mitigating overhead costs, you can't explain that.

Bag of Hammers

2011-10-27 02:18:01 PM

colon_pow: we should cry and stomp our feet till they give us their money.

problem solved.

Or, just keep fellating them like you do in the hopes they'll ejaculate gold all over your face?

RobertBruce

2011-10-27 02:18:51 PM

Using money to make money is bad? Ok I should just hide it in a mattress instead?

/dumbass author should look at the forbes list and count how many inherited vs working for their wealth

EatHam

2011-10-27 02:18:57 PM

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: Which says absolutely nothing about how they are making their money, or that this is not generally an upwardly mobile society.

That's right, it doesn't. I wasn't making any comment on that - in fact, the fact that the names don't change from survey to survey confirms what you're saying. All I was saying is that the majority of the super-wealthy, or even the wealthy, don't inherit all of their money, that's all.

So you were just putting up a strawman. At least you can admit it.

Huh? Someone posted that they got rich by inheriting money, I said they didn't. You do know that a straw man is creating both sides of the argument, right?

strapp3r

2011-10-27 02:19:20 PM

PonceAlyosha: strapp3r: [www.seriously-maybe.com image 389x476]

Buff chest thread?

[img2.timeinc.net image 300x400]

[images.sugarscape.com image 346x336]

/I'm helping

ha! i was thinking it was more of a 'thumping the dummy' response to the question

carry on dude-hunter!

Giltric

2011-10-27 02:20:19 PM

You could actually earn the same percentage back on your investment as they do.

Its just the size of the initial investment that people get jealous of.

Bad_Seed

2011-10-27 02:21:53 PM

They make money by having lots of money.

Headso

2011-10-27 02:23:31 PM

RobertBruce: author should look at the forbes list and count how many inherited vs working for their wealth

Does that somehow magically make concentrating wealth into few hands good for the economy?

Britney Spear's Speculum

2011-10-27 02:23:48 PM

How they get it:
Inherited
Profiting off the work of others.
Investments.

They keep it:
Tax Loopholes
Tax Cuts
Lobbyists that make the top three easier for them.

Displayed 50 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.