What happens when a culture is driven by the need for money to make more money

Re:What happens when a culture is driven by the need for mon... by bko on Wednesday November 11, 2015 @06:24PM (#10550140)

> This year, we gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from 1 to 10 — a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey. We also did the analysis for every 10 years going back to 1984. Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: in 1984, less than half of people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69% of the 400 created their own fortunes. [0]

If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction. I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies.

My opinion may not be popular, but I find it encouraging to think that so few can create such great wealth in today's society, even if the odds are against me creating such wealth. In many cases, that means that a product or service one person creates can benefit a large number of people and make you very wealthy. And I personally benefit from many of the products and services that were created by this generation of the wealthy individuals.

[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What happens when a culture is driven by the need for mon... by coldtea on Wednesday November 11, 2015 @09:17PM (#10550877)

>If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction.

No, "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" is not my concern -- I think I made that clear in the comment.

Upward mobility to middle class, middle class stability (to going back to poverty), and upward mobility from middle class to upper middle class are my concerns.

To which "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" could even be working against -- while itself concerning a very tiny majority.

>I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies.

What I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference though between:

"we could only make 10 non-rich people ultra-rich in 1950, whereas we have 1000 non-rich made ultra-rich today".

Which might be all well and good, but this "upward mobility" only concerns a tiny minority, and having a healthy "upward mobility" and social stability for the large masses.

[ Parent | on HN ]