The knowledge that failure will never make them poor. Investing to maybe reach an even more dynastic level of wealth is an entirely different game than investing to hopefully be able to pay your bills when you are too old to work.

And this very same difference applies not only to financial investment but also to how young people approach the topic of careers: with a golden spoon fat enough to feed them and their future children for the rest of their life, people can focus 100% on aiming high. In fact they even have to, because it's their only chance of ever getting any sense of personal achievement. The lower ranks however have to split their attention between big dreams and ensuring basic hirability for when the big dreams fail. This distraction alone should be enough to keep the dynastic wheel rolling.

And maybe another thought, I don't really want it to be part of my argument, because I think it is too speculative, but I think it is an interesting idea to consider: there might be a little Dunning-Kruger at work here as well. What if the most intelligent 99ers would focus the strongest on hirability/food on the table, due to being least delusional about actually making it into 1% territory? Then the only people who are both intelligent and aiming high would be golden-spooners who got lucky with both brain and parents, while their less intelligent peers would duke it out with equally not-so-intelligent risers. Certainly no rule as in "refuted by a single counterexample" (as I'm sure there are many), but maybe one of the forces at work nonetheless.

Edit: see "Edit" in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11364978 , totally missed the part about 1% vs 0.1%. This all applies much less there, but still somewhat, because the "rich dentist" from the original article would surely be closer to middle class than to dynastic wealth in most aspects. Offspring will enter the workforce knowing that they will eventually need to put their own food on the table and personal investment strategies will still revolve around sustaining a given lifestyle until the end, not around concentrating power.

> The knowledge that failure will never make them poor.

Very insightful. This may get me pilloried in this thread, but that's the exact amount and structure of wealth that I'd like to give my kids (it will never be 0.01% level, but with the right structure, I think it's possible to provide a private "basic income" to them). I don't want them to have a golden/silver spoon, but in my own life and estate planning, an important goal for me is that I want to provide them with support, love, education, and a basic financial nut to underpin their life-nowhere near enough to do "nothing", but enough that they can take some risks and pursue what it is that they want to do, not what they must do to put food on the table and keep the lights on.

Give them a steel spoon in their mouth, and a work ethic

If you mean in term of quality of life, I actually think that in absolute terms it is probably marginal. They might enjoy a more comfortable life, going to places where the normal middle class doesn't go, tasting food which is slightly better. But they don't eat more calories than the average american, if they get sick they will be treated with the same molecules than the average american, the shinny tesla car they will drive will not transport them much better than the cheap Ford of the average american, they will not sleep much better in their big house than the average american, etc.

If you think in term of investment opportunities, clearly there are many investments that are only accessible to wealthy people, because of the amount of risk they involve, or because owning a tiny fractional share of a company is a sort of anomaly. Most investments (building, company, project) have few and require few investors, not the least to ensure proper governance.

But at one point the marginal benefit of the accumulation of wealth becomes zero. I don't think someone who own 1 billions lives much better than someone who owns 50 millions.

> If you mean in term of quality of life, I actually think that in absolute terms it is probably marginal

You are severely underestimating the importance of peace of mind. When you are poor, you are always worried about making rent. When you are middle class, you might be a few paychecks (or a hospital bill) away from insolvency. The wealthy don't have to worry about those things.

John Scalzi has an awesome post about the cost of being poor[1] on his blog.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/

Edit: d'oh, my reply is off-topic because I misread GP's post - missed that the distinction is between 1%ers and 0.1%ers. Considering that; I suspect the difference is in influence (my guess is the 0.1% are likely to be more 'politically involved' or better connected)

I don't think there is a single item on the list of this blog that applies to the american middle class or even lower end of middle class. Poverty is a different issue but what this article is referring to is the gap between the "1%" and the rest of the population, and I think a typical middle class american is the right comparison to assess whether this is such a gap in quality of life.

I think @sangnoir was too quick to retract the point. A typical middle class American is one job loss or disability away from despair. Funding a child's postsecondary education is also expensive. The middle class are certainly better off than the poor but the 1 percent have much additional peace of mind.

This is nonsense. There's a direct link between wealth and life expectancy, likelihood of surviving surgery, likelihood you'll be killed by the police, sentenced to prison etc.

Like the comment from sangnoir, I think you have in mind the poorest fraction of the population. I don't think the middle class has a different life expectancy or likelyhood to end up in prison than the top 1% / .01%.

I do think the middle class and the top 0.01% have a different life expectancy and likelihood of ending up in prison.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walton#Automobile_inci...

As others have said, even most of the top 1% isn't immune. They have to work to make money. Many people who are not billionaires probably spend more than they earn making them vulnerable to losing almost everything if they have to spend a year or two in prison.

Why is someone not surviving surgery? Do they have a poor diet, which contributes to riskier health situations?

Why will they be killed by the police? Are they threatening someone or do they look like they will?

All of the things you listed come down to attitude and personal choice.

Yup, everything bad that has ever happened or will ever happen to you is your fault.

In many places in the U.S. "look like they will" is synonymous with "having dark skin". What a horrible attitude and personal choices these people must have.

Your post has no basis in reality. Stop believing the media. It just makes you look foolish.

Yeah, really the takeaway message from much of the news coming out of the US over the last year or so is pretty much that everyone is treated both equally and fairly. I don't understand anyone who complains about racism, the ever widening gulf between rich and poor etc.

This topic comes up on AskReddit frequently. There was a post on it yesterday [0], and I found this [1] comment rather interesting as it highlights the fact that material possessions are only one small aspect of being truly wealthy. The real value comes from the connections that can be made while moving in these social circles.

0: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/4bpjxo/what_item... 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/4bpjxo/what_item...

Here's a long post from a while ago that goes into even more detail:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_i...

I imagine a much greater emphasis is put on the value of time as time really becomes the only finite resource in most circumstances.