Why kid? This is the way of the world.
Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'? https://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533
Trimming a lot:
"United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says
- 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background...
- 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member.
- 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
- 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
- 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list."
So less than 35 percent would be coming from poverty, if this study is to be believed. This is for the 400 billionaires list though.
Gates did not directly inherit vast wealth. But, most people’s parents don’t know the CEO of IBM back when it was the computer company.
That bottom 35% is a little doubious. Larry Ellison was put in that category, though he was adopted at a young age. Further, his adopted family had recently been wealthy which is a much better than average background for becoming rich.
Finally, the category they place Trump in vastly underplays the amount of direct family support he received. The initial gift was under 50 million, but was just the first of many. He would have become a billionaire simply putting the money given to him into the S&P 500.
Had Bill Gates gone to Seattle Public Schools at the time, its doubtful that he would have gained similar contacts or become notable at such an early age.
I mean, it considers Donald Trump, whose father died with a net worth of about $300 million to start on 2nd base!!
At least in the US, less than 35% of the population actually lives in poverty.
As you can see, only a 9 or 10 should really count as coming from significant disadvantage. Mark Zuckerberg is an 8 on the scale (where 10 is most disadvantaged), and I think we can all agree he did not claw his way out of poverty. I'm having trouble finding overall numbers for each rank, but I'm certain 9s and 10s are not a majority of this list if 6-10 is only 67%.
On the Share of Inheritance in Aggregate Wealth: Europe and the USA, 1900–2010 http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2...
I would also be hesitant to take the top 500 as representative of the top, say, 5 million.
I understood it as: how is it that education is a privilege?
Do you mean like how some people are born into rich families and some into poor families? (I kid :))
> I also can't help but look at this cynically as a largely self-interested PR grab by Apple that is not a real sacrifice on their part.
It may be but so what? They could have done nothing, but they didn't. Good on them for doing this.