> In fact most Americans over-estimate the amount of economic mobility that we have

Your link seems to say otherwise. If economic mobility were low then most rich families would not see their wealth meaningfully eroded for generations. This was the case in feudal Europe and many ancient empires like Rome. The fact that most families lose wealth in 3 generations due to mismanagement implies someone else is gaining that lost wealth - ergo economic mobility should be high.

Personally I feel the economic mobility afforded by high paying jobs and widespread capital in the US is unmatched. I started making more money than my parents by my junior year in college and genuinely feel like I have a non-zero chance at hitting 25 million USD net worth during my life. I have friends who have gotten millions of dollars in startup funding and have 10+ paid employees. You can't say the same if you live in Europe.

You think the people gaining the wealth that some rich families are losing are people that need high economic mobility and not just other rich people?

How does the fact that 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth within 3 generations gel with wealth being lost to other rich people? That doesn't logically make sense. If that was the case then there would slowly be ever fewer rich people who become ever richer. But if you look at the richest people in the world that isn't the case.

Because the rich that arent losing their wealth are getting richer at ridiculous rates? And where is that money coming from?

> where is that money coming from?

They're creating it. Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

If what you're saying is true we'd see the number of rich decrease exponentially. That is objectively not the case.

> Where is that money coming from?

Not sure what you mean by this?

If you own several similar assets, and sell one for a large profit, it brings up the value of the others on paper. Stock shares for example.

I think they're losing to the middle class, yes. Folks like Bezos and Zuckerberg didn't start rich.

Yes they did. Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg were all rich

In another discussion, someone tried to make the argument that Buffet was a real-life rags to riches story. Like, my guy, his father worked as a stock broker, and he used to hang out at his dad's office when he was a kid, and his dad eventually became a Congressman. I don't know why people think that's "rags to riches".

I might be misinterpreting the facts but Gates got the deal to sell DOS to IBM because his Mom knew someone or was on the board. Bezos went from a successful career in finance to start Amazon. Zuckerberg started Facebook at -Harvard- and partly, the success of Facebook was predicated on Harvard's social prestige.

I just don't understand where people come up with these weird bootstrap narratives from.

They're not saying that he was poor.

They're saying that he didn't start a billionaire. He multiplied his wealth by a factor of a thousand or more.

Some did. Most started as multimillionaire.

The ways one can use to multiply millions by a thousand aren't open to people that only owns thousands. And you really don't want to multiply your possessions by a thousand if they are negative.

Yes, but the point is that they started with wealth. Multiplying 1 mil to 1 billion is more reasonable possible than 1k to 1 mil.

Simply because if you've such wealth already you're most likely in a position to take risks, etc.

I don't think that's true at all really, there are like 500,000 millionaires in my town alone.

A billion is actually just a lot of money, there's a much more finite amount of room at the top.

All you need to do to make a million quid in the UK is get a 75th percentile job and save half of it. After a few decades you are now a millionaire. I mean, everyone can't do it, but it's not some unfathomable task.

In the US I imagine it's even easier. Your median income is lower but the top end is insane.

>> All you need to do to make a million quid in the UK is get a 75th percentile job and save half of it. After a few decades you are now a millionaire. I mean, everyone can't do it, but it's not some unfathomable task.

I agree that it is possible, but it is sadly an impossible task for most. That's my point above: for those who have wealth it is easy to grow it. It takes money to make money.

My other point was that those who have a billion started with millions.

Here's one source for the over-estimation thing https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/11/13/ame...

Until dynasties with extremely large Southh Dakota in-perputuity Trusts make it almost impossible for wealth to erode in 2-3 generations or even longer. There's a good reason why trusts were restricted to ~100 years but now the world has lost that legal fight. In 100, 150 years, just how much power will the trust holders of these perpetual trusts have over the rest of society?

Impossible is a bit of a joke there considering the instability this country has has had on those timescales. 3 generations ago South Dakota being a state was a novelty.

The age of dynasties is over; the 1990s tech billionaires will achieve immortality and in 150 years, the very same people will own everything.

The statements are not symmetrical, though.

Let's use the less emotionally charged example of the gym rat.

An individual who sets out with the goal and drive to become substantially physically stronger can be successful with high probability.

But not everyone will do that. Most will give up or just not even bother in the first place. Lots of people don't even care, despite it being almost strictly superior.

It would be logically incorrect to use that fact in order to argue that muscle mass is likely to be unchangeable. It is changeable, it's just not the path of least resistance.

edit: or, to put it succinctly - prevalence is not probability