So the other day, I was thinking of how it would be if I was born into money. And I don't mean like my dad is an MD, but like my dad owns a multibillion dollar corporation. Though you could buy anything you want, I presume you won't really have any friends unless they too were born rich. That'd kind of suck. But then again, you're RICH. Would you guys want to be born rich? Unfortunately, I was born middle-middle-middle class.
Trending Content
| +95 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 12h | |
| +37 | Interviews Are So Fake | 24 | 13h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 1d | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 19h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6d | |
| +25 | Non-Competes Banned | 17 | 8h | |
| +23 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 4d | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 12 | 7h | ||
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 2d |
Career Resources
Absolutely yes. I wouldn't have any student loan debt and I wouldn't have to worry about paying the rent on a monthly basis. I would have grown up in a better socio-economic enviroment and would have access to better resources, and who is to say you wouldn't have friends? Just because you have money doesn't make you a jerk that people don't want to be around.
Having money opend significantly more doors in life.
It would be nice to have every want fulfilled, but you never get that sense of accomplishment of having climbed up from the bottom, or even the middle. There are some things money can't but, and that's one of them.
Yeah, I would love be born into that kind of wealth. If I was in a family that had a multibillion dollar corporation you would almost be the status that royalty was back in the day. As long as you were still born in with the right values and your family wasn't consumed in the business, life could be pretty fun. Thinking about it, the only real difference would be that I wouldn't have to work for a living, I could work because I wanted to, and since that is where many of life's stress is yes I would prefer that kind of wealth.
Born into it or work my whole life trying to make enough to retire comfortably on?
I'll pick born with it.
Very few people born into money do not become utter degenerates. Count the blessings you have.
I know quite a few people born into it and maybe 1/10 of them are utter degenerates. Probably another 2-3/10 are complete douchebags, but for the most part they're well-adjusted, decent people. Could be because of where I grew up, though.
As for me, grew up in middle/upper-middle class family and I'm more than happy with it. I would not have wanted to be born into a family worth a billion dollars. It kind of ruins some of life; the uncertainty, the feeling of accomplishment, and the idea that you made yourself what you are.
What a ridiculously stupid generalization. You literally hate everything upper class or successful. Yes, some people born into money become utterly worthless humans, but it is not the vast majority, as your wildly cynical mind thinks.
As an above poster said, the VAST MAJORITY are well adjusted, tolerable people. I would say half of them are great people who don't flaunt their money at all. It's entirely dependent on your upbringing, but your statement was just so ridiculously false.
Born with it, depends on who you are naturally in my opinion though. Socrates suggests that people born with money do not care as much for it as they have not earned it themselves. I would love a life without having to think about my job, how much I'll make and spend etc. However, I can also see how someone born with money may be complacent, take everything for granted, and as Midas put it "degenerates".
victory is sweeter only if you worked for it
I like that
DUMBEST. QUESTION. EVER.
If I'd been born into money, I would've made Kenny Powers look like a classy guy. There's a reason I was born poor.
I swear to God I'd be the biggest douchebag this sorry planet has ever seen.
Born into a family with money, and told i'd never see any of it. Still haven't, and glad i haven't. Strongly dislike the majority of people who have family money that i know, but they seem happy enough. Then again, i see people in the 3rd world smiling and lower suicide rates, so I guess blaming money for happiness is a shocking excuse.
I know a lot of people born into no money who are also utter degenerates. They just use meth instead of coke. They are also collecting numerous government handouts.
Also i would bet a large amount of money that the numerous shootings that were performed by the degenerates in the government housing buildings were also not born into money.
Every tax bracket has degenerates. The rich ones just get more fame and TV time.
Yes, I would. Money opens a lot of doors, which doors you choose is up to you. The high-flying party culture, "refined" private schools, more drugs than a pharmacy can discharge, industry connections, yachting, etc. Rich and money just magnify the individual's base tendencies.
Exactly.
^^ Agree, however in my mind, people born into money really have no reason to be or become degenerates. Maybe actually being born into that life gives you a different mind set, but having life handed to you and being able to do what you want with it would seem amazing to me. (By do what you want, I don't mean drugs, not work, waste family's money, party and degenerate- more referring to life path)
streetwannabe: Just because someone is born into a rich family doesnt mean they're in a better position. A lot of times that means not having a parent around to teach them anything about life and this results in the degenerates/douchebags that are filthy rich. Are they in a better position than someone who was born into a poor family with parents that arent around? Yes, but that doesnt mean its inexcusable for a rich kid to turn out a degenerate, not just because they're rich. Now if you want to say its inexcusable for rich parents to allow their kids to turn into degenerates, thats something I could agree with you on.
People born rich, parents or not, have many of their basic needs fulfilled. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is more complete if you're born into a rich family. Maybe some people are dependent on family and become degenerates because of this. I'm just saying in general, to me in a rational sense it is less excusable. People from all classes have to work, maybe middle class work 40hrs a week compared to the richie richs working 70hrs a week, but they seem to me to be better off anyways. It does depend on the person much of the time. Some people are more dependent, some less (emotionally, etc). I have never been so don't quite understand that, but I understand that some people might be.
In my mind, generally speaking, people with more money have more opportunities, and are therefore more accountable for what decisions they make.
Even if you are born rich, the parents should still take the necessary steps to help you realize the value of money instead of letting you become a trust fund baby or something. This way you would have your basic needs fulfilled but still understand all the important stuff that there are no guarantees, etc.
That would be ideal for me; having everything handed to you is very poor life experience.
YES
Lots of sour grapes on this thread
/endpost
Born into it -- and then help others / skim some off the side. Done.
You have to distinguish between actual wealth and social circumstances, environment.
One can have 100.000.000 on his bank account and still live in a middle-class environment, sending childen to state schools and have friends that are just "ordinary". Though it is hard to resist the temptation.
Personally, I do respect people who achieve. Sometimes they are rich because they achieve. But just being rich does not make you a better person, just have a look on what kind of pricks you can find in first class airport lounges.
^^ Sometimes they achieve because they are rich.
(My mistake for the gravedig. It was a "requested thread" at the bottom. Feel free to delete)
Born to be Rich (Originally Posted: 04/21/2011)
Are we born to be rich? Or conversely... poor?
With or without admission, this is a question many of us ponder on a regular basis. Let's be honest, money can buy you nice pretty things. Not to mention power and influence. Perhaps no societal group more than young men is more constantly reminded of this reality.
More money, better life. Work harder, more money. Hard work...lots of money, simple correlation... or is it? Lewis Lapham brings some sobering realities to the equation.
Are you Worthy of Wealth?
Birth Location
Place of birth determines more than 60 percent of variability in global incomes, there is a not-so-hidden location premium if your native country happens to be rich. The fun part is figuring out which is better: to be born into wealth in a poor country or into average means (but extraordinary opportunity) in a rich one? Though the sons of despots may shoot gilded Kalashnikovs and travel the world in private jets, they are always one revolution away from poverty, if not demise. Conversely, I sure could have used a harem in my wonder years instead of a really well equipped school library. Leading to...
Family Income Class
We may pound our chests about having a higher quality of life than China, but what does that mean on an individual level? A CPC official's kid will have a lot more opportunity than the average American blue collar son or daughter. When we consider how much bigger China is than America in terms of population, it would be very interesting to see this sort of cross-national study performed. Not to say that I would take the average childhood in Shanghai over the average childhood in Chicago, actually come to think of it...
The Disputable 20%
Lapham mentions the usual favorites like race and luck, but also does something we in the West equate to blasphemy. He discounts the value of hard work. I can't say I wholeheartedly agree, but definitely do see his point.
After all, as time goes by most non-target monkeys learn the hard way that a strong network trumps a high GPA any day of the week...
So what do you guys say about this proportional breakdown? Is it accurate? Is hard work really it's own reward and not a guarantee of wealth and success?
For those interested in the historical background to this age old question, spend twenty or so minutes on Lapham's interview with Branko Milanovic. It addresses some very interesting wealth related issues stretching back as far as the Roman Empire...or as some might infer, not very far back at all.
One has to decide how to allocate his or her hard work. Blindly working for a high GPA while doing no networking or job searching will set that person at an oblivious disadvantage.
It also helps to have parents that have great connections.
Id expect that most people evaluate their current wealth relative to their starting wealth anyway. If someone coming from Burundi manages to become middle class in north america, thats a much greater success than someone from a wealthy background in usa/europe topping out at 500k/year corporate job.
This book seems obsolete as pointing out the obvious.
I'll be first to admit that hard work BY ITSELF is not a guarantee of success, for two reasons: one, there are no guarantees. Two, it's a tried-and-true combination of networking, smarts (both natural and developed), studying, perseverance, and yes, a little luck. Just ask any of us monkeys who have gone through recruiting recently.
It may not always work out that way, but at the very least even a cynic like Midas has to admit that it's easier (both in theory and in practice) to get ahead here in the U.S. than almost anywhere else. China is growing rapidly but has plenty of its own problems that the media chooses not to focus on. You can still be locked up over there for no reason at all, their capital inflows are highly restricted, and it is aging rapidly. Not to mention men outnumber women tremendously, which as we all know is the worst!
C'mon man... Lewis Lapham? Think about your audience here. In case you didn't notice, this messageboard is called "wall street oasis."
I disagree. This is still a country where you can get from dirt poor to upper middle class in 30 years. And what I find so ironic is that certain people who love to say that there isn't any upward mobility in this country seem to think that it is irresponsible and socialist to spend a little extra- not on welfare or unions or unemployment insurance- but on higher education.
The cool thing about the UK is that ANYBODY can go to Oxford or Munich Tech or a number of other schools. But you'd better study like crazy if you want to graduate. We need to offer a similar system in the US. We need to replace Harvard with Berkeley in the college rankings- should be achievable with a few NASA programs and huge government grants- and make the school free to attend but difficult to graduate from. If you do that, you'll see a lot more economic ability in this country. Figure out a cost-effective way to educate people, use that to give everyone a genuine shot, and let the chips fall where they will- contingent on intelligence, work ethic, and creativity.
We don't need to redistribute wealth, but if the country wants to remain a meritocracy, it doesn't hurt to redistribute opportunity.
Also given the rise in tuition fees up to 9000 pounds per year, the affordability of education in the UK will drop significantly.
Your point would be valid for the rest of Europe, in which hardly anyone goes to private schools, and their attendance does not benefit greatly in university selections, and all public universities are (almost) free.
Excellent point. I would say that much of the "class mobility" attributed to more socialist countries is just because the gap between the top and bottom 20% is smaller.
It is definitely possible to break into the upper class from any background right now in the USA. Many states have excellent public university systems, and private colleges have never been more generous with aid.
Still, if you are born poor, you are apparently at a disadvantage (if you are not an athlete or URM): http://chronicle.com/article/Pell-Grant-Recipients-Are/126892/
It doesn't make sense that an ivy league degree still carries such weight. Really, it is just a reflection on how well you had you life together at 14-18, not current ability. I would take a high performing, state school science major over a B Harvard history major any day of the week. The gap in educational quality between undergraduate institutions is pretty much nil at this point (there are exceptions: Wharton for business, Yale for PPE, etc.)
This is not going to happen. Higher education is so profitable nowadays that even if the US government was to decide to actually shift a portion of its budget to subsidize education, higher education officials and lobbyists would cause a ruckus in Washington. Personally, I agree with you on making quality education accessible to everyone from all backgrounds. In my opinion, using affirmative action programs doesn't really cut it when you're only servicing probably 1% of the population and leaving the rest in the dust. .
Jesus christ, Illini. Will you please refrain from trolling for the midwest and state schools in every freaking thread? Harvard is still the #1 college in the world and always will be. And their admissions is more meritocratic than overrated Oxbridge.
I completely agree with you. It's not wealth redistribution, it's societal reinvestment. You rock man.
Its all about the ovarian lottery boys n girls.
illini, you raise an interesting question.
Its the question of what schools should base admission on.
If you go purely on academic merit(and Id agree a math test, or an iq test would likely be ideal), you create an academically inclined student body.
Do you want a more diverse body that will achieve greatness in a variety of fields, inside and outside of academia?
On another note, what gives the US a competitive advantage over europe is the fact that achievement in the states is rewarded, and not looked down upon. There is significantly less hating on elites/the rich than in europe.
Training freshmen is incredibly cheap. Throw them in a lecture hall with 500 students and a prof, have the prof lecture, maybe get a couple $10/hour TAs to help with homework questions and grading, and the academic training costs of adding an extra student to a mass-education program- assuming they have their own computer and health insurance- is about $100/credit hour over a semester. A series of mathematics or hard-science engineering exams over four years is the purest form of meritocracy. The answer is either right or wrong, and you either know the material backwards-and-forwards and know how to answer the question or you don't.
And if you don't understand the theory behind the work, the question becomes- why should that institution graduate you? They are signalling that you know what you're doing to their standards. If the exams don't indicate you meet those standards, the pragmatic, fair, and reasonable thing for them to do is not allow you to graduate and force you to transfer to a school with lower standards. Hey- they gave you- and everyone else a shot, but it didn't pan out and you're just not a good enough engineer, chemist, or mathematician for us to graduate you. Sorry.
If you let everyone in, you start off with an incredibly diverse student body with lots of different folks. By graduation, you have a group of students who are guaranteed to know what they're doing when it comes to mathematics and theoretical problems in their profession.You give EVERYBODY- from 40-year-olds with a GED to brilliant 18-year-olds who've done research for their uncle's privately-owned pharma conglomerate- a shot. Whether you make it or not is up to you, not a group of 10 60-something northeastern liberals who want to know what your greatest failure was or what color you would be if you were a postage stamp. (For the record, I was one of the lucky people they let in- when I opted for cheaper state school, I realized that they rejected a lot of people who were smarter and more driven than me.)
Achievement should be rewarded, but we need to remember that it doesn't make you special and it certainly doesn't make your kids special. We need to be a country that rewards success and hard work without becoming a country with a class system. Higher ed reform helps weaken the entrenchment of wealthy families without actually taking wealth from anyone.The only reason anyone should be opposed to a system of accept everyone- fail out folks who can't pass the exams is if they're afraid they can't cut it. In which case, what makes you think you can cut it in the real world? A true meritocracy means bridging unnecessary moats. You might be great at football, but that doesn't mean you're a great accountant to the standards of Medford College.
Brilliant post. I would say this is exactly the reason why Europe is ages behind the US in any applied sciences field. In most parts of Europe admissions to universities are based entirely on subject test results, and subsequently, the GPA is the most important aspect going forward with academic career. The result of this is that Europe is pretty good in fundamental science, i.e. solving equations, but when it comes to applied science - the gap is abysmal. And in the end, its applied science that matters. Applied science advances the country, creates competitive business, makes lifes easier for rest of people and in doing so pays off the investment a country made in educating you. Fundamental only creates the "feel good" for themselves, and rarely trickles down into real world application.
don't really agree with the article. Persistence, hard work and networking can overcome most obstacles.
I wasn't born to be rich, but I'm damn sure climbing tooth and nail over every obstacle to get there...
i'd rather be born middle-class than rich since i think of success as success relative to outbringing.
if you're born to a rich/powerful family, it's gonna be very tough to become more "successful" than your parents and that pressure's always there to do that. how the hell are you gonna outshine your parents when your dad is jamie dimon or john paulson? meanwhile if you're born middle-class (e.g. 50K a year family of office workers), you're already ahead of your parents professionally as an IB analyst and can treat them.
In the US, it comes down to intelligence, hard work, and most critically, access to capital. A well-capitalized fool has a better chance for success than a hard-working genius with no funds. If nothing else, the rich fool can pay smart people to work for him.
In regard to global inequality, yes, the world is an unfair place. But it is getting better. The internet and computers really began the drive towards global meritocracy. Artificial intelligence will ultimately finish it.
Wall Street focuses on pedigree because Wall Street is primarily about institutional clients. Academic pedigree gives you a network and credibility, which gives you an edge with institutional clients (and their money). The same rule applies for business consulting and law, even more so. Outside of these fields, nobody really gives a shit.
The four year model of the university is going away. In another fifteen years, it will be swallowed by the internet--at least for non-science/engineering degrees. Universities will end up as publically-subsidized research ventures. The internet and AI will be the great economic equalizers. AI will end up replacing most data-driven jobs that currently demand higher salaries. Wall Street may have some longevity because of its ties with government. But it is inevitable. AI will gobble that up to.
In 30 years, all of this talk of inequality in the US will be a funny, distant memory.
It comes down to upbringing. My parents always felt that regardless of their wealth none of their children were ever entitled to it. I know this one kid, his father is a billionaire and he gets a fairly normal allowance while in college. If you passed him by on the street you would never now he comes from a ridiculously wealthy family. Wealthy African parents make sure their kids learn the hard way (well at least the old school ones do).
There are things that one can't change and things that one can. How birth influences wealth is pretty irrelevant - after all it's done with.
It's like how asset class determines majority of capital's return. Does that mean analysts following any strategy should just shrug and go home? No as long as there's a possibility the effort is worth it
Hardwork is worthless if you don't make use of it, so might as well..doesn't hurt
Oh, I love Germany, specially regarding this topic. In any case the issue is mobility, not equality.
correlation does not equal causation
Illini, going to school and following a strict path to pass the test of merit will mainly benefit the mediocre. Those that are truly brilliant will be discouraged from experimentation and trying harder assignments/disciplines out of the fear that if they fail at reaching for something, it will majorly f up their life. Unfortunately, the mediocre do not advance the society.
Without competence, your electricity would not work, you wouldn't be able to connect to your ISP, and the grocery store would not be stocked with food. How do you expect to invent an LED lightbulb if you don't know how to keep an incandescent bulb running?
Without competence, you've got a faulty foundation for "brilliance". A system that focuses on competencies establishes the self-reliance, and from there, you use your own god-given creativity and insight to be brilliant. Any idiot can be creative (CC: Modern art); not everyone can be competent. Besides, we've seen by experience that people who go through the rigors of a competency-based education system can be incredibly brilliant/creative (CC: Steve Jobs).
Brilliance without the competence to turn it into something meaningful is worthless. It's like faith without works or a Star Wars Betamax casette without a player.
I go to McGill, the only people that get weeded out are the engineering/science majors like me, also agree with commodity above.
Really? At my Canadian school, almost everyone got into their top choice schools. And my school is a pretty normal public school. True, there are people who struggle to make it to university. But if you compare Canadian admissions to US admissions, especially to the Ivy League, you'll probably agree that the top ranked Canadian universities are much more inclusive than the elite US colleges.
Are you serious? What does F=ma have to do with anything? I'm talking about higher level concepts and narrower specialization.
Without understanding all of the building blocks first, you can't have progress. It's really that simple. And a college student hasn't learned all of the building blocks yet- heck, a lot of professionals (CC: MBS folks) don't understand the building blocks.
Illini, the key words in my post are "harder assignments".
F=ma is force = mass x acceleration, it's not even an energy balance equation*, which still would not be sufficient for fully understanding energy transfer. If you are struggling with basic concepts on a freshman/soph level you need to change majors or a career focus, the world needs manual laborers too. At a junior/senior level u take a lot of classes that you will not ever need. My major has a lot of overlap with civil and mech eng and math. For what I do and what interests me, math is a lot more relevant than ME, and I would have gladly dropped the second Thermo class in favor of something like numerical analysis
*Etotal = KE + PE = 0.5(mass x velocity^2) +( Mass x height x acceleration due to gravity)
Odio culpa rerum voluptatum error. Eos voluptas et ex doloremque.
Provident magni repellendus sit harum repellendus. Ut quam deserunt sed accusantium.
Voluptatem exercitationem tempora laboriosam est omnis dolorem architecto. Voluptas sit vitae voluptatem voluptas vero voluptate minus. Sed nihil dicta fuga culpa perspiciatis odit quia. Aut et necessitatibus ut voluptas est omnis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Officia et minus qui et. Omnis omnis enim aspernatur molestias similique at voluptatem. Tempora et quidem occaecati veniam nam cupiditate. Voluptas perferendis et iure odio.
Repudiandae quod commodi ut est magnam suscipit et. Aut voluptas tempora ut quia saepe quis. Cum saepe rem quaerat impedit sint voluptatem.
Nemo dolores totam quis dicta. Commodi vel aut in occaecati error est. Fugiat enim ea earum consectetur odit iste. Ea libero maiores reprehenderit occaecati nemo ratione. Unde dolor esse numquam praesentium aliquid explicabo quae. Similique est eum necessitatibus vel voluptas voluptatem. Qui est aut est facilis et dolorem quia consectetur.