Just a moment...
mohaboelez.medium.com
  • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
    761·
    6 months ago

    In gates’ case it was a father with enough money he could attend one of the few schools that he could have access to a computer and a program to learn IT. While ALSO having an investment banker uncle who was willing to invest millions into his company early on.

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    762·
    6 months ago

    “I built this company by myself, from the ground up, my own blood sweat and tears, no help from anyone, and a $20 million dollar gift from my daddy”

      • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
        271·
        6 months ago

        How much did you get from your dad? I know my dad has nothing to give me, mainly because of those guys that were able to get a hand out pulling the ladder up behind them.

        In this country even being sent to college is a privilege, you are either gifted it from your parents or you are an indentured servant for your student loans/tuition. A handout from your parents is a handout from your parents, no matter the amount.

        It’s nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone needs help every now and then. Just don’t label yourself “selfmade” when you are not.

        • pingveno@lemmy.mlEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, anyone who claims to be self-made is just showing a lack of perspective. I got an inheritance from my grandparents and college tuition from my parents, but that’s really a rounding error. I was raised in a supportive home where my physical, emotional, and academic needs were met. My extended family is about as drama free as they come. I’m tall and usually well liked, so I wasn’t picked on at school. When I came out as gay, my parents were supportive. I had access to a computer as a kid, where I developed a knack for programming that developed into a career. Point is, there are so many boosts or drags that a person can experience in their life, even look purely at money is too simplistic.

      • velox_vulnus@lemmy.mlEnglish
        22·
        6 months ago

        Not an economist, but a lousy CS grad, so my rambling may be incorrect. But honestly, I have no words for your genius. More specifically, the lack of it.

        • you ignored inflation around the 1970s
        • you did not take into account the cost of living
        • you also conveniently ignored the lifestyle choices

        Inflation has caused the cumulative price increase of 488.65% in the US from 1975 to 2023-almost-2024. $200,000 in 1975 is around $1,177,295.17 in today’s time.

        $20 million is just an exaggeration for the light-hearted joke @snekerpimp@lemmy.world made, it’s not that deep.

        Source: Inflation calculator

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        81·
        6 months ago

        Every thread you are in, it’s a guarantee you’ll simp for Republicans and/or rich assholes.

        • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
          219·
          6 months ago

          I’m so very, VERY sorry for pointing out that none of these guys weren’t given anywhere as close as commented on. I guess pointing out facts is bad these days. Wild.

          • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
            4·
            6 months ago

            I’ll make sure to put “WARNING, THE FOLLOWING IS A JOKE” next time, for those of us that have a hard time telling the difference.

              • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
                3·
                6 months ago

                Generated by you, taking offense to me “over exaggerating” and not being “based in reality”, taking a joke way too seriously. Chill out bro.

                • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
                  17·
                  6 months ago

                  Yes. People don’t like being called out for making shit up. It’s okay when your do it, but if the right does it it gets posted to the sub 🤦‍♂️.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            63·
            6 months ago

            You might even be right, but it’s clear you’ve got an agenda, and that’s what I’m commenting on. It’s very obvious

  • apollo440@lemmy.world
    65·
    6 months ago

    I have long said that if we look at typical success stories somewhat soberly, it is always a combination of luck and privilege. Hard work and talent can be very helpful, but they are in no way a prerequisite for success.

    To illustrate: Whenever someone says “taking risks must be rewarded”, it is always worth pointing out that you don’t get rewarded for taking risks, but for getting lucky while taking a risk. Also, you have to be in a position to take a risk in the first place (i.e. have time, resources, and the means to not starve if it goes belly up); in other words, some degree of privilege.

    • Flat Pluto Society@lemmy.world
      18·
      6 months ago

      Yep. I have no doubt that Gates and Bezos and Zuckerberg are genuinely very smart and hard-working people, but there are a LOT of smart and hard-working people with poor parents, and you don’t see a lot of billionaires in that group.

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      13·
      6 months ago

      I know a lot of talented hardworking homeless people. Many of them work harder than I do and I make 6 figures. We’re not in a meritocracy, we’re all one misstep or accident away from being disabled and on the streets regardless of skill or work ethic.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        4·
        6 months ago

        It’s worth remembering that once you get to the street, you now live in a combat zone that will cause PTSD along with a host of other psychological issues.

        Housing first initiatives are the cheapest option we have. Once society stops creating new psychological disorders in their homeless population, then the formerly homeless can move out of survival mode, and actually address their many other problems*.

        *Provided of course that one can actually afford to thrive on a single income regardless of the job one takes.

    • nelly_man@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      6 months ago

      A lot of people also seem to ignore the fact that the risks are not the same for everybody.

      E.g. four people get the same business opportunity. For person A, failure means they have to ask their parents to bail them out. For person B, they have to move in with their parents. For person C, they have to move their family into a tent under the bridge. And for person D, they have to ration their medication and risk dying.

      Person A could probably try things out a few times without suffering too much other than embarrassment. Person B, maybe a couple times, but that’s pushing it. The others have to pretty damn sure it’ll pay off, and even then, the risk might be too much.

    • pingveno@lemmy.mlEnglish
      51·
      6 months ago

      Ideally, taking business risks should be rewarded as much as possible. That keeps an economy dynamic, flexible, and responsive to new opportunities. Otherwise you get an economy dominated by big brittle players that are content to sit back and milk cash cows. Oracle comes to mind, with its army of lawyers eager to shake down institutions that may not have quite the correct license for a server.

      This is where bankruptcy for businesses is incredibly important. People should be able to start a business based on an idea, try to grow it, and not suffer personal ruin if the business fails. A good social safety net is beneficial as well to make sure that after a business folds, its former owners still have the bear necessities of life. Likewise, there needs to be a strong inheritance tax so the wealthy have their wealth significantly diluted.

      None of this will make things equal between the children of the upper class and lower class, obviously. It just makes social mobility a little easier and benefits the economy as a whole.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        4·
        6 months ago

        That is the opposite of risk. A risk is something you do with a poor chance of success, possibly with a good reward if successful. What you’re describing is a guarantee. Now look at the returns on guaranteed interest certificates and the high-risk stocks. Sure, some of the high-risk stocks outperform the guaranteed certificates, but many also end up being worth nothing.

        • pingveno@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Risk exists on a spectrum. US Treasury Bonds would be about the lowest risk asset you can invest in, but there’s always risk at some level that the dipshit Republicans in Congress finally manage to blow up the bond market.

          A healthy economy has a good mix of creation of new businesses, destruction of inefficient businesses, and retention of businesses that are well run. The family run corner grocery store may just not need to grow and change much.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          1·
          6 months ago

          Yes, exactly. Businesses should be less risky to open and that should be paid for by larger corporate taxes. Coca Cola is selling sugar water that costs 50¢ for a dollar. They can afford higher taxes because of their huge brand name. And I own shares of Coca Cola.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      191·
      6 months ago

      Was just complaining about this to my therapist. Boomers, in general, were born on third base. Raging economy, low-priced homes, cheap college, think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. “Kids today…” Fuck you. Your situation only existed because Europe was destroyed by war and America was untouched.

  • that guy@lemmy.world
    32·
    6 months ago

    When I started Reynholm Industries, I had just two things in my possession: a dream and six million pounds. Today I have a business empire the like of which the world has never seen the like of which. I hope it doesn’t sound arrogant when I say that I am the greatest man in the world!

  • BeefPiano@lemmy.worldEnglish
    89·
    6 months ago

    Steve Jobs adoptive father was a machinist and a car salesman without a college degree.

  • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
    367·
    6 months ago

    Lololol these guys are all from upper middle class. And on the low side of that. Y’all just want to be pissed.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      301·
      6 months ago

      Non-trolls will note this person’s comment history and if you notice, you’ll see them propping up rich Republicans all over lemmy. It’s interesting that they stay here given that everyone downvotes them to hell and just generally disagrees with everything they believe, apparently.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      18·
      6 months ago

      Upper middle class middle class with families and connections who had spare money to invest and just far enough along that they had the kids were raised with the drive to gather even more wealth. If they had been more wealthy they wouldn’t have the drive, if they were less well off then they wouldn’t have the advantages to make that drive happen.

      “With money” doesn’t mean all the money. It means plenty of money. Gates loves to tell the story about how he started his company in his father’s garage. That was a three car garage because they could afford a large house with a lot of extra space Bill could use for free while starting his business.

      The parents could afford to send them to prestigious schools where they made connections.

      The parents had money. Recognizing this is not jealousy, it is a reason to acknowledge that massive wealth does not come from effort alone.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          1·
          6 months ago

          Since there is a ton of variation on cost of living and other factors by region, I just go by rough percentages because anything more is too complex to generalize. So the following is my view, which can be applied nationally or within a state/region as the outcome is basically the same. Keep in mind that after basic expenses are paid and someone can afford to invest their long term investments and other wealth are generally not included in their income despite their actual wealth continuing to increase allowing them access to loans and other monetary options that the middle class just doesn’t have.

          So how I see it by income:
          Upper class as top 10%
          Upper middle class would be 75%-90%
          Middle class 25%-75%

          Sure, people in California won’t have the same monthly costs at 100k+ income to someone in the midwest, but the person in California who owns a home is building up a lot more wealth and options for loans/mortgages in higher amounts than someone in the midwest with a cheaper home. Renting is a different thing, but upper middle class and above have the option to buy and increase their wealth and puts them even further above middle class and below that aren’t able to do the same or aren’t able to save on top of the house payments.

          What do you consider upper class?

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            2·
            6 months ago

            ah. se I would go with what you have but upper middle class would be 65%-75% or something and 75%-85% would be like lower upper class or such (I would use the quintiles really) and to get away from money I would consider upper class to be anyone who owns a large home with no mortage (or they are keeping their mortgage optionally), same with cars, has their retirment fully funded, paid for their kids to go to any college they wanted to and has additional money to invest in kida ideas or has money for leasure vehicles/property or vacations every year. even in the 80’s