6 ms·

It's interesting what words are not in the article. Words like heir, inheritance, profit, interest, rentier. The word rent is there, but assumed as a tenant,

It's interesting what words are not in the article. Words like heir, inheritance, profit, interest, rentier. The word rent is there, but assumed as a tenant, not landlord. I assume the Forbes 400 richest are in the 1%. How did the Koch brothers get their $100 billion? Where did the Waltons get their $140 billion? Where did the Mars family get their $75 billion? The article makes it sound like these people became rich when they decided whether or not to go to law school. It's important to note how in the US how FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) and health care affect the economy. But a lot of what puts people at the top is at which hospital they took their first breath.

ameister14 9y ago
There are millions of people in the 1%. The 400 people at the very top aren't going to come into it much.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  But even within the 1%, the income distribution is highly skewed, i.e. those 400 people are responsible for a very sizable total of the overall wealth within the 1%.
  - MuffinFlavored 9y ago
    i'd be curious to know around what portion the 400 people are responsible for
    - llamataboot 9y ago
      "With a combined worth of $2.34 trillion, the Forbes 400 own more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people. The median American family has a net worth of $81,000. The Forbes 400 own more wealth than 36 million of these typical American families." http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/ http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/
      - jjeaff 9y ago
        That is the favorite to parrot around. It's not that impressive considering the large percentage of the world's population has a negative net worth. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding-up-the-wealth-of-the-poor/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding...
        hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
        That quote also included the comparison to the median family net worth.
        5555624 9y ago
        The quote says, "... the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people." It's not comparing the number to the world's population.
      - diggernet 9y ago
        According to that article, the 1% are worth around $26 trillion. So to answer the Muffin's question, looks like the 400 have just over 10% of the 1%er wealth.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      Looks like about 1.9% Estimates put the total net worth of the world's richest 1% at 140 trillion. The Forbes 400 has about 2.7t net worth.
  - uiri 9y ago
    Income distribution and wealth distribution are not the same. It is perfectly possible to earn $500k/year (which would put you in the top 1% of income distribution that this article is talking about) and spend every penny of it, leaving you at the end of the year with the same amount of wealth that you had at the start of the year. Similarly, it is possible to earn $200k/year (not in the top 1% for income) and save very aggressively.
blunte 9y ago
The 1% is still a large number of people, and the people you refer to are the .1% or fewer. That's not to say that their methods of wealth accumulation aren't worth discussing, but apparently that wasn't the group that this article was focused on.
dcre 9y ago
Everything you say is absolutely right about the very richest 0.01% -- unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem. But there are very few such people, and what really drives the top-line inequality numbers is the redistribution of income upward to the 5% or the 1%.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem The Walton fortune was earned... by Sam Walton. If he wasn't allowed to leave it to his family, what does property even mean?
  - einarvollset 9y ago
    Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four? In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.
    - clarkmoody 9y ago
      You may glance at this to update your mental model of feudalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism The democratic urge to use the state for preventing the transfer of wealth between generation is sickening. It shows neither a respect for property nor liberty.
    - charlesdm 9y ago
      Some of these people would've called it quits a long time ago though, if not for the ability of their offspring to have it (much) better than they do. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are born with above average intelligence, or above average physical skills. Nothing wrong with that either. Why shouldn't people be allowed to inherit significant fortunes?
      - 9y ago
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
The Kochs inherited a $680mm fortune. I was just listening to a great podcast about them, as a matter of fact: https://crooked.com/podcast/dangerous-dark-money/ https://crooked.com/podcast/dangerous-dark-money/
- civilian 9y ago
  Just for a balanced outlook, you might listen to Freakonomics' interview of Charles Koch: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    Here's a response to Dubner's interview: https://medium.com/@maxwellllindquist/freakochnomics-how-stephen-dubner-botched-the-opportunity-of-a-lifetime-4a23ed9f9f0c https://medium.com/@maxwellllindquist/freakochnomics-how-ste...
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      Not much of a response. The interview treated Koch influence on politics as a forgone conclusion. (Because it is and Charles didn't seem to argue otherwise). The point of the interview was to learn about his personal philosophy. Something of which wouldn't be of much interest were it not for his huge amount of influence (that, again, no one is arguing). As for the final thrust of this response, on how Koch helped stopped a supreme Court nominee, it's likely nothing nefarious. It would be the same as any citizen. Contact your congress people. Difference is, they are going to really listen to the billionaire donating money to their campaign a bit more than your average Joe.
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        > it's likely nothing nefarious It's legal because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but I hope that, before the Koch brothers pass away, we'll see a constitutional amendment overturning this egregious decision. The idea that money = speech is toxic to democracy.
slavik81 9y ago
The Forbes 400 has a self-made score rating the people on its list from 1 to 10, where higher means more self-made. https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/#7c6eceba2aff https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-ne... https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/ https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Only numbers 8 through 10 are what any reasonable person might consider even remotely "self made" and lumping "middle-class background" and "upper-class background" into 8 (so that Mark Zuckerberg could be considered 8 instead of 7) is a stretch. Any credible list of "self-made this" or "successful entrepreneur that" should include a disclosure of parental wealth.
  - slavik81 9y ago
    That's true, though I like that it presents "self-made" as a scale rather than something binary. It allows acknowledging differences that would have been glossed over on a binary scale. There are big differences between how Laurene Jobs (1), Charles Koch (5), Bill Gates (8) and Oprah Winfrey (10) became as wealthy as they are, and it reflects that.
    - batbomb 9y ago
      The Laurene Jobs (1) is a bit dumb since she was raising the family, but whatever.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      The fact that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg aren't 5 or lower means this scale is not credible. Both of these individuals had access to substantial capital and social connections, well above any meaningful definition of "middle-class", to jumpstart their businesses.
      - 9y ago

ameister14 9y ago

There are millions of people in the 1%. The 400 people at the very top aren't going to come into it much.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
But even within the 1%, the income distribution is highly skewed, i.e. those 400 people are responsible for a very sizable total of the overall wealth within the 1%.
- MuffinFlavored 9y ago
  i'd be curious to know around what portion the 400 people are responsible for
  - llamataboot 9y ago
    "With a combined worth of $2.34 trillion, the Forbes 400 own more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people. The median American family has a net worth of $81,000. The Forbes 400 own more wealth than 36 million of these typical American families." http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/ http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      That is the favorite to parrot around. It's not that impressive considering the large percentage of the world's population has a negative net worth. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding-up-the-wealth-of-the-poor/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding...
      - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
        That quote also included the comparison to the median family net worth.
      - 5555624 9y ago
        The quote says, "... the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people." It's not comparing the number to the world's population.
    - diggernet 9y ago
      According to that article, the 1% are worth around $26 trillion. So to answer the Muffin's question, looks like the 400 have just over 10% of the 1%er wealth.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Looks like about 1.9% Estimates put the total net worth of the world's richest 1% at 140 trillion. The Forbes 400 has about 2.7t net worth.
- uiri 9y ago
  Income distribution and wealth distribution are not the same. It is perfectly possible to earn $500k/year (which would put you in the top 1% of income distribution that this article is talking about) and spend every penny of it, leaving you at the end of the year with the same amount of wealth that you had at the start of the year. Similarly, it is possible to earn $200k/year (not in the top 1% for income) and save very aggressively.

blunte 9y ago

The 1% is still a large number of people, and the people you refer to are the .1% or fewer. That's not to say that their methods of wealth accumulation aren't worth discussing, but apparently that wasn't the group that this article was focused on.

dcre 9y ago

Everything you say is absolutely right about the very richest 0.01% -- unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem. But there are very few such people, and what really drives the top-line inequality numbers is the redistribution of income upward to the 5% or the 1%.

humanrebar 9y ago
> ...unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem The Walton fortune was earned... by Sam Walton. If he wasn't allowed to leave it to his family, what does property even mean?
- einarvollset 9y ago
  Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four? In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    You may glance at this to update your mental model of feudalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism The democratic urge to use the state for preventing the transfer of wealth between generation is sickening. It shows neither a respect for property nor liberty.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    Some of these people would've called it quits a long time ago though, if not for the ability of their offspring to have it (much) better than they do. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are born with above average intelligence, or above average physical skills. Nothing wrong with that either. Why shouldn't people be allowed to inherit significant fortunes?
    - 9y ago

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

The Kochs inherited a $680mm fortune. I was just listening to a great podcast about them, as a matter of fact: https://crooked.com/podcast/dangerous-dark-money/ https://crooked.com/podcast/dangerous-dark-money/

civilian 9y ago
Just for a balanced outlook, you might listen to Freakonomics' interview of Charles Koch: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  Here's a response to Dubner's interview: https://medium.com/@maxwellllindquist/freakochnomics-how-stephen-dubner-botched-the-opportunity-of-a-lifetime-4a23ed9f9f0c https://medium.com/@maxwellllindquist/freakochnomics-how-ste...
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Not much of a response. The interview treated Koch influence on politics as a forgone conclusion. (Because it is and Charles didn't seem to argue otherwise). The point of the interview was to learn about his personal philosophy. Something of which wouldn't be of much interest were it not for his huge amount of influence (that, again, no one is arguing). As for the final thrust of this response, on how Koch helped stopped a supreme Court nominee, it's likely nothing nefarious. It would be the same as any citizen. Contact your congress people. Difference is, they are going to really listen to the billionaire donating money to their campaign a bit more than your average Joe.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      > it's likely nothing nefarious It's legal because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but I hope that, before the Koch brothers pass away, we'll see a constitutional amendment overturning this egregious decision. The idea that money = speech is toxic to democracy.

slavik81 9y ago

The Forbes 400 has a self-made score rating the people on its list from 1 to 10, where higher means more self-made. https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/#7c6eceba2aff https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-ne... https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/ https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

ryandrake 9y ago
Only numbers 8 through 10 are what any reasonable person might consider even remotely "self made" and lumping "middle-class background" and "upper-class background" into 8 (so that Mark Zuckerberg could be considered 8 instead of 7) is a stretch. Any credible list of "self-made this" or "successful entrepreneur that" should include a disclosure of parental wealth.
- slavik81 9y ago
  That's true, though I like that it presents "self-made" as a scale rather than something binary. It allows acknowledging differences that would have been glossed over on a binary scale. There are big differences between how Laurene Jobs (1), Charles Koch (5), Bill Gates (8) and Oprah Winfrey (10) became as wealthy as they are, and it reflects that.
  - batbomb 9y ago
    The Laurene Jobs (1) is a bit dumb since she was raising the family, but whatever.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    The fact that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg aren't 5 or lower means this scale is not credible. Both of these individuals had access to substantial capital and social connections, well above any meaningful definition of "middle-class", to jumpstart their businesses.
    - 9y ago