FinanceDude
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 12,483
or Bernie Madoff can climb in and rob you blind....
Madoff is such a wuss........
or Bernie Madoff can climb in and rob you blind....
Madoff is such a wuss........
This Thread is USELESS without pics.........He will be in prison...
The "self-made man" is more myth than accurate is the point of the article, when you consider that the determining factors in many cases for success are genetics and environment, two factors which are primarily the luck of the draw! I think most of us would rather be "good" at something than "lucky" but "good luck" frequently has a significant role in success.
He even misleads us about the Outliers book.
Now that he's gotten us talking about the viral life of ideas and the power of gut reactions, Malcolm Gladwell poses a more provocative question in Outliers: why do some people succeed, living remarkably productive and impactful lives, while so many more never reach their potential? Challenging our cherished belief of the "self-made man," he makes the democratic assertion that superstars don't arise out of nowhere, propelled by genius and talent: "they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot." Examining the lives of outliers from Mozart to Bill Gates, he builds a convincing case for how successful people rise on a tide of advantages, "some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky."
That's why I asked the question of all the posters who claim that they made it all by themselves if they could have achieved the same had the been born and stuck in Rwanda. No one has answered. Instead, I got a bunch of platitudes about hard work.
The answer to your question is yes. If a person had the qualities that enabled them to go from a 1 to 3* in the USA; then a"self made man" with the qualities needed to go from of 1 to 3* in Rwanda would have achieved the "same" .
* an arbitrary level used to show order of magnitude.
Always here to learn something new. Just trying to understand your point of view. Some people are born with more intelligence than others or are born into families with higher incomes.
Obviously that is random or luck as you might put it. You believe that those born in one of those two circumstances are almost certain to succeed in life, or much more likely to succeed, because your personal actions in life, choices and the decisions that you make are not nearly as important as the advantanges of the situation you were born into.
Or perhaps you are saying that being born into one of those situtions will shape your thoughts and actions in such a way that you will have the ability to succeed. As in, most of your thoughts, opinions and actions are determined by how you were raised, and the environment you were raised in.
So following it a bit further, you might say that if you are born into a poverty stricken home, where violence and drug addiction might be the norm, then you are doomed from birth, and will probably never be able to elevate your station in life, because your genes or environment has permanently impared your ability to think rationally. And conversely if you were born into a very wealthy family with all of the learning advantages that brings with it, you are almost guaranteed a life of success because you were raised in such an environment.
Is that about right?
That is not the question I asked. I asked whether you could have achieved the same absolute level of wealth you have now had you started and stayed in Rwanda, not whether you could have achieved the same relative levels of wealth. I don't lob softballs. So please elaborate on why you could achieve your mid level management job with no education, bad childhood health care, and a genocide or two thrown in as a bonus.
Yes, that's about right, as far as the odds go. Obviously, people do beat the odds -- I did and countless others have. You can emerge from poverty and succeed as long as there is "hope"; and being born in a privileged family is no guarantee for success in life -- some might even say that being born in a privileged family where everything is handed to you might even lessen your chances for success. But all things being equal, I think it's fair to say that being educationally privileged and rich is far better than being educationally impoverished and poor. Poverty, in case you haven't realized it, really sucks! And "catch-up" is a bitch!
I don't know what luck means.
I have two brothers. One elected to drop out of high school. He's had low level jobs for much of his life (e.g., dishwasher). I can remember him telling me that he puts in only 25 hours/week because he doesn't like to work. My other brother graduated from high school and has been employed in typical blue collar jobs for 35-40 years. Historically, he puts in a solid 40 hours/week. I have a PhD. I've been putting in 60-80 hours/week, either at school or on the job, since high school (the last 35 years). I've taken 10 days of vacation in the last 18 years. I can only guess as to what my two brothers earn. One probably earns $10K/yr; the other perhaps $35K/yr. I earn a little over $185K/yr.
Yes, all three of us are very lucky that we live in the United States and not Rwanda. But that doesn't explain the difference in our incomes. Here are three brothers coming from the same gene pool, or so my mother claims. Presumably, we possess similar innate abilities and intelligence. We've been blessed with similar opportunities in life. We had many of the same teachers in public school.
I didn't win the lottery. 99% of the income difference between me and my brothers is due to the work, dedication, focus, and sacrifice each of us elected to put into our own lives and careers. It's as simple as that.
While an ethical argument can be made that the United States should redistribute its wealth to people in Rwanda, I don't see why the government should force me to redistribute much of my income to either of my brothers. If I choose to do so, fine, but I don't see this as the governments call.
My marginal tax rate is approaching 50%. I paid about $60K in taxes last year (all taxes). And then the government tells me that it needs more and that I'm not paying my fair share. On the other hand, my annual expenses are about $30K/yr. That's $15K for mortgage and property taxes, $5K for charity, and $10K for everything else (food, clothes, utilities, gas, home and auto repairs, insurance, recreation and entertainment, etc). Put simply, I pay more than twice in taxes than what I spend on myself. If I can live within my means, why can't the government?
I work for every penny I earn. And then I pay my taxes. Work doesn't pay, which is a main reason why I will soon take early retirement. If the government wants to create an anti-incentive for me to work, fine, I won't work. And when I retire, my taxes will drop from $60K/yr to well below $10K/yr. And when I'm relaxing on the beach, I'll start complaining that others aren't paying their fair share.
Back to work.
Well, luck certainly plays into it. After all, I started this thread: http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/how-many-are-simply-lucky-20785.html
In retrospect, I think that while luck had a part, upbringing did a bit (or was that luck too).
I look at myself and my 4 siblings. We all were raised by LYBM parents (I was 20 before I realized our family had much more than our neighbours, you'd think we had less by the way we lived). We all had a few brains inherited from parents who (both) started university at age 16.
What happened to us?
- Oldest, got U degree, entered civil service, rose to the most senior level possible. Retired at 59 with DB pension, serious savings and a bit of financial knowledge.
- Next (me), got U degree, lucked out in a private sector job, stock options etc. Retired at 58.
- Next two, took over family farm, worked hard, expanded it and are probably FI with a NW of 1-2M. Still farming as that's what they want to do.
- Youngest became a (Canadian equivalent) of a CPA. Stumbled into a startup company, became CFO, stock options etc and is maybe the most secure financially. Can probably RE at 50, when s/he gets there.
All of us have a NW of 7 digits (if you include the PV of eldest's DB pension) and the first digit is > 1.
We inherited good genes. We got an education if wanted. All of us worked very hard at what we did. Were we lucky or did we earn it?
No one is really saying that success is solely attributed to '"luck."
In his current best seller, “Outliers,” Malcolm Gladwell reports that a disproportionate number of pro hockey players owe their success to the accident of having been born in January, which made them the oldest, most experienced players in every youth league growing up. For that reason alone, they were more likely to make all-star teams, receive special coaching and eventually become professionals.
In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong.
As an "enlightened" society, we need to ensure that working people earn enough to make a decent living. There should be laws to protect the workers and to prevent their exploitation. Surely, there must be other means to achieve that goal than to simply tax more out of the high wage earners.
And talk about luck, capital gains by stock ownership are arguably more attributable to luck than wage incomes are. Shouldn't the former be taxed at 75%?
And talk about earning one's wage, should people who have new ideas or make useful inventions earn more than the day laborers? If yes, then how much more?
Yes, it seems punitive to me if there is no inflation-indexing provision for long term gains. If there were a realistic way to index capital gains to inflation and there was no double taxation of dividends, I'd believe all this income should be taxed at the same rate.Capital gains tax rates currently appear lower than tax rates on earned income. I'd like to see them be equal. Does this seem excessive to you?
It would be nice if there were some way to "ensure that working people earn enough to make a decent living". If you define "decent" in terms of US lifestyles, I don't know how to do this. Do you have any ideas?
It would be nice if there were some way to "ensure that working people earn enough to make a decent living". If you define "decent" in terms of US lifestyles, I don't know how to do this. Do you have any ideas?