Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Sweet Geezus AOC is a dumb Kunt
Comments
-
Just general observations/guidelines, of course ymmv and they're are exceptions to the rule.creepycoug said:
I agree with 97.5% of that.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
And 100% if you can maff then you are better off than not. Anyone here think AOC passed diffy q? -
Wild that we agree on so much isn't it?MikeDamone said:
I have an Econ degree but which gave me some analysis and mathematical modeling ability, but over the past 3 decades I have spent my reading time with 100s of Econ books by a variety of authors. I even dug if my Marx/Engles reader.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I'm sure by now it's easy to tell where I come down on the subject. -
Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
She's a 6.5, but sadly I've done some dumb shit for 6.5's a few times in my life, so wood, but just a pump and dump thing (and ass fuck of course)..
-
As the Throbber postulates ... sexual favors were probably involved.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Just general observations/guidelines, of course ymmv and they're are exceptions to the rule.creepycoug said:
I agree with 97.5% of that.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
And 100% if you can maff then you are better off than not. Anyone here think AOC passed diffy q? -
Female big tit privelegecreepycoug said:
As the Throbber postulates ... sexual favors were probably involved.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Just general observations/guidelines, of course ymmv and they're are exceptions to the rule.creepycoug said:
I agree with 97.5% of that.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
And 100% if you can maff then you are better off than not. Anyone here think AOC passed diffy q? -
SFGbob said:
-
Is that were they modeled the economic impact of fighting climate change by warming wood chips?creepycoug said:
I agree with 97.5% of that.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ. -
Could be. Never said those places don't churn out SJWs. They do. But it's not an easy place to get an undergraduate education. Maybe that makes how they turn out worse, but most of them grow up right around the time they see the chunk that comes out of their paycheck to pay for other people's shit. The ones who don't cross over go into academia.MikeDamone said:
Is that were they modeled the economic impact of fighting climate change by warming wood chips?creepycoug said:
I agree with 97.5% of that.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ. -
@collegedoog? True?creepycoug said:
Could be. Never said those places don't churn out SJWs. They do. But it's not an easy place to get an undergraduate education. Maybe that makes how they turn out worse, but most of them grow up right around the time they see the chunk that comes out of their paycheck to pay for other people's shit. The ones who don't cross over go into academia.MikeDamone said:
Is that were they modeled the economic impact of fighting climate change by warming wood chips?creepycoug said:
I agree with 97.5% of that.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ. -
That's my representativeEsophagealFeces said: -
potdGrandpaSankey said:
That's my representativeEsophagealFeces said: -
Helps Trump.RaceBannon said:Trump has predicted that AOC will beat Schumer
-
Believe it or not, it took me 30-40 seconds to figure out this jokeGrandpaSankey said:
That's my representativeEsophagealFeces said: -
Economics in college is fucktarded and full of old school shit like "cutting taxes increases revenues". Supply side economics actually men's the wealth will be spread down to the poor. And other bullshit.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.creepycoug said:Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo. -
That 60% of wealth is inherited is categorically a false statement.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Over 75% of the people on the Forbes list made their money in a single generation. Simple fact. -
NYBEDerekJohnson said:
Believe it or not, it took me 30-40 seconds to figure out this jokeGrandpaSankey said:
That's my representativeEsophagealFeces said: -
Is the Forbes list the only wealth? Don't be dumb.pawz said:
That 60% of wealth is inherited is categorically a false statement.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Over 75% of the people on the Forbes list made their money in a single generation. Simple fact. -
According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved and lived within their means to generate their wealth - think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died - they worked for the money.pawz said:
That 60% of wealth is inherited is categorically a false statement.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Over 75% of the people on the Forbes list made their money in a single generation. Simple fact.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/06/24/amazing-facts-that-prove-inheritance-is-mostly-overrated-as-a-reason-for-wealth/amp/
-
It's been my experience has been the farther from the initial creation of wealth, the more fucked up the stewardship of said wealth becomes.MikeDamone said:
According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved and lived within their means to generate their wealth - think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died - they worked for the money.pawz said:
That 60% of wealth is inherited is categorically a false statement.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Over 75% of the people on the Forbes list made their money in a single generation. Simple fact.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/06/24/amazing-facts-that-prove-inheritance-is-mostly-overrated-as-a-reason-for-wealth/amp/
Usually Gen 3 is about where it all goes to shit - but Gen 2 does a pretty good job of fucking things up.
-
It's been my experience that creators of large amounts of wealth are work junkies. Their greatest hobby is literally working at their job. Look at Buffet. Almost 90 and putting on a suit and going to work everyday. Paul Allen was the accidental billionaire. He retired at age 30. While he putzed around with this investment company, it wasn't working at Microsoft. Bill Gates didn't retire. You know the type - gets in early, leaves late, works on vacation, never far from a cell phone an email. When you are away from your family all the time, it's tough to instill that type of savage work ethic into your kids who probably resent the hell out of you. Think Urban Meyer's daughter.
-
Do you know the difference between "60% of wealth" and "20% of millionaires"?MikeDamone said:
According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved and lived within their means to generate their wealth - think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died - they worked for the money.pawz said:
That 60% of wealth is inherited is categorically a false statement.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Over 75% of the people on the Forbes list made their money in a single generation. Simple fact.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/06/24/amazing-facts-that-prove-inheritance-is-mostly-overrated-as-a-reason-for-wealth/amp/
I would say you are smarter than that but your body of work says different. -
-
Props to white boy Riley Roberts for identifying his future sugar mama.RaceBannon said:
AOC set to cash out on the speaking/book circuit after she gets voted out of office next term.
-
According to this 70% of the wealth is lost by the second generation. The point being, they vast majority of the wealthy go that way through their own work ,not inherited.PurpleThrobber said:
It's been my experience has been the farther from the initial creation of wealth, the more fucked up the stewardship of said wealth becomes.MikeDamone said:
According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved and lived within their means to generate their wealth - think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died - they worked for the money.pawz said:
That 60% of wealth is inherited is categorically a false statement.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Over 75% of the people on the Forbes list made their money in a single generation. Simple fact.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/06/24/amazing-facts-that-prove-inheritance-is-mostly-overrated-as-a-reason-for-wealth/amp/
Usually Gen 3 is about where it all goes to shit - but Gen 2 does a pretty good job of fucking things up.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90372281/5-lies-youve-been-told-about-generational-wealth -
Truth. That's pretty close to my fucked up record with family-controlled businesses (not mine, ones I've worked with).MikeDamone said:
According to this 70% of the wealth is lost by the second generation. The point being, they vast majority of the wealthy go that way through their own work ,not inherited.PurpleThrobber said:
It's been my experience has been the farther from the initial creation of wealth, the more fucked up the stewardship of said wealth becomes.MikeDamone said:
According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved and lived within their means to generate their wealth - think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died - they worked for the money.pawz said:
That 60% of wealth is inherited is categorically a false statement.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Over 75% of the people on the Forbes list made their money in a single generation. Simple fact.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/06/24/amazing-facts-that-prove-inheritance-is-mostly-overrated-as-a-reason-for-wealth/amp/
Usually Gen 3 is about where it all goes to shit - but Gen 2 does a pretty good job of fucking things up.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90372281/5-lies-youve-been-told-about-generational-wealth
First time - second gen fucked it up and I came in and cleaned it back up so first gen didn't stroke out. Pretty sure 3rd gen hasn't fucked it back up but they had a smart lesbo daughter coming down the pike and I think she kicked her parents out.
Second one - very recognizable family business. Third gen still rich as fuck but quite a bit of dysfunction and warring tribes along the way. One tribe won, the other tribe is out doing other shit now. I had the joy to work with the losing tribe.
Third time - third gen totally destroyed it. I bailed after six months when I figured out it couldn't be salvaged. FTG. They are out of business now.
So, yeah - about 70% fuck up by the next gen.
-
I think she wins rather easily. Congress is just one district and why wouldn't they be happy with her?PurpleThrobber said:
Props to white boy Riley Roberts for identifying his future sugar mama.RaceBannon said:
AOC set to cash out on the speaking/book circuit after she gets voted out of office next term.
White boy looks like a hostage video -
Dude, that’s a hostage video.RaceBannon said: -
