<p>"FIRST, to MINI and others who emphasiz that starting out rich,white and male are the only way to go…</p>
<p>Never said anything of the sort. Aggregate data don’t lie, but they aren’t anything but aggregate. But, if it makes you feel better, you can check the Forbes rolls of the 500 richest people, the names of the CEOs and Chairs of the Fortune 500 companies, or simply find census data.</p>
<p>Which means I left something out. Statistically, for a female, probably the best way to become very wealthy is simply to marry a white male who is. Aggregate data, of course.</p>
<p>Most of the uber-rich are in their 50s or 60s. How many women went to b-school 30 or 40 years ago? How many did much beyond being a teacher or a secretary? Not many - and the ones who did were really pioneers and very much treated differently. </p>
<p>That does not mean that things are the same for our generation.</p>
<p>You can actually find income data disaggregated by age, race, and gender. Won’t find much “asset” data though, which is where the real wealth lies.</p>
<p>I’m always a bit puzzled when people here tell kids becoming rich is a surprising goal. Throughout literature, in the movies, in Archie comic books, everyone wants to be rich.</p>
<p>An awful lot of literature is about the folly of seeking to be rich, rather than the seeking of it itself.</p>
<p>I don’t know about Archie comic books, though…:)</p>
<p>I have no desire to be rich. I think the easiest way to feel rich is to want less than what you have.</p>
<p>In one month, my H is leaving the medical field to do his student teaching (unpaid, of course). Then he’ll look for a job at the teaching entry level. (I make less than that). And I consider us to be supremely blessed, to do things we want to, and which give to society, while having enough to get by on.</p>
<p>The initial idea isn’t as puzzling as the persistence of it after you see what people like Gates, Buffett, Trump, Dell, and others like them do. It comes at a price. </p>
<p>Mini is right about the data, of course. Its just like the NBA. Clearly helps to start out black. Its what you need to know, objectively.</p>
<p>Of course, those data that the times and wsj published are interesting if you strip off the headlines that told you what (the editors wished) they meant. What I see it meaning is that if you’re in the top quintile of income, the chance that your grandchild will be there is only about 1 in 6. I’d say thats pretty slippery downward mobility. The chance of your grandhild staying in the bottom fifth if you’re there is lower, about 1 in 8.</p>
<p>Everyone can point to the follies of the famous rich. It’s hard to deny, however, that there are lots of people walking the earth who look very happy to be in the top brackets of wealth. Imagine having to have beautiful homes in NYC and Nautucket, private planes and vacations around the world. My good friend has all of this and her family actually is more functional up close than most. Just what is wrong with that? Why does everyone assume gloom and doom comes with bucks?</p>
<p>My empathy for the truly poor prevents me from desiring to own or possess even more than what I have (a home, two vehicles, nice furniture to sit on, food in the fridge, a few bucks in the bank, books to read, etc…). There is something disagreeable to me about having more than one home (which would just be sitting there empty), extra cars in the garage (sitting there waiting), and a truly fat bank account (that could hardly be spent in a lifetime of consumption). I also think family wealth screws up more kids than it helps. The only reason I would want to become very rich is to experience the joy of giving money away to good causes and to less fortunate but deserving people – making people’s dreams come true or helping them turn around their lives. I’m a bit envious of Oprah, not for her lifestyle or fame, but for the opportunities she has (and has taken) to give her money away and make the world better/happier/kinder, etc… Likewise, I have come to admire Bill Gates in the past 5 years.</p>
<p>Oprah is a great example. While living an amazing lifestyle with several homes, she also does her part for society, as do many more. Is it a bit sanctimonious to proclaim that one can’t enjoy wealth and feel good about it?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say anyone can’t enjoy being wealthy; I’m sure many people do. I think, though, that it’s probably at some level morally unhealthy, for the reasons articulated by momof2inca. When so many are in such great need, how does one live with so much excess? It would weigh heavily on me.</p>
<p>Plus, not wanting so much stuff is freeing: it gives you more choices in college majors, career paths, life choices, etc, if you’re not figuring out how to maintain an extravagant lifestyle.</p>
<p>Do you think Oprah is suffering? Should she not feel good until she gives away all and lives among the poor. This is just silly!!!</p>
<p>Much of the world would not have employment if many were not motivated by wealth. Charities would not be funded. I would not being going to India next week to do relief work.</p>
<p>No one is condemning Oprah … but Oprah is one more example of someone who probably never set out to “get rich”. She started with a talk show, and her show has always been geared to the needs of ordinary people. It can be argued that most of Oprah’s money ultimately derives from a desire and efforts to help others. There’s a good bio and history of her program here: <a href=“http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/win0bio-1[/url]”>http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/win0bio-1</a></p>
<p>I think she is just one example of someone who followed her heart and pursued a career she loved, and happened to be so good at what she did that the money followed. I think if her goal had been to pursue wealth the outcome might have been very different - Oprah’s popularity stems from the fact that she has not lost the common touch. </p>
<p>But the point is that there is wealth - and there is waste. I would not be proud or fulfilled by having so much more than I or my family need for ordinary living expenses - though that doesn’t mean that I feel ashamed of the fact that I can afford to pay my health insurance premium when others can’t. But I personally would want my children to aspire to a comfortable and secure standard of living, not wealth. I hope their career goals are to find a path that will help them feel emotionally fulfulled and/or a job that will contribute something of value to society. If they don’t feel good about what they are doing every day, then they will be on the wrong track, no matter how much money they are being paid to do something they don’t like doing.</p>
<p>No, I don’t find it sad, I’m happy most people who want jobs can get them!! I go to school with the very wealthy, the very poor and the inbetween. The world needs all types. But to say it is more moral to not have wealth is sad. We all wake up and look at ourselves in the mirror. The are as many non virtuous poor people as there are rich, more if you think about numbers.</p>
<p>Sorry, Suze, I disagree. The love of money (which is what it takes to rise up to the fabulously wealthy status that we are talking about) is corrupting to the soul. Either a person or their ancestors has compromised ethics to get it (the capitalist’s race is, afterall, a Darwinesqe survival of the fittest experience; the process of taking and keeping advantages) or they got incredibly lucky and they compromise ethics to keep their incredible wealth (usually by just not looking all that hard at the incredible needs of the people/living creatures/environment of our world and comparing it to their own surplus – a passive ethical lapse rather than an active one, but unethical nonetheless.) Yes, there are exceptions such as Oprah but they are not all that common to my knowledge. Even the greatest business tycoon of our generation, Bill Gates, knows this at some level. If I recall correctly, he has said he will spend nearly all of his money on worthy causes and will leave only $1 million to each child as an inheritance. Why wouldn’t he leave his children fabulously wealthy if it’s so morally good?</p>
<p>However, I suspect one good reason not to leave tons of $ to your kid outside of morality is in order not to rob him/her of initiative. My Dad is wealthy but is doing the same thing-- 90% to the nature conservancy and UCB-- mostly because he trusts us to make our own way in life and doesn’t want any kid of his hanging around lazily waiting to inherit.</p>