What's the actual real world evidence on that? Plenty of rich European families have been rich for hundreds of years, and I'm not talking about royalty. That kind of disproves the theory.
The ones who go broke fast are usually the ones who also got rich fast, trough luck instead of work or knowledge, like from lottery wins or speculations.
There is a lot of real world socioeconomic data on it. studies usually look at the population in terms of 20 or 25% segments. That doesn't mean it is true for the 1% or 0.1%. That said, there are lots of examples of people entering and leaving the top 1% too, so outcome isn't perfectly deterministic.
Wealth is hard to come by, but income is much more available.
Some countries have publicly available data on individual income filings.
The US provides anonymized data, but scienentist have done a lot of fancy tricks to make the family connections clear.
Raj Chetty among others have done a lot of work on US social mobility[1]. They were able to trend parent/child incomes in the US going back to 1940, and have tons of great insights.
I dont remember all of the findings off the top of my head, but one was that relative social mobility (%s) for the US have been constant over time. Another was that economic mobility out of the bottom classes is dominated by poor immigrants. It is unclear if it is genetic, personality, or culture, but children of poor immigrants out perform native born poor by an enormous factor (2-3X better IIRC)
>Wealth is hard to come by, but income is much more available.
Income is a completely different thing than wealth and those two are not always directly correlated. You can have a good income but not accumulate much wealth because all is bein eaten away by taxes and a high CoL, and you can also have a low income but still decent wealth from an inheritance for example.
And the original claim was that wealth gets lost between generations by the majority of people which I find dubious.
I think that as a practical matter, they are extremely correlated. Wealth sitting in cash loses half its value every 20 years. Physical assets require upkeep and property taxes.
In practice, if you aren't making income, you losing wealth.
>Wealth sitting in cash loses half its value every 20 years.
By wealth, people tend to mean assets, not petty cash sitting in checking accounts. If you're sitting on inherited assets you're accumulating more wealth by just sitting on your ass without doing anything.
Just see the post-2009 monetary polices: from housing to stocks, everything went up like crazy, especially during COvid. You didn't have to be financially literate, all you had to do was sit on your inherited assets and not touch them and the government's money printer did the work for you in the last 10+ years.
So forgive me but I still see no proof that 72% people loose their wealth between generations, when everything went up up up in the last decades, especially housing. Unless that wealth we're talking about was an old carpet and $600 bucks in a checking account.
>Physical assets require upkeep and property taxes.
N'ah bruh. Stocks or empty land in desirable areas requires no upkeep and wealth taxes in some EU countries range from laughable to zero, while income taxes in those same countries hover around 50%. Go ahead, tell me more how income is the same thing with wealth.
That page you link says that the poor that escape poverty do so by mingling with well-off people. The poor that stay poor only mingle with other poor people. The best route to becoming rich is to look and act like the rich and hang out where they hang out.
what I meant was the top 1% is one in a hundred, and you personally know some people that are at that income and wealth percentile, don't you?
however for the 1 in 10_000 you may or may not know people in that tier and for the 1 in 100_000 let alone 1 in 1_000_000 you are close to that tier or part of it to personally know them (in such a way that they know you).
It's complicated. Not all wealth is public. Only the wealth of the individuals who's wealth is tied to publicly traded companies: Musk, Bezos, Zuck, etc.
But we also have all those royal families from Europe and the Middle East, dictators like Putin, etc. whos' wealth are secret and very well hidden through crown estates, trusts, shell companies, all through Caribbean off-shores and often under different names. The best you have for those people is guestimations and some leaks from the Panam Papers to get an idea.
Are all decedents rich, or just a small fraction? Even if a family line has been continued for hundreds of years, there may be hundreds or even thousands of decedents of the original members who do not have access to the line of wealth. Also many families stay wealthy by only marrying members of other wealthy families. Marrying outside of the ruling class results in rapid dilution of power.
I usually see this statistic about family businesses. In the USA a family business passing through 3 generations is rare.
My personal observation is that the 4 generation has so many better options than the family business is holding them back with responsibility and the family unity has broken down through generational grudges.
That's losing their wealth, not becoming trapped in poverty. Wealth (as in hard cash) is fleeting. The behaviors that create wealth are not. I truly contend that, in America at least (what I'm familiar with), everyone can achieve a solid life. You might not be wealthy, but you will be able to support yourself and provide for a family. People losing their wealth does not mean they become destitute, nor should it. It just means they fall into a more 'normal' cohort.
That study was done by the Williams Group. Although it is widely cited across many popular news sites, it is surprisingly impossible to find the original study. Also, there's also almost no information about the Williams Group out there. No, Wikipedia page, for instance. Their web site says they do: "Government Relations, Public Affairs, Lobbying"
The closest thing I remember to this is during COVID lockouts, the schools would have WiFi in the parking lot so that kids without internet at home could be driven to school and work in their cars. Never made good sense to me, if a family doesn't have internet at home how likely are they to have an adult with a car who can sit with a kid in the school parking lot all day?
Given schoolwork is now done so ubiquitously on a computer/online, and especially after the pandemic, a lot of districts/schools have had to present solutions for connectivity for families, because of financial need and otherwise. Source: am school tech admin
For sure, that makes sense to me, but it seems like Chromebooks have cornered the market for this kind of work by being cheap, easy, and targeting this demo.
Kids also don't have a great reputation with treating tech that isn't their own with respect, based on my experience in high school.
Isn't buying each student a connected macbook and data plan kind of pricey? Most school already suffer from poor funding/low budget, this seems like it would be painful.
Our school district has an in-between approach: they buy cheaper devices (ChromeBooks and iPads) without cellular connections but they have Wi-Fi hotspots they’ll give to qualifying students who wouldn’t otherwise have access.
My hope is that more voters will see municipal Wi-Fi as a valuable utility since we have dark fiber all over the city because they’re choosing not to compete with Verizon.
During initial setup, allowing product owners to choose what browser they want, whether its Safari, Chrome, or Firefox, with their respective browser engines, would be nice.
Reminds me of excess calories chess players burn when playing.
>Robert Sapolsky, who studies stress in primates at Stanford University, says a chess player can burn up to 6,000 calories a day while playing in a tournament, three times what an average person consumes in a day.[1]
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's mentally exhausting, but I can't help but feel like pieces like these are intentionally trying to create hype for hype's sake. Just by basic understanding of how human metabolism works, these players would need to be eating an absurd amount, or losing an absurd amount of weight each tournament. That's nearly half of what a powerlifter eats each day. Not to mention that the sheer amount of heat your body would give off burning through that many calories. The only believable number given in that article is the claim that Russian grandmaster Mikhail Antipov burned 560 calories in 2 hours of intense chess, which doesn't even come close to scaling to the claimed 6000 calories/day figure given the amount of time these guys play every day during a tournament.
Indeed. The 6000 number has floated around for a while and is an exaggeration.
It is true that chess at the competitive level burns calories. (More like an extra 1000 a day during a tournament.) Coupled with tournaments not allowing food, players do lose weight over a few days! But like you said, the 6000 number is an exaggeration.
Restricted shitty breathing, both chronic and short term, jack up your blood pressure, stress and cortisol levels, etc. Healthy athletes know how to breathe. Chess is no different. You can be a great chess player in spite of your terrible body mechanics, breathing patterns, etc. It doesn't mean it's "good" for you, and certainly doesn't mean it's unavoidable.
the same thing goes for physical labor. Exhaling is mechanically how you lose body fat. Breathing more isn't sustainable without creating demand, but if it were sustainable you could just breath faster to lose weight.
Exhaling is how you lose fat, because you're sitting on your chair all day. That's the baseline. If you were actually doing sport you'd lose fat by breaking down ATP when repeatedly contracting your muscles.
I don't think that's how you lose fat. You get rid of the exhaust generated during the chemical fat burning process. If you couldn't exhale you would still burn fat.
You miss the point of the parent, which is that exhaling is not a chemical process. The point being that the CO2 you exhale is "somehow produced by something", and once it's there you have to exhale it.
That's a way of saying that breathing faster won't burn more fat just because of the breathing: burning fat is a bit more elaborate than that.
>Morgan and his associates examined the books of the Knickerbocker Trust and decided it was insolvent, so they did not intervene to stop the run. Its failure, however, triggered runs on even healthy trusts, prompting Morgan to take charge of the rescue operation.[0]
My favorite part of that story is that Morgan was a rare book collector, his office was essentially a vault, and he locked the other bankers in with him.
> As discussion ensued, the bankers realized that Morgan had locked them in the library and pocketed the key to force a solution, the sort of strong-arm tactic he had been known to use in the past. Morgan then entered the talks and advised the trust companies that they must provide a loan of $25 million to save the weaker institutions. The trust presidents were still reluctant to act, but Morgan informed them that if they did not it would lead to a complete collapse of the banking system. Through his considerable influence, at about 4:45 a.m. he persuaded the unofficial leader of the trust companies to sign the agreement, and the remainder of the bankers followed. Having received these commitments, Morgan allowed the bankers to go home.
You can tour the exact room where it all happened at the Morgan Library Museum in New York.
> the bankers realized that Morgan had locked them in the library and pocketed the key to force a solution, the sort of strong-arm tactic he had been known to use in the past.
While that story is often repeated it sounds for sure apocryphal. A bunch of men from that day and age couldn't have figured out how to get out of that room? Or simply revolted and freaked out? Now maybe he feigned doing that or maybe he actually did 'lock the door' but so what? The story and legend value is just to much to ignore. It's almost certainly greatly exaggerated or not even close to being true. People can't even agree on news that happened in this day and age let alone the golden era of back in the day newspaper exaggeration.
In any case the 'lock' might have been some other leverage he used over the players that wouldn't make sense to the general public or make a good news story.
> A bunch of men from that day and age couldn't have figured out how to get out of that room? Or simply revolted and freaked out?
You're not thinking of this the right way. If a man had some health issue and needed to go to a hospital, or even if the men demanded to leave immediately, Morgan would have let them out. His locking the door was symbolic of his sense of urgency and determination to not leave the room without solving the crisis, something the others could tangibly see.
There's a circle, with circles around, with something around one of these smaller circles. All of it is spinning. I've managed to click the spinny thingy and it turned into quadratic spinny thingy.
The FTC signaled this move and others earlier this month.[1]
>“During the pandemic reliance on these technologies really dramatically increased and Americans are now often dependent on these key digital tools and services to navigate their day to day lives,”
>“Children should not be required to sign up for surveillance in order to sign up to do their schoolwork,” Khan said Wednesday.
[0] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...