Tom Golisano (Founder of payroll company PayChex, worth over 10 Billion) borrowed 1,500$ of a relative's money to found his company. He had a good plan, worked hard, did the right thing and look what happened.
Bill Gates got lucky, he invested 80,000 in buying a hastily put together OS to resell for a higher price. Little did he know how much that initial 80,000 would grow. Right place, right time, and alittle bit of business smarts got him where he is.
Larry Ellison created Oracle because he believed in the relational database. He founded a company around it, ran it right, and now his biggest worry is why won't customs let his fighter jets in. Woe to be him, eh?
Even the venerable Sam Walton (Who if alive would be worth over 100 billion) started out with one retail store. Difference was his stores were ran better than anyone elses. Look at how K-Mart fell from grace so quickly. Do the mega-store better than Wal-Mart and you'll be rich too.
The bottom line is some of this people came from money, others started with nothing.
But the fact is that they got where they are today. THAT is what the "American dream" is, and we are fortunate to live in a country where our names could be on that list one day.
Who knows, maybe tommorrow a lightbulb will go off in your head and you'll think of a way of doing something innovative or different.
I really wonder that people still believe this stuff. It may have been true in the '50s but it certainly isn't true anymore.
I don't believe that an honest and hard working person can become a multimillionaire.
Yes, maybe people who found multinational companies deserve more than what they actually put in in labour, but a lot of people who are CEOs are not founders. How many people are CEOs because they went to business school and managed to bullshit and pass-the-buck, their way to the top? Do they deserve
I don't believe that an honest and hard working person can become a multimillionaire.
So only dishonest and lazy people can become multimillionaires?
The US indoctrinates everyone with this attitude that anyone can make it. Nobody realises that it is only at the expense of someone else.
The liberal "zero-sum" myth does not hold any water. There is not a finite amount of wealth available, and somebody gaining wealth does not automatically correlate to somebody else loosing wealth. Quite the opposite hap
>>So only dishonest and lazy people can become multimillionaires?
Of course, and that's no secret to anyone who knows real life. If you are saying otherwise you are either living in your dreams or are just trying to bullshit others.
Sure there are alternatives. However, they have not worked all that well [reference.com] in the past.
Nice straw man [reference.com]. How about socialism [reference.com]? Seems to be working quite well in Europe. I'm sure there are hundereds of millions of people over there who wouldn't give up their economic/political system for ours, even if you paid them to do it (like any typical capitalist would).
The only multi-millionaire I know was an engineer who mowed lawns after work and on the weekends, and who figured out he could make more money mowing lawns full-time. Twenty years later, he's got a thriving landscaping company. He's honest, hardworking, and rich.
To think all businessman are like the scumbags at WorldCom and Enron is just idiotic.
The American Dream is about freedom to pursue your own life, it's not about getting rich. Any given newborn in America has probably a better chance of winning their state lottery (when they're of age to participate of course) than of getting rich and/or famous through any of the means you mentioned.
The "you could do it too" dream is a lie we sell ourselves so we don't get all upset about all the rich who actually control things, who take our money and don't have to run because we all love them. The master/servant relationship is alive today in America. The middle class are the servants.
Each day we get one step closer to returning to out-and-out feudalism as those in power work to concentrate more and more power.
We have to work against them to get back to the REAL American Dream - freedom, democracy, and equal opportunities for all. The Ayn Randian everyone-for-herself, you-too-could-be-a-billionaire world view is not equal opportunity for everyone. There is no equality when you start from an immensely unbalanced power structure. We can build a better world, we just have expend some effort to get there. Effort we can't be bothered to spend if we're all deluding ourselves about our chances of one day being a master over our own little band of slaves.
(I would start by imposing percentage-based salary caps on the richest citizens - there's no conceivable way that any human can be worth as much as the super-rich make. It's ridiculous. And no, just because they can dupe others into allowing them to have that much is not an excuse. Just because a thief can grab somebody's wallet does not give him the right to that person's wallet.)
The American Dream is about freedom to pursue your own life, it's not about getting rich. Any given newborn in America has probably a better chance of winning their state lottery (when they're of age to participate of course) than of getting rich and/or famous through any of the means you mentioned.
And if pursuing your own life means that you happen to get rich in the process, what gives us the right to take it away?
Why are the most ostentatiously rich people in this country rich? Because they took a
I do tend to agree that limiting wealth with automatic caps goes against certain logic, (though it's a dumb argument to get into, since it won't EVER happen.)
However. ..
If you believe that wealth does not beget wealth, or that the current system does not strive to keep most people firmly locked in positions of slavery, eyes shut, minds filled with garbage, and bodies filled with food and drugs designed to keep them dumb, sick and weak. . , why, then you are fooling yourself.
Thanks for elucidating my point better than I did. I knew I shouldn't have tacked on that salary-scale idea at the end, no matter how much I think it could be a good idea... in a nationless world, not in this world where the rich people would just move to a scale-free country.
(This is regarding the majority of American citizens - the middle class, not the lower class although in some respects it can apply)
Usually, the only thing keeping a middle class income earner firmly locked in a position of slavery is themselves. (It seems) The majority of people have no sense of fiscal responsibility. If people would learn to live within their means then there are few reasons that they can not retire as a rich person (rich being approximately a millionare, which decently invested shoul
Yes, when one learns that there is indeed a system which is full of traps, (all leading to slavery), then one can begin to avoid them and even start to climb up the mountain towards wealth and prosperity. --Although, it is much, much less likely to happen to those who don't start with certain advantages. (Bill's rich uncle has been mentioned already by others.)
I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word "slavery". I am a solidly middle class individual and I came from a solidly middle clas
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. It seems you are saying that because it's possible to squeek out from under the weight of an extraordinarily messed up system, that people who complain about it being messed up are whining. --That any attempts to fix it or even point out its faults should be shouted down because it still sort of works. (Well, until the day when it collapses.)
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
I also find it rather interesting that you believe a military career is a 'way out', b
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. It seems you are saying that because it's possible to squeek out from under the weight of an extraordinarily messed up system, that people who complain about it being messed up are whining. --That any attempts to fix it or even point out its faults should be shouted down because it still sort of works. (Well, until the day when it collapses.)
OK, you're wrong. Attempts to fix it ought to be made. Faults of the system should be shouted down. But saying th
Well. . , you are partly correct in several of your points. --For instance, Peer Pressure is an old system, yes. But peer pressure derives from the group punishing the individual for acting out of synch with what the group considers correct behavior. And I certainly do think that the media directs a lot of behavior, that it is not simply following trends. The simplest way of putting it is that corporations would not spend the billions of dollars they do in advertising if advertising wasn't effective.
I'm nowhere close to being super rich. Heck, I'm not even micro rich. But I'm also not agitated over the fact that these people are out there because I recognize that in a system such as ours, there will be pockets of concentrated wealth.
Yes, and in a system such as the one they had in England over 200 years ago, the King is able to do pretty much anything. That doesn't make it right.
Wealth is much less concentrated today than it was, say, 100 years ago, or maybe even 50 years ago.
Yes, and in a system such as the one they had in England over 200 years ago, the King is able to do pretty much anything. That doesn't make it right.
That's why the US is not a monarchy. We don't have a king.
That still doesn't make it right or OK that the few incredibly rich and powerful have sway over nations, or that they can get around laws and regulations to get even more rich and powerful, etc.
I agree that wealth should not imply the means to avoid the law. I also contend that wealth, in fact
First you say:/* The American Dream is about freedom to pursue your own life, */
And then you dismiss/* The Ayn Randian everyone-for-herself */
I'm puzzled, because as a so-called "follower" of Ayn Rand principles, I don't get what you're getting at. Ayn Rand never said you had to be a billionaire or a millionaire, but instead followed more of a mantra that every day you should live for yourself, find something you love, and do that. If anything, it's more along the "do what you love, the money will fol
Even if you just count the top 400 wealthiest people (all of whom I expect this poster would complain about), that's 1/700,000. Even if only half of those people "earned" their money (or, to be fair, were 1 generation away from someone who "earned" the money), that's still something like 50 times more likely than winning the lottery.
If you count everyone that has 1 million dollars in assets, the probabilities are vastly, ridiculously, higher that they got there by earning their money than that of winning
The American Dream is about freedom to pursue your own life, it's not about getting rich.
I would start by imposing percentage-based salary caps on the richest citizens...
You demand freedom by taking it away from others. Gee, what a good plan.
I totally agree with your first statement, but if a person's ambitions require getting rich, first, they should have every chance to make it work. If another person doesn't need weath to be satisfied, then they, also, should have every chance to make it work.
I see it as restoring freedom that was taken unjustly by them in the first place.
if a person's ambitions require getting rich, first, they should have every chance to make it work
At whose expense? Only their own? Don't kid yourself. We as a society have a right to decide together if a tiny fraction of us should be allowed unlimited power and wealth. We already place some limits on such people (theoretically, anyway - their already great power and we
We as a society have a right to decide together if a tiny fraction of us should be allowed unlimited power and wealth.
We already do, because it is us who forfeits the cash that makes others rich. While it is sad that too many people give up their hard-earned money too easily, they never lost their right to not spend.
I will only believe the rants of poor people who are truly poor, not the ones who complain but are wearing Air Jordans or drive a used Lexus. Even then, there are often outlets for the trul
What does consumer spending have to do with CEO bonuses and accounting gymnastics? There are more ways for the wealthy to increase their wealth than simply selling things. And the wealthier and more powerful one gets, the more of those doors to even more wealth and more power one can open up.
What does consumer spending have to do with CEO bonuses and accounting gymnastics? There are more ways for the wealthy to increase their wealth than simply selling things. And the wealthier and more powerful one gets, the more of those doors to even more wealth and more power one can open up.
Wealth that isn't well-founded eventually crashes. Are there not criminal charges being set against some of the Enron execs, lately? Lying, cheating, and stealing are still illegal, I think.
Um. Forgive me if I'm not following you- you are saying that to help this woman, government should abandon labor standards so that someone can legally pay her 2$ an hour?
Out of curiosity, do you work for 2$ an hour, or for minimum wage, or for example in a service industry?
Your freedom to make money ends where it begins to conflict with mine freedom to have a decent life. You do not "make" money in vacuum, you "make" them living in a society, and most successful means to do this currently are by exploiting others and limiting their freedom. This must stop, or else.
You do not "make" money in vacuum, you "make" them living in a society, and most successful means to do this currently are by exploiting others and limiting their freedom. This must stop, or else.
Or else what? The people being "exploited" have a right to not spend their money, and that right exists more today than ever before. Our economy is huge and the poor and middle class have never had it better.
There is no conflict of freedom, here. It "us" against "them" in a free country that lets us seek our
The rich and powerful are not stealing by getting me to pay for things, that's not the issue. They steal from their fellow workers in every way possible - pension plan scams, accounting acrobatics, and simple CEO bonuses.
If they get caught, they go to jail. Is this insufficient? How is it different than any other crime?
They are most often protected by their buddies and no one ever knows about what they do. People who try to speak up are silenced or bought, or ignored by the public who don't believe anything unless it's on CNN or Fox News.
Shareholders will demand some transparency in the accounting. Someone will follow the money trails. Someone might "defect." Corruption simply can't go on forever. The corruption at Enron, for example, probably didn't last more than a decade. However, how long has Congress been using
Oh, please. Everytime people start talking about hundreds of millions of poor, some idiot like you jumps out and points to ONE example whom the rich allowed to move up specifically for the purpose of making an example of him. Leave this bullshit to yourself please.
You get out of life what you put into it. If you want to go around thinking that hard work never gets rewarded that's your business. The bottom line is that you don't find lazy people at the top regardless of color or gender. Is there discrimination, of course. It is unfairly harder for some over others - but it's not impossible.
The only BS is yours. There are more than one, and more than 400 examples of successful people in the U.S. Having $100 billion is not the only measure. Even if you take $100 billion, and give it to the hundreds of millions of poor stated in your quote that works out to $1000 per person (for 100 million people). I am sure that won't solve the problem.
There is no equality when you start from an immensely unbalanced power structure.
What about lead shoes for the people who run fast? Ugly masks for beautiful people? Everbody would have to go to a government day care center at birth so that they would all be raised the same and instilled with the same values? Equality for all!
Money is just a way to keep score. The reasons they have the money has nothing to do with the money itself.
> Money is just a way to keep score. The reasons > they have the money has nothing to do with the > money itself.
Not true; somebody who inherits a lot of money has an advantage just because of that. Money is an advantage as well as a score, and any game designer will tell you that this will create a parade effect over time.
But just cause you start out with a lot of money beforehand doesn't mean your gauranteed to have even more money. It all comes down to decision making.
Just cause you have a lot of money doesn't mean you'll get to keep it, or that it will grow into billions, or anything. And just cause you don't have any money, doesn't mean that you can't make millions or billions.
The defeatist attitudes displayed on slashdot sometimes just amaze me. Life isn't easy, for people with or without money, for people with o
Facts do not support your argument.
From the Millionaire Next Door
PORTRAIT OF A MILLIONAIRE
Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)
* I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.
* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America bu
What's your point? Nobody is stopping you from emigrating to Europe. Second, how do you prpose to make people more "equal", and specifically what freedoms are being denied?
> Bill Gates got lucky, he invested 80,000 in buying a hastily put together OS to resell for a higher price.
He also "got lucky" in his choice of rich ancestors.
Something about a grandfather setting him up with a $1,000,000 trust fund when he was still a juvenile, going to a school that cost much more than your college education did.
Sure, it is technically possible to start from nothing, work hard, make the "correct" decisions, and make it to "the top." However, it also takes a huge amount of LUCK.
Even you say that Gates got lucky. He not only was lucky enough to find a hastily put together OS that he could buy for $80,000, but he was also lucky enough that IBM was in such a rush that they screwed up their contract with MS. If not for that, MS would probably have been just another software company that made programming languages.
A lot of people start from nothing, work hard, make sound choices, and still fail because of the various random factors surrounding them that they have absolutely no control over.
I can assure you that if I took $1,500 and started a business with it, the likely outcome (no matter how hard I worked or how wise my decisions were) would be me going out of business in a very short amount of time.
Who knows, maybe tommorrow a lightbulb will go off in your head and you'll think of a way of doing something innovative or different.
People think of that all the time. However, the chance of taking that idea and turning it into a fortune 500 company is slim.
The chances of taking an idea and turning it into a nice business is better than slim. Being stinking rich, or Fort 500, is not the only measure of a successful business. Luck plays a role in some scenrios, in others it has nothing to do with it.
"But the fact is that they got where they are today. THAT is what the "American dream" is, and we are fortunate to live in a country where our names could be on that list one day."
Hey - good point prole #1892722!
Why deal with the reality of being a wage slave when you can dream of being a billionaire?
All other things aside, by the mathematical principles (and the economic reality) only a very small percent will ever be as successful as the people you mentioned. 90% of business fail in their first year. Yes, one of us could do it, but it's not a total solution for the whole tech community.
And the mere fact that 90% of businesses fail in their first year means that the ones who survive and flourish deserve the wealth they get.
Imagine how much harder it is to start a business in Europe. Way higher taxes, more regulations, and if you hire a bad employee they'll be harder to get rid of than herpes.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
They did it, why can't you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bill Gates got lucky, he invested 80,000 in buying a hastily put together OS to resell for a higher price. Little did he know how much that initial 80,000 would grow. Right place, right time, and alittle bit of business smarts got him where he is.
Larry Ellison created Oracle because he believed in the relational database. He founded a company around it, ran it right, and now his biggest worry is why won't customs let his fighter jets in. Woe to be him, eh?
Even the venerable Sam Walton (Who if alive would be worth over 100 billion) started out with one retail store. Difference was his stores were ran better than anyone elses. Look at how K-Mart fell from grace so quickly. Do the mega-store better than Wal-Mart and you'll be rich too.
The bottom line is some of this people came from money, others started with nothing.
But the fact is that they got where they are today. THAT is what the "American dream" is, and we are fortunate to live in a country where our names could be on that list one day.
Who knows, maybe tommorrow a lightbulb will go off in your head and you'll think of a way of doing something innovative or different.
Yes Virginia, you can be a billionaire too.
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe that an honest and hard working person can become a multimillionaire.
Yes, maybe people who found multinational companies deserve more than what they actually put in in labour, but a lot of people who are CEOs are not founders. How many people are CEOs because they went to business school and managed to bullshit and pass-the-buck, their way to the top? Do they deserve
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:2)
So only dishonest and lazy people can become multimillionaires?
The US indoctrinates everyone with this attitude that anyone can make it. Nobody realises that it is only at the expense of someone else.
The liberal "zero-sum" myth does not hold any water. There is not a finite amount of wealth available, and somebody gaining wealth does not automatically correlate to somebody else loosing wealth. Quite the opposite hap
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:1)
Of course, and that's no secret to anyone who knows real life. If you are saying otherwise you are either living in your dreams or are just trying to bullshit others.
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:2)
Nice straw man [reference.com]. How about socialism [reference.com]? Seems to be working quite well in Europe. I'm sure there are hundereds of millions of people over there who wouldn't give up their economic/political system for ours, even if you paid them to do it (like any typical capitalist would).
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:2)
Read the book the millionaire next door before spewing utter crap.
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:1)
To think all businessman are like the scumbags at WorldCom and Enron is just idiotic.
What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "you could do it too" dream is a lie we sell ourselves so we don't get all upset about all the rich who actually control things, who take our money and don't have to run because we all love them. The master/servant relationship is alive today in America. The middle class are the servants.
Each day we get one step closer to returning to out-and-out feudalism as those in power work to concentrate more and more power.
We have to work against them to get back to the REAL American Dream - freedom, democracy, and equal opportunities for all. The Ayn Randian everyone-for-herself, you-too-could-be-a-billionaire world view is not equal opportunity for everyone. There is no equality when you start from an immensely unbalanced power structure. We can build a better world, we just have expend some effort to get there. Effort we can't be bothered to spend if we're all deluding ourselves about our chances of one day being a master over our own little band of slaves.
(I would start by imposing percentage-based salary caps on the richest citizens - there's no conceivable way that any human can be worth as much as the super-rich make. It's ridiculous. And no, just because they can dupe others into allowing them to have that much is not an excuse. Just because a thief can grab somebody's wallet does not give him the right to that person's wallet.)
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:1, Troll)
And if pursuing your own life means that you happen to get rich in the process, what gives us the right to take it away?
Why are the most ostentatiously rich people in this country rich? Because they took a
Hmmm. (Score:2)
However. .
If you believe that wealth does not beget wealth, or that the current system does not strive to keep most people firmly locked in positions of slavery, eyes shut, minds filled with garbage, and bodies filled with food and drugs designed to keep them dumb, sick and weak. . , why, then you are fooling yourself.
Yes, when one learns that the
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm. (Score:1)
Usually, the only thing keeping a middle class income earner firmly locked in a position of slavery is themselves. (It seems) The majority of people have no sense of fiscal responsibility. If people would learn to live within their means then there are few reasons that they can not retire as a rich person (rich being approximately a millionare, which decently invested shoul
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)
I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word "slavery". I am a solidly middle class individual and I came from a solidly middle clas
Look. . , (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
I also find it rather interesting that you believe a military career is a 'way out', b
Re:Look. . , (Score:2)
OK, you're wrong. Attempts to fix it ought to be made. Faults of the system should be shouted down. But saying th
Very well, then. (Score:2)
Th
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
Yes, and in a system such as the one they had in England over 200 years ago, the King is able to do pretty much anything. That doesn't make it right.
Wealth is much less concentrated today than it was, say, 100 years ago, or maybe even 50 years ago.
That still doesn't
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
That's why the US is not a monarchy. We don't have a king.
That still doesn't make it right or OK that the few incredibly rich and powerful have sway over nations, or that they can get around laws and regulations to get even more rich and powerful, etc.
I agree that wealth should not imply the means to avoid the law. I also contend that wealth, in fact
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
And then you dismiss
I'm puzzled, because as a so-called "follower" of Ayn Rand principles, I don't get what you're getting at. Ayn Rand never said you had to be a billionaire or a millionaire, but instead followed more of a mantra that every day you should live for yourself, find something you love, and do that. If anything, it's more along the "do what you love, the money will fol
No, lotteries are much worse. (Score:2)
If you count everyone that has 1 million dollars in assets, the probabilities are vastly, ridiculously, higher that they got there by earning their money than that of winning
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
I would start by imposing percentage-based salary caps on the richest citizens...
You demand freedom by taking it away from others. Gee, what a good plan.
I totally agree with your first statement, but if a person's ambitions require getting rich, first, they should have every chance to make it work. If another person doesn't need weath to be satisfied, then they, also, should have every chance to make it work.
who took whose freedom? (Score:2)
I see it as restoring freedom that was taken unjustly by them in the first place.
if a person's ambitions require getting rich, first, they should have every chance to make it work
At whose expense? Only their own? Don't kid yourself. We as a society have a right to decide together if a tiny fraction of us should be allowed unlimited power and wealth. We already place some limits on such people (theoretically, anyway - their already great power and we
Re:who took whose freedom? (Score:2)
We already do, because it is us who forfeits the cash that makes others rich. While it is sad that too many people give up their hard-earned money too easily, they never lost their right to not spend.
I will only believe the rants of poor people who are truly poor, not the ones who complain but are wearing Air Jordans or drive a used Lexus. Even then, there are often outlets for the trul
Re:who took whose freedom? (Score:2)
Re:who took whose freedom? (Score:2)
Wealth that isn't well-founded eventually crashes. Are there not criminal charges being set against some of the Enron execs, lately? Lying, cheating, and stealing are still illegal, I think.
If they are able to get
Re:who took whose freedom? (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, do you work for 2$ an hour, or for minimum wage, or for example in a service industry?
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:1)
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
Or else what? The people being "exploited" have a right to not spend their money, and that right exists more today than ever before. Our economy is huge and the poor and middle class have never had it better.
There is no conflict of freedom, here. It "us" against "them" in a free country that lets us seek our
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
If they get caught, they go to jail. Is this insufficient? How is it different than any other crime?
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
Shareholders will demand some transparency in the accounting. Someone will follow the money trails. Someone might "defect." Corruption simply can't go on forever. The corruption at Enron, for example, probably didn't last more than a decade. However, how long has Congress been using
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
Nice trick if you can afford to do it...
Doesn't it seem a little weird?
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:1)
Can we say, "Colin Powell"?
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:1)
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:1)
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:1)
What about lead shoes for the people who run fast? Ugly masks for beautiful people? Everbody would have to go to a government day care center at birth so that they would all be raised the same and instilled with the same values? Equality for all!
Money is just a way to keep score. The reasons they have the money has nothing to do with the money itself.
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
> they have the money has nothing to do with the
> money itself.
Not true; somebody who inherits a lot of money has an advantage just because of that. Money is an advantage as well as a score, and any game designer will tell you that this will create a parade effect over time.
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:1)
Just cause you have a lot of money doesn't mean you'll get to keep it, or that it will grow into billions, or anything. And just cause you don't have any money, doesn't mean that you can't make millions or billions.
The defeatist attitudes displayed on slashdot sometimes just amaze me. Life isn't easy, for people with or without money, for people with o
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
PORTRAIT OF A MILLIONAIRE
Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)
* I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.
* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America bu
Re:What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:2)
Re: They did it, why can't you? (Score:1)
> Bill Gates got lucky, he invested 80,000 in buying a hastily put together OS to resell for a higher price.
He also "got lucky" in his choice of rich ancestors.
Something about a grandfather setting him up with a $1,000,000 trust fund when he was still a juvenile, going to a school that cost much more than your college education did.
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even you say that Gates got lucky. He not only was lucky enough to find a hastily put together OS that he could buy for $80,000, but he was also lucky enough that IBM was in such a rush that they screwed up their contract with MS. If not for that, MS would probably have been just another software company that made programming languages.
A lot of people start from nothing, work hard, make sound choices, and still fail because of the various random factors surrounding them that they have absolutely no control over.
I can assure you that if I took $1,500 and started a business with it, the likely outcome (no matter how hard I worked or how wise my decisions were) would be me going out of business in a very short amount of time.
Who knows, maybe tommorrow a lightbulb will go off in your head and you'll think of a way of doing something innovative or different.
People think of that all the time. However, the chance of taking that idea and turning it into a fortune 500 company is slim.
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:2)
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:1)
Hey - good point prole #1892722!
Why deal with the reality of being a wage slave when you can dream of being a billionaire?
Keep on dreamin' America!!!
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:1)
All other things aside, by the mathematical principles (and the economic reality) only a very small percent will ever be as successful as the people you mentioned. 90% of business fail in their first year. Yes, one of us could do it, but it's not a total solution for the whole tech community.
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:1)
Imagine how much harder it is to start a business in Europe. Way higher taxes, more regulations, and if you hire a bad employee they'll be harder to get rid of than herpes.