A Data-Driven Guide to Becoming a Consistent Billionaire(theartandscienceofdata.wordpress.com)
theartandscienceofdata.wordpress.com
A Data-Driven Guide to Becoming a Consistent Billionaire
https://theartandscienceofdata.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/the-billionaire-clusters/
99 comments
In countries were top education is essentially free, i really see no reason anyone should forego it, even if they don't value it as much as others. Sure, there is the off chance you might do better without that degree because you can start earlier, but statistically that chance is slim and the benefits of good education will serve you all your life.
I understand the anti movement in the US, because of their state of top education in return for lots of money which might never pay off, but this really should not inspire people in europe to drop studies.
Then again, while I agree with the value of studying for a degree, young people see the vast majority of their slightly older peers with a degree in their hands who can't get a job, so I can see why the young can decide to forego college.
This is Italy I'm talking about, I don't know enough about other European countries. While the average youth unemployment rate for Europe is ~19%, ours got as high as 37%. That is a lot, only better than Greece and Spain.
There are many more factors to keep into account, such as the undeniable fact that a lot of current youngsters feel entitled just because they have a degree, or flat-out refuse jobs because that's not what they studied for, as if it was beneath them. They don't seem to realize that it's no longer like it was in the past decades, when very few people could access higher education, and were of course preferred in job interviews to people who just went to high school.
On the other hand, taxation is extremely high and heavy on entrepreneurs (employees cost ~2x their salary), who then hire under shitty one-off contracts because it costs less, so the whole job market is very hard to get into and very easy to drop off of.
Another issue is that there are a bunch of useless degrees, such as this thing called "Political sciences", which makes you pretty much unemployable, and sadly a lot of people choose it, and wonder why they can't find a job.
There are also many other factors at play here. It's a shitshow, really.
Higher education does have a lot of value in terms of teaching how to solve problems and hopefully teaching you how to network, but there are reasons to either drop out or don't even get into college in the first place.
This is Italy I'm talking about, I don't know enough about other European countries. While the average youth unemployment rate for Europe is ~19%, ours got as high as 37%. That is a lot, only better than Greece and Spain.
There are many more factors to keep into account, such as the undeniable fact that a lot of current youngsters feel entitled just because they have a degree, or flat-out refuse jobs because that's not what they studied for, as if it was beneath them. They don't seem to realize that it's no longer like it was in the past decades, when very few people could access higher education, and were of course preferred in job interviews to people who just went to high school.
On the other hand, taxation is extremely high and heavy on entrepreneurs (employees cost ~2x their salary), who then hire under shitty one-off contracts because it costs less, so the whole job market is very hard to get into and very easy to drop off of.
Another issue is that there are a bunch of useless degrees, such as this thing called "Political sciences", which makes you pretty much unemployable, and sadly a lot of people choose it, and wonder why they can't find a job.
There are also many other factors at play here. It's a shitshow, really.
Higher education does have a lot of value in terms of teaching how to solve problems and hopefully teaching you how to network, but there are reasons to either drop out or don't even get into college in the first place.
Don't forget about the entitlements of the business owners. Many, many, many believe they are entitled to highly skilled and highly educated workers without paying them enough to afford the shittiest house/condo within an unreasonable commute to the office.
So at some point it isn't the workers that are being unreasonable. And I'm really curious what you think that point is? What defines who is being unreasonable among the business owner or worker? Or is that just dictated by which socioeconomic class you fall into?
So at some point it isn't the workers that are being unreasonable. And I'm really curious what you think that point is? What defines who is being unreasonable among the business owner or worker? Or is that just dictated by which socioeconomic class you fall into?
Before landing my first job out of college I had to refuse quite a few offers because I would effectively have to pay to work on them. And that was in a growing economy in a much more young-accepting climate, besides, rent was cheaper by the time.
The way you phrased it, it sounds entitled. But I guess the people downvoting your comment have no idea what it is to enter the workforce nowadays.
The way you phrased it, it sounds entitled. But I guess the people downvoting your comment have no idea what it is to enter the workforce nowadays.
Asshole entrepreneurs are one of the other factors I was talking about. They tend to make it very hard for young people to enter the job market (the famous 5+ years of experience required).
It's a bit of self-entitlement on the part of the prospective employees, and a bit of self-entitlement on the part of the entrepreneurs. The latter are rightfully mad at the government, and since they're in it for the money, they try to save as much money as they can. I'm not condoning these practices, I'm just saying that, when everything you earn from January to June goes in taxes, I can understand them trying everything they can.
It's a bit of self-entitlement on the part of the prospective employees, and a bit of self-entitlement on the part of the entrepreneurs. The latter are rightfully mad at the government, and since they're in it for the money, they try to save as much money as they can. I'm not condoning these practices, I'm just saying that, when everything you earn from January to June goes in taxes, I can understand them trying everything they can.
It's pretty much the same story in Poland.
I don't think so. I'm from Poland and I've spent a few years in Italy and the situation there is completely different - as in - much worse.
Comparing to the rest of Europe businesses in Poland pay relatively low taxes, youth unemployment is below the EU average and barely anybody can afford to turn down a job opportunity.
Comparing to the rest of Europe businesses in Poland pay relatively low taxes, youth unemployment is below the EU average and barely anybody can afford to turn down a job opportunity.
People don't talk enough about this shit when discussing Europe's poor economy. Most of Southern Europe, France included, is almost socialist (in a bad way) in the way that free enterprise is treated.
I don't see how anyone could think economic growth, entrepreneurship and wage growth is possible when employment taxes are 100% (of salary) and people are encouraged by their accountants to spend just the right amount of effort cheating on their taxes. Add to this a corrupt, purpose-bred government class that consists of people who never held a normal job in their lives.
The EU should get on this problem with considerably more effort.
I don't see how anyone could think economic growth, entrepreneurship and wage growth is possible when employment taxes are 100% (of salary) and people are encouraged by their accountants to spend just the right amount of effort cheating on their taxes. Add to this a corrupt, purpose-bred government class that consists of people who never held a normal job in their lives.
The EU should get on this problem with considerably more effort.
Amen to that. Employees are awfully expensive, and while we wait for the government to do something, business owners keep relocating manufacturing to places where labor is cheaper, leaving citizens unemployed.
I don't know if the solution looks so simple to me (lower the fucking cost of labor already) because I don't know anything about economy, or because someone is interested in maintaining this status quo.
I don't know if the solution looks so simple to me (lower the fucking cost of labor already) because I don't know anything about economy, or because someone is interested in maintaining this status quo.
OTOH, Italy has one of the lowest percentage of people with higher education in Western Europe, and one of the highest unemployment levels. So, the reason why there are so many young unemployed people for sure isn't the fact that we have too many young people with degrees.
You know, I don't feel as comfortable discarding the "too many young people with degrees" argument, because it's still a lot more people with a degree than there were in the past. I think it plays a role, and along with the cost of labor and the (real or perceived) recession and many other factors, it contributes to making the Italian job market what it is today.
All western countries which have higher young people employment levels also have a higher rate of young people with degrees...
I think a big thing people miss is that people like Gates and Zuckerberg dropped out because they already had a promising product. They still took a gamble, but they were past some of the hurdles and already had a lot of the needed education.
Which means your strategy should be going to school so no one gets on your case while you develop your product. And use that school to gather connections and talent. Foregoing school before you have even a mostly developed idea is idiotic. Not saying people didn't make it, ~2000 is a pretty large pool to draw from.
Which means your strategy should be going to school so no one gets on your case while you develop your product. And use that school to gather connections and talent. Foregoing school before you have even a mostly developed idea is idiotic. Not saying people didn't make it, ~2000 is a pretty large pool to draw from.
They also gambled from a position where, had they failed, they'd have the support of their family and another chance at college. Making such gambles affordable for more people (so you don't have to make the safe choice -- law school or bigco or whatever) is good.
If there is an anti-movement in the US, there is one here. I mean, anti-vaxxing and flat-earthing became a thing in Denmark around 5-10 years after it became a thing in America.
We don't even have the excuse of a broken educational system.
We don't even have the excuse of a broken educational system.
I'm American and I only became aware of flat earth conspiracy theories 1-2 years ago; has it really been around for 5-10 years?
It's been around for quite a bit longer than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies
my god ... some part of my brain can't accept that anyone actually believes this; that they just love trolling people, to "rustle their jimmies", so to speak.
It seems to have gained a lot more traction in the post-post-modern age, where all reality is subjective, opinions are facts, and asserting that something is objectively false is an attack on human rights.
In the US we also have an arguably poor view on what an "educated" person has to look like, and all the condescension that comes with not being "educated".
Specifically, the issue I have in mind is the commonly shitty way that trades are viewed (and trades people not seen as educated). Like plumbers, carpenters, hvac professionals, metal workers, etc.
My understanding is that there isn't as much of a divide or poor view of those paths in at least certain parts of Europe. Germany comes to mind, but I certainly could be wrong.
In many professions they also don't properly value experience (fresh graduate, with a degree), but that's another issue.
Specifically, the issue I have in mind is the commonly shitty way that trades are viewed (and trades people not seen as educated). Like plumbers, carpenters, hvac professionals, metal workers, etc.
My understanding is that there isn't as much of a divide or poor view of those paths in at least certain parts of Europe. Germany comes to mind, but I certainly could be wrong.
In many professions they also don't properly value experience (fresh graduate, with a degree), but that's another issue.
>.. i really see no reason anyone should forego it..
>Sure, there is the off chance you might do better without that degree because you can start earlier, but statistically that chance is slim and the benefits of good education will serve you all your life.
Well, yes, when you assume all that it would be hard to see why anyone will forego it, however, not everyone is as convinced that e.g. 'the benefits of good education will serve you all your life' and whatever else you do instead during those 4+ years wont.
>Sure, there is the off chance you might do better without that degree because you can start earlier, but statistically that chance is slim and the benefits of good education will serve you all your life.
Well, yes, when you assume all that it would be hard to see why anyone will forego it, however, not everyone is as convinced that e.g. 'the benefits of good education will serve you all your life' and whatever else you do instead during those 4+ years wont.
Being a Harvard Dropout sends a very different signal than being a Unknown Uni Dropout, which in turn sends a very different signal than Never Even Applied or, worse, Didnt Get In Anywhere.
Going to uni is beyond valuable. Finishing uni ... 80/20 rule. Unless you wanna work in government or super big corpos, finishing isn’t that useful. Go there for the knowledge, not the paper.
Full disclosure: I say this as an extremely bad test taker who dropped out just before graduating after 5 years of undergrad. Just couldn’t make the case anymore that classes are better than making money freelancing.
But the excuse and freedom to explore interesting tech? I fear I’m never getting that back. It was amazing
Going to uni is beyond valuable. Finishing uni ... 80/20 rule. Unless you wanna work in government or super big corpos, finishing isn’t that useful. Go there for the knowledge, not the paper.
Full disclosure: I say this as an extremely bad test taker who dropped out just before graduating after 5 years of undergrad. Just couldn’t make the case anymore that classes are better than making money freelancing.
But the excuse and freedom to explore interesting tech? I fear I’m never getting that back. It was amazing
Guess it depends on where you live. Here a lot of smaller companies won't hire below a bachelors degree, and at many larger companies you'd need a candidate/master.
It's been a bit more open for programmers as there has been a real lack, but these days you won't go far in that profession either if you're self-taught.
I'm not judging by the way, it's just how it is here.
It's been a bit more open for programmers as there has been a real lack, but these days you won't go far in that profession either if you're self-taught.
I'm not judging by the way, it's just how it is here.
Where is "here"? You can get great tech jobs in most Western European countries without a degree, but getting your first job will probably be the hardest. Experience > degree.
In Europe, where (in most countries) education is free, I would say a degree is even worth less. There is massive "degree inflation". Like, everyone has one. And you can take 5-7+ years to complete undergrad, no problem.
I don't know when it became customary to only hire people with a bachelors degree for jobs like a receptionist or a PA, but I don't even understand what a degree signals these days. In most professions it definitely doesn't signal you are capable, not that you are smart.
In Europe, where (in most countries) education is free, I would say a degree is even worth less. There is massive "degree inflation". Like, everyone has one. And you can take 5-7+ years to complete undergrad, no problem.
I don't know when it became customary to only hire people with a bachelors degree for jobs like a receptionist or a PA, but I don't even understand what a degree signals these days. In most professions it definitely doesn't signal you are capable, not that you are smart.
I'm danish, I'm also a manager who's interviewed and hired 31 people.
I network quite a bit with other digitizing managers in the public sector, and oversee around 350 contracts for different systems. So I guess you can say I get around our tech scene.
I can't think of a single reputable company which hires non-educated tech staff these days unless they have a really solid record somewhere and a good excuse for not taking a diploma degree while working.
10-15 years ago it was a completely different story, but these days it's hard to get hired without an education.
We do have targeted programming/operations/support academy degrees that are 1-2.5 years though, and those are typically enough unless the company is extremely elitist.
I network quite a bit with other digitizing managers in the public sector, and oversee around 350 contracts for different systems. So I guess you can say I get around our tech scene.
I can't think of a single reputable company which hires non-educated tech staff these days unless they have a really solid record somewhere and a good excuse for not taking a diploma degree while working.
10-15 years ago it was a completely different story, but these days it's hard to get hired without an education.
We do have targeted programming/operations/support academy degrees that are 1-2.5 years though, and those are typically enough unless the company is extremely elitist.
Not having a formal education doesn't mean not having the knowledge or not the ability to, though? People obviously need to be "of ability". But I've talked to plenty of people with degrees who are dumb as a rock, and others without who are sharp and have many relevant achievements. Of course the same applies in reverse: there are plenty without a degree that aren't worth talking to.
Say you found someone who ticked all the boxes, was absolutely great across the board, yet just said: "I didn't bother finishing the degree, because I didn't feel it would teach me any new skills". Would you pass on that person, and if so, why?
I personally don't see any reasons why I would, but I'm curious to know why others would.
Say you found someone who ticked all the boxes, was absolutely great across the board, yet just said: "I didn't bother finishing the degree, because I didn't feel it would teach me any new skills". Would you pass on that person, and if so, why?
I personally don't see any reasons why I would, but I'm curious to know why others would.
Most places an application without a degree wouldn't make it far enough through the hiring system for anyone to actually read it.
I have interviewed a few youngsters who were self taught though, but they lacked a lot of the basic theoretical knowledge about things like best practices. So while they may have been superstars at producing interesting prototypes I frankly couldn't use them in an enterprise environment.
On the other hand I've interviewed a lot of people with degrees who couldn't get their code up and running in a production environment because they had never actually done that. This is a lot easier to rectify than someone who doesn't understand how our peojects are run.
I'm sure this is different from place to place, but in Denmark where education is free, and the government pays you to go to school, it's really rare that talented people haven't gotten some sort of degree.
I have interviewed a few youngsters who were self taught though, but they lacked a lot of the basic theoretical knowledge about things like best practices. So while they may have been superstars at producing interesting prototypes I frankly couldn't use them in an enterprise environment.
On the other hand I've interviewed a lot of people with degrees who couldn't get their code up and running in a production environment because they had never actually done that. This is a lot easier to rectify than someone who doesn't understand how our peojects are run.
I'm sure this is different from place to place, but in Denmark where education is free, and the government pays you to go to school, it's really rare that talented people haven't gotten some sort of degree.
It's a capacity issue - you wouldn't 'find somebody who ticked all the boxes, but didn't have a degree' in the first place, because their resume would simply not make it into the interview pile. Now that may be shortsighted or suboptimal on the part of the hiring company, but it's a quick and dirty heuristic to reduce the pile of resumes to something more manageable.
The people who are going to say "well if he had dropped out he might've been bill gates, instead of just running an RND department at IBM" are not going to change their mind if you had shown them data.
Exactly. Data is only ever to used to support your prejudices, not correct them.
It is important to realise that there is a big difference between the value to the individual and the value to society of a university degree. Companies use tertiary education as a proxy for IQ and conscientiousness (or willingness to tolerate bullshit to be less charitable).
Not that there is no value in university, but I think in many cases the large financial and opportunity cost does not lead to any great improvement in useful skills.
Not that there is no value in university, but I think in many cases the large financial and opportunity cost does not lead to any great improvement in useful skills.
> "well if he had dropped out he might've been bill gates, instead of just running an RND department at IBM".
I'm unsure what it's called, but it is most certainly a bad argument. If they instead said: "Here is all dyslexic with an education and their economic impact, and there it is for those without - I believe we should do B because it's most beneficial", but that argument is hard to make - and we KNOW that education is good. It sounds more like they just wanted a lower tax, and education is a rather expensive thing.
I'm unsure what it's called, but it is most certainly a bad argument. If they instead said: "Here is all dyslexic with an education and their economic impact, and there it is for those without - I believe we should do B because it's most beneficial", but that argument is hard to make - and we KNOW that education is good. It sounds more like they just wanted a lower tax, and education is a rather expensive thing.
This is sidestepping a bit but education isn't a major part of our national budget, and it pays for itself if you look at lifetimes rather than election periods.
They weren't against education because of money though, rather because they genuinely believe people are less free, creative and innovative when they go through formal education rather than just being, well, "out there, doing stuff".
They weren't against education because of money though, rather because they genuinely believe people are less free, creative and innovative when they go through formal education rather than just being, well, "out there, doing stuff".
> This is sidestepping a bit but education isn't a major part of our national budget, and it pays for itself if you look at lifetimes rather than election periods.
That was one of my points, albeit not clearly stated.
> because they genuinely believe people are less free, creative and innovative when they go through formal education rather than just being, well, "out there, doing stuff".
Seriously? With formal education, I can do everything I could before, and some more. If they want to make human nature argument that I become more ingrained in the set ways of the particular formal education, then they need to invoke some serious behavioral studies and argue exactly why no education is better. I'm not trying to argue with you, it just annoys me that, young I assume, people influence politics without knowing how to make a reasonable argument. Maybe I'm just getting older, but it seems that younger and younger people believe that they have wisdom in their mind, and they need to get it out and not be influenced by old farts.
That was one of my points, albeit not clearly stated.
> because they genuinely believe people are less free, creative and innovative when they go through formal education rather than just being, well, "out there, doing stuff".
Seriously? With formal education, I can do everything I could before, and some more. If they want to make human nature argument that I become more ingrained in the set ways of the particular formal education, then they need to invoke some serious behavioral studies and argue exactly why no education is better. I'm not trying to argue with you, it just annoys me that, young I assume, people influence politics without knowing how to make a reasonable argument. Maybe I'm just getting older, but it seems that younger and younger people believe that they have wisdom in their mind, and they need to get it out and not be influenced by old farts.
[deleted]
>well if he had dropped out he might've been bill gates, instead of just running an RND department at IBM
Respond with:
"And if only you were dyslexic you might be running an RND department at IBM instead of doing whatever you're doing now."
Respond with:
"And if only you were dyslexic you might be running an RND department at IBM instead of doing whatever you're doing now."
The article definitely doesn't 'prove' in any way that education is worth it. You can probably find much more closely applicable data for your specific claim.
No but it helps against their claim that the friend should have drop off to become the next Bill Gate.
But then again, when you're with people who say that, the right move is to get the hell away.
But then again, when you're with people who say that, the right move is to get the hell away.
This sounds a lot like Pirates or similar. I bet if you join the conservative party of your country you won't hear things like that.
I think the idea to evaluate yourself or other people as Millionaire or Billionaire is crap.
Being middle class has value, being upper class has value, being rich has value, having a degree has value, having provided a meaningful recognisable addition to human development has value. It's so easy to have such a number drop to 50% or to zero even, without changing anything about your value, your opportunities etc. For instance if Elon Musk lost all his money tomorrow you bet he would still be able to attempt another huge project next week. But if I give you one billion dollar, you might still not be able to start a project of the same size, because you miss the skill, connections, track record etc.
The most important thing to worry about is actually doing something valuable for the people around you. The more people you can influence positively the better your life will become as well.
Example: In my country there's a start-up that tries to revolutionize the train system. All they achieved was to repair one second-hand train, rent the railway slots to drive once up south to north and once down north to south, a few days a week. Then they ran out of money.
But! It really influenced a lot of people positively, made great press, showed strong customer engagement. So even after going broke they were able to continue after a short break, because someone bought them. No money, no profit, loads of way-too-hard-work nobody else wants to do. And still they are able to get this working, because they provide something provably valuable.
Being middle class has value, being upper class has value, being rich has value, having a degree has value, having provided a meaningful recognisable addition to human development has value. It's so easy to have such a number drop to 50% or to zero even, without changing anything about your value, your opportunities etc. For instance if Elon Musk lost all his money tomorrow you bet he would still be able to attempt another huge project next week. But if I give you one billion dollar, you might still not be able to start a project of the same size, because you miss the skill, connections, track record etc.
The most important thing to worry about is actually doing something valuable for the people around you. The more people you can influence positively the better your life will become as well.
Example: In my country there's a start-up that tries to revolutionize the train system. All they achieved was to repair one second-hand train, rent the railway slots to drive once up south to north and once down north to south, a few days a week. Then they ran out of money.
But! It really influenced a lot of people positively, made great press, showed strong customer engagement. So even after going broke they were able to continue after a short break, because someone bought them. No money, no profit, loads of way-too-hard-work nobody else wants to do. And still they are able to get this working, because they provide something provably valuable.
This is non sense, the life for the rich is far better than for the poor. If you don't believe that is true, then you haven't been exposed to it enough. Having high status in any society can have massive advantages. More leisure time, better mates, ability to purchase expensive health care and therapy, organic food, the freedom to go anywhere in the world, the list goes on and on
I totally agree. But the set of rich people and the set of billionaires are only overlapping. They are not the same. And funnily it's not even true that one would be a subset of the other. It's possible to be a billionaire on paper and starve to death. But at least I personally would say if you are starving you are certainly not rich. Rich means having the ability to get what you need and a lot of things you want, including things that are unavailable to most. Would you agree?
It can be considered a subtle difference, but it's the point I'm trying to make. Stop worrying about the number "one billion US dollars" and instead start worrying about becoming rich.
It can be considered a subtle difference, but it's the point I'm trying to make. Stop worrying about the number "one billion US dollars" and instead start worrying about becoming rich.
> It's possible to be a billionaire on paper and starve to death.
While "possible", the kinds of scenarios that lead to a starving billionaire are the kinds in which _everyone_ starves (ie widespread famine). If one's paper is actually worth $1B there are some sane people who would pay a large sum to buy it for a discount. Say $500M. I would argue that billionaires are able to live fundamentally easier lives than non-billionaires and most difficulties they face can be solved by 1) paying money or 2) accepting sub optimal outcomes (eg, not working on their business to make it outperform the S&P 500).
I do agree with a good chunk of your sentiment about socialized skills that allow the elite to recognize and interact with each other and the basic idea that managing large amounts of money is not fraught with perils (scammers, sales people, poor advice, open hands wanting "their share"). A simple example of that is lottery winners. They know how to spend millions, but not now how to make it last or make it work.
While "possible", the kinds of scenarios that lead to a starving billionaire are the kinds in which _everyone_ starves (ie widespread famine). If one's paper is actually worth $1B there are some sane people who would pay a large sum to buy it for a discount. Say $500M. I would argue that billionaires are able to live fundamentally easier lives than non-billionaires and most difficulties they face can be solved by 1) paying money or 2) accepting sub optimal outcomes (eg, not working on their business to make it outperform the S&P 500).
I do agree with a good chunk of your sentiment about socialized skills that allow the elite to recognize and interact with each other and the basic idea that managing large amounts of money is not fraught with perils (scammers, sales people, poor advice, open hands wanting "their share"). A simple example of that is lottery winners. They know how to spend millions, but not now how to make it last or make it work.
I disagree. I've grown up with people from both rich and poor ends. The poor struggle with trying to pay their bills. The rich may be running an operation that makes $20,000 a day, paying $17,000 in daily operating costs. They don't sleep at night, worried about when these costs get too high. While they don't worry about starving, they carry heavy burdens. They can go on more expensive vacations, but they may be too stressed to even start.
And the more power you hold, the more people want it. Competitors, colleagues, employees, spouses and children. I have seen many rich people have their wealth ripped apart with years of family squabbling.
The optimum to tweak for is freedom, not wealth. You want the freedom to not work, but with great power comes great responsibility. The optimum may be a little less than being a millionaire. Billionaires possibly push far beyond the optimum. Many wake at 4, lacking the freedom to have a lazy Sunday or to just diss Zuckerberg on Twitter without it being sensationalized.
And the more power you hold, the more people want it. Competitors, colleagues, employees, spouses and children. I have seen many rich people have their wealth ripped apart with years of family squabbling.
The optimum to tweak for is freedom, not wealth. You want the freedom to not work, but with great power comes great responsibility. The optimum may be a little less than being a millionaire. Billionaires possibly push far beyond the optimum. Many wake at 4, lacking the freedom to have a lazy Sunday or to just diss Zuckerberg on Twitter without it being sensationalized.
I honestly cannot understand the point you're trying to make.
Also,
> It's possible to be a billionaire on paper and starve to death.
Can you provide an example?
Also,
> It's possible to be a billionaire on paper and starve to death.
Can you provide an example?
Classic example is doing a startup (and failing to take off). You have a very large nominal wealth, but you practically bankrupted yourself, because as a founder you probably spent all your money to try to raise more funds, or on sales, or on product development.
Yes, the Forbes list is different.
And yes, erikb's point about being a billionare is strange, because not many people would consider anyone a billionare just because someone funded a company with nominal value 1B$.
However, erikb is right, that rich people have cheap access to enormously powerful success multipliers. (They can very realistically - almost literally - get a cheap loan from any of their dad's neighbour, or get in touch with anyone, and so on.)
Yes, the Forbes list is different.
And yes, erikb's point about being a billionare is strange, because not many people would consider anyone a billionare just because someone funded a company with nominal value 1B$.
However, erikb is right, that rich people have cheap access to enormously powerful success multipliers. (They can very realistically - almost literally - get a cheap loan from any of their dad's neighbour, or get in touch with anyone, and so on.)
It's also hard for me to see where our experiences diverge so much that we can't understand each other. Maybe you don't know that billionaires are not having this billion dollars on their bank account, but instead it's a calculation of assumed ownership of stock, houses, derivates etc?
If you have a billion dollar on a bank account with a bank that would cash that amount of money, then I'd say yes you are rich. But the Forbes list is mostly guessed values that are used in calculations, based on real but unknown values that may change a lot between one day and another.
I hope that was the point. If not give me some hints or explain your point of view more detailed. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that we actually share the same view but express it differently.
If you have a billion dollar on a bank account with a bank that would cash that amount of money, then I'd say yes you are rich. But the Forbes list is mostly guessed values that are used in calculations, based on real but unknown values that may change a lot between one day and another.
I hope that was the point. If not give me some hints or explain your point of view more detailed. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that we actually share the same view but express it differently.
>This is non sense, the life for the rich is far better than for the poor.
But is it far better than the life of the upper middle class?
People have lots of problems in life. Money solves a minority of them.
But is it far better than the life of the upper middle class?
People have lots of problems in life. Money solves a minority of them.
Money solves almost all of them. It's Marxist propaganda trying to convince you otherwise.
I can play the same game.
>Money solves almost all of them.
Capitalist propaganda.
If it did, I wouldn't find rich people who have more problems than I do. Definitely would not swap places with some of them.
Sure: If you take the same two people with the same intelligence, skills, and problems, having more money likely helps. But that's not the reality.
Given any random two people - one in the upper middle class and one very rich - perhaps on average the richer one will be a bit happier. But if you give me any random rich person, it'll be trivial for me to find a happier upper middle class person.
The difference in happiness is not huge, and the variance is high.
>Money solves almost all of them.
Capitalist propaganda.
If it did, I wouldn't find rich people who have more problems than I do. Definitely would not swap places with some of them.
Sure: If you take the same two people with the same intelligence, skills, and problems, having more money likely helps. But that's not the reality.
Given any random two people - one in the upper middle class and one very rich - perhaps on average the richer one will be a bit happier. But if you give me any random rich person, it'll be trivial for me to find a happier upper middle class person.
The difference in happiness is not huge, and the variance is high.
What about health problems? Stress? Happiness? Money can only go so far to alleviate problems in these and other areas. When it comes to the biggest problems people have, I would agree that most cannot be solved with money.
More concise version here:
http://longorshortcapital.com/four-simple-steps-to-becoming-...
http://longorshortcapital.com/four-simple-steps-to-becoming-...
You're such a troll, but I love the read, thanks for nothing.
) Take outrageous risks
) Be the 1 out of 500 million for whom it pans out. This one is key so focus on it.
) Be the 1 out of 500 million for whom it pans out. This one is key so focus on it.
Isn't "consistent billionaire" a surrogate for "way over a billion" whereas the "non-consistent billoinaire" is someone who makes about a billion? And, does any of this mean anything? who cares?
"Silicon Valley" S02E07, where Ross Hanneman finds out his net worth drops slightly below $1,000,000,000.
My personal favorite:
Richard: (referring to the McLaren) You got this for me?
Russ: What? No, I It's for me. I bought this for myself to celebrate you guys helping me get back to a billion. That's why I came here, to show it to you. To say thank you. I'm not an * * * * * * *.
Dinesh: You drove here with a bow on it?
Russ: No, I put it on after I parked.
Russ: What? No, I It's for me. I bought this for myself to celebrate you guys helping me get back to a billion. That's why I came here, to show it to you. To say thank you. I'm not an * * * * * * *.
Dinesh: You drove here with a bow on it?
Russ: No, I put it on after I parked.
My doors aren't opening like an albatross anymore!
To re-billionising!
The 3 commas club.
Erm. Bayes might have some trouble with this kind of analysis. There are around 2,000 billionaires in the world, and over a billion people living in Africa. Anyone moving to Africa with the hopes of becoming a billionaire is going to be disappointed.
Thanks Rosebud! This is a cool analysis, and I really appreciate you sharing the code. There are a ton of ways to pick apart the interpretations, but I feel that you were pretty up front about the difficulties of inferring much. I can empathize with the level of data cleaning fatigue you must have felt. Here's an analysis of VC backed enterprise startups that I did for a stats class: http://robterrin.com/MissingData/index#1
By the end, I was pretty much burnt out on this data set to draw many strong conclusions. Still, you busted some myths and flagged some interesting observations for further research. Thank you!
P.S. Oops, I realize the OP is not the author, but cool nonetheless.
By the end, I was pretty much burnt out on this data set to draw many strong conclusions. Still, you busted some myths and flagged some interesting observations for further research. Thank you!
P.S. Oops, I realize the OP is not the author, but cool nonetheless.
Interesting! Would you like to offer the slides as a pdf, the html version is broken, most slides have their content cut off by a big black frame. Thanks!
Thanks for your interest! Press w for widescreen mode and f to go full screen. Sorry it was a presentation for class so it wasn't designed to be super user friendly.
I also reknit and uploaded a pdf version, it just doesn't look as pretty. http://robterrin.com/MissingData/Final_Project.pdf
I also reknit and uploaded a pdf version, it just doesn't look as pretty. http://robterrin.com/MissingData/Final_Project.pdf
yes, OP is not the author, I've sent a link to the original author to comment
Is this supposed to be taken seriously?
This looks like a regular degree distribution: https://theartandscienceofdata.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/b...
This looks like a regular degree distribution: https://theartandscienceofdata.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/b...
I think it is. There is a persistent myth that rich people drop out of school at larger rates than average. That "fact" is often used to suggest that education might be the opportunity cost that prevents one from getting rich.
It looks to me like the distribution of degrees among the billionaires skews higher than the general population, according to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_th...
Your point is super important too, because it's extremely unlikely that level of education has anything to do with being in the top 0.01% of the income distribution.
The article's "AI data" that says a bachelor's degree is 6% important is sort of meaningless. He's measured the relative correlation of variables, among only billionaires. It's still true that only 0.01% of bachelor degree educated people get there, just like only 0.01% of dropouts get there. We can't talk about how important education is to getting there until this analysis is done on the general population.
It looks to me like the distribution of degrees among the billionaires skews higher than the general population, according to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_th...
Your point is super important too, because it's extremely unlikely that level of education has anything to do with being in the top 0.01% of the income distribution.
The article's "AI data" that says a bachelor's degree is 6% important is sort of meaningless. He's measured the relative correlation of variables, among only billionaires. It's still true that only 0.01% of bachelor degree educated people get there, just like only 0.01% of dropouts get there. We can't talk about how important education is to getting there until this analysis is done on the general population.
Most of the rich became that way by engaging in unethical/immoral acts. Misrepresentation, fraud, financial elder abuse, serial bankruptcies, creating environmental disasters in third world countries without a blink of an eye. They just happen to not get caught or to not engage in activity that is outright illegal. Yes, there are innovators and inventors. They deserve our admiration. But most of the Wall Street and Real Estate billionaires are just people who are less reluctant to engage in certain behavior that is deemed by most as immoral.
You can become very rich by selling financial alchemy to old ladies with dementia. Society will deem you as "successful" and a "role model" if it's not exposed.
> Most of the rich became that way by engaging in unethical/immoral acts.
Citation?
Citation?
Admittedly, I don't have data to provide you. I can only tell you my observations based on a rather large social circle I'm exposed to and just the sheer frequency that the wealthy engage in white collar crime.
Do you honestly believe that corporate raiders such as Nelson Peltz, Carl Icahn, Henry Kravis provided billions in value added, you are naive at best.
Do you also believe the Russian oligarchs made their money in a moral way?
Insider trading, market manipulation, Bribery (aka lobbying), fraud, etc..... That's how most people become billionaires.
Hello Everyone,
Rosebud here!
I am overwhelmed by all the responses. I never expected the blog post to garner this much engagement! Thank you so much for all your comments and all the reads.
Let's keep talking.
Rosebud here!
I am overwhelmed by all the responses. I never expected the blog post to garner this much engagement! Thank you so much for all your comments and all the reads.
Let's keep talking.
> "founding_year” is intriguing. It could mean that it may be getting easier or harder to build a sustainable business.
It could mean that. It could also mean inflation. The threshold of 1B is worth less and less every year, so the number of billionaires is expected to go up every year, skewing all data toward today.
It could mean that. It could also mean inflation. The threshold of 1B is worth less and less every year, so the number of billionaires is expected to go up every year, skewing all data toward today.
> when no one wants to be a Hajime?
I understand the author is using hyperbole here, but it's a little ridiculous to write that no one wants to have vacillated between billionaire and near-billionaire.
I understand the author is using hyperbole here, but it's a little ridiculous to write that no one wants to have vacillated between billionaire and near-billionaire.
If you're not in the three comma club, what's the point?
Since founding year seems to be of some importance, I would really like to see a plot over time of the number of founders per year and possibly extrapolate founding year + sector to predict what a good time to enter a sector would be. Could yield some interesting results.
Its a small point - but its a shame JK Rowling is used as an example of "the ghost" since the main reason she has dropped off is she is giving away her money
All I could think about was Russ Hanneman.
Well, I'll be sure to keep this in mind.
TL;DR be an african 30 something male with a PhD and start a business in telecom
>. It’s not shocking that Country and Sector are important variables but “founding_year” is intriguing. It could mean that it may be getting easier or harder to build a sustainable business.
It should be pretty obvious that LUCK is a huge factor.
It's that age old saying... how does it go? "Success is when preparation meets opportunity." Bill Gates got rich because he was the right guy, at the right time, with the right (completely unfinished vaporware) product when IBM needed an OS.
Most of the new billionaires are techies. Techies that happened simply because the world became tech oriented. Surprising... nobody. There are entire billionaire families from previous "Rushes". The gold rush, oil rushes, wall street, RAIL ROAD TYCOONS, etc.
There is no scientific way to guarantee billion-dollar wealth, only correlations. And the only data I see from the article is: 1) There's more than one way to skin a cat. Some dropped out, some got Ph'ds, many stayed in the middle. That doesn't matter. Wherever you are now, you can start working. 2) Luck matters. You can be successful but the chances of you exploding is fractions of a fraction.
It should be pretty obvious that LUCK is a huge factor.
It's that age old saying... how does it go? "Success is when preparation meets opportunity." Bill Gates got rich because he was the right guy, at the right time, with the right (completely unfinished vaporware) product when IBM needed an OS.
Most of the new billionaires are techies. Techies that happened simply because the world became tech oriented. Surprising... nobody. There are entire billionaire families from previous "Rushes". The gold rush, oil rushes, wall street, RAIL ROAD TYCOONS, etc.
There is no scientific way to guarantee billion-dollar wealth, only correlations. And the only data I see from the article is: 1) There's more than one way to skin a cat. Some dropped out, some got Ph'ds, many stayed in the middle. That doesn't matter. Wherever you are now, you can start working. 2) Luck matters. You can be successful but the chances of you exploding is fractions of a fraction.
[deleted]
There is no such thing as a self-made billionaire. Luck is such a huge factor that it makes the other characteristics irrelevant.
I think that there is more to learn about life from a bum on the streets than from a billionaire.
I think that there is more to learn about life from a bum on the streets than from a billionaire.
There's a trick to luck: find the best set of dice for you and keep rolling them. The bums are interesting, but more so the ones that end up millionaires or billionaires.
I've learned that a lot of millionaires are not very intelligent; they're just incredibly persistent. They can do the exact same thing, despite failure, for nearly a decade and end up gathering a reputation for it. Whereas most people would just give up and change careers in the middle. There's also an element of luck here - Bubba Gump comes to mind. But sometimes luck is just being in the right position at the right time, and there is a methodology to being in that position.
I've learned that a lot of millionaires are not very intelligent; they're just incredibly persistent. They can do the exact same thing, despite failure, for nearly a decade and end up gathering a reputation for it. Whereas most people would just give up and change careers in the middle. There's also an element of luck here - Bubba Gump comes to mind. But sometimes luck is just being in the right position at the right time, and there is a methodology to being in that position.
"luck favours the prepared mind"
Yeah but just because you have two legs, it doesn't mean that you're going to win the 400m relay in the Olympics if you keep trying... Having two legs barely scratches the surface; even in the extremely unlikely case that you actually make it to the Olympics, you have to account for the fact that your personal success depends more on your team's performance than on your own performance.
Everybody and everybody's mum has a 'prepared mind'. The kind of basic level of intelligence that's required for earning a billion dollars is extremely common among the general population. Billionaires are not geniuses; they have slightly above average intelligence and/or skill.
The pool of people who have 'slightly above average intelligence and/or skill' is massive. Hundreds of millions of people. On the other hand, the pool of people who are billionaires is tiny in the thousands. It's easy to see why it's a lottery.
Everybody and everybody's mum has a 'prepared mind'. The kind of basic level of intelligence that's required for earning a billion dollars is extremely common among the general population. Billionaires are not geniuses; they have slightly above average intelligence and/or skill.
The pool of people who have 'slightly above average intelligence and/or skill' is massive. Hundreds of millions of people. On the other hand, the pool of people who are billionaires is tiny in the thousands. It's easy to see why it's a lottery.
I'm glad that I don't have this limiting mindset.
I don't know who you are or what you do but I know for sure that you're not a USD billionaire and I can also predict that you will never become a billionaire.
The fact that I can make this prediction has nothing to do with who you are as a person and everything to do with probability.
I specifically remember when I used a good friend of mine. A dyslexic CS major, as an example of how you could still have a brilliant career through education, disability training and really hard work - and it was put off by arguments like "well if he had dropped out he might've been bill gates, instead of just running an RND department at IBM". I pointed out that the likelihood of severely dyslexic Danes with no education (his age), even having a job was very low statistically, but they would hear none of it, because "most billionaires were dropouts".
It would've been nice to have this data back then.