OT – Bottom 50% of America holds 1% of wealth

[davelj]

[quote=AN]
What you fail to understand is guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc. are all the same. They’re just born in different generation. When Gates and Jobs started Apple and Microsoft, there were no internet. Yet, they still made their millions. The reason why I say they all are the same is because they all are problem solvers. [/quote]

What’s ironic is that Bill Gates and his father are interviewed extensively in the book “The Self-Made Myth”… and they both disagree with you. They find it existentially absurd the wealth that Bill Gates has been able to amass through Microsoft and see “collective fingerprints” and pure “good luck” everywhere in his success.

To be clear, I agree that all of your so-called “problem solvers” would be very successful in most different times and places… the issue is the absolute and relative DEGREE of their success. There are MANY hard-working, indefatigable, brilliant problem solvers out there… only a teeny tiny fraction of them become billionaires. What’s the difference between them? Randomness.

[davelj]

[quote=sdrealtor]Irony is I just googled Taleb and found out he appears to be a never married 51 year old. Sounds like a brilliant guy too. Just one who probably spends a lot of time wondering if I am so smart how come I don’t have everything I deserve.

The rock stars in this world benefit from some level of luck but they are truly different and able to do things with that luck that others can’t. They don’t just wake up and find a pot of gold sitting in front of them. They make it happen on the playing field.[/quote]

Actually, not that it matters or should matter, but Taleb’s married (or was when he wrote “The Black Swan”). And even if he wasn’t, I’m betting that a smart, outspoken guy worth tens of $millions isn’t going to have much trouble rounding up companionship if he wants it. So, I’m not sure what his relationship status has to do with this discussion.

Your “rock stars” are only truly different from the other “lesser rock stars” in that they were, on average, luckier. Again – I want to be clear – I’m not saying that your “rock stars” wouldn’t be successful without luck – I’m saying that the DEGREE of their success, among other successful folks, would be different.

Let me give you a specific example: There’s a guy that runs a boutique investment bank in NYC that’s been incredibly successful – worth well over $100 million. In an interview he recently said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I was a very average investment banker in the ’70s but I was in the right place at the right time in the right sector with the right group of partners. There was nothing that really distinguished us but we got lucky on a few deals and it was off to the races. I seriously doubt I could replicate what I’ve done if I were starting out today – it’s a different world.”

There are a lot of smart, creative, hard-working financiers out there. But what separates the guys that are worth $10 million from those worth $100 million+ isn’t *generally* that the latter were smarter, more creative or harder working (although certainly sometimes that’s the case)… it’s a few small turns of good fortune that steered the latter in the “more fortunate” direction and the former in the “less fortunate” direction. Now, both are still extremely successful. But the degree of DIFFERENCE among this small group is largely a result of randomness.

As Taleb (and behavioral psychologists) likes to point out, humans are very poor at processing and accepting randomness because it’s our desire to believe that we have more control over our lives and various outcomes than we really do. It’s simply human nature to deceive ourselves about randomness.

[an]

[quote=davelj]What’s ironic is that Bill Gates and his father are interviewed extensively in the book “The Self-Made Myth”… and they both disagree with you. They find it existentially absurd the wealth that Bill Gates has been able to amass through Microsoft and see “collective fingerprints” and pure “good luck” everywhere in his success.

To be clear, I agree that all of your so-called “problem solvers” would be very successful in most different times and places… the issue is the absolute and relative DEGREE of their success. There are MANY hard-working, indefatigable, brilliant problem solvers out there… only a teeny tiny fraction of them become billionaires. What’s the difference between them? Randomness.[/quote]
Also to be clear, I agree with you that randomness and luck does have some play in it. What separate the billionaires and the millionaires entrepreneur is luck and being at the right place at the right time. My point is, if Bill Gates wasn’t bestowed with that luck, that luck might have been bestowed on someone else. The luck of being at the right place at the right time, the luck of being born super smart, the luck of being born with the gene that drive them to be entrepreneurs, etc. All of those are luck. I agree with you that a teeny tiny fraction of the hard-working, indefatigable, brilliant problem solvers out there are billionaires.

Again, back to your original question of where would I think these internet billionaires would be if there was no internet. Assume they have the same luck, just no internet, I think they would be exactly where they are. But obviously, this is all “what if”, so there’s really no right or wrong answer. If you want to take a step further back and say, what if Thomas Edison didn’t invent the first electric utility and the light bulb, would we have the ARPANET and what we know today as the internet or even the computer. Lets take a step further back than that and say, if that one caveman didn’t discover/invent fire, would we be where we are today?

[an]

[quote=davelj]Let me give you a specific example: There’s a guy that runs a boutique investment bank in NYC that’s been incredibly successful – worth well over $100 million. In an interview he recently said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I was a very average investment banker in the ’70s but I was in the right place at the right time in the right sector with the right group of partners. There was nothing that really distinguished us but we got lucky on a few deals and it was off to the races. I seriously doubt I could replicate what I’ve done if I were starting out today – it’s a different world.”[/quote]
Here’s one specific example that say randomness is not 100% of the equation: There are 2 friends, both graduated as software engineers right after the .com crash from the same school with similar grades. Both started out at the same company. Guy A worked at 2 companies over the last 12 years and bought his house in 2005. He asked guy B if he wants to buy that house with him. Guy B declined and gave him reasons why he thinks the market is a bubble and will probably crash. Guy A bought anyways. Now, with guy B, he moved to 5 different companies over the same 12 years. Now, guy B makes more than guy A. Also, since guy B didn’t buy in 2005, he was able to buy a bigger house in 2009 for less than what guy A bought his house in 2005. Also, he was able to pick up an investment property in 2011 as well as looking to pick up another investment property. All the while, guy A is trying to do a loan mod on his house. The net worth between the two are pretty drastically different for two guys who start out basically at the same place with the same amount of smartness. Both guys were dealt with the same .com crash, the same RE bubble and the same RE crash. So, in essence, both got dealt with the same good and bad luck. But guy B made some good decision that allow him to be in a better spot wrt to net worth. BTW, over that same 12 years, guy B have worked at every companies guy A worked at. It’s just that guy B jump around a few other companies in between guy A’s 1st and 2nd company transition. That allow guy B to get paid higher than guy A at his 2nd company.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=davelj]Let me give you a specific example: There’s a guy that runs a boutique investment bank in NYC that’s been incredibly successful – worth well over $100 million. In an interview he recently said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I was a very average investment banker in the ’70s but I was in the right place at the right time in the right sector with the right group of partners. There was nothing that really distinguished us but we got lucky on a few deals and it was off to the races. I seriously doubt I could replicate what I’ve done if I were starting out today – it’s a different world.”[/quote]
Here’s one specific example that say randomness is not 100% of the equation: There are 2 friends, both graduated as software engineers right after the .com crash from the same school with similar grades. Both started out at the same company. Guy A worked at 2 companies over the last 12 years and bought his house in 2005. He asked guy B if he wants to buy that house with him. Guy B declined and gave him reasons why he thinks the market is a bubble and will probably crash. Guy A bought anyways. Now, with guy B, he moved to 5 different companies over the same 12 years. Now, guy B makes more than guy A. Also, since guy B didn’t buy in 2005, he was able to buy a bigger house in 2009 for less than what guy A bought his house in 2005. Also, he was able to pick up an investment property in 2011 as well as looking to pick up another investment property. All the while, guy A is trying to do a loan mod on his house. The net worth between the two are pretty drastically different for two guys who start out basically at the same place with the same amount of smartness. Both guys were dealt with the same .com crash, the same RE bubble and the same RE crash. So, in essence, both got dealt with the same good and bad luck. But guy B made some good decision that allow him to be in a better spot wrt to net worth. BTW, over that same 12 years, guy B have worked at every companies guy A worked at. It’s just that guy B jump around a few other companies in between guy A’s 1st and 2nd company transition. That allow guy B to get paid higher than guy A at his 2nd company.[/quote]

AN, in fairness I thinks guy B got lucky. I have an opposite story to tell you.

Employee A starts at company Q in pre 1996… Employee B starts at Q in 1997.5. In fact Employee A was on the interviewing team that brought in a group of people that included Employee B. Company Q makes decision to sell money losing CBS division to company E.

Company Q tells group A and B no worries, we’ll handle the transaction ok and meanwhile blocks internal transfers for Group A and Group B anywhere else until more clarity is done. At sell time, Group B doesn’t work on relevant project for CBS moves employees to satellite company G and/or Corp R&D and some other position. However, Group A was on mainline product dev goes to company E…And despite reassurance from VP A who was supposedly in the same group..transfers the last minute to company Q Mobile group H, leaving Group A folks shafted.

Group A folks lose 1/3-1/2 of their net portfolio because company Q shafted Group A in unvested portion of stock/stock options “upon change of control clause, or lack there of”. Group B sees the same portion of the portfolio rise 8x over the next 8 years.

Employee A, who obviously smelled a rat before acquisition left for startup in a bayarea prior to fiasco well in advance. But despite 4-5 startups that all made decent money (all that either went public or were subsequently acquired) would have been a lot better off if he/she was either (a) was part of Group B or (b)had not turning down job opportunities from startup firms N/S/Y/J in Bay Area prior to joining shitty company Q for considerably less pay/comps (then pitched by blond HR rep as the “sunshine tax”)…

And subsequently later at company Q, Group C that was sold to handset company K and Group D that had to be absorbed after satellite company G went belly up, those were handled a hell of lot more smoother after Company Q realized what a fvcking botched thing handling Group A was. But Group A just got fvcked…Period…Especially for the ones that decided to stay at company E and subsequently saw company E close, and had to literally *beg* to be absorbed back into company Q years later.

It also explains why maybe some employees from Group A vow they would try to avoid working for Q but would rather work for just about anyone other company..Because purely from an opportunity perspective, they know that if Q was the only game in town, everyone any employee from Group B, C, D, ….Z in San Diego would be shafted because supply and demand would be just so wacked….Not that employee from Group A wants company Q to do bad…Quite the opposite…A good performing company Q increases lots of new hire employees who can’t buy a home right away for the next few years and who needs to rent in city M….

I can’t say the same thing for Bay Area millionaires, but the company Q millionaires…A lot of them got there really by luck. It was really arbitrary who was in Group A or B. In fact, the irony was Group B people were named as such…They weren’t necessarily the main performing group that was working on the project at the time. Of course, folks from Group B will deny that completely now. They will say some bullshit that we had 100% clarity to be in Group B when the shit was going down. I called B.S. on that.. Because when project CBS was going into the shitter, Group B folks were on the list of being possibly laidoff….

(end of long ass /BG style company Q rant)

[an]

flu, wrt my example, what luck does guy B have that guy A doesn’t have. Guy A can easily move to as many companies as guy B does and get probably paid the same amount. Secondly, guy A can easily listen to guy B and not buy his house in 2005. Just those two things alone would have brought the two guys to parity.

WRT to your story, yes, that’s luck (bad/good). But at the same time, why didn’t guy A jump to different companies or departments well before the $hit hit the fan. Guy A in your story could have jump to company N or M or the many companies other startup in the bay. Then guy A can jump back to company Q a few years later. In my eye, guy A was being complacent and got hit with a string of bad luck. But guy A can be a little more proactive at the same time.

BTW, those new employees in company Q are fresh grads or with just a couple of years of experience, so, it’s not surprising that they’re renting in city M until they acquire enough down payment.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]flu, wrt my example, what luck does guy B have that guy A doesn’t have. Guy A can easily move to as many companies as guy B does and get probably paid the same amount. Secondly, guy A can easily listen to guy B and not buy his house in 2005. Just those two things alone would have brought the two guys to parity.

WRT to your story, yes, that’s luck (bad/good). But at the same time, why didn’t guy A jump to different companies or departments well before the $hit hit the fan. Guy A in your story could have jump to company N or M or the many companies other startup in the bay. Then guy A can jump back to company Q a few years later. In my eye, guy A was being complacent and got hit with a string of bad luck. But guy A can be a little more proactive at the same time.

BTW, those new employees in company Q are fresh grads or with just a couple of years of experience, so, it’s not surprising that they’re renting in city M until they acquire enough down payment.[/quote]

AN.. For some people, moving around companies works out for them. For other people it doesn’t.

There are a lot of people I know that left a company thinking it would be better…And starting with the first company, they’ve been through layoff after layoff after layoff…I’ve seen folks (not necessarily that I’m friends with) that left QC during turmoil (because they weren’t on H1B and didn’t have do stay)…but went to a company like Lucent thinking it would be better..got laidoff…but then went to ericcson… got laidoff, went to TI… got laidoff, went to nokia… got laidoff, went to nextwave…got laidoff, when to Kyocera…got laidoff, went back to nextwave (nextwave II), got laidoff, went to packet video got laidoff so forth

…I recall there was another acquiantancehat bought himself a house in LJ,way above what he could afford at the time…I thought he was crazy. It was hard for him for 4-5 years. When Q went through turmoil, while folks like me and this other guy who didn’t have a house and could move around as we liked, this guy was stuck because he couldn’t sell his house in LJ and had to stick it out working for QC when people like me and the other guy was bailing. He was freaking out…But he had “no choice”…Well, that was 1998-9ish….His “no choice” ended up being a huge windfall for him, because staying at QC was the best “forced decision” that could have happened. The dude’s house is worth a fortune now, and by staying stable at QC, with it’s 8x+ multiple. He hasn’t had to worry about looking for another job, layoffs, or an economic downturn…Meanwhile the other guy that’s been through layoff after layoff still can’t afford to buy a home.

Your friend B could have easily wound himself in the same predicament if he happened to pick the companies that sucked and was marred by a few layoffs and setbacks during his job switching days..
I’ve been at interviews because a recruiter wanted me to talk to the company…And there were times that I was asked if I am currently employed. I said yet, why? The HR person said she needs to know if we need to do extra to bring you in above your current compensation package…

It’s a fine line between looking for another opportunity because you can and having to look for another opportunity because you have too….And the ironic twist of “luck” in life is that being in one state often leads to into the other state… and vice versus. We’d like to think that being proactive is a sure formula for success. But reality is, there are a lot of people who are proactive that move around, that try to be in control, but due to (bad luck) just didn’t do “as-well” so to speak as someone that just remained “complacent/lazy” or were forced to stay…

It’s like someone trying to weave in and out of lanes to beat the traffic, but then gets sandwiched between two semi-s driving too slow in both lanes…You stay in fast lane hoping it would clear up…Meanwhile some slow ass dude keeps in the right lane and catches up because the two semi’s are going so damn slow, and then the slow guy is right next to you in the slow lane… and Then suddenly the semi directly in front of you in your lane has a blowout and your lane (supposedly the fast lane) comes to a screetching halt, and the slow dude passes you with a big smirk on his/her face….

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu] . . . (end of long ass /BG style company Q rant)[/quote]

flu, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say your “long ass rant” was typed straight from personal experience!

[Coronita]

Don’t get me wrong… I’m as much against the entire robinhood wealth redistribution for many reasons. But perhaps for different reasons.

I agree that in a lot of causes, wealth is acquired as a result of some luck…But redistributing wealth randomly to others is a big problem in this country…

Because I think at least most definitely in this country, many many people have demonstrated that they can’t handle money even if someone gives it to them…In fact, quite the opposite…They end up getting deeper into debt because they end up figuring out a way to spend more than they have anyway.

A lot of the problems in our country has nothing to do with being born poor…I see a lot of people that are in their predicament because they spend too much, and they haven’t learned shit about the value of money..This is the only country that I find that you have folks in the poorest/lowest performing school districts…And they’re talking about having classrooms filled with iPads….CarmelV doesn’t even do that… This is the only country that I see in which folks who claim they are poor still carry around a smartphone with a $50/month bill….

I’m not rich, but definitely not poor…And I don’t even have a data plan for my personal cell phone because I think it’s too expensive…. (I have a data plan for a phone that is a complete work expense because it’s to test smartphone development…But even before I got involved in a smartphone development, I never had data plan or any)…..

In fact, I would say a majority of the people that just rail “on the rich” do so out of anger, jealousy than any other reason and like to come up with any excuse on why they think it’s “unfair”….But if you peel back the layers, I’m sure a lot of these people they’ve had their fair share of why their in the predicament that they are in…

It starts with education (at the anti-atitude toward it), it starts with spending values (the lack thereof), and it starts with learning to live with less (which clearly, americans suck at)… If someone in has demonstrated those things, and still are shit out of luck, then yeah I can understand….

But really, if I see someone that goofs off in school, someone that rails against geeks/nerds and pisses away opporunityy, someone that spends beyond their means for bling, some that “majors” in non-payable degree and on top of that takes out student loans up the ying yang to do so, and then cries foul about how unfair it is that others make more money…and talks about wealth redistribution, I can’t help roll my eyes.

A lot of people (in this country) fail out of laziness and self-pity and pride…versus because they failed after trying. I have tremendous respect for people in the latter category. I have no respect for people in the former category…And I think what people don’t understand is that most people in the latter category would seldomly be crying about how unfair things are.. More or less setback after setback they would keep trying….Those are the people that deserve “help”…not the former..

That’s the biggest issue why I’m against all this big talk about general wealth redistribution. A lot of folks don’t want to take a “good risk”, but a lot of folks make decisions out of bling that are dangerously risky…….

So when some folks see others take “good risk” (those to better oneself), they tell them what a bad idea it is, and how stupid they are…It happens all the time….And if those risk takers fail, “those” people are the first ones that love to rub their fingers at other people’s noses…And if the risk takers are lucky, and it works out…”those” people get all bent out of shape…they cry foul and unfair…Think that wealth accumulation through speculation should be taxed up the ying yang because it’s not “valued” as much as manual labor….Yeah, I have a problem with that.

I really don’t mind piss-ants that rail and tell me how stupid a decision is…..If fact, I think I kinda count on it……Because I’m already know piss-ants are going to rub their noses and tell me how dumb I am if things go bad…So I’m already use to it…I try my hardest to prove how dumb wrong they are.

[an]

[quote=flu]AN.. For some people, moving around companies works out for them. For other people it doesn’t. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from. Hind sight is always 20/20. The pay difference is only 5-10%, so the decision to not jump around doesn’t affect him as much as his decision to buy the house. So, even if guy A didn’t jump around like guy B, if guy A just listen to guy B’s reason why he doesn’t want to buy a house in 2005, he would have been much better off. One decision alone, not the most popular decision in 2005, would have put guy A in a much better financial situation. This bad luck (2005 RE crash) affected everyone who own a house, so it’s not like guy B was in the right place at the right time.

[quote=flu]Your friend B could have easily wound himself in the same predicament if he happened to pick the companies that sucked and was marred by a few layoffs and setbacks during his job switching days..[/quote]
I totally agree with this too. According to my friend B, he jumped because company 1 wasn’t doing well. Then there was sign company 2 doesn’t much growth either, so he jumped. There was signs company 3 last lost its growth and he jump to company 4. When company 4 start to go South, he went to company 5. He told me it was definitely stress during the jumping period, but with hindsight being 20/20, friend B end up getting paid more than friend A. Friend A stayed at company 1, then jump to company 4 when friend B pulled him over. Now, friend B is trying to pull friend A to company 5, which is doing very well and compensating much better than company 4.

Of course, I hear stories just like you too. A friend of a friend was employee 20 at QCOM. He jumped to a start up with a larger title, I think VP, and because he was being burnt out at QCOM. This friend of a friend told my friend that was the worse decision he has made. If he stayed put, he would probably be a VP of some sort at QCOM and have 10s if not 100s of millions by now. So, jumping sometimes doesn’t work. But sometimes it does. There’s no guarantee.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]AN.. For some people, moving around companies works out for them. For other people it doesn’t. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from. Hind sight is always 20/20. The pay difference is only 5-10%, so the decision to not jump around doesn’t affect him as much as his decision to buy the house. So, even if guy A didn’t jump around like guy B, if guy A just listen to guy B’s reason why he doesn’t want to buy a house in 2005, he would have been much better off. One decision alone, not the most popular decision in 2005, would have put guy A in a much better financial situation. This bad luck (2005 RE crash) affected everyone who own a house, so it’s not like guy B was in the right place at the right time.[/quote]

Can’t win if you don’t play.

Not moving is basically not playing.

So unless you’re really aggressive about moving around in a large company, then not moving companies is basically a guaranteed non-winner.

Winners make their own luck.

[an]

[quote=flu]Don’t get me wrong… I’m as much against the entire robinhood wealth redistribution for many reasons. But perhaps for different reasons.

I agree that in a lot of causes, wealth is acquired as a result of some luck…But redistributing wealth randomly to others is a big problem in this country…

Because I think at least most definitely in this country, many many people have demonstrated that they can’t handle money even if someone gives it to them…In fact, quite the opposite…They end up getting deeper into debt because they end up figuring out a way to spend more than they have anyway.

A lot of the problems in our country has nothing to do with being born poor…I see a lot of people that are in their predicament because they spend too much, and they haven’t learned shit about the value of money..This is the only country that I find that you have folks in the poorest/lowest performing school districts…And they’re talking about having classrooms filled with iPads….CarmelV doesn’t even do that… This is the only country that I see in which folks who claim they are poor still carry around a smartphone with a $50/month bill….

I’m not rich, but definitely not poor…And I don’t even have a data plan for my personal cell phone because I think it’s too expensive…. (I have a data plan for a phone that is a complete work expense because it’s to test smartphone development…But even before I got involved in a smartphone development, I never had data plan or any)…..

In fact, I would say a majority of the people that just rail “on the rich” do so out of anger, jealousy than any other reason and like to come up with any excuse on why they think it’s “unfair”….But if you peel back the layers, I’m sure a lot of these people they’ve had their fair share of why their in the predicament that they are in…

It starts with education (at the anti-atitude toward it), it starts with spending values (the lack thereof), and it starts with learning to live with less (which clearly, americans suck at)… If someone in has demonstrated those things, and still are shit out of luck, then yeah I can understand….

But really, if I see someone that goofs off in school, someone that rails against geeks/nerds and pisses away opporunityy, someone that spends beyond their means for bling, some that “majors” in non-payable degree and on top of that takes out student loans up the ying yang to do so, and then cries foul about how unfair it is that others make more money…and talks about wealth redistribution, I can’t help roll my eyes.

A lot of people (in this country) fail out of laziness and self-pity and pride…versus because they failed after trying. I have tremendous respect for people in the latter category. I have no respect for people in the former category…And I think what people don’t understand is that most people in the latter category would seldomly be crying about how unfair things are.. More or less setback after setback they would keep trying….Those are the people that deserve “help”…not the former..

That’s the biggest issue why I’m against all this big talk about general wealth redistribution. A lot of folks don’t want to take a “good risk”, but a lot of folks make decisions out of bling that are dangerously risky…….

So when some folks see others take “good risk” (those to better oneself), they tell them what a bad idea it is, and how stupid they are…It happens all the time….And if those risk takers fail, “those” people are the first ones that love to rub their fingers at other people’s noses…And if the risk takers are lucky, and it works out…”those” people get all bent out of shape…they cry foul and unfair…Think that wealth accumulation through speculation should be taxed up the ying yang because it’s not “valued” as much as manual labor….Yeah, I have a problem with that.

I really don’t mind piss-ants that rail and tell me how stupid a decision is…..If fact, I think I kinda count on it……Because I’m already know piss-ants are going to rub their noses and tell me how dumb I am if things go bad…So I’m already use to it…I try my hardest to prove how dumb wrong they are.[/quote]
+1. My feeling exactly.

[an]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=AN][quote=flu]AN.. For some people, moving around companies works out for them. For other people it doesn’t. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from. Hind sight is always 20/20. The pay difference is only 5-10%, so the decision to not jump around doesn’t affect him as much as his decision to buy the house. So, even if guy A didn’t jump around like guy B, if guy A just listen to guy B’s reason why he doesn’t want to buy a house in 2005, he would have been much better off. One decision alone, not the most popular decision in 2005, would have put guy A in a much better financial situation. This bad luck (2005 RE crash) affected everyone who own a house, so it’s not like guy B was in the right place at the right time.[/quote]

Can’t win if you don’t play.

Not moving is basically not playing.

So unless you’re really aggressive about moving around in a large company, then not moving companies is basically a guaranteed non-winner.

Winners make their own luck.[/quote]
Totally agree. This is why friend B jumps around why friend A doesn’t. Friend B jumping around, hoping the company he’s jumping to will take off and take him along for the ride. It didn’t work out like those who jump to Google, but at least friend B still end up getting paid 5-10% more than friend A for about a decade. So, from now on, every raise they both get will increase the gap between friend A and friend B.

In flu’s example of the friend who was forced to stay at QCOM, luck was on his side and QCOM end up taking off. For every friend like that, I know a few who stay and the company end up going out of business or just flounder and they go no where. So, sometimes staying doesn’t always mean guaranteed non-winner. But majority of the time, people move because they see a company they’re at is on the decline and the company they’re going to is on the accent. They take that risk to move. Sometimes it pays off and sometime it doesn’t.

[flyer]

flu–Have heard many similar stories from friends in your industry, and other industries.

Along with intellect, I do believe luck and randomness have something to do with achieving your dreams. Yours are even more examples of that premise, and perhaps, one reason why net worth is so skewed. Guess all of us were just “lucky.”

It’s still hard for me to believe only 5% or less of US households have $1MM or more in investable assets–especially with all of the “attitudes” you see in CA–and I’m saying that as a native.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=flyer]flu–Have heard many similar stories from friends in your industry, and other industries.

Along with intellect, I do believe luck and randomness have something to do with achieving your dreams. Yours are even more examples of that premise, and perhaps, one reason why net worth is so skewed. Guess all of us were just “lucky.”

It’s still hard for me to believe only 5% or less of US households have $1MM or more in investable assets–especially with all of the “attitudes” you see in CA–and I’m saying that as a native.[/quote]
Yes luck is factor. Maybe the difference between being the 99%ile and being the 99.9%ile

Luck is the difference between having somewhere in the $2-5 million range and having another zero or two or three.

Some misfortune is just bad luck again a small portion. The bulk 99% of bad luck is really just a fair probability from the choices being made

You could.get cancer at 20 or 30 or even 40. But really why percentage of the non winners are we really talking

That’s the problem with the viewpoint and Obama’s daddy government did thatbfor you stance.

It tells the 90% that made bad choices that the other guy just tot lucky

[Author]

Posts