Thing is, you obviously can become reasonably wealthy by following the first chart, if you're talented and 1 in 10 thousand lucky, whereas the second chart has a significant success rate.

The mega rich are too weak-willed to concede they've essentially hit a 1 in 60 million Powerball. Winning the lottery warrants glee, not pride.

Billionaires all exploit the working class—or at the very least they all inherently rely on its occurrence, without exception.

I'd add a third slice to the second pie: steal your way there.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 15 points 5 days ago

I'd add a third slice to the second pie: steal your way there.

That is expliotation of working class

[–] rustyricotta@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago

To make the odds in your favor even worse, all your competitors have an existing fortune and ARE exploiting the workforce. Good luck 👍

[–] xelar@lemmy.ml 27 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The youngest billionaire becomes one after inheriting a fortune.

[–] Brickhead92@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

If that's not pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, well then I don't know what is.

[–] Birch@sh.itjust.works 37 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Not to forget the third category: dumb luck

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 days ago (3 children)

It's the right half! (Dumb people getting rich without head start is incredibly rare)

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Behind the Bastards covers a few of them. IIRC Dr. Oz grew up poor and went to medical school on scholarship.

He's not fuck you money rich like Bezos or Musk, both of which lucked into the birth lottery.

Though tbf, Oz got rich by scamming people out of their money with endorsing supplements that don't work.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Becoming a surgeon and serial scammer sounds like he lacked morals not intelligence.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago

morals are a flaw on an individual level and only remotely beneficial in the context of greater society, intelligence is something you can never have enough of.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I agree there should only be two categories, but I think "birth lottery" should be a subset of "dumb luck," not the other way around.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I cannot think of many dumb people who got rich by themselves. Unless they win the actual lottery instead of the birth lottery

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

"Dumb luck" doesn't imply the person is dumb, just that the quality of their decision-making had no bearing on their success. Even geniuses can have dumb luck.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Unless they win the actual lottery

Not only overwhelming most of lotteries winnings, while looking good to us bareass paupers, are pittance compared to wealth of people who are rich, but also people winning lotteries lack the foundations rich need to remains rich (second chart) and usually lose everything pretty fast.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think sports is where it’s most common. People who weren’t born rich but had the genes, drive, and luck to get into the sport in the first place can get pretty rich when they get to the highest level of competition.

[–] crater2150@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago

but had the genes

I'd say that falls under "birth lottery" as much as wealth inheritance.

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That's what's the original says. It was made back in 2011

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why change it?

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Probably because luck actually plays little role in being rich. Without luck those born rich will still be rich. With luck those born poor will still be poor.

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

You don't have to rely on luck if you can afford to buy a bunch of lawmakers and a Supreme Court or two. It's amazing how many "smart businessmen" rely on a bought and paid for justice system.

[–] EABOD25@lemm.ee 29 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Read a study earlier that stated that the majority of high corporate execs are most likely psychopaths

[–] minyaen@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 days ago

Are you sure it wasn't sociopath? It does take a certain amount of decision-making lacking empathy or remorse.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 10 points 5 days ago

I think it's the other way around: only psychopaths can become corporate execs

[–] gsymon@mstdn.social 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

@Confidant6198

Hmmm... I think you could squeeze in tax-evasion and money-laundering.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago

You first need something to evade or launder.

[–] bali10050@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (3 children)

The „merciless exploitation of the working class” is not how they get rich, but how they keep their wealth. If you're poor, you can't really exploit the working class. It's basically just birth lottery with a really really small section for the people with luck and/or hard work.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 9 points 5 days ago

If you're poor, you can't really exploit the working class.

Scammers from across the planet have entered the chat.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

If you’re poor, you can’t really exploit the working class.

Tell that to the po-lice

[–] coolie4@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you're poor, you can't really exploit the working class.

Of course you can. It's called turning to crime. Most pimps, low level drug dealers, etc, aren't rich.

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 days ago

You just listed service industry workers

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago

Both?

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

I would split the second into thirds and add a "Lying, cheating and stealing" slice.