About the numbers CET quoted: if what I think is going on here is correct, the numbers are utterly useless.
It looks like the book he quoted used a set standard of $10M net worth for defining wealth.
If that is indeed the case, one only has to take a quick look at the time period between the measurement of parents' net worth and that of their millionaire children. Let's put that at an average of 20 years, shall we?
The book he's talking about is from 1998, I believe, so let's say the parents' status of "wealthy" or not was based on their net worth in 1978, and that of the wealthy children on numbers from 1998.
$10M in 1998 has the same purchasing power as ~$4M in 1978. So, if you take $10M+ for the parents in 1978 as a standard of being "wealthy", you should use $25M+ as the standard for defining "wealthy" in 1998. Otherwise, equal or even diminished purchasing power combined with inflation will have created most of the "first generation wealthy".
This is just one possibility - although one that seems quite likely right now - but it clearly shows why most numbers from either side can't be taken for face value without knowing the research method and such.
It looks like the book he quoted used a set standard of $10M net worth for defining wealth.
If that is indeed the case, one only has to take a quick look at the time period between the measurement of parents' net worth and that of their millionaire children. Let's put that at an average of 20 years, shall we?
The book he's talking about is from 1998, I believe, so let's say the parents' status of "wealthy" or not was based on their net worth in 1978, and that of the wealthy children on numbers from 1998.
$10M in 1998 has the same purchasing power as ~$4M in 1978. So, if you take $10M+ for the parents in 1978 as a standard of being "wealthy", you should use $25M+ as the standard for defining "wealthy" in 1998. Otherwise, equal or even diminished purchasing power combined with inflation will have created most of the "first generation wealthy".
This is just one possibility - although one that seems quite likely right now - but it clearly shows why most numbers from either side can't be taken for face value without knowing the research method and such.
Comment