The issue with wealth, statistically, is the work needed to acquire it detracts from happiness.
Only if you do not enjoy work. If you do then it doesn't detract but actually adds to and assists in perpetuating happiness.
The vast majority of us will never inherit large amounts of wealth or have a job that pays us hundreds of thousands let alone millions. Those things tend to be a result of pre existing wealth, IE rich family.
I concur that most of us do not inherit wealth. I also concur that generally speaking wealth is not created by your FT job. Most wealth is created by peripheral activities - real estate (ha - lately this isn't true but historically it is), inventions, capitalizing on creative ideas etc. Significant wealth creation occurs in jumps more often that gradually and consistently over time.
Statistically moving from making ok to even decent money up towards the hundreds of thousands is not likely to happen. Upwards mobility in the US is mostly a myth. The average person will stay within a relative range based on our parents income. To move far outside of it requires a massive amount of work with a high possibility of no return, which is why most statistics for happiness peg people in a middle income to be the happiest overall (families making 60-70k, not individuals). The thing is we will always say we want more money, and that more money would make us happier because it is true. The reality is actually obtaining that money for most people impacts our overall happiness and quality of life.
Statistics can be excellent indicators while simultaneously contributing to questionable extrapolations. Yes, most people do not elevate to levels of substantial wealth. I am not sure that most stay in their parents "range." Similar to defining substantial wealth, range would need to be defined. Most people are born into the middle class and remain in the middle class. That's a abroad classification that could easily be segmented. The difference is substantial between the lower and upper in that broad range. I would state that if someone were born in the lower end and moved to the upper end that it would constitute a substantial change in wealth status from their parents. This part of the discussion is likely the most subjective to definitions. If you are referring to the broader range as your barometer of wealth then I would concur. That stated, I do not believe we are limited financially as a direct result of of our parents income. There are indirect contributors such as the professions you may admire by growing up in a blue collar home and viewing your parents as role models, their limits to financially fund a better education, and obviously a lot is predicated on there habits and children mimicking those habits. A major factor here is mimicking poor financial and motivation habits which directly affect wealth. So while there may appear to be a correlation between our financial status and our parents I would strongly suggest that it is simply an indicator and the correlation really exists in the aforementioned variables that result in the income parallels.
I also concur that acquiring wealth requires a lot of work and dedication. We're also in concurrence that it may not pay off. I strongly disagree that upwards mobility is a myth in the US. The vast majority of people do not climb financially. So why would I disagree? The real statistic to analyze is how many people reach the definition of substantial wealth. Note that I used the word reach, this specifically excludes those who acquire it through inheritance, or as Buffett puts it "hitting the genetics lottery." Also we would need to be relative in analyzing this meaning that we would need to compare it to other countries. How else could we make the statement that it is a myth? There has to be some relative measurement established. To that point there is universal concurrence that the US is by far the leader in creating wealth and realizing true upward mobility in the financial sense. By far. To simply look at the very small percentage of people who actually achieve this and then conclude that it's a myth is highly erroneous.
One other point about this. There will always be a segmented financial classification. Therefore the largest class will always be the middle class, at least under our current financial and political system in the US. So this is yet another flaw in using the statistic that most middle class people will remain in the middle class. Inherently that will be true but the reason is not because the ability to acquire substantial wealth in the US is a myth.
The idea that money doesn't buy happiness is true when you assume the person who has that money had to actually seriously work for it, like most people would. One of the reasons the US tends to trail behind other countries when it becomes to happiness and fulfillment is the pursuit of wealth and the myths surrounding it.
Again I disagree that most wealth is not acquired through "work," or as I prefer to say - self made or generated. The statistics clearly show that the majority of millionaires are self made and to reiterate a point made above - the US easily leads the world in newly created millionaires. To discuss why the US is behind in happiness - wow that is about as broad a conversation as one could have. There's no consensus on what happiness is to begin with. Even if those metrics were accurately defined then the process of establishing which variables contributed and to what magnitude is extremely subjective and nearly impossibly to quantify.
I understand the perspective. I think many people, particularly younger people, have lost a lot of faith in the idea of capitalism and have bought into the idea that it's flawed and possible even worse - it's a myth perpetuated by manipulation for the benefit of a few. I believe capitalism is still an excellent political and economic philosophy. Where we failed was to not properly mitigate the inherent risk in a capitalistic system which is negatively motivated greed. We can and should modify the system to mitigate that risk to the extent we can while being able to maintain a system that doesn't stifle the desire to invest, take risk, and promote innovation. Unfortunately greed has been ruling the roost lately. I would strongly encourage everyone to consider this from all angles - personal, political, and corporate. Greed existed at all levels. To move forward we'll need to address it at all levels. Better personal financial choices and holding our government and corporations accoutnable. We make our own choices in our lives, we vote in our government, and we buy products and services. So really we dictate the entire process and if we could collectively raise our awareness then we'll be that much better for it. To simply blame capitalism would be the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I do appreciate the thoughtful response.
