[downandout]

One point of contention I have with this article is that it mentions that many CEOs were born during certain months and have names starting with certain letters. The mere mention of the phrase I am about to use always draws the ire of the HN crowd, but I see a big correlation/causation issue with that specific data point.

As for the larger point of the article, I always frame this conversation in this way: if you were lucky enough to be born in a first world country, you can become a millionaire through hard work with relatively little luck involved, but you have to get very lucky to become a billionaire.

In other words, the kind of large scale success that it takes to become a billionaire is nearly always dependent upon numerous factors outside of your own control, any one of which could easily put billionaire status out of reach. Becoming a single digit millionaire, however, can be done by anyone of at least average intelligence, that is willing to work long and hard in a field that has historically paid its workers well. Jobs in technology, finance, medicine, and even some trades (master plumbers/electricians etc.), pay well enough that anyone who manages their money properly should be on track to become a millionaire at some point during their lifetime.

[nouveaux]

"One point of contention I have with this article is that it mentions that many CEOs were born during certain months and have names starting with certain letters. The mere mention of the phrase I am about to use always draws the ire of the HN crowd, but I see a big correlation/causation issue with that specific data point."

On the point of birth month, there is a cause. Kids born before the cutoff year for kindergarten are younger than kids born after the cutoff. At that age, every month of development makes a big difference in social skills, which leads to more leadership opportunities. Obviously it's not a direct causation but this point should not be ignored.

"As for the larger point of the article, I always frame this conversation in this way: if you were lucky enough to be born in a first world country, you can become a millionaire through hard work with relatively little luck involved, but you have to get very lucky to become a billionaire."

I agree with you and I would add that "hard work and thriftiness" lets most people with average luck become millionaire. This is the sentiment of the Millionaire Next Door.

[vecinu]

This is exactly what Malcom Gladwell talks about in Outliers: The Story of Success. He starts off by mentioning how hockey players have this age advantage since they are more physically mature than people born in other months and cut off by our artificially created system.

[dasil003]

Makes sense for hockey players given the investment they need in development from a young age and how that investment is directly based on physical evaluation. For CEOs that pattern doesn't exist save perhaps in the mind of status-obsessed parents.

[ABCLAW]

If you're the oldest individual in your elementary class, you've got ~11 months more development than your worst-off competitors. You carry that age advantage throughout every level of education you go through, allowing you differential access to awards, accolades, special opportunities, etc.

When development evens out following full development, you're already past the majority of the educational sorting mechanism - you've been scoring higher and formed by your experiences as a high performing student throughout.

[dasil003]

But in athletics you stop getting training and don't go to the next level if your performance is sub-par, so the effect is magnified.

[drb91]

> At that age, every month of development makes a big difference in social skills, which leads to more leadership opportunities.

Citation? This sounds suspiciously like Malcolm Gladwell, who is a pop psychologist hack and whose arguments hold water like a paper bag.

[eric_b]

I totally agree with you, but I'd add one additional thought. While being born in a first world country is a huge leg up - I think it assumes you're raised by a competent single parent or reasonably competent parents.

Having parents who understand hard work (and can show you what it looks like) and good financial habits makes it easier for you to develop those same traits as an adult, in my experience.

[downandout]

You’re certainly correct. That isn’t to say that people raised in less fortunate circumstances can’t learn good financial habits (and to make good life choices, for that matter). But you are correct that those who are raised by competent parent(s) definitely have an advantage over those who weren’t.

[skookumchuck]

Once you're over 20, it's time to stop blaming one's parents and take responsibility.

[antisthenes]

Just for clarification, when you mean millionaire, do you mean a positive net worth of $1,000,000 or just having earned $1,000,000 in some arbitrary period of time?

[downandout]

I meant a net worth of at least $1MM.

[tonyedgecombe]

Yet there are plenty of people that work very hard without reaching that goal.

[logfromblammo]

I think that the point was that everyone can make conscious choices that will lead to millionaire status. Avoidable mistakes can derail that, but cautious living can eliminate the luck factor.

Anyone born in the US, regardless of social status or ability, can become educated as an electrician, gain work experience up to master status, then incorporate as a subcontractor business to employ both less-experienced and less-ambitious electricians. Between the value of the business and index fund investments, and judicious use of insurance, that person will be a millionaire (by net worth) by the time they reach age 65.

If you choose to work at McDonald's when you graduate high school instead of the journeyman program of IBEW Local X, or even choose a less valuable skill in the building trades, the path is more difficult, more competitive, and less forgiving, but is still theoretically possible. If you go to college and get an engineering degree, the path is easier, but requires more up-front investment. If you go to college and get a degree in art history, that might be one of those avoidable mistakes that I mentioned earlier.

One of the decisions that must be made is "how many children will I support?" If you want to be a millionaire, the correct answer is zero. If you abandon completely the idea of raising children, you can certainly be a millionaire by the time you retire. The process will usually include establishing yourself as a small-business owner with near-guaranteed local demand. Most professions simply do not earn enough to provide sufficient margins for savings and investment unless you also employ the labor of someone besides yourself.

[Noos]

I'm not sure that they can. There's luck in that you don't hurt your back doing a trade, or get electrocuted, or you don't show up to work one day to find the doors closed because of something the boss did. There's luck in that someone doesn't invent something that makes your field or your customer base obsolete; wal-mart and online shopping seemed to have destroyed malls and mid-tier retailers, with ripple effects to many businesses.

There's luck in that the government doesn't decide to cut down; I had a lot of engineers apply for retail jobs when I was a kid because the local plant was shut down, and they would have had to leave the state to get jobs in their field.

Luck I feel is the external environment acting in a way that remains favorable to your plans and ideas. It can happen at every tier of life, and the only way to counter it is to have enough individual resources acquired to respond to the change.

[logfromblammo]

I did slip in "judicious use of insurance". Insuring against bad luck precludes making some additional investments that could take advantage of good luck.

But even so, ancestor post was not referring to people who failed to become millionaires due to bad luck, but the level of wealth one can attain without good luck. For those wealthier, someone can always come along, point to a spot in their life story and say, "here is where you got lucky". It might just be at t=0, when they were born to a statistically unlikely set of parents, but there will be something.

Perhaps Mark Cuban's dog liked the smell of your butt. Maybe you were assigned to be Martha Stewart's cellie in the clink. You wore a particularly ugly sweater during a nationally televised political forum. You lost a lot of weight eating sandwiches from one chain, just as that brand needed a new ad campaign, and they forgot to ask around among your former classmates about your non-dietary habits.

For every lucky break, there are plenty more people who toil away their whole lives and never get ahead. The ceiling for those who never catch a break is far, far below those who got lucky at least once.

[ss2003]

That's quite a straw man universe you live in.

[downandout]

My point was that it takes no better than average luck for people that choose to work hard in high paying fields and make good life/financial choices to become millionaires. It may not be easy to stay on that course, given human nature. But barring very bad luck (major health issues, etc.), these things are entirely within your control.

Many people ascribe the consequences from bad or risky choices to bad luck, but the reality is that those are entirely within your control. You are making the decision to experience negative consequences when you make bad decisions.

[UncleMeat]

Does everybody have an equal opportunity to work in high paying fields? Or avoid major medical issues and expenses?

[downandout]

Re: health issues, that's why I said "barring very bad luck". However, I would say that yes, everyone has an opportunity to work in high paying fields. You have to work toward it, and that starts by getting good grades in school. But yes, any reasonably intelligent person that is sufficiently committed to it can do it.

[skookumchuck]

Hard works is not enough. You have to work smart - i.e. work hard at the right things.