[lumost]

Monetary success historically flowed to founders, and those off the beaten path. 20 years ago startups provided a strong path to success with friends and family often getting excited when the next hot app/website was something you worked on.

It’s difficult to replicate either the social or monetary prestige these days, as monetary rewards flow to VC and known consumer experiences are crowded.

[8note]

Historically, hasn't monetary success gone to people who inherited the wealth?

Monarchs and aristocrats and the like

[barry-cotter]

What historical period are you interested in? Because the aristocracy and monarchs of Europe are not doing great compared to 1915 and they’re doing a lot better than the nobility of any other continent. There have always been the ways to be rich, make it, take it or inherit it. Take it is no longer common in the developed world. For the super rich the top ten of the Forbes Billionaires List has three Waltons. The rest either made their own enormous fortune (6) or grew it out of all recognition.

[read_if_gay_]

Most wealthy families actually lose their wealth within two generations.

[mettamage]

I seriously the generalizability of your claim. I used to think the same way, until I saw articles like this about Florence (Italy): https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14...

[read_if_gay_]

It’s true there are outliers, and especially so at the very top, but the general trend is pretty strong. 80% of American millionaires are first-generation. Pointing at the 0.0001% says very little.

[burntoutfire]

Perhaps the problem is the cutoff? A million dollars is not "wealth", not anymore. It's just 2-3 houses in a big city or half a house in SV.

[ffggvv]

the richest people in the world list is filled with bill gates, bezos, zuckerberg... none of which inherited it

[bartvk]

Since bloggers such as Mr. Money Mustache gained a bit of fame, I don't think it's limited anymore to business owners.