Now I am not a rich guy, but I believe this part of the article fits my personality or the way I express myself; "The truth is successful people are confident because they repeatedly bet on themselves and are rarely disappointed. Even when they fail, they’re confident in their ability to learn from the loss and come back stronger and richer than ever. This is not arrogance, but self-assuredness in its finest form." I walk around being confident because I know my worth and what I can do. I love this part. Some would say you are arrogant, yet you are becoming successful. Pierre Bolden
I always had an idea as to how "rich" people think and operate throughout their daily lives. There were points that I had preconceived and others which provided new insight into the mechanics of the 1%. These differences in cognitive function play an integral role in the current social and economic structure, with the very rich finding very little wrong with the way they operate. They classify money as freedom and they want as much freedom as possible, they care for it so deeply that every single step they take in life is toward securing more. Though not all are like this but it inevitably results in a large portion of the population being deprived. - Maulford Smith
This article makes so many claims and doesn't provide an ounce of proof. I know so many people who are lower or middle class and have confidence and work towards their goals, and I know so many people who are born wealthy who are lazy. One's class doesn't define their attitudes. To prove his point, the author should have given data- it's simple enough to provide members of all 3 social classes attitude surveys or assessments, and analyzed the data to see if a difference in attitudes truly exists.
It states at the bottom of the article that the author interviews the world's wealthiest in order to write his book, and I'm sure this information was used for this article as well. Sure he's interviewed the wealthy, but has he interviewed the poor? Does he know what they think?
And who doesn't see money as freedom? I'm sure that the family who is waiting on their next work paycheck to pay their rent and stay in their homes see money as they key to living the way they want to live. What's more uncomfortable that living in a situation where you don't know if you'll have food on the table tomorrow?
This article seems to be more a retaliation to the public's negative views of the wealthy than anything remotely informative.
I spend a lot of my free time reading entrepreneurial journals and looking at business models. I believe in many of the traits that the article touches on; I believe that a delicate balance of confidence and willingness to gamble on ones self is what makes people successful.
Many negative connotations come with the "wealthy" and how they go about life, its bitterness if you ask me. We all want wealth, comfort, safety, but not all of us are hungry enough to have a plan. As I have learned in social psychology there are only a few types of people in the world, most of them want the "American dream" some work hard for it by checking the boxes, having a plan and executing it and others obtain this level of status by breaking the law. Some just could care less about the money, they just go about their lives wondering why they don't enjoy life, wondering why they are stressed or depressed. Money makes the world go round, its sad but true; no one wants to drive a 15 year old car and walk around with holes in the soles of their shoes..
This article was very insightful and eyeopening. My prejudgments about how the wealthy presented themselves and operated were probably unfair and this article shows that there are certain qualities, especially confidence, that play into who a successful person is. While this probably isn't fair to say about people who inherit their wealth, the Americans who are able to work for their wealth based on their ideas and work ethic are likely linked by these traits and abilities. I believe this article helps to humanize the rich and show that we aren't as different as we may think.
This article certainly points out a lot of true facts but it also generalizes and underestimates the middle class.There is no doubt that rich people work hard for their success, but that does not mean that middle class individuals don't work hard to get ahead. As the article mentions, money means freedom, rich people have the "freedom" of doing things that an ordinary person simply cannot do because they have a family to support and bills to pay with incomes that sometimes just aren't enough. We cannot deny that many people are born with more opportunities and privileges than others, which enables them to get ahead and do things that an ordinary person could not do. There are many hard working individuals who just don't have the means of getting ahead or are simply stuck. This article seems to glorify the rich and not give enough credit to the middle class. I think it would be fair to hear both sides and see the statistics behind them to justify it. -Karen Reyes
Perhaps it is because I am coming away from a winter course that focused on difference and hegemonic relations between race and gender, especially in an educational setting, but I could not help but notice that all the images that are in the article are completely homogenous. This may mean that I am hypersensitive to the issues of “otherness”, but it merely translated to a reflection of what the 1% is in this country.
Outside of that side note, I often skim articles like this and head straight to comments. It is here that I often find some of the most insightful conversations and conclusions that the article conveyed to its targeted audiences. Some of the commentary bantered about the commonality that rich people in this country are those “born into wealth”. While I fully support the idea of The American Dream happening for many, the cynical side of me also realizes that due to class hierarchy and unequal/inequitable opportunities, resources are not always available no matter how hard people push themselves. If anything, what I took away from the article was generalized advice that tried to create divides among humans and slightly alluding to the fallacy of meritocracy, that people are poor because “they don’t work hard enough”. -Samantha McKnew
I found that I agreed very much with the 5 attributes the author attributed to wealthy individuals. However I do not think this article is a fair representation of what separates the rich and poor. In the United States there is a huge gap between the rich and poor, and a lot of that gap is determined by what social class you are born into, making it difficult to climb the ranks of social and economic status. Although I do agree with many of the statements the article makes, I do not think it represents the inequalities that exist within social classes today in the United States.
This article makes a lot of generalizations for a society that is very complex. While the article refers to people who were middle class and then became rich, it does not mention the people who were born in independently wealthy families. Those people may have different perspectives in life. And I agree in the fact that rich people keep their inner circles close. People who are very affluent are more likely to associate themselves with people who are similar. On the other hand, I think the main point the article is trying to make is that in order to become rich the individual must work hard. The article mentions that each individual has to focus more on the future than the past. In order to grow financially the individual must set goals in life and always look to the future. Also in the process of becoming a millionaire, there will be situations where it would make you feel uncomfortable. People who are millionaire know well that there is a price to pay. Overall the article is very accurate, but it focuses more on people who work hard to get places than the people who were born and raised rich. I think that would be a different article. -Daniel Chevez
I completely disagree with this article, because I think you learn from your mistakes or your parents. For example my parents have immigrated from Eritrea to America to make a better life for my sisters and I. Coming with literally nothing and to the present now paying off their mortgage. My parents were comfortable being uncomfortable and with that mindset it helped them be were they are today. So with the first point made I totally disagree. In addition to that this article is generalizing the mindset of the rich and the lower class.
Wow, lot's of bold claims in this article. I think classifying the behaviors of the wealthy as a whole is pretty naive. The article doesn't seem to touch on any behaviors regarding inherited wealth, and how the actions of inherited wealthy people may differ from those who've built their wealth themselves. I don't necessarily disagree with the points the author makes, I just think that it's one-sided.
I enjoyed reading this article for a couple of reasons. Firstly, that it made me reflect on my own goals and motivation levels. Being able to think about myself made it more enjoyable and thought-provoking. Secondly, I was intrigued by the boldness of the author. However, they sacrificed logic for the shock factor. The article completely ignores the fact that some lower class citizens work as hard if not harder than anyone else and simply cannot achieve wealth because of the limited resources available to them. They may be innovative, have self confidence and willing to be uncomfortable, but too poor to make advances in life because all the money they earn goes towards basic needs. Also, many rich people inherit their wealth and never work a day in their life. The author makes it seem extremely black and white, where in reality the only people who this article is describing are the unique people who earned all of their riches on their own and there are many exceptions.
Well, I think that this article makes some good points about rich people, but they do not talk about the percent of rich people who become rich just because their family members are rich. For instance, the owners of rich companies such as Shell, Wal-Mart, Apple, etc. It is obvious that the children of those owners will have much more opportunities and money than most of the middle class’ children. Rich people continue to be rich because they have a history of advantages than the middle class have. And, most of the attributions that the articles made about the rich people are attributions that the educated middle class citizens have. More even, students like us have all those attributions. We are comfortable not been comfortable. We know that with a Bachelor’s degree, we can find a well-paid job, but yet we keep educating ourselves to gain more money and have a better future. And, we also find friends in our same position, students. We get good friends for life in college because we are surrounded by people like us with the same problems and goals. I think the article is fine, but that is not all we do not know about rich people. What we do not know about rich people is how they have their money so fast. Probably investments? That the middle class cannot made because they are just struggling to survive, provide for their families a better life, etc. Sara G. Millan
I think the main issue with this article is that it describes a series of characteristics that can be held by anyone, but what makes those that are wealthy with these traits stand out is that they had the means and privilege of getting there. Being born into a family that has typically gone to college and has the money to support college bound children gives them an advantage over a middle class child that has these same ambitions. The inherent privilege of the wealthy gives them that edge over others, allowing them to have opportunities that many middle class people would have to work much harder for. While there are plenty of examples of someone working their way to the upper class, more often someone that is born into a wealthy family will be able to maintain that status of wealth. Jessica Glassman
At best, this article is an opinion piece. There is no valid support for anything the author states. Most of the point are general statements that can apply to anyone; yet, we as the reader are supposed to believe that numbers 1-5 are characteristics specific to only the wealthy. I am not denying that it takes work to become wealthy (also some people work extremely hard and never become wealthy); yet I believe it is ridiculous to try and sum up these 5 characteristics/statements as the reason some people become wealthy and others do not become wealthy. As we are learning in class, there are many different factors that play into a person becoming wealthy, and this article conveniently leaves those out. –Natasha D. Wright
This article is a classic example of good ole American individualism. Siebold goes on and on about what characteristics and what actions lead to the wealthy getting rich. Siebold, asserts that wealthy people are forward-looking, that they never fear uncomfortable situations, that they are confident, that they are exclusive, and that they associate money with freedom. However, Siebold completely ignores the circumstances that may have helped them achieve their status. Having these characteristics or acting a certain way makes no difference if you're born a millionaire. Just the same, having these five characteristics won't magically make an impoverished person rich. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea. In addition to Siebold's flawed individualistic perspective, he also over generalizes.Not every wealthy person holds these beliefs and characteristics. For example, on Twitter last year, Donald Trump tweeted, "Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game!" In this one statement alone, one of the most famed billionaires invalidates Siebold's argument. It's clear that for Trump, it's not about the money at all, but clearly about the status.
I completely disagree with this article it seems very bias. It states that the middle class make empty assumptions about the rich and therefore those statements should not even be considered. Yet the author throughout the whole article does exactly the same. It makes baseless claims about a large group of people, and never shows really evidence or studies to at least show some correlation within the claims. It explains its claims with the help of individual situations which is not representative of a large group of people. I would love to know the process that the author took to come up with these assumptions.
I agree with some of the points made here, especially the first ones which emphasizes the importance of having the right attitude and mentality in order to achieve one goals, financial or otherwise. At the same time one should not think that this is enough, but the article does not claim this. There are often other, systematic, barriers which hinders people from being successful and which are out of control for individuals. With a strong mentality you can go so far, but not further. Interesting read though. - Visar Berisha
I agree with the five points made in this article. While the article does nothing to prove its validity, I think that it is common knowledge that successful people usually think in a certain way. I especially love the idea of the rich being comfortable with the uncomfortable. I think that pushing your comfort zone is an underrated aspect of living your life to the fullest and is essential in breaking out from the social norm. Damarr Gordon
I can agree with the point that asserts the company one keeps in pivotal to success in a way. Being from Baltimore City and now being in college, i can personally see a difference in mentality and dreams within myself.
I don't consider myself to be wealthy, but I do agree with this article. I find it believable that wealthy people are more happy because they can do whatever they want without worrying about the economical repercussions. -Xuan
At the beginning of this article, the author says that certain statements about rich people are "empty statements with little proof to back them up." He then goes on to make 5 completely empty statements with no proof at all to back them up. In addition, many of the "empty statements" about rich people that he derides in the beginning actually all do have proof to back them up, such as the claim that rich people had an unfair advantage. Outliers is an entire book about how many rich people do have that unfair advantage. This article is ridiculous.
The first point was an approach that I didn't think about before. The fact that rich people are comfortable being uncomfortable is a concept I can grasp but didn't not think about until I read this article. I personally don't believe the concept applies to just rich people because in any situation when working to survive or better your life you have to deal with uncomfortable situations all the time. I actually think that lower income people deal with being uncomfortable more than the rich because they have to work for someone else and work under there rules and regulations. A rich person like stated later on in the article can pay there way out of certain uncomfortable situations. So really the uncomfortable that they deal with could be viewed as a privilege to someone else. Like we discussed in class about wearing a tie those who have to where a tie might find that to be an uncomfortable situation they must endure while a grease monkey would give anything to own a decent suit and tie.
Most of the arguments brought up in this article I did not agree with because it made it seem as though the middle class had no idea about the rich at all. As a member of the middle class, I am not totally aware of everything that the rich go through but I know for a fact that it is not as cliche as this article made it seem. The article makes 5 ridiculous assertions, which I believe are completely false and require more proof to show that they are in fact true. The middle class does not look at the rich as individuals who are selfless, non-human people who care only care about their wealth. Many members of the middle class just look at the rich as individuals who happen to be in fortunate positions compared to everyone else.
This article makes some good points, but also generalizes too much. Being someone that has grown up in a private school with people that are from different backgrounds, and are in different social classes I have seen attitudes from both middle and upper class people. The article talks about the upper class as being everything the middle class did not expect like hardworking, intelligent, more free, and essentially that middle class is too concerned with the upper classes ways of life. I am no expert, but I think the middle class just sees the upper class as more fortunate than others due to the safety net of money. Middle class persons must work their way up, while upper class members are more likely to be born into the wealthier and a more powerful way of life.
This article is mostly unhelpful and self-contradictory; the very first point it tries to make is that "the wealthy are comfortable being uncomfortable" but then follows that up with "the wealty believe money is about freedom" - can you be free if you're uncomfortable? The article also mentions that "rich people can afford to stand up and fight oppression", but very few rich people are actually oppressed, so oppression is irrelevant to them - and because people tend to be more invested in their own interests, it'd be very rare for a millionaire to start pushing for social equality. Conversely, someone who actually is oppressed would be interested in that sort of thing, but the problem there is that systematic oppression works to prevent them from getting rich in the first place.
It's hard to see why the so-called "myths" the author mentions at the beginning such as "rich people are lucky" and "rich people had an unfair advantage" wouldn't be true; plenty of people dream about the future and still aren't rich. Even if someone is willing to "bet on themselves" into an "unknown future", bad luck could topple those plans over, and achieving those goals, again, depends on who you are due to oppression - a handsome white male is going to have an easier time to achieving those goals. In fact, all of the pictures this article uses are of white people! It says a lot of things but doesn't really back any of it up, and oversimplifies things for the sake of lulling the less wealthy into a false sense of complacency. This article's major intent mostly seems to be to justify the inequality that helps the rich stay rich.
The fact of the matter is that the rich and the poor do not have the same opportunities for sex. Rich people have more educational and financial opportunities as compared to poor people. The concept of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is literally impossible. It reminds me about the theory that you have to spend 10,000 hours doing something to become an expert. It is easy to tell the poor how to be rich when you are already rich. All of the circumstances have to align to go from poor to wealthy.
Was this a satire, because I am not exactly sure how I feel about this article. The first paragraph throws me off, those statements mentioned are not empty with plenty of proof to back them up. There were some points made that I agreed with, for example that surrounding yourself with like-mindedness does help one move in the direction that they want, it's motivational, and that self-made wealthy folks usually are dreamers with a passion to be successful. Also I am sure that most wealthy people do have to work really hard at staying wealthy, but are they really "free"? One would argue that a man not consumed by material things or allows money to be the driving force of their existence, is really the free man. But to go back, I still cant get passed the fact that there is still someone in the world that does not believe that most wealthy people have had an advantage somewhere down the line. I am considered to be middle class, and even I recognize that because of my parents wealth I have been able to experience more and be exposed to more than most who are considered lower class. Nevertheless there is contradiction, to have all that money, to be able to buy whatever you want, do what ever you want, have the best doctors, well there goes the advantage right there!...This article tickled my funny bone, the title itself with the article could be seen as condescending, which is another term used to describe the rich, and I'm still unsure if this was meant to be taken seriously. While most middle class aren't exactly interested in the rich since they are in fact comfortable, I'm sure the people concerned with wealthy are those who are not so comfortable.
Each of these things the author states are probably true about alot of people in the wealthiest class. But they're also probably true about alot of people from any other social class. Plenty of people are confident, creative, and hardworking in every class but not everyone gets the opportunity that the wealthy get, although those in the highest class who take advantage of their opportunities deserve credit. I would agree with the sentiment that we can't make any sweeping generalizations about any class, but that's about all I can agree with here. -Greg Battista
This article provides a lot of bold statements, but there seems to be no proof backing anything they are stating. For example the article starts off with saying that the middle-class mindset is that they just want to be comfortable physically, psychologically and emotionally. But I do not necessarily agree with this statement because I know a number of people who would consider middle class but they are not comfortable in the position they are in and are constantly trying to work for something better for them. People who are in lower classes work just as hard if not harder than the wealthy individuals trying make something of their lives. While this article provided bold statements, there didn’t seem to be very much logic in what they were stating.
Like many are saying above, this article arrogantly pins attitudes on a class to class basis, offering no evidence that any of it is true. There are lazy rich people, and there are also lazy poor people, the same goes for hard working rich and poor people. I think the attitude differences come from where peoples wealth comes from, if it is achieved or ascribed. People with ascribed wealth such as rich peoples children are probably more likely to be lazy because they are born into the lifestyle of being handed everything. Some empirical data would have been helpful if the author of the article wanted to convince anyone that their claim had solid ground, but this is not the case.
As others have pointed out, there is an irony in the author calling negative remarks about the rich “empty statements with little proof to back them up” and then going on to make his own empty statements with little proof. I would take this article with a grain of salt, but it does seem to make sense. The rich didn’t get rich by complaining about their situation and relying on the government for help. They are ambitious and fight for their goals, so it makes sense that they associate with people that do the same. However, I do find a major flaw with the part about the rich believing money is freedom. Of course you need a certain level of money to do everything that you want for yourself, but some of the things mentioned such as raising money and having influence cross the line into money is power.
After reading the article it was interesting to see how the wealthy generate power and money. we all cry for freedom and liberty but in order to achieve true personal liberty one must inherit large sum of money. the question to ask is what kinda of freedom does money bring? it mention in the article in order to be rich you must be comfortable being uncomfortable. so when is it enough money to achieve comfort?
After reading the article it was interesting to see how the wealthy generate power and money. we all cry for freedom and liberty but in order to achieve true personal liberty one must inherit large sum of money. the question to ask is what kinda of freedom does money bring? it mention in the article in order to be rich you must be comfortable being uncomfortable. so when is it enough money to achieve comfort?
I was desperately waiting for the disclaimer at the end to reveal that the article was a satirical piece. "It’s not comfortable for a millionaire in the making to forge ahead when everyone around her is negative, cynical, and unsupportive, yet those who can push forward are rewarded with riches for the rest of their lives." Are millionaires the only ones working hard, and making an effort to "forge ahead?" Why must we be "supportive" of these millionaires, when on the other hand, the rich are completely negligent of the poor? Some of these claims are somewhat valid but the logic behind some of them are nauseating. Way to clear up prejudices by accentuating others.
Quite the opinionated article that downplays the middleclass compared to the rich. Maybe that’s what the title meant? Even still I don’t agree with what discussed in the article. I know poor people with that same mindset, but their assets just don’t compare. There are advantages that set the rich apart from the middle class, yes, but the family you’re born into also does too. For the self-made millionaires and billionaires, they took chances that paid off. Obviously such risk work and for others they don’t so really that separates the rich from the poor is money.
This article is very biased. There are people in the middle class who embody all of these characteristics, and they are still not millionaires. Everyone who tries to make something of their life bets on themselves. People are very judgmental and unsupportive, not just to millionaires. Take a look at public schools in poor neighborhoods. There is barely any support in these schools. Kids have outdated books and some teachers are not very uplifting towards their students just because they know where they come from and some kids act out. This shapes people. It is almost impossible to make something of yourself when people are constantly looking down on you because of where you are from. Also, when you do not grow up in an environment where there is much success, you do not understand fully what it takes to be successful. Without adequate resources, there is not much that one can do to become rich, although the skills may be there. People always take up for the rich because they "have it so hard" because people are always talking about them, although a lot of them fit the stereotype. Lending a helping hand to someone can change their perspective on life, and a lot of people who are rich today have had that. Everybody is not as fortunate to have people who believe in them and are constantly on them to achieve the goals that they have. To look down on people for being middle class and telling them that they are not rich because of this and that is not helping anyone. How about going into these communities and uplifting the people there and letting them know that they can be someone someday instead of defending the rich against stereotypes? There are many other worse stereotypes of people of all races and genders. These people need to be defended against the stereotypes against them more than the rich because people like me are held back because of the. The rich are not held back because of the stereotypes against them.
I rather enjoyed this article, especially since I am watching my older brother beginning to live out some of these principles while trying to create his own wealth through his businesses. His goal is to be financially free to where he doesn't have to worry about his bills or the mortgage, etc. This article addresses just that. Now, certain parts of this article don't really address some of the things we've covered in class, such as circumstances of one's family, talents, etc that can have a significant effect on someone's level of success in "being rich". I do think, however, that the author may have been a bit biased and harsh when addressing the middle class, but some of the points he makes in terms of our mindset and stereotypes held against the 1% -ers are somewhat true in my opinion.
I completely disagree with the premise of this article. Being rich does not make you privy to a higher degree of self-confidence or work ethic. In fact, I would pose that being rich makes a lot of people become lazy. -Gregory Brown
I also disagree with this article, to say that low and middle class individuals do not believe in the same values is ridiculous. In fact, it proves to show that there is a barrier that prevents these like-minded low & middle class people from ascending the ladder. The most bizarre statement from this article is "Few people in the middle class really understand the mindset of the richest people. After all, if they did, they would be among the top earners as well." and that numerous studies, facts, and statistics are "little proof" to explain these discrepancies? Absurd
This article is so ridiculous that I keep thinking that it must be a joke. The fact that it is not a joke makes me very ill at ease. Especially the section about how money is freedom, and how rich people take a moral stand for freedom and can stand up and fight oppression, which is probably the most tasteless part of the article. As we have seen from several examples this semester, that is quite clearly not the case, as large corporations and interest groups run by very wealthy people do more to enslave other people than to promote freedom. Only caring about freedom for the rich (at the expense of the poor) is hardly fighting oppression. - Malin Niklasson
Although the article thinks most people do not know the things listed about the rich, but I thought all of the supporting reasons were fairly obvious. For example, the rich are obviously going to look towards the future because their thoughts are always about making money, so anyway possible towards making money they are going to think towards that. Also, the wealthy are going to think money is about freedom because it is a way of life for them, and if they think something needs to be achieved they know they have the money to make it happen. I disagree with this article though because it comes off as very cocky and almost offensive to those who aren't rich.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow I am not a rich guy, but I believe this part of the article fits my personality or the way I express myself; "The truth is successful people are confident because they repeatedly bet on themselves and are rarely disappointed. Even when they fail, they’re confident in their ability to learn from the loss and come back stronger and richer than ever. This is not arrogance, but self-assuredness in its finest form." I walk around being confident because I know my worth and what I can do. I love this part. Some would say you are arrogant, yet you are becoming successful. Pierre Bolden
ReplyDeleteI always had an idea as to how "rich" people think and operate throughout their daily lives. There were points that I had preconceived and others which provided new insight into the mechanics of the 1%. These differences in cognitive function play an integral role in the current social and economic structure, with the very rich finding very little wrong with the way they operate. They classify money as freedom and they want as much freedom as possible, they care for it so deeply that every single step they take in life is toward securing more. Though not all are like this but it inevitably results in a large portion of the population being deprived. - Maulford Smith
ReplyDeleteThis article makes so many claims and doesn't provide an ounce of proof. I know so many people who are lower or middle class and have confidence and work towards their goals, and I know so many people who are born wealthy who are lazy. One's class doesn't define their attitudes. To prove his point, the author should have given data- it's simple enough to provide members of all 3 social classes attitude surveys or assessments, and analyzed the data to see if a difference in attitudes truly exists.
ReplyDeleteIt states at the bottom of the article that the author interviews the world's wealthiest in order to write his book, and I'm sure this information was used for this article as well. Sure he's interviewed the wealthy, but has he interviewed the poor? Does he know what they think?
And who doesn't see money as freedom? I'm sure that the family who is waiting on their next work paycheck to pay their rent and stay in their homes see money as they key to living the way they want to live. What's more uncomfortable that living in a situation where you don't know if you'll have food on the table tomorrow?
This article seems to be more a retaliation to the public's negative views of the wealthy than anything remotely informative.
I spend a lot of my free time reading entrepreneurial journals and looking at business models. I believe in many of the traits that the article touches on; I believe that a delicate balance of confidence and willingness to gamble on ones self is what makes people successful.
ReplyDeleteMany negative connotations come with the "wealthy" and how they go about life, its bitterness if you ask me. We all want wealth, comfort, safety, but not all of us are hungry enough to have a plan. As I have learned in social psychology there are only a few types of people in the world, most of them want the "American dream" some work hard for it by checking the boxes, having a plan and executing it and others obtain this level of status by breaking the law. Some just could care less about the money, they just go about their lives wondering why they don't enjoy life, wondering why they are stressed or depressed. Money makes the world go round, its sad but true; no one wants to drive a 15 year old car and walk around with holes in the soles of their shoes..
This article was very insightful and eyeopening. My prejudgments about how the wealthy presented themselves and operated were probably unfair and this article shows that there are certain qualities, especially confidence, that play into who a successful person is. While this probably isn't fair to say about people who inherit their wealth, the Americans who are able to work for their wealth based on their ideas and work ethic are likely linked by these traits and abilities. I believe this article helps to humanize the rich and show that we aren't as different as we may think.
ReplyDeleteThis article certainly points out a lot of true facts but it also generalizes and underestimates the middle class.There is no doubt that rich people work hard for their success, but that does not mean that middle class individuals don't work hard to get ahead. As the article mentions, money means freedom, rich people have the "freedom" of doing things that an ordinary person simply cannot do because they have a family to support and bills to pay with incomes that sometimes just aren't enough. We cannot deny that many people are born with more opportunities and privileges than others, which enables them to get ahead and do things that an ordinary person could not do. There are many hard working individuals who just don't have the means of getting ahead or are simply stuck. This article seems to glorify the rich and not give enough credit to the middle class. I think it would be fair to hear both sides and see the statistics behind them to justify it. -Karen Reyes
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is because I am coming away from a winter course that focused on difference and hegemonic relations between race and gender, especially in an educational setting, but I could not help but notice that all the images that are in the article are completely homogenous. This may mean that I am hypersensitive to the issues of “otherness”, but it merely translated to a reflection of what the 1% is in this country.
ReplyDeleteOutside of that side note, I often skim articles like this and head straight to comments. It is here that I often find some of the most insightful conversations and conclusions that the article conveyed to its targeted audiences. Some of the commentary bantered about the commonality that rich people in this country are those “born into wealth”. While I fully support the idea of The American Dream happening for many, the cynical side of me also realizes that due to class hierarchy and unequal/inequitable opportunities, resources are not always available no matter how hard people push themselves. If anything, what I took away from the article was generalized advice that tried to create divides among humans and slightly alluding to the fallacy of meritocracy, that people are poor because “they don’t work hard enough”. -Samantha McKnew
I found that I agreed very much with the 5 attributes the author attributed to wealthy individuals. However I do not think this article is a fair representation of what separates the rich and poor. In the United States there is a huge gap between the rich and poor, and a lot of that gap is determined by what social class you are born into, making it difficult to climb the ranks of social and economic status. Although I do agree with many of the statements the article makes, I do not think it represents the inequalities that exist within social classes today in the United States.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy Levin
This article makes a lot of generalizations for a society that is very complex. While the article refers to people who were middle class and then became rich, it does not mention the people who were born in independently wealthy families. Those people may have different perspectives in life. And I agree in the fact that rich people keep their inner circles close. People who are very affluent are more likely to associate themselves with people who are similar.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think the main point the article is trying to make is that in order to become rich the individual must work hard. The article mentions that each individual has to focus more on the future than the past. In order to grow financially the individual must set goals in life and always look to the future. Also in the process of becoming a millionaire, there will be situations where it would make you feel uncomfortable. People who are millionaire know well that there is a price to pay.
Overall the article is very accurate, but it focuses more on people who work hard to get places than the people who were born and raised rich. I think that would be a different article.
-Daniel Chevez
I completely disagree with this article, because I think you learn from your mistakes or your parents. For example my parents have immigrated from Eritrea to America to make a better life for my sisters and I. Coming with literally nothing and to the present now paying off their mortgage. My parents were comfortable being uncomfortable and with that mindset it helped them be were they are today. So with the first point made I totally disagree. In addition to that this article is generalizing the mindset of the rich and the lower class.
ReplyDeleteWow, lot's of bold claims in this article. I think classifying the behaviors of the wealthy as a whole is pretty naive. The article doesn't seem to touch on any behaviors regarding inherited wealth, and how the actions of inherited wealthy people may differ from those who've built their wealth themselves. I don't necessarily disagree with the points the author makes, I just think that it's one-sided.
ReplyDelete-David Teitelbaum
I enjoyed reading this article for a couple of reasons. Firstly, that it made me reflect on my own goals and motivation levels. Being able to think about myself made it more enjoyable and thought-provoking. Secondly, I was intrigued by the boldness of the author. However, they sacrificed logic for the shock factor. The article completely ignores the fact that some lower class citizens work as hard if not harder than anyone else and simply cannot achieve wealth because of the limited resources available to them. They may be innovative, have self confidence and willing to be uncomfortable, but too poor to make advances in life because all the money they earn goes towards basic needs. Also, many rich people inherit their wealth and never work a day in their life. The author makes it seem extremely black and white, where in reality the only people who this article is describing are the unique people who earned all of their riches on their own and there are many exceptions.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that this article makes some good points about rich people, but they do not talk about the percent of rich people who become rich just because their family members are rich. For instance, the owners of rich companies such as Shell, Wal-Mart, Apple, etc. It is obvious that the children of those owners will have much more opportunities and money than most of the middle class’ children. Rich people continue to be rich because they have a history of advantages than the middle class have. And, most of the attributions that the articles made about the rich people are attributions that the educated middle class citizens have. More even, students like us have all those attributions. We are comfortable not been comfortable. We know that with a Bachelor’s degree, we can find a well-paid job, but yet we keep educating ourselves to gain more money and have a better future. And, we also find friends in our same position, students. We get good friends for life in college because we are surrounded by people like us with the same problems and goals. I think the article is fine, but that is not all we do not know about rich people. What we do not know about rich people is how they have their money so fast. Probably investments? That the middle class cannot made because they are just struggling to survive, provide for their families a better life, etc. Sara G. Millan
ReplyDeleteI think the main issue with this article is that it describes a series of characteristics that can be held by anyone, but what makes those that are wealthy with these traits stand out is that they had the means and privilege of getting there. Being born into a family that has typically gone to college and has the money to support college bound children gives them an advantage over a middle class child that has these same ambitions. The inherent privilege of the wealthy gives them that edge over others, allowing them to have opportunities that many middle class people would have to work much harder for. While there are plenty of examples of someone working their way to the upper class, more often someone that is born into a wealthy family will be able to maintain that status of wealth. Jessica Glassman
ReplyDeleteAt best, this article is an opinion piece. There is no valid support for anything the author states. Most of the point are general statements that can apply to anyone; yet, we as the reader are supposed to believe that numbers 1-5 are characteristics specific to only the wealthy. I am not denying that it takes work to become wealthy (also some people work extremely hard and never become wealthy); yet I believe it is ridiculous to try and sum up these 5 characteristics/statements as the reason some people become wealthy and others do not become wealthy. As we are learning in class, there are many different factors that play into a person becoming wealthy, and this article conveniently leaves those out. –Natasha D. Wright
ReplyDeleteThis article is a classic example of good ole American individualism. Siebold goes on and on about what characteristics and what actions lead to the wealthy getting rich. Siebold, asserts that wealthy people are forward-looking, that they never fear uncomfortable situations, that they are confident, that they are exclusive, and that they associate money with freedom. However, Siebold completely ignores the circumstances that may have helped them achieve their status. Having these characteristics or acting a certain way makes no difference if you're born a millionaire. Just the same, having these five characteristics won't magically make an impoverished person rich. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea. In addition to Siebold's flawed individualistic perspective, he also over generalizes.Not every wealthy person holds these beliefs and characteristics. For example, on Twitter last year, Donald Trump tweeted, "Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game!" In this one statement alone, one of the most famed billionaires invalidates Siebold's argument. It's clear that for Trump, it's not about the money at all, but clearly about the status.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with this article it seems very bias. It states that the middle class make empty assumptions about the rich and therefore those statements should not even be considered. Yet the author throughout the whole article does exactly the same. It makes baseless claims about a large group of people, and never shows really evidence or studies to at least show some correlation within the claims. It explains its claims with the help of individual situations which is not representative of a large group of people. I would love to know the process that the author took to come up with these assumptions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the points made here, especially the first ones which emphasizes the importance of having the right attitude and mentality in order to achieve one goals, financial or otherwise. At the same time one should not think that this is enough, but the article does not claim this. There are often other, systematic, barriers which hinders people from being successful and which are out of control for individuals. With a strong mentality you can go so far, but not further. Interesting read though. - Visar Berisha
ReplyDeleteI agree with the five points made in this article. While the article does nothing to prove its validity, I think that it is common knowledge that successful people usually think in a certain way. I especially love the idea of the rich being comfortable with the uncomfortable. I think that pushing your comfort zone is an underrated aspect of living your life to the fullest and is essential in breaking out from the social norm. Damarr Gordon
ReplyDeleteI can agree with the point that asserts the company one keeps in pivotal to success in a way. Being from Baltimore City and now being in college, i can personally see a difference in mentality and dreams within myself.
ReplyDeleteI don't consider myself to be wealthy, but I do agree with this article. I find it believable that wealthy people are more happy because they can do whatever they want without worrying about the economical repercussions. -Xuan
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this article, the author says that certain statements about rich people are "empty statements with little proof to back them up." He then goes on to make 5 completely empty statements with no proof at all to back them up. In addition, many of the "empty statements" about rich people that he derides in the beginning actually all do have proof to back them up, such as the claim that rich people had an unfair advantage. Outliers is an entire book about how many rich people do have that unfair advantage. This article is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe first point was an approach that I didn't think about before. The fact that rich people are comfortable being uncomfortable is a concept I can grasp but didn't not think about until I read this article. I personally don't believe the concept applies to just rich people because in any situation when working to survive or better your life you have to deal with uncomfortable situations all the time. I actually think that lower income people deal with being uncomfortable more than the rich because they have to work for someone else and work under there rules and regulations. A rich person like stated later on in the article can pay there way out of certain uncomfortable situations. So really the uncomfortable that they deal with could be viewed as a privilege to someone else. Like we discussed in class about wearing a tie those who have to where a tie might find that to be an uncomfortable situation they must endure while a grease monkey would give anything to own a decent suit and tie.
ReplyDeleteRyan Rumph
DeleteMost of the arguments brought up in this article I did not agree with because it made it seem as though the middle class had no idea about the rich at all. As a member of the middle class, I am not totally aware of everything that the rich go through but I know for a fact that it is not as cliche as this article made it seem. The article makes 5 ridiculous assertions, which I believe are completely false and require more proof to show that they are in fact true. The middle class does not look at the rich as individuals who are selfless, non-human people who care only care about their wealth. Many members of the middle class just look at the rich as individuals who happen to be in fortunate positions compared to everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes some good points, but also generalizes too much. Being someone that has grown up in a private school with people that are from different backgrounds, and are in different social classes I have seen attitudes from both middle and upper class people. The article talks about the upper class as being everything the middle class did not expect like hardworking, intelligent, more free, and essentially that middle class is too concerned with the upper classes ways of life. I am no expert, but I think the middle class just sees the upper class as more fortunate than others due to the safety net of money. Middle class persons must work their way up, while upper class members are more likely to be born into the wealthier and a more powerful way of life.
ReplyDelete-James Bull
This article is mostly unhelpful and self-contradictory; the very first point it tries to make is that "the wealthy are comfortable being uncomfortable" but then follows that up with "the wealty believe money is about freedom" - can you be free if you're uncomfortable? The article also mentions that "rich people can afford to stand up and fight oppression", but very few rich people are actually oppressed, so oppression is irrelevant to them - and because people tend to be more invested in their own interests, it'd be very rare for a millionaire to start pushing for social equality. Conversely, someone who actually is oppressed would be interested in that sort of thing, but the problem there is that systematic oppression works to prevent them from getting rich in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to see why the so-called "myths" the author mentions at the beginning such as "rich people are lucky" and "rich people had an unfair advantage" wouldn't be true; plenty of people dream about the future and still aren't rich. Even if someone is willing to "bet on themselves" into an "unknown future", bad luck could topple those plans over, and achieving those goals, again, depends on who you are due to oppression - a handsome white male is going to have an easier time to achieving those goals. In fact, all of the pictures this article uses are of white people! It says a lot of things but doesn't really back any of it up, and oversimplifies things for the sake of lulling the less wealthy into a false sense of complacency. This article's major intent mostly seems to be to justify the inequality that helps the rich stay rich.
- Brian Kang
The fact of the matter is that the rich and the poor do not have the same opportunities for sex. Rich people have more educational and financial opportunities as compared to poor people. The concept of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is literally impossible. It reminds me about the theory that you have to spend 10,000 hours doing something to become an expert. It is easy to tell the poor how to be rich when you are already rich. All of the circumstances have to align to go from poor to wealthy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWas this a satire, because I am not exactly sure how I feel about this article. The first paragraph throws me off, those statements mentioned are not empty with plenty of proof to back them up. There were some points made that I agreed with, for example that surrounding yourself with like-mindedness does help one move in the direction that they want, it's motivational, and that self-made wealthy folks usually are dreamers with a passion to be successful. Also I am sure that most wealthy people do have to work really hard at staying wealthy, but are they really "free"? One would argue that a man not consumed by material things or allows money to be the driving force of their existence, is really the free man. But to go back, I still cant get passed the fact that there is still someone in the world that does not believe that most wealthy people have had an advantage somewhere down the line. I am considered to be middle class, and even I recognize that because of my parents wealth I have been able to experience more and be exposed to more than most who are considered lower class. Nevertheless there is contradiction, to have all that money, to be able to buy whatever you want, do what ever you want, have the best doctors, well there goes the advantage right there!...This article tickled my funny bone, the title itself with the article could be seen as condescending, which is another term used to describe the rich, and I'm still unsure if this was meant to be taken seriously. While most middle class aren't exactly interested in the rich since they are in fact comfortable, I'm sure the people concerned with wealthy are those who are not so comfortable.
ReplyDeleteEach of these things the author states are probably true about alot of people in the wealthiest class. But they're also probably true about alot of people from any other social class. Plenty of people are confident, creative, and hardworking in every class but not everyone gets the opportunity that the wealthy get, although those in the highest class who take advantage of their opportunities deserve credit. I would agree with the sentiment that we can't make any sweeping generalizations about any class, but that's about all I can agree with here.
ReplyDelete-Greg Battista
This article provides a lot of bold statements, but there seems to be no proof backing anything they are stating. For example the article starts off with saying that the middle-class mindset is that they just want to be comfortable physically, psychologically and emotionally. But I do not necessarily agree with this statement because I know a number of people who would consider middle class but they are not comfortable in the position they are in and are constantly trying to work for something better for them. People who are in lower classes work just as hard if not harder than the wealthy individuals trying make something of their lives. While this article provided bold statements, there didn’t seem to be very much logic in what they were stating.
ReplyDeleteLike many are saying above, this article arrogantly pins attitudes on a class to class basis, offering no evidence that any of it is true. There are lazy rich people, and there are also lazy poor people, the same goes for hard working rich and poor people. I think the attitude differences come from where peoples wealth comes from, if it is achieved or ascribed. People with ascribed wealth such as rich peoples children are probably more likely to be lazy because they are born into the lifestyle of being handed everything. Some empirical data would have been helpful if the author of the article wanted to convince anyone that their claim had solid ground, but this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out, there is an irony in the author calling negative remarks about the rich “empty statements with little proof to back them up” and then going on to make his own empty statements with little proof. I would take this article with a grain of salt, but it does seem to make sense. The rich didn’t get rich by complaining about their situation and relying on the government for help. They are ambitious and fight for their goals, so it makes sense that they associate with people that do the same. However, I do find a major flaw with the part about the rich believing money is freedom. Of course you need a certain level of money to do everything that you want for yourself, but some of the things mentioned such as raising money and having influence cross the line into money is power.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article it was interesting to see how the wealthy generate power and money. we all cry for freedom and liberty but in order to achieve true personal liberty one must inherit large sum of money. the question to ask is what kinda of freedom does money bring? it mention in the article in order to be rich you must be comfortable being uncomfortable. so when is it enough money to achieve comfort?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article it was interesting to see how the wealthy generate power and money. we all cry for freedom and liberty but in order to achieve true personal liberty one must inherit large sum of money. the question to ask is what kinda of freedom does money bring? it mention in the article in order to be rich you must be comfortable being uncomfortable. so when is it enough money to achieve comfort?
ReplyDeleteI was desperately waiting for the disclaimer at the end to reveal that the article was a satirical piece. "It’s not comfortable for a millionaire in the making to forge ahead when everyone around her is negative, cynical, and unsupportive, yet those who can push forward are rewarded with riches for the rest of their lives." Are millionaires the only ones working hard, and making an effort to "forge ahead?" Why must we be "supportive" of these millionaires, when on the other hand, the rich are completely negligent of the poor? Some of these claims are somewhat valid but the logic behind some of them are nauseating. Way to clear up prejudices by accentuating others.
ReplyDeleteQuite the opinionated article that downplays the middleclass compared to the rich. Maybe that’s what the title meant? Even still I don’t agree with what discussed in the article. I know poor people with that same mindset, but their assets just don’t compare. There are advantages that set the rich apart from the middle class, yes, but the family you’re born into also does too. For the self-made millionaires and billionaires, they took chances that paid off. Obviously such risk work and for others they don’t so really that separates the rich from the poor is money.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very biased. There are people in the middle class who embody all of these characteristics, and they are still not millionaires. Everyone who tries to make something of their life bets on themselves. People are very judgmental and unsupportive, not just to millionaires. Take a look at public schools in poor neighborhoods. There is barely any support in these schools. Kids have outdated books and some teachers are not very uplifting towards their students just because they know where they come from and some kids act out. This shapes people. It is almost impossible to make something of yourself when people are constantly looking down on you because of where you are from. Also, when you do not grow up in an environment where there is much success, you do not understand fully what it takes to be successful. Without adequate resources, there is not much that one can do to become rich, although the skills may be there. People always take up for the rich because they "have it so hard" because people are always talking about them, although a lot of them fit the stereotype. Lending a helping hand to someone can change their perspective on life, and a lot of people who are rich today have had that. Everybody is not as fortunate to have people who believe in them and are constantly on them to achieve the goals that they have. To look down on people for being middle class and telling them that they are not rich because of this and that is not helping anyone. How about going into these communities and uplifting the people there and letting them know that they can be someone someday instead of defending the rich against stereotypes? There are many other worse stereotypes of people of all races and genders. These people need to be defended against the stereotypes against them more than the rich because people like me are held back because of the. The rich are not held back because of the stereotypes against them.
ReplyDeleteI rather enjoyed this article, especially since I am watching my older brother beginning to live out some of these principles while trying to create his own wealth through his businesses. His goal is to be financially free to where he doesn't have to worry about his bills or the mortgage, etc. This article addresses just that. Now, certain parts of this article don't really address some of the things we've covered in class, such as circumstances of one's family, talents, etc that can have a significant effect on someone's level of success in "being rich". I do think, however, that the author may have been a bit biased and harsh when addressing the middle class, but some of the points he makes in terms of our mindset and stereotypes held against the 1% -ers are somewhat true in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with the premise of this article. Being rich does not make you privy to a higher degree of self-confidence or work ethic. In fact, I would pose that being rich makes a lot of people become lazy.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown
I also disagree with this article, to say that low and middle class individuals do not believe in the same values is ridiculous. In fact, it proves to show that there is a barrier that prevents these like-minded low & middle class people from ascending the ladder. The most bizarre statement from this article is "Few people in the middle class really understand the mindset of the richest people. After all, if they did, they would be among the top earners as well." and that numerous studies, facts, and statistics are "little proof" to explain these discrepancies? Absurd
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-doesnt-understand-wealth-2014-10#ixzz3ZgHrXzj6
This article is so ridiculous that I keep thinking that it must be a joke. The fact that it is not a joke makes me very ill at ease. Especially the section about how money is freedom, and how rich people take a moral stand for freedom and can stand up and fight oppression, which is probably the most tasteless part of the article. As we have seen from several examples this semester, that is quite clearly not the case, as large corporations and interest groups run by very wealthy people do more to enslave other people than to promote freedom. Only caring about freedom for the rich (at the expense of the poor) is hardly fighting oppression. - Malin Niklasson
ReplyDeleteAlthough the article thinks most people do not know the things listed about the rich, but I thought all of the supporting reasons were fairly obvious. For example, the rich are obviously going to look towards the future because their thoughts are always about making money, so anyway possible towards making money they are going to think towards that. Also, the wealthy are going to think money is about freedom because it is a way of life for them, and if they think something needs to be achieved they know they have the money to make it happen. I disagree with this article though because it comes off as very cocky and almost offensive to those who aren't rich.
ReplyDelete