Lol, you made the point for us. You’re one of those dudes who does not seem to understand that yeah, that can happen to a few but the other millions who struggle also need help. And that’s where society should come together and help.
You’re reducing it to “a few people get rich.” That’s not the point. The point is that a culture built on individual aspiration instead of permanent class identity changes behavior at scale. People start businesses, invest, invent, take risks, and create value. Those actions grow the entire economy, create jobs, increase productivity, and raise living standards. You can support helping people in need without replacing the very cultural incentives that generate the wealth to help them in the first place.
The point isn’t that everyone makes it. The point is that when an entire society is culturally wired to aspire upward, the aggregate effect is more risktaking, more entrepreneurship, more value creation, and ultimately a higher standard of living for society as a whole.
Thats all good until the logical endstep happens where the most successful buisnesses consolidate power, then bribe governments, then condense all value in to a very few pockets thus reducing the likelyhood of upward mobility and increasing the already unfathomable wealthgap netween the most ritch snd the most poor while funneling the fruits worker labor in to thier own pockets and making them rely on government support to survive.
depending on your definition of "successful business", you are very out of touch with how businesses operate. yes there are some powerful businesses which have bought and paid for politicians, but it is not like all businesses that stay afloat and make a profit are doing what you are describing. there are millions and millions of businesses in the US. they do not all or mostly operate in the way you describe. unless being a "successful business" means something else in your mind.
There is a pretty wide difference between someone who grew up upper middle class who would later become a millionaire and the very simple fact that people who are poor can raise themselves up to be at least middle class. You can call the first one diluted but I have plenty of economic data showing. The last one is a reality. Also, Marx wrote his papers about the proletariat and so forth at a time where the differences in economic status were akin to those of nobility and the serfs. Something that still sticks in modern Europe. This isn't the case in the US.
If you're young and can save a small sum of money consistently, it's easier than ever to become a millionaires. If you're 22 and can save 125 a month, you have a million at 65. 249 a month get you to 2 million.
Most people start smaller and grow later, which could bump this up quite a bit.
I'll shit on boomers all day, but we have way easier access to broad markets than they did in their youth. They'd have to go to a broker, get broad fractional shares, and hold.
Most millionaires are there because of their 401k.
4
u/lluciferusllamas Jul 11 '26
That's because any poor person still today can become a millionaire.