TFW people still think bootstraps is the most important factor in financial success.
So, does that mean that success is handed out like candy from the back of a pedophile's van?
They play around with the definition of "success" by using absolute wealth as the quantity of measure instead of relative wealth.
Someone who starts with $50 USD (the clothes on their back) vs someone who starts with $10,000,000.
$50 USD guy works their *** off and by 30 has a wealth of $2,000,000, an increase of several orders of magnitude.
$10M USD guy works a moderate amount and now has a wealth of $13,000,000, a moderate increase of 30%.
Which one was more successful?
Using absolute wealth the $10M guy would be more "successful" because their wealth is bigger, even the absolute increase is bigger. Using relative gains the $50 guy absolutely crushed the $10M guy.
What makes it even more astonishing is that the $10M guy will likely teach his children not to value that wealth very much because he himself doesn't value it as he was born into it and his parents never taught him to work his *** off. His children will barely put any effort and eventually their family will plateau and then start to decay from mismanagement. The only way to protect this would be for one of the older family members to transfer much of the wealth into a trust fund to prevent the kids from mismanaging it, but that also prevents them from growing it.
Now if we take a step back and study the definition of "success" and determine it to mean "substantial increase of standard of living" instead of an absolute "make more money then liberal journalists", then their whole argument falls flat on it's face. Is there a substantial difference in standard of living between 10M USD wealth vs 13M USD wealth? Is there a substantial difference in standard of living between $50 USD wealth and $2M USD wealth?
And thus the "only success because your lucky you unearned privileged white shitlord" declaration falls to pieces.