Probably because luck actually plays little role in being rich. Without luck those born rich will still be rich. With luck those born poor will still be poor.
Not only overwhelming most of lotteries winnings, while looking good to us bareass paupers, are pittance compared to wealth of people who are rich, but also people winning lotteries lack the foundations rich need to remains rich (second chart) and usually lose everything pretty fast.
“Dumb luck” doesn’t imply the person is dumb, just that the quality of their decision-making had no bearing on their success. Even geniuses can have dumb luck.
Not to forget the third category: dumb luck
That’s what’s the original says. It was made back in 2011
Why change it?
Probably because luck actually plays little role in being rich. Without luck those born rich will still be rich. With luck those born poor will still be poor.
It’s the right half! (Dumb people getting rich without head start is incredibly rare)
I agree there should only be two categories, but I think “birth lottery” should be a subset of “dumb luck,” not the other way around.
I cannot think of many dumb people who got rich by themselves. Unless they win the actual lottery instead of the birth lottery
Not only overwhelming most of lotteries winnings, while looking good to us bareass paupers, are pittance compared to wealth of people who are rich, but also people winning lotteries lack the foundations rich need to remains rich (second chart) and usually lose everything pretty fast.
“Dumb luck” doesn’t imply the person is dumb, just that the quality of their decision-making had no bearing on their success. Even geniuses can have dumb luck.