Yes, truly, unless you have been raised by rabid wolves or alone in the void of space, you are not self made.

Is there a point in even having this word, if it is literally impossible for it to correctly(according to you) be used in any scenario?

My comment got kind of far from its context, visually. By "supporting" I'm really referring to significant amounts of financial support, beyond what normal people would be able to give to their children.

I do think it's possible for a person to be self-made. But I think the much narrower concept of the "self-made American millionaire" does more harm than good, as a mythological idea in US politics.

Edit: Before you reply to this, read a little more of the thread I'm saying this in, where other people are making this point more eloquently.

I'm curious, who is more "self-made" in your opinion, someone with unsupportive parents who provide money, or someone with supportive (emotionally) parents without money?

What about someone that had neither, but due to the country they grew up in or the colour of their skin they have access to government funded incentive programs, or bank loans?

What if you benefited from colonialism hundreds of years ago, or the establishment of infrastucture such as roads or telephone lines? Are you self made?

This weird privilege check doesn't make much sense to me. The "self-made" test to me is "did you put in the work and do the grind?". That's it.

> Turning wealth into wealth is not an accomplishment.

Where do you draw the line?

How is the work of doubling the wealth received as inheritance different from doubling the wealth of a client?