"Most of us have the distinct pleasure of going throughout our lives bereft of the physical presence of those who rule over us. Were we peasants instead of spreadsheet jockeys, warehouse workers, and baristas, we would toil in our fields in the shadow of some overbearing castle from which the lord or his steward would ride down on his thunderous charger demanding our fealty and our tithes."
This is gutturally revolting to me. The insinuation here is that the average person is a passenger in their own lives, without free will.
You don't come out of the womb and someone puts a stamp on your head saying "Barista! Paperboy! Grocery bagger!"
Barring considerable physical/mental disabilities, or personal choices like deciding to have kid(s) that you're financially responsible for at a young age with no money, I'd make the argument that most people can become millionaires.
I find this as a reaction to the quoted passage (not to some hypothetical other passage, perhaps) so confusing that I can't wrap my head around it without categorizing it as the result of misreading. "Gutturally revolting"? But your objections hardly seem related to the text at all. To something you feel was suggested (a couple steps removed, and not necessarily) by it, or some expansion of it you're making, maybe, but to that text? I'm at a loss.
> I'd make the argument that most people can become millionaires.
Make the argument then. How do “most” people become millionaires if that requires owning businesses or getting high up in a company? Who works for them if the majority of people are at the top?
There are many more ways of making money, and the economy is not zero sum. And of course just because most could do it doesn't mean most will. Most of us can workout 3 times a week, that doesn't mean most of us do.
It’s not a zero sum game but I think maybe we’re using the term millionaires differently.
When I, and most people I presume, use millionaires in casual conversation the reference is to being wealthier than most of society. It’s not usually meant as precisely having at least a million dollars since inflation has made that not a lot of money already since the colloquial use of the term millionaires first came about.
If you mean literally having a million dollars than we can probably just wait 50 years and even the destitute will be able to scrounge around for that much change.
Probably much sooner than 50 years, but yeah. If you mean filthy rich I think that takes a combination of work skill and luck that's hard for most people to achieve.
That being said, you don't need to be filthy rich to live a good life. There's the perspective that it's all mindset of course, but barring that you don't need to be filthy rich to go see F1 races for example. I've been to some when I was nearly broke. Obviously no Grand Prix grandstands but it's still achievable for the average person.
I think a good deal of US adults will become nominal millionaires in their lives. The trick is to marry someone, own a house together, and contribute to 401ks.
It's a lower bar by the day. I expect by the time I'm, perhaps, retiring (which isn't even that far off), "millionaire" won't be enough qualification to tell if someone's comfortable in retirement, or mightily struggling. Especially if we just mean a net-worth millionaire.
