(Also, in before "survivorship bias!!": yes, there are also many more risk takers who went broke - that doesn't change the fact that Branson/Bezos/Gates etc. have a higher tolerance for risk than most)
I think a more interesting question is comparing someone with $100 to someone with $1 billion risking their entire net worths - who has taken on more risk?
The poor person is likely to starve to death. I doubt the billionaire would ever experience that hardship even if he lost everything, he probably still has some lines of support. Hell, just his reputation alone can probably get him an enormous loan or job or something else that other people could only ever hope to have.
Masayoshi Son is famous for losing more money than anyone in history, and he goes out and raises the largest VC fund in history (which is a laughable failure) and is doing it again (apparently logic doesn't apply). Once you reach that status people will worship you even for your failures. Nobody ever pays attention to the person who is struggling just to get by.
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/billionaire-news/...
This is actually _extremely_ unlikely in the US or Western Europe. Social safety nets do in fact exist, and while they have all sorts of problems they do generally prevent starvation to death. Now eating things that get you to ill health, that is much more believable.
The idea that rich people take more risks is laughable. Rich people simply gain more from having taken the same risk as a result of the compounding effect of capital investment.
No one was arguing that. The point being made is that Branson is taking a significant risk given all he has to lose - which is far more than a non-wealthy person - if he were to die.
I mean this is not a debatable point. Studies on criminal behavior for example show that relative poverty massively increases the probability of risk-taking criminal behavior.
Jobs which pose high risk of serious injury and death also pay a premium for that risk, which shows there is an intimate relationship between resources available and willingness to take risks, which would typically make risk-taking less appealing to the wealthier party.
People generally perceive themselves as having more to lose when they are rich than when they are poor, since people generally value wealth and the material comforts its affords them. Attacking me personally, by inferring sinister social views, for accurately describing reality is not a constructive way to engage with the world.
And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, we all only get one life. His heirs will be taken care of either way, how can his life be valued higher than, say, one of his pilots?
That is perhaps true, but I was just making a point about his wealth, and comparing him to another person who is the same in all respects but that.
>>And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person,
The life of a billionaire is incredible relative to the life of a poor person.
The point I was trying to make is that that's not necessarily true. There are many non-billionaires that have led incredible lives and have made a big impact in the world and there are billionaires whose biggest contribution to humanity is increasing their own wealth and power.
They lose the universe. I don't see a distinction, to the person. To the outside world it's bound to seem very different, but they're the ones left behind to care.
I would also answer the 'as a mega-rich person he has much more happiness and satisfaction to lose than a poor man who is just poor and wanting to die!' question by asking: how do you think these hyper-achievers get to where they are?
I think it's possible that the relative angst level doesn't change, either. It's just that the poor man punches the guy on the adjacent barstool and gets thrown in jail. The rich man punches a COUNTRY, or a class, or a demographic, and typically gets cheered for his trouble.
>>They lose the universe. I don't see a distinction, to the person.
One loses access to billions, and the other to access to thousands.
People who 'make it', to the degree Branson has, have far less need to take risks, because they have already achieved most if not all of their financial goals. Yes they still want to achieve more, but they are undoubtedly far more satisfied with their current life than a typical person, and could enjoy being at their station for years, immensely, due to the comforts, luxuries and experiences they can afford to partake in.
I think contrarianism, when taken to the extreme, like arguing the rich don't have more to lose than the poor, becomes unconstructive.
The ego gets wrapped up in arguing against some allegedly oppressive/elitist truism, and that leads to biased analysis that selectively examines the evidence to push the contrarian position.
I would argue that the rich on that scale have MORE dissatisfaction than the poor, otherwise they would have cashed out and retired quite happily. How dissatisfied do you have to be to leave the planet?
I don't think you understand entrepreneurs that well. They're a mixed blessing at best, but a worthwhile societal sparkplug if properly harnessed… and they are defined by a burning ambition and dissatisfaction.
I'll grant you they keep score and are very aware of the high value of what they've achieved (some are even driven to inflate this with obvious lies) but if you think that's the same thing as ease and satisfaction, you'd be mistaken.