Hacker News Reader

Comment by neom | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how you'd classify Kylie Jenner. On one hand, she's inherited the Jenner name and I'm sure wealth, however my understanding is she works quite hard and has earned a lot of her own money.

View on HN

If Kylie or any other Jenner were a business for sale, the Jenner name (brand) alone carries significant value as an intangible asset.

Selena Gomez is supposedly worth more due to ownership in her own makeup line, though she is older.

I'd say she qualifies as self made, but her current net worth is estimated to be $680 million.

She absolutely does not qualify as self-made.

Don't get me wrong, building a sustainable beauty brand on is no small feat. However, her family name alone is like inheriting a gigantic free marketing budget.

Remember that things that aren't money can have a lot of value, like followers and viewers.

Let's say right now I figured out how to produce the greatest beauty products in the world. They beat all competitors by a significant margin and cost less. They're available on my website right now.

How much money would I have to spend in order to start from zero and sell a few million units? It would definitely cost me thousands if not millions to start a national advertising campaign. Kylie didn't have to spend anywhere near as much as other equivalent companies to build its sales.

So by that logic can anyone who is not a homeless orphan with nothing to their name be self made? Even then, they'd probably get disqualified if a passer by took pity on them and bought them a free meal.

Well no because my having received a free meal isn't something I can leverage into considerable loans or investor interest.

Additionally, well, yes - 'self made' is a myth when our societies and economies are a network. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

There is a pretty broad spectrum that encompasses almost every human alive between homeless orphan and Jenner

Yes but where you choose to draw the line on that spectrum is completely arbitrary.

That's why I brought up Kylie. I'm surprised people are so angry about it, I was basically just trying to say hey there is an interesting other conversation to be had here. I tend to agree with you, sure Kylie has a huge leg up, but there is some ratio, and some up and some down... in like... someone might be born kid of a B list rapper and inherent $2MM.. take it to zero in 5 years, or $100MM in 5 years. If Kylie gets to a $1B net worth by the time she is 28.9, personally, I'd give her some cheer, she agreed to choices that have been net positive for her consistently for a sustained period of time, and when she gets there, I would be fine to agree she is a billionaire under 30 who didn't inherit her billions. Oh, and i'll also add, I suspect she will make it to that number before she is 30, by some measures she's actually already there.

It it, but you could probably just say P90 and below is self made.

Well, this is why I brought up "where do we draw the line?" I am quite aware that the whole debate is about where we decide to draw the line.

However, you're obviously extending the logic far beyond the way I intended to extend it.

I'm really talking about something closer to "a median upbringing." Someone who saved up an attainable sum just by working a typical job or by obtaining a modest "middle class attainable" sized loan to seed the business.

Kylie started with a much larger seed: complimentary marketing worth actual millions. Not a $25,000 loan that was paid back via single store sales to start a sandwich shop like Jimmy Johns. (Which, I realize, is a decent chunk of change in 1982, but it's basically nothing compared to what Kylie started with)

What you don't know is how many celebrities also inherited a brand but did not or could not make a successful business out of it.

What you imply is that by having a large seed, succeeds was guaranteed.

My take is that if somebody else getting the same inheritance wasn't able to achieve success, then it counts as self made for the one that did succeed (with said inheritance).

I just don’t find this a useful comparison for nearly anyone interested in becoming a self-made person, hoping to draw inspiration. I’m sorry, but growing up in a very wealthy family, inheriting a large number of followers, and starting with a huge amount of influence… that’s not something most people will have. Beyond that, you have a massive, massive cushion to take risks, to try and fail, and to try different business models. And on top of that, you are taught directly from your successful parents how to start these lifestyle businesses. These are all crucial parts of success that most people don’t have access to.

It’s a lot more useful and interesting to draw the line earlier.

> My take is that if somebody else getting the same inheritance wasn't able to achieve success, then it counts as self made for the one that did succeed (with said inheritance).

That just redefines "self-made" to mean anyone that succeeded, which isn't very useful.

There might not be a clear place to draw the line between richie rich and starving orphan in 3rd world country, but Kylie Jenner is easily one of the most obvious examples of not-self-made out there.

Damn they spoon fed you this narrative and you ate it right up.

I was quite surprised by OP's comment too. Seems like media does work..

I just think there is a much more interesting conversation to be had is all, yah no shit everyone under 30 who has a billion bucks got it from their family, that's a very boring conversation to have, I thought mine was a bit more intellectually curious, nothing more than that really. :)

There is no way Jenner would have been in a position to apply that hard work to such a profit without the inheritance.

The myth of America is that anyone can be a billionaire, if they are talented and put in the work. This is not true.

Billionaire? You're exaggerating.

"You, too, can be a thousand-aire!"

With enough debt you will even be allowed to live in a house!

Self made doesn't have to mean being an orphan and starting with $0. Zuckerberg and Gates for example had more support and opportunity than 99.9999% of the planet (Harvard education, wealthy parents, access to computers, strong network), yet they clearly deserve full credit for their achievements. Kylie Jenner is no different. There are plenty of celebrity kids out there, but none who founded a cosmetics company that was valued at $1.2 billion.

She founded her company from the money she got given from TV work. She was given the money, the brand and the audience. She could have gotten rich(er) selling flavored bubble gum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com