You know, I'm not a statistician. But it seems to me that while there may be similarities among people who took themselves from zero to millions, no analysis is made of people with similar variables, including effort, who failed to rise from zero, for whatever reason.
I'm curious as to what percentage of the population tried to do the same things and failed.
And then I'd be curious as to what, if any, additional variables exist which resulted in the failure. Because, even if 80% of millionaires are self-made (and I seriously doubt that number) what percentage of the general population were those 80%? (I'm not sure if I'm asking the question clearly, btw). 1%? 10%?
Why do you doubt that number? What logical reason is there to believe that that isn't possible? I get why libs think that way. It has do with your take on human nature, one of which is that people are usually blameless for whatever position they find themselves in. Just as it can't possibly be the fault of he un-wed mother with 3 kids baggin grociers that she's in that position, nor can it possibly be that through effort you can attain wealth and that his most people do it.
Oh... and one last thing. If a person's million dollar net worth is made up largely of his house, he isn't rich. He's upper middle class.
You need to take notes from Shogun i guess. You're not allowed to define what constitutes wealthy. But since you're on the subject A person's net worth isn't largerly made of their home especially if they really are middle class. What would be typical of your middle class home? 500k maybe. taht only get's you half way there.