But the parent doesn't say that.

It says that most people are rich because their parents are rich. Not because they inherited their wealth. Stable home life, good schools, good network, good attitude and a financial backstop in the event of disaster (which allows a higher risk appetite) are all things that correlate positively with becoming rich. Your parents can give these without a penny of inherited wealth.

> It says that most people are rich because their parents are rich. Not because they inherited their wealth.

Fair enough. It's an astute observation, but it's misleading to say the first sentence, yet not imply the second, since most people aren't going to read into it that deeply. You'd just say: "Most people who are wealthy are so due to their stable home life, good schools, good network, good attitude and a financial backstop in the event of disaster". Why would you lead with parent wealth? It pre-supposes inheritance without additional context.

I guess it depends on the definition of "rich". "Stable home life, good schools, good network, good attitude" usually attributed to somebody being in the "middle class" and is not necessarily considered "rich".

That statistic sounds highly suspect: if I inherited $5M 30 years ago and am now wort $50M, do I count as "not having inherited my wealth"?

They say the first million is the hardest, so I imagine getting that for free makes the rest of it much easier if nothing else.

Nobody ever got anywhere without at least some luck involved. I think people deserve credit for any wealthy growth above and beyond what you'd expect for the asset they started with.

“Being rich because your parents are rich” can happen by a lot more ways than inheritance. In addition to gifts at death, there are gifts throughout the parents’ lives, equity gifts (you can buy one of the family houses for cheap or live in it for free), fully paid Ivy League education, prep schools, the parents can finance a startup, provide low interest loans, etc. I wouldn’t consider any of these as “self made” but they are not inheritance.

And?

You can pay for someone's top university education (~$250k) and pay their food and rent for the first 10 years since they graduate (another ~$240k).

Notice how there's no direct contribution to their net-worth.

A top university education isn't essential to becoming wealthy. Saving habits likely have more influence. You can go to Harvard, and then secure a well-paying job, but if you're going to spend your income on a penthouse in Manhattan, you're not going to be saving anything. Is it a leg up? Sure. I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but I went to a virtually no-name CS school, and ended up in the top ~5% of the income distribution 4 years after graduating.