there's nothing wrong with leaving things to your kids to run.

that's the point of the effort after all.

warren as smart as he is was tryna go against the grain of thousands of human evolution. if you train your kids - then most likely they would've values similar to yours. hit or miss but most times a hit.

▲

mcculley 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of rich men, when younger, say that they will not leave so much of the wealth to their children. Then they get older and realize what other old men realized.

▲

willmarch 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which is what?

▲

mcculley 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Evolutionary psychology is stronger than whatever they thought previously.

▲

jnsie 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't grow old

▲

moate 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That it's a lot cooler saying noble things than actually DOING noble things.

▲

lifestyleguru 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You only have to get rich once, you will not get rich for the second time, and opportunity to get rich occurs only once in every many generations.

▲

expedition32 5 hours ago | parent [-]

We live in neo feudalism. The hard part is getting to a billion but once you do your family will be part of the elite for centuries.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

wincy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What’s wrong with that? Are you more entitled to Warren Buffets billions than his children are?

	▲	moate 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Me personally? No. The labor whose value he extracted and hoarded through his investing? Yes, they are.

▲

detourdog 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

These are jobs with titles we are talking about it says nothing about Buffets assets or will.

▲

saalweachter 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, the "upside" to nepotism is that, if you or your brother or your buddy did a good job raising the kid, you have someone who has had solid training for longer than it's possible for any other candidate to have had, and a better understanding of their character than you can get from interviewing another candidate a few times. Hiring Joe's kid is a no brainer, if you trust Joe, less risk of a really bad hire even if he doesn't turn out to be stellar.

The other downside of nepotism -- besides the risk that Joe did a shit job and won't admit it or maybe can't evaluate his kid objectively -- is that even if the kid is the bee's knees, a great hire, it's not really fair -- there's almost certainly other candidates who are just as good and trustworthy as Joe's kid but they can't compete with either Joe's kid. It doesn't really matter what sort of references or credentials a candidate can show you if you can serve as a reference for the other candidate. You can't really run a meritocracy like that.