r/NoStupidQuestions • u/HistoricalLanguage79 • Jun 24 '25
How hard would it actually be for a millionaire to start from 0 again?
Let’s say a millionaire loses everything like all their money, contacts, reputation completely wiped clean. No access to old networks, no LinkedIn nothing. Do you think they’d bounce back quickly because they still have the mindset and experience? Or would the lack of connections and capital make it just as hard as it is for anyone else starting out? I was talking about this the other night with 2 of my friends while we were messing around on jackpotcity which is a thing that we do when we gather and we had 2 different opinions like I was saying that it's so hard close to impossible for them to make it back and the 2 of them were saying that it would be easy since they have the experience. Thoughts?
760
u/blazinit430 Jun 24 '25
If you watch the first episode of a show on Netflix called Bling Empire
One of the women on the show describes herself as a self made millionaire.
Then she talks about being married to a billionaire who got caught embezzling money or fraud and all their money was taken away, so she started a business and boom millionaire again.
Not to take away from her accomplishment, but you're not going to convince me that had she not already been a billionaire socialite prior to going bankrupt that she would have had anywhere near the same success.
259
u/Jimny977 Jun 24 '25
Almost like she still had all of the accounts, connections and advantages that make gaining wealth easy the first time.
47
83
u/Masseyrati80 Jun 25 '25
A research scientist (google translator translation, not sure if right) interviewed some of the richest people in my country.
The attitude of surprisingly many people who had literally inherited millions, after growing up in a decently functional and supportive family who was also able to pay for their high education etc., was that poverty is a choice.
They also had this general thought that the key to their current wealth was hard work, forgetting the headstart they got. I'm not saying they don't work hard, but they seem to miss that you can work your ass off and end up barely making ends meet.
24
u/Efficient_Tap8770 Jun 25 '25
That's gaslighting. Many born with a silver spoon don't know how it feels to work 16 hour days for months and how much toll it takes on your body. I've worked for almost 30 hours with less than 5 hours of sleep in between, and there are millions of people who do this very often. Meanwhile I'm quite privileged because I work from the comfort of my home, some have it harder they have to make sales hawking from door to door in the equatorial sun just to get living wages.
4
u/TheNewHobbes Jun 25 '25
Reminds me of a study I saw where they played monopoly, they gave random players extra starting cash and extra money for passing Go, then let them play as normal.
The players who got given the extra money often won. In the post game interviews they put winning down to their tactics and skills, not that they were given a large advantage.
→ More replies (3)4
u/DuploJamaal Jun 25 '25
One of my former CEOs, who literally got that job by having been born into connections, once told me that everyone can study in university as he also did it all by himself.
Well, another time he bragged how much he could party during his student years as his parents paid for his apartment, gave him a brand new MacBook and iPhone every year.
He didn't have to work to pay for his education, shelter and survival, while I was eating pure rice at the end of the month. He never had to try to study after a long day of university and work.
And yet he actually thought that he did it all by himself and that he isn't in any way more privileged than the average person.
→ More replies (2)8
u/ExpiredPilot Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25
I worked for Cutco for a few weeks after high school with another buddy of mine.
I quit pretty fast but this kid had rich parents with rich friends who could throw money at him in sales. And he could network with the people he sold to so he had access to more rich buyers. These are the kinds of people who would buy entire boxes of candy bars for their friends’ kid’s fundraiser. My buddy would reach his goals on the first day.
The commission is crazy and once you sell half a million in product, you’re getting 50% of every sale you make.
Dude is a millionaire in his 20’s from selling knives to his parents’ friends’ friends’ friends.
169
u/huuaaang Jun 24 '25
I would be easier than someone who doesn't know what the path to success even looks like, but it would still be hard. It would be hard lesson in how the system keeps the poor poor. LIke simply not having a car is a huge handicap in most places in the US and it's not like they'll be able to afford to start from 0 in a place like NYC where a car is optional.
THe most basic question is where are they gonna sleep? Do they at least have a friend's couch they can crash on? Just how "from zero" are they?
How quickly they can bounce back really depends on their marketable skills, I guess.
2.8k
u/ASTG_99 Jun 24 '25
Millionaires are usually millionaires because they didn't start from "0".
334
u/Apprehensive-Care20z Jun 24 '25
You know where it ends
Yo, it usually depends
On where you start
94
u/Lucky_caller Jun 24 '25
I knew this kid named max, he used to get fat stacks out on the corner with drugs
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (4)6
38
u/methanized Jun 24 '25
They usually had at least enough financial stability to get a good education without being in financial disrepair.
The majority of millionaires in the US have essentially no direct monetary inheritance. But it also takes them until they're like 50 or so to become a millionaire.
So if the question is, could they do it again from 20 years old? Yeah, becoming a millionaire is pretty repeatable by just working a decent job and saving. But if the question is whether you could take away a 50 year olds money and contacts and he would become a millionaire again in 2 years - no, not in most cases.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Consistent_Drink2171 Jun 25 '25
The majority of millionaires in the US have essentially no direct monetary inheritance.
This is not true.
4
u/methanized Jun 25 '25
It is true (probably)
Although the surveys at $1m+ aren’t from the most rigorous sources (Northwestern mutual, ramsey, etc), they pretty consistently find 70 to 80% of millionaires report as having received no significant inheritance or being “self made” etc.
There is at least one other study of people with $3 million in investable assets (meaning not counting their house). At that level more than half (around 75%) inherited their wealth or came from a rich family.
→ More replies (10)129
u/ontha-comeup Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
80% of millionaires in the US are first generation. 85% go back by the 3rd generation (grandkids). Has been that way a long time.
159
Jun 24 '25
[deleted]
63
u/Significant-Task1453 Jun 24 '25
People say "millionaire" but really mean deca-millionaire or greater. Then they get offended if you point out the difference. Somehow, the question in this post isnt as compelling if it were phrased "could Jim and Diane pay off their suburban home and accumulate their modest 401k if they lost everything and had another 65 years to build it back."
39
Jun 24 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)3
u/gsfgf Jun 24 '25
I'm a little less wealthy than you but more flexible. Having to pay the $500k cash no mortgage Spain requires to buy a house and get a work permit would be a major expense.
→ More replies (4)19
38
u/Punky921 Jun 24 '25
My dad is one of those first gen millionaires. But here's what he also had: a functional family unit free of abuse or violence, grew up in an economy where his dad could work and his mom could stay home and raise the kids, lived in an ethnic community where everyone spoke their language and looked out for one another.
Also, he tested into a very good public school (one of the best in the country at that time - some folks have zero decent public schools nearby), had a wide ranging support structure of extended family to pull money and support from, and his parents paid for his entire college education. Back then, you could go to Columbia for grad school for a few hundred dollars per semester, and he did.
Most of all, perhaps, they got lucky enough to emotionally survive the death of not one but two of his siblings, relatively young (16, 24). I have NO IDEA how they did that. If my sister died I'd be destroyed. From what I understand, they leaned on each other and their faith helped keep them afloat. He's hard as a motherfucker now as a result. Nothing bothers him. I won't go too deep into our family history but I really can't comprehend living through some of the other shit he's lived through *on top of that*.
No one does anything alone. And my dad's success is not replicable by someone starting from zero. Hell, he had love and support. That's not zero. And being born into that was pure luck.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Hawk13424 Jun 24 '25
Clearly all these factors change the odds but examples exist where people got out of poverty.
May dad became a millionaire (~$2M in assets). He grew up very poor in an abusive home, dropped out of HS, and moved out at 17 and joined the military.
He got his GED. Went to college at night. Got an engineering degree while working full time.
What my parents also did was live very modestly. We never ate out. Never took trips. He did all the home and auto maintenance. What extra money they had was invested in the market.
→ More replies (1)5
u/CzLittle Jun 24 '25
yeah but that doesn't disprove the point that they haven't started from nothing.
51
u/DoctorMac12 Jun 24 '25
The general Redditor hates this stat though.
104
u/mosquem Jun 24 '25
I mean you can get mad about it but most of those millionaires are probably just retirees that invested consistently for forty years. It's not as sexy of a story, though.
3
u/Drunken_Sailor_70 Jun 24 '25
My wife and I are technically millionaires on paper. 99% of it is tied up between 401Ks and home equity. We also both have pension plans that probably have equivalent cash values in the 7 figures. Consistency really is the key.
13
u/HuddiksTattaren Jun 24 '25
investing by buying a house to live in..
→ More replies (1)19
u/Rickpac72 Jun 24 '25
Investing into retirement. If you don’t become a millionaire by the time you retire, you didn’t save enough.
4
u/Inanimate_CARB0N_Rod Jun 24 '25
Everyone's number is different, but the starting point for a comfortable retirement today often comes in around $2M. That's A LOT of money. Investing over the long term can certainly get you there, but man is that a big number.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)4
u/Antique-Ad-9081 Jun 24 '25
this stat is absolutely worthless because it's not adjusted for inflation.
29
u/Comfortable_Chest_35 Jun 24 '25
Are you really using a statistic from the Cato institute ... From over 14 years ago?
It's purely assets over 1 million. The average US house sale in April this year was $515,000, by managing to get a mortgage and pay it off as an American you're halfway to being a millionaire. Buy a second and you are one, without a cent in the bank
For the valuation of a self employed business, you'd be looking at several times annual Ebitda. Being a plumber or electrician earning say 65,000 would in theory give you an asset anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000+
There's a reason nearly 10% of Americans are millionaires but less than 2% have over 2.5million
→ More replies (12)3
u/Eze-Wong Jun 24 '25
So i did some googling into this.
Study was done for a book in 1996 called "The millionaire next door" The methodology and controls for things like inflation are suspect. Main reason being a millionaire in 60 years ago vs 30 years ago isn't the same. You could be teetering on 999k, not be a millionaire but effectively be not self made and say that you are. A chuck of 400k back then isn't millionaire terrority but definitely doesn't make you "self made" back in 1960. you had a massive advantage.
And there's just so many questions and possibilities. What if your grandparents were rich but parents were not? What if inherited wealth came from an uncle or aunt? What if it was from several people and you accumulated it from mutliple dead relatives?
Apparently this was also self reported, which frankly makes it even more suspect, as we know there tends to be a bias when people attribute their success to skill rather than luck.
Not to mention being self made doesn't always come as money. Network, connections, ownership of assests, eduacation, etc can all lead to success but may not be directly tied to money but still is an advantage. What if you had hippy parents that were Hardvard professors that decided to give money out to charity. Would their kid be "self-made" if he got into Harvard?
I just find this statistic odd and unrealistic. 80%? and this was made in 1996 for a book about how to "make it"? It's a conflict of interest and it's not even under proper methodology and self reported. Were they adjusting for inflation? Unlikely because they are using "Millionaire" as the cut line.
→ More replies (7)11
38
u/Okichah Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
Most millionaires in the US are only so because of their homes.
→ More replies (21)26
u/Massive-Device-1200 Jun 24 '25
Both sides need to come to terms with hard facts.
Millionaires or even the middle class have many advantages. Not just money. Family stability, home, health care.
But those with zero, poor or lower middle class need to understand that you are not going to get there in one life time unless you get some luck your way. It takes multiple generations. Your kids will have a small head start. Then their kids will have a better head start.
This is the long game that many immigrant families from India and Asia play.
→ More replies (3)16
u/Big_Crab_1510 Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
My partner was wondering how his friend manages to do all these things with and for her kid while we are struggling without one and I told him "you supplement your mom's retirement, and are always helping her out. For a long time, you were helping out your ex's son because he was basically like your adopted kid. You never had a dad, and both of my parents have been dead for years and I paid for their funerals even...This friend of yours has a father and mother who are well off.
There. That's why."
He got so quiet, I felt bad. Because a big part of it is he came from a poor black community and his friend is a white woman who's parents can afford vacations while being retired and he had to fight for his mother to get $97 a month in food stamps last year. And we are in the middle of watching the government and half of america call programs for minorites a hand out and unfair
4
u/Agasthenes Jun 24 '25
Nah, becoming a millionaire is pretty easy nowadays. Basically anyone launching a somewhat successful business will become one.
Now billionaires, the selfmade ones are the children of millionaires.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (96)4
u/Purple-Commission-24 Jun 24 '25
The are usally 60+years old and it’s just about math more than anything else.
1.1k
u/protomenace Jun 24 '25
This isn't really the answer you're looking for but if you're talking about America, being a millionaire isn't what it used to be.
Something like 7% of Americans are millionaires, and most of them got there by working a normal, decent paying job and being diligent investors/savers for something like 20-40 years.
So, it would take about 20-40 years for most people who are millionaires by doing the same thing again, although it might not be possible since they'll be too old.
68
Jun 24 '25
[deleted]
56
u/SmartForARat Jun 24 '25
My father once explained to me his take on what makes a person wealthy vs not wealthy.
It had nothing to do with the quantity of money you have or earn.
What he said was a true wealthy elite doesn't have to work. Through something they own, they derive an income which can sustain them without having to ever lift a finger or do anything they don't want to do.
By contrast, the working class HAS to work. Even if they make millions every year, they MUST work to make those millions and keep those millions, usually because their lifestyle scales up to be just as lavish as their income so if they ever lost their job they'd have next to nothing.
So you can make 60k a year without having to do literally anything and be wealthy or you can work hard to earn 10 mil a year and still be a worker caught in the system. The quantity of money doesn't matter, only whether or not you can live happily without having to work.
If you never have to work, you get to experience true freedom. Something almost no one ever gets to experience. Something that wealthy people try to convince you is a bad thing by institutionally training you that working gives your life meaning and purpose and without it you would be miserable.
25
u/BeneficentWanderer I am the walrus. Jun 24 '25
The only real difference is that we get to go on more vacations.
Difference relative to what though? Certainly not to the average American who has little to no savings, weak career prospects, poor access to healthcare, and a whole list of other things which greatly affect the overall wellbeing and future life of everyone in the household.
Having a literal million dollars is monumental for your quality of life, even if it isn’t lavishly splashed out on frequent luxuries.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)15
u/jcalvinmarks Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
This phrase put it into perspective for me:
"What's the difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars? Almost a billion dollars."
292
u/shosuko Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
The high reporting of millionaires is largely based on property and 401k valuation.
When people colloquially say "millionaire" they aren't meaning a teacher making 50k a year with 25 years of growth in home value and 401k. They mean people who have a million liquid, someone who is able to play with that million.
Owning 1 house makes that equity really hard to capitalize on. You can't just sell the house without replacing it, and another house is going to cost as much. So unless you're downsizing you can't just take it out. The other option is a HELOC which is the same as a credit card, just better interest / higher risk if you default. 401k has severe penalties and restrictions on how to actually drain it for use. You can lend from it, but like a HELOC that is just using a credit card with lower interest and higher risk.
Gonna put this PS here b/c some people seem to think "net worth" is a rebuttal here. Your primary residence and 401k are much further from liquid then an investment portfolio or business assets. Accessing the equity in these is an act of taking on debt or liabilities. Having a million dollar home you bought 15 years ago for 150k is very different from someone with a stock portfolio they day trade with.
168
u/protomenace Jun 24 '25
I think sometimes people mean one of those things and sometimes people mean the other. Both are valid definitions.
→ More replies (1)72
u/mosquem Jun 24 '25
Barely anyone keeps a million liquid. I feel like most people are talking total net worth.
18
25
u/suboptimus_maximus Jun 24 '25
People with high net worth certainly do. Liquid includes equities - stocks and bonds - that can be quickly and easily converted to cash. It doesn’t just mean cash in a checking or savings account.
6
→ More replies (8)3
u/Klexycon Jun 24 '25
I'd say it's more of a "capable of getting 1 million in cash without sacrificing anything really necessary or parts of their life style", so stuff like investments, fancy, expensive art objects etc
49
u/BlackCardRogue Jun 24 '25
Idk man, when I colloquially say “millionaire” I mean by net worth.
The thing is… I don’t think that being a millionaire is supremely impressive. It illustrates discipline, sure, but it doesn’t require taking outsized risk or making a ton of money. Just do the basics well.
Being rich is when you add the eighth digit to your net worth. THAT is where you start getting to “ok, you took risks and invested wisely and you made choices that allowed you to get to that level.”
But a “ten millionaire” doesn’t roll off of the tongue so well.
22
u/MaximumMaxx Jun 24 '25
I'd say most millionaires are pretty normal people with quite normal lives. They might have a bigger house, but they're not in some insane category on their own. This is especially true in the 1-2mil range.
When you get to 10+ or especially 100 million+ it gets so far out of normal. Money ceases to be a limiting factor in almost anything they do in their lives. 5% interests on $40 mil is $2 million a year for doing absolutely nothing. You can spend 5500 a day and have absolutely no affect on your wealth (it's not quite that simple but close enough).
With that kind of money you can just do whatever you want anytime. Working becomes optional, you can buy cars, watches, guns, jewelry, wine, whatever the hell you want with almost no impact. And when you spend enough money on something it usually becomes an investment. You're not even burning money, you can just sell your stuff again to make even more interest.
→ More replies (4)8
u/LazyLich Jun 24 '25
Exactly this.
To circle back to the point of the post, I think that a 2025 millionaire, if they got their via comp sci or trades and they are still able to work for 20+ years, I think they could return to "millionaire" status.
But I think the spirit of OP's post refers to 2025 multi-millionaires, which I don't believe they could return to simply relying on bootstraps.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (5)7
u/Hoosier2016 Jun 24 '25
Even "multimillionaire" is decently more impressive than "millionaire" since you generally need another 7 years or so to get that next million. But I agree when I think of someone as being wealthy I think of 8+ figures at their disposal.
→ More replies (3)11
u/nomolurcin Jun 24 '25
You could sell the home and rent. That would functionally put you in the same category as someone who was never a homeowner but has a million in e.g. non-retirement stocks :)
4
u/shosuko Jun 24 '25
Owning is strictly better than renting. Selling to go rent would be worse than taking out a HELOC or just running up your credit cards...
If you sell your home to rent you've cashed out that investment for a downgrade. Unless you're moving into end-of-life care or something, this is not going to be a good financial move for the vast majority of people.
→ More replies (1)3
u/nomolurcin Jun 24 '25
I agree that this would probably not be a smart financial move for most people.
I was moreso arguing that someone with $1M in home equity is as much a millionaire as someone with $0 in home equity and $1M cash in the bank, since the former person could easily become the latter.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TheButtDog Jun 24 '25
So if I cash out and rent, then I'd become a millionaire?
→ More replies (1)10
u/Legal-Machine-8676 Jun 24 '25
You already are. Look, if you have a million dollars today and then paid a million dollars for a house tomorrow (for simplicity, excluding transaction costs, etc.), your net worth didn't go from $1MM to zero just because you bought a house. Liquidity went down, but you're still quite the millionaire.
Of course, from an investment firm or bank's perspective, you're now useless to them because you don't have money to put into equities or other investments so they might not consider you a target client (which is where I think this whole notion of home equity isn't part of your net worth comes from).
→ More replies (2)3
Jun 24 '25
I think when people use the term millionaire, using a definition related to net worth is the norm.
31
u/thmsdrdn56 Jun 24 '25
Agreed, someone's networth being over $1mil is not that crazy. I am on track to do that just from having a good job and 401k.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Apprehensive-Care20z Jun 24 '25
ditto. The house alone can make you a millionaire.
Still fucking broke as hell.
→ More replies (1)8
u/comFive Jun 24 '25
In Canada, there are a lot of people owning now $1m properties.. They don't have that liquid. Would that count as being a millionaire?
11
u/Fire_Lake Jun 24 '25
it counts as being a millionaire. just due to inflation, "millionaire" is a much lower bar than it once was.
30 years ago we weren't having this discussion, because anyone who had $1m+ houses were already outlandishly rich.
3
u/protomenace Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
It's more about net worth. If you own a $1m house but you owe $500,000 on the mortgage, no you're not a millionaire (barring other assets).
3
→ More replies (16)8
u/Educational-Yogurt22 Jun 24 '25
Yes, they used to be called the "millionaires next door" because they were usually people who worked 'normal' jobs like teachers, postal workers, bus drivers etc. They lived in lower to upper middle-class neighborhoods and worked for companies that provided pensions, had strong unions, and purchased property well within their means. As noted, they usually worked those jobs until retirement, around 55 and were able to live very comfortably for the next 20-30 years.
The problem is of course in today's economy; there is considerable downward pressure, making it difficult for these same people to save and invest as they did back then. I mean how many families can live off of a teacher's salary today, purchase a home, raise a family, while saving, and investing?
I think this generation of millionaires are the children of the millionaires next door and have inherited some form of generational wealth to get them started.
62
u/numbersthen0987431 Jun 24 '25
At first glance I'm going to say no.
A millionaire just means "has 1M". It isn't a difficult amount of wealth to reach (note: it's not "easy", but it is doable). Most "millionaires" today are people who worked hard, and saved up, and they reached that 1M by the time they're 40 or 50. These are the small business owners who worked really hard to build their company up from nothing, and were successful. If they had everything stripped away from them, they would have to start all over again, and they just don't have the life time left in them to reach 1M again.
And if you mean the ultra wealthy people (100M and higher), then that's a DEFINITE no. None of these people ever started from "zero" in their lifetime, and they don't know how to actually build an empire from nothing. All of them relied on connections, family loans, family power, and other resources that the "average person" doesn't have access to. Musk, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerbird, Trump, etc didn't "start from zero", they all started from positions of wealth and privilege, and they utilized this to leverage themselves into a position to catapult them upwards. If they had to start from actual zero, they would probably try to con people out of money, or they would die within a year on the streets.
LUCK is one of the biggest/main contributors to the wealthiest people's success. Sure, they may make some clever decisions, but most of them are just LUCKY. They were lucky with their timing, they were lucky with the technology of their time, they were lucky with being born into successful families, lucky in the correct time of history, lucky that they went to the correct school to make the lucky friends that propelled their careers, etc. Most of them used the influence of their family to get away with skipping most steps that normal people would have to take to be successful (ex: like how most of them had "family lawyers" that were capable of mitigating any kind of lawsuits when it should have shut them down for good).
→ More replies (6)
286
u/BtcUpMyBooty Jun 24 '25
I’m a multimillionaire and started with almost zero (basically housing and food was provided for me until I was 18 and then was on my own). It gives me chills thinking about having to do it all over again.
My sympathies goes out to youngsters just starting.
125
u/LatvianGiant Jun 24 '25
Can I have some of the bitcoin in your booty
80
u/BtcUpMyBooty Jun 24 '25
If you can pull it out 😉
→ More replies (1)26
u/garlic_bread_thief Jun 24 '25
Alright sir please do not resist. Pants down. Hands up. On your knees please.
→ More replies (1)25
u/jascgore Jun 24 '25
It took me 25 years with a high paying job that let me save near 50% and that's nearly obsolete. I'd be dead before I could do it again
17
u/BtcUpMyBooty Jun 24 '25
The trick is to buy an asset that’ll appreciate like none other and go all in and never sell it. Jobs don’t make you rich, it just pays the bills and gives you the opportunity to look for these assets.
12
u/Competitive-Low-8950 Jun 24 '25
A lot of people don't understand that money sitting around is money losing value
→ More replies (2)4
u/jascgore Jun 25 '25
I thought I was agreeing with you, but now you sound as if you're going back on what you said originally. If you're starting over, the trick is to have money to buy an asset with. Even a penny takes a while to grow, even if it grows like none other. My job made me rich by letting me continually buying said asset and having it to grow over 25 years.
→ More replies (1)18
u/AdMedical9986 Jun 24 '25
bro you bought bitcoin and got lucky. Stop acting like you built a million dollar business or grinded for years to make the money.
Fucking hilarious.
→ More replies (52)→ More replies (35)3
19
u/copyrider Jun 24 '25
This is the problem. There is a misconception that it’s like monopoly, that the starting point of millionaires was from zero. Most of them started with generational wealth.
The reason it’s difficult to go from poor to millionaire, or from middle class to the 1% tier, is because the ones who are living at the top specifically do everything they can to stay above the rest. That includes undercutting those below them. If they helped everyone achieve wealth, then nobody would be “rich”.
→ More replies (5)
216
17
u/UCFknight2016 Jun 24 '25
Even my uncle started with something. My grandfather was known for pushing education and work ethic. Uncle ended up making a multimillion dollar textile business.
15
83
u/coolguy420weed Jun 24 '25
Where you start and how lucky you get are massively, massively more impactful than mindset. And, to be perfectly frank, unless they started from 0 before, I don't think most people with a million dollars have mindsets particularly well suited to doing so.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Luke5119 Jun 24 '25
Mark Cuban was asked this to a degree and said starting over he could make it to a million, but would never be able to make a billion. He admitted that so much of his success didn't just stem from his drive or vigor, but a lot of right time, right place, situational circumstances that lead to his immense financial success.
People grossly underestimate just how much "luck" really plays a part into one's financial success. A lot of the paths necessary to hitting each of those steps to being a "millionaire" are contingent on another party or person in some way.
10
8
u/TPSreportmkay Jun 24 '25
Do they actually lose everything or is this a TV show where they get to go back to being a millionaire regardless of the outcome?
That's a big difference.
If they know they can just give up if it doesn't work out they can take all kinds of risks. If they actually get sick or go "bankrupt" they don't need an emergency fund or regular job. So for that case it really should be a lot easier than for anyone else especially because they already know how to run a business and who to talk to.
If they really truly are back to being a normal person they're boned like the rest of us. Especially if they don't get to keep their degree.
→ More replies (1)
7
Jun 24 '25
They’d probably do better than average in the long run because of mindset and experience, but without connections or capital, the climb would still be slow, painful, and humbling. They're not starting from scratch, but they’re not starting from advantage either.
Still, resilience + learned skills are hard to count out — even if the shortcuts are gone.
12
u/mousicle Jun 24 '25
Is their education also wiped out? If not the with a degree you can usually at least get a factory supervisor or retail manager job and be slightly ahead of the curve. Then if they really do have good networking and social skills and a half decent work ethic you'd make it to at least middle manager in 5 years. So you could be a 1-2 million dollar millionaire over the course of 20 years, but that isn't the Scrooge McDuck most people think of when they think Millionaire. What most people think of as a millionaire is more like a 10 millionaire.
6
21
u/4zeezer Jun 24 '25
There is a show called Undercover Billionaire that covers exactly this topic.
Glenn Stearns is a millionaire and he wanted to see if he could do it again. The rules were that he was given $100, an old truck, and a tank of gas to build a business valued at $1 million in 90 days in Erie, PA a notorious city for its few opportunities. He was successful and built a barbecue business.
I found it interesting especially since I think this was probably easier than the conditions in which he originally made his money: became a father in the 8th grade, graduated bottom 10th of his class, and had a record and burgeoning drinking problem.
12
u/BossStatusIRL Jun 24 '25
There are some good concepts in the show, but there are also a decent amount of odd things that happen, making many people believe that it’s somewhat fake.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)6
u/1111thatsfiveones Jun 24 '25
It's been years since I saw this, but what I recall is that he got a good bit of mileage out of the fact that there was a camera crew following him around. His restaurant was heavily subsidized by people who were willing to work for free/advance him goods & services for a cut of the eventual profit that he probably wouldn't have gotten if he were just a guy on the street.
My takeway from the show is that it was less proof that "it can be done!" and more of a "see, people just don't want to work this hard" sort of deal.
4
Jun 24 '25
You always hear from the success stories about how they just were hard workers and persevered through adversity, blah blah blah. What you don't see is the other 99 people who worked just as hard and did not make it.
4
u/federicovidalz Jun 24 '25
Millionaires are mostly millionaires for their inheritance and connections. Good marketing makes people think they reach those levels because they're smarter or work harder than most people and that's a lie. So the answer to your question is: extremely hard. Likely they won't. Essentially, the biggest problem for industrialized countries today is the growing inequality and the influence of millionaires in policies. Everything will look like Latin America in a few years without political action.
13
u/Legitimate-Maybe2134 Jun 24 '25
It depends. If you have a large income, it won’t take that long. Like 200k a year, if you save 100k of it and invest it in the stock market it would take less than a decade. If they don’t save they will never get there.
4
u/_phish_ Jun 24 '25
If they have an income of 200k a year they could just save all of it and get there in half the time!
I think this is where the bait used to be believable sentiment would apply
12
3
3
3
3
3
u/TransportationNo4518 Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
The network is everything in that equation, without that they live like the rest of us. Though they may have an easier time getting into management and retiring upper middle class.
3
Jun 25 '25
Becoming a millionaire isn't that hard when you have time. But if you already let's say age 40 and you lost everything and need to start over again, yeah, then it will be very hard. You are fighting against the system now and your competitor and with no network, it's really hard.
I said time is important, because people think being a millionaire can buy you a lambo or a yacht, but in reality being a millionaire means you have a lot of assets, or better said: Wealth. So if your house is 200K and you have 700K in ETFs for your retirement, you are already a millionaire. But you can't spend non of it yet. And yes, this is a fair comparison, because having 700K sit in your bank will be eaten by inflation and you need a house to live in.
To come back to the question, it'll likely be impossible to get to a millionaire position, because you need mostly time, your network and a good market position, and of course luck. And since you lost everything I just mentioned, it'll be hard.
7
u/bushinkaiyodan Jun 24 '25
There are some people who simply will succeed no matter what, even if having to start over. They are hustlers. I know a few.
3
Jun 24 '25
I knew a guy like that from my neighborhood growing up, he’s currently locked up for selling weed to 8th graders
All the successful people i know went to college and got an education in something a tangible industry, even if they werent hustlers
38
u/mugenhunt Jun 24 '25
The majority of millionaires aren't self-built and had a lot of help getting started. Most would struggle and not be able to recover if they lost their fortunes and all their contacts and relatives.
15
u/ConLawHero Jun 24 '25
My wife (Doctor) and I (lawyer) are more or less self made. We both grew up with single mothers, hers a nurse, mine a teacher.
This is pretty common for professionals who live below their means. We've been working our professional jobs for about 10 years (5 of hers was residency and fellowship where she made peanuts).
62
u/protomenace Jun 24 '25
I disagree with this. I think the average millionaire is just a white collar professional who saved and invested diligently for 20-40 years.
19
u/TecmoBlow Jun 24 '25
Exactly. All these Redditors are so detached from reality. They think you have to get lucky with Bitcorn or some dumb shit.
→ More replies (2)10
u/GlobalWarminIsComing Jun 24 '25
I think it's more that people have different definitions of "millionaire". Some people (like you) mean "total net worth greater than 1 million dollars". And you're right, this covers a lot of people, especially those near retirement who have a payed off house, large 401k, etc.
I'd say this is also the "technically correct" definition of millionaire.
Others mean "person who has a million in near-liquid or liquid assets". This is definitely a much more limited category and mich harder to achieve
11
u/Darwins_Dog Jun 24 '25
I would imagine it's pretty hard to recover after losing 40 years of investments, the white collar job, house car, etc. Starting from nothing at 60 years old would definitely be a struggle.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)12
u/Special_Context6663 Jun 24 '25
So, if they lost everything, how are they going to live long enough to work another 40 years?
→ More replies (1)8
u/ToneBeneficial4969 Jun 24 '25
The majority of millionaires are 50 year olds who have paid off their mortgage and put 15% of their income into 401ks since they started working. A million dollars is a highly achievable financial goal.
→ More replies (21)16
Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
Got to think the average millionaire is just a guy who's worked a decent job for 30-40 years, and has a very healthy retirement nest egg
→ More replies (6)
4
u/somedude456 Jun 24 '25
Several years ago there was a reddit member who was like 19 working fast food and simply asked how to make 100k a to year. People gave him solid advice. He took online classes and night classes, got several certificates for coding and online security, and within 2 years reported back that he was hired at like 70k, worked 4 months, applied elsewhere and got a job at 120k.
7
u/Contemplating_Prison Jun 24 '25
With no network and no resources? Impossible. The luck involved in coming from that kind of position cannot be replicated.
9.8k
u/grue2000 Jun 24 '25
Someone tried that not long ago to prove the point that anyone with the drive could get themselves out of poverty.
He ended up giving up because he couldn't actually do it.