&gt;<i>Those people also derived no benefit from their wealth. They invested their wealth rather than spending any of it.</i><p>I call BS on &quot;any of it&quot;. They spent enough -- and not that much is really needed compared to their total wealth -- to live like kings, with several luxury houses all across the country&#x2F;globe, yachts, private jets, parties and all.<p>&gt;<i>I don&#x27;t know enough about the Clinton welfare reforms to have an informed opinion but having a job makes it a great deal easier to get another job.</i><p>It can also make it harder, as you can&#x27;t go looking for a job when you&#x27;re overwhelmed working two jobs or 10+ hour shifts (as many of the &quot;lazy&quot; poor do). Besides this all presumes there are jobs for that particular job market -- else, merely looking or at best going from one crappy job to another is not much of an improvement.<p>The more better of (e.g. us programmers) can take months off of work, even start a personal project, and use our savings to get by for a while before starting to look for a new job. The poor play job seeking in a harder mode. Double so when they&#x27;re fired from the previous one.<p>&gt;<i>So 40% of the 10 wealthiest Americans made their own money? That sounds like the mark of a dynamic economy.</i><p>Does it really? Seems like it should be comparative -- if 60% done the same in the past, then it would be sounding like the mark of an economy becoming less dynamic...