Crazy. I never thought her stuff was so successful.
Currently estimated worth of $900 million (a conservative estimate according to Forbes).

I clown that family for acting like fools. But they know business

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/11/how-20-year-old-kylie-jenner-built-a-900-million-fortune-in-less-than-3-years/

Hardly qualified as hitting a home run.

Not to detract from what she did with that head start. I applaud it, in fact, because that's precisely what should and can be done with that sort of head start.

Oprah was "self made".
Will Smith.

KJ maximized the wealth of opportunity and privilege at her disposal. Good for her, and again, I applaud it. But the accomplishment should be discussed within the terms of her maximizing the possibilities enabled by the treasure trove head start she has been given.

Calling her self made isn't just a semantic lapse. It's blshit. nonsense. A lie. And should not be used.

>Hardly qualified as hitting a home run.
>
>Not to detract from what she did with that head start. I
>applaud it, in fact, because that's precisely what should and
>can be done with that sort of head start.
>
>Oprah was "self made".
>Will Smith.
>
>KJ maximized the wealth of opportunity and privilege at her
>disposal. Good for her, and again, I applaud it. But the
>accomplishment should be discussed within the terms of her
>maximizing the possibilities enabled by the treasure trove
>head start she has been given.
>
>Calling her self made isn't just a semantic lapse. It's
>blshit. nonsense. A lie. And should not be used.
>

...and $8 million in seed money from her peoples (c) Get Hard.

Is it not her company?

but she damn sure gets kudo's for focusing on lip kits.. not sure what that is but she could've done purses, earrings, rings, etc..

I"m sure she had a team around her and they prolly helped filter all those ideas into what this is but shit, if it's 100% hers she damn sure did something right.

and I hate this family..lol

Also, "self made" doesn't mean anything. There's no such thing as a self-made billionaire.

Hopefully soon, they'll also be no such thing as a billionaire.

>Hopefully soon, they'll also be no such thing as a
>billionaire.


______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

>Actually, I've probably haven't thought about it as extensively as most, but I've often thought about that too.

At some point someone's gonna have to hit the reset button on all this shit. Either that, or there's gotta be another huge depression so that everything is brought back down to reasonableness.

Scary thing is this. Unbridled capitalism is not sustainable. But we're talking about sustainable in terms of human history. Which means even if/when all this shit blows up, it'll take a while. Maybe a few decades more. Maybe another couple hundred of years.


______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

... while people die because they're broke.

Somebody should take her money. The federal government, ideally. It'd be good for her soul. And so it's clear that I'm not picking on her - same thing goes for that doofus from Papa Johns and Elon Musk and basically any rich asshole whether they've been part of the world's dumbest news cycle lately or not.

Honestly, it should be an honor to all of these billionaires that we're emulating them: confiscating their wealth and closing off their access to political influence is exactly what they've done to everybody else.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich

A reminder that people who possess great wealth in a time of poverty are directly causing that poverty…

by A.Q. SMITH
Here is a simple statement of principle that doesn’t get repeated enough: if you possess billions of dollars, in a world where many people struggle because they do not have much money, you are an immoral person. The same is true if you possess hundreds of millions of dollars, or even millions of dollars. Being extremely wealthy is impossible to justify in a world containing deprivation.

Even though there is a lot of public discussion about inequality, there seems to be far less talk about just how patently shameful it is to be rich. After all, there are plenty of people on this earth who die—or who watch their loved ones die—because they cannot afford to pay for medical care. There are elderly people who become homeless because they cannot afford rent. There are children living on streets and in cars, there are mothers who can’t afford diapers for their babies. All of this is beyond dispute. And all of it could be ameliorated if people who had lots of money simply gave those other people their money. It’s therefore deeply shameful to be rich. It’s not a morally defensible thing to be.

To take a U.S. example: white families in America have 16 times as much wealth on average as black families. This is indisputably because of slavery, which was very recent (there are people alive today who met people who were once slaves). Larry Ellison of Oracle could put his $55 billion in a fund that could be used to just give houses to black families, not quite as direct “reparations” but simply as a means of addressing the fact that the average white family has a house while the average black family does not. But instead of doing this, Larry Ellison bought the island of Lanai. (It’s kind of extraordinary that a single human being can just own the sixth-largest Hawaiian island, but that’s what concentrated wealth leads to.) Because every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else, the decision to retain wealth is a decision to deprive others.

Note that this is a slightly different point than the usual ones made about rich people. For example, it is sometimes claimed that CEOs get paid too much, or that the super-wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. My claim has nothing to do with either of these debates. You can hold my position and simultaneously believe that CEOs should get paid however much a company decides to pay them, and that taxes are a tyrannical form of legalized theft. What I am arguing about is not the question of how much people should be given, but the morality of their retaining it after it is given to them.

Many times, defenses of the accumulation of great wealth depend on justifications for the initial acquisition of that wealth. The libertarian-ish philosopher Robert Nozick gave a well-known hypothetical that is used to challenge claims that wealthy people did not deserve their wealth: suppose millions of people enjoy watching Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. And suppose, Nozick wrote, that each of these people would happily give Wilt Chamberlain 25 cents for the privilege of watching him play basketball. And suppose that through the process of people paying Wilt Chamberlain, he ended up with millions of dollars, while each of his audience members had (willingly) sacrificed a quarter. Even though Wilt Chamberlain is now far richer than anyone else in the society, would anyone say that his acquisition of wealth was unjust?

Libertarians use this example to rebut attempts to say that the rich do not deserve their wealth. After all, they say, the process by which those rich people attained their wealth is totally consensual. We’d have to be crazy Stalinists to believe that I shouldn’t have the right to pay you a quarter to watch you play basketball. Why, look at Mark Zuckerberg. Nobody has to use Facebook. He is rich because people like the product he came up with. Clearly, his wealth is the product of his own labor, and nobody should deprive him of it. People on the right often defend wealth along these lines. I earned it, therefore it’s not unfair for me to have it.

But there is a separate question that this defense ignores: regardless of whether you have earned it, to what degree are you morally permitted to retain it? The question of getting and the question of keeping are distinct. As a parallel: if I come into possession of an EpiPen, and I encounter a child experiencing a severe allergic reaction, the question of whether I am obligated to inject the child is distinguishable from the question of whether I obtained the pen legitimately. It’s important to be clear about these distinctions, because we might answer questions about systems differently than we answer questions about individual behavior. (“I don’t hate capitalism, I just hate rich people” is a perfectly legitimate and consistent perspective.)

I therefore think there is a sort of deflection that goes on with defenses of wealth. If we find it appalling that there are so many rich people in a time of need, we are asked to consider questions of acquisition rather than questions of retention. The retention question, after all, is much harder for a wealthy person to answer. It’s one thing to argue that you got rich legitimately. It’s another to explain why you feel justified in spending your wealth upon houses and sculptures rather than helping some struggling people pay their rent or paying off a bunch of student loans or saving thousands of people from dying of malaria. There may be nothing unseemly about the process by which a basketball player earns his millions (we can debate this). But there’s certainly something unseemly about having those millions.

One of the reasons wealthy people rarely have to defend their choices is that “shaming the rich” is not really compatible with any of the predominating political perspectives. People on the right obviously believe that having piles of wealth is fine. Centrist Democrats can’t attack rich people for being rich because they’re increasingly a party for rich people. And socialists (this is the interesting case) tend to believe that questions about the morality of having wealth are relatively unimportant, because they are far more interested in how the state divides up wealth than in what individuals choose to do with it. As G.A. Cohen points out in If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?, Marxists have been concerned with eliminating capitalism generally, which has kept them from thinking about questions of the justice of people’s personal choices. After all, if the problem of inequality is systemic, and rich people do not really make choices but pursue their class interests, then asking whether it is moral for wealthy people to retain their wealth is both irrelevant (because individual decisions don’t affect the systemic problem) and incoherent (because the idea of a moral or immoral capitalist makes no sense in the Marxist framework). In fact, there is a certain leftist argument that giving away wealth in the form of charity is actually bad, because it allows capitalism to look superficially generous without actually altering the balance of power in the society. “The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves, because they prevented the core of the system from being realized by those who suffered from it,” as Oscar Wilde ludicrously put it. (In their book Blueprints for a Sparkling Tomorrow, Nimni and Robinson parody this perspective by portraying two leftist academics who insist on being rude to servers in restaurants, on the grounds that being polite to them obscures the true brutality of class relations.)

But I think it is a mistake to avoid inquiring into the moral justifications for wealth. This is because I think individual decisions do matter, because if I am an extremely wealthy man I could be helping a lot of people who I am choosing not to help. And for those people, at least, it makes a difference when a billionaire decides to retain their wealth rather than rid themselves of it.

Of course, when you start talking about whether it is moral to be rich, you end up heading down some difficult logical paths. If I am obligated to use my wealth to help people, am I not obligated to keep doing so until I am myself a pauper? Surely this obligation attaches to anyone who consumes luxuries they do not need, or who has some savings that they are not spending on malaria treatment for children. But the central point I want to make here is that the moral duty becomes greater the more wealth you have. If you end up with a $50,000 a year or $100,000 a year salary, we can debate what amount you should spend on helping other people. But if you earn $250,000 or 1 million, it’s quite clear that the bulk of your income should be given away. You can live very comfortably on $100,000 or so and have luxury and indulgence, so anything beyond is almost indisputably indefensible. And the super-rich, the infamous “millionaires and billionaires”, are constantly squandering resources that could be used to create wonderful and humane things. If you’re a billionaire, you could literally open a hospital and make it free. You could buy up a bunch of abandoned Baltimore rowhouses, do them up, and give them to families. You could help make sure no child ever had to go without lunch.

We can define something like a “maximum moral income” beyond which it’s obviously inexcusable not to give away all of your money. It might be 5o thousand. Call it 100, though. Per person. With an additional 50 allowed per child. This means two parents with a child can still earn $250,000! That’s so much money. And you can keep it. But everyone who earns anything beyond it is obligated to give the excess away in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given. (Personally, I think the maximum moral income is probably much lower, but let’s just set it here so that everyone can agree on it. I do tend to think that moral requirements should be attainable in practice, and a $30k threshold would actually require people experience some deprivation whereas a $100k threshold indisputably still leaves you with an incredibly comfortable lifestyle better than almost any other had by anyone in history.)

Of course, wealthy people do give away money, but so often in piecemeal and self-interested and foolish ways. They’ll donate to colleges with huge endowments to get needless buildings built and named after them. David Geffen will pay to open a school for the children of wealthy university faculty, and somehow be praised for it. Mark Zuckerberg will squander millions of dollars trying to fix Newark’s schools by hiring $1000-a-day-consultants. Brad Pitt will try to build homes for Katrina victims in New Orleans, but will insist that they’re architecturally cutting-edge and funky looking, instead of just trying to make as many simple houses as possible. Just as the rich can’t be trusted to spend their money well generally, they’re colossally terrible at giving it away. This is because so much is about self-aggrandizement, and “philanthropy” is far more about the donor than the donee. Furthermore, if you’re a multi-billionaire, giving away $1 billion is morally meaningless. If you’ve got $3 billion, and you give away 1, you’re still incredibly wealthy, and thus still harming many people through your retention of wealth. You have to get rid of all of it, beyond the maximum moral income.

The central point, however, is this: it is not justifiable to retain vast wealth. This is because that wealth has the potential to help people who are suffering, and by not helping them you are letting them suffer. It does not make a difference whether you earned the vast wealth. The point is that you have it. And whether or not we should raise the tax rates, or cap CEO pay, or rearrange the economic system, we should all be able to acknowledge, before we discuss anything else, that it is immoral to be rich. That much is clear.
______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

Everybody in my family except for my grandmother and me studied economics and/or business. Until recently (and that piece was hugely formative) I didn't think that meant I had any opinion to offer to a broader discussion of distribution of wealth. And maybe I don't. But Marx put such a morally clear narrative thrust on what's typically disguised as a purely economic discussion: we've accepted the rules of free market capitalism in the same way that we've accepted natural laws like gravity, but they're not the same. Furthermore, it always felt wrong that the left spent decades surrendering the language of morality to the right when it's such an effective and emotionally resonant way to make a point: being rich is wrong.

Furthermore, it
>always felt wrong that the left spent decades surrendering the
>language of morality to the right when it's such an effective
>and emotionally resonant way to make a point: being rich is
>wrong.

She was born into a multi-million dollar family. That's a huge advantage for someone wanting to start their own business or whatever.

Her older sisters kicked down the doors for her. Another huge advantage. She didn't have to make, earn or cultivate any contacts in the industry.

I'm not saying she doesn't deserve it. I honestly wouldn't know. If her product or whatever is blowing up and it's the hot thing, more power to her. But the idea that she's "self-made" is wildly deceiving an dishonest.

> I'm not saying she doesn't deserve it.

No human should have that much money.

>No human should have that much money.

Hoarding wealth harms people.

Examples: Walton family own majority of Walmart. Not self made.

Zuckerberg built FB. Self made
Bezos built Amazon. self made
Jenner built this make up company. Self made

She had advantages that most don't have. No doubt. But that does not take away from the fact that she started a company and built it up to be successful.

Without this company, she would just be a famous sister in a famous family. She made herself a billionaire.
There are plenty of people with advantages who are doing nothing with them.

Like I said, it's a weird term to begin with, so use it however you want. But it's really weird thinking of any of these people as "self-made."

Didn't realize this post will be all about disputing the meaning of one word

Capital doesn't do the work. People do. That money should be theirs, equally.

I don't know how we got here lol

Lots of people worked for these giant piles of money. We've already seen what happens when we limit the discussion of what ought to be done about that fact to economists.

edit: to be clear, we're not about to talk about it because I'm at the limit of my qualifications as soon as I get close to acknowledging "yes" to that question. Like if menu items are written in French. I can read them and understand them, but I'm sure as hell not trying to say them out loud to a native speaker.

while I think folks should be compensated fairly ain't no damn way someone putting caps on lipstick tubes in a shop should have equal pay with a creative director or VP of the company.

why is walleye's statement hyperbolic but financial inflation is aspirational?

this is a post, after all, celebrating someone who got from being associated with 9 figures to being associated with 10 figures. that's funny money. does it even improve her life?

People always argue "Bezos deserves a higher salary than the guy delivering Amazon packages." But I never hear people break down why Bezos needs *that much higher* a salary.

Right now, Bezos makes 275 million a day, while COUNTLESS employees of his, the people who do the labor to put the money in Bezos's pocket, struggle to make ends meet.

There are roughly 566,000 Amazon employees. If Bezos said, "I'm content earning 100 million a day and redistributing the extra equally," then everyone Amazon employee would make nearly 9500 dollars a month more in pre-tax revenue. The median Amazon employees earns 28,446 dollars per year-- so if Bezos did this, then, after taxes (and assuming that $28.5 thousand is after tax, which is almost certainly is not), even his *median* earning employees would see their salaries more than double. Most employees would be earning more like 2.5-3 times their current salary.

AND THAT'S ASSUMING BEZOS NEEDS TO MAKE ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, lol.

I personally don't have a problem with the theory that the CEO should earn more than an employee. But it should be WAAAAAY closer to "CEOs earn the same money as the labor force workers" than to "CEOS should earn billions while labor force workers can't earn a livable wage." Way way way way WAY closer. The current system is not only immoral, but it's unsustainable. The equal salaries across the board route is light years closer to what we need than the current one.

I'm all for increasing pay

and she has lived most of her life on TV so it makes sense

she is like those weird twins from back in the day.

and full lips are much easier to buy then full ass

so much money in make up yo...

It's not like Zuck didn't have all sorts of advisors.

I do think these are the type of headlines we see during bubble times.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Like Walleye said, it's kind of a bullshit term.

Granted, he had Harvard contacts to start out with. But at least he started his shit himself. And he had the skills to do what he wanted to do. He wasn't just the idea man who got others to do the actual work.

But- he was at an Ivy, so that afforded him contacts and capital most don't have access to that early in entrepreneurship.
______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

>But at least he started his shit himself.

Like, I know The Social Network was exaggerated, but what role did Eduardo Saverin/the Winkelvoss twins actually play IRL?

I read an article once that talked about the differences between the movie and real life. The movie was exaggerated a bit, but one thing no one disputes is that he was a pretty intelligent dude with good (not genius though) skills coding-wise.

Besides. There are a shit ton of people with all the same access to money and friends that he had, and they didn't invent shit, much less Facebook (and i say this knowing full well this dude didn't invent social media and wasn't the first to do what he did.)

But from what I've read, yeah, this dude had some advantages, but he took full advantage of them and leveraged shit at the right place and the right time.
______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

of course he made it better but still, he didn't even come up with the initial idea.

I mean, by the same token, it's not like twin's idea was original either. We already had Friendster, Myspace, Blackplanet, Migente and who knows what else by the time FB came along.

I don't think an idea has to be totally original for him to claim being self made.

I mean, if I quit my job today and opened a bakery, started selling bread nationwide and was wildly successful, am I not self-made cause I didn't invent bread itself?
______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

forgot about that one

and you did it without them and became a billionaire.

Let’s be honest. You didn’t do that shit by yourself.

My thing is people came to him with an idea. If they never came to him does he make Facebook on his own? Doubt it.

Just sayin’

An idea is not a business.. or a program.. or printed money..

Just check the patent office around the time any invention or innovation happens...

there are mad light bulb patents.. one won

>and you did it without them and became a billionaire.
>
>Let’s be honest. You didn’t do that shit by yourself.

Neither did they. They should have learned how to bake instead of taking their idea to someone who could actually do it.

And I just give more credit to the people who actually put the work in.


______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

He had familial stability and a fund he could dip into.

He also had the luxury of cultivating his relative genius in relative comfort. Said luxury and comfort was afforded him, not created by him.

...would they be 'self made' as well, even though the *main* reason that anyone ever payed any attention to them at all is the fact that they are Will & Jada's kids?

Is Donald Trump 'self made?'

he had a very basic upbringing compared to what he's been able to achieve.

I know everyone's in this semantic rabbit hole in here about how self made doesn't really exist, which i guess is technically correct, but I think (or at least thought lol) there was a fairly universally agreed upon definition to what people consider self made

I do think, however, that calling Kylie self made is, at best, a stretch. Good on her for the accomplishment, tho.

If Jaden is able to take advantage of all these amazing connections and opportunities that hardly anyone has, and springboards them into doing something huge I see no reason to shit on it or not applaud it, unless HE's running around calling himself self-made. There's a huge difference in how is father grinded his way up. But as far as I know Kylie isn't calling herself self made either. headlines are.

My math says she did EXACTLY what she was supposed to... to the tune of a billion dollars at 21 years old. Self made or not, that shit is huge.

Because these were his comments on Jaden Smith:

"I resent this talentless product of Nepotism sooo much
You can pick any random kid from any art high school here in NYC and they would be way more talented and worthier of the attention than this kid.
****Can we all start by admitting we would not know anything about this kid if Will Smith wasn't his dad?"****

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13206798&mesg_id=13206798&listing_type=search#13206892

Notice there's complete vitriol for the rich Black kid, but none at all for the white one? He also requested that we START with the idea that no one would know Jaden if not for Will. No such request was made for Kylie tho.
Just an observation.

It’s wild how we hold our own people to different standards than white folks and don’t even realize it half the time.

>Because these were his comments on Jaden Smith:
>
>"I resent this talentless product of Nepotism sooo much
>You can pick any random kid from any art high school here in
>NYC and they would be way more talented and worthier of the
>attention than this kid.
>****Can we all start by admitting we would not know anything
>about this kid if Will Smith wasn't his dad?"****
>
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13206798&mesg_id=13206798&listing_type=search#13206892
>
>Notice there's complete vitriol for the rich Black kid, but
>none at all for the white one? He also requested that we
>START with the idea that no one would know Jaden if not for
>Will. No such request was made for Kylie tho.
>Just an observation.


The forbes list has a very specific meaning for "Self-Made" when it comes to billionaires. In fact, the have scale from 1 to 10 to define exactly how self-made a person is. "- a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/#63804e942aff

On such a scale, Kylie would be between a 5 and a 7 (Arguably 5 if her fortune came mostly from her reality tv work, hopwever I would lean closer to 7 if her fortune is based mostly on her cosmetics business). That determination has nothing to do with how vapid or talentless I think she is. It just solely based on where her money comes from.

Zuck would be an 8. Oprah 10. I also think it's not practical to argue that a person coming from a middle to upperclass background isn't self-made. If that's the case the list would probably only be Oprah and a couple of Asian dudes (though it does make their wealth the most impressive to me).



Anyway my point is that calling someone "self-made" is an objective assessment based on how much money a person inherited and leveraged into their current wealth. That's all.

And it also has nothing to do with what sort of help a person had in creating their wealth. There isn't a "self-made" billionaire on the list that didn't have help, advisors, partners to get on the list, including Oprah.


Me saying that Kylie is self-made doesn't mean I think she's an awesome person or even think she is all that great of a business person, like I mentioned before her wealth suggests to me we are in frothy market times when you start seeing all sorts of people who don't seem particularly talented or smart turn up as super rich (at least on paper, hence my bubble remark).

As far as Jaiden, I didn't pass judgement of him as a human being. he sounds like a good kid, I just think he is a shitty talentless artist whose music we would have never heard of if it wasn't for his parents. If he managed to become a billionaire from music, he would probably be a 4 or 5 from the list. If he ventured off and did his own thing outside of music and became a billionaire, he'd be somewhere between a 5 - 7. If Will and Jada become billionaires and Die or write Jaden a check that makes him a billionaire, he'd be a 1.

It's that simple, it's not a value judgement, it's an objective reality.


Anyway, keep trying one day you will get a shot off. Maybe if you devote more time digging through my old post you will find my "I hate black people and the white man is god" post.






>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Even by Forbes' questionable assessment of the meaning of "self-made" you still have to admit that applying to term to her is questionable if you're saying she could be a 5. I'd say even less since she grew up on camera and used 250,000 from modeling to even get started. That's an assist from the very system we live in... Forbes won't talk about white folks getting a helping hand from white supremacy tho of course... but YOU will talk about Jaden getting a helping hand from Black parents in said system and even RESENT them for it. But you don't resent white folks for riding an entire system? Lol, nigga...


>Anyway my point is that calling someone "self-made" is an
>objective assessment based on how much money a person
>inherited and leveraged into their current wealth. That's all.


Is saying you resent Jaden an objective assessment too? I'll answer that for you, no it's not. Stop trying to pretend like everything you say so level-headed and mature. You didn't launch the same attack on Kylie and we all know why, dude.
Since you said it, this just another of your "I hate black people and the white (wo)man is god" posts.



>As far as Jaiden, I didn't pass judgement of him as a human
>being


You just said you resent him and asked that we start with the fact that he wouldn't be where he is if not for his parents.



>Anyway, keep trying one day you will get a shot off. Maybe if
>you devote more time digging through my old post you will find
>my "I hate black people and the white man is god" post.


I didn't have to dig. I remembered that, because I made the post.
And you went on a little tear where you made it your business to say something negative in anything I posted... so this is where it comes back to bite you in the ass. You don't actually have to say you hate Black people and put whites on a pedestal tho. You're showing us better than you can tell us.

there is more to this

dude actually posted a video of Will promoting Jaden's album and showing love and used it as proof Jaden sucked.

jealous one's envy

>dude actually posted a video of Will promoting Jaden's album
>and showing love and used it as proof Jaden sucked.


That too. You definitely can't pass that off as "objective reality" when the reality wasn't even what he claimed it was lol.

You are comparing my comments about Jaden's Artisty to my comments about the source of Kylie's wealth.

They have nothing to do with each other. It's apple to oranges.

The Apples to Apples comparison would be I think Jaden's music sucks and Kylie's TV shows are garbage that I have no interest in.

The orange to orange comparison would be that if Jaden made a billion dollars selling records he would be to some degree a self-made billionaire similar to Kylie.

But you are trying to imply that my distate for Jaden's music and acknowledging that Kylie is self-made to some extent is somehow thinking more highly of Kylie than Jaden AND THAT'S FUCKING STUPID.



You got a lot of ideas but they get muddled and you should spend some time teasing out specific points rather than jumping all over the place.


>Even by Forbes' questionable assessment of the meaning of
>"self-made" you still have to admit that applying to term to
>her is questionable if you're saying she could be a 5. I'd
>say even less since she grew up on camera and used 250,000
>from modeling to even get started. That's an assist from the
>very system we live in... Forbes won't talk about white folks
>getting a helping hand from white supremacy tho of course...
>but YOU will talk about Jaden getting a helping hand from
>Black parents in said system and even RESENT them for it. But
>you don't resent white folks for riding an entire system?
>Lol, nigga...


Again, this is so fucking stupid because you are taking music criticism and trying to cram it into my discussion of what constitutes "self-made".

The sclae takes into account how much wealth and business a person inherited but listen if you think there are no self-made billionaires because they all have the help of white supremacy, that's fine. I don't disagree with that. But that's not what anyone was ever talking about.


>
>
>>Anyway my point is that calling someone "self-made" is an
>>objective assessment based on how much money a person
>>inherited and leveraged into their current wealth. That's
>all.
>
>
>Is saying you resent Jaden an objective assessment too?

Of course not. It's my opinion. That's why your point is so fucking stupid.


>>answer that for you, no it's not.

Did I ever say that it was? Why would anyone (you namely) think that it was? Why my dude? Why?

You get yourself worked up on positions that no one is making. It's stupid.


Stop trying to pretend like
>everything you say so level-headed and mature.

You didn't
>launch the same attack on Kylie and we all know why, dude.
>Since you said it, this just another of your "I hate black
>people and the white (wo)man is god" posts.
>
>
>
>>As far as Jaiden, I didn't pass judgement of him as a human
>>being
>
>
>You just said you resent him and asked that we start with the
>fact that he wouldn't be where he is if not for his parents.

To be clear I was talking about his music and his success. In that very post I stated that if his shit was dope, I wouldn't be hating on him. But I find his music wack and his acting terrible, so I resent folks falling all over him like he isn't some talentless hack. Besides his music, he seems like a good kid and wish him well...I just don't want to hear his music or see him act again.


>
>
>
>>Anyway, keep trying one day you will get a shot off. Maybe
>if
>>you devote more time digging through my old post you will
>find
>>my "I hate black people and the white man is god" post.
>
>
>I didn't have to dig. I remembered that, because I made the
>post.
>And you went on a little tear where you made it your business
>to say something negative in anything I posted... so this is
>where it comes back to bite you in the ass. You don't
>actually have to say you hate Black people and put whites on a
>pedestal tho. You're showing us better than you can tell us.


If you think that Jaiden Smith post is some smoking gun, Good for you.





**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>But you are trying to imply that my distate for
>Jaden's music and acknowledging that Kylie is
>self-made to some extent is somehow thinking
>more highly of Kylie than Jaden


I'm saying you speak about them way differently, and that'll show in your own words below. You can't sidetrack me with all that talking around your BS, so here's your contradiction in your own words.

>The Apples to Apples comparison would be I
> think Jaden's music sucks and Kylie's TV shows
>are garbage that I have no interest in.

>But I find his music wack and his acting terrible,
>so I resent folks falling all over him like he isn't
>some talentless hack

Well if they're both garbage, then why not KTSE when folks are "falling all over" her? Funny you still couldn't bring yourself to call her "talentless" or "shitty" or say that you resent her. PLUS you didn't say you resent folks falling all over Jaden, you said you resent HIM. Now you're switching up what you said.

You did give flipnile his answer in your "oranges to oranges" comparison, but it's mighty funny how you never asked that we "start by admitting we would not know anything about this kid if ________" b/c the resentment you have for Jaden is clearly lacking where Kylie is concerned.

Again, one discussion is about Jayden's music and success. The other about whether Kylie is self-made or not.




>>But you are trying to imply that my distate for
>>Jaden's music and acknowledging that Kylie is
>>self-made to some extent is somehow thinking
>>more highly of Kylie than Jaden
>
>
>I'm saying you speak about them way differently, and that'll
>show in your own words below. You can't sidetrack me with all
>that talking around your BS, so here's your contradiction in
>your own words.
>
>>The Apples to Apples comparison would be I
>> think Jaden's music sucks and Kylie's TV shows
>>are garbage that I have no interest in.
>
>>But I find his music wack and his acting terrible,
>>so I resent folks falling all over him like he isn't
>>some talentless hack
>
>Well if they're both garbage, then why not KTSE when folks are
>"falling all over" her?

If I were asked the quality of her work, I would say something like I don't know who she is but what I do know is she is trash (I kind of remember something about some tasteless t-shirts with some black people on it). THough I don't know her, I have general hate for all things Kardashian. But that's not what this post is about.

Heck if folks were making the case that she is this brilliant business person I would strongly disagree because I think her success is more a product of luck and family brand and market bubbles more than anything else. But that's not what this post is about.

This post turned into being about whether she is self-made or not, and by the standards of Forbes, she is. That is the only thing I stated ("Naw she's self made"). before you and Legs jumped the gun and worked up a narrative that I suffer from self-hate.

What's the basis for thinking I got self-hate?

Because I previously stated I resent Jaiden Smith's success and I didn't start this post off hating on Kylie's success?

I should start any discussion of any rich kid, no matter what we are discussing, with stating I resent their success because I once said that about a black kid otherwise I am expressing self-hate?

That's fucking Stupid bro.



Funny you still couldn't bring
>yourself to call her "talentless" or "shitty" or say that you
>resent her.

I literally called her "vapid" AND "talentless" in this post. Try Control +F. SMH.


PLUS you didn't say you resent folks falling all
>over Jaden, you said you resent HIM. Now you're switching up
>what you said.

You can argue resent him, his music, his success are all the same, and I'd say sure. But Read the whole post again. I was clearly talking about his success and his music. That's why I made the point about not feeling that way about him if his music were good. I don't think he is a shitty person, I think he is a shitty artist.


>
>You did give flipnile his answer in your "oranges to oranges"
>comparison, but it's mighty funny how you never asked that we
>"start by admitting we would not know anything about this kid
>if ________" b/c the resentment you have for Jaden is clearly
>lacking where Kylie is concerned.

So your whole shit is because I once bad mouth this black rich kid, if I don't say the same thing before discussing any rich white kid I am displaying self-hate?

You trying to hard to win points with that Jaiden post and it's a stretch.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Again, one discussion is about Jayden's music and success.
>The other about whether Kylie is self-made or not.


No. The Jaden discussion was about his music, but you made it about whether or not he'd be where he is without his advantages, and how your resentment for HIM stems from those advantages. You even asked that we start by collectively acknowledging his advantages.
This discussion is about Kylie being self-made, but you didn't ask that we collectively acknowledge her advantages? THAT is what doesn't make sense.
And you came in the Jaden post IMMEDIATELY saying that. Couldn't wait to express your resentment. You can't change that now.



>What's the basis for thinking I got self-hate?



I could point this out more often if that's what you want. You seem to consistently fail to realize that it's not just one post that forms folks' opinion of you. Other than that, I'm not the one who accused you of self-hate. I ain't arguing it either tho. I'd sooner call you a "conditioned europhile", since you've actually given us all permission to do so.



>Because I previously stated I resent Jaiden Smith's success
>and I didn't start this post off hating on Kylie's success?



Again, you stated that you resent HIM.
"I resent this talentless product of Nepotism sooo much"



>I should start any discussion of any rich kid, no matter what
>we are discussing, with stating I resent their success because
>I once said that about a black kid otherwise I am expressing
>self-hate?
>
>That's fucking Stupid bro.


AGAIN, you said you resent HIM. You're not gonna make that go away.
But stupid eh? This is exactly the same thing you do to me. NOW it's stupid when you're on the other end of it? These are the terms you set. I hope you're enjoying this banter you so fervently begged for.



>So your whole shit is because I once bad mouth this black rich
>kid, if I don't say the same thing before discussing any rich
>white kid I am displaying self-hate?


Nah, my "whole shit" is that the request you made about Jaden would actually have been warranted in this post (can we start by acknowledging they wouldn't be who they are without_______ ). It wasn't warranted at all in the Jaden post, but I guess that was your "objective" resentment that made you say that about him lol. Total oxymoron.

>>Again, one discussion is about Jayden's music and success.
>>The other about whether Kylie is self-made or not.
>
>
>No. The Jaden discussion was about his music, but you made it
>about whether or not he'd be where he is without his
>advantages, and how your resentment for HIM stems from those
>advantages. You even asked that we start by collectively
>acknowledging his advantages.
>This discussion is about Kylie being self-made, but you didn't
>ask that we collectively acknowledge her advantages? THAT is
>what doesn't make sense.
>And you came in the Jaden post IMMEDIATELY saying that.
>Couldn't wait to express your resentment. You can't change
>that now.

Again, so your mad my first statement wasn't hate because I did that to Jaden? That's fucking stupid. What's makes it especially stupid is the very next thing I said after saying she was self made (based on the reason I explained) was calling into question that valuation as signs of an overhyped market.

The funny thing I fully expected the discussion to turn into what does self-made mean but I made the first post and got caught up at work and didn't get to return to it much later. I think the discussion would have gone different if I got to chime in earlier but instead you and Legs got to cook.

You jumped the gun because you thought me pointing out she was self-made was some sort of praise of her. You should have actually let me answered flipnile's question before you decided you had your smoking gun.


>
>
>
>>What's the basis for thinking I got self-hate?
>
>
>
>I could point this out more often if that's what you want.
>You seem to consistently fail to realize that it's not just
>one post that forms folks' opinion of you.

Do it. Please. You've got your own history but I at least wait for you to say some shit before I try to call you out on it. Here you assigned to me a position I didn't make an argue against that made up position. Even resorted to digging in the crates to support that made up postion. SMH.

Other than that,
>I'm not the one who accused you of self-hate. I ain't arguing
>it either tho. I'd sooner call you a "conditioned europhile",
>since you've actually given us all permission to do so.
>
>
>
>>Because I previously stated I resent Jaiden Smith's success
>>and I didn't start this post off hating on Kylie's success?
>
>
>
>Again, you stated that you resent HIM.
>"I resent this talentless product of Nepotism sooo much"

Listen I do generally resent average rich kids, black or white, being treated like they are geniuses.

If I came in this post praising Kylie's businessman acumen and brilliance, you might have an argument that I gave a white kid the benefit of the doubt I didn't give a black kid (but not exactly comprable though because the true equivalent really would be if Jaiden's shit was john blaze and I was dismissing it because of help from his family but whatever)

But that's not what me pointing out she is self-made is. As someone who always followed the list I know what Forbes meant, she didn't inherit her current wealth (900M) unlike say all the Waltons on the list. That's it.


>
>
>
>>I should start any discussion of any rich kid, no matter
>what
>>we are discussing, with stating I resent their success
>because
>>I once said that about a black kid otherwise I am expressing
>>self-hate?
>>
>>That's fucking Stupid bro.
>
>
>AGAIN, you said you resent HIM. You're not gonna make that go
>away.
>But stupid eh? This is exactly the same thing you do to me.
>NOW it's stupid when you're on the other end of it? These are
>the terms you set. I hope you're enjoying this banter you so
>fervently begged for.

I begged for this? Ok. What's funny is you think you did work here. LOL.

>
>
>
>>So your whole shit is because I once bad mouth this black
>rich
>>kid, if I don't say the same thing before discussing any
>rich
>>white kid I am displaying self-hate?
>
>
>Nah, my "whole shit" is that the request you made about Jaden
>would actually have been warranted in this post (can we start
>by acknowledging they wouldn't be who they are without_______
>). It wasn't warranted at all in the Jaden post, but I guess
>that was your "objective" resentment that made you say that
>about him lol. Total oxymoron.


Again, I never said my opinion of Jaiden was objective (I don't know why you keep harping on this made up point no one is making). The funny thing about that Jaiden post is I explained exactly where my opinion comes from which has a lot to do with dealing with rich white kids at my job and the work I do outside of my job helping underprivileged black and brown kids in their creative endeavours. My position stems out of the opposite of white praise and black self-hate.

You and Leggs seem to think it's some crime against black people to not love Jaiden Smith but I stand by everything I said in that post and this one.

Y'all want me to be that self-hating tom but yall fake deep ain't got anyone shook and I'll put my works in my community up against you or Legs any day of the week (unless you work in a school, cuz that shit is God's Work).

So again, keep trying.

>
>
>
>

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

So I'll just address your latest one...

>Do it. Please. You've got your own history but I at least
>wait for you to say some shit before I try to call you out on
>it. Here you assigned to me a position I didn't make an argue
>against that made up position.


You wait for... man please. That is a *bold* faced lie. For example, in the post about the addict who killed the family, you accused me of not caring about the family, b/c I was talking about the addict's life. You didn't ask questions or anything... just started that "you hate The Man so much that you don't care about the family" BS. That was something I didn't say, and you argued against your made up position. But now you're saying I should wait on you to explain. See? This is the same shit you do, but you claim it's so stupid when it's done to you. But it isn't stupid when you do it? You even doubled down when I called you on it. Lol, nigga you're full of it on so many levels. You lack the awareness to see it or decency to simply say you were wrong. That's not even the only time you've done that.
But hey, keep lying and denying if that suits you.

nigga.. do you hear yourself?

gotdamn man..

that self hate is terrible Buddy. Go see someone about that shit

Yeah ok. That's fucking stupid.



>nigga.. do you hear yourself?
>
>gotdamn man..
>
>that self hate is terrible Buddy. Go see someone about that
>shit
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

its obvious too

maybe its just jealousy or envy because he is Black and has the freedom that's usually reserved for white folks

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.

>As far as Jaiden, I didn't pass judgement of him as a human
>being. he sounds like a good kid, I just think he is a shitty
>talentless artist whose music we would have never heard of if
>it wasn't for his parents.

so Kylie is a "self-made" businesswoman in the same sense that Jayden is a self-made artist.

Sabers were rattled back in the day over the WPA including funding for public art, and the National Endowment of the Arts frequently draws scoffs as a waste of money from the right and (parts of) the left. But announce that something is a "public-private partnership" where a business gets a sweetheart deal to subcontract some projects that could have been completed by fully paid, fully pensioned workers under the government banner, and you'll get a ticker-tape parade.

On a micro level, tell your parents you got into art school, and you'll hear "well, how are you going to pay for it?" while a business school acceptance letter will get celebrated.

true or false?

Shouts to OJ and Ray J’s penis.

In all serious it’s CRAZY to think that those were the seeds to the K empire.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1017475724079435777

https://twitter.com/thebreaknetflix/status/1017809234950606849

with her target audience. That's never easy to do no matter the resources you have at your disposal.

Let's talk about the term "self-made" in general. It's something that doesn't exist. Your company uses other people's labor, public resources, and infrastructure created by many other people, all of these things make it possible to execute an idea/make a product. Society makes it possible to even feel like you did it "on your own".

Ok, now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's talk about someone rich being able to create and market a business vs someone middle-class or poor. I would only consider someone even close to being "self-made" if their business plan is reproducible by someone with limited resources.

Kylie's journey map to success has been something like this:

-Have a world-famous dad who marries a widow to a successful businessman who has a famous name derived from one of the most well-known events in the country's modern history
-Have a half-sister who creates a worldwide brand that's basically built on her and her family, and becomes one of the most famous people on earth
-Have another sister who is basically a supermodel
-Leverage all of these factors into becoming famous yourself, in a way that millions of people similar to you, follow you and your daily life, that you strategically curate
-Get the idea to sell something to these people
-Hire a team of experts and use your family's financial resources/connections to see your idea come to fruition
-Do a great job of making a product that your customers love and are loyal to (this is hard as fuck, no matter how privileged you start, hats off)

http://latestplasticsurgery.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Kylie-Jenner-Before-Plastic-Surgery.jpg

lol actually i dont even know what to say

'a fool and his money...'?
shout out to travis scott?



but yea i mean, their products run in basically hour-long commercials 4 days a week and 30 hour marathons on the weekends

Yall acting like she inherited hundreds of millions to get her shit started.

LOL

Damned shame the hate y'all got in your blood.

LMAO

lol maybe niggas expect her to be on etsy hand mixing tea candles and sewing socks with rap quotes.

works harder or has more inspired ideas than kylie.

that's not hate or sour grapes.

it's also true that there are people in this post that have many times more in assets than your average world citizen.

and it's not because we're fundamentally a hardworking (we wouldn't spend so much time on a message board) or creative (in 2018) group.

vacillating between celebrity gossip and poverty porn is not a healthy or constructive way for a society to deal with those realities.

although that's the bulk of it.

Its the fact she just basically took Kim's fashion marketing and aged it down ten years, looks and all.

Id at least respect her a bit more if it was in a different industry

Or in the reality tv history is on track to 1b

I understand self-made is an issue with people because she has been famous since she was 12 but....

She grew what kim has done by 3x w/o any of the natural beauty benefits in an incredibly short amount of time. She has improved on the design in every way...

i feel like every week i see some artist or graphic designer hitting them w/ cease and desists or asking for the cake they are owed from one of Kylie's brands stealing.

Sure but thats all of 6 people online fake outraging

Usually that has been kendall and kylie brand thangs and tbh I wouldn't be surprised if they are getting got by designers. Putting their brand on small projects that are stolen from others.

And no one has ever come at her about the make up

There is no denying how good she is in the make up game since 16... she has changed the way make up is done a few times over and her cosmetics is where the money is. Not to mention her social media game is super crazy and she’s broken a few artists off snap

If you're born into a family with a net worth of 500 million it's still an accomplishment to scoot your way to one billion. Salute to her for leveraging her resources to accrue one billion dollars in value.

Dictionary.com is just keeping up with the facts.

On Wednesday, Kylie Jenner graced the cover of Forbes’ August issue, which ranked her as one of the most successful women entrepreneurs in America. And sure, there’s no disputing that the 20-year-old, who launched Kylie Cosmetics in 2016, is a highly successful businesswoman. Her ranking at such a young age is undeniably impressive.
But many people on Twitter took issue with the magazine’s claim that she was “self-made.”

calling kylie jenner a ‘self-made billionaire’ is like claiming you made soup from scratch because you opened a can and reheated it.
— gulab jamun (@PedestrianPoet) July 11, 2018

And the internet’s favorite authority on words and their meanings hinted that maybe the term doesn’t totally apply in Jenner’s case.

Self-made means having succeeded in life unaided.

Used in a sentence: Forbes says that Kylie Jenner is a self-made woman. https://t.co/sr8Ncd7s5A https://t.co/ehEL7Cf6KV
— Dictionary.com (@Dictionarycom) July 11, 2018

Indeed, anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of who Jenner is — one of the youngest members of the Kardashian family, whose collective cunning media knowledge has made them a household name — could see why calling her “self-made” might sound a little... off.

Due to this, many folks online found the fact-check pretty gratifying, and deemed Dictionary.com’s tweet a sweet, sweet serving of shade.

THE SHADE😂 https://t.co/h8WNspphgd
— DdaengTan (@missemvi) July 12, 2018

Author Roxane Gay had a more nuanced view:

It is not shade to point out that Kylie Jenner isn’t self-made. She grew up in a wealthy, famous family. Her success is commendable but it comes by virtue of her privilege. Words have meanings and it behooves a dictionary to remind us of that. https://t.co/2HzIJbLb8q
— roxane gay (@rgay) July 11, 2018

Jenner might have become a success for slinging products like concealer, but it won’t stop others from unmasking the truth.

added link:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dictionarycom-kylie-jenner-self-made_us_5b47569de4b0e7c958f897a9

https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/#1f055272aff6

Since the launch of The Forbes 400, first published in 1982, we’ve been keeping a close tab on the wealthiest people in the U.S. And while we can tell a whole lot about how their fortunes have evolved, this year, for the first time, we decided to delve deeper into one defining characteristic of these billionaires: How far did they climb to make their way to the top?

This year, we gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from 1 to 10 -- a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey. We also did the analysis for every 10 years going back to 1984. Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: in 1984, less than half of people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69% of the 400 created their own fortunes.

After extensive research and internal discussion, we came up with a set of parameters to determine whether someone was born with a silver spoon, or if he (or she) had to battle wrenching personal and family obstacles to win a spot on our list. At the most basic level, the scores denote who inherited some or all of their fortune (scores 1 through 5) and those who truly made it on their own (6 through 10).

We looked carefully at these billionaires' upbringing, paying special attention to their parents and their socio-economic status. To merit a score of 10, a member of the Forbes 400 would have to have been born into poverty, or lower middle class, and had to overcome obstacles such as being left an orphan, forced to work low-paying jobs, or faced abuse or discrimination. Oprah Winfrey, who grew up dirt poor, raised alternately by her single mom and her grandmother, and was sexually abused by several male relatives, and George Soros, who survived the Nazi occupation of Budapest, fled Hungary under Communist rule and worked his way through the London School of Economics as a railway porter and a waiter, are prime examples of what a 10 represents.


A score of 1 represents a member of The Forbes 400 who has inherited a fortune and hasn’t actively worked to increase it. Two examples: Christy Walton, who inherited part of the Wal-Mart fortune after her husband John (Sam Walton's son) died; and Laurene Powell Jobs, a philanthropist and activist who has very publicly taken on causes like education reform and immigration policy but who is not working to make herself richer.

Below, see a breakdown of our scores, along with a representative member of The Forbes 400 for each score. In every member of the Forbes 400's online profile page, you'll be able to find their individual self-made score. These provide a good window from which to draw conclusions about the evolution of wealth in the U.S. Over the past 30 years, the number of Forbes 400 members who forges their own path, using entrepreneurial capitalism as a means to attain a vast fortune, has increased dramatically. This tells us many things, but one should stand taller than the rest: the American Dream, it seems, is alive and well.

1: Inherited fortune but not working to increase it: Laurene Powell Jobs

2: Inherited fortune and has a role managing it: Forrest Mars Jr.

3: Inherited fortune and helping to increase it marginally: Penny Pritzker

4: Inherited fortune and increasing it in a meaningful way: Henry Ross Perot Jr.

5: Inherited small or medium-size business and made it into a ten-digit fortune: Donald Trump

6: Hired or hands-off investor who didn’t create the business: Meg Whitman

7: Self-made who got a head start from wealthy parents and moneyed background: Rupert Murdoch

8: Self-made who came from a middle- or upper-middle-class background: Mark Zuckerberg

9: Self-made who came from a largely working-class background; rose from little to nothing: Eddie Lampert

10: Self-made who not only grew up poor but also overcame significant obstacles: Oprah Winfrey

She didn't get any money from her first divorce, she ran Bruce's business (and probably made him rich) and, without her, all of those children would just be waiting on their inheritances from Caitlyn.

I think each of the successful kids has had some entrepreneurial spark but I highly doubt any of them are making important decisions without Kris's input and I'd bet Kris is making most of the decisions for Kylie.

Kris is self-made (category 7 on that Forbes list you posted). Kylie isn't.

https://twitter.com/toure/status/1017520365470388224

her fans are dumber than Trump supporters.

Fat jew made a joke post... and people took it seriously

When I first-read the "self-made" descriptor I didn't even think anything controversial.

I figured Forbes was acknowledging her corporation isn't public and she owns 100% stake. Which in and of itself is very impressive for such a young enterprise growing that fast; most that size have sacrificed sizeable chunks of equity to get to that point.

Also, like 99% of female entrepreneurs self-finance because the venture capital circuit (and, arguably, model) is entirely male-centric

http://fortune.com/2017/04/26/women-venture-capital-funding/

So I think penalizing Jenner for pulling from her existing wealth and brand recognition is the wrong takeaway message from this story. Nobody talks about the backgrounds of Judith Faulkner (Epic Systems), or Walton family, etc when talking about their business growth.

I think what connects Jenner with other aspiring entrepreneurs is the basics... knowing who one's market is, identifying a gap in industry that is not serving them, and having one's pulse on the right branding and marketing that will appeal to them. I mean, those are the aspects of her story that I find motivating... Even a nail tech from the most meager means could find motivation from that playbook and try to save up or partner with some other friends/nail techs to open their own establishment. Or grow their brand through other arrangements like franchising,etc. A huge part of entrepreneurial success is mentality.

Girls Kylie's age are probably the least likely, in any group, to be taken seriously when it comes to business and power, so I'm not surprised by the backlash; nor do I disagree with the fact that she's had advantages. But, God, is it stupid to focus only on that. And probably the reason 99% of people are not billionaires, even if they were to start out a multi-millionaire as Jenner did, lol.

Seriously, what do you all think the average 18-20 yr old is thinking about in this day and age? What do you all think the average WEALTHY 18-20 yr old is thinking about? There is no shortage of wealthy teenagers (with business-savvy family members) running around and exactly none of them ever built a billion-dollar empire from scratch/no-VC prior to Kylie Jenner. The girl deserves some props if for no other reason than obviously being more strategic at that age than most kids are.

This is much more a race issue than a woman issue since deducting depreciating assets leaves half of all black American households holding less than $1,700 in wealth while the same method of accounting shows the net worth of the median white family to be near $100,000. Even white families near the poverty line have over 10,000 net worth. This is the kind of difference we're looking at. It would take 228 years for the average Black family to attain the same level of wealth that the average white family has today.

>A huge part of entrepreneurial success
>is mentality.


An even bigger part of it is having capital to execute that mentality.


>nor do I disagree with the
>fact that she's had advantages. But, God, is it stupid to
>focus only on that.


It's actually stupid not to acknowledge it, and it's why Black America has this weird aspirational mentality that doesn't match our reality... thinking we can do whatever white people are doing.


>And probably the reason 99% of people are
>not billionaires, even if they were to start out a
>multi-millionaire as Jenner did, lol.


Well, of course being a billionaire wouldn't be special if 99% of people were one lol. But the main reason even the motivated people around us aren't billionaires is because they don't start from where Kylie started. Even Puffy is out here now talking about needing venture capital and how we Black folks don't really have a chance without it. That's white money. Kylie was born into white money. Puff is about as motivated as Black folks come and he ain't a billionaire. Neither is Oprah. It ain't just mentality and motivation. It's capital.

I guess I get the idea that she surpassed alotta similarly situated people, and that's motivation for others work harder than those around them... but I also think it should be clear that being in her situation is non-existent for Black people for the most part. I say that b/c I've seen someone on this very board say that what she's done shows what's possible for Black people, and thinking like that only sets us up for disappointment and makes us feel like we just aren't doing enough when it isn't actually about that.

Placed on an audience that is exhausted with daily propaganda and pushes back hard against images.

last thing we need to do is be lied to about how awesome and self made a white girl is who has been famous and on TV 5 days a week/365 days a year since she was 10 years old.

The same folks bragging about her turn around and shit on Jaden Smith and Willow for the same exact thing.

props to her for making big money but I'm not going to act like she built that shit from nothing.

She is basically too big to fail.

folks just need to say they hate her, her fam and her market and K.I.M.

If folks say calling her self made is ridiculous, you believe that equals "they hate her, her fam and her market" ?

Maybe they just don't buy the self made label.

What is folks say her billion came from cultural apropriation ?

https://hollywoodlife.com/2018/07/13/kylie-jenner-slammed-cultural-appropriation-black-features-forbes-cover/

>folks just need to say they hate her, her fam and her market
>and K.I.M.

that shit blew up for a minute

but let a Black woman teach a Yoga booty pop class and its' ghetto and nasty

Reminds me of the Paul Mooney joke he did where he talks about how, lips, braids, and a big butt is bad when it's Black, but they praise it when whites imitate it.

.

wasting time on sephora, instagram, music/fashion culture, but kylie....

foh, that's exploiting her peer group, not transcending.

this shit

give any teen 30 million followers and whatever they put on or push is going to sell a nice amount of product.

most of her business moves are prolly selfies

Step 1). Get some Instagram followers
Step 2). Sell product, make hundreds of millions

How many "influencers" are multimillionaires hocking tummy tea?

a better comparison is Blue...

if she sells shit in a few years best believe she is going to make some serious cake

she was 10.

and is the younger sister of KK

yes, it's fucking easy as shit when you have a built in audience of millions who want to be.. you.

it's not easy for just anyone to get 50 million followers and sell shit to them

but start out on a show and have it come on 5 days a week for 10 years...and yes, it becomes much easier to sell beauty when you come from a pretty attractive family.

>
>yes, it's fucking easy as shit when you have a built in
>audience of millions who want to be.. you.
>

Sounds like ya'll should be Rob Kardashians brand manager...

since its soooo easy

is half of the point, not the counterpoint

even after he's been roasted by everyone (family-included) for being a bum and his sock ideas, end of the day he has a multi-million dollar company.

but it’s not that hard to throw shit against the gram and see what sticks and then scale up.

If Rob looked like Bieber or One Direction I bet he could sell more than socks.

lol.. neither was Kylie

She used that too her benefit

it's whether it's laudable and whether you believe the myth that our economy magically distributes wealth based on how hard you work and how good your ideas are.

obama gave a speech on this topic exactly 6 years ago.

.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

Supa Cent, owner of the crayon case. it’s a come up I respect.

just saying :-)

I was sure it'd go wood

billion thread ?

I'm surprised nobody was called misogynist again.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

----------

IG @h_n_z

https://www.shopify.com/blog/214945353-seed-beauty-kylie-cosmetics

Powering the Pout: The (Other) Woman Behind Kylie Cosmetics
by Dayna Winter Case Studies

Powering the Pout: The (Other) Woman Behind Kylie Cosmetics
Kylie Jenner emerges from the double-doors of her brand’s Manhattan pop-up shop into a street filled with her fans. Beside her is Laura Nelson, a name and face likely unknown to the masses who came here for the lipstick. That lipstick, though, is the result of a collaboration: Kylie’s vision and Laura’s 17 years of experience in the beauty business.

In 2014, her own business sprung up, seemingly out of nowhere, and here, just three years later, she’s standing beside one the biggest celebrities of the moment, sharing in her glory.

But Laura didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

Seed Beauty, a two-year old company launched by Laura and her brother John, was built on the back of a 60-year-old family business. In 1989, the Nelson family purchased the established Spatz Laboratories from its founder. Laura and John forged out on their own, however, studying and working respectively in retail and product development, and finance and manufacturing, before coming full circle into the family business, she tells me:

“I studied retail and consumer studies at University of Arizona and directly out of school worked for Nordstrom doing special events and sales promotion across a couple of states and many different stores. It was a great training ground for me to really learn and to bring that forward into the other businesses I've been involved in.” – Laura Thomas, Seed Beauty


Meet Seed Beauty

The perspective Laura and her brother gained external to Spatz helped them inform business decisions and ultimately launch Seed Beauty.

Spatz deals in product development and manufacturing for global beauty brands, with facilities in California and China. Seed Beauty took that model and gave it the boutique treatment. The business would become a true partner of its brands, adding capital, brand incubation, and fulfillment to its hands-on offerings.

“Brand incubation”, Laura explains, is a level up from the traditional celebrity brand and manufacturer relationship. White label or private label, as these arrangements are often referred, are largely transactional.

Don't call Seed Beauty "white label". The company is working hand in hand with brands to grow them from the ground up.

“Brand incubation is truly starting a brand from scratch internally and growing it from all aspects. Part of the process that's important is that you do not only do it once. It's a continuous process. It continues to grow and evolve. As Kylie grows and evolves, and her brand grows and evolves, it's important that we're keeping pace along the way so we're continuing to drive value for our customers.” – Laura

As Kylie grows and evolves, and her brand grows and evolves, it's important that we're keeping pace.

Seed Beauty’s business model is on the cutting edge of what’s happening with commerce, says Shopify’s Director of Marketing, Arati Sharma:

“Celebrities have always used white label products, it's just been there from the beginning of time, but ecommerce, flash sales, social media, the brand of humans versus their movies or their music, it’s accelerated that phenomenon at a really quick pace.” – Arati

The paradigm shift, thanks to social influence, is that anyone can amass huge audiences, suddenly finding themselves in a position to monetize that influence. What do you do with an audience, nothing to sell to them, and no business experience?

Laura recognized an opportunity.

The Democratization of Beauty and Commerce

Beauty in the US was a $62 billion industry in 2016, the lion’s share of that revenue owned by major brands, collectively owned by even bigger corporations. Launching a cosmetics brand is no small feat. Rewind several years and it was a nearly impossible one.

In 2017, the industry is experiencing a "democratization", says Laura.

“The democratization of beauty has been driven by two main factors, the first being social media. Information is being directly provided to the consumers so there's less filtering, less editing happening, and that really empowers the consumer to make really great purchasing decisions and get different perspectives directly from the brand. The second factor is ecommerce—consumers are able to buy those products online and brands are able to launch products when it works for them and their consumers. Traditionally you had big retailers setting the pace.” – Laura

Seed Beauty is setting its own pace, and boasts an impressive concept-to-consumer timeline of just five days. For brands born on social—a fickle place of rise-and-fall trends—staying nimble is essential.

ColourPop Ecommerce

Seed Beauty launched with its own consumer cosmetics line on Shopify Plus. ColourPop is a fresh-faced now 3-year-old brand that, due to owning its production cycle, can bring ahead-of-trend products to customers at affordable prices. The entire line morphed from concept to launch in just 12 weeks.

What’s the secret? (Almost) everything is done under one roof, Laura says—everything from manufacturing and assembly to branding and marketing to fulfillment.

Planting the Seed: Kylie’s Business Idea

Enter Kylie Jenner.

When Kylie had the idea for her business, she was only 18, the age that many of us were weighing another year in our parents’ basement against a general arts degree or a backpacking meander through Europe.

Say what you will about privilege or stardom, but Kylie chose the life of hustle and hard work when she didn’t have to.

Her desire to start a business sprang from a love of lipstick (she calls it an “obsession”) after she turned to cosmetics to help her through insecurities in her early teens. And she meant business. She approached Seed Beauty with her idea, and Laura knew that it would be a good fit for the business.

"Most people go about launching a cosmetic brand and it seems overwhelming and daunting and it’s a multi-multi-million dollar of investment and two years of lead time. Kylie came about it from the same way that I've learned that she comes about many other things, which is to find the most direct path. That's one of the reasons that we work very well together. Our capabilities in the business matched with her vision and reach—that's the magic that has allowed Kylie Cosmetics to have scaled the way it has been able to scale in just 12 months.” – Laura

Kylie came about it from the same way that I've learned that she comes about many other things, which is to find the most direct path.

Scale is a word that doesn’t even come close to describing the success of meshing influencer power at this calibre with a seasoned business pro. Kylie Cosmetics sold out of product on its first day, and later, tens of thousands of people would spend millions of dollars at her New York and LA pop-ups.

It’s a win for Kylie, but it’s one she shares with Laura.

But there’s a third “partner” in the business relationship, one more vocal and weighted than with brands in the past: the customer. Influencer brands have a continuous two-way line of communication with fans, feedback is very public, and every decision up for social media debate. In a way, it’s the downside of living very much in the public eye, but for Kylie, it makes her business stronger.

The flexibility of Seed Beauty’s concept-to-consumer product development means that Kylie Cosmetics can adapt to fan feedback on the fly.

“It's a very powerful and exciting shift that we've seen because there's a direct relationship between Kylie’s vision and the feedback that she's getting from her fans and customers, and then actualizing that into product. It’s all happening in very real time.” – Laura

The Influencer as Entrepreneur

In the 80s and 90s, many celebrity brands had an “as seen on TV” feel, and were often viewed as a sign of fading fandom. Or, the products were disconnected from the celebrity persona altogether.

Today, celeb-backed companies like Goop and Honest Company are brands that can stand on their own feet. While they are often deeply woven into the stories of their famous founders, they are the legitimate businesses of actors and musicians and influencers reborn as entrepreneurs.

And the trickle effect is this: their successes are inspiring the next generation of influencers cum entrepreneurs, says Arati:

“Kylie, she's that aspiration for makeup artists. Makeup artists on Instagram already have this crazy cult following, even if it's small, but they have a cult following. Jeffree Star is a really good example. What they do, is they inspire this second, third tier of people to go build products, too. Because the manufacturing companies exist for everybody.” – Arati

It takes more than just slapping your name on a product, however. The bar has been set, and it's high. The next cohort of influencers can learn a lot from Kylie’s own entrepreneurial prowess. She's directly involved in every decision, working closely with Laura's team at every turn.

“One of the most amazing things about Kylie and how she leverages her reach is the direct communication and conversation that she's able to have with her consumers. For anyone that's entering this space and looking to become an influencer, I think it honestly starts with a conversation. It starts with asking questions, engaging with fans and followers, understanding what their ideas and perspectives are. That's where the powerful new ideas come from.” – Laura

It starts with asking questions, engaging with fans and followers, understanding what their ideas and perspectives are.

And those ideas are coming every day, turned around quickly as products under both the ColourPop and Kylie brands. I ask the dreaded 5-year-plan question, but it’s irrelevant, almost archaic in this business.

“We don't have to think about where we're going to be in five years because I think that in a lot of cases, that's a wasted effort. In the case of Kylie Cosmetics, and the other brands we're working on right now, it’s more like ‘what's our three month plan?’” – Laura

Getting Started

Brands born from influence are ultimately personal brands. When fans buy Kylie Cosmetics, they are not buying lipstick—they’re symbolically buying a little piece of Kylie herself. Her partnership with Laura therefore is one based on trust.

What can emerging influencers learn from Laura and Kylie’s story?

Work with suppliers and manufacturers who can become true partners in your business
Choose a partner who supports your vision
Be the face of your brand, even when things go wrong
Keep the communication going both ways, and let your fans influence product decisions
Be nimble
Whether you have 100 followers or 100,000, entrepreneurs all take the same first step

I think my natural assumption would be that it was a licensing deal that paid off really well like Dre with Beats or 50 cent with Vitamin Water.

I guess it's also worth stating that it seems to be a paper valuation. Not like she walking around with 900M in her bank account.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Kylie is a mastermind though...

The reason this success exists is because she understands the social exosystem better than most including Kim.

It was the perfect marriage

That's cool. Being a Kardashian gives her a platform, and the family business people married her to the right partners. And that's how she gets a 900M valuation...but all that doesn't make her a corporate mastermind. Similarly I doubt Zuckberg is a corporate mastermind. I think he had a cool idea and being at harvard gave him the fast track and connections to VCs and Money which allowed for facebook to turn out better than friendster. To put another way I don't think Zuck's corporate savy is what caused FB to turn out better than Friendster, I think he found the right partners and was able to attract the right talent.

It might be hairsplitting and hating, but that's bound to happen when you put a 20 year old on the cover of Forbes.


>Kylie is a mastermind though...
>
>The reason this success exists is because she understands the
>social exosystem better than most including Kim.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You all are working overtime to downplay every successful company founder. It's like if they don't literally build the widgets themselves, set up the legal structure, do the marketing and sales, manage HR, clean the toilets, etc. then they deserve to get knocked down a peg.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. Give me the idea for Uber, that thing is going to fail it 1 month. Give me FB idea, fail in a few weeks.

What separates successful businesses from failures is execution of that idea. And the most important part is selecting the right people to help you do that.

besides Walleye

stories.

I made the point above that there isn't a single billionaire who didn't have the help of advisors, partners, etc. so it's silly to try to say a billionaire isn't self-made because they had that sort of help.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Quote:
"Seed Beauty, a two-year old company launched by Laura and her brother John, was built on the back of a 60-year-old family business."

Oh... so this is *old* white money (real money) investing in white people. Folks can call this self-made if they like. I call this the system of white supremacy working like it's supposed to for white people. For the most part, Black people don't really get this kind of investment into them (especially now), which is exactly why negros celebrated and acted a fool when Disney & Marvel's Black Panther came out but don't do the same for Black films from Black studios made without such huge white investments. People know it deep down. They just don't like for it to be stated outright. Like I said, even Puffy is out here talking about Black folks only being able to compete *IF* we receive white capital investment and opportunities. Kanye out here literally begging for white capital with all his "vision" and supposed genius.

Quote:
"Say what you will about privilege or stardom, but Kylie chose the life of hustle and hard work when she didn’t have to."

Yeah I know many people who did the same thing. They just didn't start where Kylie started and don't have the complexion for the connection.

Quote:
"Our capabilities in the business matched with her vision and reach"

That "and reach" part is wildly important. That reach has so much to do with her being white. But hell, some of yall on here don't seem to understand the purpose of our population being *purposely* limited or controlled so that white people can remain upwards of 60% of the population. Someone on here even told me that population control wasn't a part of racism LOL. I know keeping us dumb is a part of racism, but good god.

Quote:
“Kylie, she's that aspiration for makeup artists. Makeup artists on Instagram already have this crazy cult following, even if it's small, but they have a cult following. Jeffree Star is a really good example. What they do, is they inspire this second, third tier of people to go build products, too. Because the manufacturing companies exist for everybody.” – Arati

Lol. You know what? If enough people start pointing out how this is white privilege in action, I see this opportunity being given a Black person just to quiet that. Just like Black peope are selected for key positions elsewhere to keep us negros being aspirational instead of lobbying for collective uplifting (I ran down some stats in reply 92). Throw us an Obama or an Oprah and hella folks start talking that "but a Black man is president" or "but what about Oprah" mess. If all of us Black folks are out for self on some aspirational stuff, then 99.99% of us remain the bottom that feeds the system.

Quote:
"Be the face of your brand, even when things go wrong" (taken from the list of things "emerging influencers" can learn from Kylie's story)

I just wanna point out that Seed Beauty has 3 brands on their website. They're listed by thumbnails of faces, and all 3 of the faces are white. The first thing on the list should have been "whiteness is social capital."

This article was written on shopify.. the ultimate tone is to inspire people to use the service. So quoting it is silly since that is the intended purpose

first one is spot on though... generations of access have allowed the starting point for any white person to be 20+ yrs in the future...

We can certainly make an argument that white people buy from white people and since there are more white people they immediately have a larger consumer base.

(This is happening in Hip Hop currently where a white rapper can scale indie a million times faster than any other rapper... although it is recent)

But there are a disproportionate amount of failures as well.

>This article was written on shopify.. the ultimate tone is to
>inspire people to use the service. So quoting it is silly
>since that is the intended purpose



Which is business and all, but we as Black folks have to know when we're reading stuff that doesn't apply to us, and too many of us don't. Even still, I think it's worth analyzing how racism shows up even in such seemingly innocent "inspirational" pieces as this. Also, it's kinda weird that you said my quoting it is silly, but didn't think it was silly to post it, but whatever.



>first one is spot on though... generations of access have
>allowed the starting point for any white person to be 20+ yrs
>in the future...
>
>We can certainly make an argument that white people buy from
>white people and since there are more white people they
>immediately have a larger consumer base.
>
>(This is happening in Hip Hop currently where a white rapper
>can scale indie a million times faster than any other
>rapper... although it is recent)



All very true. I usually get alotta push-back on here for pointing those very things out, so I'm kinda in shock right now lol.



>But there are a disproportionate amount of failures as well.


That's true too. All white folks don't succeed at everything, but they just collectively have more money than we do in general, can afford to fail multiple times, and tend to be closely related to wealth if they aren't wealthy themselves, while Black folks tend not to even be related to any. I don't think I'm teaching you anything there, I just wanna make sure it remains stated, because failure doesn't mean the same for white folks that it means for Black folks.

>>This article was written on shopify.. the ultimate tone is
>to
>>inspire people to use the service. So quoting it is silly
>>since that is the intended purpose
>
>
>
>Which is business and all, but we as Black folks have to know
>when we're reading stuff that doesn't apply to us, and too
>many of us don't. Even still, I think it's worth analyzing
>how racism shows up even in such seemingly innocent
>"inspirational" pieces as this. Also, it's kinda weird that
>you said my quoting it is silly, but didn't think it was silly
>to post it, but whatever.
>

I posted for the basic info IN the article about Seed Cosmetics. That is useful. There are black women who get clowned on IG as we speak with hundreds of thousands if not millions of followers that could be manipulating the blueprint. Maybe not to the tune of 1b but definitely building wealth.

like https://www.goinspo.com/

>
>>first one is spot on though... generations of access have
>>allowed the starting point for any white person to be 20+
>yrs
>>in the future...
>>
>>We can certainly make an argument that white people buy from
>>white people and since there are more white people they
>>immediately have a larger consumer base.
>>
>>(This is happening in Hip Hop currently where a white rapper
>>can scale indie a million times faster than any other
>>rapper... although it is recent)
>
>
>
>All very true. I usually get alotta push-back on here for
>pointing those very things out, so I'm kinda in shock right
>now lol.
>
The solutions could vary but I did fuck with Jidenna when he said we continue to focus business in the wrong direction. We focus on breaking middle american consumers when (with technology) we could be breaking emerging markets on the continent. The sheer number of people alone is trillions in untapped revenue...

ex. https://alaffia.com/

>
>>But there are a disproportionate amount of failures as well.
>
>
>
>That's true too. All white folks don't succeed at everything,
>but they just collectively have more money than we do in
>general, can afford to fail multiple times, and tend to be
>closely related to wealth if they aren't wealthy themselves,
>while Black folks tend not to even be related to any. I don't
>think I'm teaching you anything there, I just wanna make sure
>it remains stated, because failure doesn't mean the same for
>white folks that it means for Black folks.
>
I don't think that statement holds true really. I think most white people barely know what to do with money just like everyone else. These scams that wall st plays with mortgage lending don't work w/o massive amounts of white people signing up.

I wholeheartedly agree on failure though. The stakes are much higher.