Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Warren Buffett Is Poorer Than Mark Zuckerberg (inc.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the rich-man-poor-man dept.

Facebook's soaring stock price isn't the only reason 34-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is now richer than 87-year-old Warren Buffett. An anonymous reader quotes Inc: There's another, more important reason that Zuckerberg is now worth more: Buffett has been doing a great job of giving his money away, something that he, Zuckerberg, Gates, and most of the world's most well-known billionaires have pledged to do.

Buffett has given Berkshire Hathaway stock now worth more than $50 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone. When it comes to giving, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have a lot of catching up to do. They appear to have devoted well under $10 billion so far to philanthropy... On the other hand, Zuckerberg, is more than 50 years younger than Buffett, so they likely have a lot more time in which to do their giving.
Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes.

4 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. He's not poorer... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's just less incredibly incredibly incredibly fucking rich.

    1. Re:He's not poorer... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Who gives a rat's arse? I don't begrudge either person their fortune, but their net worth is not a matter of competition nor a measure of their worth as a person.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:He's not poorer... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One might if they've any hope or faith that the degree of wealth somehow correlates with effort or ability or contribution to society. Admittedly naive but one can still hope.

      Well, maybe you’re right. Maybe one should begrudge them their fortune if their actual contribution to society falls well short of what they have amassed. But I’m careful with that sentiment, because the follow up question is: what ought to be done to make it right? Taxing the rich is a popular notion but not with me, because 1) the actual rich have no problem moving their wealth out of harm’s way, and 2) it invariably ends in classifying regular middle class folk with a bit of savings as “rich”. Because that’s where the real money is to be had. The middle class are docile, without much influence, without many options to flee heavy taxation, and they come in great numbers.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  2. A thing to keep in mind about paper values by GrimSavant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With these valuations of things based on stock prices, remember that the listed prices are based on what it last traded for, or sometimes what the offers are for buying or selling some are at the moment (bid and ask). But if push came to shove, and he wanted to realize the value of that stock and sell a bunch of it to get cash, the price he'd get would go down, how much depending upon liquidity and how deep or shallow the demand for the asset was.

    So the composition of their holdings really matters to tell how much their wealth really means if they actually want to do something with it or are faced with downward pressure. $10 billion in Tesla or Facebook stock is a lot more precarious than $10 billion in cash or well diversified holdings, even though the topline number is the same.