Is there any truth to the saying '99% of the world's millionaires have become rich by doing real estate'?
"I can name far more non-real estate millionaires than those who are. That statistic isn't only not valid, it's not even close.  Update: The correct quote is ""90% of all Millionaires become so through owning Real Estate"" and it's attributed to Andrew Carnegie. Given that he was born in 1835, I can imagine that his statement was true at he time, but not today." "This quote has it almost backwards. Thomas J. Stanley's recent book (he's one of the duo who researched and wrote about The Millionaire Next Door) claims that the top occupation of millionaires is ""business owner / self-employed"" (28%).  ""Real estate investor"" is lumped in with ""other"" (9%), and if the ordering is correct in the list, it's no more than 2% of the total. (source)" 78.84% of statistics are made up on the spot. Most millionaires became millionaires by being very frugal and living well below their means, all the time.
What I think Warren means is that people like him are really good at making money and setting things up to continue being rich. In Warren's case he's very good at evaluating businesses and if they would be good investments. In the micro this isn't really a problem. Instead the problem is on the macro-level. When enough potential market participants (i.e. people / businesses) aren't enabled to participate in the economy in the same way. This feeds into a growing wealth inequality. The people who have the resources to continue playing the game can also continue with more chances. It's a Pareto Principle situation. No opportunity to play, little to improve, and a continually disadvantaged population. Add time into the soup. Rich get richer, the poor poorer, the gap widens more. Add inflationary mechanics, and the fact that being poor is more expensive. Add debt and an inability to purchase for long term solutions. You get a situation where 99% of the money is cycling around in the top 1% of players.  The other 99% of potential market participants are poorly utilized up to the point where their wealth is something they have trouble spending for things like...healthcare.  The idea of poorly utilized market participants is key. A growing economy wants more bandwidth. It wants more agents or market participants contributing to the flow. Get rich enough and you'll find you can't spend more than the interest on investments. On the contrary if you don't have very much money, it's easy as hell to spend it quickly! It's straightforward to say that if more of the global population weren't in debt, if they weren't in a state where they can't participate in economic growth, then maybe the economic growth of human society wouldn't be so bottle-necked. "Maybe he is now - I saw his site probably 7 years ago.  The reason I don't take the critic seriously is because it seems that he has a personal vendetta against Kiyo for whatever reason. I'm guessing he has a chip on his shoulder because he disagrees with some of Kiyo's advice, and is pissed off at how much success it brought him. As such, all of his information is extremely negatively biased. It's difficult to separate the facts from everything else. Hence, he is not a reliable source. A reliable and trustworthy source is not biased, and lays out all the facts, good and bad, so that you can create your own opinion.  I take RDPD seriously (mind you, it'd been 10+ years since I've read it) because the advice is overwhelmingly good and positive. Even if a small percentage I disagree with, overall it's still a very good book. I always say: RDPD =&gt; Millionaire Mind =&gt; Think &amp; Grow Rich + Greatest Salesman in the World (the last 2 at the same time).  I politely disagree that the ""opening the mind"" thing is overestimated, because by definition it's not something that you can overestimate. It is everything, and nothing is more important. The mind is the source of all the money, all your happiness, all your misery. Unless you first get your mind right, it will be impossible for you to become rich (barring some extremely lucky event, such as winning a lottery or getting inheritance). This is why the majority of people who win lotteries go broke - even if the money falls on your lap, unless your mind is ready for it, off it goes again! ""Opening the mind"" as you put it is really the first step - it's what makes everything else possible. So you're damn right that it's worth feeling elated about. :)" The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location.  Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer.  So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant).   If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage.  In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position.  That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close.   This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house.  The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it.  They don't really care about the house they're selling.  Their job is to make the transition easy.  With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase.  If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over.  That could make the employment change fall through.   This is a variation of a no contingencies sale.  Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier.  Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker.  But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way.  In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay.  This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs.   This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction.  If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine.  However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly.  You can consider any of the following:   Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure.  If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement.  Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement.  The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response.   And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier.  You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision.  You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry.  If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal.  They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that.  Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is. Yes, you can indeed become rich by investing even small amounts over time. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week. Suppose you choose to put your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. 35 years from now, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). This math works out for anyone, no matter who your parents are, where you are from, where you went to school, etc. Yes, you have a better chance of becoming wealthy the more you invest, the longer you have to stay invested, and the better choices you make in your investments.  By starting early, you will maximize your time invested, which allows you the flexibility to be more conservative in your investments and to invest smaller amounts.  But for those with a shorter time to invest, it is still doable for most people.  Get your financial life under control by eliminating your debt, setting a household budget, and investing for the future. So obviously, realtors are not economists and have a strong bias here.  A lot of actual [economists](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/) think the mortgage deduction is nonsense and doesn't actually promote home ownership. Countries without the deduction have about the same ownership rates as the U.S.  Worth noting that this proposal doesn't actually scrap the mortgage deduction, it just makes the standard deduction bigger. Some people will end up better off with the new standard deduction, and those with more expensive homes can keep using the mortgage deduction.  This is one of the few proposals coming out of the Republican congress that actually helps poor people more than rich people. I think you are thinking too hard about this. If a billionaire's assets increase 70% in the stock market, he created $700M in new wealth.  If 300 people each create a million dollars in new wealth. We have 300 new millionaires creating 300M in wealth, but still 70% of wealth among the 301 people was created by the billionaire. 300 new millionaires is still a good thing, no matter what you think about how to tax a billionaire's assets. If by being a millionaire you mean dollar millionaire then I doubt that it is really that easy in Pakistani context. At present the exchange rate is 107 Pakistani rupees per US dollar so even with this exchange rate, to have a million US dollars means having 107 million rupees of wealth. Now with this maths in mind you can very well calculate how much possible it is for an average 25 years old Pakistani to have that much wealth. And by the time you have 107 million Pakistani rupees of wealth the exchange rate against the US dollar would have only gone up against Pakistani currency. That article which you have mentioned makes calculations in US context and dollar terms. However if you talk only in terms of your country's context then being a millionaire means having 1 million rupees of wealth and that is something which is quite achievable with your salary and within very short span of time. Yeah, it is, to a massive degree to boot. The wealth gap is staggering because of it and it's the number one threat to the economy as a whole. Turns out it doesn't trickle down at all. It floods up and leaves a wake of poverty and bankruptcy behind it.