What do you think?
Rate this book
Rich White Men: What It Takes to Uproot the Old Boys' Club and Transform America
With a foreword by New York Times bestselling author Robin DiAngelo, this provocative book investigates major corporate boardrooms and presents a data-driven analysis of how rich white men have preserved their monopoly on power—and what we can do to stop them.
It’s no secret that our country has a serious problem when it comes to wealth inequality – and systemic racism and patriarchy have only exacerbated the advantages of wealthy white men. Over the past three decades, America’s richest white men have only become richer, while those suffering in poverty have only gotten poorer. The divide may seem too great to bridge, but Rich White Men exposes the hidden and insidious ways that white male elites inherit, increase, and preserve their status—and, in this book, we get clear on how to uproot their monopoly on power.
Serial nonprofit entrepreneur Garrett Neiman’s day job is to get rich white men to donate money to good causes and organizations. In Rich White Men, Neiman brings us into corner offices of billionaires and the boardrooms of Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Stanford, Harvard, and other enclaves of silver-spooned white men to illuminate the role of rich white men in the world and how they justify inequality. He uses the analogy of compound interest to illustrate how the advantages wealthy white men inherit give them a leg up at key moments in their lives, gilding their trajectories and shutting others out. Through this rare, insider access, readers will discover new ways to persuade the elite toward progressive solutions. A hopeful polemic, the book sheds light on dark truths about inequality and the people invested in preserving it while also providing a blueprint for how America can become an equitable democracy.
Rich White Men reveals that to realize America’s founding aspiration of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we must recognize, dismantle, and transform our current system into one that liberates us all – including this nation’s morally and spiritually impoverished wealthy white men.
It’s no secret that our country has a serious problem when it comes to wealth inequality – and systemic racism and patriarchy have only exacerbated the advantages of wealthy white men. Over the past three decades, America’s richest white men have only become richer, while those suffering in poverty have only gotten poorer. The divide may seem too great to bridge, but Rich White Men exposes the hidden and insidious ways that white male elites inherit, increase, and preserve their status—and, in this book, we get clear on how to uproot their monopoly on power.
Serial nonprofit entrepreneur Garrett Neiman’s day job is to get rich white men to donate money to good causes and organizations. In Rich White Men, Neiman brings us into corner offices of billionaires and the boardrooms of Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Stanford, Harvard, and other enclaves of silver-spooned white men to illuminate the role of rich white men in the world and how they justify inequality. He uses the analogy of compound interest to illustrate how the advantages wealthy white men inherit give them a leg up at key moments in their lives, gilding their trajectories and shutting others out. Through this rare, insider access, readers will discover new ways to persuade the elite toward progressive solutions. A hopeful polemic, the book sheds light on dark truths about inequality and the people invested in preserving it while also providing a blueprint for how America can become an equitable democracy.
Rich White Men reveals that to realize America’s founding aspiration of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we must recognize, dismantle, and transform our current system into one that liberates us all – including this nation’s morally and spiritually impoverished wealthy white men.
384 pages, Hardcover
Published June 20, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 27, 2023
I hesitated to write this review for two reasons. Firstly, I generally feel that publishing a book is an accomplishment that should be celebrated; a contribution to the cultural body of work that makes civilization better if only to encourage the exchange of ideas. Secondly, I wasn’t sure if the problems I am about to describe were due to an almost breathtaking degree of intellectual dishonesty or merely sloppy scholarship. While neither can be excused, the former seems more malevolent in that it contains the intention to deceive. However, the material errors, misrepresentations, manipulation, and even consistent homophobic bias in several of the policy suggestions made me feel like it was a moral and ethical obligation to write my thoughts even if no one reads them. If the author, editor, and publishing house had any sense of academic integrity, they should feel humiliated this book bears their name.
In summary, as a subject matter expert in a particular field relevant to the topics discussed in this book, and a person who has suffered significant lifetime discrimination including at the hands of government as a result of intrinsic characteristics, I was interested in what the author had to say.
It is difficult to express the extent of my disappointment. I cannot recall any book published by a major publishing house over the past two decades, in any non-fiction genre, that contains as many material errors, misrepresentations of fact, or misattributions. In its present form, I do not think the book is salvageable. The world is worse because it exists. Unless the reader is already an expert, and thus knows error – be it mendacity or mistake - when they encounter it, anyone who spends time finishing this book will be substantially less informed about the world than they would have been had they never picked up a copy. To me, that is a serious transgression; a violence against the truth and justice.
Data sources are inaccurately summarized, sometime in near total opposite of the actual facts in order to support the author’s existing prejudices and biases. (Many of the sources from the endnotes ultimately can be traced back to opinion pieces from ideological blogs which, themselves, either ignore or misstate the current relevant research.) In some cases, mistakes are small but the sheer volume of them is worrying. For example, a well-known quote from Charles Munger is ascribed to Benjamin Graham. A building donated by John D. Rockefeller Jr. is wrongly credited to his father, the latter of whom had been dead for quite some when the funds were committed.
There is a considerable amount of lying both through commission and omission. So many cases, in fact, I feel it would be impossible to document them all in a book review. I’ll provide a handful of examples to demonstrate the point.
An example of lying through commission: The author talks about research indicating the world would experience far greater economic growth if white men would simply step up and grant women and minorities equal rights, yet when you dig through to the source research cited, the finding actual relies upon India, China, the Middle East, and Africa reforming their cultures and elevating women and minorities to the same level as the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. It is, in other words, quite literally the exact opposite of what he states in the text.
Two illustrations of lying through omission:
1.) The author argues that The United States has some secret past of significantly higher tax rates about which most Americans are unaware, and that those tax rates were, in some way, responsible for the rise of the middle class, stating, “[F]rom 1944 to 1963, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals exceeded 90 percent”.
Except, it’s not just nonsense but total bunk because he fails to mention the equally relevant point that actual effective tax rates were not much different than they are today due to far more generous deductions than exist in the current tax code. To provide one such illustration: In the realm of capital gains, from 1934 to 1941, 70% of capital gains could be excluded from taxes depending upon whether the other held the asset for 1, 2, 5, or 10 years. The law changed in 1942 when the government simplified the tax code so that a blanket 50% of capital gains were excluded from taxation if assets were held at least six months (alternatively, a taxpayer could elect to pay a flat 25% on capital gains if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50%). Three martini lunches, interest expense on personal consumer debt, using passive real estate losses to offset active business income, state and local sales tax … prior to tax reform in recent decades, many of these things and more could be used to lower AGI. The simplification of lower marginal rates combined with “broadening the base” by eliminating these deductions means that the U.S. still continues to manifest Hauser’s law, which is the empirical observation that Federal tax revenues adhere closely to the neighborhood of 19.5% of GDP. For whatever reason, that is the level that American society will accept before it starts burning down Congress demanding tax cuts.
In fact, Federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are higher today (19.23%) than they were in most of the post-War period when they bounced between 16% and 17%. Focusing on marginal rates is utterly and completely meaningless. To falsely imply that what appeared to be higher marginal rates but were not actually higher taxes somehow justifies raising taxes today goes beyond deception. It is manipulative. It treats the reader as if he or she is an idiot; not to be trusted with actual facts to draw their own policy conclusions. This is especially true when there is considerable economic evidence that the prosperity of that era was a historical anomaly without any prior precedent and that it may have only existed because the United States had emerged victorious from World War II with its factory base intact as the rest of the world found itself bombed into oblivion. In addition, wage rates were artificially high because labor had an artificial monopoly caused by social violence – i.e., primary white male breadwinners were not competing with women, black Americans, gay Americans, etc., as the latter were not treated equally in the employment market.
2.) Saying Bill and Hillary Clinton characterized black youth as “super predators” as part of a long history of “[r]ich white men … pathologizing anyone we see as different.” [Source: Page 101] without mentioning that the comment was in response to the Clintons listening to the Congressional Black Caucus, a majority of whom demanded and voted for The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 after black children were primarily the victim of out of control black-on-black crime; kids literally gunned down on railroad tracks. Outside of Congress, a super-majority of black Americans supported the bill – far more than white Americans at the time – as they wanted to keep their kids safe. The comment was not describing black kids, it was describing violent kids, who happened to be black, and who were murdering and assaulting innocent black kids. Black parents and black communities said, “No more” and the Clinton White House listened to them. This talking point is one that Donald Trump fabricated against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election by taking the quote out of the relevant context and which the author mindlessly repeats here. (For an author so insistent that readers should listen to black voices, that apparently doesn’t mean black voices of the past. Or, at least, not the voices of black victims.)
Relatedly, in other cases, the author engages in what I can only describe as almost Trump-like levels of deceit, the sheer audacity of which is shocking. For example, he opens one chapter [see Page 47-48] denigrating a generous donor who had been gracious with his time, describing the donor’s beliefs as “disturbing”. Specifically, the gentleman was discussing the difference between men and women “having estrogen and testosterone … A man in an argument can recover from an argument in an hour. For a woman it might actually take a day to recover for those things, having to do with our makeup and things like that.” This is not a controversial position and, far from being sexist, these conclusions are based on scientific research done by women! A recent example: Joyce Benenson, an associate of Harvard’s Human Evolutionary Biology Department and a professor of psychology at Emmanuel College, worked with Richard Wrangham, the Ruth B. Moore Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology, to write a paper that was published in the journal Current Biology. The research documents this behavior – males being more aggressive but quickly recovering and making peace faster than females – as it is not only evident in humans, but also among many of our closest primate relatives indicating there may be profound evolutionary wisdom in this instinct that led to greater human survival. As reported in the Harvard Gazette when discussing the implications of the finding, this is an important step forward in potentially confirming the “male warrior hypothesis” in evolutionary biology models.
It would be one thing if the author were simply ignorant of this research. (Inexcusable, given he is writing about it in criticism of another human being, but, perhaps forgivable.) Instead, it becomes clear that the author’s outrage is feigned and his criticism of the donor both self-serving and dishonest. Case in point: He devotes an entire chapter to the importance of “Embracing Feminine Leadership”. This, of course, is a well-known area of behavioral finance research. As a group, women make better long-term investors and financial institutions tend to be more stable when women are in higher positions of authority to counter-balance risk practices of men as a group. None of this is particularly controversial, they are simply the present conclusions one must draw based upon the most recent, best science. Perhaps we should call this Schrödinger's sexism. In the author’s world, there are apparently no differences between men and women – and how dare you even suggest as such or you’re a bigot - except in cases where it serves to advance the author’s own prejudices and biases. It truly makes for bizarre reading. I still can’t decide if the lying is intentional or if he simply has no self-awareness at all.
This pattern, it should be noted, is repeated in other areas of the text. The author essentially denigrates women and minorities by making white men out to be some sort of god; the source of all their problems and which minorities can’t possibly hope to overcome unless white men willingly reform themselves. It is one of the most toxic, insidious, manifestations of the “white savior” complex I’ve ever encountered. To illustrate: He reduces complex multi-variable problems arising due to numerous guilty parties to the responsibility of the seemingly all-powerful white man. White men alone are blamed for slavery, thus ignoring the emerging wide body of research devoted to the role women played in not only supporting, expanding, and strengthening the slave trade, particularly in America; e.g., see They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South by Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers or other historical accounts of the extreme social pressure Southern women put on men to join the Civil War and fight for slavery or else be branded as a social outcast. Or the roles other African tribes played in enslaving their neighbors for profit. Or the far longer history of slavery elsewhere in the world; e.g,. as documented by Korean Studies scholar Mark A. Peterson, the longest unbroken slave trade in history happened in Korea and lasted an astonishing 1,500 years.
In other cases, the book has entire sections based upon premises which are not settled fact and, in actuality, are myths. For example, a good deal of time is spent talking about how inheritance is a massive social problem responsible for much of our societal ills. Yet, considerable scientific analysis in recent decades has shown the role of inheritance as a proportion of overall capital in household accumulation has plummeted. This has been particularly pronounced since the 1980s. Stated plainly, while it still matters to those who receive an inheritance, inheritance proper has never played a role as small as it does right now, at this moment, in all of human civilization in any known wealthy civilization. (For one such paper discussing this trend, see U.S. Department of Labor BLS Working Paper Inheritance and the Distribution of Wealth – Or Whatever Happened to the Great Inheritance Boom? By Edward N. Wolff of NYU and Maury Gittleman of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Are we supposed to simply ignore this? The author is taking his own experience going through life at a couple of elite institutions and inaccurately extrapolating that as if it is indicative of the U.S. as a whole. (It is an incontrovertible fact that a vast majority of the top 1%, 5%, and 20% of U.S. households made their money primarily through labor and did not attend an Ivy League school.) Someone so completely out of touch with the facts on the ground shouldn’t be anywhere near policymaking in a healthy, representative society.
Finally, on a personal note entirely separate from the data errors, lying, and manipulation mentioned thus far, I found the book extremely jarring for another reason: The non-intentional homophobia throughout it. Here, I don’t think the author is being purposefully hurtful, so I am more forgiving. Rather, I simply think he is ignorant. For example, it is well known that outside of academic circles on the coasts, a super, super majority of gay men violently reject the use of the word “queer” to describe their lives. In the Midwest and South, in particular, it was that word, not the alternative that was more popular on the coasts, that was used as men were beaten and left to die on fenceposts, rejected from their families, left alone in hospital beds during the AIDs crisis, kicked out of the military, or told they couldn’t raise children; a fact that linguists can geographically pinpoint. The Huffington Post lost the near entirety of its gay male readership a decade ago when it changed the name of its gay section to Queer Voices and ultimately got rid of comments because the backlash was so bad. Gay authors have written op-ed pieces saying they reject their work being labeled as queer literature. You have to be so far removed from the lives of non-urban coastal academic echo chambers to not be aware of this that it should be an embarrassment. Yet, repeatedly, he refers to gay issues as “queer” issues. It is as gut-wrenching as hearing someone use the “n” word. Unless someone has specifically identified themselves that way, no straight man (or woman) should ever use that word. Gay men don’t even use it in reference to each other unless the other person identifies that way first. Full stop. It is hateful and you don’t have a right to reclaim it for others. Queer is a word that non-gay men have appropriated for themselves and which they continue to use despite the objections of those against whom that word has been used as a weapon. I can never take anyone’s positions on social justice seriously if they are so callous on this one simple matter of respect.
Similarly, this blind spot comes up in his economic policies as it relates to not just gay men, but all LGBT people. So many of his preferred policy positions would be disastrous, creating systematic discrimination against the LGBT community. For example, he talks about a proposal for “Baby Bonds” in which the government contributes money into a child’s account from birth based upon the income of the parents; i.e., children of middle class and wealthy parents would receive less while children of poor parents would receive more. Yet, consider that it is well-established, and conclusively shown year after year, decade after decade, that the number one reason teens and young adults across all demographics are thrown out of their home by their parents or caretakers is because they are discovered to be LGBT. In some cities, gay youth are thought to make up 50% of homeless teens on the street. In such a world, you would have tens of thousands of kids reach adulthood, rejected by their families but with no safety net because those same bigoted parents made a little too much money. Basic human psychology tells us that most of society would be less sympathetic assuming the kids had squandered their societal inheritance, making them even more vulnerable. (This, it should be noted, is precisely the reason some black leaders, including President Obama, were against racial reparations in the form of non-universal transfers based upon socioeconomic need, pointing out that the moment the newspaper headline was printed, every American would wash their hands of all issues related to healing race-based problems, saying, “Well, you got your reparations it’s all on you now.” The multi-generational damage done, particularly to black youth, could be catastrophic and not made up by a short-term financial benefit.)
In summary, this book should not have been written. If it had been written, it should not have been written by this author. At one point in the final chapter, he mentions that a more seasoned activist told him as such. It is unfortunate he didn’t listen.
In summary, as a subject matter expert in a particular field relevant to the topics discussed in this book, and a person who has suffered significant lifetime discrimination including at the hands of government as a result of intrinsic characteristics, I was interested in what the author had to say.
It is difficult to express the extent of my disappointment. I cannot recall any book published by a major publishing house over the past two decades, in any non-fiction genre, that contains as many material errors, misrepresentations of fact, or misattributions. In its present form, I do not think the book is salvageable. The world is worse because it exists. Unless the reader is already an expert, and thus knows error – be it mendacity or mistake - when they encounter it, anyone who spends time finishing this book will be substantially less informed about the world than they would have been had they never picked up a copy. To me, that is a serious transgression; a violence against the truth and justice.
Data sources are inaccurately summarized, sometime in near total opposite of the actual facts in order to support the author’s existing prejudices and biases. (Many of the sources from the endnotes ultimately can be traced back to opinion pieces from ideological blogs which, themselves, either ignore or misstate the current relevant research.) In some cases, mistakes are small but the sheer volume of them is worrying. For example, a well-known quote from Charles Munger is ascribed to Benjamin Graham. A building donated by John D. Rockefeller Jr. is wrongly credited to his father, the latter of whom had been dead for quite some when the funds were committed.
There is a considerable amount of lying both through commission and omission. So many cases, in fact, I feel it would be impossible to document them all in a book review. I’ll provide a handful of examples to demonstrate the point.
An example of lying through commission: The author talks about research indicating the world would experience far greater economic growth if white men would simply step up and grant women and minorities equal rights, yet when you dig through to the source research cited, the finding actual relies upon India, China, the Middle East, and Africa reforming their cultures and elevating women and minorities to the same level as the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. It is, in other words, quite literally the exact opposite of what he states in the text.
Two illustrations of lying through omission:
1.) The author argues that The United States has some secret past of significantly higher tax rates about which most Americans are unaware, and that those tax rates were, in some way, responsible for the rise of the middle class, stating, “[F]rom 1944 to 1963, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals exceeded 90 percent”.
Except, it’s not just nonsense but total bunk because he fails to mention the equally relevant point that actual effective tax rates were not much different than they are today due to far more generous deductions than exist in the current tax code. To provide one such illustration: In the realm of capital gains, from 1934 to 1941, 70% of capital gains could be excluded from taxes depending upon whether the other held the asset for 1, 2, 5, or 10 years. The law changed in 1942 when the government simplified the tax code so that a blanket 50% of capital gains were excluded from taxation if assets were held at least six months (alternatively, a taxpayer could elect to pay a flat 25% on capital gains if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50%). Three martini lunches, interest expense on personal consumer debt, using passive real estate losses to offset active business income, state and local sales tax … prior to tax reform in recent decades, many of these things and more could be used to lower AGI. The simplification of lower marginal rates combined with “broadening the base” by eliminating these deductions means that the U.S. still continues to manifest Hauser’s law, which is the empirical observation that Federal tax revenues adhere closely to the neighborhood of 19.5% of GDP. For whatever reason, that is the level that American society will accept before it starts burning down Congress demanding tax cuts.
In fact, Federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are higher today (19.23%) than they were in most of the post-War period when they bounced between 16% and 17%. Focusing on marginal rates is utterly and completely meaningless. To falsely imply that what appeared to be higher marginal rates but were not actually higher taxes somehow justifies raising taxes today goes beyond deception. It is manipulative. It treats the reader as if he or she is an idiot; not to be trusted with actual facts to draw their own policy conclusions. This is especially true when there is considerable economic evidence that the prosperity of that era was a historical anomaly without any prior precedent and that it may have only existed because the United States had emerged victorious from World War II with its factory base intact as the rest of the world found itself bombed into oblivion. In addition, wage rates were artificially high because labor had an artificial monopoly caused by social violence – i.e., primary white male breadwinners were not competing with women, black Americans, gay Americans, etc., as the latter were not treated equally in the employment market.
2.) Saying Bill and Hillary Clinton characterized black youth as “super predators” as part of a long history of “[r]ich white men … pathologizing anyone we see as different.” [Source: Page 101] without mentioning that the comment was in response to the Clintons listening to the Congressional Black Caucus, a majority of whom demanded and voted for The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 after black children were primarily the victim of out of control black-on-black crime; kids literally gunned down on railroad tracks. Outside of Congress, a super-majority of black Americans supported the bill – far more than white Americans at the time – as they wanted to keep their kids safe. The comment was not describing black kids, it was describing violent kids, who happened to be black, and who were murdering and assaulting innocent black kids. Black parents and black communities said, “No more” and the Clinton White House listened to them. This talking point is one that Donald Trump fabricated against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election by taking the quote out of the relevant context and which the author mindlessly repeats here. (For an author so insistent that readers should listen to black voices, that apparently doesn’t mean black voices of the past. Or, at least, not the voices of black victims.)
Relatedly, in other cases, the author engages in what I can only describe as almost Trump-like levels of deceit, the sheer audacity of which is shocking. For example, he opens one chapter [see Page 47-48] denigrating a generous donor who had been gracious with his time, describing the donor’s beliefs as “disturbing”. Specifically, the gentleman was discussing the difference between men and women “having estrogen and testosterone … A man in an argument can recover from an argument in an hour. For a woman it might actually take a day to recover for those things, having to do with our makeup and things like that.” This is not a controversial position and, far from being sexist, these conclusions are based on scientific research done by women! A recent example: Joyce Benenson, an associate of Harvard’s Human Evolutionary Biology Department and a professor of psychology at Emmanuel College, worked with Richard Wrangham, the Ruth B. Moore Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology, to write a paper that was published in the journal Current Biology. The research documents this behavior – males being more aggressive but quickly recovering and making peace faster than females – as it is not only evident in humans, but also among many of our closest primate relatives indicating there may be profound evolutionary wisdom in this instinct that led to greater human survival. As reported in the Harvard Gazette when discussing the implications of the finding, this is an important step forward in potentially confirming the “male warrior hypothesis” in evolutionary biology models.
It would be one thing if the author were simply ignorant of this research. (Inexcusable, given he is writing about it in criticism of another human being, but, perhaps forgivable.) Instead, it becomes clear that the author’s outrage is feigned and his criticism of the donor both self-serving and dishonest. Case in point: He devotes an entire chapter to the importance of “Embracing Feminine Leadership”. This, of course, is a well-known area of behavioral finance research. As a group, women make better long-term investors and financial institutions tend to be more stable when women are in higher positions of authority to counter-balance risk practices of men as a group. None of this is particularly controversial, they are simply the present conclusions one must draw based upon the most recent, best science. Perhaps we should call this Schrödinger's sexism. In the author’s world, there are apparently no differences between men and women – and how dare you even suggest as such or you’re a bigot - except in cases where it serves to advance the author’s own prejudices and biases. It truly makes for bizarre reading. I still can’t decide if the lying is intentional or if he simply has no self-awareness at all.
This pattern, it should be noted, is repeated in other areas of the text. The author essentially denigrates women and minorities by making white men out to be some sort of god; the source of all their problems and which minorities can’t possibly hope to overcome unless white men willingly reform themselves. It is one of the most toxic, insidious, manifestations of the “white savior” complex I’ve ever encountered. To illustrate: He reduces complex multi-variable problems arising due to numerous guilty parties to the responsibility of the seemingly all-powerful white man. White men alone are blamed for slavery, thus ignoring the emerging wide body of research devoted to the role women played in not only supporting, expanding, and strengthening the slave trade, particularly in America; e.g., see They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South by Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers or other historical accounts of the extreme social pressure Southern women put on men to join the Civil War and fight for slavery or else be branded as a social outcast. Or the roles other African tribes played in enslaving their neighbors for profit. Or the far longer history of slavery elsewhere in the world; e.g,. as documented by Korean Studies scholar Mark A. Peterson, the longest unbroken slave trade in history happened in Korea and lasted an astonishing 1,500 years.
In other cases, the book has entire sections based upon premises which are not settled fact and, in actuality, are myths. For example, a good deal of time is spent talking about how inheritance is a massive social problem responsible for much of our societal ills. Yet, considerable scientific analysis in recent decades has shown the role of inheritance as a proportion of overall capital in household accumulation has plummeted. This has been particularly pronounced since the 1980s. Stated plainly, while it still matters to those who receive an inheritance, inheritance proper has never played a role as small as it does right now, at this moment, in all of human civilization in any known wealthy civilization. (For one such paper discussing this trend, see U.S. Department of Labor BLS Working Paper Inheritance and the Distribution of Wealth – Or Whatever Happened to the Great Inheritance Boom? By Edward N. Wolff of NYU and Maury Gittleman of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Are we supposed to simply ignore this? The author is taking his own experience going through life at a couple of elite institutions and inaccurately extrapolating that as if it is indicative of the U.S. as a whole. (It is an incontrovertible fact that a vast majority of the top 1%, 5%, and 20% of U.S. households made their money primarily through labor and did not attend an Ivy League school.) Someone so completely out of touch with the facts on the ground shouldn’t be anywhere near policymaking in a healthy, representative society.
Finally, on a personal note entirely separate from the data errors, lying, and manipulation mentioned thus far, I found the book extremely jarring for another reason: The non-intentional homophobia throughout it. Here, I don’t think the author is being purposefully hurtful, so I am more forgiving. Rather, I simply think he is ignorant. For example, it is well known that outside of academic circles on the coasts, a super, super majority of gay men violently reject the use of the word “queer” to describe their lives. In the Midwest and South, in particular, it was that word, not the alternative that was more popular on the coasts, that was used as men were beaten and left to die on fenceposts, rejected from their families, left alone in hospital beds during the AIDs crisis, kicked out of the military, or told they couldn’t raise children; a fact that linguists can geographically pinpoint. The Huffington Post lost the near entirety of its gay male readership a decade ago when it changed the name of its gay section to Queer Voices and ultimately got rid of comments because the backlash was so bad. Gay authors have written op-ed pieces saying they reject their work being labeled as queer literature. You have to be so far removed from the lives of non-urban coastal academic echo chambers to not be aware of this that it should be an embarrassment. Yet, repeatedly, he refers to gay issues as “queer” issues. It is as gut-wrenching as hearing someone use the “n” word. Unless someone has specifically identified themselves that way, no straight man (or woman) should ever use that word. Gay men don’t even use it in reference to each other unless the other person identifies that way first. Full stop. It is hateful and you don’t have a right to reclaim it for others. Queer is a word that non-gay men have appropriated for themselves and which they continue to use despite the objections of those against whom that word has been used as a weapon. I can never take anyone’s positions on social justice seriously if they are so callous on this one simple matter of respect.
Similarly, this blind spot comes up in his economic policies as it relates to not just gay men, but all LGBT people. So many of his preferred policy positions would be disastrous, creating systematic discrimination against the LGBT community. For example, he talks about a proposal for “Baby Bonds” in which the government contributes money into a child’s account from birth based upon the income of the parents; i.e., children of middle class and wealthy parents would receive less while children of poor parents would receive more. Yet, consider that it is well-established, and conclusively shown year after year, decade after decade, that the number one reason teens and young adults across all demographics are thrown out of their home by their parents or caretakers is because they are discovered to be LGBT. In some cities, gay youth are thought to make up 50% of homeless teens on the street. In such a world, you would have tens of thousands of kids reach adulthood, rejected by their families but with no safety net because those same bigoted parents made a little too much money. Basic human psychology tells us that most of society would be less sympathetic assuming the kids had squandered their societal inheritance, making them even more vulnerable. (This, it should be noted, is precisely the reason some black leaders, including President Obama, were against racial reparations in the form of non-universal transfers based upon socioeconomic need, pointing out that the moment the newspaper headline was printed, every American would wash their hands of all issues related to healing race-based problems, saying, “Well, you got your reparations it’s all on you now.” The multi-generational damage done, particularly to black youth, could be catastrophic and not made up by a short-term financial benefit.)
In summary, this book should not have been written. If it had been written, it should not have been written by this author. At one point in the final chapter, he mentions that a more seasoned activist told him as such. It is unfortunate he didn’t listen.
2023
October 15, 2025Non-fiction November TBR
📱 Thank you to NetGalley and Legacy Lit
📱 Thank you to NetGalley and Legacy Lit
July 24, 2023
"Rich White Men: What It Takes to Uproot the Old Boys' Club and Transform America" by Garrett Neiman explores issues such as wealth inequality, systemic racism, and patriarchy in America. Neiman, a social justice activist and self-described "rich white man," discusses the hidden and insidious ways wealthy white male elites maintain their power and advantages.
Neiman points out the disproportionately powerful position held by wealthy white men in shaping political and economic decisions. Through his experiences as a CEO of a nonprofit and his interactions with his peers, Neiman sees firsthand the mindset and beliefs held by many philanthropists. He addresses their need to recognize their privilege, challenge their prejudices, and work towards a more equitable society.
I get what the author is trying to do, but most people know that rich white men got where they are because of luck, nepotism, and privilege. After all, only 30% of the US population is white male, but look how many are in positions of power. That is not because of merit, even though they tell themselves they have earned it. And unfortunately, the people who need to read it probably won't, which the author seems well aware of.
I received this Advanced Reader Copy of Rich White Men from Grand Central Publishing and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Neiman points out the disproportionately powerful position held by wealthy white men in shaping political and economic decisions. Through his experiences as a CEO of a nonprofit and his interactions with his peers, Neiman sees firsthand the mindset and beliefs held by many philanthropists. He addresses their need to recognize their privilege, challenge their prejudices, and work towards a more equitable society.
I get what the author is trying to do, but most people know that rich white men got where they are because of luck, nepotism, and privilege. After all, only 30% of the US population is white male, but look how many are in positions of power. That is not because of merit, even though they tell themselves they have earned it. And unfortunately, the people who need to read it probably won't, which the author seems well aware of.
I received this Advanced Reader Copy of Rich White Men from Grand Central Publishing and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
July 9, 2023
The best writing and logic in this book are quoted or paraphrased from other writers. The rest is part mea culpa and part name-dropping while accomplishing neither.
The author had an opportunity to be sharper in his message and, yes, potentially more provocative. But instead, he uses quasi-parable conversations with rich men whose names are changed -- with a sly wink and the knowledge that if you were in the club, you'd know who he was talking about. The author identifies the problem (with extensive help from his reading and prompts from his wife), but can't quite quit his exclusive membership.
If you're interested in the subject, read the source material extensively cited in the book (How to be Antiracist, Becoming, etc.).
The author had an opportunity to be sharper in his message and, yes, potentially more provocative. But instead, he uses quasi-parable conversations with rich men whose names are changed -- with a sly wink and the knowledge that if you were in the club, you'd know who he was talking about. The author identifies the problem (with extensive help from his reading and prompts from his wife), but can't quite quit his exclusive membership.
If you're interested in the subject, read the source material extensively cited in the book (How to be Antiracist, Becoming, etc.).
October 12, 2023
This is an essential book for everyone, especially white men with excess financial resources. Written by a rich white man, the book espouses (I hope genuinely) a real call for wealth equity, racial equity, and strong social safety for those who are in need. Also a call to eradicate poverty, which is doable in this country if rich white men would stop hoarding wealth.
May 20, 2026
A whole lot of personal narrative rather than wider societal commentary - would have been better executed through a more objective lense. Some of the facts and opinions were super questionable
July 22, 2023
That Robin DiAngelo wrote the preface tells you everything you need to know about this book. Like White Fragility, this book is written by white people for white people who will only consider information about racism if they learn it from a fellow whitey. To Neiman's credit, most of the profit from this book goes to organizations working toward social justice practically. But given the target audience, the details in Rich White Men can't rise above the most basic descriptions of structural inequity.
October 28, 2023
"Rich White Men" is a profound exposition of how intergenerational wealth yields unearned racial and gendered advantages that have created deeply unjust institutions. Author Garrett Neiman draws from his years as a nonprofit executive and fund-raiser who had a front-row view of how billionaires think, speak, and act about social issues. Turns out billionaires have certain viewpoints about race, class, and economic equity that are far removed from the real-life experiences and reality of the average American. Neiman, who identifies as a rich white millennial man, breaks down the mechanics of inherited wealth and how the old boys’ network reproduces inequality.
I read the book from the point of view of an immigrant woman of color from a low-wealth background. Racial equity guru Robin DiAngelo’s foreword sparked my interest in the book. While I am not the target reader demographic, I found Neiman’s approach disarming, honest, and even self-deprecating. He demonstrates ample courage in using his own experiences and revelations to make essential points about interlocking systemic inequities that are based on gender, race, and class. Readers get insights into how the very rich conceptualize poverty and the inherent logical flaws of meritocracy. In addition to personal stories, Neiman supports his claims through research and other data sources. But the author’s personal testimonies make //Rich White Men// a compelling read.
I read the book from the point of view of an immigrant woman of color from a low-wealth background. Racial equity guru Robin DiAngelo’s foreword sparked my interest in the book. While I am not the target reader demographic, I found Neiman’s approach disarming, honest, and even self-deprecating. He demonstrates ample courage in using his own experiences and revelations to make essential points about interlocking systemic inequities that are based on gender, race, and class. Readers get insights into how the very rich conceptualize poverty and the inherent logical flaws of meritocracy. In addition to personal stories, Neiman supports his claims through research and other data sources. But the author’s personal testimonies make //Rich White Men// a compelling read.
June 30, 2023
In Garrett Neiman‘s exploration of the old boys club he would shock to find out he himself contributed to it and with his experiences and others he has packed a book full of examples of how if you do not have the right last name, ties to business alumni and can speak their language you could be locked out. They talk a big game of being all inclusive but the more you read in this book the more you say that is not the case especially the very first story Mr. Neiman told with “Edward“ the guy who said he would rather give to his alumni as opposed to the inner-city black and brown children Mr. Neimans funding contributed to after all he don’t like giving his money to lazy people. I am always amazed when people who are supposed to be so smart still buying to stereotypes and think a whole race can be just one way and no other the smoke will make you angry but will also make you proud of those fighting for the real definition of white America was built on. It is sad that this book is needed but also great that it’s out there. we should give this book to every graduate that went to college on the sponsorship and make sure they read it. I received this book from NetGalley and the publisher but I am leaving this review voluntarily please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.
September 9, 2023
You know what I liked this. The strongest and most affecting parts of the book dig into interpersonal relationships and leans into humanity and complexity more than other books in the genre, which tend to choose a narrower focus to be more digestible. There’s a lot of pretzel-twisted phrasing to make a book about inequality from a rich white man work, but there’s also plenty of clear, sharp language too. The descriptions of anxiety and (re)connecting with Judaism were particularly resonant to me.
March 1, 2024
Neiman does a great job looking at wealth and the patriarchy from all angles. His descriptions of the many issues matched my experience and that of others who share my identity. I did not gain much in additional understanding, but I reminded myself that the author was not writing for me. I believe he wrote for other rich, white men. I particular appreciated the final chapters in which he spoke about the physical, mental and social costs to himself, as a result of this culture. I enjoyed this as an audiobook.
March 19, 2025
Very interesting read from the perspective of someone within the old boys’ club. He’s clearly doing his best to be part of the solution and offers a lot of good reflection on different ways that people in power can interact with others and society in ways that make life better for everyone. Most marginalized people are aware of the highlights of this book intuitively. Hopefully, more people of privilege can read and absorb it, seeing as it’s written by someone that understands their perspective.
October 26, 2023
I thought this would be a great book, summarizing and providing solutions, or at least suggested solutions. Unfortunately, a lot of it is repetitive. His main points were made in the first chapter and I don’t see anywhere where he’s going to convince white men, especially rich whiter men to make the change that’s needed.
September 19, 2023
Neiman has added a valuable contribution to the growing body of literature documenting systemic inequality, and what we might do about it. He articulates what's often missed in these debates: even us rich white guys are harmed by a system that keeps everybody else down.
December 27, 2023
Fun entry level book for those interested in structural inequality. I was hoping it would have a bit more substance especially when it came to suggesting practical solutions to the problems outlined. The book also often felt to anecdotal.
Want to Read
July 17, 2023DMPL EXAMINED 2023_07_17
March 19, 2024
Rich man?? Are we REALLY going to talk about WHO the richest men are???
Which tribe???
Which tribe???
November 16, 2025
DNF. Suffered through 67% of the audiobook. Crap breathless victimology. Woe is me.
August 19, 2026
Quick read and my critiques come from mostly the conclusions that were drawn. I understood what the author was driving at, but some of the analysis felt rushed and conclusory.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews