Based on the current system, he should. The problem is that if that man finds the cure for HIV, he is not intrinsically responsible for that finding. If you take that man and put him on the XIX century, he will not have the ability to find the cure, thus rendering the talent=money argument invalid.

im sorry that you are upset michael jordan has a bigger penis than you, rich.  

why sit about pissing and moaning about genetics or parental wealth?   plenty of people have succeeded who dont have either of these.  the key is motivation. 

you have no desire to work towards goals(or dont have any) like these people have.  what proof do i have of this, you say.  the fact that you are once again into self loathing mode on this site. 

these individuals have not just sat around forums complaining to others about how unfair life is to them, i can assure you.

The wealth of Bill Gates is what the market says his assets are worth.  However, get back to my original asking for proof.  What percentage of it do you think it is him?  Do you think Bill Gates would be where he is, if it wasn't for the home computer and his connections at Microsoft?  Do you think if he didn't happen to come out with computer languages for the home computer, and then to factor in him being there, he would be a billionaire today?  How much of it is "right place at the right time"?  And how much "right place at the right time" isn't luck? 

So, when will you become a billionaire, or is it that you just aren't motivated to do so?  If it is a matter of motivation to become a billionaire, are you one yet? 

Note, I was using EXTREME wealth as the prime focus point.  If a person possesses certain skill set, and that skill set doesn't have the right market conditions, will they end up extremely wealthy?  Or how much of it is simply a matter of the market breaking a certain way and someone had to get picked.  It was just the person who, without fully understanding things happened to be in the right place at the right time.  Like, take Mark Cuban as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban

Right place at the right time?  If Outliers is right, then it is said 10,000 hours or more spent in an area makes you a master.  That is like 10 years.  When a market situation hits, then someone would have to both put the time in and also was lucky enough to be in the right place there, with sufficient skill.  But, without the right market conditions, would they of made it?  And how can someone, in putting in 10 years of time, KNOW that the next thing would be such to lead to extreme wealth acqusition?

And then take the luck angle here.  If it is mostly luck, then you have the person who takes the most chances most likely to be successful, because they take the risks, and do such in a way they can recover if what they took chances on don't pan out.

Luck is always a part of it, but only a part. I mean whose to say whether or not the person who could have been the next great information innovator is currently dying of malnutrition somewhere in Angola, never having heard of a computer? But only, if only, they could have gotten away from that, too damn bad.

But luck only takes you so far. The fabulously wealthy are usually people with great talent who lucked into finding a platform to voice their talent (like the Ted Williams example you posted, or even with someone with a more acquired skill like Zuckerburg, lucking his way into having a rich friend who could help finance the whole thing)

If the universe wants to screw you out of glory, it's going to, and no amount of hard work or determination will fix that, but the key part is never giving up, always waiting for the day when that window of opportunity will open, however so brief, and then you and your special skills or hard-won talents will be there.

These people are rich because they provide a good or service that everybody wants. Whether they got to that position through hard work, timing, motivation, or luck isn't important. The way that the system works benefits everyone.

Look at Michael Jordan, if we (whoever "we" is at this point) were to suddenly say "right, your basketball skills are subject to luck, you don't work hard, we're not paying you as much", and, as a result, Jordan stops playing basketball... who's really benefitting? Not Jordan, his wealth is either going to decrease, or the amount of work he does has to increase, and not his fans... you know, the people who actually made him rich in the first place. The people who decided that they valued his sportmanship enough to buy tickets to watch him, buy merch, etc. If MJ no longer played basketball, all those fans will be deprived of a service that they held dearly.

Never envy a man with more money than you, you'll will not be better with the money than he is. No man is worth more than his money.

As far as I know, Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team - doesn't scream innate athleticsm to me if he couldn't beat out his high school peers. Seems like he would have had to work hard to get a college scholarship, as opposed to luck...unless you're arguing that being cut from the team was lucky, because it made him work harder?

Then again, I guess you could say that he's lucky he was born with legs and arms...If Michael Jordan did not have arms and legs he would not have become the greatest basketball player of all time.

Now that latter point is simply not true. If you've been screwed out of a better position by a lack of opportunity, but have the ability to provide that better service, then you are worth more than your money

I think you have a poor question as in reality its a combination of all of this.

You'll have those purely lucky on the basis of being born into the right family. Those are people like royalty and such.

Then you have those that had that lucky family and did enough work to keep it going and even grow the wealth. These people have some luck as well as some basic work. Someone like Paris Hilton fits this category. She has wealth and was able to get into the right crowds with her family, but she has done enough basic work to continue that trend. (tv acting and marketing of herself)

Then you have those that really demonstrated concentrated effort to get to where they are. I think your examples as well as those shown by others clearly fit this. M.Jordan (as well as most other sport greats), M.Jackson (as well as other great artists), B.Gates (as well as many other great business people).

These people all have some basic raw talent, but also worked very hard to achieve greatness. It wasn't handed to them. M.Jordan would not have been able to get 6 trophies in NBA, countless other awards, NCAA trophies and awards, known as a fiere competitor, by far the most business deals of any sports person (only one to still have full clothing after retirement), etc, etc... without a lot of very hard work.

M.Ohr is a bad example as there are plenty of top athletes from the ghetto that are worth a lot.

I could continue with many other examples, but to generalize it as you did is really not fair to the great number of those who have worked their assess off to get where they are.