That's because you only see the super rich with responsibilities, and those who are likely to be active in workplaces and be responsible for the people and companies under them. There's plenty of idle or retired super rich to fill up the highest end yacht clubs all summer.
Dragging the retired into a debate about how rich people spend their time seems like a stretch to me. You can't fault someone if they want to laze about in retirement.
What if they retired at 35 after selling their parents company or inherited real estate? Or do you think that's rare in a country that doesn't believe in inheritance taxes?
If you have 1M+ and still working you are rich. If you have 1M+ plus a constant income stream without working you are wealthy. The idea comes from wealthy people, not people that work hard and get rewarded accordingly.
When I think of “idle rich” it’s always the 2nd+ generation. Arguably it takes work and lots of luck to get rich, but hardly any work to be born rich and stay rich. When your passive income exceeds your expenses, you have to actively screw something up in order to not get richer and richer automatically.
It's an interesting question, but a sample size of 2 doesn't necessarily answer it. Maybe the rich do work more hours on average, but is it because they are appropriately compensated for hard work?
1M+/yr is not super rich by any means. That could be any high skilled professional who is still grinding it out. Super rich probably starts around $50-100 mil net worth. (Or higher if we’re talking about “controls society” super rich.)
I only have 2 super rich(1M+/yr) in my life, and they are always working. I only see them during holidays and the occasional grad party.
Their son told me that his dad worked so many hours that he totaled 2 cars in a week due to sleep deprivation.
Maybe second generation is lazy, but I'm not sure where this idea that 'super rich' dont work come from.