look, if we didn't count billionaires who come from lesser echelons of rich people, we wouldn't have any 'self-made' billionaires at all.

Not many billionaires start out from not being millionaires.

That's why self-made is in quotes. But many female billionaires are primarily heiresses little known or primarily known as a male billionaire's daughter/wife/ex-wife. Swift turning millions into billions is about as self-made as any other billionaire.

She was born into money, she wasn't self made.

I would argue that someone who turns $1 million into $1.001 billion is self made, in that there is a billion dollars of gain attributable to that person's actions.

Yes, the opportunities available to someone who is allowed to pursue a dream at a young age without worrying about money is an advantage in show business (or really, any career field). But a lot of people seem not to realize just how many rich people there are. Something like 1 out of every 5 American households is worth more than $1 million in net worth, or 1 out of every 8 is worth more than $1 million without counting their primary residence.

In the end, Taylor Swift's wealth is pretty much entirely tied up in the intangible personal brand, which she can monetize basically at will, and the valuable intellectual property that she owns, a song/recording catalog that is worth probably over a billion in itself. She built it with help, yes. But she built it.

That's in contrast to people who own wealth that they didn't themselves build at all, like inherited equity or cash flow in valuable companies that they aren't actively working at, or that are valuable without their own involvement.

On the one hand, there's no such thing as totally self made. On the other, if there's a spectrum of how much wealth is actually earned through work, Taylor Swift's net worth is probably more self made than the typical billionaire.