4 ms·

I see what you're saying, but to be the devil's advocate - someone at some point in the family of "Cartoon Republican Villain" was also a poor sob with a single

I see what you're saying, but to be the devil's advocate - someone at some point in the family of "Cartoon Republican Villain" was also a poor sob with a single shot to make it. The tragedy is that he forgot, or never knew about it.

CPLX 10y ago
Not necessarily. There's been intergenerational wealth transfer going on in continuous unbroken lines for hundreds if not thousands of years.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oatmealsnap 10y ago
You've comparing the success of one poor sob with the success of a lineage of rich/poor sobs. It's much easier to be rich than to get rich, because a lineage has several shots to make it big.
- googletazer 10y ago
  When society becomes too rigid for social mobility then of course it becomes a huge problem, but at the same time, if you do become wealthy - wouldn't you want your kids to have it easier and give them any advantage you possibly can? Grants for entrepreneurs/basic income could be a good idea to boost the chances of those at the very bottom, but it probably won't come to pass. First, who would willingly part with their own money to funnel it to those programs, except perhaps for very wealthy philanthropists, and second big business will never support it as their costs will skyrocket and retention will drop like a stone as desperate employees will be able to get the .... out. In Switzerland with direct democracy, something might happen, anywhere else - doubtful.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    >wouldn't you want your kids to have it easier and give them any advantage you possibly can? You're missing the point. It isn't that the wealthy are being incriminating for "wanting their kids to have it easier". They're pointing out that the success for kids born into wealth is typically attributable to family money.
    - googletazer 10y ago
      >They're pointing out that the success for kids born into wealth is typically attributable to family money. That's pretty obvious to me, it wasn't obvious to you? I don't think any of the newly rich, such as say - Zuck were hiding these facts. Zuck went to Harvard, an elite school, and got 100k from the bank of mom and dad to work on his own thing. The issue is that this data doesn't filter to the masses. Since it doesn't filter to the masses we now have a cult of "entrepreneur porn" where anybody can grab themselves by the bootsraps and become the new Zuck. I think with a little reflection most people know that this is false, however they've deluded themselves otherwise.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        If it's obvious to you, then why did you go off topic about parents' intentions with their kids? The article is about how having safety nets only for wealthy children leads to a net loss of talent in society. What does "entrepreneurship porn" now have to do with this?
        googletazer 10y ago
        Because in my mind "entrepreneurship porn" is still relevant to this article, by pushing people who should know better than to take a risk when they can't afford to, into risking their livelihoods for uncertain gains. In an ideal world every kid can be what they want to be, but in this one its good to know your limitations as well.
        bduerst 10y ago
        That seems to be an issue you've come up with on your own, because nobody is being pushed into entrepreneurship here. In fact, the article states that without a safety net, talented people aren't taking the risks that can generate a net benefit for society.
AsyncAwait 10y ago
> someone at some point in the family of "Cartoon Republican Villain" was also a poor sob with a single shot to make it. Sure, at a time of much greater economic opportunities, (i.e. after WWII), than people starting from $0 have today.

CPLX 10y ago

Not necessarily. There's been intergenerational wealth transfer going on in continuous unbroken lines for hundreds if not thousands of years.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

oatmealsnap 10y ago

You've comparing the success of one poor sob with the success of a lineage of rich/poor sobs. It's much easier to be rich than to get rich, because a lineage has several shots to make it big.

googletazer 10y ago
When society becomes too rigid for social mobility then of course it becomes a huge problem, but at the same time, if you do become wealthy - wouldn't you want your kids to have it easier and give them any advantage you possibly can? Grants for entrepreneurs/basic income could be a good idea to boost the chances of those at the very bottom, but it probably won't come to pass. First, who would willingly part with their own money to funnel it to those programs, except perhaps for very wealthy philanthropists, and second big business will never support it as their costs will skyrocket and retention will drop like a stone as desperate employees will be able to get the .... out. In Switzerland with direct democracy, something might happen, anywhere else - doubtful.
- bduerst 10y ago
  >wouldn't you want your kids to have it easier and give them any advantage you possibly can? You're missing the point. It isn't that the wealthy are being incriminating for "wanting their kids to have it easier". They're pointing out that the success for kids born into wealth is typically attributable to family money.
  - googletazer 10y ago
    >They're pointing out that the success for kids born into wealth is typically attributable to family money. That's pretty obvious to me, it wasn't obvious to you? I don't think any of the newly rich, such as say - Zuck were hiding these facts. Zuck went to Harvard, an elite school, and got 100k from the bank of mom and dad to work on his own thing. The issue is that this data doesn't filter to the masses. Since it doesn't filter to the masses we now have a cult of "entrepreneur porn" where anybody can grab themselves by the bootsraps and become the new Zuck. I think with a little reflection most people know that this is false, however they've deluded themselves otherwise.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      If it's obvious to you, then why did you go off topic about parents' intentions with their kids? The article is about how having safety nets only for wealthy children leads to a net loss of talent in society. What does "entrepreneurship porn" now have to do with this?
      - googletazer 10y ago
        Because in my mind "entrepreneurship porn" is still relevant to this article, by pushing people who should know better than to take a risk when they can't afford to, into risking their livelihoods for uncertain gains. In an ideal world every kid can be what they want to be, but in this one its good to know your limitations as well.
        bduerst 10y ago
        That seems to be an issue you've come up with on your own, because nobody is being pushed into entrepreneurship here. In fact, the article states that without a safety net, talented people aren't taking the risks that can generate a net benefit for society.

AsyncAwait 10y ago

> someone at some point in the family of "Cartoon Republican Villain" was also a poor sob with a single shot to make it. Sure, at a time of much greater economic opportunities, (i.e. after WWII), than people starting from $0 have today.