4 ms·

As a counter example, I'd like to use the Cuban-American community in the US. All of our families came to this country with little more than the clothes on thei

As a counter example, I'd like to use the Cuban-American community in the US. All of our families came to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs, starting in the early 60s. Now, half a century later, Cuban-Americans are doing as well for themselves as non-Hispanic white Americans, with equally large proportions in the middle, upper middle, and upper classes. My mom's father had a fourth grade education in Cuba and was a self-made businessman who ran a country store in Cuba and a store-fixtures store in the US. My dad's father was a middle class computer technician in Cuba, who came to the US and was never able to work in his profession again. He worked two jobs at first, sweeping floors and taking whatever other jobs came his way, and eventually rose up to running a hospital department. My father never had his own bedroom as a child. He got almost all of his schooling at very tough (in the high-crime and high-apathy sense) NYC public schools in the 60s/70s. There were no silver spoons in their mouths. My parents have had successful careers, despite being dead broke in their 20s. They were able to stress the importance of education and hard work to me. I had a great job at Microsoft for two years, which I've now left to pursue a career in law. And this is more or less the same family story of countless Cuban-American families. So I'm not buying this narrative of a calcified class structure built on generational wealth. The most important thing you can do for your children is not to be rich, but to be good. Values and virtues, not trust funds and special treatment.

4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
Except for the fact that the first waves of Cuban-American migration were almost exclusively made of the wealthy and middle-upper classes who were profiting from the Batista dictatorship, therefore it's a bit disingenuous to say that they came "with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal."with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Yes, it was the middle and upper classes that came in that first wave. But almost all of them did come with nothing, only small portions of the ultra rich were able to sneak out any signicant amount of wealth. The Castro regime did not allow you to take your worldly possessions with you. Bank accounts were frozen, homes were inventoried, and bags were searched. But they all felt lucky enough to escape with their lives and freedoms. And they did bring the values and virtues that served them well in their previous lives. I also reject your premise that all of these people were profiting directly from the Batista dictatorship. There was corruption in Cuba, but there was also capitalism.
  - Jill_the_Pill 9y ago
    >And they did bring the values and virtues that served them well in their previous lives. And the skills, education, and practical know-how: how to manage money, how to start a business, how to get your kids a good education. And perhaps in some cases the vices that had served them well: how to find a loophole, how to trade favors, how to fudge the truth to your benefit. In other words, the intangibles of privilege.
    - tpudlik 9y ago
      I think both you and the original commenter agree that the "intangibles" make a significant (perhaps decisive) contribution to the heritability on outcomes. But that's where you both disagree with the article, which argues for the importance of "tangible" factors (growing up in a neighborhood with exclusionary zoning; receiving an expensive college education; etc). Like the OC, I've seen the dramatic impact of the "intangibles" in my own homeland, a former Communist state. Many of the leading businessmen and professionals today are descended from pre-communist elites, even though these elites were not only deprived of all their material wealth but actively discriminated upon during the five decades of communism (for example, by receiving "class background" penalties for university admissions). The idea that "money breeds money" is intuitively plausible, but turns out to be largely an illusion.
      - Jill_the_Pill 9y ago
justin66 9y ago
> Now, half a century later, Cuban-Americans are doing as well for themselves as non-Hispanic white Americans, with equally large proportions in the middle, upper middle, and upper classes. If you view class inequality as an actual problem, the notion that it is distributed somewhat evenly depending on ethnic status isn't enormously comforting.

4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago

Except for the fact that the first waves of Cuban-American migration were almost exclusively made of the wealthy and middle-upper classes who were profiting from the Batista dictatorship, therefore it's a bit disingenuous to say that they came "with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal."with little more than the clothes on their backs" in the early 60s. That's not to say that your anecdote is false or romanticized, but it is still anecdotal.

marcoperaza 9y ago
Yes, it was the middle and upper classes that came in that first wave. But almost all of them did come with nothing, only small portions of the ultra rich were able to sneak out any signicant amount of wealth. The Castro regime did not allow you to take your worldly possessions with you. Bank accounts were frozen, homes were inventoried, and bags were searched. But they all felt lucky enough to escape with their lives and freedoms. And they did bring the values and virtues that served them well in their previous lives. I also reject your premise that all of these people were profiting directly from the Batista dictatorship. There was corruption in Cuba, but there was also capitalism.
- Jill_the_Pill 9y ago
  >And they did bring the values and virtues that served them well in their previous lives. And the skills, education, and practical know-how: how to manage money, how to start a business, how to get your kids a good education. And perhaps in some cases the vices that had served them well: how to find a loophole, how to trade favors, how to fudge the truth to your benefit. In other words, the intangibles of privilege.
  - tpudlik 9y ago
    I think both you and the original commenter agree that the "intangibles" make a significant (perhaps decisive) contribution to the heritability on outcomes. But that's where you both disagree with the article, which argues for the importance of "tangible" factors (growing up in a neighborhood with exclusionary zoning; receiving an expensive college education; etc). Like the OC, I've seen the dramatic impact of the "intangibles" in my own homeland, a former Communist state. Many of the leading businessmen and professionals today are descended from pre-communist elites, even though these elites were not only deprived of all their material wealth but actively discriminated upon during the five decades of communism (for example, by receiving "class background" penalties for university admissions). The idea that "money breeds money" is intuitively plausible, but turns out to be largely an illusion.
    - Jill_the_Pill 9y ago

justin66 9y ago

> Now, half a century later, Cuban-Americans are doing as well for themselves as non-Hispanic white Americans, with equally large proportions in the middle, upper middle, and upper classes. If you view class inequality as an actual problem, the notion that it is distributed somewhat evenly depending on ethnic status isn't enormously comforting.