7 ms·

I agree with the belief that "to whom much is given, much is expected," but the framing of "luck" bothers me. Sure, there are some undeserving rich people and

I agree with the belief that "to whom much is given, much is expected," but the framing of "luck" bothers me. Sure, there are some undeserving rich people and their stories are trotted out whenever we talk about someone earning a salary in the top 5%. But what about the doctor at a premier children's hospital who has done nothing but study and sacrifice for their first 30 years on the planet to earn a job that involves telling parents with depressing regularity that their child is going to die despite the best efforts of medical science? Those folks can have all the cookies they want. Are many high-earners the beneficiaries of unearned privilege? Absolutely. Do the majority of these "lucky" people also work hard and add tremendous value to society? Absolutely. We should always try to help the needy but dismissing the very real efforts of the most successful (of which I'd not count my self a member) is bad practice.

lkrubner 9y ago
"we talk about someone earning a salary in the top 5%" You seem to be using the word "rich" the way Chris Rock uses the word "wealthy". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOUty4SWvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOUty4SWvI I don't know many people who would consider someone at the 96% percentile of income as "rich". Even folks at the 99% are still basically just upper middle class. If you have a high paying job such that you've got 2 homes and and a few nice cars and all your kids are going to expensive private schools then you are simply upper middle class. Being wealthy suggests that you possess such capital that you've never had to work. Work is entirely optional. If you never work, you will still continue to grow more wealthy, because the assets you own continue to accrue profits. If you look at the Forbes list of richest 400 people, it tends to be a handful of tech people, plus a whole lot of people who inherited their wealth, plus obvious criminals such as the oligarchs who stole much of the wealth of Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of those who inherited their money, then obviously all of their money comes from luck. Of those who are criminals, we can admire their entrepreneurial skills, but remember they are sociopaths who have broken the law and who have sometimes killed people. Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union can be viewed as pure luck, as they had nothing to do with it.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >I don't know many people who would consider someone at the 96% percentile of income as "rich". Hmm? I'm getting $240,000 in household income yearly. I'd call that rich, I think lots of people I know would call that rich. Quarter mil per year is good money. >Even folks at the 99% are still basically just upper middle class. Huh? I'm getting $400,000 a year in income. That's rich This strikes me as the same thing poor people do, to always define poverty as just below themselves but since this community has many people with large salaries, we define rich as just above us, just out of reach enough. If you pull in $400,000 a year you aren't middle class, you're rich. Accept it.
  - lkrubner 9y ago
    "If you pull in $400,000 a year you aren't middle class, you're rich." This is from the character Gordon Gecko, in the 1987 movie "Wall Street": "Wake up, will ya, pal? If you're not inside, you're outside, okay? And I'm not talking a $400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable, I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player, or nothing. Now, you had what it took to get into my office; the real question is whether you got what it takes to stay." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wall_Street_(1987_film) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wall_Street_(1987_film) Wealthy people live on capital. That is a traditional definition of what it means to be wealthy. If you have to work, at all, then you are not wealthy.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      No, that's my point, you're just defining 'rich' as the next step up. If you are earning a 99 percentile income you're rich. Gordon Gecko or not, you may not be uber-wealthy yacht-buying or anything like that but there's no way someone who makes $400,000 can be called middle-class at all. >Wealthy people live on capital. That is a traditional definition of what it means to be wealthy. If you have to work, at all, then you are not wealthy. That's not traditional at all. Doctors are traditionally referred to as wealthy and they work. You're saying a CEO (of a smaller company) isn't wealthy? A hedge fund manager isn't wealthy? Of course these people are wealthy and yet they'd all probably still have to work. It's totally inane to define middle class as everything from 25%-99.5%.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>But what about the doctor at a premier children's hospital who has done nothing but study and sacrifice for their first 30 years on the planet to earn a job But how much have they really earned it? If you look at the breakdown of doctors by their parents income[1] there is a huge bias towards people growing up in upper class homes. if you look at doctorates in general[2] you'll see a huge bias towards kids whose parents already have some sort of graduate degree. That's not to say it's not hard to become a doctor/get a phd and whoever does it did a lot of work but it does betray that there is an effect here akin to 'laundering privilege.' That is to say these things aren't totally earned, only partially so. [1] https://www.aamc.org/download/102338/data/aibvol8no1.pdf https://www.aamc.org/download/102338/data/aibvol8no1.pdf check out figure 2 [2] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/datatables/tab34.htm https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/datatables/tab3...
- hpcjoe 9y ago
  Back in grad school, many of us called our stipends "welfare for middle class kids who couldn't get a job." When I was deciding between academia and industry in the mid 90s, the postdocs I was looking at in physics were paying 16-19k. Which at the time, was below poverty level wages for a family. Compare that to the modest offer given to be by my future employer, which was slightly below my thesis advisors comp at the time. When I left them, I was making more than the dean of the school. I didn't have an upper middle class background. My divorced mother supported 3 kids on crap pay. I skipped the more expensive schools I got into, even with scholarships, as I could afford only one school after it was all said and done. I took a year off after undergrad, before grad school, to earn money, as I was unsure of my financial situation while there. Later, during Ph.D. studies, I supported myself and my wife on consulting work I did on the side, because $8k/year stipend doesn't quite pay for food and housing. Please, drop the discussion of privilege. I had none. I used none. I simply worked my ass off. As did my wife (a woman of color if it matters, though neither one of us think it does, or should). Like the terrible statement by Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren, yeah, I built it. I poured blood, sweat, and tears into it. No one helped elevate me above others. I had to deal with discrimination against me personally, in some parts of grad school (MS not Ph.D). Its not just me though. The other students I met had similar stories and backgrounds. Precious few of them had family resources to draw on, friends to lean on to help them get ahead. Only people who don't really know, who haven't experienced this first hand, who haven't interacted with the people actually going through this, could call this "privilege". The rest of us call it hard work, nose to the grind stone, luck, and the intelligence to capitalize on this luck, by recognizing a path to take advantage of this.
pdpi 9y ago
> Do the majority of these "lucky" people also work hard and add tremendous value to society? This is precisely where the problem lies. "add tremendous value to society" is basically limited by your leverage. If you and I are equally as talented and equally as hard working, the value we add to society will largely differ based on the opportunities presented to us. None of this is about shaming those born into wealth, or in any, shape, or form saying they're intrinsically spoiled brats or anything of that ilk. It's just a reminder that, instead of assuming you're entitled to that last cookie, perhaps you should learn to share it.

lkrubner 9y ago

"we talk about someone earning a salary in the top 5%" You seem to be using the word "rich" the way Chris Rock uses the word "wealthy". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOUty4SWvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOUty4SWvI I don't know many people who would consider someone at the 96% percentile of income as "rich". Even folks at the 99% are still basically just upper middle class. If you have a high paying job such that you've got 2 homes and and a few nice cars and all your kids are going to expensive private schools then you are simply upper middle class. Being wealthy suggests that you possess such capital that you've never had to work. Work is entirely optional. If you never work, you will still continue to grow more wealthy, because the assets you own continue to accrue profits. If you look at the Forbes list of richest 400 people, it tends to be a handful of tech people, plus a whole lot of people who inherited their wealth, plus obvious criminals such as the oligarchs who stole much of the wealth of Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of those who inherited their money, then obviously all of their money comes from luck. Of those who are criminals, we can admire their entrepreneurial skills, but remember they are sociopaths who have broken the law and who have sometimes killed people. Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union can be viewed as pure luck, as they had nothing to do with it.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>I don't know many people who would consider someone at the 96% percentile of income as "rich". Hmm? I'm getting $240,000 in household income yearly. I'd call that rich, I think lots of people I know would call that rich. Quarter mil per year is good money. >Even folks at the 99% are still basically just upper middle class. Huh? I'm getting $400,000 a year in income. That's rich This strikes me as the same thing poor people do, to always define poverty as just below themselves but since this community has many people with large salaries, we define rich as just above us, just out of reach enough. If you pull in $400,000 a year you aren't middle class, you're rich. Accept it.
- lkrubner 9y ago
  "If you pull in $400,000 a year you aren't middle class, you're rich." This is from the character Gordon Gecko, in the 1987 movie "Wall Street": "Wake up, will ya, pal? If you're not inside, you're outside, okay? And I'm not talking a $400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable, I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player, or nothing. Now, you had what it took to get into my office; the real question is whether you got what it takes to stay." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wall_Street_(1987_film) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wall_Street_(1987_film) Wealthy people live on capital. That is a traditional definition of what it means to be wealthy. If you have to work, at all, then you are not wealthy.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    No, that's my point, you're just defining 'rich' as the next step up. If you are earning a 99 percentile income you're rich. Gordon Gecko or not, you may not be uber-wealthy yacht-buying or anything like that but there's no way someone who makes $400,000 can be called middle-class at all. >Wealthy people live on capital. That is a traditional definition of what it means to be wealthy. If you have to work, at all, then you are not wealthy. That's not traditional at all. Doctors are traditionally referred to as wealthy and they work. You're saying a CEO (of a smaller company) isn't wealthy? A hedge fund manager isn't wealthy? Of course these people are wealthy and yet they'd all probably still have to work. It's totally inane to define middle class as everything from 25%-99.5%.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>But what about the doctor at a premier children's hospital who has done nothing but study and sacrifice for their first 30 years on the planet to earn a job But how much have they really earned it? If you look at the breakdown of doctors by their parents income[1] there is a huge bias towards people growing up in upper class homes. if you look at doctorates in general[2] you'll see a huge bias towards kids whose parents already have some sort of graduate degree. That's not to say it's not hard to become a doctor/get a phd and whoever does it did a lot of work but it does betray that there is an effect here akin to 'laundering privilege.' That is to say these things aren't totally earned, only partially so. [1] https://www.aamc.org/download/102338/data/aibvol8no1.pdf https://www.aamc.org/download/102338/data/aibvol8no1.pdf check out figure 2 [2] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/datatables/tab34.htm https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/datatables/tab3...

hpcjoe 9y ago
Back in grad school, many of us called our stipends "welfare for middle class kids who couldn't get a job." When I was deciding between academia and industry in the mid 90s, the postdocs I was looking at in physics were paying 16-19k. Which at the time, was below poverty level wages for a family. Compare that to the modest offer given to be by my future employer, which was slightly below my thesis advisors comp at the time. When I left them, I was making more than the dean of the school. I didn't have an upper middle class background. My divorced mother supported 3 kids on crap pay. I skipped the more expensive schools I got into, even with scholarships, as I could afford only one school after it was all said and done. I took a year off after undergrad, before grad school, to earn money, as I was unsure of my financial situation while there. Later, during Ph.D. studies, I supported myself and my wife on consulting work I did on the side, because $8k/year stipend doesn't quite pay for food and housing. Please, drop the discussion of privilege. I had none. I used none. I simply worked my ass off. As did my wife (a woman of color if it matters, though neither one of us think it does, or should). Like the terrible statement by Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren, yeah, I built it. I poured blood, sweat, and tears into it. No one helped elevate me above others. I had to deal with discrimination against me personally, in some parts of grad school (MS not Ph.D). Its not just me though. The other students I met had similar stories and backgrounds. Precious few of them had family resources to draw on, friends to lean on to help them get ahead. Only people who don't really know, who haven't experienced this first hand, who haven't interacted with the people actually going through this, could call this "privilege". The rest of us call it hard work, nose to the grind stone, luck, and the intelligence to capitalize on this luck, by recognizing a path to take advantage of this.

pdpi 9y ago

> Do the majority of these "lucky" people also work hard and add tremendous value to society? This is precisely where the problem lies. "add tremendous value to society" is basically limited by your leverage. If you and I are equally as talented and equally as hard working, the value we add to society will largely differ based on the opportunities presented to us. None of this is about shaming those born into wealth, or in any, shape, or form saying they're intrinsically spoiled brats or anything of that ilk. It's just a reminder that, instead of assuming you're entitled to that last cookie, perhaps you should learn to share it.