14 ms·

This is fairly obvious. Live in a household where education is valued, go to a school with good education, surround yourself with kids who also value education.

This is fairly obvious. Live in a household where education is valued, go to a school with good education, surround yourself with kids who also value education. Of course your likelihood for earning better than average will go up. If you grow up in a household where education is not valued, then you will most likely not be able to succeed as easily. Is this somehow controversial? My parents grew up poor in a war-torn country. They left the country as soon as they could. However, they concentrated on education, and left on scholarships. My family lived a very middle class life but much better than anything my parents lived in. They had the exact same focus on education for me and my siblings. They sacrificed everything for our education. I went to a public school but I studied harder and worked harder than most of my friends, and I'm now a single-digit millionaire, which isn't very much in Silicon Valley but good enough for me. I'm currently retired at this point while I take care of my kids and my wife works because she wants to. My children will get the same focus on education and hard work, the way I did. My family went from poor to rich in a single generation. Our cleaner is an illegal immigrant from Central America. Her daughter was born in the US and is going to a very prestigious private high school in the Bay Area and has plans of going to Yale. I know she will do it. They are also going from poor to rich in a single generation. Generational mobility from poor to rich is easily possible, but you can only do it through hard work and education.

Daishiman 5y ago
This isn't that obvious. Yes, if you bust ass all your life, have parents with professional middle-class values (regardless of actual income) and work in what is likely one of the easiest professions to develop wealth with in a period of time when a software engineer makes an abnormally high income in relationship to peers in other professions, sure, you'll do well. But that's not really the issue. The issue is that children of wealthy parents, for sure, study and make an effort to do well in school. But the required effort is just a _fraction_ of what a child of a wealthy parent needs to do. A wealthy parent can pay for a tutor for a child who doesn't have much interest or curiosity in preparing of standardized tests, and the tutor will guide him/her to the extracurriculars that academics value. By contrast, a poor child with no tutors and no particular desire to do test prep, all other things being equal, just won't do. What will happen to the child of your cleaner when she wants to attend the expensive vacation holidays of her peers, where undoubtedly a lot of socialization will go on where many will exit college with opportunities that she won't have, because she wasn't in the right place at the right time? What about if she wants to pursue a career that isn't really profitable for many years? A wealthy teenager can take a gap year, switch careers, pay for a psychiatrist if they have some mental issue that for them will just be a simple obstacle, but for someone without the means can be career-ending. No one is questioning _your_ ability to reach for success. Just understand that for wealthy people, a lot of your effort was just unnecessary, and they likely arrived at the same place you did with with less stress, better sleep, more parties, many more days off and a lot more opportunity to just take life easy. Your wealth required you to pick the particular career path that enabled it, but other choices would have likely ended either in poverty or much less wealth. A wealthy child can pursue his or her dream opportunities with far fewer concerns on that front, knowing that they're covered. My parents came from a much poorer background than me. They busted ass, taught me the same values, still work hard. Frankly, I just don't work as hard, but I went to a great high school with _very_ wealthy peers who taught me the secrets of the upper classes, and I purposely chose this profession as a software engineer to my advantage, which has allowed me to take gap years, travel the world, and do a lot of things that a lot of my peers, who work much harder, longer hours, and more stressful positions in other industries will never get to do. That's not a declaration of my skills, but rather an assertion of the deep inequality and unfairness of the system.
- fred256 5y ago
  Beautifully illustrated in this comic: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...
- tengbretson 5y ago
  It sounds like you've figured out the reason why people want so badly to be wealthy.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > what is likely one of the easiest professions to develop wealth with in a period of time when a software engineer makes an abnormally high income in relationship to peers in other professions, sure, you'll do well. Abnormal even when the value created is considered?
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    Economic value has almost nothing to do with the human criteria behind choice of careers once a certain level of comfort is achieved, otherwise there wouldn't be a chronic lack of highly paid STEM candidates. Most people just really don't like doing software no matter how well it pays.
fromtoptobottom 5y ago
To add to this anecdote, I went to public school. Now, I use my wealthy connections for everything.
koilke 5y ago
There are certainly outcomes like yours. However if you look at the aggregate statistics, it is rather different. One can remind oneself that a child neither chooses their genetic inheritance nor their social environment which may lead to a hard-working mentality and the opportunities that comes with studying and making efforts. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-bad-luck/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-bad-luck/
- wahern 5y ago
  If you look at the aggregate statistics, like the outcomes for first and second generation East Asian[1] and South Asian[2] immigrants, which bring with them a distinctly strong cultural emphasis on education, it becomes clear that structural impediments are far easier to overcome than typically claimed. But I agree that the stickiness of wealth among Americans generally isn't because they actually value education as a tool of mobility. Rather it's more because education is understood as a class signifier; something that's expected of their class. That's why so many wealthy politicians and pundits who claim college is overemphasized and demand that it should be unnecessary for a middle-class lifestyle couldn't even fathom their own kids not going to the best college possible. And the failure of other groups to achieve what East and South Asian immigrants have is precisely because they've internalized (e.g. whites and blacks) or brought with them (e.g. Mexican immigrants) the same working-class ethic that has always predominated in American culture. In American culture, as in perhaps most cultures around the world, only the elite valued higher education, and they did so for the aforementioned reasons. Not that "go to school" hasn't been oft recited in modern American culture. It's just that it's mostly a half-hearted refrain. American culture values hard work and personal sacrifice above all else, and "book learning" is considered neither hard work nor a sacrifice. Contrast that w/ some other cultures, especially many (but not all) Asian cultures, not to mention European Jewish culture, where formal study is very much considered hard work and a personal sacrifice. None of which is to say luck isn't involved in individual success. Of course it is. Indeed, to some meaningful degree it's always a factor. But all that tells us is that we should refrain from judging lack of success as a personal failure, not that agency and cultural values are irrelevant to the probability of success. Also, it goes without saying that a child who grows up w/ and internalizes cultural norms will find it far easier to exercise and apply those norms. As example, someone who never grew up brushing their teeth might find it exceptionally difficult to adopt and maintain that habit as an adult. Whereas someone who grew up doing that would find it difficult to lose that habit. Yet another reason to avoid comparing and judging personal character based on outcomes. At the same time, very clearly norms matters, and some norms are to be preferred over others. [1] Because of the direct and indirect effects of the Mandarin exam system. But more recently see also [2]. [2] Because they tend to be middle-class self-selected to value, if not having already achieved, significant educational achievement.
ccortes 5y ago
> Generational mobility from poor to rich is easily possible, but you can only do it through hard work and education. That doesn't sounds like "easily possible".
beerandt 5y ago
100% agree- and only want to add the undeniable advantage that children from two parent households have, which doesn't necessarily require those parents to be rich in order to provide.
endisneigh 5y ago
The irony of your post is you talk about hard work and education but in reality it was entirely luck. If your family didn’t leave the war torn country you would’ve been screwed. The same thing with the undocumented immigrant managing to get into the country.
- ping_pong 5y ago
  It's not luck. My parents busted their ass off to get out of the country. Same as our cleaner. She illegally immigrated into Mexico first, but realized how racist Mexicans were against Central Americans, so she decided to work her way so that she could get into the US. This isn't luck, it's hard work. She didn't accidentally find herself in the US.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    There are people who work just as hard, if not harder who don’t escape terrible situations. If you don’t believe that I don’t know what to tell ya. Your cleaner lady is such a silly example. If she was deported would you say she didn’t work hard enough to prevent it? Lol And even if they did work hard your situation is entirely luck regardless since well, you didn’t help them escape with your hard work, yet you benefited.
    - cjaybo 5y ago
      Apparnently you don't know what "entirely" means.
    - ping_pong 5y ago
      By your definition, people are poor because of bad luck. I guess according to you, there's nothing anyone can do except rely on luck. Good luck to you, then!
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        I’ll take the extra luck, thanks!
flowerlad 5y ago
You have two stories, and in both stories, the protagonists are immigrants who prospered when they immigrated to the land of opportunity. They had the ability and willingness, but just didn't have the opportunity. This is different from people who have been living in the land of opportunity for multiple generations. They have had the opportunity, so that is not the limiting factor. Often it is ability and/or willingness that are limiting factors. Nevertheless, such rags to riches stories can be found here too: Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs both grew up poor (and were both adopted) but became rich in a single generation.
zouhair 5y ago
No you don't. All your examples are anecdotal and mired in survivorship bias. The fact that your parents invested in education that much means that someone already invested in them and their education way before you were born.

Daishiman 5y ago

This isn't that obvious. Yes, if you bust ass all your life, have parents with professional middle-class values (regardless of actual income) and work in what is likely one of the easiest professions to develop wealth with in a period of time when a software engineer makes an abnormally high income in relationship to peers in other professions, sure, you'll do well. But that's not really the issue. The issue is that children of wealthy parents, for sure, study and make an effort to do well in school. But the required effort is just a _fraction_ of what a child of a wealthy parent needs to do. A wealthy parent can pay for a tutor for a child who doesn't have much interest or curiosity in preparing of standardized tests, and the tutor will guide him/her to the extracurriculars that academics value. By contrast, a poor child with no tutors and no particular desire to do test prep, all other things being equal, just won't do. What will happen to the child of your cleaner when she wants to attend the expensive vacation holidays of her peers, where undoubtedly a lot of socialization will go on where many will exit college with opportunities that she won't have, because she wasn't in the right place at the right time? What about if she wants to pursue a career that isn't really profitable for many years? A wealthy teenager can take a gap year, switch careers, pay for a psychiatrist if they have some mental issue that for them will just be a simple obstacle, but for someone without the means can be career-ending. No one is questioning _your_ ability to reach for success. Just understand that for wealthy people, a lot of your effort was just unnecessary, and they likely arrived at the same place you did with with less stress, better sleep, more parties, many more days off and a lot more opportunity to just take life easy. Your wealth required you to pick the particular career path that enabled it, but other choices would have likely ended either in poverty or much less wealth. A wealthy child can pursue his or her dream opportunities with far fewer concerns on that front, knowing that they're covered. My parents came from a much poorer background than me. They busted ass, taught me the same values, still work hard. Frankly, I just don't work as hard, but I went to a great high school with _very_ wealthy peers who taught me the secrets of the upper classes, and I purposely chose this profession as a software engineer to my advantage, which has allowed me to take gap years, travel the world, and do a lot of things that a lot of my peers, who work much harder, longer hours, and more stressful positions in other industries will never get to do. That's not a declaration of my skills, but rather an assertion of the deep inequality and unfairness of the system.

fred256 5y ago
Beautifully illustrated in this comic: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...
tengbretson 5y ago
It sounds like you've figured out the reason why people want so badly to be wealthy.
908B64B197 5y ago
> what is likely one of the easiest professions to develop wealth with in a period of time when a software engineer makes an abnormally high income in relationship to peers in other professions, sure, you'll do well. Abnormal even when the value created is considered?
- Daishiman 5y ago
  Economic value has almost nothing to do with the human criteria behind choice of careers once a certain level of comfort is achieved, otherwise there wouldn't be a chronic lack of highly paid STEM candidates. Most people just really don't like doing software no matter how well it pays.

fromtoptobottom 5y ago

To add to this anecdote, I went to public school. Now, I use my wealthy connections for everything.

koilke 5y ago

There are certainly outcomes like yours. However if you look at the aggregate statistics, it is rather different. One can remind oneself that a child neither chooses their genetic inheritance nor their social environment which may lead to a hard-working mentality and the opportunities that comes with studying and making efforts. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-bad-luck/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-bad-luck/

wahern 5y ago
If you look at the aggregate statistics, like the outcomes for first and second generation East Asian[1] and South Asian[2] immigrants, which bring with them a distinctly strong cultural emphasis on education, it becomes clear that structural impediments are far easier to overcome than typically claimed. But I agree that the stickiness of wealth among Americans generally isn't because they actually value education as a tool of mobility. Rather it's more because education is understood as a class signifier; something that's expected of their class. That's why so many wealthy politicians and pundits who claim college is overemphasized and demand that it should be unnecessary for a middle-class lifestyle couldn't even fathom their own kids not going to the best college possible. And the failure of other groups to achieve what East and South Asian immigrants have is precisely because they've internalized (e.g. whites and blacks) or brought with them (e.g. Mexican immigrants) the same working-class ethic that has always predominated in American culture. In American culture, as in perhaps most cultures around the world, only the elite valued higher education, and they did so for the aforementioned reasons. Not that "go to school" hasn't been oft recited in modern American culture. It's just that it's mostly a half-hearted refrain. American culture values hard work and personal sacrifice above all else, and "book learning" is considered neither hard work nor a sacrifice. Contrast that w/ some other cultures, especially many (but not all) Asian cultures, not to mention European Jewish culture, where formal study is very much considered hard work and a personal sacrifice. None of which is to say luck isn't involved in individual success. Of course it is. Indeed, to some meaningful degree it's always a factor. But all that tells us is that we should refrain from judging lack of success as a personal failure, not that agency and cultural values are irrelevant to the probability of success. Also, it goes without saying that a child who grows up w/ and internalizes cultural norms will find it far easier to exercise and apply those norms. As example, someone who never grew up brushing their teeth might find it exceptionally difficult to adopt and maintain that habit as an adult. Whereas someone who grew up doing that would find it difficult to lose that habit. Yet another reason to avoid comparing and judging personal character based on outcomes. At the same time, very clearly norms matters, and some norms are to be preferred over others. [1] Because of the direct and indirect effects of the Mandarin exam system. But more recently see also [2]. [2] Because they tend to be middle-class self-selected to value, if not having already achieved, significant educational achievement.

ccortes 5y ago

> Generational mobility from poor to rich is easily possible, but you can only do it through hard work and education. That doesn't sounds like "easily possible".

beerandt 5y ago

100% agree- and only want to add the undeniable advantage that children from two parent households have, which doesn't necessarily require those parents to be rich in order to provide.

endisneigh 5y ago

The irony of your post is you talk about hard work and education but in reality it was entirely luck. If your family didn’t leave the war torn country you would’ve been screwed. The same thing with the undocumented immigrant managing to get into the country.

ping_pong 5y ago
It's not luck. My parents busted their ass off to get out of the country. Same as our cleaner. She illegally immigrated into Mexico first, but realized how racist Mexicans were against Central Americans, so she decided to work her way so that she could get into the US. This isn't luck, it's hard work. She didn't accidentally find herself in the US.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  There are people who work just as hard, if not harder who don’t escape terrible situations. If you don’t believe that I don’t know what to tell ya. Your cleaner lady is such a silly example. If she was deported would you say she didn’t work hard enough to prevent it? Lol And even if they did work hard your situation is entirely luck regardless since well, you didn’t help them escape with your hard work, yet you benefited.
  - cjaybo 5y ago
    Apparnently you don't know what "entirely" means.
  - ping_pong 5y ago
    By your definition, people are poor because of bad luck. I guess according to you, there's nothing anyone can do except rely on luck. Good luck to you, then!
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      I’ll take the extra luck, thanks!

flowerlad 5y ago

You have two stories, and in both stories, the protagonists are immigrants who prospered when they immigrated to the land of opportunity. They had the ability and willingness, but just didn't have the opportunity. This is different from people who have been living in the land of opportunity for multiple generations. They have had the opportunity, so that is not the limiting factor. Often it is ability and/or willingness that are limiting factors. Nevertheless, such rags to riches stories can be found here too: Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs both grew up poor (and were both adopted) but became rich in a single generation.

zouhair 5y ago

No you don't. All your examples are anecdotal and mired in survivorship bias. The fact that your parents invested in education that much means that someone already invested in them and their education way before you were born.