3 ms·

Isn't it the trick in every social class? Society is built in a way that tries to prevent members of each social class from moving up, and that goes from lowest

Isn't it the trick in every social class? Society is built in a way that tries to prevent members of each social class from moving up, and that goes from lowest to highest classes alike. Poor people are taught to distrust everything and everyone, and to think strictly short-term because nothing you can't hold in your hands here and now can be trusted to be real, this prevents them from moving to the middle class. Middle class people are taught to get a most expensive degree (sinking them forever in debt) and get a stable job with benefits, and buy a house, which all prevents them from making good money by getting an inexpensive degree in area they like, and/or contracting and making top $, and investing into the stock market. Upper class people are taught to be gentlemen and do the respectable things expected from one: follow their parents' role in the company, or do civil or military service, or do other bullshit, which prevents them from becoming the like of Elon Musk and moving even further up. Poor are not alone: beliefs and cultural norms of all classes alike are built to prevent people from succeeding just because doing otherwise would result in too much of a dog-eat-dog society. Trick is to learn to ignore norms of your class and follow your own way.

mrjin 5y ago
IMO it has not much to do with how every social class are taught but rather the Mathew effect. Put aside those exceptionally smart or dumb ones, most people are more to less with the same capabilities and the class they were born to almost define who they will become. The reason is simple: upper class have maybe 10 times the resource a middle class have and in turn a middle class may have 10 times the resource a poor people have. So the upper class can easily have enough resource to develop themselves, and provision for the risks and still have lots to invest. For middle class, they have enough to develop themselves, a little bit surplus to insure themselves and/or to invest. For the poor people, what they have is barely enough to make ends meet, little or none for personal development or invest. So if everything goes well, the upper classes can get decent investment returns even if they do nothing actively. For the middle classes, it's not too bad, they can still get a piece of the cake, though not much. For poor people, they might be able to save a couple of bucks but nothing much. If things go side ways, the cut of the cake for the upper class at worst is slightly smaller as they are impacted but as there are already provisions for that so they don't really lose much. Sometimes their portfolios actually grows a lot because central banks print lots of money and the inflation skyrockets. For the middle class it really depends on how lucky they are. Lucky ones' asset grows, average ones are not impacted or lose little bit. If they made wrong decisions, they might become poor people. For the poor people, the best case would be their savings eaten by inflations. If other bad things happen, they might become homeless. Just take a look at statistics around the world, almost exactly the same story.
- anovikov 5y ago
  Well, statistics around the world clearly shows proportion of poor people reducing from ~40% to ~10% in one generation :)

mrjin 5y ago

IMO it has not much to do with how every social class are taught but rather the Mathew effect. Put aside those exceptionally smart or dumb ones, most people are more to less with the same capabilities and the class they were born to almost define who they will become. The reason is simple: upper class have maybe 10 times the resource a middle class have and in turn a middle class may have 10 times the resource a poor people have. So the upper class can easily have enough resource to develop themselves, and provision for the risks and still have lots to invest. For middle class, they have enough to develop themselves, a little bit surplus to insure themselves and/or to invest. For the poor people, what they have is barely enough to make ends meet, little or none for personal development or invest. So if everything goes well, the upper classes can get decent investment returns even if they do nothing actively. For the middle classes, it's not too bad, they can still get a piece of the cake, though not much. For poor people, they might be able to save a couple of bucks but nothing much. If things go side ways, the cut of the cake for the upper class at worst is slightly smaller as they are impacted but as there are already provisions for that so they don't really lose much. Sometimes their portfolios actually grows a lot because central banks print lots of money and the inflation skyrockets. For the middle class it really depends on how lucky they are. Lucky ones' asset grows, average ones are not impacted or lose little bit. If they made wrong decisions, they might become poor people. For the poor people, the best case would be their savings eaten by inflations. If other bad things happen, they might become homeless. Just take a look at statistics around the world, almost exactly the same story.

anovikov 5y ago
Well, statistics around the world clearly shows proportion of poor people reducing from ~40% to ~10% in one generation :)