5 ms·

You cannot, because your plan is idealistic and naive. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Explanations%

You cannot, because your plan is idealistic and naive. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Explanations%20for%20the%20relatively%20low,and%20low%20rate%20of%20unionization%2C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... The American dream only exists in dreams.

somenameforme 3y ago
The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it. This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term. Obesity is a reasonable comparison. Nobody wants to obese, but we're headed towards a world where the majority of Americans are. It's because many, and it's looking like the majority now, are more inclined to succumb to short-term pleasures, instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Now we solved it with a pill though!!
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it. Which is not something anyone is even implying? >This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term. This is just motivational fallacies sprinkled with moral posturing, while somehow ignoring an abundance of mammalian behavioral science. You may not realize it, but you're already arguing for a caste system. If you took someone who is "successful" and removed their support structures they would, as has been proven time and time again, fair far worse than their hardened peers in the same position. Inheritors of wealth or people who profit from social networks rarely have the skills and adaptive "augments" necessary to survive in the workplace let alone climb it. Look at The Vanderbilts as an example. Generations of the family profiteering off workers for literally no constructive purpose, and they lost of all it. And this happens day in and day out. People cannot climb the social ladder because it is not set up to do so, so a few benefit, even for hundreds of years, while squandering resources. Many people's productive hours and efforts simply go toward enriching some other people, who are not capable of using those acquired resources correctly for many different reasons. > instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure. What's silly about this statement if you took it at face value, and for the sake of argument assumed it was true, the upper echelon of people we are talking about have made this so. They profit from it. And they will continue to push it.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    It's not clear to me what you're trying to argue, as your claims and evidence seem to contradict each other. Of course I agree that even individuals born into the greatest of wealth can certainly squander it all with bad decisions, as has happened countlessly throughout history. But this rather precludes anything like a caste system where those born into the elite can never full from such; nor can those ever born as an untouchable rise from such.
    - whoknowsidont 3y ago
      > as your claims and evidence seem to contradict each other. No they don't?
whynotminot 3y ago
We probably need a better definition of the "American Dream" though, because I think GP is largely right. For a couple decades now there has been a very simple plan to execute that will result in probably 90% of successful adherents ending up with a 6 figure job: (1) Don't screw up high-school too badly. (2) Go to a college at least a few people have heard of and study STEM. (3) Graduate and go into Tech as soon as possible. That's literally it. Follow this plan and you are now a professional making 6 figures. Most people wallowing in student debt wondering what happened to the American Dream didn't really consider the marketability of their planned education. With that said, I think going forward this is all more complicated. I wouldn't really know what to recommend to a current middle schooler, for instance, in a world where most white collar work will probably be done better by ChatGPT 8 in a handful of years. But for the past few decades before this point in time, this has all been way simpler than people think, provided they were willing to gut out the level of effort required for a STEM degree.
- wincy 3y ago
  Heck, I managed to screw up pretty much all of those things you listed and am making six figures in tech. A little ambition can get you a long way in this field.
  - whoknowsidont 3y ago
    And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Do you truly believe that across entire societies there is limited mobility because of a lack of talent and drive, or is it more likely those societies are not setup with effective merit channels and proper reward mechanisms?
    - whynotminot 3y ago
      > And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Tech is overflowing with people who literally just did a few things right. And it's also renowned for welcoming in people with non-traditional backgrounds: people who don't have degrees but showed talent, people who have the wrong degrees but then went to bootcamps, Product Managers and designers with no technical background, etc. Survivorship bias implies a "most don't make it" result. I would argue that most who execute a reasonable plan do in fact make it fine in tech. There really aren't very many tech failure stories (outside of startup founders). If you "fail" at one place you'll probably get hired at another. Even if you're not good at it, there is no shortage of bad engineers who still have high-paying jobs. Now, not everyone wants to do tech. Not everyone enjoys that kind of work, or wants to put in the amount of effort required to get a STEM degree or go to a bootcamp. But then this is a different question--the question then is no longer "Is there still a reasonable path to the American Dream" and more "why won't the thing I've chosen to do irrespective of market conditions give me lots of money." I do think it's valid to ask why there aren't more routes to attaining success. Because I think in the past it felt like you could do a pretty vast array of things and still have a middle class lifestyle. But to say it doesn't exist is to ignore the very obvious routes to success that are still attainable.

somenameforme 3y ago

The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it. This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term. Obesity is a reasonable comparison. Nobody wants to obese, but we're headed towards a world where the majority of Americans are. It's because many, and it's looking like the majority now, are more inclined to succumb to short-term pleasures, instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Now we solved it with a pill though!!
whoknowsidont 3y ago
>The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it. Which is not something anyone is even implying? >This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term. This is just motivational fallacies sprinkled with moral posturing, while somehow ignoring an abundance of mammalian behavioral science. You may not realize it, but you're already arguing for a caste system. If you took someone who is "successful" and removed their support structures they would, as has been proven time and time again, fair far worse than their hardened peers in the same position. Inheritors of wealth or people who profit from social networks rarely have the skills and adaptive "augments" necessary to survive in the workplace let alone climb it. Look at The Vanderbilts as an example. Generations of the family profiteering off workers for literally no constructive purpose, and they lost of all it. And this happens day in and day out. People cannot climb the social ladder because it is not set up to do so, so a few benefit, even for hundreds of years, while squandering resources. Many people's productive hours and efforts simply go toward enriching some other people, who are not capable of using those acquired resources correctly for many different reasons. > instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure. What's silly about this statement if you took it at face value, and for the sake of argument assumed it was true, the upper echelon of people we are talking about have made this so. They profit from it. And they will continue to push it.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  It's not clear to me what you're trying to argue, as your claims and evidence seem to contradict each other. Of course I agree that even individuals born into the greatest of wealth can certainly squander it all with bad decisions, as has happened countlessly throughout history. But this rather precludes anything like a caste system where those born into the elite can never full from such; nor can those ever born as an untouchable rise from such.
  - whoknowsidont 3y ago
    > as your claims and evidence seem to contradict each other. No they don't?

whynotminot 3y ago

We probably need a better definition of the "American Dream" though, because I think GP is largely right. For a couple decades now there has been a very simple plan to execute that will result in probably 90% of successful adherents ending up with a 6 figure job: (1) Don't screw up high-school too badly. (2) Go to a college at least a few people have heard of and study STEM. (3) Graduate and go into Tech as soon as possible. That's literally it. Follow this plan and you are now a professional making 6 figures. Most people wallowing in student debt wondering what happened to the American Dream didn't really consider the marketability of their planned education. With that said, I think going forward this is all more complicated. I wouldn't really know what to recommend to a current middle schooler, for instance, in a world where most white collar work will probably be done better by ChatGPT 8 in a handful of years. But for the past few decades before this point in time, this has all been way simpler than people think, provided they were willing to gut out the level of effort required for a STEM degree.

wincy 3y ago
Heck, I managed to screw up pretty much all of those things you listed and am making six figures in tech. A little ambition can get you a long way in this field.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Do you truly believe that across entire societies there is limited mobility because of a lack of talent and drive, or is it more likely those societies are not setup with effective merit channels and proper reward mechanisms?
  - whynotminot 3y ago
    > And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Tech is overflowing with people who literally just did a few things right. And it's also renowned for welcoming in people with non-traditional backgrounds: people who don't have degrees but showed talent, people who have the wrong degrees but then went to bootcamps, Product Managers and designers with no technical background, etc. Survivorship bias implies a "most don't make it" result. I would argue that most who execute a reasonable plan do in fact make it fine in tech. There really aren't very many tech failure stories (outside of startup founders). If you "fail" at one place you'll probably get hired at another. Even if you're not good at it, there is no shortage of bad engineers who still have high-paying jobs. Now, not everyone wants to do tech. Not everyone enjoys that kind of work, or wants to put in the amount of effort required to get a STEM degree or go to a bootcamp. But then this is a different question--the question then is no longer "Is there still a reasonable path to the American Dream" and more "why won't the thing I've chosen to do irrespective of market conditions give me lots of money." I do think it's valid to ask why there aren't more routes to attaining success. Because I think in the past it felt like you could do a pretty vast array of things and still have a middle class lifestyle. But to say it doesn't exist is to ignore the very obvious routes to success that are still attainable.