4 ms·

I think maybe he's saying that sometimes, one person can slip through if the appropriate conditions are met. Your implication is correct as well. He offers only

I think maybe he's saying that sometimes, one person can slip through if the appropriate conditions are met. Your implication is correct as well. He offers only an anecdote to back up the claim, but no data. Even assuming the anecdote to be true, and s/he has multiple childhood acquaintances from poverty who each now have a 5.8 million dollar or higher net worth [1], it would have little effect at the mean of the population. Personally, I think the explanation is structural, or if you prefer, just math. Just statistical distribution will assure that if you're poor, 99 percent of you won't get into the 1%. You'll never amass the required 5.8 million dollar net worth. In fact, I almost hate to say this, but it should be implied, whether you are poor or middle class, 90% of you will never even get into the 10%. I'm not sure that it's a psychological state of mind, or even a statement on the innate abilities of poor or middle class people? I'm more confident that it's a simple structural barrier. There is not room in the 10% for every law abiding, intelligent, ambitious, hard working individual. Which means many law abiding, intelligent, ambitious, hard working individuals who are poor or middle class, will need to aim lower to increase their chances of success. It sucks, but just in my opinion, that's how things are, I'm not sure there's a way around it? So I think what's happening is more along the lines of people, perhaps even unconsciously, realizing the structural reality, and adjusting their strategies accordingly. That poor or middle class kid says: "You know it's a lot safer if I just become a nurse, teacher, or regular software engineer instead of trying to swing for the fences on a startup since I have no safety net to work with." In fact, in a societal moral hazard kind of way, the more intelligent and rational that poor or middle class kid is, the more likely s/he is to say that. (Or maybe it isn't a societal moral hazard? Since we do need nurses, teachers, fire fighters, and so on. I don't know?) [1] Net Worth of 1%-er: https://money.com/richest-1-percent-america-other-countries/ https://money.com/richest-1-percent-america-other-countries/

pdonis 3y ago
> There is not room in the 10% for every law abiding, intelligent, ambitious, hard working individual. While this is true as a simple matter of distribution, it conflates two very different things. In terms of relative wealth, yes, there's no way everybody can be in the top 10%. But in terms of absolute wealth, there is lots of room to make even the bottom 10% wealthier than they are today. Indeed, the bottom 10% in the US are already wealthier than most humans who ever lived. But they could be much wealthier still, even if their relative wealth stays the same. Focusing kids on "getting out of the bad situation" doesn't have to mean "shoot for being in the top 10%" (and if the GP was implying that it does, I think the GP is wrong on that point). It just has to mean "go out and create wealth instead of staying stuck in this place". And doing that will make those kids better off--not to mention society as a whole--even if their relative wealth never makes it anywhere near the top 10%. To the extent that our society has "structural problems", I think they are about preventing people from creating wealth, by imposing all manner of nanny state micromanagement and by allowing people in power to bully others.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // Focusing kids on "getting out of the bad situation" doesn't have to mean "shoot for being in the top 10%" (and if the GP was implying that it does, I think the GP is wrong on that point) I am the GP. I agree with everything you wrote here. My reference to the "1%" was specifically applicable to the kids growing up in my neighborhood in the 90s - the public school and other education OPPORTUNITIES were good enough to launch many of us into this stratosphere. Meanwhile, a ton of our neighbors didn't even try to avail their kids of these opportunities (namely, to work hard and optimize for education) and their kids got stuck too. I totally agree with you that 1% or 10% is not the goal. We both agree that if people try to look for ways to grow vs accept stickiness and limitation, they are likely to move up SOMEWHAT and that's really important.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Every one of your friends has a net worth of 6 million or more. I know your type, I came from your world. You are not being truthful. And even if you are the extreme statistical abnormality of that is nothing you should based a white ranging judgment on.
    - bilbo0s 3y ago
      If he's being truthful about his own net worth, and it is 5.8 million dollars plus, it's statistically highly unlikely that even one of his friends from the ghetto also has a net worth of 5.8 million dollars plus. These are difficult things to do. So the idea that an entire group of impoverished kids, all from the same ghetto neighborhood, each, independently, amassed that net worth? Yeah, that would require the evidence and data being presented for me to believe. Even if it were true, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there was something different about the public school to which those kids were assigned. That's just way too high of a statistical variance to be, "Oh they just thought positively."
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      Last I recall, 1% INCOME is about 700K per year household income (this maybe out of date by now) - a couple of professionals in their 40s in NYX (my peer group) who has some investments, pulls that in pretty consistently. I'll make this point again. If in the 90s your parents made you take the hard math classes, try for the AP courses, try for the magnet school, try for a good college/major/scholarship, you're on track to earn 350K at baseline. If this really bothers you, fine - let's talk top 10%. Going from broke-ass to top 10% is an impressive feat. top-10% is under 170K.
tsunamifury 3y ago
How is this totally rational and well contextualized response being downvoted for showing how absurd GP's claim is?
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
>> 99 percent of you won't get into the 1% Wait, by definition, 99% of anybody - poor or not - won't get into the 1%.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  That's the point. To tell people it's their "state of mind" is nonsense. It doesn't matter what everyone's state of mind is, only 1% ever get into the 1%. So arguing about "state of mind" or "accelerated classes" is meaningless to that structural reality. If you need 5.8 million dollars to get into the one percent, there is a 99% chance you won't get there. I'm also skeptical of these people who say they grew up in the ghetto surrounded by poverty, but several of their friends who were also in the same ghetto and suffered the same childhood poverty, have 5.8 million in assets. The statistical likelihood of multiple children from the exact same impoverished neighborhood, of similar age cohort, all going on to amass 5.8 million in assets is, well, remote in the extreme. Not saying you can't have a neighborhood like that where everyone goes on to become millionaires. I'm saying it's statistically unlikely.

pdonis 3y ago

> There is not room in the 10% for every law abiding, intelligent, ambitious, hard working individual. While this is true as a simple matter of distribution, it conflates two very different things. In terms of relative wealth, yes, there's no way everybody can be in the top 10%. But in terms of absolute wealth, there is lots of room to make even the bottom 10% wealthier than they are today. Indeed, the bottom 10% in the US are already wealthier than most humans who ever lived. But they could be much wealthier still, even if their relative wealth stays the same. Focusing kids on "getting out of the bad situation" doesn't have to mean "shoot for being in the top 10%" (and if the GP was implying that it does, I think the GP is wrong on that point). It just has to mean "go out and create wealth instead of staying stuck in this place". And doing that will make those kids better off--not to mention society as a whole--even if their relative wealth never makes it anywhere near the top 10%. To the extent that our society has "structural problems", I think they are about preventing people from creating wealth, by imposing all manner of nanny state micromanagement and by allowing people in power to bully others.

xyzelement 3y ago
// Focusing kids on "getting out of the bad situation" doesn't have to mean "shoot for being in the top 10%" (and if the GP was implying that it does, I think the GP is wrong on that point) I am the GP. I agree with everything you wrote here. My reference to the "1%" was specifically applicable to the kids growing up in my neighborhood in the 90s - the public school and other education OPPORTUNITIES were good enough to launch many of us into this stratosphere. Meanwhile, a ton of our neighbors didn't even try to avail their kids of these opportunities (namely, to work hard and optimize for education) and their kids got stuck too. I totally agree with you that 1% or 10% is not the goal. We both agree that if people try to look for ways to grow vs accept stickiness and limitation, they are likely to move up SOMEWHAT and that's really important.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Every one of your friends has a net worth of 6 million or more. I know your type, I came from your world. You are not being truthful. And even if you are the extreme statistical abnormality of that is nothing you should based a white ranging judgment on.
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    If he's being truthful about his own net worth, and it is 5.8 million dollars plus, it's statistically highly unlikely that even one of his friends from the ghetto also has a net worth of 5.8 million dollars plus. These are difficult things to do. So the idea that an entire group of impoverished kids, all from the same ghetto neighborhood, each, independently, amassed that net worth? Yeah, that would require the evidence and data being presented for me to believe. Even if it were true, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there was something different about the public school to which those kids were assigned. That's just way too high of a statistical variance to be, "Oh they just thought positively."
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    Last I recall, 1% INCOME is about 700K per year household income (this maybe out of date by now) - a couple of professionals in their 40s in NYX (my peer group) who has some investments, pulls that in pretty consistently. I'll make this point again. If in the 90s your parents made you take the hard math classes, try for the AP courses, try for the magnet school, try for a good college/major/scholarship, you're on track to earn 350K at baseline. If this really bothers you, fine - let's talk top 10%. Going from broke-ass to top 10% is an impressive feat. top-10% is under 170K.

tsunamifury 3y ago

How is this totally rational and well contextualized response being downvoted for showing how absurd GP's claim is?

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

>> 99 percent of you won't get into the 1% Wait, by definition, 99% of anybody - poor or not - won't get into the 1%.

bilbo0s 3y ago
That's the point. To tell people it's their "state of mind" is nonsense. It doesn't matter what everyone's state of mind is, only 1% ever get into the 1%. So arguing about "state of mind" or "accelerated classes" is meaningless to that structural reality. If you need 5.8 million dollars to get into the one percent, there is a 99% chance you won't get there. I'm also skeptical of these people who say they grew up in the ghetto surrounded by poverty, but several of their friends who were also in the same ghetto and suffered the same childhood poverty, have 5.8 million in assets. The statistical likelihood of multiple children from the exact same impoverished neighborhood, of similar age cohort, all going on to amass 5.8 million in assets is, well, remote in the extreme. Not saying you can't have a neighborhood like that where everyone goes on to become millionaires. I'm saying it's statistically unlikely.