3 ms·

> 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, i

by 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.
    - alexilliamson 3y ago
      Congrats on having good parents! However, I believe that most of this discussion applies to those less fortunate poor kids with shitty parents.
  - robocat 3y ago
    Please follow the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Every one of your friends has a net worth of 6 million or more. You are intentionally strawmanning. When people say 1% they usually mean income (in my experience) and sometimes are using it as a figure of speech. Your usage of wealth really stuck out to me badly in your original comment - I actually thought you were trolling by choosing an obviously silly figure. HN rule: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." > I know your type, I came from your world. You are not being truthful. HN rule: "In Comments: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes." And your strong stereotyping is likely not helpful to you. Perhaps be a little less discriminiating and a bit less judgemental. No one likes to be bucketed. You know nothing about the OP.

by pdonis 3y ago

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.
  - alexilliamson 3y ago
    Congrats on having good parents! However, I believe that most of this discussion applies to those less fortunate poor kids with shitty parents.
- robocat 3y ago
  Please follow the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Every one of your friends has a net worth of 6 million or more. You are intentionally strawmanning. When people say 1% they usually mean income (in my experience) and sometimes are using it as a figure of speech. Your usage of wealth really stuck out to me badly in your original comment - I actually thought you were trolling by choosing an obviously silly figure. HN rule: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." > I know your type, I came from your world. You are not being truthful. HN rule: "In Comments: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes." And your strong stereotyping is likely not helpful to you. Perhaps be a little less discriminiating and a bit less judgemental. No one likes to be bucketed. You know nothing about the OP.