6 ms·

I feel this factor plays a huge role in rich/upper middle class/upper-class people staying rich or growing richer. Kids that grow up upper-class imitate their

I feel this factor plays a huge role in rich/upper middle class/upper-class people staying rich or growing richer. Kids that grow up upper-class imitate their parent’s approach to work and life in general, giving them an upper-hand. Many poor kids are very smart and capable but end up imitating bad examples early on, making them handicapped. One of the best things a disadvantaged kid can get is a good role model. Doesn’t have to be rich…anyone with a stable middle-class life to imitate is enough, compared to questionable characters some imitate (gun-toting rappers for one).

giantg2 2y ago
I generally agree. However, some kids of rich people turn out spoiled or lazy.
darby_eight 2y ago
This implies one's being upper class is a reflection of having better habits than the poor, which is incorrect. They just have more money. Rich people could not survive poverty.
- anovikov 2y ago
  This. I've seen enough people of all walks of life to say: the key difference between rich and poor is just that: having money. There's nothing wrong with that. Money is morally neutral just as the class is.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 2y ago
  Some of the richest people I've ever met have middle class or upper-middle class appearances. They do make good decisions, have good jobs, etc. We see some evidence in studies that wealthly grandparents are strong indicators of wealthly adult grandchildren. We also know that poor habits deplete wealth quickly (like with lotto winners). It seems reasonable at least some wealthy people have good habits and that at least some of the children adopt those habits and manage to at least protect the existing wealth.
  - djeastm 2y ago
    >We see some evidence in studies that wealthly grandparents are strong indicators of wealthly adult grandchildren. Seems just slightly obvious, though I'm sure the studies are more nuanced than this
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Yeah, the ones I've seen have looked at things like even what type of assest the wealth is in (liquid, securities, land, etc). The type of wealth can be a factor in how well the wealth is remained.
  - darby_eight 2y ago
    Liking the aesthetics of fitting in with the proles does not mean they could survive
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Nothing in my comment was about survival in poverty. However, their ability to live within their means seems indicative that they have the discipline that they might be able do it. In fact, most people can survive in poverty - what other choice do they have?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I largely disagree due to social mobility. If you look at the differences between people who escape poverty and those that don't, you will find major differences in Habits and capability. If you look at people who drop in social class and those that dont, you will also find differences. If starting wealth was all that mattered, and human behavior had zero impact, you would see no mobility. I guess one could chalk mobility up to random luck, but this flies in a the face off massive amounts of data correlating performance with outcome.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208907
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  I grew up in poverty, on food stamps. I do somewhat well for myself. My wife had a similar childhood. We have poor financial habits that occasionally hint (I won't go so far as to say that they "threaten") at upending our lifestyle. Just having "more money" doesn't protect. Our habits would, if not kept in check, squander nearly anything. We are, in many ways, our own worst enemies. I've struggled to recognize this my entire adult life. I think when someone starts speaking as you just have, it has as much to do with social posturing as anything. You have to say that, to show everyone else how special and empathetic you are. You understand the plight of the poor, that it isn't fair and they're "just like anyone else". That if some windfall dropped into their laps, they too would be rich forever, because that's how wealth works. And when you do this, you see everyone clapping and murmuring to each other about how enlightened you are, and you get off on that. There are better habits. The wealthy tend to have more of them (many more), and the poor never develop those at all. Mostly, I think, because if they have these habits for any length of time, it quickly becomes incorrect to refer to them as poor. These habits can't protect against all misfortunes, but they protect against some and they mitigate the rest. And when you teach people that these things aren't true, you're doing them a disservice. You're robbing them of the one thing that might change their lives. It's both bizarre and cruel.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >It's both bizarre and cruel. Yep, it seems like so many people are happy to tell children that their efforts and choices don't matter because everything is luck, and moreover, if they do try, they are a fool. Cruel and tragic, especially when it comes from people who claim to be helping.
- feoren 2y ago
  Both can be true, if growing up with more money is a causal factor in having "better" habits (in terms of wealth generation/retention). I also agree that many rich people could not survive poverty. Both are adapted to their situations. The problem is that this makes it harder to bring people out of poverty, because you're trying to pull them into a situation they're less adapted for. I actually am in favor of simply giving the poor (/everyone) money (e.g. basic income), but even I acknowledge that poverty-formed habits are going to be a barrier in that strategy's effectiveness. We're not trying to pull rich people into poverty, so the fact that they wouldn't fare well there is moot.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    What would cause them to not survive poverty? would they all commit suicide or spontaneously combust? Avoiding death is a pretty strong force for adaptation to new circumstances.
    - feoren 2y ago
      Alcoholism, drug addiction, dying on the street on a cold night, lack of proper healthcare, and yes, suicide. I didn't think it'd be controversial to suggest that poverty can kill. And you're taking a strict definition of "survive" -- plenty of people talk about "not being able to survive" some situation if they think it would be extremely difficult and take a permanent toll on them, even if they might not literally die. Honestly it's a completely moot point anyway, as I said: nobody is trying to pull rich people into poverty, so it doesn't matter how they'd fare.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I just think it odd that you predict their "survival" rate will be lower than those born poor. I think it goes without saying that it would be a rough transition if you swapped two people. I expect the long term outcome would be better for a rich person swapped into poverty, than if the poor person who stayed. I think this because they statistically and experientially I think they have more of the skills necessary to escape poverty: education, trades, social coding, ect. You see this often with immigrants to the US, and is especially pronounced in the works of Raj Chetty and Ran Abramitzky. When you take someone successful in one country and have them start over poor in another. The immigrants do better over the course of their lives, and the children of poor immigrants do FAR better than the children of native born poor. https://www.amazon.com/Streets-Gold-Americas-Immigrant-Success/dp/1541797833?crid=1ZUPKSFGMNQNM&keywords=streets+of+gold&qid=1656439979&sprefix=streets+of+gol%2Caps%2C207&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=lfdigital-20&linkId=232bde10a8ae30f3f5d03828436262e9&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl/ https://www.amazon.com/Streets-Gold-Americas-Immigrant-Succe...
- caeril 2y ago
  Wealth is correlated with conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is partially heritable. The bankruptcy rate for former NFL/NBA/Music superstars and lottery winners is significantly higher than that of trust fund babies. Make of that what you want.
NetBeck 2y ago
>It is estimated that 70% of wealthy families will lose their wealth by the second generation and 90% will lose it by the third.[0] [0] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-do-70-of-families-lose-their-wealth-in-the-2nd-generation-2018-10 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...
- naveen99 2y ago
  That might have been truer when people were having 6+ children. With the modern average of 1.5, I doubt more than 10% lose their trust funds.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  What's the actual real world evidence on that? Plenty of rich European families have been rich for hundreds of years, and I'm not talking about royalty. That kind of disproves the theory. The ones who go broke fast are usually the ones who also got rich fast, trough luck instead of work or knowledge, like from lottery wins or speculations.
  - Jerrrry 2y ago
    Comparing American generational accumulation to the olden European social quasi-caste system is a little disingenuous.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Where did you see me compare it to Americans? I'm from Europe so my knowledge revolves around local examples.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    There is a lot of real world socioeconomic data on it. studies usually look at the population in terms of 20 or 25% segments. That doesn't mean it is true for the 1% or 0.1%. That said, there are lots of examples of people entering and leaving the top 1% too, so outcome isn't perfectly deterministic.
anovikov 2y ago
I'd say having a "stable middle-class" parent is the worst starting point to become rich. It's a sure way to become a similarly boring middle-middle class person - that is, a strictly conformist, risk-averse, boot-licking serf. Kid of a rich person will probably become rich because they inherit cash. Kid of a poor person may become rich because they are ready to take risk and usually have good social skills. That, or they may die trying or end up in prison... But there's no good pathway to become rich if you come from a boring middle-middle-class. Too little money for elite uni or other ways to "hack" it, too little money for risk taking ("starting a startup because you always have something to fall back on"), and inherited attitude against risk-taking. Dead end. You just take up a mediocre white collar job and count years till retirement.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  This isn't supported by data, of people in the middle income quintile 23.3% of their children end up in the top quintile while only 9.3% of people from the bottom quintile make it to the top[1]. The fourth and fifth(top) quintiles of income lead to the highest rates of children entering the top quintile. [1] https://www.cato.org/commentary/upward-mobility-alive-well-america# https://www.cato.org/commentary/upward-mobility-alive-well-a...
lotsofpulp 2y ago
This is simplified in the aphorism “you are the company you keep”.
rqtwteye 2y ago
Totally agree. When I grew up, I was friends with the son of the richest family in town. I was once invited to dinner with them and was totally shocked they had real conversations. My family had a stable income and house but my interactions with my dad were basically him ranting about somebody else or me. I don't recall any productive conversation I ever had with him. Even now in my 50s I still struggle to have conversations and constantly have to watch not to talk like my dad. On the other hand I also took on a lot of good traits of my parents like financial responsibility. My sister always had a better relationship with her kids and they have way better social skills than me or my sisters. Examples or mentors can have a huge influence on people, especially when they are young. Some are good, some are bad.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

giantg2 2y ago

I generally agree. However, some kids of rich people turn out spoiled or lazy.

darby_eight 2y ago

This implies one's being upper class is a reflection of having better habits than the poor, which is incorrect. They just have more money. Rich people could not survive poverty.

anovikov 2y ago
This. I've seen enough people of all walks of life to say: the key difference between rich and poor is just that: having money. There's nothing wrong with that. Money is morally neutral just as the class is.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 2y ago
Some of the richest people I've ever met have middle class or upper-middle class appearances. They do make good decisions, have good jobs, etc. We see some evidence in studies that wealthly grandparents are strong indicators of wealthly adult grandchildren. We also know that poor habits deplete wealth quickly (like with lotto winners). It seems reasonable at least some wealthy people have good habits and that at least some of the children adopt those habits and manage to at least protect the existing wealth.
- djeastm 2y ago
  >We see some evidence in studies that wealthly grandparents are strong indicators of wealthly adult grandchildren. Seems just slightly obvious, though I'm sure the studies are more nuanced than this
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Yeah, the ones I've seen have looked at things like even what type of assest the wealth is in (liquid, securities, land, etc). The type of wealth can be a factor in how well the wealth is remained.
- darby_eight 2y ago
  Liking the aesthetics of fitting in with the proles does not mean they could survive
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Nothing in my comment was about survival in poverty. However, their ability to live within their means seems indicative that they have the discipline that they might be able do it. In fact, most people can survive in poverty - what other choice do they have?
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I largely disagree due to social mobility. If you look at the differences between people who escape poverty and those that don't, you will find major differences in Habits and capability. If you look at people who drop in social class and those that dont, you will also find differences. If starting wealth was all that mattered, and human behavior had zero impact, you would see no mobility. I guess one could chalk mobility up to random luck, but this flies in a the face off massive amounts of data correlating performance with outcome.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208907
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
I grew up in poverty, on food stamps. I do somewhat well for myself. My wife had a similar childhood. We have poor financial habits that occasionally hint (I won't go so far as to say that they "threaten") at upending our lifestyle. Just having "more money" doesn't protect. Our habits would, if not kept in check, squander nearly anything. We are, in many ways, our own worst enemies. I've struggled to recognize this my entire adult life. I think when someone starts speaking as you just have, it has as much to do with social posturing as anything. You have to say that, to show everyone else how special and empathetic you are. You understand the plight of the poor, that it isn't fair and they're "just like anyone else". That if some windfall dropped into their laps, they too would be rich forever, because that's how wealth works. And when you do this, you see everyone clapping and murmuring to each other about how enlightened you are, and you get off on that. There are better habits. The wealthy tend to have more of them (many more), and the poor never develop those at all. Mostly, I think, because if they have these habits for any length of time, it quickly becomes incorrect to refer to them as poor. These habits can't protect against all misfortunes, but they protect against some and they mitigate the rest. And when you teach people that these things aren't true, you're doing them a disservice. You're robbing them of the one thing that might change their lives. It's both bizarre and cruel.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >It's both bizarre and cruel. Yep, it seems like so many people are happy to tell children that their efforts and choices don't matter because everything is luck, and moreover, if they do try, they are a fool. Cruel and tragic, especially when it comes from people who claim to be helping.
feoren 2y ago
Both can be true, if growing up with more money is a causal factor in having "better" habits (in terms of wealth generation/retention). I also agree that many rich people could not survive poverty. Both are adapted to their situations. The problem is that this makes it harder to bring people out of poverty, because you're trying to pull them into a situation they're less adapted for. I actually am in favor of simply giving the poor (/everyone) money (e.g. basic income), but even I acknowledge that poverty-formed habits are going to be a barrier in that strategy's effectiveness. We're not trying to pull rich people into poverty, so the fact that they wouldn't fare well there is moot.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  What would cause them to not survive poverty? would they all commit suicide or spontaneously combust? Avoiding death is a pretty strong force for adaptation to new circumstances.
  - feoren 2y ago
    Alcoholism, drug addiction, dying on the street on a cold night, lack of proper healthcare, and yes, suicide. I didn't think it'd be controversial to suggest that poverty can kill. And you're taking a strict definition of "survive" -- plenty of people talk about "not being able to survive" some situation if they think it would be extremely difficult and take a permanent toll on them, even if they might not literally die. Honestly it's a completely moot point anyway, as I said: nobody is trying to pull rich people into poverty, so it doesn't matter how they'd fare.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I just think it odd that you predict their "survival" rate will be lower than those born poor. I think it goes without saying that it would be a rough transition if you swapped two people. I expect the long term outcome would be better for a rich person swapped into poverty, than if the poor person who stayed. I think this because they statistically and experientially I think they have more of the skills necessary to escape poverty: education, trades, social coding, ect. You see this often with immigrants to the US, and is especially pronounced in the works of Raj Chetty and Ran Abramitzky. When you take someone successful in one country and have them start over poor in another. The immigrants do better over the course of their lives, and the children of poor immigrants do FAR better than the children of native born poor. https://www.amazon.com/Streets-Gold-Americas-Immigrant-Success/dp/1541797833?crid=1ZUPKSFGMNQNM&keywords=streets+of+gold&qid=1656439979&sprefix=streets+of+gol%2Caps%2C207&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=lfdigital-20&linkId=232bde10a8ae30f3f5d03828436262e9&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl/ https://www.amazon.com/Streets-Gold-Americas-Immigrant-Succe...
caeril 2y ago
Wealth is correlated with conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is partially heritable. The bankruptcy rate for former NFL/NBA/Music superstars and lottery winners is significantly higher than that of trust fund babies. Make of that what you want.

NetBeck 2y ago

>It is estimated that 70% of wealthy families will lose their wealth by the second generation and 90% will lose it by the third.[0] [0] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-do-70-of-families-lose-their-wealth-in-the-2nd-generation-2018-10 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...

naveen99 2y ago
That might have been truer when people were having 6+ children. With the modern average of 1.5, I doubt more than 10% lose their trust funds.
Rinzler89 2y ago
What's the actual real world evidence on that? Plenty of rich European families have been rich for hundreds of years, and I'm not talking about royalty. That kind of disproves the theory. The ones who go broke fast are usually the ones who also got rich fast, trough luck instead of work or knowledge, like from lottery wins or speculations.
- Jerrrry 2y ago
  Comparing American generational accumulation to the olden European social quasi-caste system is a little disingenuous.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Where did you see me compare it to Americans? I'm from Europe so my knowledge revolves around local examples.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  There is a lot of real world socioeconomic data on it. studies usually look at the population in terms of 20 or 25% segments. That doesn't mean it is true for the 1% or 0.1%. That said, there are lots of examples of people entering and leaving the top 1% too, so outcome isn't perfectly deterministic.

anovikov 2y ago

I'd say having a "stable middle-class" parent is the worst starting point to become rich. It's a sure way to become a similarly boring middle-middle class person - that is, a strictly conformist, risk-averse, boot-licking serf. Kid of a rich person will probably become rich because they inherit cash. Kid of a poor person may become rich because they are ready to take risk and usually have good social skills. That, or they may die trying or end up in prison... But there's no good pathway to become rich if you come from a boring middle-middle-class. Too little money for elite uni or other ways to "hack" it, too little money for risk taking ("starting a startup because you always have something to fall back on"), and inherited attitude against risk-taking. Dead end. You just take up a mediocre white collar job and count years till retirement.

ch4s3 2y ago
This isn't supported by data, of people in the middle income quintile 23.3% of their children end up in the top quintile while only 9.3% of people from the bottom quintile make it to the top[1]. The fourth and fifth(top) quintiles of income lead to the highest rates of children entering the top quintile. [1] https://www.cato.org/commentary/upward-mobility-alive-well-america# https://www.cato.org/commentary/upward-mobility-alive-well-a...

lotsofpulp 2y ago

This is simplified in the aphorism “you are the company you keep”.

rqtwteye 2y ago

Totally agree. When I grew up, I was friends with the son of the richest family in town. I was once invited to dinner with them and was totally shocked they had real conversations. My family had a stable income and house but my interactions with my dad were basically him ranting about somebody else or me. I don't recall any productive conversation I ever had with him. Even now in my 50s I still struggle to have conversations and constantly have to watch not to talk like my dad. On the other hand I also took on a lot of good traits of my parents like financial responsibility. My sister always had a better relationship with her kids and they have way better social skills than me or my sisters. Examples or mentors can have a huge influence on people, especially when they are young. Some are good, some are bad.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]