6 ms·

As someone born in the bottom fifth who worked up into the top fifth, a big part of it is actively escaping childhood culture and that culture's expectations. W

by beat 13y ago

As someone born in the bottom fifth who worked up into the top fifth, a big part of it is actively escaping childhood culture and that culture's expectations. When I grew up, I didn't know anyone wealthy or successful - I met them when I was an adult. Good role models are critical for kids' sense of scope and possibility. Then again, as a political liberal, I tend to say an un-liberal thing when talking about income distribution... income isn't distributed evenly, but neither is talent. Mediocre people don't advance society. They tend to stay where they started (which explains a lot of management mediocrity - some are born into positions of privilege, but lack the talent to do anything with it but maintain the status quo). The way to maximize success for society as a whole is to maximize the opportunity of its most talented members, by eliminating cultural and social barriers to success.

bane 13y ago
> As someone born in the bottom fifth who worked up into the top fifth, a big part of it is actively escaping childhood culture and that culture's expectations. When I grew up, I didn't know anyone wealthy or successful - I met them when I was an adult. Good role models are critical for kids' sense of scope and possibility. I don't think I could have said it better. I too grew up relatively poor, in a hick area 30 minutes outside of the nearest white trash town, lumber yard, dying steel mill and trailer park. I never even conceived that I would be able to obtain the life I have now, not even by half. Outside of my school teachers, I knew exactly one person with a college degree (my father) who spent most of his life dealing with family members who attacked him for having one ("so Mr. College, do you want to join us for a family dinner, or are you too good for it?" was a common thread). The available options to me were so limited, and going elsewhere involved so much more money than I had, it was inconceivable that I would have a life other than what I had seen. I managed to pull myself up just enough to realize I didn't want to work low-paid hourly jobs and drive discount used cars for the rest of my life and enrolled in the local Community College to try and learn a trade. As it so happens, my wife grew up in a newly wealthy family (her almost entirely uneducated father made a boat load during a housing boom in his native country), and simply "knew" how to operate in the upper-middle class. I met her while she was studying English at the same College as an international student (with the insane international student tuition paid for out of her own pocket). She simply had the cognitive tools to know how to make good money management decisions, how to buy things and haggle for good value, how to represent herself (even as a foreigner) so she'd end up paying the middle-class price for things instead of the poor person's price for things (one of the first lessons I learned, turns out it's cheaper to be richer): An example: I grew up where everyone around me bought used cars, some junk, some okay, all had expensive maintenance issues within the first year or two...but it's just what people did. The redneck with 20 cars in his yard? That's because he figures he can by 3 cars at $100 a piece and cannibalize (with hundreds of his own labor hours on top of any extra parts he needs to buy) them to make one good car he can drive for a couple months. My wife was able to demonstrate that people like my parents, were spending on average, much more per mile over the life of their used car than we would if we bought a cheap new car with a reputation for high reliability. I still drive that same car 11 years later. My current cost per mile, even with high gas prices, is something like $.18 a mile. My parents spend something like $.50-.60 per mile. And on and on and on. It was an entirely new way of looking at the world that simply never occurred to me or it appears anybody else around me. Recently, one of my old friends from my hometown was up in a fit that a sweet lease he has on a basement apartment is going to be up in 2 years. This was a problem because he couldn't figure out how to afford the higher rental price that the market had gone to in the last 5 years and thought he might have to move out of state (another strange compunction I'll get to in a minute). I asked him, "wouldn't you be making more money via raises or a new job by then?". "I'm not qualified to get any of the jobs around here, the closest one I could find required at least an Associates Degree or a Certification." So given a 2 year lead, it never occurred to him that he could simply solve his entire issue by getting some education or a couple of quick certificates out of the way. Worse, and I've found this as very common where I come from, pointing out these simple facts generates lots of very aggressive resistance. The other strange obsession I've found is the "solution" some find in poor areas or "chasing expenses down". This means that, stuck in a job that's paid the same for the last 10 years, and costs rising, they can no longer afford to stay in their home areas. So the solution is to move to an area that has a lower cost of living -- of course without regard for the lack of jobs. They try and and "chase" down expenses. This is of course opposite of moving to an expensive city, making much more money only to have it gobbled up by very high living expenses...except in an expensive city, the opportunity to keep moving up ahead of the rising expense curve actually exists. You can't chase down expenses forever, eventually you find yourself in an area with no jobs and miles and miles of endless 4th hand trailer homes and no opportunity to chase expenses down even further. Being poor without access to what people with money actually do with their money (and how they come about that money) is very very hard for a young person to figure a way out of on their own. It's why poverty is systemic in many areas and the examples that are shown: boxers, basketball players, drug dealers, etc. are the ones kids gravitate towards because that's all they can see.
- jurassic 13y ago
  > pointing out these simple facts generates lots of very aggressive resistance. This, a thousand times, even from my own family. I've simply stopped trying to give advice.
  - bane 13y ago
    I've had to make a personal rule to not get involved in anybody's life from where I grew up. It's simply too depressing watching them struggle with bad life-choice after bad life-choice, and only a few small changes would revolutionize their life and solve nearly all of their top issues. The next biggest problem is that all of them want to talk about these bad life-choices with me, but don't want to hear the correct choice.
- beat 13y ago
  Makes me think of another useful piece of advice... marry well. I married into upper middle class as well, and my wife has different and useful values. But yes, the short-term thinking and resentment of education among the poor is kind of amazing and appalling. My father, an extremely intelligent and charismatic man, called them "educated mow-rons" (you really need to capture that exaggerated accent). He worked for rich men, but had nothing but contempt for them. If he had applied himself productively, he could have been very successful and wealthy. Instead, his life was a total failure due to shortsighted and self-destructive behavior. If there's one thing I learned from watching him, it's the difference between working hard and working smart. Now, I see my sister choosing to live in the redneck boondocks, constantly ground down by poverty and bad decisions. She's also very bright and could have been successful in another context, but she likes her country living. Unfortunately, she's surrounded by idiots. Everyone with that critical combination of talent and ambition simply leaves rural America and goes somewhere that they have a chance. Recently, she tried to talk me into investing in a business idea she had - something that, done right, could turn into a comfortable living. But instead, she and her (even brighter) daughter polished up a bunch of wishful-thinking hyperoptimized numbers to convince themselves they could make six figures at what I think is a $30k business, devised a terrible plan to get there, and then got all butt-hurt whenever my other sister and me tried to make it realistic. And of course, she resents me for not tossing her $10k to squander. Such is the life of poverty - even otherwise intelligent people get into a cycle of terrible decisions.
king_jester 13y ago
> Then again, as a political liberal, I tend to say an un-liberal thing when talking about income distribution... income isn't distributed evenly, but neither is talent. Mediocre people don't advance society. They tend to stay where they started (which explains a lot of management mediocrity - some are born into positions of privilege, but lack the talent to do anything with it but maintain the status quo). The way to maximize success for society as a whole is to maximize the opportunity of its most talented members, by eliminating cultural and social barriers to success. I tend to take the another point of view on this: a society structured in a way that denies determination to individuals and communities because those people/communities are perceived to be untalented or unworthy is a society that perpetuates injustice and perpetuates and creates institutionalized class divisions. > The way to maximize success for society as a whole is to maximize the opportunity of its most talented members, by eliminating cultural and social barriers to success. Is this really true? If we ignore the problems of the average person or community do we really advance society? In a lot of ways western societies now turn a blind eye to class divisions, racism, sexism, etc. Can we say as a society this treatment really advances things? Is advancement for some really a society-wide advancement?
- beat 13y ago
  I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average.
  - king_jester 13y ago
    > I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. Agreed. > I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. I think this might depend on how we are defining talent. Ultimately people have worth even if they don't meet any definition of talent just by virtue of being a human being. > "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). How exactly are we defining talent here? It seems like you would see some people as not having said talent and that those people wouldn't contribute to the advancement of society. However I would view such a definition of talent as an institutional barrier. There are a wide variety of people with different interest, skills, abilities, disabilities, and levels of function. That some of these people don't meet a definition of talent or, because of the way such a definition is crafted, cannot be talented is a really limiting factor for the success of society. Again, has society really advanced so long as there are classes in which people are viewed as less useful than other people? Promoting the value value, even if just implicitly, of some groups over others is a part of systemic, institutional barriers. > To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average. I'm not really sure how this could be qualified. Social revolutions and changes aren't just the result of a few key individuals and there has been a tendency to ignore those people who have participated in such social change based on who they are or the kind of work they performed, or possibly the work they did not or could not do.

by beat 13y ago

bane 13y ago

> As someone born in the bottom fifth who worked up into the top fifth, a big part of it is actively escaping childhood culture and that culture's expectations. When I grew up, I didn't know anyone wealthy or successful - I met them when I was an adult. Good role models are critical for kids' sense of scope and possibility. I don't think I could have said it better. I too grew up relatively poor, in a hick area 30 minutes outside of the nearest white trash town, lumber yard, dying steel mill and trailer park. I never even conceived that I would be able to obtain the life I have now, not even by half. Outside of my school teachers, I knew exactly one person with a college degree (my father) who spent most of his life dealing with family members who attacked him for having one ("so Mr. College, do you want to join us for a family dinner, or are you too good for it?" was a common thread). The available options to me were so limited, and going elsewhere involved so much more money than I had, it was inconceivable that I would have a life other than what I had seen. I managed to pull myself up just enough to realize I didn't want to work low-paid hourly jobs and drive discount used cars for the rest of my life and enrolled in the local Community College to try and learn a trade. As it so happens, my wife grew up in a newly wealthy family (her almost entirely uneducated father made a boat load during a housing boom in his native country), and simply "knew" how to operate in the upper-middle class. I met her while she was studying English at the same College as an international student (with the insane international student tuition paid for out of her own pocket). She simply had the cognitive tools to know how to make good money management decisions, how to buy things and haggle for good value, how to represent herself (even as a foreigner) so she'd end up paying the middle-class price for things instead of the poor person's price for things (one of the first lessons I learned, turns out it's cheaper to be richer): An example: I grew up where everyone around me bought used cars, some junk, some okay, all had expensive maintenance issues within the first year or two...but it's just what people did. The redneck with 20 cars in his yard? That's because he figures he can by 3 cars at $100 a piece and cannibalize (with hundreds of his own labor hours on top of any extra parts he needs to buy) them to make one good car he can drive for a couple months. My wife was able to demonstrate that people like my parents, were spending on average, much more per mile over the life of their used car than we would if we bought a cheap new car with a reputation for high reliability. I still drive that same car 11 years later. My current cost per mile, even with high gas prices, is something like $.18 a mile. My parents spend something like $.50-.60 per mile. And on and on and on. It was an entirely new way of looking at the world that simply never occurred to me or it appears anybody else around me. Recently, one of my old friends from my hometown was up in a fit that a sweet lease he has on a basement apartment is going to be up in 2 years. This was a problem because he couldn't figure out how to afford the higher rental price that the market had gone to in the last 5 years and thought he might have to move out of state (another strange compunction I'll get to in a minute). I asked him, "wouldn't you be making more money via raises or a new job by then?". "I'm not qualified to get any of the jobs around here, the closest one I could find required at least an Associates Degree or a Certification." So given a 2 year lead, it never occurred to him that he could simply solve his entire issue by getting some education or a couple of quick certificates out of the way. Worse, and I've found this as very common where I come from, pointing out these simple facts generates lots of very aggressive resistance. The other strange obsession I've found is the "solution" some find in poor areas or "chasing expenses down". This means that, stuck in a job that's paid the same for the last 10 years, and costs rising, they can no longer afford to stay in their home areas. So the solution is to move to an area that has a lower cost of living -- of course without regard for the lack of jobs. They try and and "chase" down expenses. This is of course opposite of moving to an expensive city, making much more money only to have it gobbled up by very high living expenses...except in an expensive city, the opportunity to keep moving up ahead of the rising expense curve actually exists. You can't chase down expenses forever, eventually you find yourself in an area with no jobs and miles and miles of endless 4th hand trailer homes and no opportunity to chase expenses down even further. Being poor without access to what people with money actually do with their money (and how they come about that money) is very very hard for a young person to figure a way out of on their own. It's why poverty is systemic in many areas and the examples that are shown: boxers, basketball players, drug dealers, etc. are the ones kids gravitate towards because that's all they can see.

jurassic 13y ago
> pointing out these simple facts generates lots of very aggressive resistance. This, a thousand times, even from my own family. I've simply stopped trying to give advice.
- bane 13y ago
  I've had to make a personal rule to not get involved in anybody's life from where I grew up. It's simply too depressing watching them struggle with bad life-choice after bad life-choice, and only a few small changes would revolutionize their life and solve nearly all of their top issues. The next biggest problem is that all of them want to talk about these bad life-choices with me, but don't want to hear the correct choice.
beat 13y ago
Makes me think of another useful piece of advice... marry well. I married into upper middle class as well, and my wife has different and useful values. But yes, the short-term thinking and resentment of education among the poor is kind of amazing and appalling. My father, an extremely intelligent and charismatic man, called them "educated mow-rons" (you really need to capture that exaggerated accent). He worked for rich men, but had nothing but contempt for them. If he had applied himself productively, he could have been very successful and wealthy. Instead, his life was a total failure due to shortsighted and self-destructive behavior. If there's one thing I learned from watching him, it's the difference between working hard and working smart. Now, I see my sister choosing to live in the redneck boondocks, constantly ground down by poverty and bad decisions. She's also very bright and could have been successful in another context, but she likes her country living. Unfortunately, she's surrounded by idiots. Everyone with that critical combination of talent and ambition simply leaves rural America and goes somewhere that they have a chance. Recently, she tried to talk me into investing in a business idea she had - something that, done right, could turn into a comfortable living. But instead, she and her (even brighter) daughter polished up a bunch of wishful-thinking hyperoptimized numbers to convince themselves they could make six figures at what I think is a $30k business, devised a terrible plan to get there, and then got all butt-hurt whenever my other sister and me tried to make it realistic. And of course, she resents me for not tossing her $10k to squander. Such is the life of poverty - even otherwise intelligent people get into a cycle of terrible decisions.

king_jester 13y ago

> Then again, as a political liberal, I tend to say an un-liberal thing when talking about income distribution... income isn't distributed evenly, but neither is talent. Mediocre people don't advance society. They tend to stay where they started (which explains a lot of management mediocrity - some are born into positions of privilege, but lack the talent to do anything with it but maintain the status quo). The way to maximize success for society as a whole is to maximize the opportunity of its most talented members, by eliminating cultural and social barriers to success. I tend to take the another point of view on this: a society structured in a way that denies determination to individuals and communities because those people/communities are perceived to be untalented or unworthy is a society that perpetuates injustice and perpetuates and creates institutionalized class divisions. > The way to maximize success for society as a whole is to maximize the opportunity of its most talented members, by eliminating cultural and social barriers to success. Is this really true? If we ignore the problems of the average person or community do we really advance society? In a lot of ways western societies now turn a blind eye to class divisions, racism, sexism, etc. Can we say as a society this treatment really advances things? Is advancement for some really a society-wide advancement?

beat 13y ago
I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. Agreed. > I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. I think this might depend on how we are defining talent. Ultimately people have worth even if they don't meet any definition of talent just by virtue of being a human being. > "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). How exactly are we defining talent here? It seems like you would see some people as not having said talent and that those people wouldn't contribute to the advancement of society. However I would view such a definition of talent as an institutional barrier. There are a wide variety of people with different interest, skills, abilities, disabilities, and levels of function. That some of these people don't meet a definition of talent or, because of the way such a definition is crafted, cannot be talented is a really limiting factor for the success of society. Again, has society really advanced so long as there are classes in which people are viewed as less useful than other people? Promoting the value value, even if just implicitly, of some groups over others is a part of systemic, institutional barriers. > To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average. I'm not really sure how this could be qualified. Social revolutions and changes aren't just the result of a few key individuals and there has been a tendency to ignore those people who have participated in such social change based on who they are or the kind of work they performed, or possibly the work they did not or could not do.