Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
Participant[quote=bobbysources]
as far as I know, most successful people in US made it there on their own.
In addition to Obama, there are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,Jerry Yang, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Troy Aikman,Carlos Mencia, A-Rod,Jennifer Lopez, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kelly Clarkson, Magic Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Brad Pitt, Jody Foster, Jim Carrey. The list goes on and on.
the only exception are George Bush and the Kennedy’s.
I can give 10 “self-made” names for every “legacy” name you give.
the professor is an idiot. case closed.
[/quote]http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
Basically, in the U.S., your parents economic status is a better predictor of where you will end up economically than in any other Western country.
Incidentally, your list has some issues. Bill Gates, for example, was the son of a very prominent lawyer and a bank executive (and grandson of a bank president) – he was wealthy long before he founded Microsoft. Jody Foster’s parents were hardly poor, and she started acting at 3 – because her mother was a TV producer.
Warren Buffett is indeed self made, as are some of the other names (though it’s interesting how many of the names on your list are entertainment stars of one sort or another – one of the few career paths that really does offer the potential of rags to riches – but industries that are well known for being both fickle and largely based on timing, luck, and genetics).
Of course you can name many self made men and women though – in a country of 300 million, there will be many. But just 1% of those that grew up in the bottom 20% will every rise to the top 5%. Over 20% born into the top 20% will rise to that top 5% however – meaning that most of those in the top 5% were born very close to there already (if not already in it).
Given a fair economy that rewards work evenly, it shouldn’t matter which quintile you grow up in – 5% of each quintile should be able to make it to that top 5%.
In fact, this is closer to what we see in other western democracies. The percentage of people who make it into the top income bracket in, for example, Denmark, is little correlated to what income class they grew up in. Pretty much the best rise to the top. In the U.S., most of the time, most people wind up in their parents quintile, or one of the quintiles bordering it.
Participant[quote=bobbysources]
as far as I know, most successful people in US made it there on their own.
In addition to Obama, there are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,Jerry Yang, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Troy Aikman,Carlos Mencia, A-Rod,Jennifer Lopez, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kelly Clarkson, Magic Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Brad Pitt, Jody Foster, Jim Carrey. The list goes on and on.
the only exception are George Bush and the Kennedy’s.
I can give 10 “self-made” names for every “legacy” name you give.
the professor is an idiot. case closed.
[/quote]http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
Basically, in the U.S., your parents economic status is a better predictor of where you will end up economically than in any other Western country.
Incidentally, your list has some issues. Bill Gates, for example, was the son of a very prominent lawyer and a bank executive (and grandson of a bank president) – he was wealthy long before he founded Microsoft. Jody Foster’s parents were hardly poor, and she started acting at 3 – because her mother was a TV producer.
Warren Buffett is indeed self made, as are some of the other names (though it’s interesting how many of the names on your list are entertainment stars of one sort or another – one of the few career paths that really does offer the potential of rags to riches – but industries that are well known for being both fickle and largely based on timing, luck, and genetics).
Of course you can name many self made men and women though – in a country of 300 million, there will be many. But just 1% of those that grew up in the bottom 20% will every rise to the top 5%. Over 20% born into the top 20% will rise to that top 5% however – meaning that most of those in the top 5% were born very close to there already (if not already in it).
Given a fair economy that rewards work evenly, it shouldn’t matter which quintile you grow up in – 5% of each quintile should be able to make it to that top 5%.
In fact, this is closer to what we see in other western democracies. The percentage of people who make it into the top income bracket in, for example, Denmark, is little correlated to what income class they grew up in. Pretty much the best rise to the top. In the U.S., most of the time, most people wind up in their parents quintile, or one of the quintiles bordering it.
Participant[quote=bobbysources]
as far as I know, most successful people in US made it there on their own.
In addition to Obama, there are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,Jerry Yang, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Troy Aikman,Carlos Mencia, A-Rod,Jennifer Lopez, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kelly Clarkson, Magic Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Brad Pitt, Jody Foster, Jim Carrey. The list goes on and on.
the only exception are George Bush and the Kennedy’s.
I can give 10 “self-made” names for every “legacy” name you give.
the professor is an idiot. case closed.
[/quote]http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
Basically, in the U.S., your parents economic status is a better predictor of where you will end up economically than in any other Western country.
Incidentally, your list has some issues. Bill Gates, for example, was the son of a very prominent lawyer and a bank executive (and grandson of a bank president) – he was wealthy long before he founded Microsoft. Jody Foster’s parents were hardly poor, and she started acting at 3 – because her mother was a TV producer.
Warren Buffett is indeed self made, as are some of the other names (though it’s interesting how many of the names on your list are entertainment stars of one sort or another – one of the few career paths that really does offer the potential of rags to riches – but industries that are well known for being both fickle and largely based on timing, luck, and genetics).
Of course you can name many self made men and women though – in a country of 300 million, there will be many. But just 1% of those that grew up in the bottom 20% will every rise to the top 5%. Over 20% born into the top 20% will rise to that top 5% however – meaning that most of those in the top 5% were born very close to there already (if not already in it).
Given a fair economy that rewards work evenly, it shouldn’t matter which quintile you grow up in – 5% of each quintile should be able to make it to that top 5%.
In fact, this is closer to what we see in other western democracies. The percentage of people who make it into the top income bracket in, for example, Denmark, is little correlated to what income class they grew up in. Pretty much the best rise to the top. In the U.S., most of the time, most people wind up in their parents quintile, or one of the quintiles bordering it.
Participant[quote=bobbysources]
as far as I know, most successful people in US made it there on their own.
In addition to Obama, there are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,Jerry Yang, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Troy Aikman,Carlos Mencia, A-Rod,Jennifer Lopez, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kelly Clarkson, Magic Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Brad Pitt, Jody Foster, Jim Carrey. The list goes on and on.
the only exception are George Bush and the Kennedy’s.
I can give 10 “self-made” names for every “legacy” name you give.
the professor is an idiot. case closed.
[/quote]http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
Basically, in the U.S., your parents economic status is a better predictor of where you will end up economically than in any other Western country.
Incidentally, your list has some issues. Bill Gates, for example, was the son of a very prominent lawyer and a bank executive (and grandson of a bank president) – he was wealthy long before he founded Microsoft. Jody Foster’s parents were hardly poor, and she started acting at 3 – because her mother was a TV producer.
Warren Buffett is indeed self made, as are some of the other names (though it’s interesting how many of the names on your list are entertainment stars of one sort or another – one of the few career paths that really does offer the potential of rags to riches – but industries that are well known for being both fickle and largely based on timing, luck, and genetics).
Of course you can name many self made men and women though – in a country of 300 million, there will be many. But just 1% of those that grew up in the bottom 20% will every rise to the top 5%. Over 20% born into the top 20% will rise to that top 5% however – meaning that most of those in the top 5% were born very close to there already (if not already in it).
Given a fair economy that rewards work evenly, it shouldn’t matter which quintile you grow up in – 5% of each quintile should be able to make it to that top 5%.
In fact, this is closer to what we see in other western democracies. The percentage of people who make it into the top income bracket in, for example, Denmark, is little correlated to what income class they grew up in. Pretty much the best rise to the top. In the U.S., most of the time, most people wind up in their parents quintile, or one of the quintiles bordering it.
Participant[quote=bobbysources]
as far as I know, most successful people in US made it there on their own.
In addition to Obama, there are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,Jerry Yang, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Troy Aikman,Carlos Mencia, A-Rod,Jennifer Lopez, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kelly Clarkson, Magic Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Brad Pitt, Jody Foster, Jim Carrey. The list goes on and on.
the only exception are George Bush and the Kennedy’s.
I can give 10 “self-made” names for every “legacy” name you give.
the professor is an idiot. case closed.
[/quote]http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
Basically, in the U.S., your parents economic status is a better predictor of where you will end up economically than in any other Western country.
Incidentally, your list has some issues. Bill Gates, for example, was the son of a very prominent lawyer and a bank executive (and grandson of a bank president) – he was wealthy long before he founded Microsoft. Jody Foster’s parents were hardly poor, and she started acting at 3 – because her mother was a TV producer.
Warren Buffett is indeed self made, as are some of the other names (though it’s interesting how many of the names on your list are entertainment stars of one sort or another – one of the few career paths that really does offer the potential of rags to riches – but industries that are well known for being both fickle and largely based on timing, luck, and genetics).
Of course you can name many self made men and women though – in a country of 300 million, there will be many. But just 1% of those that grew up in the bottom 20% will every rise to the top 5%. Over 20% born into the top 20% will rise to that top 5% however – meaning that most of those in the top 5% were born very close to there already (if not already in it).
Given a fair economy that rewards work evenly, it shouldn’t matter which quintile you grow up in – 5% of each quintile should be able to make it to that top 5%.
In fact, this is closer to what we see in other western democracies. The percentage of people who make it into the top income bracket in, for example, Denmark, is little correlated to what income class they grew up in. Pretty much the best rise to the top. In the U.S., most of the time, most people wind up in their parents quintile, or one of the quintiles bordering it.
Participant[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.
For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?
Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..
If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.
I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.
[/quote]
You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).
China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.
We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.
No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.
Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.
Participant[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.
For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?
Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..
If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.
I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.
[/quote]
You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).
China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.
We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.
No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.
Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.
Participant[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.
For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?
Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..
If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.
I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.
[/quote]
You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).
China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.
We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.
No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.
Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.
Participant[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.
For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?
Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..
If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.
I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.
[/quote]
You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).
China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.
We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.
No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.
Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.
Participant[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.
For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?
Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..
If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.
I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.
[/quote]
You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).
China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.
We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.
No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.
Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I understand the two different scenarios. However, look at Obama. Single mom. There are many people that struggle but still have choices. [/quote]
And there always will be those success stories.
However, in the U.S. (one of the most capitalistic of the industrialized nations), vertical class mobility is far lower than in most of western Europe (where most of the nations have a more socialistic capitalist system). In other words, which economic class you are born into in the U.S. is more likely to determine where you will economically end up than in other industrialized nations.
Opportunity is there, but it’s harder to take advantage of in our system compared to many others.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I understand the two different scenarios. However, look at Obama. Single mom. There are many people that struggle but still have choices. [/quote]
And there always will be those success stories.
However, in the U.S. (one of the most capitalistic of the industrialized nations), vertical class mobility is far lower than in most of western Europe (where most of the nations have a more socialistic capitalist system). In other words, which economic class you are born into in the U.S. is more likely to determine where you will economically end up than in other industrialized nations.
Opportunity is there, but it’s harder to take advantage of in our system compared to many others.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I understand the two different scenarios. However, look at Obama. Single mom. There are many people that struggle but still have choices. [/quote]
And there always will be those success stories.
However, in the U.S. (one of the most capitalistic of the industrialized nations), vertical class mobility is far lower than in most of western Europe (where most of the nations have a more socialistic capitalist system). In other words, which economic class you are born into in the U.S. is more likely to determine where you will economically end up than in other industrialized nations.
Opportunity is there, but it’s harder to take advantage of in our system compared to many others.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I understand the two different scenarios. However, look at Obama. Single mom. There are many people that struggle but still have choices. [/quote]
And there always will be those success stories.
However, in the U.S. (one of the most capitalistic of the industrialized nations), vertical class mobility is far lower than in most of western Europe (where most of the nations have a more socialistic capitalist system). In other words, which economic class you are born into in the U.S. is more likely to determine where you will economically end up than in other industrialized nations.
Opportunity is there, but it’s harder to take advantage of in our system compared to many others.
-
AuthorPosts
