I don’t know about private schools, but my older daughter went to a college where lots of people had more money than we did, and my younger one went to a college where lots of people had less. The younger one had it easier. I think kids in a private school might have go the going home for holiday while their friends are going to Europe problem. In a public school the differences aren’t quite as forcibly displayed. Around here kids who can’t afford stuff like band uniforms can usually get them free - but I understand that could make them feel worse.
The steering you mention might be due to race, and it also might be due to lack of parental involvement. Parents who felt they got beaten down by the school system as kids are not going to be as good champions for their kids as those who triumphed over (or with) the school system. That might be a factor of the relative income of parent and teacher.
I’ve been to “no suits” style weddings, but I haven’t been to a funeral where a suit would have been inappropriate. Usually the few men not wearing at least a jacket and tie to a funeral seem chumpy and out of place.
For all the focus on money and earning, for obvious reasons pertaining to the economic part of the equation, a gentle reminder that the social aspect of class does not introduce or discuss money.
Discretion, tact and appropriate subject matters in polite conversation are markers of education, breeding and refinement. I can and do discuss all types of sordid ideas and politics with my friends that I have come to know over the years, however I know when to rein in or avoid vulgar topics with people I barely know. My husband, on the other hand I could strangle. Often in casual conversation with complete strangers, he always finds a way to throw in as a point of conversation the nature of ones business, to which he shares his current business and his earnings, which to me is his odd desire to have people envy or admire him. I dont find it admirable at all; and any other person of class would cringe or judge his announcements as one of a lower class for it as well.
So manners are important, but having the tact to not point out ones lack of them is paramount.
I don’t recall who said it up-thread, but BOOKS. Not even necessarily owning an immense library - between the internet and a library card to your local library system, you have essentially the sum total of human knowledge (and much of the art!) available. Obviously, “have 'em read lotsa books!” isn’t a particularly helpful answer, but the important thing (to my parents, and therefore to me) is to get kids interested in learning. That has been the real difference between the kids I went to high school with who are mildly-to-moderately successful, and those who are still in a Midwest prison town.
I also saw that someone had mentioned the Peace Corps, and I’d like to tangentially add to that - don’t discount the military. Don’t fall for the “Join the Army and We’ll Make a Man Out Of You!” line, but the truth is, there are some excellent opportunities for servicemembers; GI Bill funds, in-service education, multiple degrees based on training courses. There’s also a huge difference in the services; someone signing up to become an infantryman is going to have a completely different experience than someone who’s joining a Navy nuclear-trained rate. And of course, the difference between enlisting or going through one of the various officer programs, which would also depend on/affect college/university education.
All of my above post is focused on the education aspect, but there is the financial piece as well. My father was an Army officer for most of my pre-college life, and his salary/benefits put us firmly in the middle class (I’m not sure of the distinction between UMC and LMC, but I’d say we were more affluent than average). I’m a year out of college/commissioning, and I’m making plenty of money for my current lifestyle.
YMMV of course, and the military certainly isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I’ve been struck by how many of my (non-Army brat) friends completely discounted the idea of joining in any capacity without even taking a look at the possible benefits. It certainly won’t make you rich, but depending on the specifics, it’s not a bad way to lay the foundation for future wealth.
Too late to edit, but I realize that I forgot my planned disclaimer - obviously, the above post is all based on my (very limited) personal experience. I’ve been told I’ve very little knowledge of “the real world” based on my schooling and job history, but I don’t let the haters get me down. Still, grain of salt and all.
Assuming you don’t go off to war, suffer a debilitating wound and come back to civilian life so messed up with PSTD, you can’t find or maintain a job of any kind and descend into a downward spiral of drugs, alcohol, madness and homelessness. Because that also happens.
I’ve worked with a lot of ex-military people throughout my career. People of all levels. My general sense is that unless you did something of note at a sufficient level that was relevant to your civilian career, the vague military concepts of “leadership” and “teamwork” are largely irrelevant to the civilian workforce. IOW, like tending bar in the East Village, being a waiter, joining the Peace Corp and many others, it has the potential to be one of those interesting, yet largely irrelevant jobs people in their 20s do to “find themselves” until they realize they need a boring stupid corporate job to actually pay the bills.
Joining the Peace Corps is actually a pretty smart little career jump if you do it right. You can start out fresh from undergrad, and immediately be teaching in a classroom, managing large grants, leading health programs, starting youth centers, etc. You go in to a community with time, credibility and some access to funding, and ambitious volunteers can do some truly impressive things while their peers at home are still paying their dues in entry level positions.
Of course it’s possible to slack, too. But most volunteers do real work with real responsibilities- often with set hours, a boss, regular assessments of their work and the whole shebang, in a setting with considerable hardship. It’s not usually a couple years contemplating your navel and peacing out with the village people.
I don’t think the Peace Corps or military are “navel contemplation” jobs. If you are in your 20s and right out of college (or younger and contemplating your future), they are probably better alternatives than taking any bartender or waiter service job to pay the bills.
The thing is, there can be an opportunity cost. As you said, while you are off traveling the world, your peers are at entry level jobs in corporate America “paying their dues”. So by the time you come back, they’ve already paid their dues and are in senior staff or junior management level positions while you are just getting started. Plus you still have to “pay your dues”.
I think joining the Peace Corps is a bit of an affluent class affectation anyway. I think of the character Paul Rudd played in the film “Admission” where he’s like this brilliant guy from a wealthy who could have gone to a top law school but rejected that to travel the world helping people and start an alternative education school. Only people with money can think like that. Regular people view the opportunity to graduate Harvard Law and make six figures as a lawyer a great opportunity to not work in some non-descript, dead end, low paying back office cubicle job (or worse) for the rest of their lives.
Also, unless you are an officer in the military, as opposed to an enlisted person or NCO, I don’t think military service is considered much higher than working or middle class.
Anyhow, maybe the point should be to help your kids find out what their passion is, figure out how to make a career at it and teach them the discipline to build the skills needed to be successful at that career. Focusing too much on status and socioeconomic class has the potential to turn them into money-grubbing douche bags. So given that, a stint in the military or Peace Corps makes sense if they really want to pursue service as a career. If they are focused on being lawyers and bankers and businessmen, then IMHO it’s a waste of time (again, unless they want to purse the sort of law or business that is related to public service).
I agree with some of what you’re saying, but I think with some of the things you are talking about, regional differences may be in play. In the DC area, where me and Sven are, a peace corp stint almost seems like a right of passage for ambitious young people. Having that on your resume does can really open doors from what I have been told. Also, serving in the peace corp has a certain intangible cache whose currency is admittedly difficult to quantify. The military can also open a lot of doors; ex-military get first priority in hiring for many government and pentagon jobs. And man, some of those government jobs are a sweet sweet deal - and soo cush; I mean some government workers just have no idea what working a 10 hour day is, god bless them. And unless you do something incredibly stupid, nobody ever gets fired; excuse me while I wipe the drool off my keyboard.
I think it would depend heavily where you wind up when you get back to the States. If you get a job working someplace where everyone else built wells in the Congo and taught algebra in outer Mongolia, then acquiring these experiences alone isn’t going to make you stand out or do much for you.
But if you come back to your bumfuck town and sell yourself to the local government or a non-profit as someone who is special because unlike all the other applicants, you have actually left bumfuck and done some cool stuff, then you are on good footing to be a rising star. It may take you some time to move up socioeconomically, but this route may be more realistic and rewarding than the corporate, MBA/law school rat race, where you’d be competing against people who out-advantage you in almost every way.
Doing something that’s “out there”, like joining the Peace Corps or taking an internship tagging fish out in the Alaskan wilderness, also helps you to figure out your practical competencies. The whole “finding yourself” thing. A rich 20-something who doesn’t know what they’re good at has the ability to flit around aimlessly for a few years, because they have a support network that can hook them up with various jobs. He can also afford to be unemployed for awhile. But a poor/working class kid doesn’t have this ability. They have a limited amount of time they can devote to finding out what they have a knack for before they’re forced to hit the ground running. There’s opportunity costs in exploring this, but there’s also opportunity costs in working in a field that you’re not suited for, just because you want to make money.
Hey, if you want to be a corporate lawyer and have the chance to go to Harvard law, that probably makes more sense than joining the Peace Corps. My only agenda here is to combat the idea that Peace Corps service is some kind of extended vacation of primary interest to trustafarians.
If you want to work in anything international, education, public health, or social enterprise it’s pretty much a fast track-- indeed, I think it’s kind of a stealth job training program for rich kids, and more poor kids would be well-served to jump on that train. But it definitely doesn’t make sense for everyone.
I suppose it all depends on the sort of job you want. The flip side of working for a place is where you have to do something incredibly stupid to get fired is that there is a good chance a lot of the people you work with will be incredibly stupid. And when you work at a place with a lot of stupid people, stuff tends to get done incorrectly, late, or not at all. I suspect too that in these sort of environments, there are little incentives and maybe even some strict controls that prevent people from showing any sort of initiative. You don’t want the incredibly stupid to make decisions on their own because the decisions they make tend to be (you guessed it) incredibly stupid. So promotions (and therefore senior leadership) tends to be based on time served, versus on merit, ability, hard work, leadership or creativity. Which would imply your leadership will tend towards those too lazy and complacent to ever leave their cushy job.
For the OP looking to help their kids accent to a higher socioeconomic class, I think seeking out a job where you have to work as few hours as possible, doing as little work as possible sends the wrong message.
I’ve seen plenty of people do stupid things without getting fired in private industry. Some company-destroying. The London Whale, who lost billions for his bank, did get fired. The people who let him do it, nah.
But the guy probably worked long hours losing that money, I’ll give that to him.
I disagree with the last part to some degree; the government jobs are very stable and well paying - many people choose them over jobs in private industry for that reason. We have very different values; I do not value hard work, ambition, earning money. I take no pride in work - although I will give 100% effort and work to the best of my ability wherever I’m hired, I’m loyal to my coworkers around me and care about what makes their day better and that’s it. I think the only thing that matters is how much wealth someone has and not really how they got as long as it’s legal and moral. The self-made man worth 2 million is not better than the man who inherits 10 million - that’s just my value system. Similarly the person who can earn more with less effort is more admirable, more successful, to me than the person who needs to work excessively to earn the same amount.
The first part of what you wrote sounds pretty spot on. Sounds kinda like this . . .
That’s why there are jobs where Ivy League grads work 100 hours a week to get six and seven figure bonuses while there are other jobs where people who barely graduated community college can drool on their keyboard from 9 to 5 collecting whatever their pre-determine pay grade is.
Do you disagree with me? I picked two wildly different job scenarios as hyperbole, but I stand by my point. Which is that there are a wide range of different types of jobs which allow people to maximize the amount of work/life balance they have. You said you “don’t value work, ambition, etc” and that’s fine. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. So working in an investment bank, top law firm, Silicon Valley startup, top management consulting firm or starting your own business might not be for you. There are plenty of jobs in both the public and private sector that would afford you a decent, if not particularly lucrative salary with regular hours. But the tradeoff is that you probably won’t experience a lot of career growth and you may encounter trouble if your job becomes obsolete in 5-10 years and you have no other marketable skills or interests.
One of the ironies that I have found working in tech startups and consulting firms is that the people who work in those companies seem to love it. But yet by objective measurements like salary, hours worked, working conditions and career longevity, they seem like horrible places to work. Long hours, demanding management, usually Spartan workstations, and people either burn out and quit or get fired for one reason or another within a few years. And yet, some of the people who work in those environments insist how great they are because they like the challenge.
In my reading of the OP and subsequent responses, I am seeing a somewhat clear objective; however there is plenty of room for interpretation. If the objective is to find the best way to enter and stay in the $75,000 income bracket, I think federal jobs are a very good thing to look into. My point in stating what I care about is more to say that I am a results oriented person, period. I feel like one should get away from platitudes such as “work hard” and really do the research into what is out there and what is available, and what the people in the positions that open the appropriate doors really want.
The average federal worker makes just over $85,000. You can get a decent job with the federal government with an undergraduate degree. If you plan properly, your chances of landing a job with the government are better. The benefits are also excellent. It is one of the few places you can work for 30+ years and the federal government is not likely to be sold or go out of business. Furthermore, the beauty of these jobs also is that they allow people plenty of time and energy to really pursue other passions outside of work. Finally, gaining clearance levels makes you much more desirable to government contractors, and the currency of having a high clearance level is nothing to be scoffed at in my opinion. So, for all those reasons I think if the idea is the most risk free way for the children to obtain and maintain the higher economic status the OP desires for them, this is the best way I can think of to do it.
If, on the other hand, the kid has a hankering for working at a startup for whatever reason I don’t think that’s a bad thing, or a bad thing for them to do - I pretty much make no judgements about what anyone does for a living - but that does not really answer the OP very well based upon the risk factors involved in working for startups.