[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
She’s British. Not a good example in a thread about America.
[/QUOTE]
Jeeze, what do you need, a list? Are you seriously asserting that no one from middle or lower income families can become rich? Have you never watched professional sports, or don’t they get that in the basement? What OS are you using on your computer?
That would be a good point if every president came from the upper classes. Sadly for your case, this isn’t so.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme;13364262 ]
Are you seriously asserting that no one from middle or lower income families can become rich?
[/quote]
I’m pointing out that America is one of the least socially mobile nations of the industrialized world. Our myth about America being the land of opportunity is just that; myth.
[QUOTE=xtisme;13364262 ]
Have you never watched professional sports, or don’t they get that in the basement?
[/QUOTE]
Where did this ridiculous idea that left wingers live in their parent’s basements come from? My parents are dead, and they never had a basement for anyone to live in.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’m pointing out that America is one of the least socially mobile nations of the industrialized world. Our myth about America being the land of opportunity is just that; myth.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. So, that’s a ‘no’…you never heard of professional sports and you don’t use a computer with an OS on it? Gotcha. And offshoring is bad and tariffs are good because it’s asserted to be so, right?
I don’t think it’s necessarily about left wingers only…I think the stereotype holds for a lot of people with, um, odd notions. Ever seen the latest Transformers movie?
-XT
Watching a transformers movie is indeed an odd notion.
What do offshoring and tariffs have to do with anything? What do computers without an OS have to do with anything? As for sports; that’s just another example of how luck is the overwhelmingly dominant force in wealth. Most would-be sports stars end up with nothing to show for their efforts but a damaged body and neglected education.
No.
I’m not going in for DT’s “Amerikka is teh evil” schitck, but he’s right on this one. The US is on the bad side of the power curve when it comes to social mobility. Link.
That’s not saying there is no social mobility, as implied in your straw man, it’s saying we are not as good at it as we should be.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Intelligence isn’t a habit, it’s a trait.
In what way? I’ll agree that it’s easier to be paid well in the US - whether that’s for intellectual prowess or for, say, media or sporting activities - and I’ll further agree that a pool of 300M people will produce a larger number of people of a certain level of ability than a pool of, say, 60M. Is that what you’re meaning?
It was pretty horrible how those bankers and financiers suffered when their structures for whatever reason failed. No-one lifted a finger to save them from destitution.
NM…I read DT’s sentence wrong. It would still be nice if he backed up his bullshit sometimes.
-XT
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
What do offshoring and tariffs have to do with anything
[/QUOTE]
Nothing to do with you or the thread. Just venting steam. Sorry.
Because if you have an Apple or Microsoft OS then the founders of both companies are good examples of someone like JK Rowling’s.
I’d say it’s a good example of people being able to jump multiple classes on merit, instead of your assertion that the US is a ‘plutocratic oligarchy’.
Even if your assertion that ‘Most’ do, who’s fault is that? They have access to a lot of wealth. The COULD invest it wisely and retire rich. If they don’t, that’s their lookout, and does nothing to further your case one way or the other that the US is a oligarchy.
-XT
Ridiculous. Have you heard of a guy named Bill Clinton? He’s done all right for himself.
I grew up in Appalachia, and a lot of my friends came from poor families. As I said upthread, several of the smarter and more motivated ones have gone on to become quite successful. That’s not to say that there is never any luck involved. There is. Sometimes it helps to be in the right place at the right time or to meet the right person at the right time. But to argue that Americans are not socially mobile, period, is an argument from faith rather than facts.
Obama wasn’t exactly rolling in the dough when he became President, either…IIRC, most of the money he made came from his best selling books and speaking tours and such.
-XT
He didn’t.
Again, I think DT is closer to being right on this one.
Link. Long story short, there’s a hell of a lot of boys and girls who want to play in the pros. According to the NCAA, three in 10,000 high school basketball players will make it to the NBA, and even if one makes it onto a college team, there is about a 1% chance of making it to the pros. Numbers are more or less in the same ballpark for other pro sports.
Is this a problem? Well, if I take my hard-earned money and go buy a couple lottery tickets every week, hoping for lightning to strike, there’s nothing wrong with that. But if I were to base my entire life around an extreme long-shot that I could be rich, that’s messed up.
My sense is that there are a heck of a lot of boys who see athletics as the way out of poverty. (Perhaps I’m just hyper-sensitive to it because it seems to be a pervasive view in the DC educational system.) The reality is that there are probably two or three DC kids in high school today who will end up making the pros in any sport, and a thousand who are suffering both the delusion that they have a chance, while being handicapped by a terrible education.
If lightning doesn’t strike for these students, they are going to have a rough time finding good jobs.
Am I excusing them for not working harder academically? No. But this is a serious problem that is one part of the root of the social mobility problems in the country. It is such a pervasive and destructive view of the world that it can’t be hand-waved away with “those kids should pull themselves up by their bootstraps” type of nonsense.
The existence of extraordinary people like Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey isn’t a sound basis to deny the existence of a social problem. One might as well argue that the existence of child prodigies means that we shouldn’t bother with fixing the US’s poor educational system. “How can the school system be broken if there’s some Doogie Howser kid out there?”
Wasn’t really saying that, and don’t disagree with your conclusion there Ravenman…personally, I think sports are stupid and generally a waste. However, a larger percentage of high school students go on to college and get either a full or at least partial scholarship than of those who then go on to the pros. What they do with that education is, of course, up to them, but it’s there.
Again, I’m not disagreeing that upward mobility in the US isn’t difficult, and that the idea that we have the most upwardly mobile society on earth is, well, bullshit. It happens, but there are a lot of things that drive us down. I seem to recall one study that said if you are born in the lowest economic levels you have a very small chance of getting into the top 5%, and that even if you are born in the middle classes you have a pretty small chance of getting into the top 1%…and that if you are born in the middle classes you have about even odds of moving down from your parents level as moving up. There are, of course, a lot of factors, and comparing countries is generally an apples to oranges process, since countries at different developmental stages or economic levels (or homogeneous cultures or populations). That said, I’ve seen enough studies and have had enough experience traveling in other countries to see that a lot of the concept of US predominance in upward mobility (the American Dream™) is myth.
But this doesn’t make the US a plutocratic oligarchy.
-XT
Absolutely wrong. Many studies have shown that there is a correlation between IQ and income and education level and income. Mathematical, social and technical ability affects entrepreneurial incomes more strongly (http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf). Emotional stability and conscientiousness are also associated with higher incomes (Personality and Career Success: Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations - PMC). Obviously, there is also a payoff in higher income for people working longer hours. It has an effect not only on immediate wages but also on future earnings (More Working Hours Raise Future Earnings | NBER).
Um… what? Bill Gates’ parents were millionaires.
Not as far as I know. They were lawyers, and even upper middle class…heck, they might have even had a million dollars. But I don’t believe they were ‘millionaires’ in the sense that is normally meant as. Certainly they weren’t billionaires, and certainly he didn’t get his wealth by inheriting it, right? Or do you disagree?
-XT
I’m not sure what sense you think “millionaire” is normally meant as. It normally means “person with a net worth of a million dollars”.
He got wealth by inheriting it. He obviously didn’t get most of it that way, but he went from a family among to top 1% of incomes to… the same percentile.
I doubt he’s inherited any of his wealth, since his father is still alive and he was already wealthy before his mother died. It’s true that Bill Gates didn’t start out being dirt-poor, but it’s also true that he’s more like the salesman’s son who becomes a doctor than the doctor’s son who becomes a lawyer.