The Myth of the American Meritocracy

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Americans like to think we live in a meritocracy, where the most talented and the hardest working individuals get ahead in life. But consider the following:

 

-Income inequality is approaching levels not seen since the Gilded Age

 

-1979-2000:

-income of households in the lowest fifth grew 6.4%

-top fifth grew 70%

-top 1% grew 184%

 

-1979-income of top 1% was 133 times that of bottom fifth;

Today it is 189 times greater

 

-30 yrs. ago the top 100 CEOs made 39 times the pay of the avg. worker;

Today they make over 1000 times more

 

-Consider the 2004 presidential election: two blue-blood Skull & Bones boys duking it out; one of whom's father was a president

 

-Recent social science has tended to show that the increasing income disparity has not been accompanied by increased social mobility; on the contrary, social mobility is generally considered to be decreasing (I will cite some studies on this if anyone is interested)

 

-Social mobility from generation to generation is lower in the US than in other rich countries including Germany, Sweden, Finland, and Canada

 

-3/4 of students at the top 146 colleges come from the richest socio-economic fourth; just 3% from the poorest fourth

 

-The federal government is shifting resources away from Pell Grants; student loans are unrelated to family income

 

-In Ivy League schools, "legacies" make up 10-15% of every class

 

-Conservatives are calling for the end of the inheritance tax, which was created by Teddy Roosevelt who warned of the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy

 

Source: The Economist

[NoCalMike 0]

Umm, who in their right mind thought we lived in a meritocracy? Only in a few select rare occassions in that so, and usually it is mainly when some top invention or idea has been made up, but as far as the whole notion of "sweep floors for us today....be a member of the board room tomorrow" is a crock of shit.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Umm, who in their right mind thought we lived in a meritocracy? Only in a few select rare occassions in that so, and usually it is mainly when some top invention or idea has been made up, but as far as the whole notion of "sweep floors for us today....be a member of the board room tomorrow" is a crock of shit.

Well apparently a lot of people think so. In Europe, majorities of people in every country except Britian, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia believe that forces beyond their control determine their success. In America, only 32% believe that this is true.

[Guest sek69]

Well the conservative media likes to sell its audience on the concept that everyone has a chance in life, but the truth is if you happen to be a minority or female, or not of the proper sexual orientation you have the odds against you right out of the box.

[NoCalMike 0]

Umm, who in their right mind thought we lived in a meritocracy?  Only in a few select rare occassions in that so, and usually it is mainly when some top invention or idea has been made up, but as far as the whole notion of "sweep floors for us today....be a member of the board room tomorrow" is a crock of shit.

Well apparently a lot of people think so. In Europe, majorities of people in every country except Britian, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia believe that forces beyond their control determine their success. In America, only 32% believe that this is true.

I think people listen to a little too much Bill O'Reily. Their basic opinion is that anyone who is not rich or a major stock shareholder is in that position because they simply aren't good enough, LOL. Of course what else would you expect elites to say?

[Special K 0]

Urban cost of living has shot up quite a bit. If you work really hard your whole life, you'll likely do okay, but you won't be rich. Of course, if your company goes under you're SOL sometimes. Your retirement: gone.

 

Also, there are people who are just stupid, frankly. You can have tons of ambition and gumption, but if you're dumb, the only way you're going to get rich is as a sports player or a musician. And both of those take inborn talent.

[Nighthawk 0]

Drug dealing. That's the real American dream. Seriously.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

American standard of living, in terms of what the average person can afford, is much higher for all groups from 30 years ago.

 

Just because the rich have risen faster doesn't mean the plight of the average american has gotten worse.

 

A simple example: A middle class family in the 50s could afford 1 car. Today, the average middle class family has 3 cars.

 

I'll debunk this tomorrow with citations from the statistical abstract for ALL income groups.

[Special K 0]

Wouldn't this be somewhat explainable as:

A) The used car market was a lot smaller then and

B) Very rarely did the wife work (many middle class families have both parents working)

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The used car market really isn't an explanation, the second reason provides more of the reasons why. However, we must also consider that there was little in the way of a child care industry in the 50s as well (and that obviously helps 2 parents to work)

[Skywarp! 0]

We're also seeing that the middle class is starting to disappear as the gap between the rich and poor grows ever wider.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Oh for God's sake, the middle class is most certainly not disappearing.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Enjoy

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/income.pdf

[NoCalMike 0]

Another thing to consider though is it seems a lot of suburbian households are in greater debt these days, whether it be due to credit cards, or extremely shoddy real estate deals they are locked into to where they will never really own their house. My girlfriend lives in what I'd consider a middle-class suburbian neighborhood, the house are mostly 4-5 bedrooms, with the occasional 3 bedroom stuffed in there every 5th house or so on any given street. Listening to these people talk about their finances scares me. They are basically living check to check, and act as if they could literally be having to move any given week. Of course they are probably exaggerating, but it is kind of crazy. Also the whole thing about the cars, there is a difference though between having a car and owning one. Especially in today's society where consumerist desires have most parents thinking it is more important to make sure their toddler has Nike shoes, and teenager has a brand new car on their 16th birthday, then to teach them how to earn their own money and work hard. It might not be so much that people have more money, but they definately are willing to take on a lot more debt onto the scam called credit cards.

[Skywarp! 0]

I really only see two types: those that are living at or below the poverty line, and those that enjoy a ridiculous amount of modern luxuries (this second group refers to themselves as middle class, but they're actually upper class. No one wants to admit they're upper class except obvious millionaires). I guess there's a middle class out there; I'm just not seeing them, though.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well the thing is, a lot of people get by on credit card debt though. You'd be suprised how many people out there manage to buy a lot of lavish items for their homes such as big screen tvs, huge steroes, dynamic dining room sets etc......yet they don't have the damn money for it and it all goes onto a credit card to be paid off about $25 a month which just means it will NEVER be paid off. So they are basically just fucking themselves over in the name of consumerism. They froth at the mouth when a new credit card acceptance letter comes in the mail.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, America sucks. That's why there are people arriving here on home-made boats to work in slaughterhouses...

[Guest TJH]

Americans like to think we live in a meritocracy, where the most talented and the hardest working individuals get ahead in life. But consider the following:

 

-Income inequality is approaching levels not seen since the Gilded Age

 

-1979-2000:

-income of households in the lowest fifth grew 6.4%

-top fifth grew 70%

-top 1% grew 184%

 

-1979-income of top 1% was 133 times that of bottom fifth;

Today it is 189 times greater

 

-30 yrs. ago the top 100 CEOs made 39 times the pay of the avg. worker;

Today they make over 1000 times more

 

-Consider the 2004 presidential election: two blue-blood Skull & Bones boys duking it out; one of whom's father was a president

 

-Recent social science has tended to show that the increasing income disparity has not been accompanied by increased social mobility; on the contrary, social mobility is generally considered to be decreasing (I will cite some studies on this if anyone is interested)

 

-Social mobility from generation to generation is lower in the US than in other rich countries including Germany, Sweden, Finland, and Canada

 

-3/4 of students at the top 146 colleges come from the richest socio-economic fourth; just 3% from the poorest fourth

 

-The federal government is shifting resources away from Pell Grants; student loans are unrelated to family income

 

-In Ivy League schools, "legacies" make up 10-15% of every class

 

-Conservatives are calling for the end of the inheritance tax, which was created by Teddy Roosevelt who warned of the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy

If you are going to blatantly steal research from the Economist, selectively mind you, you should at least cite it:

 

 

Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend

 

Dec 29th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC

From The Economist print edition

 

Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?

 

THE United States likes to think of itself as the very embodiment of meritocracy: a country where people are judged on their individual abilities rather than their family connections. The original colonies were settled by refugees from a Europe in which the restrictions on social mobility were woven into the fabric of the state, and the American revolution was partly a revolt against feudalism. From the outset, Americans believed that equality of opportunity gave them an edge over the Old World, freeing them from debilitating snobberies and at the same time enabling everyone to benefit from the abilities of the entire population. They still do.

 

To be sure, America has often betrayed its fine ideals. The Founding Fathers did not admit women or blacks to their meritocratic republic. The country's elites have repeatedly flirted with the aristocratic principle, whether among the brahmins of Boston or, more flagrantly, the rural ruling class in the South. Yet America has repeatedly succeeded in living up to its best self, and today most Americans believe that their country still does a reasonable job of providing opportunities for everybody, including blacks and women. In Europe, majorities of people in every country except Britain, the Czech Republic and Slovakia believe that forces beyond their personal control determine their success. In America only 32% take such a fatalistic view.

 

America's economy

 

But are they right? A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.

 

The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth.

 

Thirty years ago the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives was $1.3m: 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is $37.5m: over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker. In 2001 the top 1% of households earned 20% of all income and held 33.4% of all net worth. Not since pre-Depression days has the top 1% taken such a big whack.

 

More dynastic than dynamic

 

Most Americans see nothing wrong with inequality of income so long as it comes with plenty of social mobility: it is simply the price paid for a dynamic economy. But the new rise in inequality does not seem to have come with a commensurate rise in mobility. There may even have been a fall.

 

The most vivid evidence of social sclerosis comes from politics. A country where every child is supposed to be able to dream of becoming president is beginning to produce a self-perpetuating political elite. George Bush is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator, and the sprig of America's business aristocracy. John Kerry, thanks to a rich wife, is the richest man in a Senate full of plutocrats. He is also a Boston brahmin, educated at St Paul's, a posh private school, and Yale—where, like the Bushes, he belonged to the ultra-select Skull and Bones society.

 

Mr Kerry's predecessor as the Democrats' presidential nominee, Al Gore, was the son of a senator. Mr Gore, too, was educated at a posh private school, St Albans, and then at Harvard. And Mr Kerry's main challenger from the left of his party? Howard Brush Dean was the product of the same blue-blooded world of private schools and unchanging middle names as Mr Bush (one of Mr Bush's grandmothers was even a bridesmaid to one of Mr Dean's). Mr Dean grew up in the Hamptons and on New York's Park Avenue.

 

The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite—and its growing grip on the political system—is how little comment it arouses. Britain would be in high dudgeon if its party leaders all came from Eton and Harrow. Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.

 

It's sticky out there

 

All this may sound a bit impressionistic. But more and more evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much “stickier” than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining. A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth. Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter.

 

The Economic Policy Institute also argues that social mobility has declined since the 1970s. In the 1990s 36% of those who started in the second-poorest 20% stayed put, compared with 28% in the 1970s and 32% in the 1980s. In the 1970s 12% of the population moved from the bottom fifth to either the fourth or the top fifth. In the 1980s and 1990s the figures shrank to below 11% for both decades. The figure for those who stayed in the top fifth increased slightly but steadily over the three decades, reinforcing the sense of diminished social mobility.

 

Liz, meet the royals

 

Not all social scientists accept the conclusion that mobility is declining. Gary Solon, of the University of Michigan, argues that there is no evidence of any change in social-mobility rates, down or up. But, at the least, most people agree that the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past two decades has not been accompanied by an equally dramatic increase in social mobility.

 

Take the study carried out by Thomas Hertz, an economist at American University in Washington, DC, who studied a representative sample of 6,273 American families (both black and white) over 32 years or two generations. He found that 42% of those born into the poorest fifth ended up where they started—at the bottom. Another 24% moved up slightly to the next-to-bottom group. Only 6% made it to the top fifth. Upward mobility was particularly low for black families. On the other hand, 37% of those born into the top fifth remained there, whereas barely 7% of those born into the top 20% ended up in the bottom fifth. A person born into the top fifth is over five times as likely to end up at the top as a person born into the bottom fifth.

 

Jonathan Fisher and David Johnson, two economists at the Bureau of Labour Statistics, looked at inequality and social mobility using measures of both income and consumption. They found that mobility “slightly decreased” in the 1990s. In 1984-90, 56% and 54% of households changed their rankings in terms of income and consumption respectively. In 1994-99, only 52% and 49% changed their rankings.

 

Two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston analysed family incomes over three decades. They found that 40% of families remained stuck in the same income bracket in the 1990s, compared with 37% of families in the 1980s and 36% in the 1970s. Aaron Bernstein of Business Week points out that, even though the 1990s boom lifted pay rates for low-earners, it did not help them to get better jobs.

 

There is also growing evidence that America is less socially mobile than many other rich countries. Mr Solon finds that the correlation between the incomes of fathers and sons is higher in the United States than in Germany, Sweden, Finland or Canada. Such cross-national comparisons are rife with problems: different studies use different methods and different definitions of social status. But Americans are clearly mistaken if they believe they live in the world's most mobile society.

 

Back to the 1880s

 

This is not the first time that America has looked as if it was about to succumb to what might be termed the British temptation. America witnessed a similar widening of the income gap in the Gilded Age. It also witnessed the formation of a British-style ruling class. The robber barons of the late 19th century sent their children to private boarding schools and made sure that they married the daughters of the old elite, preferably from across the Atlantic. Politics fell into the hands of the members of a limited circle—so much so that the Senate was known as the millionaires' club.

 

Yet the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a concerted attempt to prevent America from degenerating into a class-based society. Progressive politicians improved state education. Philanthropists—many of them the robber barons reborn in new guise—tried to provide ladders to help the lads-o'-parts (Andrew Carnegie poured millions into free libraries). Such reforms were motivated partly out of a desire to do good works and partly out of a real fear of the implications of class-based society. Teddy Roosevelt advocated an inheritance tax because he thought that huge inherited fortunes would ruin the character of the republic. James Conant, the president of Harvard in 1933-53, advocated radical educational reform—particularly the transformation of his own university into a meritocracy—in order to prevent America from producing an aristocracy.

 

Pushy parents, driven brats

 

The evils that Roosevelt and Conant worried about are clearly beginning to reappear. But so far there are few signs of a reform movement. Why not?

 

The main reason may be a paradoxical one: because the meritocratic revolution of the first half of the 20th century has been at least half successful. Members of the American elite live in an intensely competitive universe. As children, they are ferried from piano lessons to ballet lessons to early-reading classes. As adolescents, they cram in as much after-school coaching as possible. As students, they compete to get into the best graduate schools. As young professionals, they burn the midnight oil for their employers. And, as parents, they agonise about getting their children into the best universities. It is hard for such people to imagine that America is anything but a meritocracy: their lives are a perpetual competition. Yet it is a competition among people very much like themselves—the offspring of a tiny slither of society—rather than among the full range of talents that the country has to offer.

 

The second reason is that America's engines of upward mobility are no longer working as effectively as they once were. The most obvious example lies in the education system. Upward mobility is increasingly determined by education. The income of people with just a high-school diploma was flat in 1975-99, whereas that of people with a bachelor's degree rose substantially, and that of people with advanced degrees rocketed.

 

Roosevelt's warnings go unheeded

 

The education system is increasingly stratified by social class, and poor children have a double disadvantage. They attend schools with fewer resources than those of their richer contemporaries (school finances are largely determined by local property taxes). And they have to deal with the legacy of what Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, has labelled “soft America”. Soft America is allergic to introducing accountability and measurement in education, particularly if it takes the form of merit pay for successful teachers or rewards for outstanding pupils. Dumbed-down schools are particularly harmful to poor children, who are unlikely to be able to compensate for them at home.

 

America's great universities are increasingly reinforcing rather than reducing these educational inequalities. Poorer students are at a huge disadvantage, both when they try to get in and, if they are successful, in their ability to make the most of what is on offer. This disadvantage is most marked in the elite colleges that hold the keys to the best jobs. Three-quarters of the students at the country's top 146 colleges come from the richest socio-economic fourth, compared with just 3% who come from the poorest fourth (the median family income at Harvard, for example, is $150,000). This means that, at an elite university, you are 25 times as likely to run into a rich student as a poor one.

 

One reason for this is government money. The main federal programme supporting poorer students is the Pell grant: 90% of such grants go to families with incomes below $41,000. But the federal government has been shifting resources from Pell grants to other forms of aid to higher education. Student loans are unrelated to family resources. Federal tax breaks for higher education benefit the rich. State subsidies for higher education benefit rich and poor alike. At the same time, colleges are increasingly using financial aid to attract talented students away from competitors rather than to help the poor.

 

Another reason may be “affirmative action”—programmes designed to help members of racial minorities. These are increasingly used by elite universities, in the belief that race is a reasonable proxy for social disadvantage, which it may not be. Flawed as it may be, however, this kind of affirmative action is much less pernicious than another practised by many universities: “legacy preferences”, a programme for the children of alumni—as if privileged children were not already doing well enough out of the education system.

 

In most Ivy League institutions, the eight supposedly most select universities of the north-east, “legacies” make up between 10% and 15% of every class. At Harvard they are over three times more likely to be admitted than others. The students in America's places of higher education are increasingly becoming an oligarchy tempered by racial preferences. This is sad in itself, but even sadder when you consider the extraordinary role that the same universities—particularly Conant's Harvard—played in promoting meritocracy in the first half of the 20th century.

 

 

 

All snakes, no ladders

America's great companies are also becoming less successful agents of upward mobility. The years from 1880 to 1960 were a period of great corporate behemoths. These produced a new class of Americans—professional managers. They built elaborate internal hierarchies, and also accepted their responsibilities to both their workers and their local communities. But since the 1970s the pressure of competition has forced these behemoths to become much leaner—to reduce their layers, contract out some activities, and shift from full-time to part-time employees. It has became harder for people to start at the bottom and rise up the company hierarchy by dint of hard work and self-improvement. And it has also become harder for managers to keep their jobs in a single company.

 

There are a few shafts of sun on the horizon. George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act tries to use a mixture of tests and punishments for lousy schools to improve the performance of minority children. Senator Edward Kennedy bangs the drum against legacy preferences. But the bad news outdoes the good. The Republicans, by getting rid of inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt's warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. The Democrats are more interested in preferment for minorities than building ladders of opportunity for all.

 

In his classic “The Promise of American Life”, Herbert Croly noted that “a democracy, not less than a monarchy or an aristocracy, must recognise political, economic, and social distinctions, but it must also withdraw its consent whenever these discriminations show any tendency to excessive endurance.” So far Americans have been fairly tolerant of economic distinctions. But that tolerance may not last for ever, if the current trend towards “excessive endurance” is not reversed.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Thank you TJH, for posting the entire article.

 

To particularly refute certain arguments, please see the above link to the 2004 Stat Abstract, and consult table 663. This will show approximately the fact that we do indeed have a large middle class, and that the population is approximately NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED about mean, skewed slightly to the right (upper) because of a large class of mid-level managers.

 

Table 672 shows the distribution amongst income groups with dollars adjusted for inflation. All groups are gaining real money! The other chart will show that aggregately money is concentrated in the upper 5th, which supports the arguments previously mentioned by others. However, distribution has not significantly changed in 20 + years.

 

What I'm trying to say is that the pie we eat from has gotten larger and of course those that started with a bigger slice saw theirs increase. It's the law of large bodies, mass begets mass. But everyone saw their share increase. It's simple laws of finance, and why we decry (ohh, but the poor didn't increase as fast) BAH! That's not a good excuse or reason...Physically, it wouldn't HAPPEN, and hasn't happened anywhere unless market forces are usurped by the goverment.

 

The argument that was tried to be made by MISQUOTING the Economist article is simple blatantly false and misleading. And the Economist is a great rag to read.

 

Of course there's problems. But sheesh, report both sides.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What I'm trying to say is that the pie we eat from has gotten larger and of course those that started with a bigger slice saw theirs increase.

Speaking of which, now that there's not a Mrs. Economist on the horizon, have you been eating more, or less, pie?...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Considering the once-future Mrs. Economist was a few hundred miles away and conservative, I'd say I've bumped up the amount of pie-eating in the last few months.

 

However, it's been mainly liberal pie, which sometimes has a bad aftertaste. Cause then they want wealth redistribution or something.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If you are going to blatantly steal research from the Economist, selectively mind you, you should at least cite it:

Sorry, I meant to put a source at the bottom but forgot. I didn't post the article because I was reading the print version and tried to summarize it. Hell, it's not like I'm submitting this shit for publication anyway.

 

Also, Stephen Joseph, I didn't intend to misquote or mislead at all. Please show me where I did. I just tried to hit the main parts of the article (economic indicators, social mobility, etc.) & I don't think I misrepresented the article's central argument.

[Guest SideFXs]

You see what you want to see, in the numbers.

 

Of course this thread proves which group sees the glass as 'half emply.'

[Stephen Joseph 0]

If you carefully read the article, you'll find its not as dreary of a picture as Paul's trying to paint.

 

Yes, there are problems. What he's trying to do is not point out the flaws of the American system, but point to POTENTIAL pitfalls we should be aware of in the future.

 

However, the past, with its set of differing costs, constraints, and other things, is hardly an indication of how things occur now.

 

But it's meant to be a warning signal of something we may want to just notice, but NOT as how its been interpreted by many here.

 

Glass is half full people

[The Czech Republic 0]

The glass is half full of PEOPLE? Soylent Clear? Oh God oh God oh God

[Guest Loss]

Well the conservative media likes to sell its audience on the concept that everyone has a chance in life, but the truth is if you happen to be a minority or female, or not of the proper sexual orientation you have the odds against you right out of the box.

I don't know that I fully agree with this.

 

There are minorities in positions of power in the US government right now. There are black CEOs and female CEOs and the current security advisor is a black woman.

 

I don't feel oppressed as a homosexual. I think allowing marriage rights is an important issue, but not because it would allow more rights or government recognition. It's a symbolic victory, and that's the only reason I care about it. Otherwise, I know I have the ability to move up in any company where I choose to work. I don't have my own drinking fountain and I am not charged a gay tax or anything of that nature. There have been gay politicians and lawyers and physicians, just like everyone else. I can go as far as my talent, drive and connections takes me. And I'm not being naive.

 

We've seen the poor gain everything in America, and we've seen the rich lose it all as well. It's not fair to say skin color or sexual orientation can limit one's success at this point in time, but it is accurate to say that the poor have a harder time rising above where they came from and succeeding than anyone.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Thank you Loss. I've gained some respect for you with that post.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Thank you Loss. I've gained some respect for you with that post.

You can die happy now, Loss.

[Jingus 0]

I can go as far as my talent, drive and connections takes me.

I think that's the best single comment I've seen outta this debate.

 

Race, gender, and other such things can certainly hurt a person's chances. For all the equality and capitalist freedom that America can rightly take credit for, it's a shame that nobody but rich white heterosexual Christian males can actually become its leader.

 

In the big picture, I think a person's success in life is mostly determined by luck. You might have been born with the ability to be the best computer programmer or Wall Street trader or whatever... but those ingrained talents won't mean nearly as much if you've also had the misfortune to be born in one of this country's various horrific ghettos and are either in a gang, on drugs, in jail, or dead by the end of your teen years.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

<-- Also agrees with Jingus about the element of luck