Perhaps one of the most important conclusions Piketty draws is the exact same conclusion Left economists and thinkers have been drawing since Steinbeck: this whole "land of opportunity" thing is bunk. Coolidge, Hoover and Roosevelt pushed real hard to make the United States look egalitarian because the Communist observation that nowhere is a meritocracy was getting dangerous traction. Doesn't mean it wasn't true, though. My economic studies have emphasized one thing: If you aren't focusing on getting rich, you're going to end up poor... because every force in the economy erodes the middle class. Aiming to preserve the status quo guarantees that you will eventually fall into poverty.
This hits close to home a little bit. I did technically graduate high school, but barely. I had to schmooze my painting teacher to give me a D or else I was out. I come from a middle class white family, and guess what? I'm doing just fine (understatement, in fact). Surprise, right? I can't think how shitty my earnings would be right now, given my early life choices, were I poor or from a disadvantaged minority. Which ever of these dipshits claim that white males have it tough, because they got wait listed at Harvard in favor of "one of those people" hasn't ever critically examined their own circumstance. By all rights, I should be begging for money, not buying small art pieces as a hobby. At least I know I'm lucky. That counts, right?
Speaking from a place of white privilege, I don't know that I can even answer authoritatively. I will say that in the conversations I've had with those less fortunate than myself, the discussion usually turns to "don't feel bad for your opportunities, but don't downplay their importance, either." Ex-girlfriend's little sis went to the same private school as Bill Gates. She had a friend whose dad was the CEO of Alaska Airlines (having been ousted from Northwest for fucking it up badly enough for Delta to eat it years later). That kid? Every bit as privileged as you might imagine.
Trying to parse all the things that count as white privilege is difficult. Opportunity is the biggest component, but I don't think it's the only one. I once got pulled over making a right on a no turn on red. From the left hand turn lane. At 2:00 am. After just having left the bar. Where I had drank probably 8 beers (mas o menos). And I couldn't find my registration. Or my proof of insurance. What happened next? The cop gave me directions, and sent me on my way. Seriously. True story. Maybe he was not very good at his job, or maybe I was a very good actor, but either way the default position is to trust me. I don't think a black guy in that circumstance would've received the benefit of the doubt. It's not just unequal opportunity, but also unequal protection that defines whiteness, I guess is my point.
I had an experience earlier this year where if I had been a black kid, I would have undoubtedly, absolutely, no-question been detained, searched, arrested and booked. Instead the cop told me to go on my way and avoid driving by the same location on my way home (I was heading out and he knew I'd be coming back). I think about that a lot. I think it's white privilege + pretty, tiny female. I was thinking about what if I had insisted I be arrested/treated fairly instead...which would probably have cost me my job, my license, maybe a few other things besides. It sucks. The person I am thinks I should have insisted I be prosecuted and treated - but the costs weren't worth it - but the justice system is fucked up. I take advantage of who I am and where I was placed in life when I was born into it and I can't help it in a lot of ways. It sucks. But to not take advantage of these things is to also allow life to fuck me up and fail me. They say it don't be like it is, but it do.
This discussion (actually any discussion of white privilege, really) reminds me of this piece by Christopher Guest, from 1969 :
Hey I like your last little paragraph, is it ok if i quote it? Not anywhere public but just for my own personal use/thoughts
Just learned about Hamilton's establishment of the first Bank of the United States in my history class, 20 minutes ago. My teacher explained it as "the first substantial economic decision to protect the welfare of the American upper class by screwing over the poor. Hamilton stabilized the economy by destroying equal opportunity forever. Welcome to America from here on out."
(edit: not to say it wasn't genius. It was genius, and my teacher raves about Hamilton otherwise. But this was a point to be made.)
Don't forget that Hamilton also ran the Bank of New York, which made the first loan to the US government. He knew banking -- because money is a great buffer against being dismissed as an illegitimate. For those of you not coming out of the 20th Century: it used to be embarrassing (on the verge of public ostracism) if your parents were not married when you were born. Hamilton's dad was a Scottish beachcomber in the West Indies. A perpetual state of debt guaranteed... something. Hamilton had the answers. Too bad the question was "how can we wind up the robber baron nation?" Aaron Burr killed him. Sounds noble, but Burr ran what is now Chase Morgan (the Chase side of it).
Haven't gotten to that yet in my class, though I'm two days behind on my textbook readings! To people unfamiliar with the story, it is absolutely vital to note that Burr killed Hamilton because they tried to settle their beef with a duel. yeah. an actual, fucking duel. Which Hamilton– leader of the first political party of the United States, father of the first U.S. Bank, and Washington's Chief of Staff after signing the Declaration of Independence– thought was a good idea. And then Burr ran away to Georgia.
The most important politician in the United States until Lincoln. His influence was less notable than a Madison or a Washington, for a variety of reasons (economics isn't sexy, the Federalist Papers were originally pseudonymous, etc) -- but you would still 100 percent have heard of him if a) he hadn't been shot in 1804, and b) he hadn't been born out of wedlock in the West Indies, but rather to some rich Virginia cotton-grower. And needless to say every American schoolkid hears a lot about him, although probably not anything very worthwhile.
Hamilton was a founding father of the United States, and played a key role which began all the way from when he fought in the Revolutionary War, which led to American independence. I'm gonna go ahead and make the blanket statement that his name was on every significant piece of paper until his political party (the first one ever in the U.S.) lost control to Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans in 1800– Which was Hamilton's decision as well, by the way. He wrote major journals (Federalist Papers) that put his ideas in the center of states' attention, giving him enough influence to take part in a commerce-related meeting in Cincinnati a year before the Constitution was signed. When nothing came out of that meeting, he made everyone promise to meet again the next year to figure some more shit out, and that's when they ended up writing the U.S. Constitution we all know. Then, Washington made him secretary of Treasury and he established the economic strategy, with the use of bonds as well as lies, that the U.S. uses to this day to keep its economy stable. I haven't yet learned in detail what happens after that, but I can keep you posted :D
You must attend a private school. My public schooling on Hamilton & co. was "Founding Father thus = Perfection".
I attend a very, very public school. Our textbook/AP test puts it that way actually. It's too easy to pass any prominent figure s perfect, when you've created such a cloud of significance 'round yourself you're bound to slip up here and there. Or, like, get shot in a duel and stuff.
You're in your senior year, then. Imagine things a decade later, when you're looking back upon your youth's schooling, and if you haven't continued your study of American history, things start to get hazy. I did take AP History, so I vaguely recall that I was taught some of the intricacies of Hamilton's bullshit, but the other 10 years of warm-and-fuzzy, feel-good American public-school/borderline-propaganda tend to dominate the brain. I do recall the Burr duel though, because that was straight up memorable. This problem is likely magnified in my case, as I've tended towards math and science pursuits, and the "use it or lose it" adage is always applicable to anyone's knowledge base. This has devolved into an old geezer style type comment, but yeah. I got a 4 on my AP History test 10 years ago, and I hardly remember a damn thing except for the fact that I got some college credits for knowing some things, once. I won't externalize all the blame to booze or pot (though I do enjoy flipping the bird to inanimate objects). Instead I'll mostly blame my own shitty judgement. I'd just like to point out that the capacity of the human brain is certainly finite, and everyone eventually runs out of neural pathways. Except for kleinbl00, fuck that guy/humanoid. I'm not going to tag him, since it's his birthday, and he/it should have the day off.
This article sparked some great discussion. A lot of the discussion has been based on personal experience and intuition. The idea that wealth gives tremendous advantage conforms to my personal experience and intuition. But personal experience and intuition have often led me astray. When I read an article like this, based on a study, I hope to encounter some evidence for or against my beliefs. An important tenet of rationality is to seek evidence that contradicts one's ideas, rather than confirming them. This article is fairly sloppy. Start with the headline: Poor kids who do everything right don’t do better than rich kids who do everything wrong This statement, though a bit fuzzy, is directly contradicted in the article: Authors do not write titles, we understand, but the article is hardly better. The chart is the most confusing thing I have seen in some time. This appears to show where certain people ended up at age 40 after starting in certain categories. It's a "before and after" picture, but we don't see the before. If we assume that "poor" people are evenly split between the bottom two quintiles, then the before and after chart for them might look like this: There's clearly significant improvement in their situation. 20% are in the top 20%, suggesting that college was just enough to offset youthful poverty. And this group is now underrepresented in the bottom two quintiles relative to the general population. Similarly, supposing that the "rich" belong to the top two quintiles, here's their chart: Dropping out of high school was disastrous. Only 19% are still in the top two brackets, what we called "rich." More than half are now in the "poor" brackets. I have removed the glaring arrows. The diagonal one makes a strange point: "Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively." I think we are supposed to notice that 14 and 16 are similar in value, but I don't understand why that is significant. The lesson I take is that youthful wealth or poverty remains unchanged when those kids grow up only about 15% of the time, everybody else moves to a different bracket, largely correlated with education. The paper cited in the article has a lot of the usual tedious academic dithering over definitions, but also some good data. Figure 4 depicts how sons of fathers who earn in the bottom 10% fare when they grow up, how many of them land in each of ten income brackets. Before looking at it, ask yourself what you expect to see. Ask yourself what you would like to see. Keep in mind that the "before" chart would show 100% of fathers in the leftmost column.Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong.
I completely agree that there don't appear to be any controls to validate the data. We are left to speculate on what they might be. It would be instructive to see what quintile poor kids who drop out of school end up in, as well as what quintile wealthier kids who go to college end up in. What we're comparing here is certainly not directly comparable, as there isn't any proper normalization.
I did not mean to impugn the data, only the interpretation. I think the data tell a good story. Do you have reason to doubt the accuracy of the data?what quintile poor kids who drop out of school end up in
If we found that many poor dropouts become rich, or many rich graduates become poor, it might tell us that there's more to the story than family wealth and education. But I think that the data provided already contradict the thesis that "Making good choices doesn't matter, all that matters is starting out rich."
I don't doubt the accuracy. I'm just not sure that it proves what they say it does. One needs to compares apples to apples. That said, I don't doubt for a minute that being born into a wealthy family gives one some tremendous advantages. But that's the problem. The conclusion seems self-evident, so rigorous controls are considered unnecessary.