Game journalism backlash - the microcosm theory

[rhinohelix]

Nope. I think you are framing my statements inside your assumptions. I never said anything about preventing parents from doing anything. I was just talking very generically about equality of opportunity.

People have a natural desire to strive for improvement in their own circumstances and the circumstances of their family. At a micro focus, just looking at individuals and families, this is a good thing. At a macro level, looking at whole societies and how they develop over time, this leads to inequality and aristocracy. Very well meaning people will seek advantage and seek to structurally codify that advantage in the written or unwritten rules of society to benefit their children even if that’s to the detriment of society as a whole.

Society needs to take as many of these things as possible out of the hands of parents if they want every generation to have equality of opportunity.

Well, don’t take this the wrong way but I don’t want to live in your totalitarian dystopia.

EDIT: I also don’t think you really understand what “equality of opportunity” means.

[Kemper_Boyd]

It’s actually a Tortillan dystopia…

[carltonbauheimer]

I chuckled.

[Alstein]

The important thing to me isn’t that everyone’s on an even playing field, it’s that as few people as possible get screwed over by birth.

Right now that’s a bit too common in the US- yes, you can beat the system, but it takes luck and talent to do it. It should only take 1.

[Desslock]

Right now that’s a bit too common in the US- yes, you can beat the system, but it takes luck and talent to do it. It should only take 1.

Fortunately, that’s the case. Lucky imbeciles can always get rich, and anyone with talent and drive can be a millionaire by 30, unlike anywhere else in the world.

[ShivaX]

anyone with talent and drive can be a millionaire by 30

Bullshit.

[playingwithknives]

I’m fairly sure the American Dream was gunned down by police as it tried to leave a flooded New Orleans in 2005.

[Aleck]

Fortunately, that’s the case. Lucky imbeciles can always get rich, and anyone with talent and drive can be a millionaire by 30, unlike anywhere else in the world.

Talent, drive, some luck, and an utter lack of scruples, perhaps.

[inactive_user]

Fortunately, that’s the case. Lucky imbeciles can always get rich, and anyone with talent and drive can be a millionaire by 30, unlike anywhere else in the world.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha

[CraigM]

Fortunately, that’s the case. Lucky imbeciles can always get rich, and anyone with talent and drive can be a millionaire by 30, unlike anywhere else in the world.

Which fantasyland America do you think exists?

Here is the utter distillation of why I don’t pay much heed to your banging the drum for the right, because for many of your other assertions to be true, this one must be. It is a foundational pillar of your political ideas. Talent and drive don’t mean shit, luck and an accident of birth are far more important to becoming a millionaire.

[Kemper_Boyd]

Talent and drive don’t mean shit, luck and an accident of birth are far more important to becoming a millionaire.

Um, most of the “disadvantaged” millionaires in the US would disagree with you as talent and drive are the basis of their success. I personally think that Desslock nailed this one since those characteristics are the basis of anyone’s success, regardless of race or economic upbringing. Luck - in this instance - is the crutch of the masses.

[CraigM]

Bullshit. Certainly hard work and talent can result in success, but being born in to wealth is a far more predictable and easy path.

[Teiman]

Fortunately, that’s the case. Lucky imbeciles can always get rich, and anyone with talent and drive can be a millionaire by 30, unlike anywhere else in the world.

If you want to know more about it, you can google “social mobility”.

I just did that, and seems you are not wrong, USA is one of the best for social mobility, but my impression after looking at many graphs is that is not alone there

Image is somewhat related

USA in this graph is betwen Spain and China. And Spain is very far from Norway or Finland.

[rhinohelix]

Bullshit. Certainly hard work and talent can result in success, but being born in to wealth is a far more predictable and easy path.

My daddy always said it was just as easy to marry a rich girl as it was a poor one, too.

Also, its easier to accumulate money if you aren’t a feckless spendthrift and saving for retirement is actually easier if you, you know, save. I wish he had spent more time on the latter two items, though. :)

How Most Millionaires Got Rich

The study by Fidelity Investments found that 86 percent of today’s millionaires are self made and did not consider themselves wealthy growing up. Overall, the research revealed current millionaires are, on average, 61 years old with $3.05 million in assets.

Now if you are talking about something like the Forbes 400 and billionaires, that is more difficult:

Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really ‘Build That’?

…But a new report claims that the story of self-made wealth on the Forbes list is just that – a story. The report, from the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy, says that 40 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited a “sizeable asset from a spouse or family member.”

[magnet]

86% of millionaires in Fidelity Investments survey were “self-made”, not wealthy growing up

Actually, “eighty-six percent of today’s millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up.”

So take those results with a million grains of salt, because an astonishing 26% of those same millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy today.

[Incendiary_Lemon]

If you want to know more about it, you can google “social mobility”.

I just did that, and seems you are not wrong, USA is one of the best for social mobility, but my impression after looking at many graphs is that is not alone there

Image is somewhat related

USA in this graph is betwen Spain and China. And Spain is very far from Norway or Finland.

That social mobility data is fairly flawed. It’s capturing intergenerational churn, not families rising and falling.

[rhinohelix]

Actually, “eighty-six percent of today’s millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up.”

So take those results with a million grains of salt, because an astonishing 26% of those same millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy today.

It’s true its problematic but as I try to sort through the various definitions of “millionaire” (assets vs. investable assets vs. income) to come to confirmation or rejection of CraigM’s assertion, it certainly seems to be the balance of evidence points to inherited wealth not being characterized as “…being born in to wealth is a far more predictable and easy path.”

If there is supporting evidence for the statement, it would be easy enough to post/cite.

[legowarrior]

I find that at issue is not so much that smart hard working can rise to the top, its that stupid lazy rich people don’t seem to lose their wealth. Generations accumulate wealth, and pass it down, and you end up with a aristocracy, as much so as any landed gentry of the 1700’s.

Also, I’m all for income inequality and a meritocracy, but really that depends on everyone getting a good start in life. Poor nutrition, lack of facilities, and an unsafe living condition does not set you up to become a productive member of society. It sets you up for failure. I want to see competition and hard work push people to the top of their fields. Get the best and brightest. Instead, we have the people who come from families that can afford privilege take up top slots in industry or government. Sure, some can do a good job, but I think America is selling itself short when it fails the kids at the poorest strata of society, and doesn’t give them a fair chance to compete in the job market or get an education.

Things like good nutrition, preschool and safe environment all correlate with kids doing better in school. And kids that do well in school probably won’t go to fail, or end up on welfare. Instead, you open up a whole new class of people that could start business, become professions and in some way contribute to society.

[Teiman]

What I have learned in life:

Talking about rich people, or getting rich, is like talking about unicorns.

Also, you don’t get rich with your salary alone, except if you are some sort of sportman or similar. You can kill yourself with your job, and that will only linearly increase your profits.

If you yourself invent something precious, a corporation will get slighly richer, you will get next to nothing.

The “you can get rich” is a cindereralla tale to please poor people, to have them happy.

Nobody here in this thread is going to become rich, if is not rich already.

[ShivaX]

I keep hoping we just defund the entire federal government and close every agency so I can become a bank robber. Now there’s a job that would pay based on talent and drive. Don’t try hard enough? You die or go to prison. Try hard enough and plan well? You make a lot of money.

Or you know, you can inherit the money, lose all of it, get more, run for President, be a complete idiot in every way and trademark the phrase “You’re Fired.”