How rich kids already won the career game

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yes-rich-kids-already-won-the-career-game-heres-why/

by violetmae • 15 years ago

301 263 15 years ago

michaelochurch.wordpress.com

"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for universal social justice."

so, did you just take poli-sci to learn buzzwords and impress dumb chicks? I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material. Before you call a fortune 500 company a "brutal authority" you might want to READ A FUCKING BOOK.

JonnieCache3• 15 years ago

>I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material... READ A FUCKING BOOK.

If you're so much cleverer than this chap, why have you not felt it necessary to accompany your ad-hominem attacks with at least a basic level of elucidation?

To the chap in question: insightful views clearly stated. I applaud your goals and I hope we can make it happen.

Locke16895• 15 years ago

Insults do not ad hominem make. Not to say that it was a good comment to begin with.

wwz• 15 years ago

He did not claim the author was an idiot and dismiss his writing because of it. That would be ad hominem. He read and ingested the article and then (rightfully) drew the conclusion that the author is an idiot.

ovi256• 15 years ago

Nice personal attack right there. Try addressing his argument next time. And FYI, sociologically speaking, most corporations are brutal psychopats.

nazgulnarsil3• 15 years ago

He didn't make a cohesive argument to respond to. libertarian socialism? I don't argue with fools, but I will point him out to others in the hope that they'll save some time.

those brutal psychopaths happen to be the most effective form of peacefully organizing humans to provide stuff others want in voluntary trade ever created. There's a reason we see thousands of years of conquest, then the innovation that allows large safe investment in wealth generating ventures and a subsequent explosion in global standards of living and the decline of conquest. you might want to try reading a book as well.

But who am I kidding? the historical illiteracy of the post cold war era is all but absolute at this point. Rah Rah democracy.

ramanujan5• 15 years ago

Absolutely agree with you that he should address his argument.

That said, this is almost too obvious to point out, but it happens to be true that the Soviet Union and Communist China (and Vietnam, Cambodia, etcetera) murdered 100 million+[1] in the name of "building socialism", and it is quite possible that the original poster knows people from those countries who lost loved ones to socialism/communism.

Seen in this light, I'm not saying that OP's phrasing was the way to go, but it's understandable that there are people frustrated by this all too common style of ignorance. It's not idealistic to actually support socialism in 2011, it's simply ignorant.

At the risk of reductio ad Hitlerum, certainly an offhand comment in favor of "rational, libertarian Nazism" would have dominated response to the essay, yet we find it acceptable for educated people to make offhand[2] complimentary references to a polar opposite ideology that actually killed many more people.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression...

[2] Or in this case, direct rather than offhand

Tycho4• 15 years ago

Psychopaths aren't a problem until they start killing people. Yes they have a certain psychological profile but if you take away the serial killer part, nobody cares.

wulczer• 15 years ago

Even though the comment could be more civil and less aggressive, it does point out the phrase from the article that struck me most.

Jumping from people with less economical stability who don't advance because they "spend the bulk of their time trying not to offend" and "don't offer suggestions when in meetings" to brutal authority of bigoted conservatism is a stretch.

In my book, people who act natural, take initiative and get things done deserve to advance. People who are withdrawn and only interested in keeping their jobs don't. And on the other hand smack-average performers don't get noticed and advanced, while silent and shy types, if they're doing a stellar job, do.

Maybe it's specific to the technology field, but I never noticed that one's financial wealth, or lack of it, influenced their carrer path.

edit: typos

calibraxis3• 15 years ago

> Maybe it's specific to the technology field [...]

Yes, the author wrote, "I would advise those who are sufficiently talented to work in technology, which tends to be more meritocratic than other industries, and to avoid old-style business. Beyond that, I know of no solution."

Though I think techies from wealthier families still have an advantage in terms of salary bargaining, and choosing what teams they work with. (Being able to walk away is a serious advantage. Simply wait for great deals to come along, then push in with whatever strength you have... bailing if you realize it's not a good deal after all.) Not to mention more leisure time learning tech from various angles, and safety nets.

lionhearted• 15 years ago

Naz, I agree with you that he's taking a position that's pretty uninformed based on history and I'm a big admirer of your comments and thinking, but I even thought "read a fucking book" wasn't the best way to present a counterargument.

People here are smart, if you show them cohesive analysis and can avoid emotionally loaded words, they respond to it. The Western commerce structures have produced more wealth than anything else in history... almost everything you interact with on a daily basis is a result of coordinated effort of these structures.

People don't even realize because they're surrounded in wealth - they don't viscerally understand how it got there, and how it wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the structures we've got.

For instance, in Soviet Russia the soda vending machines wouldn't give you a can or bottle (what a waste!), so instead there was a communal cup that filled with soda, you drank from the cup that everyone else did, and then there was a bucket of stale water you dipped the cup in afterwards to clean it for the next person.

Needless to say, this promoted all sorts of germs and unsanitary nastiness and lots of educated people forbade their kids from drinking the soda from the communal cup, whereas less educated people passed their germs around and got more sick, and had lower health and lower life expectancy.

But people don't read history, so they don't know about stuff like that. They just assume that soda companies are... what's the author call it, brutal authoritarian something? You're right, people don't study history. So we've got to be patient and work with them and educate them a little bit as to how things really are.

It's kind of a thankless job, but I think civility is the only way to do it.

yequalsx2• 15 years ago

In terms of material wealth Western commerce structures have produced more. However, much suffering has occurred a result. High levels of pollution, propping up of corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources for cheap cost, environmental damage done to poor countries, etc.

The costs of this material wealth have not been measured fully. Typically fields like economics only look at financial matters to determine that we are better off. The 'we' part changes depending on context. Are people in the Nigerian deltas better off? Every two years or so they experience a Gulf of Mexico BP level oil spill. Acidity levels in the ocean are increasing and then there is global warming.

In some countries life is good (generally speaking) but this good life does come, at least partially, at the expense of others. From my perspective there is a serious problem with capitalism and Western commerce structures. The problems seem to be getting worse.

nazgulnarsil3• 15 years ago

The author presumably went to college and in addition lives in the era of the internet. He thus has access to the most powerful educational sources in the history of human civilization. Many people simply will not be educated. Especially if they are rewarded for ignorance. There comes a certain threshold of incoherence where a person should be simply ignored. They are being disrespectful of their listeners. Of course then I see them upvoted on hacker news, where the average IQ is probably a standard deviation above the norm. In situations like this ridicule is the correct response if it alerts people who might not know any better from paying attention. I am over correcting for the lack of ridicule of stupid ideas that is the norm.

Fox News should be insulted and ridiculed, and so should similarly formatted ignorance from the left. There is no reason why simple fact checking and logical coherence shouldn't be the cultural standard in the age of wikipedia at our fingertips.

bhousel• 15 years ago

I'm legitimately curious, which fucking books do you think the author of the blog should read?

For what it's worth, I initially dismissed your comment as a troll, but was motivated enough by your replies to click through to your profile and read some of your own blog, and was surprised to find that you are actually an intelligent and interesting person.

See how just one carelessly worded rant can tarnish a first impression? Give the blogger the benefit of the doubt -- he sounds young, but not stupid.

omouse2• 15 years ago

Yes yes, we know how wonderful capitalism is at producing gadgets and it gives us a great show, but how much is it helping people really? Does union busting and making people work for the bare minimum they need to live make you feel as warm and fuzzy inside inside?

usejoy3• 15 years ago

Holly Crap. People that go around here don't question capitalism. They dream to sell their souls to the highest bidder. And than when water and food are so crappy (because of the corporate masters) they will give all money to health corporations. Oh my....

endtime2• 15 years ago

You're surprised that people on an entrepreneurship website are capitalists?

HelloBeautiful2• 15 years ago

Maybe he is surprised that young, smart, poor ppl are capitalists.

usejoy3• 15 years ago

No i am surprised that people with intelligence and vision for technology, don't think outside the box when is needed. For me there is no panacea for society. Part of my life was in Socialism, another in Democracy / Corporatocracy and believe when i say that in two cases for normal hardworking and talented individual there is no hope. The solution is to take what's good from both of them, for example public healthcare (from communism) and free market (from capitalism). And make politicians responsible for every penny that they are willing to take against public interest. But what i know...

btipling2• 15 years ago

That this comment has a positive upvote count is depressing.

rdouble2• 15 years ago

This seems totally fictional. If the deck was really so stacked, why would a super rich kid be working as an entry level analyst with the plebes in the first place?

robgough2• 15 years ago

Because then they've been seen to be humble enough to have worked their way up from the bottom... so they can all feel like they've fairly got to the top of the company, and earned it too.

The implication of this article is that the odds were stacked in their favour not necessarily just through explicit intentions of the higher ups, but through the difference in their inherent attitude.

rdouble2• 15 years ago

Well, that sucks. I thought the whole point of being born rich was that you get to do cool stuff like drink blood out of Abraham Lincoln's skull with Dick Cheney and the Winklevoss twins, and leapfrog the corporate ladder. Spending your 20s making Powerpoint presentations with the less fortunate would be a total bummer.

yardie• 15 years ago

The rich kid is also motivated to pay his dues. If he's installed directly into management then people will bypass him because he'll be considered a no nothing in middle management. If he works his way up, gaining experience all the while then it's a victory for him.

The big difference he, or she, knows exactly how long he has to stay in the at entry-level analyst position. While most people are promoted when someone in management feels it's the right time, the rich kid knows when to ask; not when a position opens up, not when they are asked, not when they feel they've learned enough, but when they are ready to make the leap.

One of these rich kids is a friend of mine. He's been hired and fired from more jobs than I care to remember. While my biggest concern is making the mortgage each month his is making enough to put in his daughters trust fund. Rent, food, and even vacation are expenses he's not worried about.

He paid his dues by doing his stint in different banks and now he's a family financial planner. He built his Rolodex up by being a performer; something that is impossible to do any other way.

forensic• 15 years ago

I know so many rich kids who say, "I didn't tell anyone at that job I was rich, and I worked my way up from the bottom. I wanted to prove that I'm badass and don't need my money to give me advantages!"

It's pretty much a cliche among rich people these days. By starting at the bottom they gain pride, confidence, and bragging rights. I remember this one rich girl whose dad was close friends with the CEO and who got a very highly coveted and prestigious position in the company.

She would repeat over and over again (I probably heard it 20 times) how when she applied for the job she hid her identity, because she wanted to earn the job on merit.

Naturally, her extraordinary sense of entitlement and being protected gave her tremendous psychological advantage over competitors and she beat them out.

It's just not cool anymore to be given something, it's much cooler to prove you're better than the poor kids by playing their own game far better than they can do.

Of course what these people choose to ignore is that the poor kids are living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford to buy new shoes, have to clip coupons, are constantly looking at homeless people and realizing that could be them tomorrow, etc.

The rich kids are just oblivious to the fact that rent, food, clothing cost anything at all. They are oblivious to the fact that getting fired in a bad economy can lead to homelessness.

hartror• 15 years ago

I think this article is preaching to the wrong crowd here on HN. A entrepreneur is by definition an upstart, an usurper who is out to break the conventions. You can't do this by being a quite yes man.

That said what percentage of entrepreneurs, successful or not come from rich backgrounds? This article's ideas would apply two fold to the startup arena where you cannot get anywhere simply by running on the hamster wheel.

ramanujan5• 15 years ago

Relatedly, 60% of NBA Stars are bankrupt within 5 years after retirement:

  http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3469271

  Filing for bankruptcy is a long-standing tradition 
  for NBA players, 60% of whom, according to the Toronto 
  Star, are broke five years after they retire.

So it's not completely true that wealth is an advantage that cannot be squandered. And in the US there was a saying that used to be more popular -- "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/11...

  But many more smaller figures of the Robber Baron age 
  made immense fortunes, took no care of them, were not 
  of a generous or philanthropic nature, handed the money 
  on as a life belt to their sons who then squandered it, 
  so much so that their sons returned to the shirtsleeves 
  in which grandfather had landed in the United States.

To the extent that the unusual combination of traits required to create enormous wealth is at all heritable, it is certainly imperfectly heritable. This is augmented by the fact that when you have large families, the wealth is divided among all children. So insofar as we think of income mobility as a good thing, it's actually abetted in part by highly imperfect heritability and large family size.

(Not driving at any particular point here, just some interesting links of relevance to thinking on income mobility).

jedc• 15 years ago

I have a friend who worked for a "wealth management" firm here in Europe, and they had code names for all of their clients for privacy.

One of his clients asked for the code name "962" because that was the year the family had made their fortume. (!)

But as my friend told me, one of the main reasons they were able to keep the money in the family is that the vast majority of it passed to the eldest son, with other children getting only very little. It'd be interesting to know the relative entrepreneurial nature of kids that grow up wealthy, but don't get any real money.

smackfu2• 15 years ago

"NBA star" != "NBA players"

barrkel3• 15 years ago

Note that in more rigid societies in particular, wealth can be somewhat uncorrelated with status. Being the child of a notable family with a lot of connections can give one more opportunities, even if the family (or that branch of it) is not actually very well off.

Re sports players going broke, I think that's because they acquire a lifestyle proportionate to their income at an age when they're too young to understand that their lifetime income is front-loaded. For the first 5 or 10 years of their career, they only move up in value and income; they're not fully aware that they're going to fall off an income cliff, and they ought to be spending no more than 10 to 20% of what they earn on consumption.

te_chris• 15 years ago

(paraphrasing but) "There is nothing so easily parted as a fool and his money".

The NBA thing makes perfect sense to me. I see a lot of (god I hate the term but it has the meaning I want to convey) "Nouveau Riche" here in NZ who just blow it on the stupidest stuff. All that really shows is that there are two aspects to having money 1. Having the ability and freedom to make consumption decisions that were not available to you when you didn't have money. 2. the flipside of that is knowing how to keep it.

I think there's a lot of education and responsibility that comes with being wealthy and a lot of people who have been raised without money don't have the requisite knowledge and financial management skills to keep the new found fortune that they never expected to make that they suddenly find themselves in possession of.

TL;DR not only are the rich richer than us, they're better at being rich than we are - because they're already rich.

ohashi2• 15 years ago

Entrepreneurs, hopefully/eventually, hire people as well. I am sure there are positions where this knowledge and understanding might play a role, for instance, sales. Depending on your own background, you may have similar expectations/bias as your own socio-economic group and be attracted to them subconsciously.

mikecane• 15 years ago

I recommend Lubrano's book: Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047126376...

yurylifshits2• 15 years ago

I see the similar dynamics between American citizens and immigrant workers. Immigrants, in general, are more risk-averse. They do not want to lose a work visa or to disrupt the green card process. As a result, they become yes-men and avoid challenging and unsolicited projects. Of course, it is not always the case, but I feel that in general Americans have some psychological advantage in career advancement.

gaius2• 15 years ago

It's more subtle than that. Let's say you get 100 risk points to spend. An American might say, I'll spend 75 points on setting up my own business. An immigrant would say, I've already spent 50 risk points on coming to America, I don't have 75 to spare.

yurylifshits2• 15 years ago

Non-American can not legally start a business without a green card or getting a work visa for his startup (extremely hard to get)

xiaoma• 15 years ago

It really depends on where the immigrants come from and what their values are. I've read that Chinese immigrants out-earn their US-born counterparts. Second generation Chinese do even better. It wouldn't surprise me if this were also true of Indians, Koreans and a slew of other nationalities, too.

scrrr• 15 years ago

Exactly same dynamics as in dating: If you appear like you've been single for a year, you'll have a difficult time. If you look like you just came back from the bedroom of a runway model you'll be surrounded by women.

The key here is attitude. While your upbringing influences that, you can always make a choice to be the relaxed rich kid. Even if your parents' income says differently.

paolomaffei2• 15 years ago

Why down voting?

paolomaffei2• 15 years ago

Die HN die, the parent comment was -2 when I posted my question.

JonnieCache3• 15 years ago

Yep. This is the same reason that would-be underage drinkers are always asked for ID every time they try and go to the bar, right up until the day they reach the drinking age.

From that point on you're never asked for ID. The bartender can tell from your walk, your gaze and your speech that you have it, just like before they could tell that you didn't.

Locke16895• 15 years ago

Nah, I still get carded all the time ;) I look like I'm 19 (or so they say). Although, it is true that the more expensive the place, the less they care. When I actually was 19 (and looked 17) I got offered a long island iced tea at a new place in the city that was ~$40-50 an entrée.

RyanMcGreal• 15 years ago

I actually had the opposite experience: I never got carded until after I was old enough to drink.

Duff4• 15 years ago

The bartender does that only until he gets busted by a police sting operation.

A good friend of mine had his nascent teaching career destroyed when he some confident-looking 20 year old chick dropped a 6 pack of Bud Light on the counter of the store he managed part-time. He didn't bother asking for ID (which he was typically pretty strict about) and was led out in cuffs.

He received a conditional dismissal after 3 years of probation, but explaining a 3+ year career gap ("So, why did you quit teaching after 6 months to fix cars?") takes you off the fast track.

juiceandjuice• 15 years ago

I once gave somebody my ID when I was 20 in order to get into a 21+ show. I really wanted to see this band, and I figured the worse thing that would happen is I'd get turned down and have to sell my ticket. So I went in, threw down my ID, and the girl looked a bit confused, but let me in anyways. To be fair, it was only 3 months before my birthday, but I did it in total confidence.

She probably thought I must be 21 because who would throw down proof they weren't 21 in order to get into a 21+ show.

Before that, I worked customer service at a grocery store for a while too, and it got to the point that I could tell who stole something in order to return it by just how they were standing in line waiting, and even if that didn't help, their first few words would give it away. Of course, that didn't mean I couldn't help them. My boss actually was really upset when I told one person to never come back... go figure.

fleitz• 15 years ago

This is pretty much why people with out jobs can't find them and the only hiring going on is for people with jobs. The most important thing in any situation is to act like you should be doing that.

ecaradec• 15 years ago

Another explication might be that rich kid not needing a job, do the right thing instead of the boss thing as they work lending them more opportunity.

'Linchpin' by Seth Godin defends this thesis that the job market has changed and that opportunities are given to (or taken by) the one that don't follow the rules.

The beginning of the article is nice, but the end nearly fall in fatalism. Saying that a sociological and behavioral issue is unsurmountable if you're not in the right dispositions first is just incredibly wrong. The world is changed by people doing things everyday even if the stars are never aligned; waiting a scientific approach to the world is very, very useless and a bit frightening too.

CaptainDecisive• 15 years ago

The article seems to me a just-so story. The author might be ignorant of the rich kids who end up as drug addicts or at the very least entirely economically unproductive simply because they can. They've got nothing to loose by not kowtowing to the bosses but nothing to gain by working hard either as they've already got everything laid on a plate for them.

However I think there often is something different in the attitudes of people with rich and poor upbringings. But from the article the kid whose parents earn $125,000 and who was bright and went to a top tier school will likely have all the doors open to him and the self confidence to take advantage of it. Any attitude difference above that level of income is mostly accounted for by individual personality and intelligence. Someone however who was born to a working class family and grew up surrounded by people in blue collar jobs might not have the confidence or social network to climb as high. Or at least the path is noticeably steeper.

And on a personal note, I disagree with the comment "He has the right air about him, and the same freedom from anxiety and free-flowing creative energy of a college student because, for him, college (i.e. the time of life in which most middle-class peoples’ lives peak) never ended." At university things were just starting to get really fun. I'm mid thirties now and looking forward to the fun that's around the corner. Not only is the glass half full, but it's champagne and the cute waitress is coming round with refills.

ignifero• 15 years ago

The drug addict richkids are the exception to the rule. You have to be very focused and sometimes oblivious to feedback from your social cycle make a quantum leap in careers if you come from a working class background (rich kids get it for free).

I wholeheartedly agree with your last comment. University student == immature anxiety. Being careless does not equal fun, creativity, reward and, most of all, challenge. It's a popular culture stereotype i 've come to hate vehemently.

robeastham2• 15 years ago

I whole heartedly agree with this, it also really felt like the post author was describing a really specific situation. Perhaps one where he was that middle class guy and the other guy was someone who just got the raise he wanted. I don't know, but the whole article came across as trying to blame failure to thrive on forces outside of one's control. In fact it might be more to do with bravery, personality and intelligence. I'm from a middle class background and have never had a problem saying what I think to senior management right up to CEO level, I am from a contracting background though and so perhaps I've never settled in one place long enough to get scared of losing my job.

Anyway from what the original poster describes I think someone in this particular middle class guys position would find working for a web technology company much more rewarding and fulfilling. Corporate structure tends to be less top down and more open and inclusive. For anyone in this position who is thinking of moving jobs perhaps they'd like to refactor their résumé using my new app:

http://www.mightycv.com/

Invites will be sent out soon.

robeastham2• 15 years ago

I'm guessing the downvotes are because I've crossed the line I was worried about in this post:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287643

Apologies, I really didn't want to come across as being spammy.

astrofinch• 15 years ago

"At university things were just starting to get really fun. I'm mid thirties now and looking forward to the fun that's around the corner. Not only is the glass half full, but it's champagne and the cute waitress is coming round with refills."

As a college student I often worry that my life will become more boring after I graduate. What's your secret?

donohoe• 15 years ago

{citation needed}

rickdangerous1• 15 years ago

I'll always hire a middle class guy with something to prove over an ivy leaguer. The fire in the belly is what resonates with me the most. They work harder and don't take success for granted.

ig13• 15 years ago

Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK there's no statistical difference between earnings 3.5 years after university graduation due to parental background once you adjust for university/degree subject.

(children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go into good universities or study high-earning subjects, but if they do then they'll earn as much as their better off peers)

arethuza• 15 years ago

In some areas (e.g. law) I wouldn't expect there to be much difference in that time - in Scotland at least, 3.5 years after you graduate with a law degree you've only been qualified for 6 months! (The law degree is followed by a postgraduate course for a year then two years training before you qualify).

I'd be interested to see the results for 10 years after graduating!

ig13• 15 years ago

Only a tiny percentage of law graduates go onto become lawyers (<10%), so it's probably doesn't have a significant impact on the overall data even for law degrees.

Certainly it's possible that in some careers that there is a divide, but due to the the careers not being common that it doesn't show up in the stats. But there's no evidence this is the case.

notahacker• 15 years ago

That's quite an interesting observation I don't seem to have seen trumpeted (enough) during the battles over tuition fee increases. Do you have a citation for it?

ig13• 15 years ago

I don't have the citation to hand, but I'm pretty sure the research came from the Sutton Trust who specialize in this area.

yummyfajitas3• 15 years ago

That's remarkable - do you have a source with more info?

Eliezer2• 15 years ago

I notice that I am confused, and echo the "citation needed".

lwhi• 15 years ago

TL;DR - Self-confidence makes a difference to success in life. People who come from privileged backgrounds naturally exude confidence.

watty4• 15 years ago

This was an whiny and awful post about "life isn't fair". The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills. It isn't discrimination until you start hiring the less wealthy (with less skills) because of the fact that they're less wealthy.

forgotAgain• 15 years ago

Agreed, there is some serious projecting going on here.

Duff4• 15 years ago

I think the scenario in this article works in some banks, law firms and other places that give a hoot about Ivy League connections and hire a few proles to avoid being painted as a company full of elitists.

Maro3• 15 years ago

So doing a startup is not about connections? LOL.

Having good connection is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to identifying customer pain points, finding VC money, doing sales, etc.

Alex39175• 15 years ago

"This was an whiny and awful post about 'life isn't fair'."

It wasn't whiny at all.

"The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills."

This was the author's point.

watty4• 15 years ago

No, his point was that rich kids have better attitudes, skills and perceived work ethic which is simply not true.

"Middle-class kids generally fuck up their first few years of the career game in one of two ways." - really??

grammaton5• 15 years ago

"The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence."

I think you missed the point of the article.

watty4• 15 years ago

Ok, how about:

"Show me statistics that say rich kids are socially outgoing and more confident than middle class kids."

tomkarlo7• 15 years ago

Seconded. And it's worth noting that the percentage of people in the US whose parents make >$10M a year is so small that it's unlikely that anyone knows enough of them to make statistically valid assumptions about their performance relative to kids from more median backgrounds.

You'd need to know or track 1000+ of those individuals to find statistical significant in a phenomenon that's probably a few percentage points in size. It makes the article very hard to disagree with in a concrete way (since I doubt any of us know that many trust funders) but I doubt the OP really has that level of data either.

This is just a long anecdotal gripe based on a few data points.

nostrademons• 15 years ago

Not a statistician, but I don't believe this is true. You need ~1000 individuals to find statistically significant phenomena in a population the size of the U.S.. Since the population of rich people is so much smaller, you'd need a smaller number of individuals to draw statistical inferences from it.

Anyone know the actual formula for statistical significance, and able to work out how big a sample needs to be for, say, a population of 100k?

zeemonkee4• 15 years ago

That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents....read some literature from 100 years ago, for example by the Fabians or other socialist writers. This little blasted thing called human nature always seems to screw things up....

Regarding the main point of the OP, I have a counterexample. I have a friend whose career has never taken off, who usually gets fired after a few months, and has never acquired any useful skills beyond blustering self-confidence. Why ? His father is a multi-millionaire who has arranged every job he's had, and bailed him out of every financial difficulty. He's never had to work a day in his life and has absolutely no ambition or drive.

That's not saying all rich kids suffer from what you might call the George W. Bush syndrome - but taking away the need to make money can also make people over-confident and lazy.

Maro3• 15 years ago

The point of the OP was IF the rich kid works just like the regular kid, then he'll still be ahead.

byrneseyeview• 15 years ago

One of the reasons people get rich is to provide for their kids. That's a more realistic motive than providing for society as a whole, and a more noble motive than funding hedonism.

I wouldn't want to live in a society where rich kids don't have an advantage, because that's a society with either debased rich people or no rich people.

eunice_chen2• 15 years ago

Hard work is very different from skills/talent or luck. The OP is claiming that the rich kid has a different/better personality skill set from the regular kid based on his wealth, and I disagree with that. I believe the rich kid has more opportunities, yes, but I don't believe rich kids are bred to have a better personality to take advantage of those opportunities. Therefore, it falls upon our society which looks at other factors instead of valuing merit for merit's sake.

Let's assume the two kids are just as driven as each other, with the rich kids having more opportunities. I do not believe that the rich kid will always have the social skills, technical skills, brains, passion, or dedication to take advantage of those opportunities. The rich kid may be a very mediocre person by merit, but because the regular kid doesn't have access to these opportunities, our society will select the rich kid for this opportunity because he looks good on paper and for lack of other merited kids to pick from. So yes, the rich kid will be ahead PURELY because he had exclusive access to an opportunity or because society wanted to pick a better resume, but NOT because the rich kid has a better skill set or is more well adjusted than the regular kid based on their wealth backgrounds. This disproves the OP's point.

tomkarlo7• 15 years ago

This only works if you can compare a rich kid and a regular kid who had the same opportunities, particularly educational but also in terms of their friends, etc. Otherwise there's no control. Presumably, we spend all this money on education so that it results in more success for the same amount of work later in life.

One thing I've noticed, anecdotally: kids who grew up in Manhattan have parents or know parents who were investment bankers, corporate lawyers, etc. This gives them a leg up in getting into those professions over kids whose parents were in more common occupations, if only because they know more about those industries. It has nothing to do with their attitude. I'm guessing that it's no coincidence that lots of successful actors and musicians have successful actor parents, too: Charlie Sheen, anyone?

danssig6• 15 years ago

>That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents

That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

zeemonkee4• 15 years ago

> That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural, technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but were not commonplace yet.

> I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so.

wmil2• 15 years ago

That's not really true. The problem is that the "blank slate" view had a complete victory in the political class but the research hasn't been backing it up.

Larry Summers and James Watson were both run out of their jobs for publicly asking the wrong questions.

With that background "libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach" sounds like a bit of a lie.

giardini2• 15 years ago

"I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature"."

Nope. There's been lots of good research in the last several decades. We are not "blank slates", behavior is largely genetic ("human nature"):

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-16/world/pinker_1_behaviors-...

gadders• 15 years ago

"Libertarian Socialism"? Best oxymoron ever.

warrenwilkinson3• 15 years ago

Its sad how inconstant political terms are. Liberal today implies support for a lot of programs it didn't in Jefferson's time.

I don't understand 'anarcho communism' -- wouldn't that be the overthrow of government to establish communism? How is it different than regular communism?

michaelchisari2• 15 years ago

Only to those in the U.S. In most of the world, "libertarian" means left-wing, and anti-capitalist.

erikpukinskis• 15 years ago

[On overthrowing the arbitrary authority:] That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents...

On my good days, I think your generation did a pretty good job. And your parents too. The amount of authority that has been overthrown in the last 100 years is pretty staggering. And I think we'll do a good job too.

The world is a mess. I widely despise our cultural practices. But I also see that there are armies of brilliant, good people working in the background to turn all of it around.

If you're talking total overthrow, then of course... tyranny will always remain. But I think overthrow for the better is a constant, largely monotonic process. And regression (for example, our collective environmental destruction) usually happens because the system is funtional, but unstable... people are living sustainably while living above a massive reservoir of free energy is not actually sustainable, because it's politically unstable.

So, while the system might get temporarily less functional (releasing greenhouse gasses), it is getting more stable (burning fossil fuels which are destabilizing materials).

Which is to say, I think we are overthrowing these arbitrary destructive structures.

njharman• 15 years ago

If you are so "controlled" by your generalized/stereotyped upbringing you don't deserve to lead/manage.

grammaton5• 15 years ago

Arguably many of the people who lead/manage now don't deserve to.

Tycho4• 15 years ago

tl;dr: people with FU Money perform better in their jobs

I suppose on the other hand you have to consider that rich kids have less motivation to succeed than middle/lower class people, if they already have all the material things they can realistically desire

(the article also didn't site any studies to back up its statistics or claims, so you have to take it at face value)

Maro3• 15 years ago

I'm not rich, neither can I cite evidence to back this up, but looking around in my circle of friends, I don't agree with you.

Rich(er) kids have just as much drive to work on interesting products, find new solutions to problems, etc. And they have the added benefit of not having to worry about making a baseline salary on the side, they can ask their parents to bootstrap them, to find first clients, etc. Sure you can say that there are some who are slacking off on their parents money, but then again there are also middle class/poor kids who don't do anything useful in life.

Tycho4• 15 years ago

Allow me to rephrase then: to the extent that lack of comfort/possessions motivates people to strive for better, rich kids will experience less motivation from that source. Of course they can always find motivation from other sources. I suppose you could also argue that everyone is motivated to maintain their current standards of living, rather than (or more than) elevate to something higher. So rich kids will find it unacceptable to settle for a middling income.

scott_s3• 15 years ago

Using an anecdote as data is bad enough. Using a madeup anecdote is even worse.

grammaton5• 15 years ago

"The difference is that children of wealth traverse it at a height of one meter over a mattress, while the middle-class and poor traverse it at a height of 20 meters over a lava pit."

I notice no one is commenting on this part. Namely, that for children of financial privilege, the risk/reward ratio for a career is markedly skewed compared to their middle class peers.

ohashi2• 15 years ago

What more is there to say? I think he is saying the same thing you are but in a more colorful tone.

wmil2• 15 years ago

It's largely true, but depressing and unfix-able.

It's really bad with jobs that expect you to "pay your dues" at the beginning, yet still socialize with co-workers at restaurants after work. People from a more modest background are seen as anti-social when they really just have a cash flow problem.

There's a negative feedback loop.

chernevik• 15 years ago

It's fixable.

Financial security and social familiarization aren't the only sources of confidence. Understanding of skills' value, faith in the ability to learn new skills, curiousity about what others find valuable and willingness to provide it -- no one who has these has much deep anxiety about pleasing the boss. If the boss likes them, great! If not, they're happy to move somewhere that appreciates what they add. Confidence is out there for anyone willing to learn and work.

johngalt9• 15 years ago

A rich child has a much higher standard to live up to, and much more to lose. If I'm an eight figure trust fund kid and I screw up bad I end up being middle class. If I'm middle class and screw up I end up middle class.

gamble• 15 years ago

> If I'm middle class and screw up I end up middle class.

No, you end up working a crappy part time job at a call center with no benefits and no future, desperately trying to convince yourself that you're still middle class because you work a telephone instead of a mop.

Tycho4• 15 years ago

To comment: is he saying that the things you need to do to advance your career inside a large institution are actually risky? I don't think so, it's more like he's saying the non rich live in constant fear of getting sacked for stepping out of line, and this fear itself stops them advancing their career, rather than the inherent risk of any career gambit. As such, his point is somewhat tenuous.

throw382011• 15 years ago

I know someone from a background like that. I don't think he's really smarter,more skilled, or even more confident in 99% of situations. But in those few it's like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - he can step out over the pit fully sure he'll be ok.

You can't learn that kind of confidence. You have to truly believe you will be just fine.

keytweetlouie• 15 years ago

Do you have any evidence or case studies to back up your claim? That rich kids earn more than middle class kids on average?

Symmetry• 15 years ago

Yes, being rich can make you confident which can do well for your career. But there are plenty of other unfair advantages that also bring confidence, like height or good looks. And then there are really horribly unfair things like intelligence.

TGJ2• 15 years ago

Well, it could be fair if we practiced natural selection based on intelligence vs. good looks.

drzaiusapelord• 15 years ago

I'm tall and am/was arguably somewhat good looking. I don't get many, if any, advantages from this because I grew up as and am a pretty serious geek. Now that I'm older I have better social skills, but because of how I turned out I never got the benefits of this. Without the proper attitude even looks aren't helpful. It took me a long time to learn proper social skills and I feel ten years behind my peers. This is typical in technology. I wont even go into how tech is this ghetto that rich kids never bother with anyway, they are just on the fast track to management.

On the other hand money is concrete and real. If I had 5 million in the bank my attitude would be 100% different. I wouldn't be considered geeky, I'd be geek-chic and eccentric. I wouldn't have most of the anxities I have now because I know money can buy me almost everything I need.

Sorry, but large sums of money are nowhere comparable to less tangible gifts like height or looks. One buys me a home the other maybe gets me an occasional second glance.

I'll also toss in that thinking of yourself as a social peer with your bosses is a huge benefit. The book "Outliers" explores this. Well-off kids are raised to be assertive and have a sense of entitlement. They just do better in life. They can defend these attitudes by saying "I come from a well off family, just as wealthy as you. I went to the same school as you and your kids and my parents know the same people. I was taught to get my way and that my parents will protect me with their riches."

Lately, coincidentally, I have a lot in common with my current bosses. The social parts take care of themselves and its a huge benefit without me putting in a lot of effort. I don't feel the divide between them and me as much as at my previous jobs. I have a small amount of savings that can help me get by if I get fired or laid off. If this is how rich kids feel at age 23 when entering the workforce then they have a HUGE advantage.

haploid5• 15 years ago

Seconded. The claim that height is some sort of social, sexual, or financial advantage is absurd.

zmitri2• 15 years ago

I think it's unfortunate that they mention rich, yet don't mention the advantage of coming from an entrepreneurial family. Whether rich or not, if your parent is self-employed or an entrepreneur it will have a huge impact on how you take on corporate jobs versus someone who's parents didn't start their own company.

danssig6• 15 years ago

I'm not sure how much that matters. It is something new in the last century that most people assuming "working" means working for some company, no?

zmitri2• 15 years ago

From my experience it matters a lot. When you grow up in an entrepreneurial environment you see ups and downs and realize and are less concerned with job security, bureaucracy, and more prone to innovate, or at least for opportunities to spin something off yourself. This article was written was the last century in mind, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

TGJ2• 15 years ago

Wow does this ring true to me. I'm working at wal-mart for gas money while going to college. I had a customer call and complain and I had to go talk to management. Such a scary ordeal since I need this job. I have nothing to fall back on, with no gas money, no degree. My fate is in their hands and that is the most sickening feeling I've ever had. But this is temporary. When I'm done with college, wal-mart customers are going to get a piece of my mind since I won't be worrying about getting fired.

The guy is right, when you have everything to lose at the slightest mistake, you don't take chances.

haploid5• 15 years ago

"When I'm done with college, wal-mart customers are going to get a piece of my mind since I won't be worrying about getting fired."

Right, because having a college diploma is equivalent to guaranteed employment.

clueless123• 15 years ago

As a citizen of both worlds, I'll say the authors story rings very true. When I first came to the US, I did totally entitled from years of being upper class in a small third world country.. it took me several years to realize that I was now a very small fish in a huge pond where opportunities didn't just materialized for you and problems easily faded away.

20 years later I find myself moved up to a pretty good on that big pond mainly because of good opportunities in the tech industry but I would strongly agree with the author that a lot of that success was achieved through the Mojo that a complete lack of fear of failure gives you.

numeromancer• 15 years ago

He missed some of the other reasons a son-of-a-rich is more likely to have it better in the workplace: experience with business. A SOR is more likely to have grown up around people who talk the talk of high finance, and have friends with the same experience. They are more comfy with those in the business, and those in the business are more comfy with them, because they can speak the same language.

My father worked in a factory, as a member of a union, and I grew up not having the first clue about how the market or business works.

In technical fields, those who grow up in the middle class probably know someone with intricate technical knowledge, and who is a master of their art, even if it is a mechanic, electrician or HVAC repairman, and have picked up at least the feel of the technical jargon from them.

Slightly related, on This American Life over the week-end, they interviewed several people who work in finance at some of the firms who were bailed out by TARP, and they all swore that they had their high-paying job because of their superior talent, and deserved to get payed their tax-payer inflated salaries because they were smarter than most other people. They all complained that Pres. Obama was a meanie to big businesses, trying to tell them what to do and all, and should just leave them alone.

michaelchisari2• 15 years ago

Much of this essay is based on the idea of social capital,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

I've found a lot of people, especially in the upper- and upper-middle classes, often deny the importance of social capital, but I find it to be very important.

Someone from wealth can lose all of their money, and still have the social capital necessary the maintain their class status.

jonmc12• 15 years ago

Its a good point - regardless of wealth class, someone with relatively less social capital may feel compelled to focus on building his social capital instead of focusing solely on the merit of contribution.

scott_s3• 15 years ago

My problem with the essay is that the author assumes complete causation between social capital and real capital. He goes from socio-economic status to personality traits without acknowledging at all what he has done.

Eliezer2• 15 years ago

Wow did that last paragraph ruin the article.

ShabbyDoo3• 15 years ago

When I used to interview a lot of college kids, I found that I could guess accurately within a few minutes of conversation which had lived in a dorm/frat house/whatever and which had lived at home while going to college. The differences in social skills and worldliness/perspective were immense. Was this due to the effects of being surrounded by a bunch of relatively ambitious young people or was it due to the socio-economic selection bias inherent in the decision to live at home while attending school? Although I have read nothing to back up this claim, I presume that there is a positive correlation between high family income and the decision to go "away" for college. Living with one's parents implies going to a local college/university vs. the one which is a tight fit with one's goals. Also, it seems that those kids who live at home socialize with their local friends who, more often than not by virtue of still living in the town where they grew up, are less ambitious and worldly. Causation is hard to tease out, but correlation is definitely present, at least based on my sampling from doing college interviewing in the Cleveland area (another cause of selection bias, of course).

clistctrl• 15 years ago

Very interesting, another single data point. My brother (went to school at the University of Milwaukee) lived at home while attending. Ambition has never been a strong suit of his.

realitygrill• 15 years ago

I've seen this to a lesser extent comparing those who go in-state and out-of-state, but by the end of college it becomes more what you've chosen to do at In-State U.

I went out-of-state, then moved back to live at home (HN helped keep me in a wider loop). Relatively unambitious fellow students were the most demotivating part of this.

mediacrisis• 15 years ago

I'd imagine this pattern would depend on locality. For example, I live in CT and went to school in RI. I chose to live at home to save taking out additional loans for room and board, but I wasn't really separated from campus life, or even college towns for that matter (My parents lived by an art school and a state college).

However, were I do to the same in an area with fewer educational institutions per sq. mile, I may not have had that experience.

ShabbyDoo3• 15 years ago

I agree. Let's take Boston as the extreme example of where one could choose a nearly "optimal" college while still living at home. Local availability of good education options coupled with the high cost of off-campus housing in the area probably makes the adverse selection bias I observed in Cleveland much weaker in Boston. In Ohio, off-campus housing is generally cheaper than living in a dorm room. However, I'm told that dorms are coveted at places like NYU because the universities effectively subsidize rents compared to market rates.

ShabbyDoo3• 15 years ago

Of the 100+ comments so far, relatively little has been said about the benefit to one's career of knowing upper class (or even just upper middle class) social rules. I'm not referring to the obvious ones like which fork to use at a restaurant but rather to the more subtle ones like what constitutes appropriate small talk. A 23 year-old from any socio-economic background might not have sufficient knowledge to contribute in a particular high-level meeting with a client. However, the kid from the upper class background is more likely to have proven in subtle ways that he is unlikely to be an embarrassment. So, the upper SES kid gets to attend the meeting as a learning experience. That the kid might be able to relate socially to the client (I went to Ivy XYZ with your neighbor's son, etc.) is icing on the cake.

nlz1• 15 years ago

This is dead on. I had a summer internship with a prestigious law firm. During the initial meet and greet between the interns and partners, one of my fellow interns admitted to not working after college in favor of "just traveling the world, surfing." To my shock, the partner was impressed by this answer. I was dumbfounded.

(PROTIP: usually "traveling the world surfing" is only possible if you are independently wealthy or willing to live like a hobo).

johngalt9• 15 years ago

Why would this shock you? Don't you find it interesting/impressive?

akronim• 15 years ago

"traveling the world surfing" is within the reach of anyone who can afford the initial airfare, provided it's to somewhere you can live cheaply and survive on odd jobs. Think Morocco not Maui, Indo not California. There is a happy medium between 5 star hotels and living like a hobo...

tomkarlo7• 15 years ago

The obsession with manners and etiquette is more of an upper-middle-class trait than upper class. It's supposedly driven by the desire to differentiate themselves from the "middle class". Quantitatively they've shown this is why you see more use of latinate words in that group (like "Limousine" rather than "car") relative to folks who are truly in the top 1-5% by wealth.

That said, I don't think this factor is an issue for just about anyone who graduated from an Ivy-League or comparable college. In my experience at front-office corporate jobs, someone unable to present themselves reasonably at a client meeting, even at 20 or 21 (we had college interns) would simply never have been hired, but I don't remember it ever actually being a problem.

pg2• 15 years ago

The career game is not nearly as important now as it was a couple decades ago, though. Now you can easily opt to be judged directly by market, by starting your own company. Customers don't know or care what your social origins are.

sgman• 15 years ago

By definition, there will always be an order of magnitude more people working as employees of successful companies playing the career game than there are founders of successful companies.

abstractbill• 15 years ago

This is only "by definition" if companies are always big. Perhaps they'll get smaller over time?

jbooth3• 15 years ago

That's definitely true (to an extent) in tech, but other fields aren't so lucky.

A few months ago, a friend of mine who's a lawyer with 5 years experience told me that where he went to school for undergrad is still one of the most important things on his resume. Blew my mind.

Other tech industries that are more capital intensive (bio, mechanical) are a lot harder to just start a business in, and for softer skills there's no way to quantify you to begin with so connections matter a lot for the first few jobs. Anyone could learn to program and start a web business, of course, but the barriers aren't quite so low in other industries yet.

johngalt9• 15 years ago

There are things that a small group can't accomplish (building an oil pipeline for example). However, a little expertise and the right scope could attack the industry obliquely. Rather than try to build the whole system perhaps you have a small part of it that you make. You can't build the pipeline, but maybe you can build a better O-ring seal.

apsec1122• 15 years ago

Wow, that's a slanted view of the world!

Outside of the software industry, which is a tiny (~1%) portion of the economy, what has changed since 1995? Suppose you're an investment banker, and you hate your boss, as most investment bankers do. Want to start your own investment bank? How? You need to have connections to upper management at lots and lots of companies, so you can arrange deals. And very few people have that.

Or, suppose you're an accountant. Can you start your own accounting practice? Sure, maybe, it's not a crazy idea. But is it really any different than it was 15 years ago? You still need to get a reputation, build up a client list, market yourself well, etc. Not much has really changed.

Or, even, suppose that you're in another, non-software tech industry, like pharmaceuticals. That's way harder than it was 15 years ago, because of tighter FDA regulation. Just try getting a drug to market with less than $100,000,000 in capital, and very few people can raise that kind of capital.

johngalt9• 15 years ago

Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop. If you're really better than the boss you hate people will flock to you. Make sure the clients see you as a go-getter.

That investment shop will have every banker arguing that they deserve a gigantic compensation package. Add's a lot of overhead that you won't have starting out.

Accounting: Like most professional services the web has revolutionized accounting. You can now trivially have your accounting done anywhere in the world. How about you start your own shop by hiring and managing overseas workers? Or how about a cadre of accountants based in a low cost area of the US? Since 1995 other industries have been transformed by technology MORE than the tech sector. Netflix/iPod/Kindle anyone?

You've got me on pharmaceuticals, but it seems that regulation is the key here. I doubt communism would help with that.

pg2• 15 years ago

The technology business may only be one component of the economy, but attracts a disproportionate share of ambitious people.

If you want to avoid social logjams, all you need is one domain where people aren't judged by their origins, and the people who want to get ahead will find it. History is full of examples of that. The world of startups is certainly a large and conspicuous enough target.

WalterBright• 15 years ago

I know lots of people who started their own companies in fields that have nothing to do with technology, investment banking, etc. Most of them are doing well. Look around you - there are businesses everywhere. All started by someone. Heck, the woman down the street started a barber shop in an empty slot in a local strip mall.

quizbiz• 15 years ago

With twitter, and social media, and all these email addresses all over web, if you have absolute merit then you can make those connections. It's a matter of persistence.

sliverstorm• 15 years ago

Or, even, suppose that you're in another, non-software tech industry, like pharmaceuticals. That's way harder than it was 15 years ago, because of tighter FDA regulation. Just try getting a drug to market with less than $100,000,000 in capital, and very few people can raise that kind of capital.

Hell, even IN the tech industry... I'm extremely interested in VLSI, and I'm told most commercial available processing units cost in excess of $1,000,000,000 just to reach the first actual chip!

akkartik• 15 years ago

But startups often need investors, and you're more likely to get investors before you have product or traction if you're neither too aggressive nor too passive. Charming, in short.

BrandonM• 15 years ago

I never realized how poor I was until I started seeing articles like this. Growing up in rural Ohio, my dad made something like $15-20K to support a family of 5. It's a completely different world for someone who has a $40K+ student loan and a substantial amount of credit card debt hanging over him the day he's done with college.

johngalt9• 15 years ago

You're right it's hopeless and unfair. We are all losers that should stop trying immediately. We should spend our time wishing for impossible utopian communism that will somehow arbitrarily add fairness. Then we can complain that we aren't as tall as other people, or as strong.

Or we could act like winners. Turn the tables and determine where life is unfair in your favor and play that game, or at least push the game closer to that direction. Rich kids are pushed into certain roles/behaviors as well. There are risks that they fear that you do not.

trooon• 15 years ago

"rich kids don’t fear the boss."

So true. And if you start acting like a boss, you'll start being treated like one. Of course, this is a tricky business (as Michael mentions), and a lot depends on your role and the company's culture. But with the right approach, a mix of social skills and "knowing your stuff", it's possible. Especially in the field of technology.

presidentender• 15 years ago

I am fearless because I was poor and it ain't so bad. Being born middle-class must suck.

svdad2• 15 years ago

You have a point. In finance especially, I think being middle class is about the worst position to be in. If you're poor, you get into finance because you're fearless and hungry and worked your ass off. You work on the trading floor and get along fine.

If you're rich, it's like the OP said -- you get into finance because you have casual confidence and connections. You probably already know your boss or some of his colleagues socially, or your dad belongs to the same yacht club. And your boss likes you because you're just like him.

If you're middle class, though, you aren't hungry because you were actually pretty comfortable growing up, and you don't have the connections because your dad is an accountant at a mid-sized manufacturing company and doesn't have a yacht. So you're screwed.

chegra• 15 years ago

ok... I think the problems lies in trying to control something out of our locus of control. We can't control the rich having an advantage, so much thoughts shouldn't be given to such matters[as related to personal advancement, not social]. What's within our control[concern] we have the quality of our work, how much we take initiate, building a social network etc.

I find the author built a prison for himself by attacking the problem through an avenue he has no control over.

enduser• 15 years ago

This specifically has to do with fear, social fear, and how it plays out in the workplace and in one's relationships.

You cannot change your social background, but you can choose to recognize and transcend fear. You can treat everybody respectfully as a social equal regardless of your background.

Meditation helps.

ozziegooen2• 15 years ago

It's not where you are. It's where you're going.

I liked this article, but my experiences have been different. From what I've seen, it seems like broad career choice is also incredibly significant; and that's something rich kids often get wrong (from the perspective of an entrepreneur). They want to have happy lives in prestigious jobs, and there lies the problem. They want stability instead of the ability to change something.

Now I'm studying abroad, and have met up with a bunch of rich kids. They all want to party. Sure, if I get a job with them it's possible they'll do better than me. So I won't get a job with them.

Let's look at the top entrepreneurs right now. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. All of them were well-to-do but weren't rich. But that didn't matter for them at the time. Because their ambition was far more powerful than their income.

cma• 15 years ago

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

Gates already had a million dollar trust fund.

ozziegooen2• 15 years ago

Fair enough, but that's 1/3.

Of course, none of the three were exactly poor, and all grew up with programming backgrounds. We'll see who takes charge these next 20 years.

MatrixBai• 15 years ago

Yes, rich kids already take the whole world. I know this far before because I'm a Chinese lives in China Mainland. I'm not sure what's the real career game in western country, but I know the Chinese one. Rich kids inherit everything from their parents the most important thing is social relations which is very important in China.Other kids work for them. That's it.

giardini2• 15 years ago

Wouldn't it be better to attempt to cast these ideas in an evolutionary biological framework rather than in a typical static classical rich-poor, capitalist-marxist, liberal-conservative values framework that we use in voting? Might something more closely approximating the truth be revealed by doing so?

VaedaStrike• 15 years ago

The idea that rich kids are more liberated is wrong headed. It's'simply myopic. There's'not even an attempt to explore the inherent advantages of the "other."

Insight a rich kid can never have being merely one of dozens that shot into my fatigued head.

petervandijck• 15 years ago

Rich family drives 5-year old to doctor's visit. Mom: "Remember honey, you can ask the doctor anything you want, and if he does something you don't like just tell him no."

Poor family drives 5-year old to doctor's visit. Mom: "Remember honey, be respectful and do as the doctor says. And be quiet or there will be trouble."

From an actual study.

michaelochurch• 15 years ago

Wow. I'm thrilled that this essay has received so much attention. I went from 50 pageviews per day, on average, to 20,000 in one day. I'm very busy with work and I don't have time for a point-by-point reply to everyone, even though there are a lot of great comments here and many deserve replies. I just don't think I will get to it in a timely fashion.

To address some of those critiques, last night I wrote a follow up to this essay here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/follow-up-on-... .

How rich kids already won the career game

Related Stories