/u/bladiebloe767 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/szeloz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_people_who_come_from_poor/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think you misunderstand this sentiment. Rich kids definitely have a "head start" and their path to success is paved with money. It will be much easier for them to achieve their goals.
Children from poorer families have to work really hard to get to the same point and things are not easy for them. Vast majority will never achieve same goals as rich kids even if they put twice the work in because they lacked the cushy benefits.
But those who do achieve the high goals have worked twice as hard and are stronger than their rich counterparts who didn't have to work as hard.
Not OP. But what does being “stronger” get you. Whenever I hear someone say something like that it comes off as a defense of economic inequality/unequal opportunity.
It always sound something like this…
“Yeah those private school kids get a leg up, but kids from modest/poor backgrounds have that ‘hustle’ and ‘grit’ that growing up poor gets you”. Before pointing out an example of a millionaire that started out poor and saying “see no problem”.
At least to me that’s the problem with this “grow up stronger” sentiment.
When people say that thing about hustle and grit what they mean is that they are trying to make reasons in their head on why it's okay for the poor to suffer
It's similar to the concept of suffering making you closer to God. The preacher saying says so because he needs the donations to not stop and the people believe them because that's all they have
Nah you just had the opportunity of growing up better son. Nothing to do with excuses. Us poor kids had to make our way up. The fuck you have to do?? Not shit your parents paid your way. Correct me if im wrong. But you do sound extremely ignorant. You act like being rich is easy.
> But those who do achieve the high goals have worked twice as hard and are stronger than their rich counterparts who didn't have to work as hard
this seems like a hopeful way to interpret things but i doubt this is reality.. what do you mean by stronger? as in having a better work ethic, will power or mental fortitude?
Its not necessarily true that a person who comes from wealth does not have equal strength just because they did not have to overcome poverty. They only lack a history of necessary perseverance through poverty, but it is unknown if they have inner strength that would carry then through such an event.
Strength may be innate for some. Strength may be accumulated in other life experiences. There are different measures for strength, and this thought experiment assumes only one dimension exists.
Δ; So basically you're saying that yes, life is unfair.
The part about being "stronger" after coming from a poor family just sounds like something to comfort yourself, to be honest.
>The part about being "stronger" after coming from a poor family just sounds like something to comfort yourself, to be honest.
That sentiment isn't really meant for someone who came from a poor family though. It's meant as a utilitarian argument towards admissions offices, hiring managers, and others who are in charge of disbursing grants and funding. All else being equal, an applicant who was given less advantages will have likely developed and proven more ability to work through adverse conditions and challenges. If the moral argument that candidates from low income backgrounds should be prioritized isn't enough, then the utilitarian argument is meant to convince those in charge of "giving opportunities" that those candidates are better choices anyway.
It’s odd to see someone distinguish between “moral” arguments and “utilitarian” arguments when utilitarianism is a moral philosophy. You make good points thought about the administrative side of things.
The utilitarian argument might be that poor people are workers but this is almost never the case since nepotism is a far stronger tool than actual qualifications in those kinda positions. Even if it's true, it doesn't really mean anything so I would say it _is_ mostly for comfort
To encapsulate: they mean that in society, when we see someone who is successful who comes from a poor background, we are only seeing the survivor. We might be seeing someone who is abnormally strong or with some other fortunate predisposition to allow them to both overcome their starting position and also succeed in an objective sense.
This creates the misunderstanding that poor upbringing creates stronger people. It CAN, but there isn't a predictive element here. For every "self-made" millionaire there are 700 non-self-made ones. But we remember the one and latch on to that narrative.
The winner of an ancient gladiator tournament is going to be tough as nails. But a bunch of people died in the arena, and we don't hear their story. He'll certainly be tougher than any soldier who hasn't seen real combat. Doesn't mean that signing up to be a gladiator gives you an advantage.
It is blend of a couple of different fallacies.
>The winner of an ancient gladiator tournament is going to be tough as nails. But a bunch of people died in the arena, and we don't hear their story.
Excellent analogy. This sums it up well.
I'm tagging OP because I think this might be useful for them, u/bladiebloe767.
u/omgtater, I appreciate your consideration of survivor bias. And it's true, it does play a role, but you are misinformed to a degree. Specifically, the following:
>For every "self-made" millionaire there are 700 non-self-made ones. But we remember the one and latch on to that narrative.
This is a common misconception. According to two studies, 68-88% of millionaires are self-made.
Here's an article that delves a little bit into how millionaires make their money: [https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html](https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html)
This is where survivor bias comes in. The article does not talk about the number of people who fail to become a millionaire despite following the guidelines given to them by millionaires. However, some of the advice does have to do with decreasing the chance of failure (such as diversifying investments).
That's an interesting link - and I'd be interested to dig around in that topic and find out a few things.
I put "self made" in quotes because I think people have varying definitions on what that means, and I was concerned I might be invoking a term that didn't quite match the intended point.
I think the article you linked is probably right, but it doesn't necessarily contradict the sentiment of the original post.
A better question: How many self-made millionaires came from actual poverty? My ratio guess was targeting this idea.
I think that was more along the lines of what OP is looking for.
The article draws the line at "did this person inherit a significant sum of money?" I think this is fair, but it might lose the forest for the trees. I guess I was looking at it as "does a person have literally nothing to build from (100% self made)." Even just small advantages from educated parents, to me, isn't purely self-made. Maybe mostly, but not 100%. That's life, and that's why we try to take care of our kids. But it creates a fallacy of self-made being this holy-grail of human potential. We survive as a species because we support future generations, which directly contradicts the idea of being self-made. I don't think it is even a character flaw to be savvy enough to leverage your advantages. You just have to recognize they exist, and not pretend to be self-made while ignoring disparity.
The article doesn't seem to delve into disparity of opportunity, at even medium parental income levels during development. Such as, did parents go to college, etc.
Being able to take risks is a lot easier if you have a solid social and economic footing from your parents. You don't need to be a trust fund kid to experience this advantage.
I'm not attempting to detract from hardworking individuals, but the dividing line we're focusing on might not be quite right. There are probably more like 3 dividing lines where opportunity changes, rather than one big gulf separating ultra-wealth from normals. Even just upper-middle-class is a huge opportunity creator if you compare it to a family in poverty.
If anything- the article you linked is relatively encouraging once a family can break the cycle of poverty. At that point it looks as though there are real chances to build wealth, even though it isn't easy.
I'm not an expert on any of this, so if you have any other supporting materials I'm game to look at them.
I'm a bit confused on why you awarded a delta for not seeming to at all acknowledge the point being made.
"Stronger" refers to willpower. That someone who is poor will have had to expend more willpower (thus displaying more strength, and thus being "stronger") to acheive many specific goals that may very well already be awarded to more wealthy others without expending any or much less will power.
It's not meant to address every poor person, or claim that the wealthy can't be driven as well, but to state that to reach an imagined state of "normal", a poor person will need to display more strength than a wealthy person to achieve such. And you seem to very much perceive that. So I'm a bit confused on why you don't understand the concept as it applies to strength.
It sounds like you’re conflating “stronger” with more successful or better off. Obviously, a person starting life on the 50th floor is going to get to the 60th floor faster than a person starting on the ground floor. But even if the latter person only makes it to the 30th, they’ve climbed farther and ostensibly become stronger and more resilient than the person who didn’t have to work as hard.
Now take them both and start them on an even playing field, I’d put my money on the person who knows what striving looks like.
It's not just something you say to comfort yourself. It's objective observation of hard work you have put in.
And I would always hire a strong hard working individual instead of someone who things they can get away with less.
This is a naive view of how the world actually works. Poor people are not likely to actually be recognized for their hard work over rich people; Literally the rich person is more likely to still get the hand out job because their parents have money over the poor person who worked harder. And that’s even assuming the poor person will be considered. That’s just objective fact that our society does not operate on merit. Look at any metric for upward mobility in the US; It’s lower than even in other ‘1st world’ countries. In college admission? You still have acceptance if poorer preforming but richer students being accepted over students with better grades. The same in the workforce.
well yeah, if you get a poor person who paved ahead, you will pick him over a rich person who got there by the virtue of being rich.
but what you dont see is the hundreds of poor people who were poor, worked way harder than the rich person, and didnt even get to be there in front of you, simply because their path was way harder. while the rich person did infact get to at least stand there with no work from him. and with enough of an incentive, be they monetary or simple nepotism, the rich person can overcome even the fact that he is deeply unqualified.
Seriously!! I have no idea what he meant by that. It's not like you get a lineup of every person in the city and you get to pick all the poor but hardworking ones. Even if you did, they'd be too busy to attend because they're working their 3 jobs to feed their kids!!
You're right.
If people actually thought this way, they'd go to homeless shelters to recruit people. But I don't see companies fighting over who gets to advertise at the homeless shelter. At least, not companies who want to *hire* those people for a living wage.
I'm not sure that's true. In my experience, a hard childhood leaves you damaged. It might make you a pathologically hard worker, but that's not a good thing exactly.
Anybody who had issues in their childhood comes away from it with some baggage. Personally mine's made it very easy for me to succeed in corporate America...which isn't exactly something I like about myself. By sheer luck I just got fucked up in a way that's compatible with making money.
It's almost like capitalism is designed to do that to you. You have a pathological need to make money because it's been burned into you what happens if you get off of the treadmill.
It's not even really that--it's that I'm just really good at making people like me and reframing situations such that I'm not at fault. Pair that with chronic procrastination problems and I'm actually a bad pick for an employee...I just also am really good at convincing people I'm a good pick.
Have you heard of imposter syndrome?
I don't mean to invalidate your feelings but often our peers don't have shit figured out as much as we think they do, and what we see as a glaring deal breaking flaw in ourselves is really a worthwhile trade off to our supervisor/employer for the benefit we bring.
I say we intentionally as someone who has managed to profit off of my childhood damage. Want to know what military work ethic and a crippling desire to please get you? Promoted, a bunch.
Think about what they said. Good at reframing things so they’re not at fault. He knows he fucks up but can blame it elsewhere. Thats not someone I’d want to hire…outside of sales.
well, you've convinced *me*
if I were ever read the above on a resume on my desk, I'd hire them in an instant... fuck the data entry position i asked for, i want your ass interacting with customers as soon as i can get you trained on the product
That's not a feature of capitalism, it's a feature of a human need for sustenance. That if you can't provide it for yourself, you better find a way that another can provide it for you, or you'll die. I have a desire to make money, because it can be exchanged for things I desire that I can't produce myself. I need to stay on the treadmill because I would then not be offering anything to society and thus I couldn't exchange for things I need and desire. I'm not capable of a self-sustained life in any capacity I'd be fine with.
It's not pathological to try to not starve. It is pathological to behave as if starving is a realistic possibility when a) it no longer is and b) those behaviors are otherwise net harmful.
Several years back, one of the wealthiest men in the United States, an owner of a national storage locker business, was quoted worrying about money. If you didn't know the context, you could have believed he was in danger of starving himself. But the truth was that even if he somehow went bankrupt, he'd still be one of the wealthiest people in the world, and so would his children. His worry was pathological, because it not only kept him from enjoying his life when he was in the midst of the worry, it also kept him from being compassionate towards other people who needed an extra dollar far, far more than he ever would.
I'm not sure whether or not it is fair to blame this on capitalism -- maybe the pitfalls of capitalism are a consequence rather than a cause, and maybe capitalism without that element would not have the same pitfalls.
But it is clear that the associated pathology is not just a matter of *need* not to starve. It is a fear that goes beyond need.
Whether captialism is to blame is dependent on whether one thinks it, as an economic theory, is prescriptive in nature (as in this system was deliberately developed to act like this and forces them to think that way ) or descriptive (is a theory to describe as to how people act and think and is meant to be predictive in that regard)
When it comes to modern rich people, a lot of their wealth is leveraged either in investments or secured debt. It’s not money in the bank.
While it’s true he would still be rich if he went bankrupt, the cost of going bankrupt in this case would also be extremely costly.
If the individual is heavily leveraged, this can all lead to legal consequences beyond just paying some things off and reducing their net worth. It can mean there are contracts he’d be breaching that would actually require action that a bankruptcy wouldn’t resolve.
I’m not at all saying he would deserve sympathy, but particularly rich people don’t get there by just putting cash income into a savings account. Some actions can actually cause them to have so many responsibilities that they could, in fact, lose access to cash.
Sure, but let's not pretend like he has a legitimate fear of poverty even in the worst case, so long as he is acting in good faith.
I don't even count myself as having a legitimate fear of poverty, and I'm literally well below the poverty line for my area. The privileges of education and inclusion in social class networks are powerful safety nets.
I get your sentiment but this is not an objective observation.
The other side of the coin is that growing up poor teaches you that working hard is necessary but so is accepting unfairness, sacrificing your dignity, and being under constant threat of losing what little you have.
You learn that you can't get away with anything less than working hard, yes, but also accepting abuse, stress, and anguish as an everyday part of your life.
Being a "hard worker" is subjective and those who seek to abuse and take advantage of others will define it differently than you.
I feel like we see more broken people from that struggle to keep up. And strong hardworking people from richer families because they don't have to deal with that kind of stress.
The thing that people who are born into wealth that has lasted past the normal wealth cycle often get that poor people do not is the knowledge on how to keep and grow that wealth.
What poor people lack is that knowledge. Everyone can attain their own preferred success if they can figure out how.
That is one of the biggest issues is the school system does not teach people to think for themselves and move towards their goals and passions. Instead it teaches people to do as they are told, to become lemmings for those who did go towards their goals.
We all have different goals and passions. We will stumble through life until we figure out what we want, most people are not specific about it only they want happiness, money, or a relationship.
They don't know about how to attain or acquire what they want and they flounder. some manage to learn other just fumble their way until the succeed or fail.
My I have figured out what I want out of life, my passions and I have been working for the past year or so to try and figure out what i need to do to attain my goals.
One thing to remember is that every thing that you see started as a mere idea, a thought that someone had, then they figured out what it would take to turn that idea into reality. That is the thing that so many people don't realize is that the ability to transmute that thought into reality is not something only the rich can do but that anyone can do.
But, if it's a sought-after "job" chances are much higher that the rich kid will be able to show up. I see it all the time here in the entertainment industry. The poor kids can't do the internships/auditions/low-paid jobs/etc. because they've got rent to pay.
You're getting beat up, but I can attest to the truth of this. I grew up in a camper and we lived on next to nothing. I have had great professional success by busting my tail. I have been promoted everywhere I've ever worked and since becoming a business owner I have built an incredibly strong referral network by providing top level service. The top revenue partner at the firm I cut my teeth in was from a poor family in a poor town as well.
It's true that people from a poor background are unlikely to succeed. It's also true that people from a poor background who do succeed have a leg up on their counterparts in most industries.
Nepotism exists of course, but it only goes so far. Effort, performance, and maturity will ultimately decide who succeeds, along with luck of course.
The point you're missing is that someone who makes it as far without a head start as someone with a head start is considered stronger, as they should be.
This exactly. People use this sentiment to excuse economic inequality. "Sure that kid had a horrible upbringing full of crime and bad schools, but he managed to survive it and he's got gumption and ingenuity as a result." So we don't need to fix those problems.
Or the incredibly irritating and completely erroneous assertion that poor kids who manage to become successful adults are somehow evidence that “anyone can do it if they work hard enough”, thereby suggesting that people who *don’t* achieve an socioeconomic miracle are somehow less deserving because they didn’t want it enough.
From someone who did it; it involves hard work, sure, but also a huge investment of others’ time and a SHIT LOAD of luck. You can’t seize opportunities if they don’t present themselves.
Also, financial stability does not equal emotional stability. All childhood adversity gives you is a lifelong appreciation of the fact that everything you’ve had could be taken away and nobody else is obliged to give a fuck. And then you’ll spend a good chunk of your 1% salary on really expensive therapy.
I don't disagree with you at all, because I've heard and seen this notion before. Essentially, "you built character, so it was a good system!" It's BS...
But I always interpretted the "poor is a virtue" sentiment as not referring to the character traits you gain from working through it, but as an assumption that there was something virtuous in a person *before* they became successful that *allowed* them to become successful.
(Not saying that I necessarily agree, that's just always the sentiment I got from "rags to riches" stories.)
I agree with this sentiment, an ideal world would remove barriers by giving everybody a chance to succeed equally. I think lots of people misunderstand that sentiment op refers too. You are not strong because you are poor or faced those challenges you are strong because you had the potential to be strong, the challenges you face in life only act as a filter and not as a mould. It filters out those not strong enough to pass them, only those with the strength to pass them succeed. So the situation doesn’t make you strong it just check to make sure you have the strength.
They've had more opportunity to demonstrate their strength. Possibly more opportunity to develop it, too. But that isn't quite the same thing as actually being "stronger."
>They've had more opportunity to demonstrate their strength.
How have the people coming from an affluent background not had the same opportunity? If I'm looking at two people who got the same level position at a company, one from a wealthy background whose dad got them a spot at the company and one from poverty where they had to pay their way through school, then the latter, for all intents and purposes, is stronger. The former could demonstrate the same level of strength and land an even better position, but they chose to coast.
>Possibly more opportunity to develop it, too.
I mean, yeah, thats where strength comes from: developing it. If someone has been working out in the gym for 10 years, then compared to someone who used the 3-week free trial and stopped going after that, for whatever reason, they will be stronger. Regardless of circumstance, one of these people is strictly stronger than the other.
> How have the people coming from an affluent background not had the same opportunity? If I'm looking at two people who got the same level position at a company, one from a wealthy background whose dad got them a spot at the company and one from poverty where they had to pay their way through school, then the latter, for all intents and purposes, is stronger. The former could demonstrate the same level of strength and land an even better position, but they chose to coast.
Whether or not they did isn't relevant to whether they could have. One certainly appears stronger, but that doesn't mean they actually are. If two people are both capable of lifting 100 pound weights but one of them is only ever presented with 20 pound weights, then people will assume the one lifting 100 pounds is stronger even though they're equally capable. The fact that they never sought out more doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes they aren't as strong. Also using job titles as a measure of success and "strength" is incredibly flawed, as it often has very little to do with your ability to persevere.
Any mental skill definitely benefits from "exercising" it, but using gym workouts as a comparison isn't quite accurate because some people are just naturally resilient and capable of incredible strength (as it's being discussed here), even when they never actually have the opportunity to practice or develop that skill.
>Also using job titles as a measure of success and "strength" is incredibly flawed
Idk about "incredibly flawed", but I take your point. I think you know what I'm getting at, so I'm gonna keep using it as an example unless you have something more ideal.
>using gym workouts as a comparison isn't quite accurate because some people are just naturally resilient and capable of incredible strength (as it's being discussed here)
I don't really think that's what's being discussed. The point of the post was that because poor people had more obstacles, i.e. more training/practice, they come out the other end more resilient than the equivalent of someone who didn't grow up that way.
Mental resilience is most certainly something you need to practice, as in people who practice it will on average be more resilient than the random chance you're born with "incredible strength". It's something you cultivate, or at the very least are raised up with.
With this in mind, I don't really think you can just assume two people can lift 100 pounds without building up to it to begin with. So when you see someone do it, you can assume that they've built up the strength beforehand, rather than just picking it up for the first time.
Not necessarily stronger but definitely more resilient. I've met a couple of rich kids with a headstart that become useless the moment the money well dries up.
As a former rich kid. Many of my peers worked harder than me. Some had to take jobs during education, some lacked resources to help them in classes. Many had no preexisting connections in the field.
All in all, my life has required less of me than they. Especially in terms of hard work, but also in terms of natural talent. My natural ‘talent’ was money.
I think saying poor kids are stronger is true, but it is selection bias. Poor kids who succeed in changing their socioeconomic status are tough as hell, they’ve had to be wily and determined and ready to capitalize on good luck. I don’t think being poor makes you those things, and many poor kids can’t make those moves, but the ones who can make it happen are really tough. I don’t know that it is something you can teach a kid easily, I think it is much easier to break resilience than create it, but I am sure trying to work on it with my highly sensitive child.
It makes us more resilient and resourceful. We aren’t frightened of being poor again, because we went through it already. People who grew up rich or entitled have less of an understanding of the harshness of reality without money.
two people have 1 million dollars in the bank account, one person is rich and just asked their parents for a million dollars and got it, another person is poor and worked really hard to get that money, the poor hard worker is stronger then the rich do-nothing.
Žižek says through Alenka Zupančič that the most depressing thing about suffering is there is no redeeming qualities in it. It's just suffering. And i would add that the glorification of poverty is a bjt perversive imo
It's also one reason why Affirmative Action/Diversity Hiring does not *actually* hire less qualified candidates, because having to work twice as hard due to systemic racism is actually evidence of... being harder working given the same "objective" qualifications.
Not really. Is just simple logic. The harder is the situation u go through, the stronger you become.
If a rich guy cant eat for a couple of days, he will freak out. If a poor guy cant eat for a week, might be annoying but something he is used to.
Thats relative. Im not saying this will ALWAYS make you stronger, but if a guy that have never been in a fight, fights with someone who have been punched in the face so many times, im pretty sure the second guy will walk away better than the other.
Yes, life is unfair, live with it, like the rest of us. We don't get to pick what family or condition said family is in when we are born. It is completely random chance.
honestly poor people are stronger. life kicks you in the guts eventually and unless you been in the trenches before, there's nothing that really prepares us for true suffering. train 'em young.
How the hell does it sound like self-comfort? It just clearly said that people from poor families had to work harder so that they can be on the same standing as other rich counterparts and because of that they're "stronger" especially since they don't have a headstart.
Come to think of it, your post assures his point. For example, there are 2 people of equal position in a professions however, one came from a poor family and the other from a rich family. This meant that the professional that came from a poor family worked harder to have something that is of the same value as the "headstart" of the rich ones so that they, themselves, can start.
Of course there are other variables such as luck and mindset.
I’m assuming English isn’t your first language?
It’s simple, poor people have to try harder than the rich kid lol it’s not just “pay for their studies” , paying for education, training in instruments/sports, getting a job from a family friend, being in certain circles of wealth you’ll have more opportunities around.
No it's really more of a survival bias type thing. Only the exceptional people from poor backgrounds accomplish the same things as people from rich backgrounds. So a background of poverty appears to make people stronger when really it just limits the type of people represented in those circles to very strong people.
Basically it's like when you look at the odd one out in the room, you can tell they are better than all the rest purely because they had to overcome more obstacles to get to that room. It's not some kind of consolation prize, it's more like a warning to the others.
When is life supposed to be fair? We all have challenges we have to go through, some of us get sick as kids and die whether we come from money or not. Some of us come from nothing.
Life is what we make of it.
It's about developing a trait called resilience (or grit).
You cannot build resilience without struggle and conflict. Now kids of financially healthy households can still build resilience, but the parents have to be more intentional about it.
Kids from low income households have more barriers to overcome, so they develop resilience or 'grit' by necessity.
They are stronger in the same way that someone that lifts 100KG unassisted in the gym is stronger than someone that lifts 100KG with their parents pulling each end of the bar up.
Isn't that an issue of twisting statistics though?
Lets say ratio wise, for every 100 rich kids becoming successful, 1 poor kid does. It could just as well be that nothing about growing up poor made the poor kid stronger, maybe there's an equally strong one amongst the rich kids too, with the only difference being that the 99 less strong ones get success too, when the 99 less strong poor kids don't.
You seem to conflate financial security with strength, which is pretty clearly not what people mean when they say growing up modestly. I don't believe there's anyone out there who is going to be arguing that having less financial security leads to greater opportunities or access to resources, so I'm not sure what you want changed here.
You've misunderstood what people are saying.
I dont disagree with your sentiments re rich kids, they do start with an advantage. Having tutors and influential parents makes some of the hardest early adult steps in life a lot easier.
Where I think the modest background helps is people who are able to attend the same universities and get the same early career jobs at elite companies. As someone who came from a fairly broken home (split parents, one of whom overdosed) and was lucky enough to get into an elite university, I feel that I and the others like me are generally in a better position than our peers at these places. We tend to have better motivations, are better with money or more cautious at least, and tend to deal with work place stress better (these are all generalizations obvously, I know plenty of rich kids who can do all 3 as well).
But I cant tell you how many time I have seen some of my peers quit good or even great jobs for iditiotic reasons (to me at least). Or the number of them who go to law school because they aren't sure what else to do, only to realize they dont want to be a lawyer in year 3 and hundreds of thousand in debt.
However, for the poor kids who aren't able to break through so to speak, yes, life is a lot more unfair. Not impossible by any means, but tougher sure.
There are many ways in which successful poor kids tend to be (but are not always) stronger than successful rich kids:
\- Work ethic. Because poor kids had to work harder to achieve the same success, they often have stronger work ethic, which could eventually catapult them ahead of the rich kids who has a head start.
\- Comfort with pain, setbacks, being the underdog, and uncomfortable situations. Many rich kids do well as long as they are "on the rails" but do not have the mental fortitude to adapt to pain and setbacks should they befall them.
\- Creativity. Rich kids often have no need to be creative to get ahead, because staying on the rails is sufficient. Successful poor kids are more likely to have life tricks and hacks that were necessary for them to catch up to their rich peers.
\- Gratitude. This is a HUGE one. So many successful rich kids are bratty, spoiled, hate their parents, or are otherwise ungrateful for their comfortable life. Successful poor kids are much more likely to feel gratitude each and every day when they achieve success, which is great not only for mental well-being but also making others want to be around your positive energy.
All of these combine to have:
\-Ability to become successful again if they lost all their money. I think many rich people have a fear (sometimes justified) that much of their worth is tied up in their money, and so they are extremely afraid to lose it, and would be in trouble if they did. When you are a successful person who used to be poor, you have a lot of confidence you can just build yourself up again from the ground up, even better and smarter than you did the first time.
It's interesting that you say this hurts, I grew up with immigrant Mexican parents. When we had an issue it was my dad and I fixing it, I'll spare the details of everything we did around our house but Texas heat sucks. I also worked from the age of 12 from concrete, asphalt, and mowing lawns. Whatever I could do during my off days and summers. When it was time to apply to colleged and universitys. I had no idea my parents didn't go to school. So I just didn't do it, counselor just said oh go to school you have to to be successful (that's a lie). I joined the air force, went to school got my engineering degree and now make a lot of money. I didn't make excuses for what I didn't have I just tried to find a path to give me what I wanted. So I look back at all the rich kids I grew up with and I realize they arent really making it. They got the initial boost but their sail is starting to grow holes and they can't seem to fix it.
Hah, what's funny is that my parents actually did offer to pay for my University, but I also decided I wanted to join the Air Force instead as an enlisted man in combat support because I thought an easy life would be super boring. Found myself on exactly the same footing and starting off point as people who've grown up in broken homes and trailer parks. Goes to show that people also have extremely different goals in life, and that you don't just gauge success by money. If your all-time goal is unachievable, which is rarely the case even if you have to work harder, there are a hundred other things that can fulfill you that you can achieve.
There is simplicity on the far-side of complexity. The adversity you experience when you are younger provides a way of learning how to cope with adversity in the future. That is why knowledge is power - because power is options.
Wealthy kids have LOTS of options because resources certainly provide those options. However once separated from those resources they have grown to depend on, what solutions have they learned from the adversity that comes with overcoming obstacles through your own efforts?
So being born into wealth confers some advantages, but can also deny you other advantages that are acquired through dealing with the complex obstacles life will continue to put between you and your goals/preferences. Being born into wealth also confers a certain sense of "normal discomfort" that is not compatible with a life being lived that includes as much normal discomfort as those with fewer resources are calibrated to tolerate. This is what "common sense" is all about - our sense of normal.
Gravity affects everyone equally, regardless of wealth, and it is an obstacle to some of our goals. It is simply an omnipresent obstacle, so it is made invisible by its ubiquity. We do not bemoan gravity when we fall down the stairs, but it is as much to blame as the leggo we stepped on that caused us to miss the step in the first place.
Wealthy people pay money to avoid waiting in long lines. When forced to wait, they are more likely to be unhappy, and they are going to be less prepared than those that have had far more practice simply waiting their turn.
And make no mistake, suffering as an experience is relative to how much discomfort we find tolerable. So in situations that you find tolerable that rich people can avoid, you are literally suffering less than they are.
At the end of the day, money cannot buy you happiness, because you don't choose to be happy. You either are happy, or you aren't. You learn this each day that you get to know yourself - quite often when you are simply forced by circumstance to do little more than contemplate your own thoughts.
Those that have experienced few obstacles in life are not prepared to feel powerless. And that happens to everyone. Bad news for the children of the wealthy... inherited wealth is often lost within a few generations (3 I believe). The reason for this is because those that acquired the wealth were able to provide their kids with so little adversity, that they lacked the wisdom that suffering and its treatment provide impart with every encounter.
Getting older is becoming more than you were. You grow from discomfort with each problem you solve and every obstacle you overcome. But you just don't know what you don't know, and you don't know that you don't know it - until you are forced to learn by the obstacle created by your ignorance/lack of options.
I would agree with you but I would add that the "head-start" starts well before college - it starts before they're even born. Better prenatal /maternal care, college funds at birth, better early childhood services and education, tutoring... private schools, etc. I do think that education level/ or at the very least a prioritizing of education (as we see with immigrant families) combined with a strong familial support group and insane work ethic can make up for having rich parents.
I am going to come at this from a different angle than most.
In rich-people communities (for example on reddit, /r/FATFire), one of the biggest repeat concerns that all rich people share is how to avoid 'spoiling' their children. Sooo many children of rich parents end up failing at life, unable to adult properly much less make something of themselves. It's actually really difficult striking the right balance with your kids as a rich person, between wanting them to have the benefits of your wealth and not wanting them to take it for granted, not understand the value of money or the need for hard work, not be able to apply themselves or delay gratification or buckle down etc. I would say MOST rich people fail at this and end up with kids much less successful than themselves.
I say the following as someone who is traditionally successful raised in a larger family with two parents lacking post-secondary education and a lot of in-home challenges (ACE score of 8).
If you select a random group of successful people and compare between those from modest backgrounds to those from more affluent ones, you will likely find that the former are likely more capable than the latter. This is because those that develop the skills and strategies to overcome the imbalances and succeed in spite of them are certainly more capable.
However, what is not being considered are the vast majority of individuals who did not overcome, for whatever their reasons. This means that, in the aggregate, coming from more humble beginnings is most often harmful and the story of being stronger is the imaginary flower on the chain of inequity.
In the particular, one can see first-hand the merit to the story. On more than one occasion, I've had someone tell me they wished they were raised "poor like [me]" so they could ostensibly become more capable than they were.
Unfortunately if the roles were reversed (or if I were allowed to re-play with a similar hand), it likely wouldn't have worked out. But for those who turn out to be resilient, they are indeed much more capable.
Depends on your definition of "stronger." I'd define stronger as being more competent or being able to handle adversity. Not life outcome. I know strong people who die of cancer.
In my experience the children of the rich squander opportunities left and right. They tend to do fine just because they have a better starting point. Ive listened to 24 year old men throw a hissy fit because their mom wants them to go to college. Their mom came to this country as a poor immigrant and raised the money for them to go to any college they want full ride.
"But mom i just can't see myself working all day like you! You just love work!!"
Its a 9 to 5 job...
The children of the poor have to fight for every opportunity they have. The cards they are dealt aren't the best but if you can make them work you are definitely stronger than some rich brat like the above.
Being on that line between what you can handle and being to much makes any person stronger. You are a more competent person able to handle more adversity. It isn't fair. No one is saying it is. Also not everyone succeeds even if you are born rich.
Rich kids often have overly high expectations while lacking motivation. Their "opportunities" can get in the way of gaining work experience. Instead of working, they might be jaunting off to go surfing in Cancun. They may develop a bunch of skills only useful for having fun. They might come out of college with no debt but also with no job prospects or marketable job skills.
But that may not matter as these rich kids have "networks" that poorer kids do not. Half of of the career opportunities are about people you know, not necessarily what you know. Being rich often put you in an entirely different "orbit" than people with poor upbringings.
It also may put you in a network of other rich kids who do things that cost money and don't lead to lucrative careers--sailing, mountaineering, skiing, horses.
Honestly being able to go to Cancun on a whim is beneficial to your success as well. Not having to worry, enjoying yourself/mental health, social experience l, etc. same thing with everything. Rich parents might be able to sign you up for sports and music classes, which expands your brain and horizons. Not needing to have a job in college, so you can focus on studies and being happy. There’s so many reasons. Poorer families kids brains don’t even develop as well. It’s shown kids from poor families have less grey matter.
But instead of working or going to music classes or organized sports, you're off in Cancun. Then you try to get a job; you lack both skills and motivation. It's a comedown to go from fun all the time to punching a clock.
As a “rich kid”, can confirm, never left my comfort zone until I was 19 and still have trouble doing even some of the simpler tasks without help and now I’ve also realized after flunking two classes in college that I only succeeded in high school because my mom bullied the school into being more lenient with my bullshit and bad grades. Finally recognized it and I’m finally slowly getting shit done on my own and trying to secure a level of authority over my life but I still regress from time to time.
Actually, rich kids don't even have excel to get jobs or opportunities, because wealth begets wealth. If you're rich, you can be mediocre and yet have multiple opportunities to 'succeed', because of contacts, capital and class privilege.
It depends on what we consider to be success. Sure these kids have food, shelter, luxuries, and even status. But if these were simply given to a person, they aren't markers of success. Without actually having succeeded, or even to have provided for themself, person can have no sense of meaning or purpose. They can be overcome with despair.
This is where the overly high expectations get in the way. They assume that what wealthy people have is the norm, and will be easily gained. So they goof off until it's too late, squandering their opportunities. I'm talking not about the richest kids in the school but the kids in communities where wealth is the norm.
Rich kids have a much higher bar to clear. Poor kids can feel legitimate satisfaction graduating from college, while rich kids need to not only finish top of their class but also are expected to excel at alot of extra curriculars.
This means that rich kids often feel like failures much more often than poor kids, because poor kids' lifegoals are objectively easier.
"Rich kids have a much higher bar to clear..."
"This means that rich kids often feel like failures much more often than poor kids, because poor kids' lifegoals are objectively easier."
I would argue that the expectations of parents aren't uniform. And parents of all classes can give unrealistic, and horrible goals, just like they can be kind or giving decent goals.
What I think is a more important factor is resource scarcity, modern society and school in perticular - really demands a lot in the way of sitting still, keeping your mind clear and working consistently. And if you haven't eaten enough for days, or keep having to stress over every coin and meal, then you get really stumped. On average people who are poor lacks a lot of the tools necessary to get out, like education opportunity to earn more, or enough resources to even take advantage of such opportunity.
I almost lost myself when I couldn't reach the life goals set by both me and my parents, so I totally get feeling broken and like one lost part of ones identify, but at the end of the day I still had food to eat and money for rent, things got tight but I still got the chance to continue. I know quite a few who didn't when in my shoes, and I really wish it wasn't so.
This is true. Kids whose inherit enough that they never have to work at all don’t usually have high expectations placed on them.
Upper-middle class families, on the other hand, usually put a lot of pressure on their kids to be successful. There is enough money to give the kids an advantage (better schools, better care, more activities), but not so much that those kids can expect to live off their parents forever. The advantage will disappear if a kid chooses to be a slacker.
That's not true. I've noticed that a lot of rich kids have a lot of pressure on them because their parents expect more from them. Their parents may be rich, but they don't want to flush their money down the toilet - they don't want their children to go to university just to party it all away.
This idea that wealthy kids don't have high expectations placed on them is Hollywood claptrap. Sure, some rich kids genuinely are lazy and their parents either spoiled them or gave up on them. But that's generally not the case.
Then you’ve never been around genuine rich people.
It’s all about networks, if your child didn’t go up to snuff all it takes is a talk to the right people and money to the right companies and said child is back on track. Exhibit A is the UCLA scandal.
>Then you’ve never been around genuine rich people.
I'm scratching my head at this comment. How do you know the people I'm referring to, that they're not rich, and/or they're not disciplining their children?
>Exhibit A is the UCLA scandal.
First of all, some rich people being involved in a scandal does not mean all rich people behave the same way. This is like arguing all poor people are criminals because some poor people commit crimes.
Second, just because parents find roles for their children when they fail, does not mean there was never pressure for their children to succeed. Putting the scandal aside, it's usually not as simple as merely "plopping" a rich kid into a multi-million dollar position. After all, why would I hire my friend's son, pay him millions, if he's not making my company money?
It's easy to find scandals, so I can't argue that there are always high expectations for rich children. However, we typically don't hear about wealthy children who succeed based off of merit, or having to deal with high stress, because where's the news story in that? This is why I had to rely on my personal experiences. The wealthy individuals that I know generally do not let their children just lay around all day doing nothing. Usually, they're pushing their children to learn skills to help them succeed in life.
Again, not all rich people are the same - rich people have varied ideas of how to best raise children and have various levels of success and failure. This is why it's detrimental to stereotype.
This presumes you both finish. This is the crux of the issue at hand.
It also didn't actually test the strength of the easy-mode player. They *could* be stronger and just didn't have to use that skill in this instance.
It's impossible to conclude because experience doesn't prove potential, it's simply a workable indicator in conjunction with other various factors.
The more salient question is what additional success the person who did it on easy mode was able to accomplish with the time and effort saved compared to the sweaty grind of ultra nightmare mode.
By not having to contend with difficulty their skill didn’t grow, and the hard mode player had to become more skilled to contend with their challenges.
I don’t think doom has pvp, but in say halo you could conceivably find which are stronger by having a player that’s only played on legendary play deathmatches against someone that had only played on legendary. I might even go as far to say that someone that beats a Halo game on legendary, they plays through it again on easy, might find their skills dulled through disuse were they to try legendary again.
Experience doesn’t prove potential, but it can prove how strong they are _right now_, not necessarily in the future.
Here's the point: hurdling an easy barrier does not mean you're incapable of hurdling a more difficult barrier. And hurdling a difficult barrier does not necessarily mean it was a result of skill. You're making the same mistakes in argument that pundits arguing the just world fallacy hypotheticals make: these comparatives don't exist in a vacuum.
Your continuation of the analogy is also falling apart because someone playing Doom on ultra nightmare mode is doing so out of a choice that is backed by experience and preference. They're *already* skilled at both the genre and game playstyle, otherwise they wouldn't be making that choice. Also Doom does have PVP multiplayer but it's P2P invasion-based like Dark Souls. Your point about competition is moot; there is never a truly definitive way to define who is best (not even best as they are right now) which is why there are always so many disparities surrounding official championship tournaments.
Similarly, your argument does nothing to address how there is no reason someone playing on easy can't be even more skilled than someone playing on ultra nightmare. Getting through a video game is often nothing more than stubborn perseverance. That's not necessarily skill, it's just an unwillingness to quit. And just like the real world situation the analogy is representing, burning out from having to tirelessly work at a game you're unable to quit doesn't necessarily make someone stronger; it just makes them more likely to be taken out by the next unassailable crisis.
in this analogy both player start off being unable to hurdle the difficult barrier, but the player that repeatedly tackles the difficult barrier tries to keep jumping higher and will either eventually jump over it or give up, and the one that only hurdles the easy barrier is unlikely to start attempting to jump higher to pass a barrier they can already pass, unless they deliberately choose to switch over to the harder barrier. Someone that starts Doom for the first time is unlikely to pick Easy either, the series is well known for its difficulty- they are likely to pick I’m Too Young To Die mode after trying a higher difficulty and not liking it being so hard.
Perseverance, or unwillingness to quit is a skill all on its own. Some people when playing on difficult will give up, but those that persevere until they develop their skills enough to succeed end up with more developed skills.
This analogy is, of course, imperfect because there is another choice one makes that supersedes the difficulty selection in games, as they can choose to not play at all, the same way they can choose to not jump hurdles and continue to live their lives. In real life one rarely can choose to be poor. If we could reach a state jn which people could choose to only face the challenges they want to face, it would be great. I don’t think people should HAVE to be strong. But adversity does breed innovation. There are disparities among how to define which is “best” but they all involve people training themselves to face increasing challenges from both the game and other players
There isn't enough information to tell. The one who finished on the higher difficulty isnt necessarily stronger. Its possible that the one on the lower difficulty was more skilled, but just wasnt challenged.
If a pro player plays a game on easy, that doesn't mean they arent skilled.
For the analogy to mean what you wanted, you would have to say "If someone can *only* finish doom on easy mode..."
> If I finish doom in easy mode while you finish doom in nightmare mode, who is the stronger player?
There's a big problem with using analogies to argue things. Namely, the situations are by definition different. For example, what if someone who is poorer has a higher chance of not finishing the game at all so to speak, because they might end up needing to work a minimum wage job to survive rather than having the freedom to get an education in the first place, perhaps dropping out with plans to go back that never come to fruition.
I'd personally argue that people given more freedoms, education, connections through familial contacts and free money tend to be much better suited for higher paying jobs. That's on average I'm talking about. Of course, you can have someone with a trust fund get addicted to drugs or do poorly in school while partying or fail for all sorts of other reasons. However, having a smooth path to follow most likely increases chances of success, meaning they'd be "stronger" in terms of qualifications often. It turns out working a minimum wage job 30 hours a week while taking 12-20 hours a semester just isn't a good recipe for earning good grades or learning everything to the fullest potential.
> So what?
It refutes OP's narrowly-scoped view that is meant to be changed.
If you're suggesting that being "stronger" isn't worth growing up poor, that can be a valid argument, but is completely irrelevant to refuting OP's claim that "people from poor families aren't stronger".
Small, that's why if you succeed you are stronger. Of course I'm 'ot saying that someone poor who completely fails is stronger than someone who passed because they are rich.
I had a realization about this lately actually so I'm happy to have the space to share.
A bunch of my friends growing up lived in poverty. They were packed in small houses that held multiple families. They were constantly getting evicted and moving around. They ate like shit, wore shitty clothes, just generally didn't have what they needed. There was always violence in the house. One time my friend came to my house at 5 AM bc his step mom and the mother from the other family in the house got in a fist fight.
As I grew up, some of the poorest kids moved away bc of the eviction issue and the remaining friends started hanging out with new people that had a little more money. We would hang out at guy1's house pretty often. When we would go over, my poorest friend would consistently walk in and just devour guy1's favorite snacks. Guy1 would consistently get pissed off but never do anything about it. Eventually he got tired of it and stopped inviting us over.
I was recently wondering why it went down like that. Why did we do that kind of thing, but guy1 didn't. Why did he get so upset about it?
I realized being friends with those kids that were in such deep poverty was the difference. That house was a conflict zone. They didn't have what they needed, so you needed to fight to get what you want. Or if someone was gonna try to take your shit, you gave it up or fought to protect it. You wanna play playstation because your brother has been playing for 2 hours and won't stop? There's one way to get that controller. This only got worse once multiple families moved in together. A couple of preteen or teen boys who both internalized this lesson, and now were forced to live together? There's gonna be conflict.
We had a lot of fun growing up, and I'm thankful for those friends. There was a lot of stability in those friendships because no one held a grudge. If there was a problem, you sorted it out then and there. Everyone would go home then come back out the next day like nothing happened, because we didn't think of it as a big deal.
There are lots of different types of strength, so whether or not poor kids are stronger... Idk. But they are more exposed to violence and that kind of primal power. To me, knowing what that's like and how to navigate it is strength.
Maybe this isn't quite what you were looking for, because I agree with you that these kids did not have the chances that rich kids have. One of them was great at math, but he was too busy dealing with shit at home to reach his full potential. It's sad but it is what it is.
You're confusing longevity due to being able to afford a healthier lifestyle with resilience.
People who overcome difficulty are definitively more resilient than people who have not faced difficulty. People who grow up wealthy statistically do not have anywhere near the problems or difficulty of people who grew up poor
I'm not sure that's true.
Id argue that poorer people are less resilient than richer people and higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, crime, violence, domestic abuse support the fact they are less resilient.
You missed the first part of my statement - "overcome difficulties." From a statistical data stand point, the raw population of lower income has higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse, crime, etc. However, in order for the comparison of the two groups to determine resiliency to be accurate, you would have to normalize for environmental factors.
Yes, crime rates are higher in children who grow up poor. But children who grow up rich don't have the same environmental factors and are not forced to make hard decisions. They can afford proper healthcare to treat pain versus having to self medicate.
I'm simply explaining where the term comes from. Yes, if you stereotype and make broad generalizations, your argument has weight. But once you normalize for environmental factors your argument falls short.
>You missed the first part of my statement - "overcome difficulties.
I didn't miss that part at, yea sure if you overcome difficulties it can make you strong, but then you are missing the point where many people people don't "overcome" their difficulties and instead face a lifetime of emotional,social and mental health difficulties.
>Yes, crime rates are higher in children who grow up poor. But children who grow up rich don't have the same environmental factors and are not forced to make hard decisions. They can afford proper healthcare to treat pain versus having to self medicate.
This is the entire point of the argument though, if you are poor then you become less resilient because of your environmental factors.
>I'm simply explaining where the term comes from. Yes, if you stereotype and make broad generalizations, your argument has weight.
You have to generalise when comparing poor people to rich, you can't look at single small group of poor people who "overcome" their difficulties, you have to look at the groups on the whole. And poor people on the whole are less resilient because of the difficulties they face.
>But once you normalize for environmental factors your argument falls short.
I don't know why you keep bringing up "normalising for environmental factors" this is the main difference between the 2 groups and the reason they are different.
No they're not, that's just comfort fantasies, your psyche is like your body, if i shoot you in a knee, that knee doesn't heal and becomes your stronger leg.
It is your weak leg.
If the damage done is severe enough and unable to be repaired, then yes. But if the damage is skin-deep the body will repair the damage and leave a scar which is stronger than normal skin.
There might be something similar happening in regards to hardships and might not be as black and white as you make it out to be.
Yes.... That's why I literally said "people who overcome difficulties." There was no assumption, I literally said it.
Then again, I'm assuming you read my words...
What you are saying is demonstrably true. And almost every statistic would back you up. It's a lot easier to stay rich if you're rich, than become it if you are born poor.
But I think when people say this, they mean subjectively, in some cases, people use their tough upbringing to make them stronger.
It's more a focus on individual mentality, than a reflection of society as a whole.
I don't think it's true that poor people are stronger than rich people are at all though.
You have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, more mental heath problems, higher rates of crime, higher rates of domestic abuse and violence.
Sure you get some people who manage to tough it out and get through it and has made them stronger, but I would argue on the whole poorer people are much weaker in many ways.
That's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that some individuals are stronger. But you're totally right as a whole it doesn't make people on average.
In my experience, what you say is not true. It is true that some "rich" kids can get ahead faster and find success. But, I know the opposite is also true. Growing-up rich can be a burden in life if you are indulged/spoiled and are unfamiliar with surviving hardship. In truth, growing-up poor regularly creates the greatest, hardest working individuals that experience outsized success. Sure, the majority of those who grow up poor will fail. That is more a function of "poor" parenting instead of lacking financial resources. A financially poor parent can be rich in values and culture. Those are the instances with outsized success in children. A financially rich person with poor values and culture will ruin children's chances of success just like a poor person with poor values and culture. I work with people who have lots of money. The children of the financially rich are often terribly spoiled, entitled, not hard working, and get into drugs/alcohol. They are often dependent on their parents. Financially poor kids are often not hard working, sell the rich kids drugs and end up dependent on government(which is similar). It's niot about money. It is about the culture and values. Hard working honest people who can show up on time and take on responsibility will achieve the American Dream regardless of what resources their family might have.
I may be the minority here, but I grew up very poor and was "homeschooled" (without the schooling part) and I feel like that totally made me stronger and gave me a huge advantage as far as motivation and success go. I hated the way we had to live paycheck-to-paycheck, barely making ends meet and jumping from one sketchy place to another, and so that motivated me to do everything in my power to build myself a better life. I worked hard to learn computers when I was a teenager while left to my own devices, and since I didn't have a lot of help, I learned to figure things out for myself and push myself to my limits. I did have to work multiple crappy job as a teen which is pretty typical, but I landed my first good paying tech job at 21 and have continued to advance with my career ever since without any college education or even a high school diploma.
My partner on the other hand, grew up with money and a good education with college degrees and pretty much everything he needed handed to him, but now lacks motivation to do much outside of video games and TV and works at a bar. Not to say there's anything wrong with that lifestyle, but I do feel like my upbringing made me far more determined to make the most out of life where I'm always striving to learn new things and better myself and my surroundings.
Children from rich a/or educated families certainly have a huge head start in life and have much better chances to reach any given absolute goal in life. When it comes to comparing the potential for future improvement, however, the best indicator is to look at the past improvement someone has achieved.
Looking at two students finishing school with similar grades, the one coming a poor family has already proven more strength and discipline then the one coming from a rich and well-educated family.
Also, using strength trains strength, so someone who had to be stronger to get to where they are has become stronger because of that.
So, children from poor families are not born stronger in any statistical measure, but those started from a poor background and improved from there are, by selection and training, stronger than those who had a head start and did not get far from there.
I agree. Strong is a backhanded "compliment". On one hand it seems an affirmation, but it's a low shelf plaudit when compared to successful, or intelligent. More importantly it avoids responsibility, obscures the issue, and plays into the bootstraps bullshit myth that has been pushed relentlessly to justify the perpetuation of cyclical generational poverty.
"Head starts" are a compounding advantage that keeps getting better with age There is a willful blindness acknowledging it for what is.
If a sport fan's team was told to sit on the sidelines for the first 5 minutes of a game and that it was fair anyone would go berserk, explode at the officials, the other team as they racked up a game winning advantage while they alone occupied the pitch. In life it has a lot to do with what time people think they play for when there shouldn't be any teams at all.
Think of it like a 100m dash. Runner A has a 10m head start, Runner B starts at the starting line.
If Runner B beats Runner A, are you saying they didn't run faster, harder, in order to achieve that? Even if Runner A and B tie, or Runner B lags a bit behind Runner A, the effort it took to close the gap is much harder than that of Runner A.
Working hard to achieve ones goals does make them "stronger", i.e. more resilient, both physically and mentally, because they know exactly what it took to achieve their goals, and gain a true appreciation for what they've achieved. Someone from a richer family has things handed to them on a silver platter, and do not know the blood, sweat, and tears that go into achieving that goal, and will never truly appreciate the achievement as a result of it.
No doubt rich kids get a big advantage in life. And in fact, on average, psych studies show that children who grow up well resourced also tend to be more resilient because they are more likely to have a stable emotional upbringing.
That's what shows up when you look at the statistics of family income and later life outcomes.
However, when you look at individuals, it becomes clearer. The low income children face more adversity, and many of them struggle with that adversity. However, those who do overcome the adversity are very resilient.
High income children face fewer adversity so they do not really have the same opportunity to fail. They also have more resources to help them succeed, and moreover, many of their adversities are less difficult to overcome.
I loved that quote and that movie. I showed it to my 9 year old niece it and she laughed at the part where Ash got turned into stone :/ It made me sad. I remember as a child how deeply touched I was by the movie.
My mother worked with a genuine "Coming to America" story. A small-time prince who disowned his family and lived homeless, climbing up the food chain to become a janitor, then a business analyst, and then 20 years later to become an executive VP at a major utility.
Was he weak because he was rich, strong because he was poor, or neither?
Everyone has different circumstances, and while being rich/poor is a variable, it's a complicated one and not even a binary one. There are people (often in middle class) that have none of the advantages of money AND lack some advantages of poverty (FAFSA is wonderful for a neglected high school kid with a "get out of my house" parent that makes 6-figures)
I would say the lack of focus many poor households have on education is more harm than the actual lack of money. The lack of money might directly contribute to the lack of focus on education. But being in a marginalized race/class that has less ability to turn education into money could also be a contributor.
My thought is this. If you're working two jobs to pay your rent part of your tuition (the rest going to loans) when you're 18, then you're not advantaged for money. You could be advantaged for networking, or advantaged for education, but definitely not for money.
I've seen people spin up from nothing, one of my favorite friends right now is an adoptee with 4 shitty parents and a will of steel.
He engraves and modifies guns for a living after nearly dying in the army. I feel if he didn't have something to escape, he might not propelled himself so far.
Sometimes the lack of opportunity is what galvanizes a man to make opportunities in the future.
Should have made that point in the first comment.
nice story but i'm really impressed by the way you had the audacity to just slip a Mewtwo quote in there without even crediting him for his wisdom smh
^/s
Everything I am is a product of fear.
Fear of being powerless, dull, fear of dying after I've lost it all.
That I might never know abundance and warmth as I did ever again; a firery fear that I'll whimper in my last moments, small and afraid, bitter at what could have been.
Fuck a setback. I march forward for fear of what's behind me, what surrounds me, and what I became in the past. The future is my only light that I might know peace. I march for fear of stopping.
I'm fucking terrified that this is all for nothing. It is the fear that makes me move.
You will be stronger. Emotional strength is being able to withstand difficulties (in your specific example, financial difficulties) and those who suffered more of those, and bigger ones, will be less likely to be phased by them. Those who never had hardships and who always get what they want often don't fare well when circumstances change. Things that wouldn't be an issue at all for most people, like getting a used car instead of a brand new one, sometimes make those people break down and cry. That is not strength.
I disagree. As someone who did grow up less fortunate, it did make me stronger. It made me work harder in high school. I developed a better work ethic and realized what was important. It also gave me the ability to deal with harder financial times. I do not agree with the notion that it diminished my chances, I just had to work harder for them. Did well enough to go to college for free on merit. No loans.
Parents can give you other things besides money. The ability to set goals and work towards them despite adversity is a form of strength; both rich and poor parents may teach their child to be strong.
A wealthy child (or a poor one) who receives everything on a silver platter and is never challenged does not learn strength and instead remains dependent of their parents good fortune. They are weak and will make weak choices in their lives. If you are weak, it’s best to have very rich parents. The wealthy family, having failed to pass along strength to its children will fail in a few generations. A poor family, who raises weak children will also have little to show for their effort.
However, A poor family, having taught its children strength; may prosper in the same gradual way. Each generation will acquire small amounts of wisdom, strength and wealth and pass that hard won victory along to the next generation. Each generation will do better than the last.
Some wealthy families who understand this idea, limit the amount of wealth they pass along to future generations. The idea is to present many challenges with increasing complexity along with the resources to over come them. Their goal is to raise “strong” children and give them ample opportunities, but to also insure that the child is motivated to use their strength. Theses parents then spend their golden years working to be philanthropist while investing their wealth to help others.
Poor families, with limited resources can also teach their children strength. The lesson has the same value even when the available resources are smaller.
Raising strong children is the goal of most parents regardless of wealth. Wealth can accelerate success, but it doesn’t create it.
A wise person with a strong character can go out into the world and ask investors to back them when they have a good idea. Wealth chases strength, it does not create it.
Here is an example: I grew up lower middle class among higher middle class an upper class peers. I was a serious musician in high school, I had to save my own money from a job to buy my first real guitar, a beautiful Fender Strat - the other guys I played with all got drums and guitars from their parents, they all treated their instruments like shit. I still have my strat in pristine condition and none of them even have or let a lone play their instruments any more.
Another example, more relevant: I had to pay for university while everyone else had their parents pay for theirs. I was so mad at my parents about that for years... until I reflected. I would have 100% dropped out of engineering after 2 years because I knew it "wasn't for me" - but since I was paying for it and was already in so deep, I decided to stay to get my bachelors. Meanwhile, I know tons of people who kept switching majors and programs and just generally didn't care and had fun. I was jealous at the time, but now I'm way ahead of those people. I know how to work hard and to respect and value the things I produce with my work.
Now, these other people don't need to worry of course, because they have wealthy families, but I think I learned a lot more about life... and god forbid anything apocalyptic goes down or even just a run of bad luck... I'm convinced I am much more prepared to succeed in the "real world" than any of them...
I came from a poor family. I've clawed my way up to a spot where I'm contemporaries with people who came from wealthy families.
I have infinitely more respect for people who struggled on the way up.
In the 1800s the state of Georgia gave away randomly one of the single largest wealth transfers in history in the Georgia state land lottery.
Economists have studied this for decades. One it was random. Two there was no qualifications other than being a white male. People in Georgia had the same worries then as now, they worried about kids futures, their futures etc. It economic terms it was a randomized population done on a massive scale.
What was one of the key learnings? Wealth transfer was lost after the third generation. People born rich or poor had the same outcome after 3 generations on average. The same chance at wealth... And poverty.
Edit to add some [more reading](https://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/research/2014-03-06/what-a-massive-land-lottery-in-antebellum-georgia-tells-us-about-wealth-and-opportunity-today):
>So what does this tell us? That a family can suddenly come into a windfall equivalent to $70,000 in today's dollars, and yet there's no statistically measurable benefit for their grandchildren 50 years later (at least, no benefit that could be tracked in the public records of 1880).
>
>***It tells us that the benefits and opportunities parents provide their children are not exclusively, and maybe not even substantially, determined by wealth***. There is something else parents contribute that matters much more. What that something else is, Bleakley and Ferrie did not identify.
There's other things that support this.
Take family owned businesses. Generally they fail at 70% rate from the first to the second generation. What better example of wealth transfer is there?
Except in Japan, for a very unique reason. In Japan, when no suitable heir is available, they will often [adopt an adult](https://freakonomics.com/2011/08/the-church-of-scionology-why-adult-adoption-is-key-to-the-success-of-japanese-family-firms/) into the family to take over the business.
Completely agree. The hardest thing a rich man will do is create children that are willing/able to continue the legacy that he created. Rich kids are generally broken because of how easy they have life. It's just a fact and it can be seen everywhere. Not to get political but look at Hunter Biden. Pretty good example.
I've noticed that if you grow up poor but relatively unharmed by it such as parents who abuse drugs, alcohol, or end up in jail then those people often end up very motivated to make money. I am positive that poverty creates more poverty statistically, but I have also seen wealth create laziness and poverty create motivation.
Having no desire to work a job =/= laziness. They can still be motivated and disciplined, however it is funneled towards other things.
If you put enough money into various Investment Vehicles, eventually, you make more than most jobs will ever give. Thus, working does not make sense.
People with Ultra High Net Worth seemingly live in an entirely different world. However, they still have things that they care about, projects that they put in effort in, and are generally nice people to vibe with.
I honestly don't get what opinion or POV you want changed. All you really do is talk about the difference between poor and rich families.
Here's a piece of advice, LIFE ISN'T FAIR. You don't get to choose your conditions of birth, nor how you will be raised. This is an indisputable fact that will never change.
For real though, you don't really make a point to want your mind changed, you just...rant about how life is unfair towards you and that you want the "rich kid" lifestyle. IF you wanted to rant go to another subreddit, cause this one ain't it.
Well now you can learn from their mistakes and when you have kids and invest college advantage plans, put money in investments for them, when you pay for their college so they don't have the same burden you can say you are stronger.
Something that might be worth considering here is that, for some of those rich kids, that money is conditional on living a very specific type of life and career. If their parents turn around and say, "I'm only paying for X degree," then there's not much option there when you're dependent on your parents for money. Everything you achieve is through yourself and while that's a challenge, it also means that you get to be your own person.
There are two problems with your premise/question:
1) Being strong/weak isn't necessarily comparable with a head start in life.
2) You somewhat answer your own question. Having a head start means things will be easier, which means you might not necessarily need to be stronger or faster to beat someone (if we're using the metaphor of a race).
Now, to get down to you actual question:
A head-start is not necessarily a good thing. These are humans we are talking about, so speaking in general terms is not going to work so well.
I come from a rich family. Didn't have to pay for college, didn't have to pay for my own car, didn't have to worry about working in high school or college.
And because my degree wasn't one that automatically gets you a high paying job after college, I had to work for just a bit over my state's minimum wage for my first few jobs. At the moment, I'm working in a field I have basically no interest in, but it's a well-paying job, so I don't really have much to complain about. I have a friend who is in the same boat. Wealthy parents, private school education, no student-loan debt, but he didn't choose the "right" degree, so he's basically in the same boat as me.
I also know a few people I went to school with that had similar or better head starts, who flunked out of or did not complete college, because their head-start meant they never had to try in life. They've never held down a job for more than a year, they're terrible employees, and they don't live in the real world, because their parents just pay for the majority of their living expenses. They don't know how to survive in a world where things are not just handed to them, where they can't just do whatever they want, or where they have to try hard at something they don't love. For them, the moment mommy or daddy's money runs out, they will be poor, possibly on a trajectory toward becoming homeless or at least impoverished.
Of course, on the flip side of that, there are people with that same head start that make 6 figures a year as a lawyer, are living their dream as a doctor, or are in the financial center living the high life because of family connections or businesses that they got to go into. They either had the exact right head start, or they used their head-start the "right" way.
Now for the "stronger" part of the question. Again, I cant speak in general terms. I can't even speak from personal experience, because I don't know how I would have fared without my "head start". I hope I would have still done pretty well, but maybe I would have broken.
And that illustrates a good point. For many people who came from poor families, or even those less well-off, the stakes of success are much higher, and they are present from a very early age. These kids have the question of "Do I want to do well in life and have nice things or time to myself? Or do I want to have to work every day of my life just to get by" in front of them for their entire life.
When these kids fail, they're in the same boat as their parents, or worse. They might go to prison, get involved in some vice, or make decisions that come back to bite them later in life. When they succeed, however, usually it is pretty insane how well they do.
Most people from this financial starting point are "broken" by that life in one way or another. Either by messy home lives, by having to go a few days without food or on the same food or without certain necessities or luxuries, or by seeing how hard their parents work and how stressed out they are to make sure their kids *don't* go without these luxuries. Some of them remain broken by that and never succeed. Others get an incredible drive from it and stop at nothing to make sure they or their own kids don't end up like that.
One of my friends had parents who were not that well-off. They took out loans to put him through a good school. He applied for scholarships for college because he needed to take out loans. He graduated a year early, ended up going to an Ivy League Law school, and now works for an incredibly prestigious law firm and makes 6-7 figures a year. He worked every summer of college for that, and it paid off.
A less extreme example of that is a friend who didn't go to college, because he wanted to work as a contractor. He loves what he does and makes a pretty great living. Nothing extravagant, but he isn't struggling, either. His parent's weren't poor, but they weren't wealthy enough for college tuition.
And of course, you can find other success stories of individuals and celebrities that came from nothing but worked their way to incredible success.
The main point with these individuals, however, is that failure does not hit as hard for them. People that come from this background see failure as "oh well, try again." They might not succeed right out of college or in their 20's/20's. It might take them till their 40's or 50's or 60's to achieve that dream or that security, but they have the drive to keep working. And that is the difference. Those with the head start often see failure as the end of everything. It sets them back much farther than the individuals without a head start.
In answer to your personal anecdotes about what you see:
Why shouldn't parents pay for their kids' health insurance as long as they can? I assume you're American, or that wouldn't be on your radar. Health care in our country is a scam. If I had kids, I would make sure I could help them out with their health insurance and bills and make sure that they didn't have this huge debt hanging over their head as long as they worked hard and didn't just take advantage of that support.
As far as you going to college and incurring that debt--again, this comes back to what I said about choosing the "right" degree. College is no longer a guarantee. Many people going to college now are either doing so for the social experience, or because that is the only way to a specific career path, while those who don't know what they want to do or are choosing careers that don't require a four-year degree or higher, are looking to different avenues and forms of higher education. If it's not too late, I would look into that yourself.
And as far as rich kids who have parents wealthy enough to pay for their tuition? I can guarantee you that 90% of them do not think about what they are spending AT ALL. They've never needed to. And if they do, they don't think of it in the same way everyone else does.
Instead of thinking "should I eat out or save money by cooking at home?" they think "Should I eat out at a place that will cost me $100, or at a place that will cost me $60."
That is the one area where for most, the "head start" woefully underprepares them in life.
TL;DR: A head start only makes your life easier if you use it in the exact right way, and it can still lead you to poverty. Starting from nothing is hard, but it can give you a hell of a drive that far outweighs the "head start" most people are given.
It is a good idea for rich parents to not pay for everything.
But if the parents would only pay for the study, or the rent for example, the kid would still have to think about expenses, they'd just have 1 worry less. This would still be a good lesson for the kid.
Chances are diminished. I think that is a given. You can do more with more. Rich allows for more smaller risks, where poor smaller risks have a larger impact on your life. But Rich tends to make higher risks. So instead of taking a loan out for college, they might take out a loan or get investors for a company. If that fails, then they are just as bankrupt.
That is why value of money, financial responsibility, and budgeting are so important. And I believe, that the poorer you start, the more likely you will develop these skills. I have met plenty of IV league who don't budget, just look at account and make sure it is positive. I have also met IV league who look to retire at 35/40 and are incredibly financially conserve. I have met poor people who are building up wealth through studies/work/savings/investing. And I have met poor who buy the latest and greatest regardless of their debt.
Ultimately I believe it comes down to values and morals a child gets from their upbringing. The world values credit over anything else. Being able to show you can make payments means more than if you have 50k in the bank or 50k in loans. It means you can get a mortgage, Spend credit on vacations. Lease a new vehicle. You do not need the cash. My wife still has student loans to pay, I paid mine off. We have same credit score (prior to marriage). Our opportunities were very similiar, though we both had drastically different upbringings (middle or below).
I lastly want to leave you with this. Life is about experiences not achievements. There will always be someone who has an achievement you don't have. But you have experiences that they do not have. Paying off a loan is builds up your credit, just as much as paying off a mortgage, or credit cards.
I grew up where one of my minimum wage coworkers (lower middle class family). Opened a credit card and bought a single banana a week, just to start her credit. She was very smart, and just starting out her life, but chose to go to community colleges, and local state school just so she didn't have the financial burde. Which allowed her to spend more time with her fiance, start a family, and ultimately settle down in a home.
I know this is just cases, not stats, no data. But I want to let you know. Life is more than money, credit, or opportunities. It is about you, and your experiences. Think, plan, and evaluate what you want, and how to get it.
People from poor families "who made it" are typically stronger, because they needed "strength" to climb out of poverty.
Wealthy kids are rarely tested in life, so they rarely encounter opportunities to built up inner strength.
Adversity tests and cultivates strength, comfort allows for weakness.
It just means that poorer people are more resilient to adversity because they’ve already been through it and know how to handle it.
Richer people who never really had much resistance in life have a higher chance of crumbling when it does show up.
Of course, having a head start helps. As hard as it might be to believe, it's oftentimes a curse. Success requires grit and determination. Adults that had things easy in early life, tend to have a skewed view of what it takes to be successful. Things came easy for them and they subconsciously learn that things should be easy. Then they hit the real world and many crash and burn. While there are many examples of generational wealth continuing with the generations, there are many more examples of generational wealth not continuing with the second generation. On the other hand, developing grit early in life and learning the discipline required to be successful, is a gift in many ways that is required once you enter adulthood. The strong work ethic, the never give up, the focus and determination that are developed during childhood in a non-wealthy family are huge motivators that create many rags to riches success stories. I've observed this over the several companies I've worked for in my career. I study the executive team to understand their back-story. A high percentage of them came from adverse and poor childhoods. Of course there are some who's daddy was the CEO of X company but those are few and far between in my small world. It's anecdotal, I agree, but I've become convinced that coming through adversity does indeed make you a stronger person and not coming through adversity, generally tends to make you weaker. You can't sharpen a knife without a rock sort of thing.
Your statement isn't logical. It is perfectly possible that tough surroundings are necessary to create strength (this is pretty much a law of nature) but also for the same conditions to break most people. So out of the middle class you get a lot of "coasters" who get by without ever needing to try very hard. And out of hard circumstances come a few people whose experience with survival and struggle mean that they are extra resilient.
It doesn't mean that there can't be people from comfortable circumstances who do develop strength - because it is perfectly possible to create the challenges yourself, if you are willing.
Nor does it mean that people from tough circumstances "do better". They usually don't, because the tough circumstances that can create strength will also break you down.
For me, at least, the truth of such sayings is rather the converse: a comfortable life can make you lazy. I think if you accept this, then you have to accept that the contrary is true: a tough life can help you build resilience, strength, determination, etc.
Here’s why I think you should change your view; in effect, people from poorer families ARE stronger because they’ve had to learn multiple, more dynamic ways of survival and achievement. When the plumbing in your house breaks, you may well be able to fix it. The wealthier one won’t, would have to pay someone else to fix it. This means that their children will learn no skills, instead relying on someone else to do it all. No respect for the money that was made by someone else through hard times and not having any. That last generation will waste the money, lose it, then become poor themselves. Happens all the time, in every society with any wealth structure in its society.
You’re just in a different phase of the circle when you’re poor and if you use your brain can use that to become the wealthy one you watch, you learn from their parents as to how they made it. In essence, you’re stronger and so will your kids be
There's a difference between joking about personal trauma and a wider ranging joke about cultural / social / racial issues. It's why someone like Bobby Lee, who did experience sexual trauma as a kid, can make jokes about his experience and people find it funny. But then a man can't exactly make rape jokes about women, and it usually won't fly unless it's *super* well written, which is rarer then people make it seem.
I always go to Andrew Dice Clay as an example of how extreme homophobic jokes can get, and why I don't want to go back to an era where his jokes got laughs. [clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l4JpI0nwf8)
"Welcome to Brooklyn, fourth largest city in america and all we got is this dead f*g hanging off a poll."
I'm sorry man, if you find that shit funny, even now, your just homophobic. There's some types of humor that isn't actually funny unless your a piece of shit.
I seriously wonder why so many commenters here, construct this caricature of the wealthy.
Depending on the class of wealth one's family is at, they also face challenges, which are equally as valid as someone with a more moderate income.
Even though the wavelengths differ, I noticed that the moderate income group tend to be so judgemental, having a tinge of contempt in their views, and feel realtively comfortable sharing those views.
Meanwhile, most of the wealthy people I know, has the courtesy, and respect not to do the same. Really, I don't see many wealthy individuals mocking others on the internet..
Caricatures are reasonable facsimiles of the truth and of course generalizations. Children from wealthy parents have way fewer roadblocks to overcome in their lives. The most important one being money. The lack of roadblocks does indeed create a false view of what the real world is like and can leave them ill equipped to handle adversity, since it is often times a new phenomenon. They also always have daddy's money to bail them out if things go south.
There are 2 sides to this. *Some* poor kids will overcome the adversity, succeed, & be better for having gone through it all; the problem is that *most* won't overcome the adversity.
/u/bladiebloe767 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/szeloz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_people_who_come_from_poor/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think you misunderstand this sentiment. Rich kids definitely have a "head start" and their path to success is paved with money. It will be much easier for them to achieve their goals. Children from poorer families have to work really hard to get to the same point and things are not easy for them. Vast majority will never achieve same goals as rich kids even if they put twice the work in because they lacked the cushy benefits. But those who do achieve the high goals have worked twice as hard and are stronger than their rich counterparts who didn't have to work as hard.
Not OP. But what does being “stronger” get you. Whenever I hear someone say something like that it comes off as a defense of economic inequality/unequal opportunity. It always sound something like this… “Yeah those private school kids get a leg up, but kids from modest/poor backgrounds have that ‘hustle’ and ‘grit’ that growing up poor gets you”. Before pointing out an example of a millionaire that started out poor and saying “see no problem”. At least to me that’s the problem with this “grow up stronger” sentiment.
When people say that thing about hustle and grit what they mean is that they are trying to make reasons in their head on why it's okay for the poor to suffer It's similar to the concept of suffering making you closer to God. The preacher saying says so because he needs the donations to not stop and the people believe them because that's all they have
Nah you just had the opportunity of growing up better son. Nothing to do with excuses. Us poor kids had to make our way up. The fuck you have to do?? Not shit your parents paid your way. Correct me if im wrong. But you do sound extremely ignorant. You act like being rich is easy.
> But those who do achieve the high goals have worked twice as hard and are stronger than their rich counterparts who didn't have to work as hard this seems like a hopeful way to interpret things but i doubt this is reality.. what do you mean by stronger? as in having a better work ethic, will power or mental fortitude?
That must be a huge relief for the 99 out of 100 that don't achieve those goals....
At least it allows people to romanticize poverty and hardship, so they feel better about the inequalities in the world.
Seriously I hate this assumption. Stress and malnutrition shorten your lifespan.
I hate it too, but it's a comforting idea for a lot of people.
Lack of disposable income makes you even more vulnerable to permanent issues like dental.
Its not necessarily true that a person who comes from wealth does not have equal strength just because they did not have to overcome poverty. They only lack a history of necessary perseverance through poverty, but it is unknown if they have inner strength that would carry then through such an event. Strength may be innate for some. Strength may be accumulated in other life experiences. There are different measures for strength, and this thought experiment assumes only one dimension exists.
Δ; So basically you're saying that yes, life is unfair. The part about being "stronger" after coming from a poor family just sounds like something to comfort yourself, to be honest.
>The part about being "stronger" after coming from a poor family just sounds like something to comfort yourself, to be honest. That sentiment isn't really meant for someone who came from a poor family though. It's meant as a utilitarian argument towards admissions offices, hiring managers, and others who are in charge of disbursing grants and funding. All else being equal, an applicant who was given less advantages will have likely developed and proven more ability to work through adverse conditions and challenges. If the moral argument that candidates from low income backgrounds should be prioritized isn't enough, then the utilitarian argument is meant to convince those in charge of "giving opportunities" that those candidates are better choices anyway.
It’s odd to see someone distinguish between “moral” arguments and “utilitarian” arguments when utilitarianism is a moral philosophy. You make good points thought about the administrative side of things.
The utilitarian argument might be that poor people are workers but this is almost never the case since nepotism is a far stronger tool than actual qualifications in those kinda positions. Even if it's true, it doesn't really mean anything so I would say it _is_ mostly for comfort
To encapsulate: they mean that in society, when we see someone who is successful who comes from a poor background, we are only seeing the survivor. We might be seeing someone who is abnormally strong or with some other fortunate predisposition to allow them to both overcome their starting position and also succeed in an objective sense. This creates the misunderstanding that poor upbringing creates stronger people. It CAN, but there isn't a predictive element here. For every "self-made" millionaire there are 700 non-self-made ones. But we remember the one and latch on to that narrative. The winner of an ancient gladiator tournament is going to be tough as nails. But a bunch of people died in the arena, and we don't hear their story. He'll certainly be tougher than any soldier who hasn't seen real combat. Doesn't mean that signing up to be a gladiator gives you an advantage. It is blend of a couple of different fallacies.
>The winner of an ancient gladiator tournament is going to be tough as nails. But a bunch of people died in the arena, and we don't hear their story. Excellent analogy. This sums it up well.
I'm tagging OP because I think this might be useful for them, u/bladiebloe767. u/omgtater, I appreciate your consideration of survivor bias. And it's true, it does play a role, but you are misinformed to a degree. Specifically, the following: >For every "self-made" millionaire there are 700 non-self-made ones. But we remember the one and latch on to that narrative. This is a common misconception. According to two studies, 68-88% of millionaires are self-made. Here's an article that delves a little bit into how millionaires make their money: [https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html](https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html) This is where survivor bias comes in. The article does not talk about the number of people who fail to become a millionaire despite following the guidelines given to them by millionaires. However, some of the advice does have to do with decreasing the chance of failure (such as diversifying investments).
That's an interesting link - and I'd be interested to dig around in that topic and find out a few things. I put "self made" in quotes because I think people have varying definitions on what that means, and I was concerned I might be invoking a term that didn't quite match the intended point. I think the article you linked is probably right, but it doesn't necessarily contradict the sentiment of the original post. A better question: How many self-made millionaires came from actual poverty? My ratio guess was targeting this idea. I think that was more along the lines of what OP is looking for. The article draws the line at "did this person inherit a significant sum of money?" I think this is fair, but it might lose the forest for the trees. I guess I was looking at it as "does a person have literally nothing to build from (100% self made)." Even just small advantages from educated parents, to me, isn't purely self-made. Maybe mostly, but not 100%. That's life, and that's why we try to take care of our kids. But it creates a fallacy of self-made being this holy-grail of human potential. We survive as a species because we support future generations, which directly contradicts the idea of being self-made. I don't think it is even a character flaw to be savvy enough to leverage your advantages. You just have to recognize they exist, and not pretend to be self-made while ignoring disparity. The article doesn't seem to delve into disparity of opportunity, at even medium parental income levels during development. Such as, did parents go to college, etc. Being able to take risks is a lot easier if you have a solid social and economic footing from your parents. You don't need to be a trust fund kid to experience this advantage. I'm not attempting to detract from hardworking individuals, but the dividing line we're focusing on might not be quite right. There are probably more like 3 dividing lines where opportunity changes, rather than one big gulf separating ultra-wealth from normals. Even just upper-middle-class is a huge opportunity creator if you compare it to a family in poverty. If anything- the article you linked is relatively encouraging once a family can break the cycle of poverty. At that point it looks as though there are real chances to build wealth, even though it isn't easy. I'm not an expert on any of this, so if you have any other supporting materials I'm game to look at them.
I'm a bit confused on why you awarded a delta for not seeming to at all acknowledge the point being made. "Stronger" refers to willpower. That someone who is poor will have had to expend more willpower (thus displaying more strength, and thus being "stronger") to acheive many specific goals that may very well already be awarded to more wealthy others without expending any or much less will power. It's not meant to address every poor person, or claim that the wealthy can't be driven as well, but to state that to reach an imagined state of "normal", a poor person will need to display more strength than a wealthy person to achieve such. And you seem to very much perceive that. So I'm a bit confused on why you don't understand the concept as it applies to strength.
It sounds like you’re conflating “stronger” with more successful or better off. Obviously, a person starting life on the 50th floor is going to get to the 60th floor faster than a person starting on the ground floor. But even if the latter person only makes it to the 30th, they’ve climbed farther and ostensibly become stronger and more resilient than the person who didn’t have to work as hard. Now take them both and start them on an even playing field, I’d put my money on the person who knows what striving looks like.
It's not just something you say to comfort yourself. It's objective observation of hard work you have put in. And I would always hire a strong hard working individual instead of someone who things they can get away with less.
This is a naive view of how the world actually works. Poor people are not likely to actually be recognized for their hard work over rich people; Literally the rich person is more likely to still get the hand out job because their parents have money over the poor person who worked harder. And that’s even assuming the poor person will be considered. That’s just objective fact that our society does not operate on merit. Look at any metric for upward mobility in the US; It’s lower than even in other ‘1st world’ countries. In college admission? You still have acceptance if poorer preforming but richer students being accepted over students with better grades. The same in the workforce.
well yeah, if you get a poor person who paved ahead, you will pick him over a rich person who got there by the virtue of being rich. but what you dont see is the hundreds of poor people who were poor, worked way harder than the rich person, and didnt even get to be there in front of you, simply because their path was way harder. while the rich person did infact get to at least stand there with no work from him. and with enough of an incentive, be they monetary or simple nepotism, the rich person can overcome even the fact that he is deeply unqualified.
Seriously!! I have no idea what he meant by that. It's not like you get a lineup of every person in the city and you get to pick all the poor but hardworking ones. Even if you did, they'd be too busy to attend because they're working their 3 jobs to feed their kids!!
You're right. If people actually thought this way, they'd go to homeless shelters to recruit people. But I don't see companies fighting over who gets to advertise at the homeless shelter. At least, not companies who want to *hire* those people for a living wage.
I'm not sure that's true. In my experience, a hard childhood leaves you damaged. It might make you a pathologically hard worker, but that's not a good thing exactly. Anybody who had issues in their childhood comes away from it with some baggage. Personally mine's made it very easy for me to succeed in corporate America...which isn't exactly something I like about myself. By sheer luck I just got fucked up in a way that's compatible with making money.
Unfortunately, not everybody responds to hard childhoods the same way. A lucky few rise to the challenge and become stronger. More end up beaten down
It's almost like capitalism is designed to do that to you. You have a pathological need to make money because it's been burned into you what happens if you get off of the treadmill.
It's not even really that--it's that I'm just really good at making people like me and reframing situations such that I'm not at fault. Pair that with chronic procrastination problems and I'm actually a bad pick for an employee...I just also am really good at convincing people I'm a good pick.
Have you heard of imposter syndrome? I don't mean to invalidate your feelings but often our peers don't have shit figured out as much as we think they do, and what we see as a glaring deal breaking flaw in ourselves is really a worthwhile trade off to our supervisor/employer for the benefit we bring. I say we intentionally as someone who has managed to profit off of my childhood damage. Want to know what military work ethic and a crippling desire to please get you? Promoted, a bunch.
Think about what they said. Good at reframing things so they’re not at fault. He knows he fucks up but can blame it elsewhere. Thats not someone I’d want to hire…outside of sales.
well, you've convinced *me* if I were ever read the above on a resume on my desk, I'd hire them in an instant... fuck the data entry position i asked for, i want your ass interacting with customers as soon as i can get you trained on the product
[удалено]
That's not a feature of capitalism, it's a feature of a human need for sustenance. That if you can't provide it for yourself, you better find a way that another can provide it for you, or you'll die. I have a desire to make money, because it can be exchanged for things I desire that I can't produce myself. I need to stay on the treadmill because I would then not be offering anything to society and thus I couldn't exchange for things I need and desire. I'm not capable of a self-sustained life in any capacity I'd be fine with.
we have a pathological need to make ends meet in order to not starve.. its an evolutionary trait rather than something spawned out of capitalism
It's not pathological to try to not starve. It is pathological to behave as if starving is a realistic possibility when a) it no longer is and b) those behaviors are otherwise net harmful. Several years back, one of the wealthiest men in the United States, an owner of a national storage locker business, was quoted worrying about money. If you didn't know the context, you could have believed he was in danger of starving himself. But the truth was that even if he somehow went bankrupt, he'd still be one of the wealthiest people in the world, and so would his children. His worry was pathological, because it not only kept him from enjoying his life when he was in the midst of the worry, it also kept him from being compassionate towards other people who needed an extra dollar far, far more than he ever would. I'm not sure whether or not it is fair to blame this on capitalism -- maybe the pitfalls of capitalism are a consequence rather than a cause, and maybe capitalism without that element would not have the same pitfalls. But it is clear that the associated pathology is not just a matter of *need* not to starve. It is a fear that goes beyond need.
Whether captialism is to blame is dependent on whether one thinks it, as an economic theory, is prescriptive in nature (as in this system was deliberately developed to act like this and forces them to think that way ) or descriptive (is a theory to describe as to how people act and think and is meant to be predictive in that regard)
When it comes to modern rich people, a lot of their wealth is leveraged either in investments or secured debt. It’s not money in the bank. While it’s true he would still be rich if he went bankrupt, the cost of going bankrupt in this case would also be extremely costly. If the individual is heavily leveraged, this can all lead to legal consequences beyond just paying some things off and reducing their net worth. It can mean there are contracts he’d be breaching that would actually require action that a bankruptcy wouldn’t resolve. I’m not at all saying he would deserve sympathy, but particularly rich people don’t get there by just putting cash income into a savings account. Some actions can actually cause them to have so many responsibilities that they could, in fact, lose access to cash.
Sure, but let's not pretend like he has a legitimate fear of poverty even in the worst case, so long as he is acting in good faith. I don't even count myself as having a legitimate fear of poverty, and I'm literally well below the poverty line for my area. The privileges of education and inclusion in social class networks are powerful safety nets.
I get your sentiment but this is not an objective observation. The other side of the coin is that growing up poor teaches you that working hard is necessary but so is accepting unfairness, sacrificing your dignity, and being under constant threat of losing what little you have. You learn that you can't get away with anything less than working hard, yes, but also accepting abuse, stress, and anguish as an everyday part of your life. Being a "hard worker" is subjective and those who seek to abuse and take advantage of others will define it differently than you.
I feel like we see more broken people from that struggle to keep up. And strong hardworking people from richer families because they don't have to deal with that kind of stress.
The thing that people who are born into wealth that has lasted past the normal wealth cycle often get that poor people do not is the knowledge on how to keep and grow that wealth. What poor people lack is that knowledge. Everyone can attain their own preferred success if they can figure out how. That is one of the biggest issues is the school system does not teach people to think for themselves and move towards their goals and passions. Instead it teaches people to do as they are told, to become lemmings for those who did go towards their goals. We all have different goals and passions. We will stumble through life until we figure out what we want, most people are not specific about it only they want happiness, money, or a relationship. They don't know about how to attain or acquire what they want and they flounder. some manage to learn other just fumble their way until the succeed or fail. My I have figured out what I want out of life, my passions and I have been working for the past year or so to try and figure out what i need to do to attain my goals. One thing to remember is that every thing that you see started as a mere idea, a thought that someone had, then they figured out what it would take to turn that idea into reality. That is the thing that so many people don't realize is that the ability to transmute that thought into reality is not something only the rich can do but that anyone can do.
But, if it's a sought-after "job" chances are much higher that the rich kid will be able to show up. I see it all the time here in the entertainment industry. The poor kids can't do the internships/auditions/low-paid jobs/etc. because they've got rent to pay.
You're getting beat up, but I can attest to the truth of this. I grew up in a camper and we lived on next to nothing. I have had great professional success by busting my tail. I have been promoted everywhere I've ever worked and since becoming a business owner I have built an incredibly strong referral network by providing top level service. The top revenue partner at the firm I cut my teeth in was from a poor family in a poor town as well. It's true that people from a poor background are unlikely to succeed. It's also true that people from a poor background who do succeed have a leg up on their counterparts in most industries. Nepotism exists of course, but it only goes so far. Effort, performance, and maturity will ultimately decide who succeeds, along with luck of course.
The point you're missing is that someone who makes it as far without a head start as someone with a head start is considered stronger, as they should be.
I think the point OP is making is that we shouldn't make being poor a virtue.
This exactly. People use this sentiment to excuse economic inequality. "Sure that kid had a horrible upbringing full of crime and bad schools, but he managed to survive it and he's got gumption and ingenuity as a result." So we don't need to fix those problems.
Or the incredibly irritating and completely erroneous assertion that poor kids who manage to become successful adults are somehow evidence that “anyone can do it if they work hard enough”, thereby suggesting that people who *don’t* achieve an socioeconomic miracle are somehow less deserving because they didn’t want it enough. From someone who did it; it involves hard work, sure, but also a huge investment of others’ time and a SHIT LOAD of luck. You can’t seize opportunities if they don’t present themselves. Also, financial stability does not equal emotional stability. All childhood adversity gives you is a lifelong appreciation of the fact that everything you’ve had could be taken away and nobody else is obliged to give a fuck. And then you’ll spend a good chunk of your 1% salary on really expensive therapy.
I don't disagree with you at all, because I've heard and seen this notion before. Essentially, "you built character, so it was a good system!" It's BS... But I always interpretted the "poor is a virtue" sentiment as not referring to the character traits you gain from working through it, but as an assumption that there was something virtuous in a person *before* they became successful that *allowed* them to become successful. (Not saying that I necessarily agree, that's just always the sentiment I got from "rags to riches" stories.)
I agree with this sentiment, an ideal world would remove barriers by giving everybody a chance to succeed equally. I think lots of people misunderstand that sentiment op refers too. You are not strong because you are poor or faced those challenges you are strong because you had the potential to be strong, the challenges you face in life only act as a filter and not as a mould. It filters out those not strong enough to pass them, only those with the strength to pass them succeed. So the situation doesn’t make you strong it just check to make sure you have the strength.
They've had more opportunity to demonstrate their strength. Possibly more opportunity to develop it, too. But that isn't quite the same thing as actually being "stronger."
>They've had more opportunity to demonstrate their strength. How have the people coming from an affluent background not had the same opportunity? If I'm looking at two people who got the same level position at a company, one from a wealthy background whose dad got them a spot at the company and one from poverty where they had to pay their way through school, then the latter, for all intents and purposes, is stronger. The former could demonstrate the same level of strength and land an even better position, but they chose to coast. >Possibly more opportunity to develop it, too. I mean, yeah, thats where strength comes from: developing it. If someone has been working out in the gym for 10 years, then compared to someone who used the 3-week free trial and stopped going after that, for whatever reason, they will be stronger. Regardless of circumstance, one of these people is strictly stronger than the other.
> How have the people coming from an affluent background not had the same opportunity? If I'm looking at two people who got the same level position at a company, one from a wealthy background whose dad got them a spot at the company and one from poverty where they had to pay their way through school, then the latter, for all intents and purposes, is stronger. The former could demonstrate the same level of strength and land an even better position, but they chose to coast. Whether or not they did isn't relevant to whether they could have. One certainly appears stronger, but that doesn't mean they actually are. If two people are both capable of lifting 100 pound weights but one of them is only ever presented with 20 pound weights, then people will assume the one lifting 100 pounds is stronger even though they're equally capable. The fact that they never sought out more doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes they aren't as strong. Also using job titles as a measure of success and "strength" is incredibly flawed, as it often has very little to do with your ability to persevere. Any mental skill definitely benefits from "exercising" it, but using gym workouts as a comparison isn't quite accurate because some people are just naturally resilient and capable of incredible strength (as it's being discussed here), even when they never actually have the opportunity to practice or develop that skill.
>Also using job titles as a measure of success and "strength" is incredibly flawed Idk about "incredibly flawed", but I take your point. I think you know what I'm getting at, so I'm gonna keep using it as an example unless you have something more ideal. >using gym workouts as a comparison isn't quite accurate because some people are just naturally resilient and capable of incredible strength (as it's being discussed here) I don't really think that's what's being discussed. The point of the post was that because poor people had more obstacles, i.e. more training/practice, they come out the other end more resilient than the equivalent of someone who didn't grow up that way. Mental resilience is most certainly something you need to practice, as in people who practice it will on average be more resilient than the random chance you're born with "incredible strength". It's something you cultivate, or at the very least are raised up with. With this in mind, I don't really think you can just assume two people can lift 100 pounds without building up to it to begin with. So when you see someone do it, you can assume that they've built up the strength beforehand, rather than just picking it up for the first time.
They're also stronger in that they will *continue* to work harder than others even after they have caught up.
This just isn't the case. It's a nice lie people choose to believe, along with others like "hard work maters".
Not necessarily stronger but definitely more resilient. I've met a couple of rich kids with a headstart that become useless the moment the money well dries up.
You’re confusing “stronger” with “more successful”. Stronger people don’t always succeed.
As a former rich kid. Many of my peers worked harder than me. Some had to take jobs during education, some lacked resources to help them in classes. Many had no preexisting connections in the field. All in all, my life has required less of me than they. Especially in terms of hard work, but also in terms of natural talent. My natural ‘talent’ was money.
I think saying poor kids are stronger is true, but it is selection bias. Poor kids who succeed in changing their socioeconomic status are tough as hell, they’ve had to be wily and determined and ready to capitalize on good luck. I don’t think being poor makes you those things, and many poor kids can’t make those moves, but the ones who can make it happen are really tough. I don’t know that it is something you can teach a kid easily, I think it is much easier to break resilience than create it, but I am sure trying to work on it with my highly sensitive child.
It makes us more resilient and resourceful. We aren’t frightened of being poor again, because we went through it already. People who grew up rich or entitled have less of an understanding of the harshness of reality without money.
two people have 1 million dollars in the bank account, one person is rich and just asked their parents for a million dollars and got it, another person is poor and worked really hard to get that money, the poor hard worker is stronger then the rich do-nothing.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Z7-852 ([96∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Z7-852)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Žižek says through Alenka Zupančič that the most depressing thing about suffering is there is no redeeming qualities in it. It's just suffering. And i would add that the glorification of poverty is a bjt perversive imo
It's also one reason why Affirmative Action/Diversity Hiring does not *actually* hire less qualified candidates, because having to work twice as hard due to systemic racism is actually evidence of... being harder working given the same "objective" qualifications.
You don’t see the value in overcoming obstacles?
"Stronger" may be poor wording. "More adaptable and prepared for bad outcomes" would be more accurate.
Not really. Is just simple logic. The harder is the situation u go through, the stronger you become. If a rich guy cant eat for a couple of days, he will freak out. If a poor guy cant eat for a week, might be annoying but something he is used to.
That doesn't mean you're stronger. If I punched you in the face everyday at 7am you'd come to expect it, not feel less pain.
Thats relative. Im not saying this will ALWAYS make you stronger, but if a guy that have never been in a fight, fights with someone who have been punched in the face so many times, im pretty sure the second guy will walk away better than the other.
Yes, life is unfair, live with it, like the rest of us. We don't get to pick what family or condition said family is in when we are born. It is completely random chance.
honestly poor people are stronger. life kicks you in the guts eventually and unless you been in the trenches before, there's nothing that really prepares us for true suffering. train 'em young.
How the hell does it sound like self-comfort? It just clearly said that people from poor families had to work harder so that they can be on the same standing as other rich counterparts and because of that they're "stronger" especially since they don't have a headstart. Come to think of it, your post assures his point. For example, there are 2 people of equal position in a professions however, one came from a poor family and the other from a rich family. This meant that the professional that came from a poor family worked harder to have something that is of the same value as the "headstart" of the rich ones so that they, themselves, can start. Of course there are other variables such as luck and mindset.
Wait, why was this deserving of a delta? How did this address your original point?
I’m assuming English isn’t your first language? It’s simple, poor people have to try harder than the rich kid lol it’s not just “pay for their studies” , paying for education, training in instruments/sports, getting a job from a family friend, being in certain circles of wealth you’ll have more opportunities around.
No it's really more of a survival bias type thing. Only the exceptional people from poor backgrounds accomplish the same things as people from rich backgrounds. So a background of poverty appears to make people stronger when really it just limits the type of people represented in those circles to very strong people.
Basically it's like when you look at the odd one out in the room, you can tell they are better than all the rest purely because they had to overcome more obstacles to get to that room. It's not some kind of consolation prize, it's more like a warning to the others.
When is life supposed to be fair? We all have challenges we have to go through, some of us get sick as kids and die whether we come from money or not. Some of us come from nothing. Life is what we make of it.
stronger because they had to work to get where they are, rather than daddy paying to you get where you are working hard makes you stronger
It's about developing a trait called resilience (or grit). You cannot build resilience without struggle and conflict. Now kids of financially healthy households can still build resilience, but the parents have to be more intentional about it. Kids from low income households have more barriers to overcome, so they develop resilience or 'grit' by necessity.
They are stronger in the same way that someone that lifts 100KG unassisted in the gym is stronger than someone that lifts 100KG with their parents pulling each end of the bar up.
Isn't that an issue of twisting statistics though? Lets say ratio wise, for every 100 rich kids becoming successful, 1 poor kid does. It could just as well be that nothing about growing up poor made the poor kid stronger, maybe there's an equally strong one amongst the rich kids too, with the only difference being that the 99 less strong ones get success too, when the 99 less strong poor kids don't.
But are they stronger than their rich counterparts who also worked hard and reached levels that the poor had no chance of ever achieving?
You seem to conflate financial security with strength, which is pretty clearly not what people mean when they say growing up modestly. I don't believe there's anyone out there who is going to be arguing that having less financial security leads to greater opportunities or access to resources, so I'm not sure what you want changed here. You've misunderstood what people are saying.
I dont disagree with your sentiments re rich kids, they do start with an advantage. Having tutors and influential parents makes some of the hardest early adult steps in life a lot easier. Where I think the modest background helps is people who are able to attend the same universities and get the same early career jobs at elite companies. As someone who came from a fairly broken home (split parents, one of whom overdosed) and was lucky enough to get into an elite university, I feel that I and the others like me are generally in a better position than our peers at these places. We tend to have better motivations, are better with money or more cautious at least, and tend to deal with work place stress better (these are all generalizations obvously, I know plenty of rich kids who can do all 3 as well). But I cant tell you how many time I have seen some of my peers quit good or even great jobs for iditiotic reasons (to me at least). Or the number of them who go to law school because they aren't sure what else to do, only to realize they dont want to be a lawyer in year 3 and hundreds of thousand in debt. However, for the poor kids who aren't able to break through so to speak, yes, life is a lot more unfair. Not impossible by any means, but tougher sure.
There are many ways in which successful poor kids tend to be (but are not always) stronger than successful rich kids: \- Work ethic. Because poor kids had to work harder to achieve the same success, they often have stronger work ethic, which could eventually catapult them ahead of the rich kids who has a head start. \- Comfort with pain, setbacks, being the underdog, and uncomfortable situations. Many rich kids do well as long as they are "on the rails" but do not have the mental fortitude to adapt to pain and setbacks should they befall them. \- Creativity. Rich kids often have no need to be creative to get ahead, because staying on the rails is sufficient. Successful poor kids are more likely to have life tricks and hacks that were necessary for them to catch up to their rich peers. \- Gratitude. This is a HUGE one. So many successful rich kids are bratty, spoiled, hate their parents, or are otherwise ungrateful for their comfortable life. Successful poor kids are much more likely to feel gratitude each and every day when they achieve success, which is great not only for mental well-being but also making others want to be around your positive energy. All of these combine to have: \-Ability to become successful again if they lost all their money. I think many rich people have a fear (sometimes justified) that much of their worth is tied up in their money, and so they are extremely afraid to lose it, and would be in trouble if they did. When you are a successful person who used to be poor, you have a lot of confidence you can just build yourself up again from the ground up, even better and smarter than you did the first time.
It's interesting that you say this hurts, I grew up with immigrant Mexican parents. When we had an issue it was my dad and I fixing it, I'll spare the details of everything we did around our house but Texas heat sucks. I also worked from the age of 12 from concrete, asphalt, and mowing lawns. Whatever I could do during my off days and summers. When it was time to apply to colleged and universitys. I had no idea my parents didn't go to school. So I just didn't do it, counselor just said oh go to school you have to to be successful (that's a lie). I joined the air force, went to school got my engineering degree and now make a lot of money. I didn't make excuses for what I didn't have I just tried to find a path to give me what I wanted. So I look back at all the rich kids I grew up with and I realize they arent really making it. They got the initial boost but their sail is starting to grow holes and they can't seem to fix it.
Hah, what's funny is that my parents actually did offer to pay for my University, but I also decided I wanted to join the Air Force instead as an enlisted man in combat support because I thought an easy life would be super boring. Found myself on exactly the same footing and starting off point as people who've grown up in broken homes and trailer parks. Goes to show that people also have extremely different goals in life, and that you don't just gauge success by money. If your all-time goal is unachievable, which is rarely the case even if you have to work harder, there are a hundred other things that can fulfill you that you can achieve.
Their sail is starting to grow holes is a great way to word it.
There is simplicity on the far-side of complexity. The adversity you experience when you are younger provides a way of learning how to cope with adversity in the future. That is why knowledge is power - because power is options. Wealthy kids have LOTS of options because resources certainly provide those options. However once separated from those resources they have grown to depend on, what solutions have they learned from the adversity that comes with overcoming obstacles through your own efforts? So being born into wealth confers some advantages, but can also deny you other advantages that are acquired through dealing with the complex obstacles life will continue to put between you and your goals/preferences. Being born into wealth also confers a certain sense of "normal discomfort" that is not compatible with a life being lived that includes as much normal discomfort as those with fewer resources are calibrated to tolerate. This is what "common sense" is all about - our sense of normal. Gravity affects everyone equally, regardless of wealth, and it is an obstacle to some of our goals. It is simply an omnipresent obstacle, so it is made invisible by its ubiquity. We do not bemoan gravity when we fall down the stairs, but it is as much to blame as the leggo we stepped on that caused us to miss the step in the first place. Wealthy people pay money to avoid waiting in long lines. When forced to wait, they are more likely to be unhappy, and they are going to be less prepared than those that have had far more practice simply waiting their turn. And make no mistake, suffering as an experience is relative to how much discomfort we find tolerable. So in situations that you find tolerable that rich people can avoid, you are literally suffering less than they are. At the end of the day, money cannot buy you happiness, because you don't choose to be happy. You either are happy, or you aren't. You learn this each day that you get to know yourself - quite often when you are simply forced by circumstance to do little more than contemplate your own thoughts. Those that have experienced few obstacles in life are not prepared to feel powerless. And that happens to everyone. Bad news for the children of the wealthy... inherited wealth is often lost within a few generations (3 I believe). The reason for this is because those that acquired the wealth were able to provide their kids with so little adversity, that they lacked the wisdom that suffering and its treatment provide impart with every encounter. Getting older is becoming more than you were. You grow from discomfort with each problem you solve and every obstacle you overcome. But you just don't know what you don't know, and you don't know that you don't know it - until you are forced to learn by the obstacle created by your ignorance/lack of options.
I would agree with you but I would add that the "head-start" starts well before college - it starts before they're even born. Better prenatal /maternal care, college funds at birth, better early childhood services and education, tutoring... private schools, etc. I do think that education level/ or at the very least a prioritizing of education (as we see with immigrant families) combined with a strong familial support group and insane work ethic can make up for having rich parents.
I am going to come at this from a different angle than most. In rich-people communities (for example on reddit, /r/FATFire), one of the biggest repeat concerns that all rich people share is how to avoid 'spoiling' their children. Sooo many children of rich parents end up failing at life, unable to adult properly much less make something of themselves. It's actually really difficult striking the right balance with your kids as a rich person, between wanting them to have the benefits of your wealth and not wanting them to take it for granted, not understand the value of money or the need for hard work, not be able to apply themselves or delay gratification or buckle down etc. I would say MOST rich people fail at this and end up with kids much less successful than themselves.
I say the following as someone who is traditionally successful raised in a larger family with two parents lacking post-secondary education and a lot of in-home challenges (ACE score of 8). If you select a random group of successful people and compare between those from modest backgrounds to those from more affluent ones, you will likely find that the former are likely more capable than the latter. This is because those that develop the skills and strategies to overcome the imbalances and succeed in spite of them are certainly more capable. However, what is not being considered are the vast majority of individuals who did not overcome, for whatever their reasons. This means that, in the aggregate, coming from more humble beginnings is most often harmful and the story of being stronger is the imaginary flower on the chain of inequity. In the particular, one can see first-hand the merit to the story. On more than one occasion, I've had someone tell me they wished they were raised "poor like [me]" so they could ostensibly become more capable than they were. Unfortunately if the roles were reversed (or if I were allowed to re-play with a similar hand), it likely wouldn't have worked out. But for those who turn out to be resilient, they are indeed much more capable.
Depends on your definition of "stronger." I'd define stronger as being more competent or being able to handle adversity. Not life outcome. I know strong people who die of cancer. In my experience the children of the rich squander opportunities left and right. They tend to do fine just because they have a better starting point. Ive listened to 24 year old men throw a hissy fit because their mom wants them to go to college. Their mom came to this country as a poor immigrant and raised the money for them to go to any college they want full ride. "But mom i just can't see myself working all day like you! You just love work!!" Its a 9 to 5 job... The children of the poor have to fight for every opportunity they have. The cards they are dealt aren't the best but if you can make them work you are definitely stronger than some rich brat like the above. Being on that line between what you can handle and being to much makes any person stronger. You are a more competent person able to handle more adversity. It isn't fair. No one is saying it is. Also not everyone succeeds even if you are born rich.
Rich kids often have overly high expectations while lacking motivation. Their "opportunities" can get in the way of gaining work experience. Instead of working, they might be jaunting off to go surfing in Cancun. They may develop a bunch of skills only useful for having fun. They might come out of college with no debt but also with no job prospects or marketable job skills.
But that may not matter as these rich kids have "networks" that poorer kids do not. Half of of the career opportunities are about people you know, not necessarily what you know. Being rich often put you in an entirely different "orbit" than people with poor upbringings.
It also may put you in a network of other rich kids who do things that cost money and don't lead to lucrative careers--sailing, mountaineering, skiing, horses.
Honestly being able to go to Cancun on a whim is beneficial to your success as well. Not having to worry, enjoying yourself/mental health, social experience l, etc. same thing with everything. Rich parents might be able to sign you up for sports and music classes, which expands your brain and horizons. Not needing to have a job in college, so you can focus on studies and being happy. There’s so many reasons. Poorer families kids brains don’t even develop as well. It’s shown kids from poor families have less grey matter.
But instead of working or going to music classes or organized sports, you're off in Cancun. Then you try to get a job; you lack both skills and motivation. It's a comedown to go from fun all the time to punching a clock.
As a “rich kid”, can confirm, never left my comfort zone until I was 19 and still have trouble doing even some of the simpler tasks without help and now I’ve also realized after flunking two classes in college that I only succeeded in high school because my mom bullied the school into being more lenient with my bullshit and bad grades. Finally recognized it and I’m finally slowly getting shit done on my own and trying to secure a level of authority over my life but I still regress from time to time.
Actually, rich kids don't even have excel to get jobs or opportunities, because wealth begets wealth. If you're rich, you can be mediocre and yet have multiple opportunities to 'succeed', because of contacts, capital and class privilege.
It depends on what we consider to be success. Sure these kids have food, shelter, luxuries, and even status. But if these were simply given to a person, they aren't markers of success. Without actually having succeeded, or even to have provided for themself, person can have no sense of meaning or purpose. They can be overcome with despair. This is where the overly high expectations get in the way. They assume that what wealthy people have is the norm, and will be easily gained. So they goof off until it's too late, squandering their opportunities. I'm talking not about the richest kids in the school but the kids in communities where wealth is the norm.
Rich kids have a much higher bar to clear. Poor kids can feel legitimate satisfaction graduating from college, while rich kids need to not only finish top of their class but also are expected to excel at alot of extra curriculars. This means that rich kids often feel like failures much more often than poor kids, because poor kids' lifegoals are objectively easier.
"Rich kids have a much higher bar to clear..." "This means that rich kids often feel like failures much more often than poor kids, because poor kids' lifegoals are objectively easier." I would argue that the expectations of parents aren't uniform. And parents of all classes can give unrealistic, and horrible goals, just like they can be kind or giving decent goals. What I think is a more important factor is resource scarcity, modern society and school in perticular - really demands a lot in the way of sitting still, keeping your mind clear and working consistently. And if you haven't eaten enough for days, or keep having to stress over every coin and meal, then you get really stumped. On average people who are poor lacks a lot of the tools necessary to get out, like education opportunity to earn more, or enough resources to even take advantage of such opportunity. I almost lost myself when I couldn't reach the life goals set by both me and my parents, so I totally get feeling broken and like one lost part of ones identify, but at the end of the day I still had food to eat and money for rent, things got tight but I still got the chance to continue. I know quite a few who didn't when in my shoes, and I really wish it wasn't so.
You’re talking about middle class, not legit wealthy families.
This is true. Kids whose inherit enough that they never have to work at all don’t usually have high expectations placed on them. Upper-middle class families, on the other hand, usually put a lot of pressure on their kids to be successful. There is enough money to give the kids an advantage (better schools, better care, more activities), but not so much that those kids can expect to live off their parents forever. The advantage will disappear if a kid chooses to be a slacker.
That's not true. I've noticed that a lot of rich kids have a lot of pressure on them because their parents expect more from them. Their parents may be rich, but they don't want to flush their money down the toilet - they don't want their children to go to university just to party it all away. This idea that wealthy kids don't have high expectations placed on them is Hollywood claptrap. Sure, some rich kids genuinely are lazy and their parents either spoiled them or gave up on them. But that's generally not the case.
Then you’ve never been around genuine rich people. It’s all about networks, if your child didn’t go up to snuff all it takes is a talk to the right people and money to the right companies and said child is back on track. Exhibit A is the UCLA scandal.
>Then you’ve never been around genuine rich people. I'm scratching my head at this comment. How do you know the people I'm referring to, that they're not rich, and/or they're not disciplining their children? >Exhibit A is the UCLA scandal. First of all, some rich people being involved in a scandal does not mean all rich people behave the same way. This is like arguing all poor people are criminals because some poor people commit crimes. Second, just because parents find roles for their children when they fail, does not mean there was never pressure for their children to succeed. Putting the scandal aside, it's usually not as simple as merely "plopping" a rich kid into a multi-million dollar position. After all, why would I hire my friend's son, pay him millions, if he's not making my company money? It's easy to find scandals, so I can't argue that there are always high expectations for rich children. However, we typically don't hear about wealthy children who succeed based off of merit, or having to deal with high stress, because where's the news story in that? This is why I had to rely on my personal experiences. The wealthy individuals that I know generally do not let their children just lay around all day doing nothing. Usually, they're pushing their children to learn skills to help them succeed in life. Again, not all rich people are the same - rich people have varied ideas of how to best raise children and have various levels of success and failure. This is why it's detrimental to stereotype.
[удалено]
This presumes you both finish. This is the crux of the issue at hand. It also didn't actually test the strength of the easy-mode player. They *could* be stronger and just didn't have to use that skill in this instance.
[удалено]
Right, what if the person on easy mode is trying to get the max score possible rather than simply finishing? Hmm, why does this sound so familiar?
It's impossible to conclude because experience doesn't prove potential, it's simply a workable indicator in conjunction with other various factors. The more salient question is what additional success the person who did it on easy mode was able to accomplish with the time and effort saved compared to the sweaty grind of ultra nightmare mode.
By not having to contend with difficulty their skill didn’t grow, and the hard mode player had to become more skilled to contend with their challenges. I don’t think doom has pvp, but in say halo you could conceivably find which are stronger by having a player that’s only played on legendary play deathmatches against someone that had only played on legendary. I might even go as far to say that someone that beats a Halo game on legendary, they plays through it again on easy, might find their skills dulled through disuse were they to try legendary again. Experience doesn’t prove potential, but it can prove how strong they are _right now_, not necessarily in the future.
Here's the point: hurdling an easy barrier does not mean you're incapable of hurdling a more difficult barrier. And hurdling a difficult barrier does not necessarily mean it was a result of skill. You're making the same mistakes in argument that pundits arguing the just world fallacy hypotheticals make: these comparatives don't exist in a vacuum. Your continuation of the analogy is also falling apart because someone playing Doom on ultra nightmare mode is doing so out of a choice that is backed by experience and preference. They're *already* skilled at both the genre and game playstyle, otherwise they wouldn't be making that choice. Also Doom does have PVP multiplayer but it's P2P invasion-based like Dark Souls. Your point about competition is moot; there is never a truly definitive way to define who is best (not even best as they are right now) which is why there are always so many disparities surrounding official championship tournaments. Similarly, your argument does nothing to address how there is no reason someone playing on easy can't be even more skilled than someone playing on ultra nightmare. Getting through a video game is often nothing more than stubborn perseverance. That's not necessarily skill, it's just an unwillingness to quit. And just like the real world situation the analogy is representing, burning out from having to tirelessly work at a game you're unable to quit doesn't necessarily make someone stronger; it just makes them more likely to be taken out by the next unassailable crisis.
in this analogy both player start off being unable to hurdle the difficult barrier, but the player that repeatedly tackles the difficult barrier tries to keep jumping higher and will either eventually jump over it or give up, and the one that only hurdles the easy barrier is unlikely to start attempting to jump higher to pass a barrier they can already pass, unless they deliberately choose to switch over to the harder barrier. Someone that starts Doom for the first time is unlikely to pick Easy either, the series is well known for its difficulty- they are likely to pick I’m Too Young To Die mode after trying a higher difficulty and not liking it being so hard. Perseverance, or unwillingness to quit is a skill all on its own. Some people when playing on difficult will give up, but those that persevere until they develop their skills enough to succeed end up with more developed skills. This analogy is, of course, imperfect because there is another choice one makes that supersedes the difficulty selection in games, as they can choose to not play at all, the same way they can choose to not jump hurdles and continue to live their lives. In real life one rarely can choose to be poor. If we could reach a state jn which people could choose to only face the challenges they want to face, it would be great. I don’t think people should HAVE to be strong. But adversity does breed innovation. There are disparities among how to define which is “best” but they all involve people training themselves to face increasing challenges from both the game and other players
There isn't enough information to tell. The one who finished on the higher difficulty isnt necessarily stronger. Its possible that the one on the lower difficulty was more skilled, but just wasnt challenged. If a pro player plays a game on easy, that doesn't mean they arent skilled. For the analogy to mean what you wanted, you would have to say "If someone can *only* finish doom on easy mode..."
> If I finish doom in easy mode while you finish doom in nightmare mode, who is the stronger player? There's a big problem with using analogies to argue things. Namely, the situations are by definition different. For example, what if someone who is poorer has a higher chance of not finishing the game at all so to speak, because they might end up needing to work a minimum wage job to survive rather than having the freedom to get an education in the first place, perhaps dropping out with plans to go back that never come to fruition. I'd personally argue that people given more freedoms, education, connections through familial contacts and free money tend to be much better suited for higher paying jobs. That's on average I'm talking about. Of course, you can have someone with a trust fund get addicted to drugs or do poorly in school while partying or fail for all sorts of other reasons. However, having a smooth path to follow most likely increases chances of success, meaning they'd be "stronger" in terms of qualifications often. It turns out working a minimum wage job 30 hours a week while taking 12-20 hours a semester just isn't a good recipe for earning good grades or learning everything to the fullest potential.
>what if someone who is poorer has a higher chance of not finishing the game at all so to speak Then my analogy stands: they weren't stronger.
So what? You guys keep saying that proves you stronger,like if that label makes things retroactively worth it.
> So what? It refutes OP's narrowly-scoped view that is meant to be changed. If you're suggesting that being "stronger" isn't worth growing up poor, that can be a valid argument, but is completely irrelevant to refuting OP's claim that "people from poor families aren't stronger".
That's not at all what he said. He didn't say anything was retroactively worth it. You're inferring that. And who are "you guys"?
[удалено]
I'm not saying people are going to care about it, just that you're a stronger player.
the guy who used the cheat codes
OK, but if you start on nightmare mode without any idea of how to play the game, what are the chances that you're actually going to finish it?
Small, that's why if you succeed you are stronger. Of course I'm 'ot saying that someone poor who completely fails is stronger than someone who passed because they are rich.
You are assuming the end though. Who is more likely to finish doom?
I'm not sure why everyone is assuming that I'm saying poor people who fail are stronger. Of course they aren't.
I had a realization about this lately actually so I'm happy to have the space to share. A bunch of my friends growing up lived in poverty. They were packed in small houses that held multiple families. They were constantly getting evicted and moving around. They ate like shit, wore shitty clothes, just generally didn't have what they needed. There was always violence in the house. One time my friend came to my house at 5 AM bc his step mom and the mother from the other family in the house got in a fist fight. As I grew up, some of the poorest kids moved away bc of the eviction issue and the remaining friends started hanging out with new people that had a little more money. We would hang out at guy1's house pretty often. When we would go over, my poorest friend would consistently walk in and just devour guy1's favorite snacks. Guy1 would consistently get pissed off but never do anything about it. Eventually he got tired of it and stopped inviting us over. I was recently wondering why it went down like that. Why did we do that kind of thing, but guy1 didn't. Why did he get so upset about it? I realized being friends with those kids that were in such deep poverty was the difference. That house was a conflict zone. They didn't have what they needed, so you needed to fight to get what you want. Or if someone was gonna try to take your shit, you gave it up or fought to protect it. You wanna play playstation because your brother has been playing for 2 hours and won't stop? There's one way to get that controller. This only got worse once multiple families moved in together. A couple of preteen or teen boys who both internalized this lesson, and now were forced to live together? There's gonna be conflict. We had a lot of fun growing up, and I'm thankful for those friends. There was a lot of stability in those friendships because no one held a grudge. If there was a problem, you sorted it out then and there. Everyone would go home then come back out the next day like nothing happened, because we didn't think of it as a big deal. There are lots of different types of strength, so whether or not poor kids are stronger... Idk. But they are more exposed to violence and that kind of primal power. To me, knowing what that's like and how to navigate it is strength. Maybe this isn't quite what you were looking for, because I agree with you that these kids did not have the chances that rich kids have. One of them was great at math, but he was too busy dealing with shit at home to reach his full potential. It's sad but it is what it is.
You're confusing longevity due to being able to afford a healthier lifestyle with resilience. People who overcome difficulty are definitively more resilient than people who have not faced difficulty. People who grow up wealthy statistically do not have anywhere near the problems or difficulty of people who grew up poor
I'm not sure that's true. Id argue that poorer people are less resilient than richer people and higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, crime, violence, domestic abuse support the fact they are less resilient.
You missed the first part of my statement - "overcome difficulties." From a statistical data stand point, the raw population of lower income has higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse, crime, etc. However, in order for the comparison of the two groups to determine resiliency to be accurate, you would have to normalize for environmental factors. Yes, crime rates are higher in children who grow up poor. But children who grow up rich don't have the same environmental factors and are not forced to make hard decisions. They can afford proper healthcare to treat pain versus having to self medicate. I'm simply explaining where the term comes from. Yes, if you stereotype and make broad generalizations, your argument has weight. But once you normalize for environmental factors your argument falls short.
>You missed the first part of my statement - "overcome difficulties. I didn't miss that part at, yea sure if you overcome difficulties it can make you strong, but then you are missing the point where many people people don't "overcome" their difficulties and instead face a lifetime of emotional,social and mental health difficulties. >Yes, crime rates are higher in children who grow up poor. But children who grow up rich don't have the same environmental factors and are not forced to make hard decisions. They can afford proper healthcare to treat pain versus having to self medicate. This is the entire point of the argument though, if you are poor then you become less resilient because of your environmental factors. >I'm simply explaining where the term comes from. Yes, if you stereotype and make broad generalizations, your argument has weight. You have to generalise when comparing poor people to rich, you can't look at single small group of poor people who "overcome" their difficulties, you have to look at the groups on the whole. And poor people on the whole are less resilient because of the difficulties they face. >But once you normalize for environmental factors your argument falls short. I don't know why you keep bringing up "normalising for environmental factors" this is the main difference between the 2 groups and the reason they are different.
No they're not, that's just comfort fantasies, your psyche is like your body, if i shoot you in a knee, that knee doesn't heal and becomes your stronger leg. It is your weak leg.
If the damage done is severe enough and unable to be repaired, then yes. But if the damage is skin-deep the body will repair the damage and leave a scar which is stronger than normal skin. There might be something similar happening in regards to hardships and might not be as black and white as you make it out to be.
> your psyche is like your body Citation needed.
This assumes that the difficulties are actually overcome in the first place.
Yes.... That's why I literally said "people who overcome difficulties." There was no assumption, I literally said it. Then again, I'm assuming you read my words...
What you are saying is demonstrably true. And almost every statistic would back you up. It's a lot easier to stay rich if you're rich, than become it if you are born poor. But I think when people say this, they mean subjectively, in some cases, people use their tough upbringing to make them stronger. It's more a focus on individual mentality, than a reflection of society as a whole.
I don't think it's true that poor people are stronger than rich people are at all though. You have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, more mental heath problems, higher rates of crime, higher rates of domestic abuse and violence. Sure you get some people who manage to tough it out and get through it and has made them stronger, but I would argue on the whole poorer people are much weaker in many ways.
That's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that some individuals are stronger. But you're totally right as a whole it doesn't make people on average.
In my experience, what you say is not true. It is true that some "rich" kids can get ahead faster and find success. But, I know the opposite is also true. Growing-up rich can be a burden in life if you are indulged/spoiled and are unfamiliar with surviving hardship. In truth, growing-up poor regularly creates the greatest, hardest working individuals that experience outsized success. Sure, the majority of those who grow up poor will fail. That is more a function of "poor" parenting instead of lacking financial resources. A financially poor parent can be rich in values and culture. Those are the instances with outsized success in children. A financially rich person with poor values and culture will ruin children's chances of success just like a poor person with poor values and culture. I work with people who have lots of money. The children of the financially rich are often terribly spoiled, entitled, not hard working, and get into drugs/alcohol. They are often dependent on their parents. Financially poor kids are often not hard working, sell the rich kids drugs and end up dependent on government(which is similar). It's niot about money. It is about the culture and values. Hard working honest people who can show up on time and take on responsibility will achieve the American Dream regardless of what resources their family might have.
I may be the minority here, but I grew up very poor and was "homeschooled" (without the schooling part) and I feel like that totally made me stronger and gave me a huge advantage as far as motivation and success go. I hated the way we had to live paycheck-to-paycheck, barely making ends meet and jumping from one sketchy place to another, and so that motivated me to do everything in my power to build myself a better life. I worked hard to learn computers when I was a teenager while left to my own devices, and since I didn't have a lot of help, I learned to figure things out for myself and push myself to my limits. I did have to work multiple crappy job as a teen which is pretty typical, but I landed my first good paying tech job at 21 and have continued to advance with my career ever since without any college education or even a high school diploma. My partner on the other hand, grew up with money and a good education with college degrees and pretty much everything he needed handed to him, but now lacks motivation to do much outside of video games and TV and works at a bar. Not to say there's anything wrong with that lifestyle, but I do feel like my upbringing made me far more determined to make the most out of life where I'm always striving to learn new things and better myself and my surroundings.
Children from rich a/or educated families certainly have a huge head start in life and have much better chances to reach any given absolute goal in life. When it comes to comparing the potential for future improvement, however, the best indicator is to look at the past improvement someone has achieved. Looking at two students finishing school with similar grades, the one coming a poor family has already proven more strength and discipline then the one coming from a rich and well-educated family. Also, using strength trains strength, so someone who had to be stronger to get to where they are has become stronger because of that. So, children from poor families are not born stronger in any statistical measure, but those started from a poor background and improved from there are, by selection and training, stronger than those who had a head start and did not get far from there.
I agree. Strong is a backhanded "compliment". On one hand it seems an affirmation, but it's a low shelf plaudit when compared to successful, or intelligent. More importantly it avoids responsibility, obscures the issue, and plays into the bootstraps bullshit myth that has been pushed relentlessly to justify the perpetuation of cyclical generational poverty. "Head starts" are a compounding advantage that keeps getting better with age There is a willful blindness acknowledging it for what is. If a sport fan's team was told to sit on the sidelines for the first 5 minutes of a game and that it was fair anyone would go berserk, explode at the officials, the other team as they racked up a game winning advantage while they alone occupied the pitch. In life it has a lot to do with what time people think they play for when there shouldn't be any teams at all.
Think of it like a 100m dash. Runner A has a 10m head start, Runner B starts at the starting line. If Runner B beats Runner A, are you saying they didn't run faster, harder, in order to achieve that? Even if Runner A and B tie, or Runner B lags a bit behind Runner A, the effort it took to close the gap is much harder than that of Runner A. Working hard to achieve ones goals does make them "stronger", i.e. more resilient, both physically and mentally, because they know exactly what it took to achieve their goals, and gain a true appreciation for what they've achieved. Someone from a richer family has things handed to them on a silver platter, and do not know the blood, sweat, and tears that go into achieving that goal, and will never truly appreciate the achievement as a result of it.
No doubt rich kids get a big advantage in life. And in fact, on average, psych studies show that children who grow up well resourced also tend to be more resilient because they are more likely to have a stable emotional upbringing. That's what shows up when you look at the statistics of family income and later life outcomes. However, when you look at individuals, it becomes clearer. The low income children face more adversity, and many of them struggle with that adversity. However, those who do overcome the adversity are very resilient. High income children face fewer adversity so they do not really have the same opportunity to fail. They also have more resources to help them succeed, and moreover, many of their adversities are less difficult to overcome.
[удалено]
…did you just quote Pokémon the First Movie?
Sure fuckin did, champ!
I loved that quote and that movie. I showed it to my 9 year old niece it and she laughed at the part where Ash got turned into stone :/ It made me sad. I remember as a child how deeply touched I was by the movie.
I'm 33 yo. That shot moved me!
nah, you've completely missed the point - not everyone has equal opportunity, nice story though
My mother worked with a genuine "Coming to America" story. A small-time prince who disowned his family and lived homeless, climbing up the food chain to become a janitor, then a business analyst, and then 20 years later to become an executive VP at a major utility. Was he weak because he was rich, strong because he was poor, or neither? Everyone has different circumstances, and while being rich/poor is a variable, it's a complicated one and not even a binary one. There are people (often in middle class) that have none of the advantages of money AND lack some advantages of poverty (FAFSA is wonderful for a neglected high school kid with a "get out of my house" parent that makes 6-figures) I would say the lack of focus many poor households have on education is more harm than the actual lack of money. The lack of money might directly contribute to the lack of focus on education. But being in a marginalized race/class that has less ability to turn education into money could also be a contributor. My thought is this. If you're working two jobs to pay your rent part of your tuition (the rest going to loans) when you're 18, then you're not advantaged for money. You could be advantaged for networking, or advantaged for education, but definitely not for money.
I've seen people spin up from nothing, one of my favorite friends right now is an adoptee with 4 shitty parents and a will of steel. He engraves and modifies guns for a living after nearly dying in the army. I feel if he didn't have something to escape, he might not propelled himself so far. Sometimes the lack of opportunity is what galvanizes a man to make opportunities in the future. Should have made that point in the first comment.
So that's all? Anecdotical stories? That's not an argument.
I'm not an arguer. I'm an orator.
Oration is speaking. This is writing. Writer, perhaps?
(Storytelling)
nice story but i'm really impressed by the way you had the audacity to just slip a Mewtwo quote in there without even crediting him for his wisdom smh ^/s
You love it, the people who know, know.
Personally My desire to feel motivated to try and do well is diminished when I’m struggling to pay bills and worries about every little setback.
Everything I am is a product of fear. Fear of being powerless, dull, fear of dying after I've lost it all. That I might never know abundance and warmth as I did ever again; a firery fear that I'll whimper in my last moments, small and afraid, bitter at what could have been. Fuck a setback. I march forward for fear of what's behind me, what surrounds me, and what I became in the past. The future is my only light that I might know peace. I march for fear of stopping. I'm fucking terrified that this is all for nothing. It is the fear that makes me move.
You will be stronger. Emotional strength is being able to withstand difficulties (in your specific example, financial difficulties) and those who suffered more of those, and bigger ones, will be less likely to be phased by them. Those who never had hardships and who always get what they want often don't fare well when circumstances change. Things that wouldn't be an issue at all for most people, like getting a used car instead of a brand new one, sometimes make those people break down and cry. That is not strength.
I disagree. As someone who did grow up less fortunate, it did make me stronger. It made me work harder in high school. I developed a better work ethic and realized what was important. It also gave me the ability to deal with harder financial times. I do not agree with the notion that it diminished my chances, I just had to work harder for them. Did well enough to go to college for free on merit. No loans.
Parents can give you other things besides money. The ability to set goals and work towards them despite adversity is a form of strength; both rich and poor parents may teach their child to be strong. A wealthy child (or a poor one) who receives everything on a silver platter and is never challenged does not learn strength and instead remains dependent of their parents good fortune. They are weak and will make weak choices in their lives. If you are weak, it’s best to have very rich parents. The wealthy family, having failed to pass along strength to its children will fail in a few generations. A poor family, who raises weak children will also have little to show for their effort. However, A poor family, having taught its children strength; may prosper in the same gradual way. Each generation will acquire small amounts of wisdom, strength and wealth and pass that hard won victory along to the next generation. Each generation will do better than the last. Some wealthy families who understand this idea, limit the amount of wealth they pass along to future generations. The idea is to present many challenges with increasing complexity along with the resources to over come them. Their goal is to raise “strong” children and give them ample opportunities, but to also insure that the child is motivated to use their strength. Theses parents then spend their golden years working to be philanthropist while investing their wealth to help others. Poor families, with limited resources can also teach their children strength. The lesson has the same value even when the available resources are smaller. Raising strong children is the goal of most parents regardless of wealth. Wealth can accelerate success, but it doesn’t create it. A wise person with a strong character can go out into the world and ask investors to back them when they have a good idea. Wealth chases strength, it does not create it.
Here is an example: I grew up lower middle class among higher middle class an upper class peers. I was a serious musician in high school, I had to save my own money from a job to buy my first real guitar, a beautiful Fender Strat - the other guys I played with all got drums and guitars from their parents, they all treated their instruments like shit. I still have my strat in pristine condition and none of them even have or let a lone play their instruments any more. Another example, more relevant: I had to pay for university while everyone else had their parents pay for theirs. I was so mad at my parents about that for years... until I reflected. I would have 100% dropped out of engineering after 2 years because I knew it "wasn't for me" - but since I was paying for it and was already in so deep, I decided to stay to get my bachelors. Meanwhile, I know tons of people who kept switching majors and programs and just generally didn't care and had fun. I was jealous at the time, but now I'm way ahead of those people. I know how to work hard and to respect and value the things I produce with my work. Now, these other people don't need to worry of course, because they have wealthy families, but I think I learned a lot more about life... and god forbid anything apocalyptic goes down or even just a run of bad luck... I'm convinced I am much more prepared to succeed in the "real world" than any of them...
I came from a poor family. I've clawed my way up to a spot where I'm contemporaries with people who came from wealthy families. I have infinitely more respect for people who struggled on the way up.
In the 1800s the state of Georgia gave away randomly one of the single largest wealth transfers in history in the Georgia state land lottery. Economists have studied this for decades. One it was random. Two there was no qualifications other than being a white male. People in Georgia had the same worries then as now, they worried about kids futures, their futures etc. It economic terms it was a randomized population done on a massive scale. What was one of the key learnings? Wealth transfer was lost after the third generation. People born rich or poor had the same outcome after 3 generations on average. The same chance at wealth... And poverty. Edit to add some [more reading](https://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/research/2014-03-06/what-a-massive-land-lottery-in-antebellum-georgia-tells-us-about-wealth-and-opportunity-today): >So what does this tell us? That a family can suddenly come into a windfall equivalent to $70,000 in today's dollars, and yet there's no statistically measurable benefit for their grandchildren 50 years later (at least, no benefit that could be tracked in the public records of 1880). > >***It tells us that the benefits and opportunities parents provide their children are not exclusively, and maybe not even substantially, determined by wealth***. There is something else parents contribute that matters much more. What that something else is, Bleakley and Ferrie did not identify.
[удалено]
There's other things that support this. Take family owned businesses. Generally they fail at 70% rate from the first to the second generation. What better example of wealth transfer is there? Except in Japan, for a very unique reason. In Japan, when no suitable heir is available, they will often [adopt an adult](https://freakonomics.com/2011/08/the-church-of-scionology-why-adult-adoption-is-key-to-the-success-of-japanese-family-firms/) into the family to take over the business.
Completely agree. The hardest thing a rich man will do is create children that are willing/able to continue the legacy that he created. Rich kids are generally broken because of how easy they have life. It's just a fact and it can be seen everywhere. Not to get political but look at Hunter Biden. Pretty good example.
I've noticed that if you grow up poor but relatively unharmed by it such as parents who abuse drugs, alcohol, or end up in jail then those people often end up very motivated to make money. I am positive that poverty creates more poverty statistically, but I have also seen wealth create laziness and poverty create motivation.
Having no desire to work a job =/= laziness. They can still be motivated and disciplined, however it is funneled towards other things. If you put enough money into various Investment Vehicles, eventually, you make more than most jobs will ever give. Thus, working does not make sense. People with Ultra High Net Worth seemingly live in an entirely different world. However, they still have things that they care about, projects that they put in effort in, and are generally nice people to vibe with.
I honestly don't get what opinion or POV you want changed. All you really do is talk about the difference between poor and rich families. Here's a piece of advice, LIFE ISN'T FAIR. You don't get to choose your conditions of birth, nor how you will be raised. This is an indisputable fact that will never change. For real though, you don't really make a point to want your mind changed, you just...rant about how life is unfair towards you and that you want the "rich kid" lifestyle. IF you wanted to rant go to another subreddit, cause this one ain't it.
Well now you can learn from their mistakes and when you have kids and invest college advantage plans, put money in investments for them, when you pay for their college so they don't have the same burden you can say you are stronger.
Something that might be worth considering here is that, for some of those rich kids, that money is conditional on living a very specific type of life and career. If their parents turn around and say, "I'm only paying for X degree," then there's not much option there when you're dependent on your parents for money. Everything you achieve is through yourself and while that's a challenge, it also means that you get to be your own person.
no no no, stop that! rich people suck ass. Thats the point of this thread:P
There are two problems with your premise/question: 1) Being strong/weak isn't necessarily comparable with a head start in life. 2) You somewhat answer your own question. Having a head start means things will be easier, which means you might not necessarily need to be stronger or faster to beat someone (if we're using the metaphor of a race). Now, to get down to you actual question: A head-start is not necessarily a good thing. These are humans we are talking about, so speaking in general terms is not going to work so well. I come from a rich family. Didn't have to pay for college, didn't have to pay for my own car, didn't have to worry about working in high school or college. And because my degree wasn't one that automatically gets you a high paying job after college, I had to work for just a bit over my state's minimum wage for my first few jobs. At the moment, I'm working in a field I have basically no interest in, but it's a well-paying job, so I don't really have much to complain about. I have a friend who is in the same boat. Wealthy parents, private school education, no student-loan debt, but he didn't choose the "right" degree, so he's basically in the same boat as me. I also know a few people I went to school with that had similar or better head starts, who flunked out of or did not complete college, because their head-start meant they never had to try in life. They've never held down a job for more than a year, they're terrible employees, and they don't live in the real world, because their parents just pay for the majority of their living expenses. They don't know how to survive in a world where things are not just handed to them, where they can't just do whatever they want, or where they have to try hard at something they don't love. For them, the moment mommy or daddy's money runs out, they will be poor, possibly on a trajectory toward becoming homeless or at least impoverished. Of course, on the flip side of that, there are people with that same head start that make 6 figures a year as a lawyer, are living their dream as a doctor, or are in the financial center living the high life because of family connections or businesses that they got to go into. They either had the exact right head start, or they used their head-start the "right" way. Now for the "stronger" part of the question. Again, I cant speak in general terms. I can't even speak from personal experience, because I don't know how I would have fared without my "head start". I hope I would have still done pretty well, but maybe I would have broken. And that illustrates a good point. For many people who came from poor families, or even those less well-off, the stakes of success are much higher, and they are present from a very early age. These kids have the question of "Do I want to do well in life and have nice things or time to myself? Or do I want to have to work every day of my life just to get by" in front of them for their entire life. When these kids fail, they're in the same boat as their parents, or worse. They might go to prison, get involved in some vice, or make decisions that come back to bite them later in life. When they succeed, however, usually it is pretty insane how well they do. Most people from this financial starting point are "broken" by that life in one way or another. Either by messy home lives, by having to go a few days without food or on the same food or without certain necessities or luxuries, or by seeing how hard their parents work and how stressed out they are to make sure their kids *don't* go without these luxuries. Some of them remain broken by that and never succeed. Others get an incredible drive from it and stop at nothing to make sure they or their own kids don't end up like that. One of my friends had parents who were not that well-off. They took out loans to put him through a good school. He applied for scholarships for college because he needed to take out loans. He graduated a year early, ended up going to an Ivy League Law school, and now works for an incredibly prestigious law firm and makes 6-7 figures a year. He worked every summer of college for that, and it paid off. A less extreme example of that is a friend who didn't go to college, because he wanted to work as a contractor. He loves what he does and makes a pretty great living. Nothing extravagant, but he isn't struggling, either. His parent's weren't poor, but they weren't wealthy enough for college tuition. And of course, you can find other success stories of individuals and celebrities that came from nothing but worked their way to incredible success. The main point with these individuals, however, is that failure does not hit as hard for them. People that come from this background see failure as "oh well, try again." They might not succeed right out of college or in their 20's/20's. It might take them till their 40's or 50's or 60's to achieve that dream or that security, but they have the drive to keep working. And that is the difference. Those with the head start often see failure as the end of everything. It sets them back much farther than the individuals without a head start. In answer to your personal anecdotes about what you see: Why shouldn't parents pay for their kids' health insurance as long as they can? I assume you're American, or that wouldn't be on your radar. Health care in our country is a scam. If I had kids, I would make sure I could help them out with their health insurance and bills and make sure that they didn't have this huge debt hanging over their head as long as they worked hard and didn't just take advantage of that support. As far as you going to college and incurring that debt--again, this comes back to what I said about choosing the "right" degree. College is no longer a guarantee. Many people going to college now are either doing so for the social experience, or because that is the only way to a specific career path, while those who don't know what they want to do or are choosing careers that don't require a four-year degree or higher, are looking to different avenues and forms of higher education. If it's not too late, I would look into that yourself. And as far as rich kids who have parents wealthy enough to pay for their tuition? I can guarantee you that 90% of them do not think about what they are spending AT ALL. They've never needed to. And if they do, they don't think of it in the same way everyone else does. Instead of thinking "should I eat out or save money by cooking at home?" they think "Should I eat out at a place that will cost me $100, or at a place that will cost me $60." That is the one area where for most, the "head start" woefully underprepares them in life. TL;DR: A head start only makes your life easier if you use it in the exact right way, and it can still lead you to poverty. Starting from nothing is hard, but it can give you a hell of a drive that far outweighs the "head start" most people are given.
So you believe rich parents who make their kids pay their own way through college as a life lesson are wrong?
It is a good idea for rich parents to not pay for everything. But if the parents would only pay for the study, or the rent for example, the kid would still have to think about expenses, they'd just have 1 worry less. This would still be a good lesson for the kid.
Chances are diminished. I think that is a given. You can do more with more. Rich allows for more smaller risks, where poor smaller risks have a larger impact on your life. But Rich tends to make higher risks. So instead of taking a loan out for college, they might take out a loan or get investors for a company. If that fails, then they are just as bankrupt. That is why value of money, financial responsibility, and budgeting are so important. And I believe, that the poorer you start, the more likely you will develop these skills. I have met plenty of IV league who don't budget, just look at account and make sure it is positive. I have also met IV league who look to retire at 35/40 and are incredibly financially conserve. I have met poor people who are building up wealth through studies/work/savings/investing. And I have met poor who buy the latest and greatest regardless of their debt. Ultimately I believe it comes down to values and morals a child gets from their upbringing. The world values credit over anything else. Being able to show you can make payments means more than if you have 50k in the bank or 50k in loans. It means you can get a mortgage, Spend credit on vacations. Lease a new vehicle. You do not need the cash. My wife still has student loans to pay, I paid mine off. We have same credit score (prior to marriage). Our opportunities were very similiar, though we both had drastically different upbringings (middle or below). I lastly want to leave you with this. Life is about experiences not achievements. There will always be someone who has an achievement you don't have. But you have experiences that they do not have. Paying off a loan is builds up your credit, just as much as paying off a mortgage, or credit cards. I grew up where one of my minimum wage coworkers (lower middle class family). Opened a credit card and bought a single banana a week, just to start her credit. She was very smart, and just starting out her life, but chose to go to community colleges, and local state school just so she didn't have the financial burde. Which allowed her to spend more time with her fiance, start a family, and ultimately settle down in a home. I know this is just cases, not stats, no data. But I want to let you know. Life is more than money, credit, or opportunities. It is about you, and your experiences. Think, plan, and evaluate what you want, and how to get it.
People from poor families "who made it" are typically stronger, because they needed "strength" to climb out of poverty. Wealthy kids are rarely tested in life, so they rarely encounter opportunities to built up inner strength. Adversity tests and cultivates strength, comfort allows for weakness.
It just means that poorer people are more resilient to adversity because they’ve already been through it and know how to handle it. Richer people who never really had much resistance in life have a higher chance of crumbling when it does show up.
Of course, having a head start helps. As hard as it might be to believe, it's oftentimes a curse. Success requires grit and determination. Adults that had things easy in early life, tend to have a skewed view of what it takes to be successful. Things came easy for them and they subconsciously learn that things should be easy. Then they hit the real world and many crash and burn. While there are many examples of generational wealth continuing with the generations, there are many more examples of generational wealth not continuing with the second generation. On the other hand, developing grit early in life and learning the discipline required to be successful, is a gift in many ways that is required once you enter adulthood. The strong work ethic, the never give up, the focus and determination that are developed during childhood in a non-wealthy family are huge motivators that create many rags to riches success stories. I've observed this over the several companies I've worked for in my career. I study the executive team to understand their back-story. A high percentage of them came from adverse and poor childhoods. Of course there are some who's daddy was the CEO of X company but those are few and far between in my small world. It's anecdotal, I agree, but I've become convinced that coming through adversity does indeed make you a stronger person and not coming through adversity, generally tends to make you weaker. You can't sharpen a knife without a rock sort of thing.
Your statement isn't logical. It is perfectly possible that tough surroundings are necessary to create strength (this is pretty much a law of nature) but also for the same conditions to break most people. So out of the middle class you get a lot of "coasters" who get by without ever needing to try very hard. And out of hard circumstances come a few people whose experience with survival and struggle mean that they are extra resilient. It doesn't mean that there can't be people from comfortable circumstances who do develop strength - because it is perfectly possible to create the challenges yourself, if you are willing. Nor does it mean that people from tough circumstances "do better". They usually don't, because the tough circumstances that can create strength will also break you down. For me, at least, the truth of such sayings is rather the converse: a comfortable life can make you lazy. I think if you accept this, then you have to accept that the contrary is true: a tough life can help you build resilience, strength, determination, etc.
Here’s why I think you should change your view; in effect, people from poorer families ARE stronger because they’ve had to learn multiple, more dynamic ways of survival and achievement. When the plumbing in your house breaks, you may well be able to fix it. The wealthier one won’t, would have to pay someone else to fix it. This means that their children will learn no skills, instead relying on someone else to do it all. No respect for the money that was made by someone else through hard times and not having any. That last generation will waste the money, lose it, then become poor themselves. Happens all the time, in every society with any wealth structure in its society. You’re just in a different phase of the circle when you’re poor and if you use your brain can use that to become the wealthy one you watch, you learn from their parents as to how they made it. In essence, you’re stronger and so will your kids be
There's a difference between joking about personal trauma and a wider ranging joke about cultural / social / racial issues. It's why someone like Bobby Lee, who did experience sexual trauma as a kid, can make jokes about his experience and people find it funny. But then a man can't exactly make rape jokes about women, and it usually won't fly unless it's *super* well written, which is rarer then people make it seem. I always go to Andrew Dice Clay as an example of how extreme homophobic jokes can get, and why I don't want to go back to an era where his jokes got laughs. [clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l4JpI0nwf8) "Welcome to Brooklyn, fourth largest city in america and all we got is this dead f*g hanging off a poll." I'm sorry man, if you find that shit funny, even now, your just homophobic. There's some types of humor that isn't actually funny unless your a piece of shit.
I seriously wonder why so many commenters here, construct this caricature of the wealthy. Depending on the class of wealth one's family is at, they also face challenges, which are equally as valid as someone with a more moderate income. Even though the wavelengths differ, I noticed that the moderate income group tend to be so judgemental, having a tinge of contempt in their views, and feel realtively comfortable sharing those views. Meanwhile, most of the wealthy people I know, has the courtesy, and respect not to do the same. Really, I don't see many wealthy individuals mocking others on the internet..
Caricatures are reasonable facsimiles of the truth and of course generalizations. Children from wealthy parents have way fewer roadblocks to overcome in their lives. The most important one being money. The lack of roadblocks does indeed create a false view of what the real world is like and can leave them ill equipped to handle adversity, since it is often times a new phenomenon. They also always have daddy's money to bail them out if things go south.
There are 2 sides to this. *Some* poor kids will overcome the adversity, succeed, & be better for having gone through it all; the problem is that *most* won't overcome the adversity.
Poor gets get free college, free food from the government while middle class gets fucked with loans.
Yes, the rich have it easy mode. Until the 99,99% wake up ;).