Are you the 9.9%?

[Amethyst]

The PSATs sort of showed up one day in sophomore year, when I was 14. There was no preparation. It was just sort of expected that we would all take them.

I had to get the $6.00 test fee from my parents and get Mom to drive me to school early on Saturday morning to take the test (and pick me up 3 hours later). I recall Dad grumbling about both requirements. Anyway, I scored high enough, in verbal and math (I think scores were 760/630), to be a National Merit semifinalist. So that meant I had to take more SATs later on, to stay in competition. Probably paid the test fee out of my lawn mowing money. Got to Finalist and fizzled out...not enough extracurricular participation, or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 I took the PSATs, too. Didn't have any special prep for them, either. It was that test which told me I'd have no problem with the Math, and no hope with the verbal.

[jollystomper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 I would hugely disagree with the 4th one. I don't see how that leads to economic success. Staying single can just as much lead to economic success, too.

My view is that 2 people in a committed marriage put the marriage ahead of their own individual needs. So they look towards growing things financially together. Financially, they, as the saying goes, "have each others backs", a backup which a single person might not have.

When a severe financial impact comes along in a good marriage, either only one is affected and the other can provide some stabilization, or they both work together, in concert, to address the financial impact. When the financial ship springs a leak, neither one is prone to do nothing and say "I'm glad it is not leaking on my side of the boat".

[scrabbler1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst The PSATs sort of showed up one day in sophomore year, when I was 14. There was no preparation. It was just sort of expected that we would all take them. I had to get the $6.00 test fee from my parents and get Mom to drive me to school early on Saturday morning to take the test (and pick me up 3 hours later). I recall Dad grumbling about both requirements. Anyway, I scored high enough, in verbal and math (I think scores were 760/630), to be a National Merit semifinalist. So that meant I had to take more SATs later on, to stay in competition. Probably paid the test fee out of my lawn mowing money. Got to Finalist and fizzled out...not enough extracurricular participation, or something.

I walked to school so my parents were freed of any Saturday responsibility.

I recall back then learning that for the purpose of National Merit competition, they doubled the verbal score before adding it to the math score, giving the verbal score double weight. This annoyed me because my math score was so high and the verbal score was so low.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 I would hugely disagree with the 4th one. I don't see how that leads to economic success. Staying single can just as much lead to economic success, too.

Being single works. Having 3 ex-wives to support doesn't.

They once asked Robin Williams why he was still working so hard. His reply: "Five ex-wives".

[jollystomper]

As long as people are people, there will ALWAYS be this type of economic divide. To what degree people believe it is unfair is a matter of personal judgement, which will always have personal bias.


Life is inherently unfair. Some of us won the "global lottery" by being born in western countries. Some of us won the "ethnic lottery" by being born into the majority/most powerful ethnicity in their geographical location. Some of won the "family lottery" by growing up with parents or relatives who set a good example - and even then we had to choose to follow that example. Some of us won the "economic" lottery by having or developing skills that others want to pay for at a higher rate.

Can we make everyone win the lottery? It reminds me of that scene in "Bruce Almighty" where that does happen... and everyone gets 6 dollars. And no one is happy with it.

One of the best lessons my Dad taught was "life is unfair. Someone will always have much more than you. Someone will always have much less. Do not spend your time looking at what others have. Spend your time understanding yourself, what value you can offer to others, and what your needs, not your wants, are".

I certainly did not grow up in the 0.1% or 9.9%, and I never cared about being a member of the club. I cared about respecting others and, economically, showing the value I could bring to whoever would hire me, and doing those things to raise my value (which is not just education). An on the expense side, learned to save, be patient, and not keep up with the Joneses.

I do agree with the Luke 12:48 sentiment. Because there will always be those who are given much, and always be those who are given little. That will not change, no matter what economic system is put in place.

[Amethyst]

Now that you mention it, I recall hearing that, too. The reason for it was never explained, so I was skeptical (if we'd had the term Urban Legend, I would have take it for such).

In the end, of course, it made no difference to my future. There was zero interest or impetus at home regarding college for girls, so I never thought about scholarships. Didn't seem to be much point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 I walked to school so my parents were freed of any Saturday responsibility. I recall back then learning that for the purpose of National Merit competition, they doubled the verbal score before adding it to the math score, giving the verbal score double weight. This annoyed me because my math score was so high and the verbal score was so low.

[marko]

I'm thinking of looking at this from the other end:

By virtue of their sheer volume, the 90% sort of set pricing for almost everything.

Food, cars, dining, clothes, (average) homes, utilities, energy and so on.

Not talking about the truly poor but the average non-10%-er.

So, if the average income for the 90% is let's say $50K, how many of us here would be able to RE without that 'price control'? Could we retire if a night out at Applebees cost $300 and a pair of slacks cost $400?

As often happens, I could be out having some bad brain cramp thinking this way but just wondering.

PLEASE! I'm not trying to be smug about those with less resources. Just wondering about this from a different angle.

[mrWinter]

For those who are mentioning how they don't feel guilty for their success, I don't see why they need to say that. I'm decidedly in the demographic being discussed in this article, as is the author. I don't think anyone is suggesting you feel guilty, and you are not being attacked for the decisions you've made and the advantage you've taken of incentives that have been provided to you. The question is are the economic incentives that have been put in place what is best for the population as a whole, the argument being that no, they are not. It's a tragedy of the commons situation. Does a fisherman need to feel guilty for taking as many fish as he can every day to feed his family, even if he is depleting the local stock? No, to do otherwise would only hurt himself and his family, while having very nearly zero effect on stocks at large. But maybe the fishing quotas need to be reevaluated if the fish population is not operating at maximum efficiency.

[donheff]

Quote:

I fail to see how our hard work, refusing to get into trouble, and LBYM ethics (even when the "means" were barely enough to get by) constitute something "toxic," as the article's opening lines have it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dayzero From the article itself. I encourage you to read the whole thing, it's really a pretty incredible commentary.

Quote:

In part what we have here is a listening problem. Americans have trouble telling the difference between a social critique and a personal insult. Thus, a writer points to a broad social problem with complex origins, and the reader responds with, “What, you want to punish me for my success?”

I do think the challenge from the article to distinguish social critique from personal insult is apropos.

I read the whole article a couple of weeks ago in the print edition. I can't remember a lot of the details but I thought it was interesting and had some valid points about the different plateau we born into the 9.9% are starting from compared to people born into far lower stratas. That doesn't mean our personal efforts and contributions are irrelevant, or that we are just that we are flawed, just that we should be cognizant of our advantages. My middle class parents didn't leave me a financial inheritance but they put me on a path of success that was worth a fortune by instilling good attitudes, financing my education, and possibly most important, leaving me free to experiment and risk knowing I had a family I could fall back on if things went wrong. This was a huge psychological advantage that kids who's families are barely getting by don't have.

I read Steven Pinkers's new book, Enlightenment Now, after reading the Atlantic article so I am now a bit more tuned into the positive developments that continue to emerge in the US and worldwide. But even after Pinker, the problems with health care and college costs faced by all but the upper strata in the US remain glaring.

[athena53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper Life is inherently unfair. Some of us won the "global lottery" by being born in western countries. Some of us won the "ethnic lottery" by being born into the majority/most powerful ethnicity in their geographical location. Some of won the "family lottery" by growing up with parents or relatives who set a good example - and even then we had to choose to follow that example. Some of us won the "economic" lottery by having or developing skills that others want to pay for at a higher rate.

I listen to "Planet Money" and "Freakonomics" and never can remember where I heard a particular program, but...they did a study of people who won land in a Federal lottery something like 200 years ago. With all the caveats of using records that old, they used census records of families who won/didn't win land at that time and then looked at their descendants- address, occupation, etc. They could see very little difference in prosperity among the descendants of those who had inherited land vs. those who didn't.

Some of it is definitely education/culture. My Dad was investing in stocks in his 30s, and discussed it with me because I was interested. My son learned early on that sometimes I'd buy him something I wanted, sometimes I wouldn't, depending on how much of the "discretionary" spending budget I had left. He knew the mortgage was paid and there would be food in the house, but that discretionary spending had a lower priority.

I don't know how we can address that gap for kids who don't learn it at home, although some people here say they've learned it from parents who were financial disasters.

A note on the SAT/ACT: When I took it 40 years ago, prep courses weren't common unless you wanted to get into Yale. Now it seems that almost everyone does. Assuming they have a positive effect on scores (and I guess they do or they wouldn't be such a big business), kids who don't take them are likely at a competitive disadvantage.

[CRLLS]

Whenever I see an article like this, I just can't get excited. There will always be someone who has more than me, and with a bit of work and perseverance, I will have more than someone else. That's simply the way it is. Everyone's life situation is different.

I took PSAT SAT and ACT testing during my HS years. I had never heard of studying for them. I must have been naive at the time and thought that these tests (any test for that matter) just showed what you retained from your education. Not what you crammed for last week. As it turns out, Oh! How foolish I was.

[DrRoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 I would hugely disagree with the 4th one. I don't see how that leads to economic success. Staying single can just as much lead to economic success, too.

The result was from analysis of data around the parameters of peoples' lives. I think the item on marriage comes from the poor outcomes stemming from divorce for many people.

[scrabbler1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRoy The result was from analysis of data around the parameters of peoples' lives. I think the item on marriage comes from the poor outcomes stemming from divorce for many people.

With around half of all marriages (USA) ending in divorce, I surely wouldn't want to risk half my portfolio (and with it, my early retirement) on a marriage ending in divorce; or depend on an iron-clad pre-nup to keep it. Even alimony payments would wreck my budget, what a waste of money going to someone you want out of your life!

[jollystomper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko I'm thinking of looking at this from the other end: By virtue of their sheer volume, the 90% sort of set pricing for almost everything. Food, cars, dining, clothes, (average) homes, utilities, energy and so on. Not talking about the truly poor but the average non-10%-er. So, if the average income for the 90% is let's say $50K, how many of us here would be able to RE without that 'price control'? Could we retire if a night out at Applebees cost $300 and a pair of slacks cost $400? As often happens, I could be out having some bad brain cramp thinking this way but just wondering. PLEASE! I'm not trying to be smug about those with less resources. Just wondering about this from a different angle.

I wonder if the things that truly matter are priced for the 90%. Perhaps the "wants" are, as they are things others are convincing you that you want. One can choose not to eat out, or to buy (or even make) cheap clothing.

But the needs?

For example, is a basic place to live, food, and health care priced for the 90%? Or for what the market can bear?

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper For example, is a basic place to live, food, and health care priced for the 90%? Or for what the market can bear?

Not priced for the 90% but priced BY the 90% by virtue of their own supply/demand. Sheer volume.

[jollystomper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena53 I listen to "Planet Money" and "Freakonomics" and never can remember where I heard a particular program, but...they did a study of people who won land in a Federal lottery something like 200 years ago. With all the caveats of using records that old, they used census records of families who won/didn't win land at that time and then looked at their descendants- address, occupation, etc. They could see very little difference in prosperity among the descendants of those who had inherited land vs. those who didn't.

On this point, perhaps it is an example of the adage "it is not what you have, it is what you do with it", a factor that people seem afraid to bring up these days. Someone who wins a "lottery" can squander and not benefit from it. Someone who does not win a "lottery" can still has access to things to give them the opportunity to improve, but them must take actions to do so - sometimes actions they may not feel (or others may tell them) are not "fair".

[Amethyst]

I agree these are significant advantages. Heck, being born a Caucasian (even, like me, a female Caucasian in a working-class family where the water heater was turned off between showers to save money) is a significant, unfair, unearned advantage. But to lump all of us into a group that supposedly had all of your listed advantages - when many of us, even on this forum, did not - is simply too pat, I think. In particular, I found the article oddly silent on the value - to society as a whole, too - of determination, resilience, and self-denial, among other things. The Ability to Put Up With Cr@p and Keep Going, which IMHO is worth a lot, is given short shrift.
(Oh, and I had to laugh at the author's blithe assumption that most of us hire nannies. I don't think I've ever even met a nanny, although I'm sure there are some around in my community. It is hard for me to relate to nanny-focused observations).

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff I My middle class parents didn't leave me a financial inheritance but they put me on a path of success that was worth a fortune by instilling good attitudes, financing my education, and possibly most important, leaving me free to experiment and risk knowing I had a family I could fall back on if things went wrong. This was a huge psychological advantage that kids who's families are barely getting by don't have.

[flintnational]

If you were born in North America, Europe or another developed country, you are privileged. Per the Global Rich List, at an annual income of $13,750, globally you are in the "privileged" 9.9%. That would include most of the US poor referenced in the article.

Maybe the article could have taken a different angle. We are indeed fortunate.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrWinter For those who are mentioning how they don't feel guilty for their success, I don't see why they need to say that. I'm decidedly in the demographic being discussed in this article, as is the author. I don't think anyone is suggesting you feel guilty, and you are not being attacked for the decisions you've made and the advantage you've taken of incentives that have been provided to you.

I think there's a quiet drumbeat out in the ether that says it's a zero sum game where those who succeeded have done so at the expense of others.

Most here on this forum have succeeded at the expense of blood, sweat and tears alone and, I suspect are quite sensitive to any implication of the 'you didn't earn it' mentality.

Personally, I've been exposed to the 'you didn't earn it' since I was a child. My own nephew (from DW's side of the family) once said outright that I "must have cheated big-time" along the way; he thought he was complimenting me! (he won't be when they read my will someday)

As far as 'having won the lottery' by simply being born to the right parents/hemisphere, I have often mentioned on this forum of many of my rich-and-famous-family-name schoolmates who are now broke, dead or wishing they were. As jollystomper pointed out, it's what you do with what you got that makes the difference.

[MichaelB]

We boomers certainly enjoyed one advantage that neither our parents nor our children had, which is access to a high quality / low cost college education where any field of study led to gainful employment. Getting into college and paying for it was not that easy pre-boomer, and no longer is, and field of study matters.

I wonder how these boomer attitudes about college affect the large debts and poor choices some students take on today.