'Poor kids who do everything right don't do better than rich kids who do everything wrong.'
What defines "better"? Financially, probably not. Other dimensions of a personal life, subjective.
Poor kids who do everything right*
*Except choosing an expensive diploma mill for an education and isolating themselves from opportunity
Rich kids who do everything wrong*
*dropping out of high school to work at and learn intimately the family business which they will inherit is considered a wrong decision.
This article and graph have fundamental flaws.
This is to LunaAzul, not really based on environment dost mean they will raise their children that way in all cases
I meant doesn't
Each kid will reap what they deserve through their children.
The educated poor kid will have educated children that will continue moving up.
The uneducated poor kid will have uneducated children that will move further down.
The last paragraph should say the uneducated rich kid*
Poor kids have a bigger hill to climb. Rich kids have Mommy & Daddy to fix it.
That summarizes the entire article.
If I'm reading the chart right, poor kids who graduate college end up in the top two income quintiles 41% of the time.
By comparison, rich kids who drop out of high school end up there 19% of the time.
Wow. So if I'm reading the graph right, it looks like poor kids who graduate from college improve their chances to just slightly better than pure chance in terms of which quintile they end up in as adults, while rich kids who drop out of high school
are most likely to wind up middle class, with a handful of outliers being either wealthy or poor. Very interesting.
Lower* middle class I should say. But still. No likelier to be truly poor than a poor kid with a degree. That is a pretty powerful stat. I wonder what happens when you compare rich kids who drop out of *college*.
It's too much if a generalization for me to say true, but I do understand the point it is trying to convey
It may be correct in some situations, but the opposite can also be true. This is one of the worst generalizations I have seen in a while.
It is a generalization - actual results may vary. But the study looks at large numbers of people. you could consider it an '80%' rule in this case. Another interesting stat - 50% of people remain in the economic quintile they were born into.
I don't disagree with the 50% but there's a long way from that to the 100% the article claims.
There are a lot of examples where children from poor families are very successful and the opposite also happens regularly.
Yes - but it's the exception. If you're born in the wealthiest quintile - you have an 80% chance of staying there. if you are born in the poorest quintile, you have a 5% chance of making it into the richest. The article doesn't claim 100%.
True, but those who do make everything right are those who do end up making more, and those who don't are much more likely to stay where their family were or do worse. If you're from a well to do family you're more likely to get the tools to do
...better while the families with less resources are less likely to give their children the push needed to improve their situation.
Successful people are more likely to teach their kids how to be successful. Unsuccessful people are more likely to teach the traits that make them unsuccessful to their kids.
This user is currently being ignored