Why do high-status parents tend to end up with high-status kids?

I think it all boils down to money. People like to think money doesn’t matter but thats a fairy tale. With money you can afford not just better things but better opportunities, like free time to explore, better schooling, college, etc.

Also, a kid who grew up with a highly educated father has a model, a roadmap on how to get where he wants to go.

If you’re born into wealth, you have a lot of options available. The best schools being the most glaring.
Good luck getting into Harvard or Yale if you’re not filthy rich.

So what is the mother’s educational attainment? Chopped liver?

I think it is the influence of both parents, and it has to do with expectations and motivation and the will to carry through.

Oh… and plain, dumb, luck.

It’s all about motivation. The kids who did the worst in the schools I went to were always the ones from the poorer areas. Instead they would rather ditch school, get involved with gangs and drugs, and get pregnant. They were not motivated to do well in school and grew up surrounded by people who never made it very far. Many of the parents don’t even motivate them, so they don’t have much drive to try. Of course there were plenty of kids from those areas who were just as poor but did do well. It’s all about motivation.

Kids who come from higher-status parents have an example of what to do. They have parents who have made it relatively far and thus they want to follow that and be successful themselves. Of course having money means it’s easier to pursue higher education.

But also I think that coming from a low-status family can be a motivator sometimes. If you see what not being educated does to people and you want to escape that or you want to have more money and have a better life, that can motivate you as well. My dad is a Stanford graduate multi-millionaire, yet he was the son of uneducated blue-collar parents.

Usually, it’s many factors, but education is the catalyst in my opinion. You can have some white trash from Alabama win the lottery, but their kids are not going to excel at Harvard because of this. You have to be educated yourself to make the money. This does not mean a college degree per se, but lets say a father or mother is a great business person and teaches these skills to their children. The parent is not rich, but they have given the tools to their kids to end up sucessful. But ultimately, money decides a lot of things.

@Grisson As it happens, mother’s educational attainment is chopped liver as a predictor of children’s educational attainment. Go figure. Kind of annoying. And yet, at least according to an education researcher I used to help, that was what her results were showing. Figure that one out!

I think parent’s role modeling counts for a lot. As long as the parents do not give the child everything they want. They need to learn how to work for something.

Money helps, but one can’t lay it all on money. If you have the drive to succeed, you are going to succeed, regardless of money. You will make your opportunities. If all you do is sit around whining about how ‘I don’t have the money I can’t afford blah blah blah’, then you are not going to succeed, nor would I say you have the drive or are worthy of making something of yourself. All that person seems to want to do is complain about what they don’t have.

If you see your parents go to college, odds are you will too, if you don’t see your parent’s go to college and have any get up and go and ambition to you and want better, then you will see to it you go, whether you work hard, save money and get scholarships to big name schools or you work hard, save your money and get scholarships to lesser named schools or community college, you are making something of yourself.

I do however think that nature wins in this nature vs. nurture. If you might have an edge if your parents went to school and you have money, but it barely factors, in my view, whether or not you go onto higher education and succeed.

Yes I think in well to do families it is an expectation that their child will go to at the very least college. In poorer areas, it is seen as a luxury to send your kid to college. It’s different for immigrant children, I think – their parents also expect them to go to college even if they’re poor. They expect them to be richer than they are. And once you know how to approach college and graduate school, it is easier to explain to your kids how to do it.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think your notion about immigrants is well-noted. Immigrants, by the very fact they are here, have indicated serious drive. This is probably passed on to children with parental pressure, so the next generation does much better. Unless, it seems, if they get too “Americanized.” Funny, but nowadays middle class American children are seen as lazy and spoiled—at least by first gen immigrants.

Yes it is money…money buys a lot…specifically good education, good appearances, good contacts, good prospects… hopefully though change in on the horizon

Children that do well in school do so when they have parents that pay attention to their school work and teach them the importance of education. Money had nothing to do with our children being at the top of their class.

Well, maybe the people who are smartest, most ambitious, and most educated tend to make more money, and so since they all seem to go together, there might be a statistical correlation between all of them, but we might not understand exactly how it all works together. Certainly there are some very smart poor people who are in the circumstance for many different reasons. Money certainly helps you have more choices to some extent, but also if you grow up with money you have an understanding of how that world works, and if you grow up poor you might be ignorant (not stupid) on how to acheive that status. Status families provide modeling for their children.

Back to the correlations. Think about the studies that have shown that children who study piano (or maybe it was any instrument I cannot remember) tend to do better in school. My guess is children who are given piano lessons at a young age are children of parents who probably have some money, and have been exposed to the arts, and who seek knowledge and a broad education. I think those same children probably would do just as well without the piano lessons, because their parents have a certain attitude towards education to begin with. I think a lot of the conclusions to studies like this are purely correlation and not caustation.

I think @jonsblond is correct that any child with the right encouragement can be extremely successful regardless of the money the family has. I also agree with @DominicX that coming from poor circumstance can drive someone to never want to be poor again. But, it is a more difficult path for the poor child to navigate in my opinion.

I think parents encouraging their children to be successful is very important. That the children see the possibilities and that it would make their parents proud. I think psychologically it is important for the child to not feel like they are betraying the family by gaining social status.

@Grisson @wundayatta My guess is fathers education being the predictor might be different 20 years from now if they continue to study it. Previously my guess is it was fairly common for women to not have educations, and that seemed to have little impact on the children, and probably rarely there were couples where the woman was very edcuated and the husband was not, so my guess is the stats are reliant on the basic educational mix of the population, but those things are changing in society.

My mother and my father both came from well off families with high status parents. Both of my grandfather’s had very high profile positions with well known, high profile companies, in the entertainment and media industries. My parents and all but one of my aunts and uncles (of seven total on both sides) have advanced degrees, but not a single one is working in a high status, high profile, or high wage position.

—Intelligence is genetic.

—Someone who is successful is in a much better position to teach how to be successful to others than someone who is not. Kids of successful people get to observe how their parents handle life from the day they are born.

—Successful parents have many contacts that they can leverage to get their kids in the door.

—More money = better starting points. Yes, if you go to the underfunded public school you can still end up on top – but you’ll have to work two or three times as hard as the person that gets life handed to them on a silver platter.

High achievers learn early on how to multi task, plan, set goals and stay focused in and around high pressure situations. They know how to succeed which is not something you can really learn in a textbook. Also they are leading by example.

There are so many factors; intelligence, drive, good habits, and knowledge. Money and connections don’t hurt either but neither will guarantee success without something internal to get started and keep going.

@JLeslie It’s interesting that you think the correlation between Mother vs Father’s educational attainment and the children’s attainment will change. I suspect the trend is stronger than you think. Right now, if a woman with a PhD, for example, marries a truck driver with only a high school education, then the kids, half the time (I’m making that up) will end up with only a high school education.

Why would father’s education be more significant than mother’s? It isn’t necessarily income, since, if the woman works, she should be able to do well, although perhaps not as well as if she were a man.

Maybe it’s the role model issue. For a man to do well in education, it seems he has to work harder than a woman. Women do better in education, and that’s why the ratio between men and women in college is tipping ever more strongly in favor or women. Perhaps men are not as smart, and so, to succeed, must work much harder (which is ironic since women complain that they have to work twice as hard to get half as far).

However, that’s not the outcome we are concerned with. If a man know how to act like he’s working hard, than the kids might get the idea they need to work hard. Women, who tend to complain less, and never seem to show how hard they are working, may not be providing the right example for educational success.

Ok. So that’s a stretch, but I’m just blue-skying right now. I have no other theory at the moment. Any others are certainly welcome.

Some of it can certainly be chalked up to extra opportunites. Going on the premise that a child retains and emulates what they see early in life, then if wealth is the only thing they’ve ever known, then that is what they will attract as adults. It’s the same way with children in crumbling urban cities and children who watch how thier parents manage thier lives.

I have a graduate degree, my husband doesn’t; however, both of us have already told our children that their education will not stop when high school ends. It’s just not practical, these days. My husband and I are pretty equal on this.

My husband’s role in this is his view on what he does. He’s a mechanic and a small business owner. He works for one place, but restores cars on the side. He enjoys what he does, but doesn’t want his children feeling stuck. He wasn’t encouraged to do anything in school or after school, by either of his parents.

My parents grew up poor. Both of them did well for themselves in business, but didn’t completely encourage college. They had their hands full with a lot of issues going on in the house. I went to college, then to graduate school. I paid for my school, my parents really didn’t have a huge roll in it.

I have wealthy friends from high school that just went on to college, it was never a choice, it’s just what was expected.

Just something to chew on.

Does education make you a better parent? I may factor in a tiny bit, but no. I know too many people without degrees that are awesome parents. My dad was a high school dropout, that begged to get back in a year later – and was allowed to enroll again. With or without a high school diploma, he absolutely rocked as a father.

@cak I agree with what you said. I grew up as an outsider to the have’s and watched many a kid squander the silver spoon opportunity due to parents too busy to be parents and the kids get caught up in all sorts of trouble. High status or low-status good parents are just that..the goods ones pay attention to their kids and lovingly encourage their kids to be the best they can be.

I’d have to see some statistics to support this basic premise. I doubt it would hold up under scrutiny. In my opinion, there are far more successful people who have gone beyond their parents level.

@wundayatta Interesting. I think men complain less than women, but maybe that is because I am a woman and hear womens complaints. Women probably complain to their girlfriends far more than to their husbands or in front of their children. Men might talk about how hard they work, but it rarely sounds like a complaint to me.

Your original question implies that children of both sexes will acheive status, so over time, meaning with each generation, isn’t that implying the statistic will change? Or maybe it doesn’t? That is confusing to me. I can’t sort it out logically on my own.

I don’t think men are any less smart than women.

@cak about parenting. I don’t think being a good parent is directly correlated to education either. As you say there are awesome parents who did not finish primary or high school educations. My sister-in-law is an interesting of example of what I was alluding to up above. My husband and his siblings grew up in the upper classes of Mexico City. They went to very good private schools for primary and secondary, his parents emphasized education. His father only finished elementary school, and his mother through 8th grade I believe. Anyway, skipping ahead, everyone is in the US now.

His sister has two children, and her son is about to graduate high school. His mother has always emphasized education, going to college, would be supportive of anywhere he wanted to go to college, even out of country, but when it came time to get is act together; well, at least I know back in December he still had not applied to any colleges. She, the mother, did less than a year of college in Mexico City, she commuted to school, and then dropped out.

I had talked to her back in September and she could not understand why her son was not getting his act together. I told her, you have to take him to schools to visit, he is afraid of the unknown. She acknowledged that the only college he has talked about at all is the one he goes to for soccer camp, the one he has been to before. She ignored me for a while, and then finally started to follow my advice a couple of months ago and take him to visit schools. I have no idea if he now has picked a school and filed applications, generally they don;t like me to be right about things.

My point with this story is if you have parents that went to college, they know how the system works. Even if they just went to a local college themselves, by the time they are adults they get that they could have gone to other colleges and had different experiences. You can have this if you never went to school, but it is less likely. College is still kind of a mystery I think to some. My sister-in-law grew up with plenty of status, and definitely can schmooze with the best of them, and looks the part, she is beautiful and has amazing taste, but she was very ignorant to how her son was feeling as a senior in HS who was unsure of what to do, how to move forward.

This makes me think of something from Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers which is all about this very topic of predicting success.

I will paraphrase because I don’t remember the exact terminology he used (perhaps someone who has read it can explain it better…) but basically he breaks parents down into 2 types: gardeners/tenders vs. advocates

The gardeners are those parents that just make sure their kids basic needs are met (food, clothing, sleep, staying safe) and don’t interfere too much in the growth of the child and their path in the world because they have other concerns like working long hours and getting food on the table. They let the child grow in a natural way and the child often ends up being very easy-going, perceiving, unique, imaginative because they didn’t have alot of structure forced on them.

The advocate parents have a sense of entitlement and are beyond the point of mere survival (most likely due to having a stable financial situation) and they actually advocate on behalf of their kids, become a squeaky wheel, ensure that kids get in the best schools, get in certain classes, get the things they “need.” When the child grows up in this kind of relationship, they are more aware of societal structures and their own power to change them and they tend to become advocates personalities themselves.

I grew up with a gardener parent and it has totally made me who I am – I’m very free-thinking, open-minded, spontaneous, I entertain myself, just perceiving the world & not really shaping it.

@ftp901 I found that very interesting. I have never heard that before. I think I was raised somewhere in the middle. I did not have pressure to get straight A’s and I was given a lot of freedom, but my parents also tried to inform of the opportunities in the world. I think the one thing that stunted me a little was my father fear level. It made me afraid to make a mistake, and that was a little paralyzing for me I think. Learning that behavior. Mostly I do see myself as very laid back, kind of take life as it comes, and easily satisfied, although I do like to plan to some extent. I find ambitious people like my husband are not easily satisfied, amd never like to feel they are settling.

Nepotism, classically human trait.

Okay, I found a blurb where Gladwell talks about it. As I suspected, I had the terminology wrong – it is natural growth (not gardener) parents vs. cultivation/activist (not advocate) parents, but it basically says the same thing. When I read this it really struck a chord with me because I truly believe this from experience. I was raised by a passive/natural growth parent and am a very warm and creative person like he describes. I encounter advocates/activists at my workplace constantly who get far ahead because of their negotiating skills.

“Q: You say that class confers a long-lasting advantage and gives privileged kids a leg up, but not just because their families have money.

A: There’s much more to it. A wonderful sociologist named Annette Lareau identifies profound differences in parenting styles. She calls the upper-class parenting style “concerted cultivation”: parents take control of their children’s psychological and intellectual development and encourage them to be activists in the way they interrelate with adults and institutions. The other style is called “natural growth.” She notes that parents in poorer families have a very passive attitude toward their kids’ development, they really sit back and allow them to find their own way. It can produce wonderful, warm, sweet, creative people, but does not prepare them for a world in which they’re competing against kids who have been schooled since the earliest days in how to get their way. Being successful is all about whether you have the skills necessary to impose your will on the world. That’s really what class advantage is: being taught the skills necessary to make sense of institutions.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/11/21/macleans-interview-malcolm-gladwell/

@benftp901imew excellent answer!! thanks for that…

Why the change in our names?

Well this theory is something of a gross generalisation.

The children of lower-class families actually have to be brought up in a more effective style of “concerted cultivation”, just to equal their parents in ‘achievement’, than the upper-classes. Indeed, even in a situation where the working-class child has had an excellent upbringing, by Annette Lareau’s ‘standards’, the disadvantage to the child because of difference in wealth far outweighs any advantage it could have gleaned via its ‘better’ upbringing.

I find this really quite offensive. There may be a general trend to be observed, but the agenda of this theory is to suggest that the working-classes remain poor, compared to the upper-classes, mostly because they are ineffective parents.
This is a pile of bullshit. Who is this, some stoned, drunk Old Tory?

——————————

I had a very well concertedly cultivated upbringing, and that will undoubtedly help me to be successful within society, but we can’t afford private schools, extra tuition or fees for professional training.

You think I am going to be earning more money than someone of a more average or “natural” upbringing, whose parents send them to the best private schools, pay for any extra tuition needed and pay for their entire training to be a Lawyer, or send them to Eton/Harrow—>Oxford/Cambridge and buy them a seat in Parliament!?

I will be worth a fraction, like every other working-class man, regardless of how well we were taught to “make sense of institutions”. Indeed, my natural intelligence will take me a lot further than most working-class kids in my situation, regardless of their upbringing.
If you factor that out, you see that working-class kids stay so, and middle/upper-class kids stay so, because of money.

Or would the theorists suggest that I will not be as successful, because my parents simply could not have raised me as well as middle-class parents would have, being as it is, that they are working-class.

Either way, you’d be fantastically stupid or fantastically condescending but probably both.

Working-class kids need to be raised with a more sensible head on their shoulders just to be able to make a living, whilst the middle-classes and upper-classes can afford to make their children successful, regardless.
That is the definition of middle-class. Having enough money to pay for your child’s success in life.

——————————

Now we may observe that there is a greater tendency towards defeatism in the very poor sections of society, which is obviously unhealthy for a child’s upbringing and future, but from where might this arise?

Oh, perhaps the fact that, if you don’t go to the best school in the area, and if you can’t afford professional training, the chances of being anything more than working-class are minuscule.

——————————

“Being successful is all about whether you have the skills necessary to impose your will on the world. That’s really what class advantage is: being taught the skills necessary to make sense of institutions.”

Yeah, go tell the ghetto kid: if only his mother had taught him the “skills”, he could’ve just as easily become as Lawyer as any rich Lawyer’s son…

——————————

What disgusts me the most is that this idea comes from an American!
Renowned for having an abominably wide gap between the rich and the poor & the good and bad schools, a middle-class as strongly protected as that of the UK and next-to-zero social mobility for the poorest sections of society, America is the Land of Monetarism.

Now, if you think you could tell some poor black single mother living in gov’t housing that if she just made a more concerted effort to cultivate her child in his upbringing, he can do just as well as the son of a Lawyer and Doctor, regardless of the fact his school is in anarchy, his mother can barely afford food, let alone training in Law, and he don’t even know what a personal tutor is, I think I could tell you that you must be some snide professional bullshitter (read: sociologist) or so upper-class you got more acres than braincells, because you livin on a different planet, you pretentious twat.

——————————

Even the most important factors in the childrearing technique are reliant upon the wealth of the parents. Are the working-classes spending less time with their kids and not buying them instruments or making efforts to arrange mentally stimulating activities for them because they think that is a better way to raise a child, or…..
Oh,
just maybe
because they have to work full-time just to keep food on the table and roof over their heads…?

You don’t think that, if the same people where earning 4–5 times as much, or more, they could and would put more effort into actively ensuring their child’s success, via direct investment and better “rearing” techniques, which do require more time (=money)? Because, that’s really what class advantage is:
Having enough money to ensure your child’s success in life.

@the_idle – your argument has completely confuddled me and I have no idea what you are trying to say. It seems to me that you have some disagreement with the Gladwell quote above but in the end you conclude the same thing that he/Lareau is saying:

“that’s really what class advantage is: Having enough money to ensure your child’s success in life”

Gladwell is just saying that the money has more of an influence because of the parenting style that it produces rather than with the acquisition of things/services like private schools. I don’t think Lareau is saying that one style is good or one is bad – value judgements are arbitrary and not very useful. She is just identifying 2 distinct styles, one which is an easier path to conventional success.

There are lots of exceptions though. I grew up with a natural growth (lower-class) parent and have been somewhat successful in my career (eg. I make more money than most of my colleagues). However, I can also see other people around me who act as advocates/activists (they shape the world around them in a more direct way) and they seem to get much further. It has taken me most of my career to learn that I should start doing this more myself (whereas cultivated kids might have learned it earlier).

Obviously the two parenting styles correlate with differing degrees of the child’s success within society, but nothing like to the same degree as the wealth of the parents. Lareau, at least, is saying that the parenting styles are what perpetuate class divide, rather than the money.

As if a “cultivated” ghetto kid has anywhere near the same kinda chance of becoming a successful lawyer as a middle-class kid, even if the middle class kid didn’t have so cultivated an upbringing.

…
FALSE: “That’s really what class advantage is: being taught the skills necessary to make sense of institutions”

TRUE: “That’s really what class advantage is: Having enough money to ensure your child’s success in life”
...

They are suggesting that the class divide in success is actually more a result of, and more perpetuated by, parenting “styles” than “money”.

This is plainly ridiculous, because the styles do not correlate 100% with class, and “cultivated” working-class people such as myself cannot hope to be as successful as even the most “natural” upper-class people, because they don’t need to be cultivated to be successful, because their parents can and will just pay for it.

You don’t have to have money to teach a kid how to “make sense of institutions”.
But, if you do teach him, if he lives in a poor area, goes to a shit school and can’t afford tuition or professional training, what use is his cultivated upbringing? He’s still going nowhere, because there’s no money.

@benthe_idlerdrew you miss the point about the theory and America. America’s promise (or ideal) is that no one has to be stuck in their class. That one is not judged by their class or family name, and can move up and be accepted.

The theory itself is talking about parenting style, not that if you are raised poor you will be poor, it is just suggesting that poor people tend to have a more passive style. I don’t see why that is offensive? It does not mean a person can’t be poor and have the other type of parenting style. It is just a psycho-social observation.

Plenty of people in America grow up poor in public schools, go to city colleges and wind up upper middle class my father was one of them. His parents were extremely passive, especially his father who was mentally ill. My father kind of does not fit the mold of the theory, I think part of the reason is he is very intelligent, and the city provided free schooling through college. So he did ok inspite of his difficult upbringing. Eventually he went on to an Ivy League for his PhD on scholarship. But, he felt he missed a lot with no guidance on how to navigate the world.

How to navigate institutions does matter. As I stated with my example of my sister-in-law, her kids are raised upper-middle class, but she was being very passive about informing her son about how to apply to college, or taking him to different campuses when he seemed reluctant and nervous about the process. He had no restrictions on what college he could go to by his parents, no cost constraints, but he failed to take the SAT twice (I am not sure what his score was from the one time he took it as a senior) and had not apllied to any colleges as of December, hopefully that has changed. He needs help navigating the institutions, his mother was clueless. I tried to give her some hints, she started to follow some of my suggestions. She knew the goal she wanted fro her child, but does not knowhow to acheive it or help it happen.

The suggestion from reading up there and a little on wiki is that poor people stay poor, because there is a tendency towards passive upbringing.

I am not saying this tendency doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t have a a negative effect on the child’s chances of success (it does and does), but they go on to conclude that it is this tendency, which is the primary reason for poorer children being less successful compared to richer children, and hence the continuing divide between the classes.

Now I am saying that the middle-class style ‘active’ upbringing IS more beneficial to a child’s chances of success than the passive one, but the effect is negligible, compared to effect of money.

This is provable, by, as i said above, the fact that “cultivated” working-class people such as myself cannot hope to be as successful as even the most “natural” upper-class people, because they don’t need to be cultivated to be successful, because their parents can and will just pay for it.

There are exceptions, but as a group, if some poor people suddenly took a middle class approach to raising their kids, their kids would be more successful, compared to the others of similar backgrounds, but they would still be simply unable to compete with the rich kids. Not to mention the fact a middle-class approach to rearing will probably cost a whole lot more too.

To take the example above, that kid. Is he going to fail and live in the ghetto because he failed his SAT? or will his parents support him until he has a comfortable life? If he is middle-class, he is guaranteed to a higher minimum level of success in society, by his parents’ money, and no brilliant parenting strategies for the ghetto boy or laxity in the middle-class household are going to change that. It is what being middle-class is.

Just to clarify he did not “fail” the SAT, I was just annoyed (as his aunt who has been to college and has more information about the process) that he did not take it a minimum of two times to give him the best chance. He waited until his senior year to take it the first time.

Even if we ‘make’ very good opportunities for intelligent poor (we have support schemes in the UK and the USA), it doesn’t change the facts…

with regards to ‘success’:
a cultivated upbringing will always be an advantage to rich or poor kids
and a passive upbringing will always be a disadvantage to poor or rich kids,
but a cultivated upbringing doesn’t guarantee success for a poor kid
and a passive upbringing doesn’t guarantee failure for a rich kid.
Quite the opposite.

The only guarantees we ever see is that a passive upbringing guarantees failure for the poor kid, and money guarantees success for the rich kid.

So it is not so much the disadvantages of passivity that maintain the divide in success, but the guarantees of money.

If the most important issue was the child-rearing style and intelligence, all the middle-class airheads would be living in the ghetto and all the ghetto boys of hard-working, actively cultivating mothers would be rich.
But the divide in wealth guarantees that many intelligent poor kids do not – cannot – succeed, and many stupid rich kids are miles above them on the ladder of success in society, because they cannot fail.

@benthe_idlerew My nephew will wind up ok, partly because of money, true, he will go to college, I have every expectation he will, because it is a priority in the family, but the process has been much harder than it needed to be. Back to expectations and money, it is more than just an expectation of going to college, it is that he is accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and most people don’t want to go “backwards” or feel bad about themselves if they ar perceived that way, so he will come out alright in the end I think.

@benthe_idlerdrewim I agree that the most important example you give is that the poor kid only (only is too strong, of course we are talking in generalizations and theories) has a shot if his parents use a cultivated approach. That is why it is so important for the poor child to get a cultivated style of parenting or get guidance from somewhere else if the child shows a desire or ability to move up.

I will be successful, because I will receive money from the government, based on aptitude and family wealth, to support my education in something worthwhile.

But that highlights the fact that, even though I had a cultivated upbringing, even though I am intelligent, I still couldn’t be successful without financial aid.

A cultivated style of parenting is a “good thing”, but as I, myself, exemplify, to bridge the gap in success between classes, artificial support is needed: money.

The theory that class divide in success is mostly due to parenting styles is misleading, because it makes people think that, “if all the poor people just adopted good, middle-class parenting techniques, they wouldn’t all be so poor!”, which is food for brutal conservatism, when in reality, i’ve had that advantage, i’m not even from a particularly poor family, i went to a good school, yet there is one thing I do not have that would allow me to be successful: the money.

The very fact that I need that artificial injection of wealth, on top of all the advantages of upbringing a working-class kid could hope for, shows that the divide in success between the rich and poor is, ultimately, down to the money.

@timthe_idlerenew We are half agreeing. I don’t understand why if you went to a good school and have the ambition that you feel you cannot be successful because you lack money? When it comes to education I am a big time liberal, not a conservative. I want school available for everyone. You are talking about an “artificial injection of wealth” at what point? To go to college? Or, when you go out into the world after school? Once I graduated I got a $1,000 from my grandmother and I had a $1000 saved up, and there I went off on my own, lived with roommates, and worked hard, saved, earned, and wound up middle class. Because of my husband I am upper-middle class. If I had been more ambitious and stayed working full time, we would probably be counted as rich. The only class very hard to break into in America is the upper-upper old money rich, they are more exclusive; rather not break into, but be accepted into.

To pay for my training. I am taking four years at university to become a Masters Chemist.
I can afford this, with state support, but I couldn’t afford to become a lawyer…

You have different names for classes in the USA.

Lower middle-class is professions that anyone who is clever enough or rich enough to learn can become.

Upper-middle class means you must be born to parents with that kind of wealth, to afford the training to subsequently earn as much as they do.

then the upper-classes don’t have to work at all.

I just dont like that theory because it seriously suggests that upbringing is more important than wealth WRT success, and we know that isn’t true, it is what conservatives say to try and place the blame for poverty and failure on the heads of the people, least able to do anything about it in the country, and justify their abandonment of the poor.

@anthe_idleren Things may have changed since I learned this in sociology, and different sociologists divide things up differently, but here is how it is in my mind roughly:

Lower class is poor and also typically no college education

lower middle may or may not be college educated and earns above the poverty line but below $50K

middle-middle typically college educated $50k to $150K

Upper-middle $150K to $250K

Lower Upper $250K +

Upper Upper wealthy old money

Probably these have changed some since I learned them. There is crossover, because some uneducated people make a lot of money and their behaviors and spending sometimes are different than the educated who make the same money or even less. That is more a comment on psychographics though.

I found this link that has a table that might interest you I did not read it through because I have to log off, but I see there are different definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class

Place a homeless man in the streets and he’ll sleep there. Place a middle class man in the streets and he’ll find an abandoned or empty home to sleep in.

From birth the economic class a child is placed in is not merely an arbitrary category, it is a hugely influential aspect of their identity. If you grew up in a middle class home with middle class parents it is massively probable that your best friends at school will have been from middle class families, and these families will be close friends with further middle class families and so on. This is obviously understandable as we are prone to be attracted to those we share much in common with, political party groups being an illustration of this. Basically, it should be constantly noted that if a person is born into a certain class it is likely that they will, be it a concious action or otherwise, submerge themselves in this classes “inner world”.

With this stated how will this affect the individual? If one grows up observing their guardians working in specialised occupations and witnesses the direct effects of this (their cosy home, readily available food, various luxuries etc) then they are likely to imitate the behaviour of the parents so as to reach a similar or higher level and achieve both said guardians praise and the ability to continue the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed as a result. This seems by all logic to be a completely beneficial system to the individual and is made only more achievable by the fact that ones family and friends shall frequently possess both the mindset and the finances associated with their economic class allowing one to freely learn the intricacies behind maintaining their social, financial and cultural status and also the money with which to act on this understanding.

It should be emphasised that this can act as both a beneficial and a limiting factor. To a middle class person the idea of $100k per annum may seem appealing but it will still generally be looked upon as a pipe dream causing the emergence of such sentiments as “I wouldn’t even know what to do with that much money” and “I’d be cosy enough with half of that”. This could be applied similarly to the working classes but with, for example, $40k. It’s simply the mindset, it’s the same reason that when getting some additional money an upper class person may buy stock while a middle class person buys a new television.

People who have been raised in different economic classes are satisfied by entirely different qualities and ways of life. Returning to my initial statement concerning two characters being placed in the streets. A homeless man has grown accustomed to sleeping in the streets and as such acts on this habit of sorts, whereas a middle class man is accustomed to living in a home of a certain quality so instead of sleeping in the street would rather immediately attempt to find shelter that better resembles his expectations. This is obviously an exaggerated example used for illustrative purposes but it portrays a valid point. People of different classes live in different worlds. Can people change their fortunes? Can they cross the barrier and “enter these different worlds”? Most certainly. Regardless of what circumstances a person is placed in their parents or guardians will (almost) always care for them and push for them to reach beyond the conventional limits and some are truly blessed to keep this notion close to them and better themselves and their life as a result. However, these are unfortunately the exceptions to the general rule and even when they come about it is often, if not always, a far greater struggle for them to reach and maintain higher levels than those who were already on that level to begin with. With this difficulty being evident, it can seem only more appealing to simply retain ones class as it offers the life one is content with acquired by means that one is presented with on a regular basis.

This is the hypothesis I have been led to conclude is most valid when attempting to discern the reasoning behind the seemingly constant continuation of the class divide and as such is based on the observable and empirical evidence that I have studied and am aware of. Should anyone feel there are any flaws in said hypothesis then you are free to offer criticism.

Money does not guarantee success but it certainly helps.

In some cases it’s money. But in many cases it’s good parenting. Having frequent good talks with your kids is as important as having good teachers.

“Place a homeless man in the streets and he’ll sleep there. Place a middle class man in the streets and he’ll find an abandoned or empty home to sleep in.”

Firstly, you obviously haven’t explored enough abandoned buildings to come to a fair conclusion about whether homeless people use them to sleep in, though I can’t see it being such a phenominal stretch of the imagination to realise that they obviously do.
Secondly, is it going to make any difference to your success in later life – whether you sleep under a bridge or in an abandoned building – if you have absolutely no money?

——————————

“If one grows up observing their guardians working in specialised occupations and witnesses the direct effects of this (their cosy home, readily available food, various luxuries etc) then they are likely to imitate the behaviour of the parents so as to reach a similar or higher level…”

If one grows up observing their guardians working in repetitive, unskilled occupations and witnesses the direct effects of this (their small, unglamorous home, cheap food, old car etc) then are they likely to imitate the behaviour of the parents?

Or are they likely to imitate the behaviour of, say, people working in specialised occupations, inspired by the observed direct effects of this (their cosy home, readily available food, various luxuries etc)?

You can make the argument that a middle-class kid wants to be well-off like his parents, so he imitates their behaviour… duh. But do poor kids look at their parents and think “I want to be poor, just like them!” ....?

Your case for “mindset” being a motivating factor for middle-class children is sound, but it cannot be applied to the poorer working sections of society .

How many poor parents do you know, who often say to their kids, “You shouldn’t bother getting an education or learning a skill, because being poor is great!” ....?

Or do you hear them say, “I’ll give you one piece of advice son, get an education. Don’t spend your life working with your hands for someone else, you can do better than us if you try hard.” ....?

Because that is what I hear.

——————————

“To a middle class person the idea of $100k per annum may seem appealing but it will still generally be looked upon as a pipe dream causing the emergence of such sentiments as “I wouldn’t even know what to do with that much money” and “I’d be cosy enough with half of that”. This could be applied similarly to the working classes but with, for example, $40k. It’s simply the mindset, it’s the same reason that when getting some additional money an upper class person may buy stock while a middle class person buys a new television.”

I find it incredible that you are comparing the difference between $100k/$50k and $40k/$20k

We have slightly different definitions of class between the UK and the multitude of attempts to model US class-structure. It is a lot less about income in the UK, as ‘type’ of work, manners and ideals.
In the UK, $100k would be considered middle-class, $40k would be lower-middle (academics/middle-management) or upper-working (skilled tradesman like my father), while $20k would be lower-working (unskilled labour).

Either way, I will use your numbers, as there is still disparity enough to starkly illuminate the absurdity of your comparison WRT “mindset” being a significant limiting factor in the achievement of children from poor families.

A well-off middle-class family has, as you say, their cosy home, readily available food, big TV, various luxuries etc, they look around the city and see that they are living really quite comfortably, a few people are a lot richer, but they do better than most, there are a couple of restaurants they could only afford on a special occasion, but most could be visited on a whim, so it is plausible for them to perhaps wonder about what they would spend another $50k pa on…

A poor working-class family has their small, unglamorous home, cheap food, old car etc, and they look around the city and see that they are, in this plutocracy, clearly second-rate citizens. They go out and see thousands of people, most of whom have nicer homes, newer, nicer cars, more prestigious clothing brands, what they consider luxury food as the norm. To visit most of the restaurants on the main roads, they would have to plan weeks ahead. Every minute in town, they see rows of shops they know they may as well never enter. Their children are practically doomed, at the worst school in town, and “private tuition” is a phrase never spoken. They can’t make investments, because there is no job security. Every moment they spend outside the estate they are acutely aware of their position in this world.
And you think they would wonder what to do with an extra $20k?

You think the children of the poor remain poor, primarily because they are satisfied with the “qualities and ways of life” that entails?

Also, my father earned well the year before last (he is self-employed), but he didn’t do as the normal working-class man would—(?)—and buy a huge TV, he invested in some stocks.
Now, for all his wisdom in “behaving” like a rich man and making an investment, it doesn’t make much difference what he does with his money, because the wealth he gains out of his behaviour is surely not going catalyse his jump into a higher class, because he doesn’t have enough money to start with.

——————————

“Regardless of what circumstances a person is placed in their parents or guardians will (almost) always care for them and push for them to reach beyond the conventional limits and some are truly blessed to keep this notion close to them and better themselves and their life as a result. However, these are unfortunately the exceptions to the general rule and even when they come about, it is often, if not always, a far greater struggle for them to reach and maintain higher levels than those who were already on that level to begin with. With this difficulty being evident, it can seem only more appealing to simply retain ones class as it offers the life one is content with acquired by means that one is presented with on a regular basis.”

I’m glad you consider it plausible for poorer parents to be actively encouraging of their childrens’ success beyond “conventional limits” (by what then, if not money, do you imagine these “conventional limits” to be primarily imposed?)…

Taking it as granted that our working-class rising-star was of a “active/cultivated” upbringing, what is it that makes his relative success among, even less ‘cultivated’, middle-class peers “a far greater struggle”...?

Again, the appeal of retaining ones class and following in the footsteps of ones parents looks a lot more appealing to a middle-class kid, than a working-class one.
Either way, the appeal is all down to the aforementioned evident difficulty of breaking out, which I suspect is less an effect of “mindset”, than money. The primary factor behind the detrimental effects of a more defeatist “minset” is clearly the actual barrier of wealth, anyway.

——————————

“This is the hypothesis I have been led to conclude is most valid when attempting to discern the reasoning behind the seemingly constant continuation of the class divide and as such is based on the observable and empirical evidence that I have studied and am aware of.”

So you have made a pretty good case for reasons behind the limited flux outwards from the middle-classes, highlighting the factors of lifestyle, “mindset”, opportunity, etc, which impose both lower and upper limits on the aspirations of middle class kids.

But this is a discussion about equality and the perpetuation of the class divide.

The more important questions to consider here are:
“Why do children of rich parents almost always end up rich?
&
“Why do children of poor parents almost always end up poor?

Your illustrations and any models and theories, primarily concerned with ‘parenting’ and ‘mindset’, do not and cannot account for the countless and incessant cases of badly-raised airhead rich kids being successful, and well-cultivated and intelligent poor kids failing, as I have demonstrated above.

The continuation of the middle-class, due to parenting-styles, lifestyle and mindset, is close to irrelevant to the perpetuation of the class divide, because the useful theories you have successfully applied to explain that phenomenon are non-transferable, with regards to the continuation of the most important sections of society when considering ‘class divide’, the poorest and richest.

This is because of one factor, which trumps all else, at either extreme: money.

“Father’s educational attainment is the best predictor of the educational attainment of the children. Educational attainment is highly correlated with income. Income is highly correlated with happiness indicators. ”

I don’t think that statement is true. I’m thinking of Liz Murray and Paris Hilton, one girl was handed a shit life the other born into a life of privilege. One is a Harvard graduate the other is a worthless twat.

@Silhouette As with all generalizations based on statistical measurements, there is variation in individual observations. Paris Hilton notwithstanding, those are summaries of findings from research studies that marshal compelling evidence to support the summaries. Individual observations don’t really make much difference when we are looking at evidence based on thousands of individuals, or more.

@wundayatta They make a difference to me, the individual, and in my humble opinion wealth and prosperity do not necessarily generate intelligence or ambition.

@Silhouette Is your opinion based on those two examples, or on something more?

In any case, I’m not suggesting wealth and prosperity generate intelligence. I’m just saying that the data show they are correlated. I have no idea what causal relationship, if any, exists.

@wundayatta It’s based on a bit more than those two examples. There is a Title I low-income school in my area and it is the jewel of our school district. The poor families who send their children there, the staff, and the children who attend are all about higher education, they have raised the bar for themselves. Conversely, the pretty new school a few miles away is all about the sports, the prom, the homecoming king and queen. Not a single child drives to school A, all the kids drive to school B. The cops are never spotted surrounding the campus of school A, but you can see them swarming the campus of school B a couple of times a month. What I have witnessed during my children’s school days, is a slow moral decay of the pampered. The lower income kids either drop out completely or they knuckle down and get their butts busy. Either because they want better than their parents had or because someone at home is making it their business to see that their kids do better than they did.

@The_Idler I don’t normally feel compelled to read long answers..but that was truly a speech..and it was truly worth it… I implore you to say more..thank you ..you actually brought me to tears x

@The_Idler I agree with lynneblundell, your answer was a pleasure to read.

@Silhouette I must take issue with your characterization of Paris Hilton as a ‘worthless twat’. Through endless and inspired self-promotion, that twat is worth a considerable amount of money.

—@Factotum Money isn’t everything and the girl doesn’t have near enough to excuse her otherwise worthless existence. She has the world by the short hairs and what does she do with it? Nothing, less than nothing. She is, in my opinion, the poster child for a wasted life.

I think we have no idea what Paris is really like. When she was very young she made some mistakes for sure. What she has portrayed to the world has made her quite a bit of money. As she gets older she will most likely mature like everyone else. Maybe it is more delayed for her, because of her money, I don’t know, but it seems mean to talk about her like she is nothing or worthless, she is still a human being, and I don’t think she is out to purposely hurt anybody. What makes someone worth something?

@JLeslie Character& integrity.

@Silhouette I agree. But why are you so sure she has no character or integrity? You are relying on what we see in the media? Basing it on what she did in her teens and early 20’s? She has started a few businesses at this point, and I think she has learned a few tough lessons in life. I do think she was somewhat reckless in her youth, but I can’t condemn her at the age of 30. I don’t think she lies, cheats, or is malicious. She just seemingly lives a life of trivia, I can’t dislike her for that. I would probably be bored by her, but I don’t dislike her.

Her stealing from her host family on the simple life was a pretty good indicator that she has or had zero integrity. The distruction of property she thought was so funny was also pretty telling. I think chumping and crying her way out of the 45 day consequences for her DUI shows a lack of integrity. Getting shit faced and forgetting where you left your “beloved pet” is pretty shallow in and of it’s self. I think her youth was why she got in trouble not why she weaseled her way out of her comeuppance. Her total disregard for others is exactly what I base my character assessment on.

@Silhouette Well I did not know ALL of those things. I did not watch her tv show. Disregard for others is one of my pet peeves, so if she is really like that, and it is not just for the show, then I agree with you.

Character and integrity are certainly desirable thing (especially in others) but you are missing the point: Paris is a scion of the Hilton family, quite rich, and she has amassed riches of her own, an achievement by any reasonable standard.

This is not to say that money is the only measure of achievement but as objective measures go it’s pretty good. Character and integrity are hard to measure and while valuable aren’t what most people think of when they think of achievement.

—@Factotum I guess I’m not like most people because when I take the measure of a mans\woman’s worth, I leave their wallet out of the equation.

If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.

@Silhouette I think it was your statment Nothing, less than nothing. She is, in my opinion, the poster child for a wasted life. it implied she was a lazy nothing living off her inheritance.

@JLeslie I didn’t mean to imply she was lazy, I meant to imply she was shallow and self indulgent to a degree I find revolting.

@Silhouette Yes, I understand now. Just clarifying why I made my assumption, and maybe where @Factotum was coming from although I cannot speak for him/her.

Upon exploring old questions I realise I have been extremely rude in leaving this discussion prematurely for which I sincerely apologise.

@The_Idler
I think you’re misinterpreting my perspective on this matter. I clarified finance as being a significant factor in the determination of continued class divide but refuse to concur that it is the only major factor involved.

“Firstly, you obviously haven’t explored enough abandoned buildings to come to a fair conclusion about whether homeless people use them to sleep in…”
– My initial statement, as I mentioned on a few occasions, was simply an exaggeration used to illustrate my perspective. It’s not to be taken literally.

“If one grows up observing their guardians working in repetitive, unskilled occupations and witnesses the direct effects of this (their small, unglamorous home, cheap food, old car etc) then are they likely to imitate the behaviour of the parents?”
– I do not believe they will imitate their parents intentionally. But given that their parents (and family as a whole) are one of their keenest sources of information on the working world what are they going to learn? You can’t imitate what you don’t know so options are limited, and as the person is already accustomed to their lifestyle (which they may not necessarily deem unglamorous) what’s the harm in getting a similar, or slightly higher paying job to ones parents?

You mention that working class children may imitate the actions of those working in more specialised occupations. This is a possibility and could lead to a better future for these children, but do you sincerely believe that people are more likely to imitate a random scientist on television than their family and friends? There are even working class sub-cultures that are anti-intellectualism due to what sociologists believe is a sense of injustice at having these people live a better lifestyle than them. They hate people in specialised occupations specifically for their lifestyle. Obviously this is only a confined example but I believe it presents a valid point.

“How many poor parents do you know, who often say to their kids, “You shouldn’t bother getting an education or learning a skill, because being poor is great!” ....?
Or do you hear them say, “I’ll give you one piece of advice son, get an education. Don’t spend your life working with your hands for someone else, you can do better than us if you try hard.” ....?”
– I’m aware that working class parents, similar to most parents, will encourage their children to do the best they can. But encouragement is irrelevant if they are not passing on the skills necessary to attain a better future. From where are these children meant to learn these skills? School? What can be learnt in school is limited to the time appointed to each lesson. Any further study is typically confined to the home where a lack of knowledge and sources (no money means no fancy textbooks) are typically found.

“I find it incredible that you are comparing the difference between $100k/$50k and $40k/$20k

We have slightly different definitions of class between the UK and the multitude of attempts to model US class-structure. It is a lot less about income in the UK, as ‘type’ of work, manners and ideals.”
– I apologise for my poor knowledge of the typical incomes of different socio-economic groups, I meant no offence.

Sociologists have disputed the main basis’ for ones socio-economic class for some time regardless of the society in question. In most it tends to be a collection of different elements such as those you’ve described.

“You think the children of the poor remain poor, primarily because they are satisfied with the “qualities and ways of life” that entails?”
– Not satisfied, but it’s the life they know, so though they may strive for better they can atleast be content with what they are accustomed to. If an extremely upper-class individual were to suddenly start living a working class life I would bet good money that they would spend every waking minute attempting to retain their previous lifestyle, and given that they have the skills, education, networks and perhaps the donated money of friends/family (dependent on circumstances) at their disposal they probably will, or atleast take a good shot at it.

“Again, the appeal of retaining ones class and following in the footsteps of ones parents looks a lot more appealing to a middle-class kid, than a working-class one.
Either way, the appeal is all down to the aforementioned evident difficulty of breaking out, which I suspect is less an effect of “mindset”, than money. The primary factor behind the detrimental effects of a more defeatist “minset” is clearly the actual barrier of wealth, anyway.”
– Money is a large contributor to a persons ability to enter a higher economic class, but I believe you understate the mindset involved. People are more comfortable amongst members of their own social class (though that’s not to say people won’t “mix”) and this can make their already readily available lifestyle seem appealing. Alongside this is the fact that, money aside, “breaking out” is difficult and unless the people involved have experienced the life of someone in an upperclass what reason do they have to try.

“Your illustrations and any models and theories, primarily concerned with ‘parenting’ and ‘mindset’, do not and cannot account for the countless and incessant cases of badly-raised airhead rich kids being successful, and well-cultivated and intelligent poor kids failing, as I have demonstrated above.”
– George Bush, a member of an upper-class family who is infamous for his lack of intelligence acquired a BA in History at Yale University and a MBA at Harvard Business school then went on to become the US President. Do you sincerely believe that he has achieved this as a sole result of money? Do you genuinely think he is an unintelligent man?

Well-cultivated and intelligent poor kids are considerably rarer than well-cultivated and intelligent rich kids due to their upbringing, but I concede that the reason they fail is likely, as you stated, financial issues.

Your hypothesis is extremely valid at points but focuses too strongly on a sole motivator. If money provides such an overwhelmingly large role in the maintenance of the class divide then why do middle/upper class children in schools typically get higher grades than their working class peers? Why, even in societies such as that of the UK where there are school/family grants and generous public university loan systems, are universities and more reputable schools populated by an astoundingly large majority of middle and upper class students? Is this the sole result of money?

Once again, I apologise for the lateness of this reply. I wasn’t aware of your comment Idler but will make an effort to be more conscientious in future.