Both of those examples are hundreds of years old and the exception rather than the rule.

People are blocked by poverty, abusive parents, stupid parents, institutionalisation, homelessness, language, disease, disability, prejudice and lack of access to decent education amongst other things.

Every time someone brings up equal opportunity it makes me want to scream.

Equal opportunity exists only in the minds of the priveleged white middle class.

So a guy that inherits his family's wealth or inherits a nice community, good home, good school earned these things?

I do see the point though. There are people that definitely deserve more because they work for it while others don't.

I can understand taxing inheritance, but outlawing it is just wrong.

Because they're old that means they're inapplicable? You don't think this happens today? I can give you contemporary examples if you like. None the less, the people I mentioned were blocked by poverty, institutionalized slavery (which no American has to deal with today), prejudice (which is not overtly practiced towards black people anymore in America due to the harsh public stigma attached to such acts) and lack of access to decent education, yet these men chose to succeed no matter what. This shows that success is a matter of determination on the part of the individual.

88% of all Americans worth over $10 million are first generation wealthy.

For every one of these poor, uneducated slaves that managed to rise above their circumstances, how many were there that didn't?

Then tell me how things were for white people of the same era.

Equal opportunity? Come on man. Don't be absurd.

Outlawing inheritance and even taxing it is just stupid.

I work hard for my money. If I want to spend it in the store, save it in the bank or give it to my children (okay I don't have any) that should be my business.

Meritocracy :glugglug

How many of them were born into white, middle-class privilege?

I've now quoted the figure "88% of all Amerians worth over $10 million are first generation wealthy" several times in this thread. If anyone wants to know where I got that, it's here: The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko. This book is an exhaustive study into Americans with a net worth of over $10 million. It's a bit of a dry read, but it's under 300 pages and VERY insightful into how wealthy people become wealthy people, as well as how they stay wealthy. One of the things you'll learn is that those that inherit wealthy generally don't stay wealthy for very long. The day of dynasty fortunes is essentially dead, with only a few exceptions (Kennedy, Gore, Bush, etc).

Then it's a goal that should not be strived towards?

Again, success is a matter of self determination more then any one thing. Here's a general example: How many idiots are running around with PhD's? I've known a few. I'm far more intelligent the most individuals I have met holding doctorites. They got those degrees through sheer determination to see their desires through.

Based on this and your previous posts, is it fair to say that you are going to war against random chance? You must have one mother of an inferiority complex.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CET
88% of all Americans worth over $10 million are first generation wealthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Did you not read the above?

I've heard many numbers suggesting that wealth is largely dependant on wealth of the parents from the left wing, and many numbers suggesting the opposite from the right wing. Needless to say, a random statistic without a source on a message board does not mean much to me.

There's a slight difference between wealth redistribution and social security. Social security is aimed at making sure people don't go without the basics of life (i.e. making sure people don't starve in the streets), while wealth redistribution as a general concept is aimed at creating more equality in wealth.

Did they?

Or do you think maybe it says more about the current low standards of tertiary education?

Yes I did.

At what point does someone become 'wealthy'?

I said middle class privilege not wealth.

Ah, now there is a source. All that is lacking now is the exact information on the research method used.

By the way, here's something suggesting the opposite:
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0802/p17s01-wmgn.html

I'll quote myself:

Social security is a broken and fucked up system that needs to be fixed. I would be better off if I put my social security payments into a simple checking account at most any bank.

The standards in education in the west are constantly being lowered, that's correct. And the reason is "equal opportunity," the concept you champion. The educational institutions with high standards are accused of racism against non-whites because they find that there is a lack of them there.

I don't think it says that at all, because I've known several individuals going through both secondary and terriary education and they work so hard at their studies that they barely have time to eat and sleep.

The lowering of standards in education has nothing to do with race.

A lot of it does. Educational institutions have to lower their standards to comply with the latest communist manifesto. Erm, I mean, racial equal opportunity policies.

I am not assuming a defensive posture. I am assuming an aggressive posture towards stupidity. That does not by any means make his straw man valid.

I don't remember that particular stastic. I'm sure it was mentioned and I'm sure I didn't think much of it and kept on reading. Keep in mind that the book I referenced is just under 300 pages of research. Not remembering any single stastic is a very high likelyhood. As I recall, most all of them came from working class families.

I remember the 88% stastic because I had to stop for a minute and reflect on the implications of that one stastic.

Yeah well I guess that's an American problem and I'm not an American.

It isn't a problem here in Australia and we're more left wing than you are.

Read the book, it's just under 300 pages, it gives a hell of a lot more about research methods then what you posted.

Further, your little list comprises a small percentage of those covered in the book I covered. Therefore there is no contradiction, as much you might like one to exist.

Social security is not just a single system used in some country, it's a also a general concept which has been put into practice many times and in many different forms. I was, quite obviously, referring to the concept rather than a single, static instance of it.

Equal opportunity suggests a level playing field and this is not the case.

Lets get together the son of a black, crack addicted single parent and the son of a white, private school educated executive from a stable family and talk equal opportunity.

What about all the ones over $1 million? or over $5 million?

Austria doesn't have the long standing racial history America does, nor do I suspect you have as many black people over there.

Then we should not attempt the goal of everyone having equal opportunity to succeed? Random circumstances can't be helped, but opportunities beyond that can.

So what do you propose be done about that? And what do you think the consequences of removing the incentive to actually work would be?

I don't know, the book wasn't written about them. The line the author decided to draw in order to call someone "wealthy" was a net worth of over $10 million. He could have made it $9 million, or $25 million, but he didn't. I think he chose that number because most everyone would agree that someone with that net worth is most likely wealthy.

I have too much to read already, and since you seem to have the book already, I'd think it wouldn't be too much of an effort for you to look up the research method and definitions used.

From the same page:

Right, so what do we do?

I say the government establish a first class public education system. Not good public schools for the rich kids and shitty public schools for the poor. We raise the standards for teachers and start paying them what they are worth.

Throw a better, more effective public health system that can be accessed by all into the mix and maybe then we can start talking about equal opportunity.

Also, spend more money on public libraries and public broadcasting as well.

What about those that are simply middle-class at $40k and their children that "inherit" nice safe communities, clean streets, clothes, food. They don't earn that, they're given that.

That's a disctinct advantage. I know, because I had all those things and I knew people that didn't.

However, I won't make excuses for lazy people who don't want to learn and have no willpower to try and change their situation.

Australia does have a bad history of racism

So, someone whose parents had a net worth of, say, 5 million, is counted as "first generation wealthy" if he reaches $10M+?

:1orglaugh

Yes we do. :(

Right, for forcing Aboriginal kids to attend school like white kids already had to. Boo-hoo. If they didn't actively get them educated then that would have been accused of being racism as well.

I am saying this because this episode is the racism whine that always comes up in regards to Australia. If there is something else then correct me.

Racism in Australia went far beyond simply forcing Aboriginal kids to attend school like white kids.

Murder and appropriating land were common

Stop talking about Australian history because you know nothing.

Read about the Stolen Generation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation

Don't deny the fact that if they hadn't done anything for them, then you would have accused that of being racism as well. You are doing it today. When black kids aren't attending school to the same degree as white kids, do you know what is touted as the cause? Racism! Always.

There's a big difference between doing nothing and forcibly removing them from their parents.

Don't forget forbidding them to speak their language or practise their culture.

Yeah, that too.

If that is the case, then that's fucked up.

While we're at it, we might as well mention that Aboriginal people were prevented from entering hotels, from marrying without permission, and from living within town boundaries. Aboriginal workers also had their wages held in trust by police or mission managers who gave out 'pocket money' as they saw fit.

Hey, don't get me started on your native Americans. :winkwink:

But a fact that pisses you welfare touters right in the face is that no matter who you are or how poor you are, there are always jobs up for grabs that may not be very rosy, but that will get you through the day very well and even allow you to save up money, unless you are a stupid fuck who spend your money on drugs or alcohol and then whine about being poor.

In fact, if you strip me of all my possessions and contacts today, and deny me from getting a computer or a job with education requirements, then I will have a rented apartment and two or three perfectly doable jobs (newspaper routes, cleaning, etc) within a month. And I am in Norway. We have a 10% higher average salary than in the states, and in return all goods and services cost three fucking times as much.

Poor people who don't suffer from some sort of physiological or psychological condition are poor by choice.