Study: Poor kids who do everything right don't do better than rich kids who do everything wrong
26 replies, posted
[quote]America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others.
That's because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on "enrichment activities" for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.
But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students," and they're staying that way.
...
Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the above chart, based on a [URL="http://www.bostonfed.org/inequality2014/papers/reeves-sawhill.pdf"]new paper from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill[/URL], presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's annual conference, which is underway.
Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.
...[/quote]
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/]Washington Post[/url]
[img]http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/10/Poor-Grads-Rich-Dropouts.jpg[/img]
but what about the bootstraps
That chart seems to be saying that poor college grads definitely do better than rich dropouts. Yes, they both have the same chance of ending up at the bottom, but 67% of grads end up in the top 60%, compared to 50% of rich dropouts. That whole 60-80% bracket barely exists for dropouts, but it's 20% of the chart for grads.
Given the choice, I'd take being a grad over a rich dropout any day. Yes, the chart shows a certain amount of privilege definitely exists, but not quite enough to justify the headline. If you really want to show privilege, compare the rich dropouts to poor dropouts.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46285566]but what about the bootstraps[/QUOTE]
but what about the strawman?!?
No one has ever argued that a very poor person would become as rich as an extremely rich person with any amount of hard work, but that they will get out of poverty.
[editline]20th October 2014[/editline]
Extreme wealth is a generational thing. Families build and lose wealth.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46285677]but what about the strawman?!?
[B]No one has ever argued that a very poor person would become as rich as an extremely rich person with any amount of hard work, but that they will get out of poverty.[/B]
[editline]20th October 2014[/editline]
Extreme wealth is a generational thing. Families build and lose wealth.[/QUOTE]
No one? I would beg to differ. I can't count on two hands how many poor rural conservatives who I've had this discussion with have said more or less that.
Anyone who isn't some delusional libertarian could have told you this ages ago.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46285601]That chart seems to be saying that poor college grads definitely do better than rich dropouts. Yes, they both have the same chance of ending up at the bottom, but 67% of grads end up in the top 60%, compared to 50% of rich dropouts. That whole 60-80% bracket barely exists for dropouts, but it's 20% of the chart for grads.
Given the choice, I'd take being a grad over a rich dropout any day. Yes, the chart shows a certain amount of privilege definitely exists, but not quite enough to justify the headline. If you really want to show privilege, compare the rich dropouts to poor dropouts.[/QUOTE]
The problem the chart indicates isn't that the poor kids are doing better (which they are, marginally)
The problem is the rich dropouts are making just as much as the poor kids who had to go through higher education. I'm from a poor family and I'm putting myself through uni while paying 100% of my rent and let me tell you this shit isn't easy.
Now I'm not saying it's wrong for a rich family to give their kids a good shot, that's natural and it's fine, but I think we can all do more as a society to help the poorer people get a leg up, especially people doing their best to improve their position in life. Stuff like free or cheap further education is vital in my opinion for giving people opportunities, and a lot of countries have systems that make further education accessible to everyone, and it's certainly not snapping their economies in half.
I've known this since I passed middle school, it's just obvious
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46285703']No one? I would beg to differ. I can't count on two hands how many poor rural conservatives who I've had this discussion with have said more or less that.[/QUOTE]
Obviously "no one" in the exaggerated use of the phrase, not the literal use. There's someone who would say almost literally anything. The general argument isn't that any person, no matter how poor, has an equal chance of becoming extremely rich as anyone else.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46285677]but what about the strawman?!?
No one has ever argued that a very poor person would become as rich as an extremely rich person with any amount of hard work, but that they will get out of poverty.
[editline]20th October 2014[/editline]
Extreme wealth is a generational thing. Families build and lose wealth.[/QUOTE]
I've heard on several occasions people argue exactly that
Also, since when does getting a degree have anything to do with it being a meritocracy? I would be very interested to see the kinds of majors poor kids got compared to wealthier kids.
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;46285767]The problem the chart indicates isn't that the poor kids are doing better (which they are, marginally)
The problem is the rich dropouts are making just as much as the poor kids who had to go through higher education. I'm from a poor family and I'm putting myself through uni while paying 100% of my rent and let me tell you this shit isn't easy.
Now I'm not saying it's wrong for a rich family to give their kids a good shot, that's natural and it's fine, but I think we can all do more as a society to help the poorer people get a leg up, especially people doing their best to improve their position in life. Stuff like free or cheap further education is vital in my opinion for giving people opportunities, and a lot of countries have systems that make further education accessible to everyone, and it's certainly not snapping their economies in half.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with the last paragraph, and believe me I'm not defending rich people. But the chart clearly shows that poor grads have a better chance at ending up in the top 50% or so than rich kids that don't graduate. The difference isn't near as high as it would be if we lived in an actual meritocracy, but it's still better to be educated.
I think it would be more illustrative to compare rich dropouts to poor dropouts. Poor dropouts probably wind up in the bottom 20% at much, much higher rates, and I bet almost none of them make it to the top 20%.
My point is, it's better to be rich than poor if you're gonna fail at life, but you're better off succeeding at getting an education regardless of your family's wealth.
Would what kind of majors they took not be impacted by their upbringing?
I feel like you can't really blame them for not succeeding if the system isn't working
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46285601]That chart seems to be saying that poor college grads definitely do better than rich dropouts. Yes, they both have the same chance of ending up at the bottom, but 67% of grads end up in the top 60%, compared to 50% of rich dropouts. That whole 60-80% bracket barely exists for dropouts, but it's 20% of the chart for grads.
Given the choice, I'd take being a grad over a rich dropout any day. Yes, the chart shows a certain amount of privilege definitely exists, but not quite enough to justify the headline. If you really want to show privilege, compare the rich dropouts to poor dropouts.[/QUOTE]
I see the chart differently. First off, since we are talking grad vs high school dropouts, there should be nothing even approaching equal numbers. But look at the top 20% for grads, it's almost matched(14%) by [i]high school dropouts![/i]
So, at the very top and very bottom where the numbers absolutely should not be anywhere near close, they almost match. It's only in the middle area where things get jumbled. But how is it a college grad is matched by a high school dropout on the low end? The high school dropouts shouldn't even be able to score that high. How is it that it almost matches one for one on the highest end?
It's obvious. The only way this is possible is if there are two separate paths in life. If you're rich, you get the privileged path that guarantees you at least the minimum standard of life with no effort, a standard of life which is the MAXIMUM an average poor person can achieve if they work their ass off and get an education.
This gives lie to the idea that hard work and education can lead you as far as you want to go. There's actually a ceiling that prevents everyone except those already high up from going any higher.
Shitty title, that's not what the study says.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46286695]I see the chart differently. First off, since we are talking grad vs high school dropouts, there should be nothing even approaching equal numbers. But look at the top 20% for grads, it's almost matched(14%) by [i]high school dropouts![/i]
So, at the very top and very bottom where the numbers absolutely should not be anywhere near close, they almost match. It's only in the middle area where things get jumbled. But how is it a college grad is matched by a high school dropout on the low end? The high school dropouts shouldn't even be able to score that high. How is it that it almost matches one for one on the highest end?
It's obvious. The only way this is possible is if there are two separate paths in life. If you're rich, you get the privileged path that guarantees you at least the minimum standard of life with no effort, a standard of life which is the MAXIMUM an average poor person can achieve if they work their ass off and get an education.
This gives lie to the idea that hard work and education can lead you as far as you want to go. There's actually a ceiling that prevents everyone except those already high up from going any higher.[/QUOTE]
That's all pretty much true. But the chart doesn't support the title. Poor kids who do everything right actually DO do better than rich kids that fail at life. More accurate alternate titles would be:
-Rich high school dropouts still do surprisingly well
-Rich high school dropouts have the same chance of being in the lowest 20% as poor college graduates
-Born rich? It's almost (but not quite) as good as having a college education!
-It's better to be rich even if you're a fuckup! (the Gawker title)
[QUOTE=sgman91;46285677]No one has ever argued that a very poor person would become as rich as an extremely rich person with any amount of hard work, but that they will get out of poverty.[/QUOTE]
"if you don't like minimum wage why don't you just get a better job???"
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46285504'][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/]Washington Post[/url]
[img]http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/10/Poor-Grads-Rich-Dropouts.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I might be alone on this but I seriously can not figure out what the fuck this chart is supposed to be showing me.
[QUOTE=Paramud;46290698]I might be alone on this but I seriously can not figure out what the fuck this chart is supposed to be showing me.[/QUOTE]
It's percentage in each Quintile at age 40.
Essentially, if a truly meritocracy, you would expect all the poor college grades to be in the top couple quintiles, and all the rich high school dropouts to be in the bottom couple quintiles, but that's not what we see.
[editline]20th October 2014[/editline]
So one would expect there to be almost no poor college grads in the bottom few quintiles, yet theres 16%, which is the same as the rich high school dropouts.
Those rich dropout kids are literally the worst
Also keep in mind high school dropout is essentially one of the lowest education levels in modern western society. Being a high school dropout means you can't even work certain minimum wage jobs, yet 14% of them end up in the top 20% of society.
[QUOTE=Paramud;46290698]I might be alone on this but I seriously can not figure out what the fuck this chart is supposed to be showing me.[/QUOTE]
I got the one arrow showing the bottom 20% were the same, but I don't know what the fuck the other arrow is supposed to illustrate.
[QUOTE=dai;46289221]"if you don't like minimum wage why don't you just get a better job???"[/QUOTE]
You don't even need to do that – we live in a society where you will be considered valuable if you can do something as simple as be dependable. If you can show up not-late every day, sober, chances are you will get a pay raise/promotion very quickly because you've already set yourself apart from a large slice of the workforce.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;46291386]You don't even need to do that – we live in a society where you will be considered valuable if you can do something as simple as be dependable. If you can show up not-late every day, sober, chances are you will get a pay raise/promotion very quickly because you've already set yourself apart from a large slice of the workforce.[/QUOTE]
Nah mate that's BS. Every job I've had gave you a raise based on how long you sit around and work for them. The job I have currently I worked my ass off the first year and they gave a me dime for my yearly and nothing else. Then I slacked for a year and they gave me a promotion and three raises.
In my experience the whole raise things seems to be based on a combination of reliability and griping. Most folks are reliable, but I've only ever gotten anything worth it when I gripe or threaten the status quo. Which shouldn't be how it is.
So it's basically the whole "It's not about what you know but who you know" thing?
The poor college grad's column is much more evened out, which I belive is a good sign, and the rich high-school dropout column is in all fuckitry. So I would definitely say being a poor college grad is a healthier kind of life to lead in general.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.