Sounds like your friends chose jobs that didn't have large income potentials (neither did I, BTW - Radio/TV grad here). Most of my friends became lawyers or accountants or Optometrists or Doctors. One's a chef but he's the head Chef at a retirement home so I think he does okay, plus his wife is a tax accountant. In other words, my friends chose thier jobs wisely with regard to income potential (piece of advice, btw, from that book The Millionaire Next Door: The first rule is, always live well below your means. The last rule is, choose your occupation wisely.). Your friends chose jobs with low income potential. That's fine - you should always do what you WANT to do, however, they need to follow that first rule which is live below thier means. To me that means don't have kids if you don't make very much money. If you want a family (especially a large family) then you need to choose a better job (or mary someone who has a better job). The "American Dream" is not handed to anyone on a silver platter. You have to work hard and, most imporantly, make good choices. BTW, if you make 35K and your spouse/partner makes 35K that's 70K combined and now you are considered "rich". Just realise that if you both have to work to be "rich" you are going to have to give up time. It's always about sacrifice. Did my friends give up their "dreams" when they chose to be accountants? Maybe some of them did but maybe their dream was a nice family and a decent home with financial stability. If that's what you want you can't choose just any old job. This also explains why "rich" kids have a better chance to become rich themselves: They have more opportunities to get prepared for good jobs. Poor kids with no parental incentive to go to college who also perceive their lives as "normal" (i.e. a better life is out of their reach) will never TRY to get out of their situations. The rare ones (like that guy I described in my original post) do get out and generally find it's not as hard as they thought.
But doesn't the term "American Dream" imply coming up from nothing and getting at least into the top 5%?
It is a such a tempting human fallacy to argue or reason by anecdote. Of course people in the U.S. can start out poor and reach the middle or upper classes, but that doesn't contradict the findings in this article. The article is pointing out that the reality of social mobility in the U.S. is far less than the public perception of social mobility. In the early 1900's Madam C.J. Walker became the first black female millionaire by starting a cosmetic company. So even then it was possible for a black women to rise from poverty to great wealth, but is anyone going to seriously argue that there were not monumental social and economic barriers that held back blacks and women from economic and social advancement. If we agree that social mobility is a desired goal for our country (as I think most of us do) and we want to make rational policy decision on how best to promote that goal, then we have to be able to accurately assess the scope of the problem. We do this by looking at the data and not getting bamboozled (or bamboozling ourselves) by personal experience with, or anecdotes about, people who have gone from rags to riches. The reality of these individual stories does not prove a larger reality of widespread social mobility, any more than the reality of Madame CJ Walker's success proves that the U.S. in the early 1900's was not a racist society.
My comments were stated by you asserting that both parents shouldn't have to work. I don't think that is a possibility unless one parent doubles the national average salary. Well what does it say to be able to have kids you basically have to double or triple the average salary range? To me it says something is fundamentally wrong. You can still have kids etc, but just don't say both parents working isn't 99% of the time a necessity. BTW, I would kill myself if most of my friends were accountants or lawyers.
The American Dream is not an illusion, but as the years go by, it gets increasingly harder to achieve.
Except the point was that it's not really an "American Dream". Based on this, people in Europe in the same circumstances have had far more success moving up. The dream of being able to move up is real - we see it everyday, everywhere. According to the article, it's just easier elsewhere than in the US.
Let me tell you about the American Dream. I came from a poor black family. I worked my way up by working as a gas station attendant and as a carnival extraordinaire. My break came when I invented the opti-grip for glasses... which kept the glasses nice and secure on the face. I became rich overnight. I was then sued because the opti-grip made people cross-eyed. Hey...who would have thunk it? So, now I have nothing...but this ashtray, this chair, and this magazine. And, I don't need nothing else...except this.
Do you have to be part of the top 5% income to consider yourself achieved The American Dream? Also isn't one of the biggest reason for people to make more money is to provide better opportunity for their kids? So why are we suprised when rich kids have better chance to stay rich.
Europe sux... This has some good point, and I agree on average that a poor person will have a much harder time becoming rich...But I find this true in all country's, not just the US... In Mexico, SE Asia, for example, the social economic classes in place make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor...I still believe that hard work pays off and that money isn't everything...you can be rich in life and have no money...
That last comment sounds like bigotry to me.... Actually most of my friends are accountants or in sales; I only know a few lawyers and you hardly ever see them. They are very fun to drink with and good people that I would trust with my life or my money. Once again, the point of my comment is that you can't just decided to be "whatever" and then expect to live the good life. The American Dream was never "do whatever you want and you will automatically have that house in the suberbs witha white picket fence." The American Dream was "get a good education, work hard and you will improve yourself." I think that happens every day. Just because your friends chose to have low paying jobs doesn't mean they have bad lives. I'm going to guess by your comment that I quoted that your friends are fun and interesting people (as opposed to my friends whom you judged without ever meeting). They are doing what they want to do and probably living a nice life. I bet they have shelter, food, cable tv and high-speed interent. I'd also bet they have a car and a cell phone. Probably a computer as well. If they're teachers they probably have job stability and good health insurance. Doesn't sound like a bad life to me.
No. They all "just" went to college. My friends that are accountants all have four-year degrees. My friend who is an optomotrist got his degree from UH but it was a four or five year plan (Optomotrists are not MDs). My friends who are lawyers went to law school but college got them there. Not to mention one of my lawyer friends became an accountant and got a job. He then went to law school at night (while working a full-time job) to become a lawyer. He works like 70 hours a week. My other friends who are in sales just got four-year degrees. My friend who's a chef went to the Culinary Institute of Houston (is that it's name? It's affiliated with the Art Institute I think). That's a trade school. I'm not sure if he actually graduated from college. I also have a friend who started off in sales (selling rocks!) and now owns his own Stone Yard. Aside from the lawyers show me where my friends "went to a lot more than just college". Come to think of it, all my friends who are in IT either never went to college or graduated with degrees like Art or Communications. They were just smart enough to get MCSEs back in the 90's when it was hot plus the fact that they are actually good at IT work so they were able to stay employed after the crash. So they "just" went to college but actually do well with jobs that have nothing to do with them going to college.
All my comments were about your assertion that a stay at home parent could be an easy reality for most people. It's just not. I just don't think you have to double the average salary to be able to have a decent life with a small home, affordable health care etc without working for a large company. More and more employers are dropping health insurance. 40% of the US goes without and that is getting bigger. I think in the future none will have it, they are now realizing they really don't have to. It still costs a teacher around 300+ a month just to insure their family, plus paying off student loans etc. It's just a ripoff.
My sister is a retired teacher, who's husband is diabetic, with some related health issues. There have been long stretches when my brother-in-law was uninsured because he was unable to work, and too expensive to insure through my sister's health plan. His coverage alone was $500+ per month. They simply couldn't afford it. This happens all over America, and to middle class families. Someone is laid off, their coverage stops, and even if their spouse has insurance, the one without it is too expensive to add to the policy. There are millions in a similar situation. Democrats have discussed trying to do something about the issue, while the GOP seems to care less. Who's in power? Certainly not those millions of Americans without health insurance. Keep D&D Civil.
