1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The Wealthy Kids Are All Right

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by da1, Jun 13, 2013.

  1. da1

    da1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    101
    The Wealthy Kids Are All Right

    Chuck Collins
    May 28, 2013

    In a tough economy with dwindling social supports, children of privilege have a bigger head start than ever.

    Two 21-year-old college students sit down in a coffee shop to study for an upcoming test. Behind the counter, a barista whips up their double-shot lattes. In the back kitchen, another young adult washes the dishes and empties the trash.

    These four young adults have a lot in common. They are the same age and race, each has two parents, and all grew up in the same metropolitan area. They were all strong students in their respective high schools. But as they enter their third decade, their work futures and life trajectories are radically different—and largely determined at this point.

    The culprit is the growing role of inherited advantage, as affluent families make investments that give their children a leg up. Combined with the 2008 economic meltdown and budget cuts in public investments that foster opportunity, we are witnessing accelerating advantages for the wealthy and compounding disadvantages for everyone else.

    One of the college students, Miranda, will graduate without any student-loan debt and will have completed three summers of unpaid internships at businesses that will advance her career path. Her parents stand ready to subsidize her lodging with a security deposit and co-signed apartment lease and will give her a no-interest loan to buy a car. They also have a network of family and professional contacts that can help her. While she waits for a job with benefits, she will remain on her parents’ health insurance.

    Ten years later, Miranda will have a high-paying job, be engaged to another professional, and will buy a home in a neighborhood with other college-educated professionals, a property that will steadily appreciate over time because of its location. The “parental down-payment assistance program” will subsidize the purchase.

    The other collegiate, Marcus, will graduate with more than $55,000 in college debt, a maxed-out credit card, and an extensive résumé of part-time food-service jobs that he has taken to pay for school, both during summers and while in college, reducing the hours he can study. Though he will obtain a degree, he will graduate with almost no work experience in his field of study, lose his health insurance, and begin working two part-time jobs to pay back his student loans and to afford rent in a shared apartment.

    Ten years later, Marcus will still be working in low-paying jobs and renting an apartment. He will feel occupationally stuck and frustrated in his attempts to network in the area of his degree. He will take on additional debt—to deal with various health and financial problems—and watch his hope of buying a home slip away, in large part because of a credit history damaged during his early twenties.

    Tony, the barista, has the benefit of not taking on mega-debt from college. He will eventually enroll in some classes at a local public university. But his income and employment opportunities will be constrained by not having a college degree. He will make several attempts to learn a building trade and start his own business, eventually landing a job with a steady but low income.

    The good news for Tony is that his parents, while not college educated or wealthy, are stable middle-class with modest retirement pensions and a debt-free house, acquired by Tony’s grandfather with a low-interest Veterans Administration mortgage. They are able to provide a bedroom to their son. That home will prove to be a significant factor in Tony’s future economic stability, as he will eventually inherit it.

    Cordelia, working in the kitchen, has even less opportunity than Tony for mobility and advancement. Neither of her parents went to college nor have significant assets, as they rent their housing. Though she was academically in the top of her urban high-school class, she did not consider applying to a selective college. The costs seemed daunting, and she didn’t know anyone who went away to college. There were no adults or guidance professionals to help her explore other options, including financial aid available at private colleges, some of which would have paid her full tuition and expenses to attend. Instead, she takes courses at the local community college where she sees many familiar faces. Cordelia will struggle with health issues, as lack of adequate health care and insurance means she will delay treatment of several problems. Over time, she will have a steady and low-wage job, but she will also begin to take more responsibility for supporting members of her family who are less fortunate.

    The Born-on-Third-Base Factor

    These four coming-of-age adults in no way represent the entire spectrum of young adult experience, which also includes ex-offenders, mediocre students, and people with disabilities. Young adults in rural communities and small towns, for example, face their own education and economic challenges, such as limited employment options. They will disproportionately populate our volunteer military, fill the growing ranks of disability-pension recipients, or migrate to communities where they have few social supports.

    A key determinant in these diverging prospects is the role of family wealth, a factor that plays an oversize role in sorting today’s coming-of-age generation onto different opportunity trajectories. The initial sort begins much earlier. A growing mountain of research chronicles what sociologists call the “intergenerational transmission of advantage,” including the myriad mechanisms by which affluent families boost their children’s prospects starting at birth. The mechanisms include financial investments in their children’s enrichment, school readiness, formal schooling, college access, and aiding the transition to work. Meanwhile, the children in families unable to make these investments fall further behind.

    Imagine a ten-mile race in which contestants have different starting lines based on parental education, income, and wealth. The economically privileged athletes start several hundred yards ahead of the disadvantaged runners. Each contestant begins with ten one-pound leg weights. The race begins, and the advantaged competitors pull ahead quickly. At each half-mile mark, according to the rules, the first twenty runners shed two pounds of weights while those in the last half of the field take on two additional pounds. After several miles, lead racers have no weights, while the slower runners carry twenty additional pounds. By midrace, an alarming gap has opened up in the field, and by the finish line, the last half of the field finishes more than two miles behind the winners.

    This race of accelerating advantages and compounding disadvantages is a disturbingly accurate metaphor for inherited privilege. As in life, there are well-publicized stories of exceptional runners starting far back in the pack and breaking to the front of the field, therefore able to shed weights and remain competitive. There are also front-runners who perform poorly, squandering their initial advantages and falling back. But the overall picture is one of steadily growing class-based inequality. Consistent with emerging sociological research about children and opportunity, once inequalities open up, they rarely decrease over time.

    A healthy democratic society could rise to this challenge, resolving to make robust public investments in time-tested interventions that equalize the conditions of the race. But in our increasingly plutocratic political system, the very wealthy have less stake in the opportunity-building mechanisms in our communities, as their own children and grandchildren advance through privatized systems. These same wealthy families maintain disproportionate influence in shaping our national priorities, such as whether to cut taxes on the wealthy or maintain investments in public education. We are snagged in a cycle of declining opportunity driven by the new politics of inherited advantage.

    A Growing Family Welfare State and a Shrinking Public One

    The United States prides itself on being a socially mobile society where what one does is more important than the racial and class circumstances of one’s birth. Indeed, in the three decades after World War II, between 1947 and 1977, social mobility increased, particularly for the white working class. This imprinted a national self-identity as a meritocratic society, especially juxtaposed with the old “caste societies” of Europe, with their static class systems and calcified social mobility.

    That story of European versus U.S. social mobility has now been turned on its head. European nations and Canada, with their social safety nets and investments in early childhood education, are experiencing greater social mobility. Canada now has three times the social mobility of the U.S. Budget cuts at all levels of government have dismantled post–World War II public investments that had begun to create greater opportunities for economically and racially disadvantaged families. Higher education has taken one of the biggest hits. Meanwhile, the relative advantage of wealthy families, in terms of social capital and civic engagement, has accelerated over the past 30 years.

    The idea that people’s futures might be economically determined deeply offends U.S. sensibilities. We want to believe that individual moxie matters, that a person’s creativity, effort, and intelligence will lead to economic success. Stories of exceptional strivers, heroically overcoming a stacked deck of obstacles, divert our attention from the data. But the large mega-trends are now indisputable. If you fail to pick wealthy parents and want to experience the American dream today, move to Canada.

    Parental Investments from Birth

    Long before our four 21-year-olds considered college, they were on different glide paths. Debt-free Miranda was the beneficiary of parental investments that prepared her for school and high achievement. She grew up in a book-filled and conversation-rich home environment with college-educated parents that had more leisure and vacation time to spend with her. She spent more time in ecologically pristine environments and had access to recreation, health care, and nutritious food. Her parents, knowledgeable about brain development, talked to her, using vastly more vocabulary words than children of other classes hear. When she was away from her parents, they paid for comparably stimulating child-care settings.

    Researcher Meredith Phillips found that by age six, wealthier children spent as many as 1,300 more hours a year than poor children on enrichment activities such as travel, music lessons, visits to museums, and summer camp. All this results in much higher math and reading skills and other attainments later in life.

    Success-bound Miranda had more opportunities than her non-wealthy peers to develop the important social capital that results from more time with parents and time spent in social institutions such as religious congregations, civic organizations, and extracurricular activities. Working-class youth, often with parents holding down multiple jobs to make up for several decades of stagnant wages, are more socially disconnected or connected in dysfunctional ways. As a result, they develop fewer “soft skills” useful in job networking and workplaces.

    As our foursome enter K-12 school, once considered the great avenue to equal opportunity, disparities widen. The early literacy and reading support conferred by the more advantaged families leads their children to pull away from others, not just those with low incomes. Class-based disparities in the cognitive skills of reading and math test scores have grown since the 1970s, corresponding with the national income and wealth gap. According to researcher Sean Reardon, the income-achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families is roughly 30 percent to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born in 1976.

    Among “high achievers,” the top 4 percent of students nationwide, 34 percent come from the top quartile, households with incomes of more than $120,776. Only 17 percent come from the bottom quartile, with incomes of less than $41,472. The income-achievement gap is now bigger than the race gap, a reverse from 50 years earlier. The main explanation is that high-income parents of all races are investing more in children’s cognitive development.

    Family Advantage and College Success

    All four of our young adults graduated from their high schools in the top fifth of their classes. But their high-school experience was quite divergent, based on their community and neighborhood. The key decision point—as to whether to attend college and where—was largely driven by disparities in income and wealth in the form of parental investment, K-12 education systems, and college-preparatory supports.

    In the 70 years since World War II, college attendance has played a significant role in employment opportunity and lifetime earnings. Over these 70 years, college entry has increased by more than 50 percent, and the rate of college completion by age 25 has more than quadrupled. But since 1980, an income-based gap has grown up in terms of college completion.

    Low-income students born around 1980 only increased their college-graduation rates by 4 percent—whereas higher-income cohorts saw their graduation rates go up by 18 percent. The greatest inequality has been among women, driven by increases in college completion by the daughters of higher-income households—and the lack of opportunities for non-wealthy women.

    Marcus’s family, like Miranda’s, placed a strong emphasis on attending college and college preparation. He went to a suburban public school that provided college-bound students with Advanced Placement classes, college counseling, and seminars for parents. While not as wealthy as Miranda’s family, Marcus’s family, also like Miranda’s, paid for the services of the burgeoning college-preparation industry to boost their child’s SAT scores. But in terms of family wealth, Marcus was on his own after high school, venturing into higher education and work without family resources and a financial safety net. As a consequence, in his thirties and forties, he will have more debts than assets.

    Miranda and barista Tony share an important parental boost that college student Marcus didn’t have: Their parents passed on financial-preparation and money-literacy skills. Both children learned about money from parents who gave them allowances to manage and encouraged them to open bank accounts and save. Initial research suggests that financial literacy may be a more important factor than schooling in lifetime wealth accumulation and retirement savings. Tony learned thrift and debt avoidance. These skills are much more important in the current environment, with unregulated predatory lenders and a bewildering variety of student-loan products to choose from.

    Tony will benefit from modest family-wealth transfers, thanks to a previous generation of social investments, which include his grandfather’s government-subsidized home mortgage. Tony will tap into what Sally Koslow, in her book Slouching toward Adulthood, calls the “middle class trust fund”: free room and board and cable and Internet access. Tony’s parents don’t consider their support for him a legacy advantage. They understand that the deck is stacked against their son, who will most likely never be rich without a winning lottery ticket or marrying into money. Their temporary housing and modest gifts—the purchase of a truck and money to get a trade license—are hedges against his downward mobility and destitution.

    Cordelia’s parents did what they could to better her prospects, ensuring she was in a good elementary school and steered to engaging teachers. They found her affordable summer day camps and other enrichment experiences. But when it came time for her to consider college, Cordelia was flying solo. Like many talented low-income students, she didn’t apply to one of the nation’s selective schools. Only 5 percent of the total enrollment at the 28 most selective private colleges is from families in the bottom fifth of income distribution. But 70 percent of the enrollment consists of students in the highest-income distribution. Like the majority of low-income college students, Cordelia did not complete college. A key missing ingredient for Cordelia was effective college guidance, within her school and at home.

    How young people finance college has its own disparities. Low-income and minority students that get proper guidance can sometimes obtain significant scholarships at private colleges and graduate with less debt than students attending public universities. Miranda’s parents paid full freight for her college. Marcus, navigating the college-financing jungle on his own, got little financial aid and signed up for a loan package that will cost him twice as much over time due to higher interest payments as the cheapest available plan. If Marcus were attending college 40 years earlier, he probably would have graduated debt-free as a result of lower tuition and public financial-aid programs.

    One of the huge breakaway wealth advantages is unpaid internships in one’s career area, an essential leg up in the transition from school to work. Entry-level workers are now expected to show up with work experience. Research shows that half of college-graduate hires had previously interned at the firm where they were hired. While Miranda received family support to take unpaid internships, other college students like Marcus used every non-school hour to earn money in jobs outside their career area.

    Family wealth also serves as a form of adversity insurance, as young adults face potential setbacks including prolonged unemployment, bad credit, health or addiction problems, criminal arrests, car breakdowns or accidents, or early parenthood. Young adults may make poor decisions or face unforeseen circumstances, but in almost every case, family wealth will help keep young people on track, whether it comes in legal assistance, treatment, or regular cash infusions.

    Closing the Advantage Gap

    What, if anything, can be done to offset the torrent of perks and advantages that wealthy parents confer to their progeny as they compete for slots in educational institutions, internships in their field of interest, entry-level jobs, affordable housing, and other resources?

    The first step is to acknowledge the depth of the declining mobility and opportunity problem, a story that is just beginning to be understood after three decades of extreme inequality. The image of post–World War II white mobility still reverberates and dominates our national mythology, especially for our political class and whites over the age of 50. But the present inequalities of wealth have fundamentally altered the playing field for the next two generations.

    Even ideological critics of social investment have begun to acknowledge the intergenerational class disparities. Conservative Reihan Salam acknowledges the “incumbent-protection story” of wealthy families, observing that “it is possible that non-black families in the top three-fifths of the income distribution are giving their children advantages that protect them from scrappy upstarts in ways that might damage our growth prospects.” Let alone principles of fairness, opportunity, and equity!

    Sustained public investments in opportunity are critical to level a playing field that is constantly being upended by wealth advantage. We can’t remove the capacity of well-off families to help advantage their offspring, but we can give others more of a shot.

    Other industrialized countries have demonstrated that public investments in health, education, and family well-being can offset the private advantages of wealth and improve social mobility. Initiatives like the “Baby College” of the Harlem Children’s Zone, Head Start, the U.S.’s Nurse-Family Partnership program, and universal preschool programs, such as those in France and Denmark, partially close the gaps in school achievement and subsequent wages. Several of these initiatives coach new parents on childhood health and wellness, discipline, brain development, and games and enrichment resources available to their children.

    High-quality pre-kindergarten education, access to health care and nutrition, good K-12 public education, and early diagnosis of learning disabilities and special needs are key interventions that help people equalize life chances. The fact that inequalities of opportunity now accelerate as schooling begins is testament to the need to defend and expand funding for public education at all levels. More than three-fourths of undergraduate college students attend public universities and colleges, which are facing the worst state cuts.

    There are also private-sector and personal interventions that could reduce runaway unequal opportunity. Community foundations can partner with business and cultural institutions to ensure that public and private funding for youth enrichment, arts and sports programs, summer camps, and stimulating after-school programs survive budget cutting. This must include resources for outreach to the most socially disconnected families to ensure their children have access to these opportunities.

    The U.S. Department of Labor should police the unpaid and underpaid internship marketplace, cracking down on companies that replace paid positions with unpaid ones. Certain sectors that disproportionately offer unpaid internships as a stepping-stone to career networks—journalism, politics, and entertainment—should do deep soul-searching about the implications for the widespread exclusion of working- and middle-class youth. Private-sector and government agencies that offer internships should create stipend and compensation pools to ensure that non-wealthy young people have an equal shot at internships. Donors should fund internship positions at nonprofit organizations they care about, expanding the pool of young people that can intern there.

    Privileged families will always seek to extend their own advantages to their children, but restoring greater progressivity to the tax system would ensure that wealthy families still contribute to the opportunities of others. Another intervention would be to eliminate or reduce the tax deductibility of contributions to private schools and colleges, except if directly used for scholarships for disadvantaged youth.

    One elegant solution would be to tax wealth to broaden opportunity. Revenue from a steeply progressive estate or inheritance tax could capitalize an “education-opportunity trust fund” to provide debt-free college educations for first-generation college students.

    Wealthy families concerned about declining social mobility should use their special privileges to stop the advantage arms race. They should match any family subsidies with tax dollars and donations to organizations that promote mobility. Without such interventions, the U.S. will further drift toward being a caste society, where opportunity, occupation, and social status are based on inherited advantage, fractured along class lines.

    http://prospect.org/article/wealthy-kids-are-all-right
     
  2. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,759
    Likes Received:
    39,426
    [​IMG]

    Can you start summarizing your articles please.
     
  3. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    54,872
    Likes Received:
    115,448
    Coming from an upper middle class background/wealthy family more than in the past is more likely to lead to being wealthy in the future, in a number of ways that often are not considered.

    Basically the Republican wet dream is happening.
     
  4. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
  5. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,101
    Likes Received:
    608
    Yup. That's always been the case.
     
  6. False

    False Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    99
    Long article, but a good read. Thanks for posting. I think an important addendum to this article are studies on social mobility in the U.S.

    Hertz Mobility Analysis

     
  7. robbie380

    robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    23,341
    Likes Received:
    9,755
    da1 just posts stuff and doesn't bother to even try discuss what he posts.

    He could have edited at least half to 3/4ths of that long winded article before he posted it.
     
  8. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    Let me sum it up.

    It is harder to start poor and get rich than it is to start rich and stay rich.

    Solution:

    Tax the rich and give it to the poor.

    Redistribution of wealth for the win!
     
  9. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    fixed
     
  10. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,825
    Likes Received:
    3,415
    Libertarian/conservative America.

    That is what you get.

    Hey it builds character in the working class. Folks in China have it harder. Quit belly aching. I knew a hard working immigrant who laughed at such obstacles and succeeded any way by working three minimum wage jobs and going to school full time. No matter how high tuitions go or how long it takes to work your way through the part-time route through community college through four year college etc. the strong will overcome. We would not want to make it easy to succeed as those of us who have made it-- even if not paid that great-- at least have the satisfaction of knowing others did not.

    Keep on hating gays, immigrants, liberals, "statists", intellectuals, yankees, "government" i.e public school teachers, non-Christians i.e Catholics, non-gun owners, --ANYBODY BUT THE .1% who love you promoting their interests and are why it is harder for the folks working as baristas to eventually finish school..
     
  11. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,825
    Likes Received:
    3,415
    Why not skim the article and comment on it yourself.

    It doesn't take much effort to skim.
     
  12. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    ... and the way to get "intergenerational wealth mobility" is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. You have a point there, that is definitely wealth mobility.

    So does a purse snatcher promote wealth mobility too?

    It will always be harder for a barista to finish school than a rich kid no matter how much money you spread around. I have never met a person who became truly successful that whined around with their hand out expecting somebody else to do something for them. Your damn skippy it's harder, a lot !@#%ing harder.

    It might take a generation or two but if you don't start, it won't happen and the government will never do it for you. My dad grew up in a dirt floor house and he changed my future. I will change my childrens futures and I'm not going to wait for anyone to help me do it. I am blessed beyond belief to live in a country where that is possible.

    Sit back and wait for the government to fix your future and see how that works out for you. I'm going to go get mine.
     
  13. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,784
    Likes Received:
    3,499
  14. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046

    Try actually reading the article before summing it up with your nonsense.
     
  15. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Is inter generational wealth mobility possible in America? Certainly. Is it lagging behind other nations significantly? Yes. Is that a problem for a nation that predicates its' founding mission on upward social and economic mobility? Of course.

    How do we go about solving that problem? By ensuring that everyone has as close of an equal footing to compete for that posting at Google, or JP. This isn't just smart ethics. It's smart economics. It's getting everyone to perform to their full potential. It's why economies like Sweden perform so well, even as the world falls apart around them.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    Nonsense is spending 5000 words to state the obvious and then taking the lazy/easy way out on a "elegant" solution of "tax wealth to broaden opportunity".

    Author is an idiot.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    I swear you just keep these responses saved as stock answers so you can just hit a function key and populate it.

    You label this as a function of conservative and libertarian ideas but conveniently leave out the fact that perpetuating family wealth among the blue bloods has occurred longer and more aggressively in the liberal northeast than anywhere else in the country.

    The fact is that it is not a conservative/libertarian problem. You view it through that lens because you are a socialist. I don't mean that as a pejorative. It is a valid school of thought. It is, however, important to realize that fact.
     
  18. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    I second this.

    My grandmother grew up as a tenant farmer in Tennessee. They had nothing. They had a dirt floor and an outhouse. There often wasn't enough for everybody to eat. She moved to Houston with my grandfather and worked menial jobs to try to get by. My father worked full time at the bank as a young man to pay his tuition to go full time at UH. It was dark outside when he left in the morning and dark outside when he got home. He graduated and worked a nice career at the bank.

    I then went to A&M and then on to law school. From a tenant farmer to an attorney in two generations. It is possible.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Honey Bear

    Honey Bear Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    555
    /thread

    That's all there is to it. Things aren't perfect anywhere but the foundation is still in place for the cream to rise to the top. Wealthier kids tend to squander more opportunities and fall prey to distractions and complacency so the weaker ones are weeded out of that category as well.

    The author knows this. This article is purely a fluff piece for the lazies.
     
  20. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    15,431
    Likes Received:
    6,438
    This is as nonsensical as trickle down economics.

    Money, like heat, always travels up. This is like pumping heat from the upstairs down into an unfinished basement and wondering why the basement never stays warm.

    If your solution is to simply to strip away wealth just to make everyone equal (poor), then I understand your idiotic logic. Just keep in mind that the ones who make the rules are the ones with the money in the first place, and it will be the middle class they strip from, not themselves.

    Just remember there is no law that requires people to buy expensive toys and gadgets and many of the other things that keep the poor from advancing.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now