Talent can get lost in a ton of things. Poor upbringing, lack of discovery, etc. Money is money. Always better to be born wealthy. This without reading the article yet.
The best thing you can give your kids is the idea that they can work hard and have a good life. Money is nice, too, but I’ve seen idiots blow through a nice inheritance the folks left them and end up in bad situations. As for the gifted stuff, that only gets you so far. If you aren’t willing to try a bit, it isn’t very far. I had a younger student in high school I was put in charge of to help pass freshman English. So for about an hour a day I’d go over his material with him. He knew it backwards and forwards without a lick of help from me. Very smart kid. He’d turn in blank tests. Slept through his TCAP test. Never graduated. I saw him a few years later hanging out inside a gas station in Kingsport. Looked like he hadn’t changed clothes in a few days. Didn’t have an answer when I asked what he did. Sad stuff.
When I read about statistics from athletes that had millions and are now broke, makes me think. If I had millions, could I one day be broke? I don't think so. I think my parents taught me hard work, and living within my means is the way to make it in life. I think I have done well busting my ass, and saving a little money.
Coming into a crap ton of money quickly is like going into combat after boot camp: no matter how well trained you are, you just don't know how you are going to react. Imho
I feel like I’d handle the crapton of money pretty well. No way to know on the combat. Have to hope years of violent videos games have prepared me.
I wonder what the percentages would look like when just talking about students going to college. The article states 24% of the low income, high potential group graduates. What percentage goes in the first place? Is the problem finishing or just getting them there in the first place? I’d be interested to see the disparity between that and the go/finish percentages for high income, low potential.
gifted will figure out how to be rich or not give a shit if they are. Having $ means access to more shit and more people around that want a piece of it. Yeah some familys in Tn have grandkids that will follow their footsteps, but plenty of people with $ backing are losers. Gifted people aren't.
Wealth generally last two generations before it’s gone. Being born into nurturing loving families is the biggest indicator of future success. One could argue that those types of families are generally better off though due to the discipline and work that it involves in creating that environment.
Another thing, I don't necessarily define success as graduating college either. I would say my dad was very successful, he went to college but never graduated, he went into the military and retired with full benefits for the rest of his life. My wife has nephews that went to college and they're perfectly content with hanging out with their friends smoking weed. Some of my wife's family graduated college and became teacher, or counselors for migrant children and they never, ever talk about how much they love their job, it's always how they should make more money and work less because they have a degree. I'd consider the teachers successful but not happy.
I see a bunch of responses from people that clearly didn't read the article or just ignored/rejected what it said.
There is a good bit of assumption in their numbers on both the x and y axes if you plot the raw numbers out like a simpleton such as myself would. It doesn't take into account parental influence beyond income level. It's an opinion piece from from the bezos daily news that pulls excerpts from another publication. Most likely, any serious conversation ends with a debate surrounding government redistribution of wealth. It's akin to posting something from fox news that pulls data from a report showing people with guns stop people with guns from doing crime. I read it. I get it. I just know where this topic leads.
Exactly. The implication of the study doesn't match with a popular belief, so it is ignored. To be clear, if "parental influence" was a separate, random factor that didn't correlate with income, it isn't relevant to what this shows. If it does correlate with income, it means that the stories of having good parents but growing up poor are invalid in a larger sample size as being an outlier situation. This shows that regardless of good parenting, one is more likely to be successful being born rich than not. And the possible reasons why are obvious: when you are poor, there is little room for mistakes or error.
Nothing shocking really. Would like to see the number of single parent vs two parent homes in each demographic compared and also the income strata of the groups compared, which i assume is in the paper, but I don't care enough to search. Would suspect it goes back to what ive saif before, its all about the collective mindsets of the group.
