Poor People and High Level Jobs

[creekland]

I had to start a thread on this topic on one of the "politics allowed" subforums due to where the topic came from, but I'd really like to have a discussion about the topic itself - not its source.  If any of y'all are willing to discuss it (preferably without pulling partisan politics in), can you head over to this thread - read the (short) article - and add comments?  It's an interesting topic to consider from many different angles.  I only touched on one in my OP.

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/648984-poor-people-and-high-level-jobs/?p=7657706

[Guest]

Not authorized to view that thread. 

[creekland]

Not authorized to view that thread. 

 

Bummer!  I thought that subforum was open to everyone.  Apparently not?  I'm going to be on and off the net a bit today, but I can go look to send invites... 

 

I WISH we could all just discuss it here, but... that probably won't go well. (sigh)

[Guest]

Can you give a general summary of the topic you want to discuss?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Can you give a general summary of the topic you want to discuss?

 

You can immediately join the group.

[SarahW]

I don't know what article the OP linked to, but by googling the thread title I got this https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02/19/a-college-degree-is-worth-less-if-you-are-raised-poor/ 

 

The Comment section is worth reading.

[creekland]

Can you give a general summary of the topic you want to discuss?

 

It's pretty much akin to the title.  Should only the wealthy have high level economic jobs - or are there significant cons to that?

[creekland]

I don't know what article the OP linked to, but by googling the thread title I got this https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02/19/a-college-degree-is-worth-less-if-you-are-raised-poor/ 

 

The Comment section is worth reading.

 

That's an interesting article too, but different.  The article I read is a gov't one regarding who gets high level jobs and who doesn't.  It comes from BBC and is based upon something just said recently.

[Mergath]

I'd rather see the most well-qualified people have those jobs, period. I mean, it isn't like all wealthy people are successful and good with money and all middle-class people are bad with money and that's why they aren't rich. There are plenty of wealthy people who inherited their money, never learned how to handle money, and buy themselves government access while simultaneously pissing away their fortune. Of course, there are plenty of wealthy people who ARE successful and good with money, too. And there are many middle-class people who are brilliant with money because they've learned how to stretch a dollar, along with having a firsthand understanding of how the vast majority of people in this country live.

 

So basically, the idea of having some kind of financial litmus test for high level public appointments is idiotic.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Mergath

[Riverland]

As an employer, you want to hire employees who have a good track record of being successful. Why would this be different for high level federal/economic jobs?

 

Being wealthy, in general - though not always, shows that you have been successful in employment and handling money. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean that you can't perform well in those jobs, but it is an indicator that you have not yet done so. Obviously, one's wealth should not be a litmus test. Rather ones experience and success, which can lead to great wealth.

 

I think it's vitally important to have people in high positions who have already had the experience and been successful at it. That said, there are jobs available for people of all experience levels and that is a good thing.

 

Even in the business world, those with the most success and experience usually have the highest positions. There's a reason for that.

[Mergath]

As an employer, you want to hire employees who have a good track record of being successful. Why would this be different for high level federal/economic jobs?

 

Being wealthy, in general - though not always, shows that you have been successful in employment and handling money. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean that you can't perform well in those jobs, but it is an indicator that you have not yet done so. Obviously, one's wealth should not be a litmus test. Rather ones experience and success, which can lead to great wealth.

 

I think it's vitally important to have people in high positions who have already had the experience and been successful at it. That said, there are jobs available for people of all experience levels and that is a good thing.

 

Even in the business world, those with the most success and experience usually have the highest positions. There's a reason for that.

 

Not really. Someone can be an extremely successful teacher in a not-wealthy district and be fairly broke. I was fantastic at my job working in a group home for autistic children years ago and I made just above minimum wage.

 

Being wealthy from your job isn't an indicator of how successful you are at said job, but rather how successful you are at picking careers that pay a lot of money.

[Carrie12345]

My 2 cents from the linked thread: 

 

I don't know that I can give an especially intelligent answer, but I feel like the discussion could benefit by going an even bigger step back from "wealthy".

 

When the financial advice given to struggling people from statistically just-above-average people runs along the lines of "Give up your daily Starbucks and use a comparison shopping app online", can we even claim that "regular people" understand half the country's economic situation?

[SKL]

nm

Edited June 23, 2017 by SKL

[SarahW]

My 2 cents from the linked thread: 

 

I don't know that I can give an especially intelligent answer, but I feel like the discussion could benefit by going an even bigger step back from "wealthy".

 

When the financial advice given to struggling people from statistically just-above-average people runs along the lines of "Give up your daily Starbucks and use a comparison shopping app online", can we even claim that "regular people" understand half the country's economic situation?

 

 

Have you seen this article? I'm also so tired of the "cut your grocery bill with Ibotta!!!" advice. That's only good for people who already splurge on name-brands and alcohol.

 

I even used multiple grocery rebate apps very aggressively one summer (combining aggressively with coupons and sales, and sometimes pinching relative's receipts, which is sorta against the TOS). And only got chump change. And you have to use a smart phone with most of them anyways soo....maybe it'll pay one cell phone bill in a year for someone who is already really spendy at the grocery store? Whoo hooo. A solution to poverty it is not.

 

I'm still not entirely sure what this thread is about. So maybe that's all off-topic.

[Lanny]

I clicked on your link but I am not a member of that social group so I am not authorized to see it.  The title of your thread has me thinking about the 5 or 6 million unfilled positions in the USA, unfilled because there are very few  job seekers with the  skills the employers need.

[Arcadia]

The article I read is a gov't one regarding who gets high level jobs and who doesn't. It comes from BBC and is based upon something just said recently.

The article shared in my Facebook feed is from Washington Examiner and Vanity Fair, and about the Iowa rally.

 

World economy is a dirty game where even the extremely wealthy get "slaughtered" as pawns or get even more filthy rich.

[FaithManor]

Wealth is not an indicator of work ethic. My nephew attended the Hun School - feeder high school for Princeton - and was the lone scholarship kid on his dorm floor. Nearly all of his floor mates were born to wealth. It was surprising how many of them failed all the way through because they had no motivation. They would inherit, and a board of directors would run their companies. At the end of the four years, large donations were made by parents to insure graduation.

 

First generation wealth might be an indicator of work success. It can also be in large part due to luck as well. Successive generations ride on the coattails of ancestors so their wealth is not an indication of skill or ability.

Edited June 23, 2017 by FaithManor

[Riverland]

Not really. Someone can be an extremely successful teacher in a not-wealthy district and be fairly broke. I was fantastic at my job working in a group home for autistic children years ago and I made just above minimum wage.

 

Being wealthy from your job isn't an indicator of how successful you are at said job, but rather how successful you are at picking careers that pay a lot of money.

 

Yes, but I would not want someone with a teaching background- or many other backgrounds, running the economy of the United States. No matter how successful they are, most people with these jobs are not prepared for high level administrative positions.

[Kanin]

I agree with Mergath 100%. Being poor or middle-class is not a great indicator that you're bad with money. For example, I'm a special ed teacher with two master's degrees, my husband has a PhD, and I'd say we're just finally edging our way into middle-class status.

 

I would venture to say that many, if not most, people who are wealthy had a "leg up" early in life by being in a wealthy family. Betsy DeVos, our education secretary, has a B.A. only, and she's one of the most powerful voices in education today.

 

I was born into a family where neither of my parents had a college degree, each made less than $30,000 a year for all of my childhood, and while I am better educated than Ms. DeVos, I have $60,000 of student loans and earn less than $40,000 a year as a special ed teacher a fancy private school.

 

Personal wealth should not be a prerequisite for high office in finance. 

[Kanin]

Yes, but I would not want someone with a teaching background- or many other backgrounds, running the economy of the United States. No matter how successful they are, most people with these jobs are not prepared for high level administrative positions.

 

True, you wouldn't want a teacher running the Federal Reserve, but you might want someone with a Ph.D. in economics. I agree with you that so many people with no proper background are running many government offices (i.e., Rick Perry, with a B.A. in animal science, in charge of the Energy department - the nukes!).

 

The Wall Street executives currently in charge of the economy made their billions by taking advantage of everyone below them on their way to the top. Some of their contemporaries are currently in jail, and some of them who aren't in jail probably should be.

 

I'd rather see a healthy mix of Ph.Ds in economics and statistics, along with people who have real-world experience. I'm not opposed to bankers being involved in the economy, but could we at least get some well-educated people in there, too?

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Mainer

[Kanin]

 

First generation wealth might be an indicator of work success. It can also be in large part due to luck as well. Successive generations ride on the coattails of ancestors so their wealth is not an indication of skill or ability.

 

I think you're right on here. It could suggest skill with business/money, or it could be pure dumb luck. 

[SKL]

Not being smart and not being smart about money are two very different things.

 

I wouldn't hire a person with only banking/finance experience to be my plumber.

[Paige]

Yes, but I would not want someone with a teaching background- or many other backgrounds, running the economy of the United States. No matter how successful they are, most people with these jobs are not prepared for high level administrative positions.

 

Woodrow Wilson was a professor. Several presidents had teaching backgrounds. They didn't have only teaching backgrounds, but teaching experience is a positive in my opinion. Woodrow Wilson in particular was known for bringing academics into government positions and I don't think it was terrible. 

[Bluegoat]

So, I think there are a few factors here.

 

I think its fair, based on the context of the remark, to say that he wasn't thinking just of someone who inherited a bunch of mony, but someone who was in some was sucessful at making money.  So I'd work from that assumption.

 

So - two things.  Does being a rich person correlate with of sucess at business or money management?  I think this can be true for obvious reasons, but it is also not uncommon for it to be an illusion.  There are plenty of CEOs who seem to lose money for their companies and yet enrich themselves personally.  There are business persons who seem successful but aren't even though they are rich - I think of Kevin O'Leary here in Canada  who has a reputation for being a great hard-nosed business man and has significant personal wealth.  Except, his business record is actually kind of lame.  And there are people who live a wealthy life for a while but they are a thread away from bankruptcy.  Even then the very rich may live better than a regular poor person.

 

But the second thing is, the idea that running the economy, or creating public policy, is like running a business is false.  It's a totally different set of skills, and training for business and an economist is very different.  In some ways it is even opposed - the goal of a government is to bring in the money they need to offer good services and management to the people I the long term, not to cut corners or make a profit or enrich anyone.

 

I would probably tend to think you would not see a poor or really uneducated person in these sorts of jobs.  But a good economist working at a university might well be middle class, and I'd prefer that to some person who has managed to enrich himself working as an economist for a bank or on Wall Street.

[Bluegoat]

Oh - the other thing is, the people in many of these political positions do have staff who can give them technical advice.  There is a need to be able to understand the advice, of course, but sometimes what that person really is needing to do is set out goals and inspire people or make connections.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bluegoat

[MommyLiberty5013]

Not sure if you all watched the Big Short. (FYI: horrible language in it and some sexual scenes [just disclosing that for some posters]), but it is the run-down of what caused the 2008-2009 crash. Having read on the topic, I think Hollywood did a decent job of portraying exactly what occurred leading up to the event.

 

Anyway, the star of the movie is Christian Bale. He plays Michael Burry, the IRL man who happens to be a physician turned investment banker, who mathematically saw the entire thing coming and looming. To their discredit, numerous people laughed him off - what did he know? He was correct and he gave warning.

 

I say that the U.S. ought to hire the best for the job based on the full resume, not just the job candidate's bottom line or net worth. My Michael Burry example is to demonstrate the point that it is often the people least likely to "get" something who do it the best (in some cases).

 

Basically, for good or bad, we all do tend to surround ourselves with like-minded or like-experienced people. You see it in so many aspects of life. It is the way humans are and I do not think we do it out of meanness or neglect of others. I think we do it out of natural comfort. But it can be to our detriment.

 

 

 

[solascriptura]

I'm a little confused by the question.  Why would wealth equate with competency in a job?  Shouldn't education and experience be the deciding factor?  Yes, some are born to wealth but that doesn't mean competency in any way.  Yes, some are born poor,  but they fight their way through a good edcation and profession.  

 

Maybe because I'm from an immigrant family it colors my perspective.  I've seen how wealth can bring many opportunities not afforded to the poor and I'm pretty annoyed by it.  Yes, if you're poor you'll need to fight your way up, but it can be done.  

[nixpix5]

As an employer, you want to hire employees who have a good track record of being successful. Why would this be different for high level federal/economic jobs?

 

Being wealthy, in general - though not always, shows that you have been successful in employment and handling money. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean that you can't perform well in those jobs, but it is an indicator that you have not yet done so. Obviously, one's wealth should not be a litmus test. Rather ones experience and success, which can lead to great wealth.

 

I think it's vitally important to have people in high positions who have already had the experience and been successful at it. That said, there are jobs available for people of all experience levels and that is a good thing.

 

Even in the business world, those with the most success and experience usually have the highest positions. There's a reason for that.

Agreed.

 

It is similar to wanting a counselor who has a stable marriage, family, well rounded and happy kids etc. Or wanting a pastor who leads by example and whose family resembles what you would expect.

 

I want someone in any position to be applying those skills to their own life. This means they have internalized them, believe in them and are a walking testimony to how those skills work.

[creekland]

As an employer, you want to hire employees who have a good track record of being successful. Why would this be different for high level federal/economic jobs?

 

Being wealthy, in general - though not always, shows that you have been successful in employment and handling money. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean that you can't perform well in those jobs, but it is an indicator that you have not yet done so. Obviously, one's wealth should not be a litmus test. Rather ones experience and success, which can lead to great wealth.

 

I think it's vitally important to have people in high positions who have already had the experience and been successful at it. That said, there are jobs available for people of all experience levels and that is a good thing.

 

Even in the business world, those with the most success and experience usually have the highest positions. There's a reason for that.

 

This sounds so good, but in real life, it's extremely far off from reality.  For the majority, being wealthy means you had a good start in life, either already wealthy or at least middle class.  A precious few bootstrap themselves up from the ranks of the poor, but very, very few percentage-wise.  It's pretty much akin to winning the lottery.  Then too, why are they still wealthy?  Do they not see the huge amounts of need out there in this world?  Can they not figure out how to live on a mere few million a year?  There is an element of "love of money" (or status) there once one reaches a certain point.

 

I suspect quite a few "best for the job" folks with public policy (not necessarily business) are in that middle class range and possibly don't make the ranks of super wealthy because they can't bring themselves to step on others to get there.  If they end up wealthy, they donate tons to worthy causes.  I'll admit I don't want the job, but I can say I'll never be rich.  It would cause me too much stress to know I had so much money while others work their butts off to have so little comparatively.  I might put some wealth into investments, but only to be able to continue giving as needed.

 

With your last statement, I don't always see that either.  I see quite a few high jobs being related to who one knows more than what one knows.

 

With the two different worlds... kids from one area have no idea how kids from the other live.  My own kids are solid middle class and one came home aghast one day that one of his friends had literally nothing in their refrigerator.  Mom and dad worked, but had to pay basic bills and nothing was left over to stock the fridge until the next payday.  When I went to the wealthy private school in 10th grade, kids there were aghast that my dad only earned 18K per year.  One (friend - these are nice kids - just unaware of the other half and how they live) literally told me they had a painting in their living room that cost that much.  Where I worked at a riding stable (in exchange for boarding my horse), my friends were surprised that I couldn't afford to show or even get fitted for custom riding gear.  All of this was perfectly normal to them.

 

It's no great surprise that middle class and wealthy kids tend to do better in life than their lower class and poor counterparts.  They have oodles more advantages - from birth on (nutrition, etc).

 

If one takes the wealthy and puts them in jobs where public policy dictates things for everyone, I strongly suspect they have no idea what it's really like for a vast majority of people, and I'm not sure that helps those folks.

 

So, I think there are a few factors here.

 

I think its fair, based on the context of the remark, to say that he wasn't thinking just of someone who inherited a bunch of mony, but someone who was in some was sucessful at making money.  So I'd work from that assumption.

 

So - two things.  Does being a rich person correlate with of sucess at business or money management?  I think this can be true for obvious reasons, but it is also not uncommon for it to be an illusion.  There are plenty of CEOs who seem to lose money for their companies and yet enrich themselves personally.  There are business persons who seem successful but aren't even though they are rich - I think of Kevin O'Leary here in Canada  who has a reputation for being a great hard-nosed business man and has significant personal wealth.  Except, his business record is actually kind of lame.  And there are people who live a wealthy life for a while but they are a thread away from bankruptcy.  Even then the very rich may live better than a regular poor person.

 

But the second thing is, the idea that running the economy, or creating public policy, is like running a business is false.  It's a totally different set of skills, and training for business and an economist is very different.  In some ways it is even opposed - the goal of a government is to bring in the money they need to offer good services and management to the people I the long term, not to cut corners or make a profit or enrich anyone.

 

I would probably tend to think you would not see a poor or really uneducated person in these sorts of jobs.  But a good economist working at a university might well be middle class, and I'd prefer that to some person who has managed to enrich himself working as an economist for a bank or on Wall Street.

 

Liking the bolded was not enough.  I totally agree.

[creekland]

Agreed.

 

It is similar to wanting a counselor who has a stable marriage, family, well rounded and happy kids etc. Or wanting a pastor who leads by example and whose family resembles what you would expect.

 

I want someone in any position to be applying those skills to their own life. This means they have internalized them, believe in them and are a walking testimony to how those skills work.

 

But this is not necessarily what one is getting by using wealth and status as a determiner. 

[Happy2BaMom]

As an employer, you want to hire employees who have a good track record of being successful. Why would this be different for high level federal/economic jobs?

 

Being wealthy, in general - though not always, shows that you have been successful in employment and handling money. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean that you can't perform well in those jobs, but it is an indicator that you have not yet done so. Obviously, one's wealth should not be a litmus test. Rather ones experience and success, which can lead to great wealth.

 

I think it's vitally important to have people in high positions who have already had the experience and been successful at it. That said, there are jobs available for people of all experience levels and that is a good thing.

 

Even in the business world, those with the most success and experience usually have the highest positions. There's a reason for that.

 

But that's not what is done (in relation to your first sentence). 

 

My husband is a mid-high-level gov't employee for a large agency. What happens is the highest level jobs are political appointees. Most of these people are placed into these positions as rewards for political favors (and this has happened through multiple administrations, including the current one), so the people at the top Have. No. Clue. about the subject areas (some of them highly technical and highly involved) that they are overseeing. In my husband's work, so many reversals of policies and procedures have been made, only to be reversed again later, and then again later - every change in administration results in some whole new fan dangled direction, not based on any knowledge of what has been tried before and worked (or not). Every appointee wants to "make a name" for his/herself by quickly "fixing" the problems. They are ignorant. Success in one subject matter does NOT necessarily translate to success in another. If people were chosen & experience & expertise in their knowledge of the particular agency in question, it just might work. But they are not.  Meanwhile, the worker bees & the people who run things on the ground are wasted. 

 

And having worked for a Fortune 50 company for many years while I was working, I can emphatically state that those people with the most success are usually the best at playing politics and manipulating the higher-ups who have promotion power....they are not necessarily the ones who have had long-term success and the most experience running a particular program or department (the quiet, great managers often get passed over). Many times, the 'fast-trackers' don't necessarily manage well and, in fact, many of them usually leave a train wreck in their wake, because all they need is a year or two of great results to claim before they move on & up. It's easy to get a positive year or two of financial results...you gut the department and threaten people to extract 80 hour work weeks. Then you leave before the sh** hits the fan in lost clients and lost employees. 

 

It's just another version of the prosperity gospel to assume that those who have the most success automatically deserve it. Many times, they've left a trail of bodies in their wake. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Happy2BaMom

[SKL]

The statement that inspired this discussion was not about being born rich or some other things being implied here.  It was about having been successful managing money.  One might add, not just your own money, but other people's money too.

 

I have finance / economics education and work background and I was born poor.  The "born poor" part doesn't qualify or disqualify me for any job.  The experience part does, but not for a top government position.  I'm happy to let that go to people who live and breathe money management all day.  :P

[creekland]

It's just another version of the prosperity gospel to assume that those who have the most success automatically deserve it. Many times, they've left a trail of bodies in their wake. 

 

And don't give a hoot that they did so... They're basking in their millions.  One knows nobody could adequately live on less.

[SKL]

And if we are honest, political appointments are all more about influence and tit-for-tat than anything else.  Always have been, at least since the founding fathers died.

[creekland]

The statement that inspired this discussion was not about being born rich or some other things being implied here.  It was about having been successful managing money.  One might add, not just your own money, but other people's money too.

 

But is it success in managing other people's money when it's done at the expense of the lower classes?  When someone earns a ton for a company, but it's because they fired oodles of others without much compensation or raised the price of an Epipen by an eye-opening percentage - just because they could?  That helps a segment of society, but certainly not everyone - and not those who need the most help.

 

(Obviously, I'm not talking about anyone specific overall - just using examples from real life.)

[Murphy101]

I don't know what article the OP linked to, but by googling the thread title I got this https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02/19/a-college-degree-is-worth-less-if-you-are-raised-poor/

 

The Comment section is worth reading.

I agree about the comments. The comments were wonderfully better than the article.

 

Tho Dh and I have a few semesters of college, should my children, God willing, finish their degree plrigrams, they will be the first to have a college education in our families. Gee, no pressure though, right?

 

From the comments I found this:

 

I also found the poverty trap made the experience of college more difficult. Working multiple jobs, lack of housing security, lack of financial security, all added to the difficulties, and detracted from the time and resources I could spend.

This. I am so proud of my boys. They work full time. They take five classes a semester and get decent to good grades. They volunteer on campus at the parish. They make time, somehow, for their family. But this comment I quoted is kicking their asses every semester and it's killing me to watch it happen bc there's nothing I can do about it other than encourage them to stick with it. And it is next to impossible to get some degrees under those conditions. It just flat out is. Son2 left the pilot program because of it despite the fact that's the only thing he has ever wanted to do since he was 12. Medicine and some other programs come to mind as well. The programs are set up presuming you don't have to work at all outside of college and aren't flexible about the expectations on your time or your wallet. So while I understand some degrees are more profitable than others, those are often some of the most difficult for low incomes to manage too. And of course generational insider networking is a major factor too.

[SKL]

But is it success in managing other people's money when it's done at the expense of the lower classes?  When someone earns a ton for a company, but it's because they fired oodles of others without much compensation or raised the price of an Epipen by an eye-opening percentage - just because they could?  That helps a segment of society, but certainly not everyone - and not those who need the most help.

 

(Obviously, I'm not talking about anyone specific overall - just using examples from real life.)

 

Of course all those things need to be taken into consideration too.

 

You sound as if you assume everyone who has been successful in money management must have succeeded by viciously harming others, or at least not giving a damn about them.  I don't agree with that.

 

It goes without saying that a tendency toward selfishness and ruthlessness may be found in people with all sorts of backgrounds - rich, poor, and in-between.

[creekland]

Of course all those things need to be taken into consideration too.

 

...

 

It goes without saying that a tendency toward selfishness and ruthlessness may be found in people with all sorts of backgrounds - rich, poor, and in-between.

 

Which is why I don't think it's money that needs to be taken into consideration for top political jobs.  I don't think those jobs should have a multi-millionaire litmus test.

 

The opposite isn't going into the unemployment office and grabbing #10 in line (any random number).  The opposite is looking for someone good at their job who has a grasp on more than just making as much as they can for themselves.

[Riverland]

But that's not what is done (in relation to your first sentence). 

 

My husband is a mid-high-level gov't employee for a large agency. What happens is the highest level jobs are political appointees. Most of these people are placed into these positions as rewards for political favors (and this has happened through multiple administrations, including the current one), so the people at the top Have. No. Clue. about the subject areas (some of them highly technical and highly involved) that they are overseeing. In my husband's work, so many reversals of policies and procedures have been made, only to be reversed again later, and then again later - every change in administration results in some whole new fan dangled direction, not based on any knowledge of what has been tried before and worked (or not). Every appointee wants to "make a name" for his/herself by quickly "fixing" the problems. They are ignorant. Success in one subject matter does NOT necessarily translate to success in another. If people were chosen & experience & expertise in their knowledge of the particular agency in question, it just might work. But they are not.  Meanwhile, the worker bees & the people who run things on the ground are wasted. 

 

And having worked for a Fortune 50 company for many years while I was working, I can emphatically state that those people with the most success are usually the best at playing politics and manipulating the higher-ups who have promotion power....they are not necessarily the ones who have had long-term success and the most experience running a particular program or department (the quiet, great managers often get passed over). Many times, the 'fast-trackers' don't necessarily manage well and, in fact, many of them usually leave a train wreck in their wake, because all they need is a year or two of great results to claim before they move on & up. It's easy to get a positive year or two of financial results...you gut the department and threaten people to extract 80 hour work weeks. Then you leave before the sh** hits the fan in lost clients and lost employees. 

 

It's just another version of the prosperity gospel to assume that those who have the most success automatically deserve it. Many times, they've left a trail of bodies in their wake. 

 

I agree that handing out jobs via political appointees is a bad idea - I never said or implied otherwise. I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. The top jobs should go to those with experience and success in the subject matter. I would not hire a successful daycare worker to be an economic advisor for the U.S.A., nor a highly skilled plumber, nor a well-respected art historian. I would hire someone with skill, knowledge, and success in economics/business. From there, you eliminate those who are skilled at playing politics and manipulating the higher-ups. There are still plenty of strong candidates to choose from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gardenmom5]

The statement that inspired this discussion was not about being born rich or some other things being implied here.  It was about having been successful managing money.  One might add, not just your own money, but other people's money too.

 

I have finance / economics education and work background and I was born poor.  The "born poor" part doesn't qualify or disqualify me for any job.  The experience part does, but not for a top government position.  I'm happy to let that go to people who live and breathe money management all day.  :p

 

I was running around so this is the first time I've had time to post anything.  I've been thinking about it.  there's so more to job success than what you learn in a college education - and I'm not even going to touch on the contacts/networking (which does matter) - but social interactions, how you present yourself, attitudes about money re: get a bonus/extra, do you rush out and blow it?  or invest it?) so many subtle things that aren't thought about. work ethic etc.

 

I saw this with my grandmother.  she was a poor farmer's daughter, and she was ambitious to get ahead.  she wanted to beak in and really pushed my mother in education in hopes she'd get a mrs degree to some college educated guy who'd make  a lot of money - but it was clear she didn't know the social rules that went beyond the actual degree.  there's another level of confidence. it's hard to describe.

 

think of pygmalion . . . takes a cockney flower girl and teaches her to speak proper english, so if you only hear her speak, she sounds like a "proper english lady" - but until they also gave her the education on how to socially interact with those of the class to which she now speaks, dresses like them, all the little details we don't even think about,  the subtle reactions that are automatic, etc. . . she would still have been an outsider.

 

can it be done? yes, but it's far more than a mere 'degree'.  it's more than just contacts/networking too.

 

dd went to one of these schools, where the parents fly in on private jets, (landing on the town airstrip built for them) and drop checks for four years worth of tuition at one time so their tuition bill doesn't go up.  she isn't "gaga" when dealing with people with lots of money.  (her comment of: i went to school with their kids) and she's done a stint as a coo of a very small start up - and was doing face to face with people worth serious money while trying to sell them on investing in a risky start-up.  investors who only do this for fun and possible profit.  a lot of people can be intimidated by that,  she wasn't.   - it's a whole 'nother level than "just that degree".  or even the position.

 

she did think it "remarkable" when she had a very nervous sales rep for a vendor trying to sell her (or rather - get her to make a major purchase on behalf of her company) on his product.  he was nervous because he saw her as a "bigwig", - the head of tech for her company making these purchasing decisions.  he was intimidated to be presenting to her position, and it showed.   that's not a good thing.  had he been rep'ing a major company, it would have been even worse.

[Riverland]

I'm surprised that people took issue with my statement that businesses want to hire successful people. Really? If you owned a business - any kind - you wouldn't be looking to staff it with highly competent employees?

 

(Regardless of whether or not this always happens - that's not the debate. The debate is, who should be hired? who is the best person for the job (high level economics position for the U.S.)? Or at least I thought that's what this thread was about - but based on responses, I may be wrong about that.)

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by SummerDays

[creekland]

I'm surprised that people took issue with my statement that businesses want to hire successful people. Really? If you owned a business - any kind - you wouldn't be looking to staff it with highly competent employees?

 

(Regardless of whether or not this always happens - that's not the debate. The debate is, who should be hired? who is the best person for the job (high level economics position for the U.S.)? Or at least I thought that's what this thread was about - but based on responses, I may be wrong about that.)

 

No one is saying put the bum in Skid Row in the position.

 

The question is whether or not it takes someone uber wealthy to be the best at the (political) job where policy is supposed to help everyone.  I don't think so.

 

Copying what I just posted in the other thread (in response to a post saying it'd be helpful if someone were born into poor or lower middle class and worked their way up via starting a business)...

 

"I agree except I'd add that they wouldn't have to be born into poor or lower middle class.  I'd at least want to see extensive experience with that socio-economic level of society and a track record of improving it more than I'd want to see taking any particular company (esp if they hadn't started the company) to any level.

 

Those born into wealth (or upper middle class) often don't grasp how the rest of society lives.  It's hard to understand what you haven't really seen (except in print).  The "walk a mile in their shoes" is simply good at teaching a bit.  "First world" problems are not."

[gardenmom5]

I'm surprised that people took issue with my statement that businesses want to hire successful people. Really? If you owned a business - any kind - you wouldn't be looking to staff it with highly competent employees?

 

(Regardless of whether or not this always happens - that's not the debate. The debate is, who should be hired? who is the best person for the job (high level economics position for the U.S.)? Or at least I thought that's what this thread was about - but based on responses, I may be wrong about that.)

 

yeah.  successful people.  I get to hear a lot of the conversations regarding a current start-up/venture (in beta) with which dh is involved. . . . they're currently looking to fill c-level positions to take it to investors so it can grow - they want people with a proven track record becasue investors want a reasonable likelihood they'll get a return on that investment.

 

there's also a huge difference between those with $$ in their eyes and those getting excited about the shiny product.  and education/experience/networth can be the same.

 

it's really funny to watch some of the techies responses.  think of the aliens from toy story . .     ooohhhh, awwww, shiny . . . .

[Riverland]

Well, I do believe that the most successful/skilled people are those who started at the bottom and had to work their way up. But that does not mean that I hold a grudge against people who were born into money. However, I certainly *do not* consider someone who was born wealthy and never did anything more than live off the inheritance to be successful. Nor is that the kind of person who should be running the U.S. economy.

Edited June 23, 2017 by SummerDays

[gardenmom5]

Well, I do believe that the most successful/skilled people are those who started at the bottom and had to work their way up. But that does not mean that I hold a grudge against people who were born into money. However, I certainly *do not* consider someone who was born wealthy and never did anything more than live off the inheritance to be successful. Nor is that is not the kind of person who should be running the U.S. economy.

 

bill gate's comment on how much money he plans on leaving his kids. (a small fraction of his networth)  enough to do what they want, but not enough to do nothing.

[MotherGoose]

Not sure if you all watched the Big Short. (FYI: horrible language in it and some sexual scenes [just disclosing that for some posters]), but it is the run-down of what caused the 2008-2009 crash. Having read on the topic, I think Hollywood did a decent job of portraying exactly what occurred leading up to the event.

 

Anyway, the star of the movie is Christian Bale. He plays Michael Burry, the IRL man who happens to be a physician turned investment banker, who mathematically saw the entire thing coming and looming. To their discredit, numerous people laughed him off - what did he know? He was correct and he gave warning.

 

I say that the U.S. ought to hire the best for the job based on the full resume, not just the job candidate's bottom line or net worth. My Michael Burry example is to demonstrate the point that it is often the people least likely to "get" something who do it the best (in some cases).

 

Basically, for good or bad, we all do tend to surround ourselves with like-minded or like-experienced people. You see it in so many aspects of life. It is the way humans are and I do not think we do it out of meanness or neglect of others. I think we do it out of natural comfort. But it can be to our detriment.

Re: seeing the whole thing coming and being laughed off: I claim no expertise whatsoever in finance, although I can add and observe. We had a house that went up about 30% in value (thank God we sold it when It was high in 2004, and then it went up some absurd amount of money after we sold it, until the crash. I always said "where are all these people working that can afford these crazy mortgages? " I knew jobs people had, approximate salaries, saw new cars, fancy vacations, etc. answer is, of course, that they couldn't afford them but the banks would loan money to a flea back then. That was, of course, a recipe for disaster. People just rode that crazy train as long as they could and lots of people made a lot of money. And lost it. That's only part of the mess, of course. The banks should have realized this was a problem long before the crash, but they were encouraged to loan money to people to whom they should never have loaned it. Again I'm no economic scholar....I will have to see that movie.

[Kanin]

And don't give a hoot that they did so... They're basking in their millions.  One knows nobody could adequately live on less.

 

Yes! Why?! I wonder ALL the time why the wealthy don't give away more money. I realize that celebrities and such DO give away millions each year, but there is more than enough money to go around... to feed everyone... to give everyone a good education... to have clean water. It blows my mind.

[Crimson Wife]

 

Even in the business world, those with the most success and experience usually have the highest positions. There's a reason for that.

 

Unfortunately this is not true these days. Success is more about what doors your connections can open for you than competence. We like to pretend we're a "meritocracy" but nepotism wins out over merit 9 times out of 10 (or more).

 

Smart and hardworking people from poor and lower-middle-class backgrounds can rise to upper-middle-class through merit, but they're not able to compete on a level playing field for the most lucrative positions against their colleagues who grew up wealthy.

[creekland]

Yes! Why?! I wonder ALL the time why the wealthy don't give away more money. I realize that celebrities and such DO give away millions each year, but there is more than enough money to go around... to feed everyone... to give everyone a good education... to have clean water. It blows my mind.

 

The common belief is they earned it - they deserve it.  They're "better" than those who don't earn as much.  A huge number of people ascribe status (and intelligence) to wealth.  It's not just the wealthy who do this.  Many minions are also in awe of someone with wealth for no other reason than their perceived finances.  It's why advertisers are able to capitalize on "looking successful."  Few take time to see if there actually is a correlation for an individual or not.

[creekland]

Unfortunately this is not true these days. Success is more about what doors your connections can open for you than competence. We like to pretend we're a "meritocracy" but nepotism wins out over merit 9 times out of 10 (or more).

 

This is what I see as well - along with the advantages being middle or upper class can give in opportunities.  I won't say no one can make it, but it's definitely not common - even in smaller businesses.