Poor People and High Level Jobs

[Murphy101]

People keeping saying economist like it's magical. There's stupid selfish jerk economists. It's not like that one degree is a sure fire ticket to genius or wisdom. I think I'd rather have a historician personally. If we could just avoid screwing up the same as previous governments/people, that'd maybe be an improvement.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Murphy101

[Frances]

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.

Then maybe the employers need to invest in some job training or pay more to attract the employees they want. At least in my state, generally speaking, the jobs that go unfilled pay very little and have few, if any, benefits. They are not jobs that will support a family. And many will not even support an individual in the most expensive parts of the state. Over the years I've known lots of intelligent, skilled, and hard working people who applied for hundreds of jobs before getting even one interview. And statistics show most jobs in the US are obtained through connections. I'm very skeptical when employers claim they can't find qualified people. I think what they usually mean is they can't find people to hit the floor running at the wages they are willing to pay.

[Murphy101]

Yes, if you noticed, I said there are good reasons to not choose an economist.

 

But surely, one should have some knowledge re the economy!

One can only hope.

 

I wasn't targeting you personally. You aren't the only one I've noticing saying we need business leaders or economic majors in government.

[Murphy101]

Then maybe the employers need to invest in some job training or pay more to attract the employees they want. At least in my state, generally speaking, the jobs that go unfilled pay very little and have few, if any, benefits. They are not jobs that will support a family. And many will not even support an individual in the most expensive parts of the state. Over the years I've known lots of intelligent, skilled, and hard working people who applied for hundreds of jobs before getting even one interview. And statistics show most jobs in the US are obtained through connections. I'm very skeptical when employers claim they can't find qualified people. I think what they usually mean is they can't find people to hit the floor running at the wages they are willing to pay.

This x10.

 

There's usually a reason people aren't doing the work and contrary to propaganda, it's usually not because they are stupid or lazy.

 

My son has one of those jobs. It's never permanent. It's always temp work. No benefits. No stability. And it's hard on the body, so only the healthy can do it and any health hit means they can't work.

 

Ditch digging pays really really good. And there's a reason people aren't eager to do it and there's a reason those who do it most of their working lives usuakly don't want their children to follow them into the work.

 

Coal mining was a fabulously well paying job, high cancer risk and poor long term health not with-standing I guess.

 

People never seem to know these correlations. Or maybe they do and they just think poor people are expendable anyways. I never know which to think it is.

[Lanny]

I think a lot of the unfilled jobs are between White Collar and Blue Collar and require special training and experience. Certain kinds of Welders for one example. When I was young some people went into an Apprenticeship program to learn a trade or how to fix something. Now it seems everyone is college bound and that few people can fix things. Not everyone is going to be successful or happy in a university. I don't believe that all of the unfilled positions are low pay. I think many of them pay 50K to 100K for an experienced person

 

 

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

[Ausmumof3]

I think a lot of the unfilled jobs are between White Collar and Blue Collar and require special training and experience. Certain kinds of Welders for one example. When I was young some people went into an Apprenticeship program to learn a trade or how to fix something. Now it seems everyone is college bound and that few people can fix things. Not everyone is going to be successful or happy in a university. I don't believe that all of the unfilled positions are low pay. I think many of them pay 50K to 100K for an experienced person

 

 

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

I think the thing with welding is it's almost an art at a certain level. Anyone can get the certificate but having the motor skill control to achieve some kinds of welding requires talent and experience.

[Mergath]

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.

 

I don't know, I think I'd rather have an experienced teacher running the education department than the current yahoo we have in there. One of the few topics I've seen that both sides of the political spectrum seem to agree on is that she is one hundred percent unqualified for the job.

 

[goldberry]

. I think many of them pay 50K to 100K for an experienced person

 

 

That's the kicker though, isn't it?  Experienced.  When DD was researching jobs, she was interested in ultrasound technician.  There are quite a few jobs in the area for 2-5 years experience.  But those right out of the program are leaving the field because literally NO ONE is hiring without previous experience.  Or, they have to move to an undesirable area of the country to find such a job, which many cannot afford to do right out of school.

 

That's part of it.  There used to be apprenticeship programs, etc.  Many companies just will not hire someone without experience anymore.  But how do people get experience then??

[Mergath]

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

 

The person who said the quote that inspired this discussion filled high level positions primarily with wealthy political donors who, in many cases, have zero knowledge about the department they're running. So I think we can safely say that when he says he wants rich people in these positions, he really does mean rich people, regardless of whether or not any skill went into acquiring that money. You don't need a PhD to write a check with a lot of zeroes to a political candidate.

[MotherGoose]

That's the kicker though, isn't it? Experienced. When DD was researching jobs, she was interested in ultrasound technician. There are quite a few jobs in the area for 2-5 years experience. But those right out of the program are leaving the field because literally NO ONE is hiring without previous experience. Or, they have to move to an undesirable area of the country to find such a job, which many cannot afford to do right out of school.

 

That's part of it. There used to be apprenticeship programs, etc. Many companies just will not hire someone without experience anymore. But how do people get experience then??

I realize there is a certain degree of "Rich people " bias in this, but I remember the same thing when I was a social worker, or even waited tables. You have to do internships or volunteer to get experience. (Obviously for waiting tables you would start in a low end restaurant and work your way up. :D) but you have to be able to live while you get these experiences. And, while you are interning or whatever you meet people who can help you get a better job.

[MommyLiberty5013]

This may be trending political now. Just sayin' now that a person in a current governmental office has been called a "yahoo."

 

It's very much on the line.

 

I vote it stays neutral or it gets ended. Fair?

[Ausmumof3]

Well... Jesus was born to a poor family in a stable so I find it kind of weird that Christians would think wealth was some kind of qualification. If we want to get biblical most of the famous biblical leader came from low profile backgrounds - they are almost all rags to riches stories.

 

Without being too specific most of the high profile people with significant property that I know of have borderline dishonest practices and use every legal loophole to get out of paying. If anything I think in almost all cases extreme wealth should be a disqualification except maybe when it came about because of some brilliant and life changing invention.

 

I think the most important qualification for the job are honesty and integrity and an understanding of economics. The bank balance shouldn't matter.

[MommyLiberty5013]

I'm also curious how you all define "rich person." Keep in mind the 1% that we read about of Americans are at the billionaire level.

 

My dad was the first in his family to get a college degree. They were scraping by. I'm not sure how he did it. Architecture. Then he worked his way up at a single company. He retired two years ago as a VP. Along the way, he saved and lived frugally (the millionaire next door). You'd never guess it. Seriously. He drives an older Toyota Camry.

 

But along the way, he learned how to fit in and speak, dine and when needed, dress, the part. There's education. There's experience and there is adaptability. Not everyone can adapt to their audience.

 

I think being able to walk comfortably in a sub-culture is what makes people successful.

[Katy]

The thing I think is missing from this equation is the pragmatism of the upper middle class.  If your parents have high paying jobs, not inherited wealth, they are going to encourage you to get educated for a high paying job.  Not just any college degree.  STEM, Finance, Accounting, Healthcare, etc.

 

I went to a high school with a lot of lower-middle class people.  Even the higher earning families were doing things like contracting and farming, not upper middle class jobs.  Then I went to a fancy university in New England and it was a bit of a culture shock how many people knew what they wanted to do and chose it because it was the thing they thought would come easiest to them in the income bracket they wanted to be in. MOST people at that school had the same philosophy, and it was instilled by their parents. Their parents had pushed them not just towards a good college, but a high paying field.  And most of them had parents who were doctors, engineers, investment bankers, or who were president of some company.

 

I would also argue that the groups of immigrants who do extremely well financially here do so because they culturally pressure their children toward high income fields.

 

Now that sort of pragmatism is never going to make you a billionaire - for that you have to risk the high paying job you were educated for, be poor for a while, figure out a problem you can solve with a business and a solution that many people will use every day, and then sell the company. That is the sort of innovation that creates extreme wealth. But that sort of wealth is still extremely limited in terms of percentages.

[creekland]

This may be trending political now. Just sayin' now that a person in a current governmental office has been called a "yahoo."

 

It's very much on the line.

 

I vote it stays neutral or it gets ended. Fair?

 

I agree.  Anyone wanting to delve into current politics with this really should head to the other thread.  The link is in the first post and I think anyone can join the group?  I see several signed up today.

[gardenmom5]

Then maybe the employers need to invest in some job training or pay more to attract the employees they want. At least in my state, generally speaking, the jobs that go unfilled pay very little and have few, if any, benefits. They are not jobs that will support a family. And many will not even support an individual in the most expensive parts of the state. Over the years I've known lots of intelligent, skilled, and hard working people who applied for hundreds of jobs before getting even one interview. And statistics show most jobs in the US are obtained through connections. I'm very skeptical when employers claim they can't find qualified people. I think what they usually mean is they can't find people to hit the floor running at the wages they are willing to pay.

 

I've found job postings do a lot of overly demanding for their postings - and they will hire someone with fewer qualifications.  however, by having higher "requirements" - they can more easily not hire someone who doesn't have the personality they want, even if they have the minimum skills.

dd is in tech - she's been there with a lot who have those "minimum skills", do get hired, but then due to their lifestyle choices - can't get that security clearance - so they get "let go".

 

she's been hired for jobs she applied to - even though she didn't meet the "posted requirements". 

 

 

The thing I think is missing from this equation is the pragmatism of the upper middle class.  If your parents have high paying jobs, not inherited wealth, they are going to encourage you to get educated for a high paying job.  Not just any college degree.  STEM, Finance, Accounting, Healthcare, etc.

 

I went to a high school with a lot of lower-middle class people.  Even the higher earning families were doing things like contracting and farming, not upper middle class jobs.  Then I went to a fancy university in New England and it was a bit of a culture shock how many people knew what they wanted to do and chose it because it was the thing they thought would come easiest to them in the income bracket they wanted to be in. MOST people at that school had the same philosophy, and it was instilled by their parents. Their parents had pushed them not just towards a good college, but a high paying field.  And most of them had parents who were doctors, engineers, investment bankers, or who were president of some company.

 

I would also argue that the groups of immigrants who do extremely well financially here do so because they culturally pressure their children toward high income fields.

 

Now that sort of pragmatism is never going to make you a billionaire - for that you have to risk the high paying job you were educated for, be poor for a while, figure out a problem you can solve with a business and a solution that many people will use every day, and then sell the company. That is the sort of innovation that creates extreme wealth. But that sort of wealth is still extremely limited in terms of percentages.

 

this is something that has been blowing me away of late.  I wonder if it's just me, or what.  I'm around a lot of families with generally good incomes. college educations - at least for the dad. . . . the number of them that don't give a rip what classes the kids take, and are NOT pointing them towards a college education (or even an apprenticeship that has good marketable skills) - has been astounding to me. 

 

I'm thinking one particular family where both parents have STEM college degrees and work in STEM - their father's both had STEM (one mom was a teacher and always worked) degrees and worked.  but kids aren't pointed at pre-college course work in high school -but let them take whatever they want.  which is limiting when it comes to post high school plans.   I know multiple families like this, and I dont' understand it.  and the few kids who do go to college.. major in the arts or something you really struggle to make a decent living to support themselves, let alone be comfortable for a family.  

 

the number of families I consider like me - strongly encourage all the kids to do college-prep classes in high school, and get a marketable college education that will make enough to support a family, (or at least marketable skills) - and not take whatever "fun" class strikes their fancy . . .. feels like the exception.

 

 

 

I agree with the second highlighted.  that's been my first-hand observation of multiple immigrant families I've known. there's one dad who as a boy in china, his dream was to have a farm with pigs and chickens.  then they immigrated to the US - all of  his children have college educations.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I think being able to walk comfortably in a sub-culture is what makes people successful.

 

People can learn to do that but when senior management tells the direct supervisor to eliminate 1 of 2 positions and Person A's dad is CEO of a major client while Person B's dad is a low level civil servant, is there any question who gets the pink slip?

 

[creekland]

People can learn to do that but when senior management tells the direct supervisor to eliminate 1 of 2 positions and Person A's dad is CEO of a major client while Person B's dad is a low level civil servant, is there any question who gets the pink slip?

 

 

It's not much different with who gets the job to begin with when it comes down to situations like that.

[kitten18]

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.

I guess it depends on the industry. I know many top level executives and CEOs, none of them grew up wealthy, they went to State Universities and worked their way to the top.

They definitely have connections, but they were all connections they made after college in their professional lives.

[Frances]

I think a lot of the unfilled jobs are between White Collar and Blue Collar and require special training and experience. Certain kinds of Welders for one example. When I was young some people went into an Apprenticeship program to learn a trade or how to fix something. Now it seems everyone is college bound and that few people can fix things. Not everyone is going to be successful or happy in a university. I don't believe that all of the unfilled positions are low pay. I think many of them pay 50K to 100K for an experienced person

 

 

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

But there's the rub. They want experienced people, so who's going to take the trained but inexperienced person and give them the chance to get experience? Has the employer set up an apprentice or internship program? Worked with the local high school, community college, or technical school to create a pipeline? And I was referring to actual statistics from the employment department in my state. The majority of hard to fill positions are CNA, retail, manual labor, etc.

[creekland]

I guess it depends on the industry. I know many top level executives and CEOs, none of them grew up wealthy, they went to State Universities and worked their way to the top.

They definitely have connections, but they were all connections they made after college in their professional lives.

 

How many grew up poor or lower middle class?

 

I haven't found state vs private U to make a difference.  Many flagship state universities are super good.  

 

I have seen a difference in ability to go to college to make those connections.  I've also seen networking beyond direct family ties even outside of college.  (A family friend knows someone, etc.)  The middle class and wealthy are more likely to have those sorts of network connections.

[Mergath]

This may be trending political now. Just sayin' now that a person in a current governmental office has been called a "yahoo."

 

It's very much on the line.

 

I vote it stays neutral or it gets ended. Fair?

 

I'm sorry, but you don't appear to be a mod, so how exactly are you going to end the post if it doesn't stay neutral enough for you?

[Mergath]

I agree.  Anyone wanting to delve into current politics with this really should head to the other thread.  The link is in the first post and I think anyone can join the group?  I see several signed up today.

 

It isn't political if I think she's unqualified based on her complete lack of qualifications and terrible history in education. It wouldn't matter who appointed her- I'd be horrified either way, as is pretty much everyone on both sides of the aisle.

[SKL]

People keeping saying economist like it's magical. There's stupid selfish jerk economists. It's not like that one degree is a sure fire ticket to genius or wisdom. I think I'd rather have a historician personally. If we could just avoid screwing up the same as previous governments/people, that'd maybe be an improvement.

 

Yep, I've worked with economists who are absolute bastards.  I've worked with economists who are stupid.  I worked with at least two at the IRS who were either mentally ill or senile.  Economists can be quite rich.  I've never actually met one who was poor, but I'm sure they exist too.

 

[MommyLiberty5013]

People can learn to do that but when senior management tells the direct supervisor to eliminate 1 of 2 positions and Person A's dad is CEO of a major client while Person B's dad is a low level civil servant, is there any question who gets the pink slip?

 

 

Nepotism certainly is an issue. You've mentioned it at least twice that I can recall in this thread.

 

People do like to "keep things in the family" and "blood is thicker than wine" sort of stuff. But everybody always has favorites, right? Even in the dance and the little league teams. If you are "in" you are "in" and sorry if you are on the outside. It goes for kids too on the playground right on up to the executive leadership in companies and government.

 

I am not disagreeing with you. But since it is such human nature to play favorites based on family and friends, across the spectrum of activities and demographics, I guess I do not see how we can effectively battle nepotism.

 

Yes, you could say you cannot hire/refer a relative or a friend, but then you get into how do you define what "is" is. What IS a friend? What IS a family member? What if you are cousins twice removed or something?

 

What is networking if not an euphemism for nepotism? Because let's just be honest, everybody wants Uncle Steve to help their kid, if Uncle Steve is in a position to legally do so and willing to help. Someone would be a fool to not use that "network." So yes, in theory nepotism stinks, but we are all doing it in some degree.

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by MommyLiberty5013

[kitten18]

How many grew up poor or lower middle class?

 

I haven't found state vs private U to make a difference. Many flagship state universities are super good.

 

I have seen a difference in ability to go to college to make those connections. I've also seen networking beyond direct family ties even outside of college. (A family friend knows someone, etc.) The middle class and wealthy are more likely to have those sorts of network connections.

I would say most of them grew up lower middle class. They come from small midwestern towns. They worked their way through college and took out student loans. They made a name for themselves and made connections after college.

[SKL]

People can learn to do that but when senior management tells the direct supervisor to eliminate 1 of 2 positions and Person A's dad is CEO of a major client while Person B's dad is a low level civil servant, is there any question who gets the pink slip?

 

 

I think over time there is a Darwin effect though.  Yes, I've seen firms tolerate mediocrity because of influence (perceived or actual), but it costs them and reduces their respect / rankings in the long run.

 

That said, most of the time a very successful, intelligent, hard-working professional is going to have children with brains and a work ethic.  So it should not feel wrong to see generations of people in successful careers.  It should not be assumed that none of that is deserved.

 

[SKL]

The person who said the quote that inspired this discussion filled high level positions primarily with wealthy political donors who, in many cases, have zero knowledge about the department they're running. So I think we can safely say that when he says he wants rich people in these positions, he really does mean rich people, regardless of whether or not any skill went into acquiring that money. You don't need a PhD to write a check with a lot of zeroes to a political candidate.

 

I didn't hear the word "rich" in the quote from his mouth, but maybe my English isn't as good as I thought.

 

[Paige]

 

That said, most of the time a very successful, intelligent, hard-working professional is going to have children with brains and a work ethic.  So it should not feel wrong to see generations of people in successful careers.  It should not be assumed that none of that is deserved.

 

 

It's true that children of successful people are often smart and hard working. What is not true is that they are necessarily smarter or work harder than children of people who have more modest backgrounds. If you have 2 equal candidates and one has powerful connections and the other doesn't, the more powerful person will likely get the job. That doesn't mean he or she deserved it more nor does it mean he or she won't do an excellent job. Because they perform adequately or even very well, they and those around them think they deserved it more than the other- a successful outcome must mean the right choice was made, right? In reality, either person would have been successful but only one consistently gets doors opened for him or her.

[SKL]

It's true that children of successful people are often smart and hard working. What is not true is that they are necessarily smarter or work harder than children of people who have more modest backgrounds. If you have 2 equal candidates and one has powerful connections and the other doesn't, the more powerful person will likely get the job. That doesn't mean he or she deserved it more nor does it mean he or she won't do an excellent job. Because they perform adequately or even very well, they and those around them think they deserved it more than the other- a successful outcome must mean the right choice was made, right? In reality, either person would have been successful but only one consistently gets doors opened for him or her.

 

Well, I worked with a guy who was hired because he *claimed* to have all kinds of connections.  He could drop names like anything.  Every executive in the USA was his best friend.  Damn.  I was lucky if I could remember the names of my siblings.  It had nothing to do with his parents, and everything to do with his gift of gab.

 

He was also a liar.  If those people knew him, they couldn't stand him.  He managed to hold onto his job for a while, partly because the boss would have been embarrassed to fire him so soon, and partly because he claimed to have sick kids who would be destroyed if he lost his job.  (I don't know if that was true either.)  This used to thoroughly chap my hide because he was hired to eventually be my BOSS and he was a bona fide idiot and lazy to boot.  He also used to touch people in creepy ways.  Blech.  I used to say I'd reach Nirvana the day I learned how to "love" that man.  :p  But, eventually he was fired.  Way too late, but it did happen.

 

My point is, connections may get a person a job, but it isn't necessary that those connections are inherited.  I know immigrants with amazing connections that they certainly did not inherit.  Some people are really good at both making connections and leveraging them.  (I am not one of those people.  :p)  And even if you do have apparent connections, you still aren't going to succeed if you don't know how to leverage them to help the people who pay your salary.

 

I'm not saying we have a pure meritocracy in the US - far from it.  I've seen it many times, and ground layers of enamel off my teeth.  But it isn't as black and white as some make it sound.

Edited June 24, 2017 by SKL

[gardenmom5]

  Some people are really good at both making connections and leveraging them.  (I am not one of those people.  :p)  And even if you do have apparent connections, you still aren't going to succeed if you don't know how to leverage them to help the people who pay your salary.

 

I'm not saying we have a pure meritocracy in the US - far from it.  I've seen it many times, and ground layers of enamel off my teeth.  But it isn't as black and white as some make it sound.

 

dh has a cousin he has joked knew when to speak - and when to shut up.  he was certainly qualified - but he had those abilities that go beyond the academic.  he retired very high up in a major multinational corporation after heading an overseas division. he made his own connections.  his father worked for a school district.

[creekland]

dh has a cousin he has joked knew when to speak - and when to shut up.  he was certainly qualified - but he had those abilities that go beyond the academic.  he retired very high up in a major multinational corporation after heading an overseas division. he made his own connections.  his father worked for a school district.

 

I'm sure all of us can come up with anecdotes because they're out there, both those with wealthy parents who do nothing with their lives and those from "nowhere" who end up making it.

 

BUT, no one is surprised when my kids do well and no one is surprised when kids from school without a middle class pedigree do not.  Mine will never make it into the super wealthy (no desire from any of them), but that's just not a big focus in any of our lives.

 

At the wealthy private school I went to, the one year I saw stats for, 98% of the graduating class went on to a 4 year college (some state, some private - all known names).  The two who didn't?  One immediately joined dad's business and the other was trying out for an Olympic team.

 

We don't get anywhere near those stats at the public school where I work.  This is absolutely fine, of course.  Not everyone needs college to be successful earning a living, but if the stats show (and they do) that the majority of the wealthy have college educations and those college educated usually earn more over a lifetime than their peers, there's a definite correlation even if there are anecdotes.  Is it solely "college?"  A brief glance at the link posted near the beginning of this thread seems to cast doubt.

 

But that all strays far from my original intent which is wondering if massive amounts of money should be the litmus test for high level gov't positions.  I still say no, it shouldn't be.  I think many of those with massive amounts of money have no idea how the majority of citizens live and that can get quite worrisome with only wealthy folks creating public policy for everyone.

Edited June 24, 2017 by creekland

[Crimson Wife]

 

What is networking if not an euphemism for nepotism? Because let's just be honest, everybody wants Uncle Steve to help their kid, if Uncle Steve is in a position to legally do so and willing to help. Someone would be a fool to not use that "network." So yes, in theory nepotism stinks, but we are all doing it in some degree.

 

 

There is a HUGE difference between networking based on one's own efforts and nepotism. I've been doing a lot of networking over the past couple of years as I've been gearing up for a career relaunch. But what I've been doing anyone can do. That is VERY different from "Daddy is on the hospital board so he's going to talk to the CEO about getting me a job in their speech therapy department".

[emzhengjiu]

Don't veer into politics, please!

[gardenmom5]

I'

At the wealthy private school I went to, the one year I saw stats for, 98% of the graduating class went on to a 4 year college (some state, some private - all known names).  The two who didn't?  One immediately joined dad's business and the other was trying out for an Olympic team.

 

We don't get anywhere near those stats at the public school where I work. 

 

when you have 98% of kids heading to college - those kids have been getting that message of "go to college" since they were in elementary school.  and probably earlier starting with their parents.   the attitude of the school admin will be "this is a college prep program" and there will be an underlying expectation of college.  they don't have to say anything overt, it's just there.   my girls college (they went to the same one) has a very high 4-year graduation rate.  they don't tolerate nonsense, they want them graduated and moving on. (many go to grad school).  changing majors isn't allowed. . ..  that delays graduation, and prevents other students from entering due to lack of available slots.

 

as I previously pointed out - it astounds me the number of college educated middle class people I know, including STEM majors, who do NOT pass that attitude of "get an education"/aim-high to their kids.  they don't care if they take college prep classes - or not.  they don't care if they don't' go to college - or not.  (well, maybe they'll start to care when the kid is a senior in high school, but that is very very late into the game).

 

families who value education - instill that attitude in their children starting from the time they're small.  whether they be "upper class" - or recent immigrant. . . . 

[FaithManor]

One thing that strikes me is that the government was originally intended to represent the people, the majority. The high level positions we have now are filled by the top 5% if not 2%. That is not representative of our nation.

 

We need regular people in our communities whose life experience is not so narrow to serve in these positions. I have found that the very well to do and wealthy have extraordinarily limited experience with anyone outside their own set apart from say "the household help".

 

I honestly think the best people to be in leadership would be ones that spent their early twenties and thirties clawing their way out of low income into the middle class.

 

There are a lot of factors, education, world experience, etc. But right now I would take the middle class guy from the GM IT department who spent ten years paying off student loans and eating Mac and cheese to do it who finally landed a good job with benefits over the profilesummer of a lot of our high positioned officials and advisers. There is a realism of what life is like for regular Joe that the others do not have.

[gardenmom5]

One thing that strikes me is that the government was originally intended to represent the people, the majority. The high level positions we have now are filled by the top 5% if not 2%. That is not representative of our nation.

 

 

and originally, only male landowners could vote. 

[FaithManor]

and originally, only male landowners could vote.

Very true. I was just thinking that economically they ran the gamut of farmers, lumbermen, countrystore owners, pastors, etc. Now it seems so much more limiting. Life long wealthy folks with a laundry list of lobbyists backing them. The guy that worked the line at Ford isn't going to get past at best the zoning board or county commissioners for position.

[gardenmom5]

Very true. I was just thinking that economically they ran the gamut of farmers, lumbermen, countrystore owners, pastors, etc. Now it seems so much more limiting. Life long wealthy folks with a laundry list of lobbyists backing them. The guy that worked the line at Ford isn't going to get past at best the zoning board or county commissioners for position.

 

I get what you're saying - but it was also a very different economy back then.  I'd settle for it not being a lifetime career.

 

however, I also listened to one person (don't even remember who it was) - who used to support that viewpoint, but made the observation that in practice, when you have inexperienced people - unelected lobbyists have even more power.

i think the better starting place is getting rid of lobbyists.

 

[FaithManor]

I would be happy to get rid of lobbyists. Profoundly happy! But we would still have major problems if the top 2% make up the bulk of high level positions. Their one sighted, concentrate the wealth in the hands of selves and friends, does not serve the other 98% of us, and their perspective is so narrow it staggers the imagination.

 

Term limits at the federal level would be a step in the right direction, but also limits on campaign spending too. Of course that does not serve their purposes so they will never pass legislation for that.

 

If anything a litmus test for these positions should start with "more than three million in assets do not need to apply". We need people who do not have much of a safety net in these jobs. I think that is the only way things will improve economically for most Americans.

 

As it is now, the upper crust runs the show as a for profit business with the vast majority of us seen as a nothing more than serfs who should be grateful to their medieval Lord's for allowing their mere survival.

 

Love of money....

 

At any rate, for starters I would be happy to see just a wider range of careers, education, perspectives occupying these positions.

 

As someone on Facebook said, "Where are the small business owners, scientists, school teachers, farmers, pharmacists, engineers, writers, artists...?" The lack of diversity really hurts us all.

[Murphy101]

Uhhh. Nearly all the founders were in the 5% wealthy of our nation at the time.

[Murphy101]

I don't have an issue with lobbiest or with career politicians. I think both aspect need regulating to limit corruption potential, but generally I think groups banding together to petition the govt representatives for what is important to them is not a bad thing in itself. And having some people who have been doing a job long term enough to know all the ins and outs of it and hopefully pass the knowledge on to new comers is also not a bad thing either.

 

Campaign reform would be fabulous. For example, I don't think any business or lobby should be able to fund candidates or parties. Let each individual put their own money forward and let each party and candidate have to seek the people directly for funding.

[amy g.]

I'm also curious how you all define "rich person." Keep in mind the 1% that we read about of Americans are at the billionaire level.

 

 

I do not believe every American who has an income in the top 1% is "at the billionaire level".

[Mergath]

I do not believe every American who has an income in the top 1% is "at the billionaire level".

It varies by state, but the minimum you need to be in the 1% is roughly a household income of 500k a year. The average is more like a million a year.

[SKL]

It is not true that only people born wealthy are in important government positions nowadays.  Compared to the founding of our country, it's been much, much more diverse in recent years, economically and otherwise.

 

I have an uncle who came from poverty and rose to a pretty high government position.  Started out in the air force at age 17.  He's had many people ask him to run for president over the years.  :)  I can think of a number of others in high government positions currently and recently who were not "born into it."

[gardenmom5]

I came across this http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/5-mindsets-to-give-up-if-you-want-to-get-rich/ar-BBD59NM?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp  and thought it relevant to the discussion.

 

and again - it has to do with an attitude towards money.  an attitude of delaying short term gratification for a long term goal.

 

eta; an article/book by keith cameron smith about the top 10 differences between millionaires and the middle class. 

Edited June 24, 2017 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

there's also a difference between "income" - and wealth.  wealth is tied up in capital, investments, concrete items.

[Frances]

I came across this http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/5-mindsets-to-give-up-if-you-want-to-get-rich/ar-BBD59NM?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp and thought it relevant to the discussion.

 

and again - it has to do with an attitude towards money. an attitude of delaying short term gratification for a long term goal.

 

eta; an article/book by keith cameron smith about the top 10 differences between millionaires and the middle class.

The one about instant gratification struck me as not being true, in general. Lots of middle and upper middle class people have spent years in school getting advanced professional or academic degrees and living on very little money. Not only have they delayed the gratification of material wealth, but it takes a lot is discipline to earn some advanced degrees. Now some of these people might eventually ended up being millionaires at or near retirement, but most are not going to be anywhere near the 1%.

 

In general, I do think the ability to delay gratification is an important part of success in many aspects of life. One of my son's preschool teachers said they purposely integrated it throughout their program. But I think you will find many people across the income spectrum who have this ability and many who lack it.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Frances

[gardenmom5]

The one about instant gratification struck me as not being true, in general. Lots of middle and upper middle class people have spent years in school getting advanced professional or academic degrees and living on very little money. Not only have they delayed the gratification of material wealth, but it takes a lot is discipline to earn some advanced degrees. Now some of these people might eventually ended up being millionaires at or near retirement, but most are not going to be anywhere near the 1%.

 

but wanting the house, wanting the car, wanting the overnight shipping . . . 

I recall listening to a young mom (as in - one baby) complain they couldn't afford to buy a house . . . . but they could afford to rent a big fancy house with way more toys than any kid needs . . . .

I know what her dh did - same thing as a nephew, worked at the some place, about the same age.   huge difference in how they spent money.

 

and how do they middle/vs/wealthy live when they're in college . . . what's their housing like?  what kind of car are they driving and how much did they spend on it?

did they take the spring break trip?  or stay and do something at school?

living at home?

what's their wardrobe like?

you might be surprised at how much some kids spend on extraneous junk when they're a college student.

I was left smh head at some of 2dd's grad school classmates.  she had half the debt load they did - because she lived a lot lower than they did.

 

Miss Manners made an observation, many years ago, . . . she attended Vassar? - anyway - the rich kids she knew had NO spending money provided by mom and dad.  .. . if they wanted money, they had to have a part time job, or they'd borrow it from their middle class friends - who had lots of spending money regularly provided by parents.

one difference  with that - they learn the value of a dollar.  there are stories around here of bill  gates making an ice cream trip to the medina store and annoying the people behind him in line because he was looking for the coupon in his pocket.  the people complaining wouldn't have bothered. 

(and I rarely use coupons - because they're almost always products I don't buy anyway.)

 

eta: here's a further link to the guy's book's ideas: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/18/things-millionaires-do-that-the-middle-class-doesnt.html?__source=msn|money|inline|story|&par=msn&doc=104547771|Cramer:Bitcoin-ethereum

Edited June 24, 2017 by gardenmom5

[Frances]

but wanting the house, wanting the car, wanting the overnight shipping . . .

I recall listening to a young mom (as in - one baby) complain they couldn't afford to buy a house . . . . but they could afford to rent a big fancy house with way more toys than any kid needs . . . .

I know what her dh did - same thing as a nephew, worked at the some place, about the same age. huge difference in how they spent money.

 

and how do they middle/vs/wealthy live when they're in college . . . what's their housing like? what kind of car are they driving and how much did they spend on it?

did they take the spring break trip? or stay and do something at school?

living at home?

what's their wardrobe like?

you might be surprised at how much some kids spend on extraneous junk when they're a college student.

I was left smh head at some of 2dd's grad school classmates. she had half the debt load they did - because she lived a lot lower than they did.

 

Miss Manners made an observation, many years ago, . . . she attended Vassar? - anyway - the rich kids she knew had NO spending money provided by mom and dad. .. . if they wanted money, they had to have a part time job, or they'd borrow it from their middle class friends - who had lots of spending money regularly provided by parents.

one difference with that - they learn the value of a dollar. there are stories around here of bill gates making an ice cream trip to the medina store and annoying the people behind him in line because he was looking for the coupon in his pocket. the people complaining wouldn't have bothered.

(and I rarely use coupons - because they're almost always products I don't buy anyway.)

 

eta: here's a further link to the guy's book's ideas: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/18/things-millionaires-do-that-the-middle-class-doesnt.html?__source=msn|money|inline|story|&par=msn&doc=104547771|Cramer:Bitcoin-ethereum

I don't disagree that some people make poor decisions about money and don't delay gratification and therefore will likely never be wealthy. However, there are many successful middle class and upper middle class people who do delay gratification, and will never be wealthy. They are as successful as they are in part due to delayed gratification, but it doesn't necessarily translate into wealth, at least not the 1% kind.

 

My husband and I lived at poverty level for many years while earning three advanced degrees between us. We've never bought a new car, never paid a cent of credit card interest, and live in the same house we bought when we had 1/5th the income. While we are certainly comfortable now and will likely retire with substantial savings and investments, we are nowhere near the 1%. And most of our friends and colleagues are similar.