Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#121

Post by ethanbond » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #75

ethanbond wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't be on it, being poor in America still means you have more money than everyone in the world, including more than the middle class in most EU nations. Source?

OECD median income per country: http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm The US poverty line household income is $22,541, this is more than the median income in Poland, and not that far from the median household income in developed countries like Belgium.

Aside from the obvious omission of cost of living, you're also conflating income with wealth.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#122

Post by peller » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #98

peller wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I was getting at is that the subject matter often isn't applicable to helping them solve their specific problems. Education (curriculums) shouldn't be one-size-fits-all.

What subject matters do you think are substantially neglected by the American educational system that fails to reflect the needs of the poor? How should curricula be changed? What specific problems are unaddressed?

Well I imagine the needs of inner-city-poor and rural-poor are often different, to pick two extremes. But I myself have never lived either of those lives, and I've only interacted with the rural-poor (through volunteer organizations). So, I can't really know their needs. But where I'd start, is with what I might call the "forbidden subjects" - stuff you and I probably learned from our families, if we were lucky. Interpersonal relationship skills, managing personal finances, and probably most importantly, mental patterns/attitudes/habits/priorities for more effective use of the mind. (Because complacency is effectively the "default state" of the amygdala. And combined with ignorance of the mind's ways, it can only stay that way.)

If you can stomach some underground hip hip, here's a track by Dead Prez for one anecdotal inner-city perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8IUbVQRqAk

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#123

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

wnevets wrote: post #100

Its much easier to make money when you already have money, ever had to play monopoly while behind?

[deleted]

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#124

Post by falcolas » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

mac01021 wrote: post #26

This doesn't seem particularly remarkable to me. > Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. They're saying social mobility (up or down) is attainable for 85% of each group. And graduating college is not really the same as making all the right choices...

The linked PDF's conclusions and figures gives a bit more context; the numbers are not 85%. From the PDF, rich means the top 20th percentile of income, whereas poor is the bottom 20th percentile.

For the dropouts, you only have a 46% chance of mobility if you're poor. For the college graduates, only 63% of the rich will be downward bound.

Another interesting bit: a poor dropout is more likely to remain poor as a rich dropout has to remain in the top three quintiles of income. They also have only a one percent chance of bucking the trends and becoming rich.

A rich college graduate has almost 2x the chance of remaining rich as a poor graduate has of getting rich.

Also, the country heatmap of percentages of people who achieve mobility is very telling as well.

In all, college appears to be a good equalizer for mobility; but given that most people want to be upwardly mobile, you probably don't want to be poor to begin with. Also, don't be born out of wedlock or black. If you really want the best chance of living the "American Dream", your best chance is to be born to white, rich, continuously married parents, and go to college.

https://www.bostonfed.org/inequality2014/papers/reeves-sawhi...

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#125

Post by falcolas » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #48

mac01021 wrote: post #26

This doesn't seem particularly remarkable to me. > Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. They're saying social mobility (up or down) is attainable for 85% of each group. And graduating college is not really the same as making all the right choices...

It's also saying that if you're a rich kid and you drop out of high school, you're likely to be relatively poor by age 40. And the median poor kid that went to college and graduated is likely to be better off than you at 40. Seems... quite good actually.

Until you compare college graduates to college graduates, or dropouts to dropouts.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#126

Post by unclebucknasty » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

mac01021 wrote: post #26

This doesn't seem particularly remarkable to me. > Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. They're saying social mobility (up or down) is attainable for 85% of each group. And graduating college is not really the same as making all the right choices...

>graduating college is not really the same as making all the right choices...

Perhaps, but completing college is generally considered to be a better choice than is dropping out of high school. And it is generally associated with better decision-making and better outcomes.

Whether it should be or whether it's changing may be subject to debate, but we have generally rewarded that choice in the past, all things being equal.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#127

Post by rustynails » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

abrahamepton wrote: post #71

blfr wrote: post #49

But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class…

This is one of the most HN comments ever. Without getting into the nature-vs-nurture debate for the trillionth time, "Actually, mostly a matter of genes because this is by far the biggest influence parents have on their kids" is a totally preposterous statement. Genes are certainly AN influence, but I think my parents' encouraging my nerdiness, buying me a graphing calculator in high school and surrounding me with co…

My view is anecdotal. I come from a family with adopted children. My siblings say how I talk, act and think like our parents. I am the only biological child of our parents.

Does this prove IQ? No. however, I would be astounded if there was no relationship (just looks, voice, height, thought patterns, but no IQ correlation).

At the same time, my kids are quite different from each other. However, my siblings' kids reflect their parents and have diverged significantly from my family far more so than my kids diverge from each other.

My eldest brother (as an example), earned good money but spent it all. He put very little love or effort into his kids, despite him being raised in a household of caring and sharing. He's also a drinker and drug taker. His kids all have troubles with drugs and alcohol.

This is nothing like my family. We have continued down a path of caring and sharing and support quite a few community activities.

I'm not inclined to equate IQ directly, but, I am strongly inclined to say "there is a lot more than just looks that gets passed down to children".

My eldest sister is a behavioural clone of her biological mother. They didn't know each other until their 20s. That was the moment I knew that behaviour could be inherited by children, because my eldest sister is an aggressive hedonist. No drugs, just wild partying and ladette behaviour.

The other aspect of this article that is true is that luck favours the prepared. Some people send their kids to private schools so they can Mingle with other well-to-dos.

What I do like about today's society is that there is a wealth of opportunity if you look for it, regardless of socioeconomic status. I am a huge believer in opportunity but I totally reject political correctness (and any other prejudice for that matter, PC just happens to be the most popular prejudice today).

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#128

Post by refurb » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #58

refurb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reagan was last president almost 30 years ago. Time to blame someone else.

Yeah, everyone knows that causality has a hard limit of 25 years! It's a ruse to imply that Reagan's policies don't play a role in this. GP didn't claim that he's exclusively responsible, just that correcting those mistakes would be a good place to start. Do you think that kids aren't thrown in jail every single day for war-on-drug offenses simply because Reagan was president almost 30 years ago?

just that correcting those mistakes would be a good place to start

That's my point. Regan has been dead for a while, he can't fix things now. If you don't like how things are going, blame the current people in power.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#129

Post by code_sardaukar » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

abrahamepton wrote: post #71

blfr wrote: post #49

But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class…

This is one of the most HN comments ever. Without getting into the nature-vs-nurture debate for the trillionth time, "Actually, mostly a matter of genes because this is by far the biggest influence parents have on their kids" is a totally preposterous statement. Genes are certainly AN influence, but I think my parents' encouraging my nerdiness, buying me a graphing calculator in high school and surrounding me with co…

Actually the smug, dismissive tone of your comment is equally common on HN. Neither you nor the OP have given direct evidence on the matter, and it is presumptuous to think that the narrative you presented trumps the OP's vague reference to twin studies.

A quick google study yields "Using 15 years of data on Finnish twins, we find that 24% (54%) of the variance of women’s (men’s) lifetime income is due to genetic factors and that the contribution of the shared environment is negligible."[0] But I don't want to claim this is the final word, it's just the kind of evidence that is useful rather than blithe assertions and name calling.

[0] https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER...

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#130

Post by adamnemecek » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #98

peller wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I was getting at is that the subject matter often isn't applicable to helping them solve their specific problems. Education (curriculums) shouldn't be one-size-fits-all.

What subject matters do you think are substantially neglected by the American educational system that fails to reflect the needs of the poor? How should curricula be changed? What specific problems are unaddressed?

The main issue is that you don't really learn anything in depth. You get some sort of very general overview but your knowledge still has so many gaps. If you make the educational system more efficient, when you leave the reformed high school, you might actually be somewhat proficient at X.