Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How rich kids already won the career game

michaelochurch.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 275 posts

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#121

Post by Tycho »

Maro wrote: post #105
Tycho wrote: post #72

tl;dr: people with FU Money perform better in their jobs I suppose on the other hand you have to consider that rich kids have less motivation to succeed than middle/lower class people, if they already have all the material things they can realistically desire (the article also didn't site any studies to back up its statistics or claims, so you have to take it at face value)

I'm not rich, neither can I cite evidence to back this up, but looking around in my circle of friends, I don't agree with you. Rich(er) kids have just as much drive to work on interesting products, find new solutions to problems, etc. And they have the added benefit of not having to worry about making a baseline salary on the side, they can ask their parents to bootstrap them, to find first clients, etc. Sure you can…

Allow me to rephrase then: to the extent that lack of comfort/possessions motivates people to strive for better, rich kids will experience less motivation from that source. Of course they can always find motivation from other sources. I suppose you could also argue that everyone is motivated to maintain their current standards of living, rather than (or more than) elevate to something higher. So rich kids will find it unacceptable to settle for a middling income.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#122

Post by michaelchisari »

Much of this essay is based on the idea of social capital,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

I've found a lot of people, especially in the upper- and upper-middle classes, often deny the importance of social capital, but I find it to be very important.

Someone from wealth can lose all of their money, and still have the social capital necessary the maintain their class status.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#123

Post by zeemonkee »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #115
zeemonkee wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen. Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural, technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but w…

Modern logistics (c.f. Walmart) is a hugely significant technological breakthrough, and is arguably the foundation of our modern economy. It's not obvious to consumers because it happened behind the scenes, but don't neglect it's significance.

Modern logistics developed mainly during the Second World War and post-war period, along with the computer revolution. My point is however that the last few decades have seen a refinement of more revolutionary changes in the first half of the twentieth century.

For example, from 1902 - 1960 we went from the Kitty Hawk to the jet passenger plane. From 1960 we went from the jet plane to .... ? We're still flying around in planes developed in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Sure, maybe they have better navigation systems, they might be safer and so on, but these are refinements rather than revolutionary changes.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#124

Post by PakG1 »

danssig wrote: post #107
zeemonkee wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen. Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural, technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but w…

>The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off. >Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so. I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see i…

>> I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off.

Unfortunately, revolutions are nothing new. Bigger revolutions happened in the past quite impactfully without such technologies. These technologies perhaps add benefit in the arms race to better organize against government's controls for infrastructure, institutions, and society.

>> I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day. Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.

The same technology that people use for freedom, powers that be can use for more nefarious purposes. Technology in of itself is amoral and neutral. It's rather about who uses it more effectively. Today, the general populace perhaps has an advantage in that they're maybe more savvy than governments. Not necessarily will be the case all the time though. And besides that, it depends on whether people would love what Alexander stood for and would actually prefer to follow him. Look at what happened in Germany. Nobody better cite Godwin's Law here. Mein Kampf is seriously a great example of how a single idea, communication, or piece of media can rally the people to a cause that people in hindsight realized was incorrect. Technology can likewise be played by both sides.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#126

Post by watty »

Alex3917 wrote: post #90
watty wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, his point was that rich kids have better attitudes, skills and perceived work ethic which is simply not true. "Middle-class kids generally fuck up their first few years of the career game in one of two ways." - really??

"His point was that rich kids have better attitudes, skills and perceived work ethic which is simply not true." I mean I can point you to any number of academic studies confirming this, e.g. Hart & Risley's Meaningful Differences book. Or just go to any elite private university and compare the kids who are there during summer session with the kids who are there during the rest of the year. The only real difference is…

Sure, can you link me to an academic study that shows the average "rich kid" has a better attitude or work ethic than average kid in the middle class? Of course going to an elite university will show highly motivated students (of all classes). However, it doesn't show the rich kids who decided to do nothing with their lives because they've been pampered 24/7.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#127

Post by PakG1 »

smackfu wrote: post #104
ramanujan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relatedly, 60% of NBA Stars are bankrupt within 5 years after retirement: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3469271 Filing for bankruptcy is a long-standing tradition for NBA players, 60% of whom, according to the Toronto Star, are broke five years after they retire. So it's not completely true that wealth is an advantage that cannot be squandered. And in the US there was a saying that used to be more popula…

"NBA star" != "NBA players"

That's true enough, parent should have been more careful in word choice. But it doesn't change the fact that even the worst players get paid a significant amount of money and should be able to retire just fine, if they knew how to manage their money.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#128

Post by [deleted] »

run4yourlives wrote: post #70
Duff wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bartender does that only until he gets busted by a police sting operation. A good friend of mine had his nascent teaching career destroyed when he some confident-looking 20 year old chick dropped a 6 pack of Bud Light on the counter of the store he managed part-time. He didn't bother asking for ID (which he was typically pretty strict about) and was led out in cuffs. He received a conditional dismissal after 3 ye…

Where the hell do you live, Singapore? That law is draconian.

[deleted]

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#129

Post by Eliezer »

ig1 wrote: post #47

Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK there's no statistical difference between earnings 3.5 years after university graduation due to parental background once you adjust for university/degree subject. (children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go into good universities or study high-earning subjects, but if they do then they'll earn as much as their better off peers)

I notice that I am confused, and echo the "citation needed".

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#130

Post by ShabbyDoo »

When I used to interview a lot of college kids, I found that I could guess accurately within a few minutes of conversation which had lived in a dorm/frat house/whatever and which had lived at home while going to college. The differences in social skills and worldliness/perspective were immense. Was this due to the effects of being surrounded by a bunch of relatively ambitious young people or was it due to the socio-economic selection bias inherent in the decision to live at home while attending school? Although I have read nothing to back up this claim, I presume that there is a positive correlation between high family income and the decision to go "away" for college. Living with one's parents implies going to a local college/university vs. the one which is a tight fit with one's goals. Also, it seems that those kids who live at home socialize with their local friends who, more often than not by virtue of still living in the town where they grew up, are less ambitious and worldly. Causation is hard to tease out, but correlation is definitely present, at least based on my sampling from doing college interviewing in the Cleveland area (another cause of selection bias, of course).
Post reply on HN