How rich kids already won the career game • Hacker News Board

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#151

Post by timtadh » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 5:48 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #137

watty wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rather than link you to an individual study, here is a link to an NYT Magazine article that summarizes many studies about how the attitudes of high-SES ("rich kids") students are more highly valued ("better") than those of middle class and poor kids. You can find all of the primary source studies via the article. "In her book “Unequal Childhoods,” published in 2003, Lareau described the costs and benefits of each app…

The issue with this study in the context of the OP is this study discusses middle class vs poor. The OP discussed high class vs middle class. The main assertion of those who have argued against the OP is that high class vs middle class doesn't matter. I don't think people have seriously argued that middle class vs poor doesn't matter.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#152

Post by yeahsure » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 5:53 PM UTC

rick888 wrote: post #92

btipling wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public interest may not be in the public's interest. Inequality may not always be a bad thing. The focus shouldn't be on the gap between the haves and have nots, the focus should be on the dire situation of the poor without worrying about the lives of those better off.

What bothers me is that the only solution to bridge the "income inequality" is to take money from the rich and just give it to the poor. Beyond the mentally and physically unable (which is a very low percentage), poverty is a result of poor life choices. This is what freedom gives us: the ability to succeed or fall flat on our ass due to our own choices, which is why we will always have poverty in our current system.

"poverty is a result of poor life choices"

You should check out a third world country. I live in one and I can tell you for a fact that this is not true.

If you wake up thinking what you're going to eat today and where you'll sleep tonight, then there aren't many choices to be made.

I see 8 y/o kids begging for money on the streets every day. They will never be able to make a choice.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#153

Post by nostrademons » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:01 PM UTC

tomkarlo wrote: post #116

watty wrote: post #59

This was an whiny and awful post about "life isn't fair". The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills. It isn't discrimination until you start hiring the less wealthy (with less skills) because of the fact that they're less wealthy.

Seconded. And it's worth noting that the percentage of people in the US whose parents make >$10M a year is so small that it's unlikely that anyone knows enough of them to make statistically valid assumptions about their performance relative to kids from more median backgrounds. You'd need to know or track 1000+ of those individuals to find statistical significant in a phenomenon that's probably a few percentage point…

Not a statistician, but I don't believe this is true. You need ~1000 individuals to find statistically significant phenomena in a population the size of the U.S.. Since the population of rich people is so much smaller, you'd need a smaller number of individuals to draw statistical inferences from it.

Anyone know the actual formula for statistical significance, and able to work out how big a sample needs to be for, say, a population of 100k?

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#154

Post by clistctrl » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:10 PM UTC

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #130

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-e…

Very interesting, another single data point. My brother (went to school at the University of Milwaukee) lived at home while attending. Ambition has never been a strong suit of his.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#155

Post by Alex3917 » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:11 PM UTC

timtadh wrote: post #151

Alex3917 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than link you to an individual study, here is a link to an NYT Magazine article that summarizes many studies about how the attitudes of high-SES ("rich kids") students are more highly valued ("better") than those of middle class and poor kids. You can find all of the primary source studies via the article. "In her book “Unequal Childhoods,” published in 2003, Lareau described the costs and benefits of each app…

The issue with this study in the context of the OP is this study discusses middle class vs poor. The OP discussed high class vs middle class. The main assertion of those who have argued against the OP is that high class vs middle class doesn't matter. I don't think people have seriously argued that middle class vs poor doesn't matter.

Good point, though that's really just the summary from the magazine. The actual Hart-Risley study (which was mostly the basis for the passage I quoted) shows that the relationship between SES and achievement is fairly linear, as are the relationships between SES and the factors that lead to achievement. I don't have time to scan in the entire appendix of the study, but here is a quick snap from Hart-Risley:

http://www.alexkrupp.com/picture_library/hart_risley.jpg

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#156

Post by warrenwilkinson » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:20 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #141

zeemonkee wrote: post #64

"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for universal social justice." That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents....read some literature from 100 years ago, for example by the Fabians or other socialis…

"Libertarian Socialism"? Best oxymoron ever.

Its sad how inconstant political terms are. Liberal today implies support for a lot of programs it didn't in Jefferson's time.

I don't understand 'anarcho communism' -- wouldn't that be the overthrow of government to establish communism? How is it different than regular communism?

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#157

Post by robeastham » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:23 PM UTC

robeastham wrote: post #58

CaptainDecisive wrote: post #23

The article seems to me a just-so story. The author might be ignorant of the rich kids who end up as drug addicts or at the very least entirely economically unproductive simply because they can. They've got nothing to loose by not kowtowing to the bosses but nothing to gain by working hard either as they've already got everything laid on a plate for them. However I think there often is something different in the atti…

I whole heartedly agree with this, it also really felt like the post author was describing a really specific situation. Perhaps one where he was that middle class guy and the other guy was someone who just got the raise he wanted. I don't know, but the whole article came across as trying to blame failure to thrive on forces outside of one's control. In fact it might be more to do with bravery, personality and intelli…

I'm guessing the downvotes are because I've crossed the line I was worried about in this post:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287643

Apologies, I really didn't want to come across as being spammy.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#158

Post by nlz1 » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:26 PM UTC

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #132

Of the 100+ comments so far, relatively little has been said about the benefit to one's career of knowing upper class (or even just upper middle class) social rules. I'm not referring to the obvious ones like which fork to use at a restaurant but rather to the more subtle ones like what constitutes appropriate small talk. A 23 year-old from any socio-economic background might not have sufficient knowledge to contribu…

This is dead on. I had a summer internship with a prestigious law firm. During the initial meet and greet between the interns and partners, one of my fellow interns admitted to not working after college in favor of "just traveling the world, surfing." To my shock, the partner was impressed by this answer. I was dumbfounded.

(PROTIP: usually "traveling the world surfing" is only possible if you are independently wealthy or willing to live like a hobo).

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#159

Post by scott_s » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:26 PM UTC

michaelchisari wrote: post #122

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.

My problem with the essay is that the author assumes complete causation between social capital and real capital. He goes from socio-economic status to personality traits without acknowledging at all what he has done.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#160

Post by jonnathanson » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:27 PM UTC

watty wrote: post #84

grammaton wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence." I think you missed the point of the article.

Ok, how about: "Show me statistics that say rich kids are socially outgoing and more confident than middle class kids."

It's not about general social skills or confidence, but about specific (and subconscious) knowledge about how to navigate certain social dynamics that are foreign to some kids and very familiar to others.