Poor kids who do everything right don’t do better than rich kids who do everything wrong

[Padawanbater2]

America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others.

That's because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on "enrichment activities" for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.

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 students," and they're staying that way.

It's an educational arms race that's leaving many kids far, far behind.

It's depressing, but not nearly so much as this:

Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the chart above from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's annual conference, which is underway.

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. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

What's going on? Well, it's all about glass floors and glass ceilings. Rich kids who can go work for the family business — and, in Canada at least, 70 percent of the sons of the top 1 percent do just that — or inherit the family estate don't need a high school diploma to get ahead. It's an extreme example of what economists call "opportunity hoarding." That includes everything from legacy college admissions to unpaid internships that let affluent parents rig the game a little more in their children's favor.

But even if they didn't, low-income kids would still have a hard time getting ahead. That's, in part, because they're targets for diploma mills that load them up with debt, but not a lot of prospects. And even if they do get a good degree, at least when it comes to black families, they're more likely to still live in impoverished neighborhoods that keep them disconnected from opportunities.

It's not quite a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game where rich kids get better educations, yet still get ahead even if they don't—but it's close enough. And if it keeps up, the American Dream will be just that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/


But I guess the cycle of poverty is just some imaginary made up liberal concept to get the poor and minority vote..

 

[Harrekin]

So you're saying rich kids get bailed out by their parents money when they fuck up?

That's blindingly obvious Rapeawan, you type so many words but say nothing at all.

 

[heckler73]

 

[NLXSK1]

America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others.

That's because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on "enrichment activities" for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.

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 students," and they're staying that way.

It's an educational arms race that's leaving many kids far, far behind.

It's depressing, but not nearly so much as this:

Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the chart above from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's annual conference, which is underway.

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. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

What's going on? Well, it's all about glass floors and glass ceilings. Rich kids who can go work for the family business — and, in Canada at least, 70 percent of the sons of the top 1 percent do just that — or inherit the family estate don't need a high school diploma to get ahead. It's an extreme example of what economists call "opportunity hoarding." That includes everything from legacy college admissions to unpaid internships that let affluent parents rig the game a little more in their children's favor.

But even if they didn't, low-income kids would still have a hard time getting ahead. That's, in part, because they're targets for diploma mills that load them up with debt, but not a lot of prospects. And even if they do get a good degree, at least when it comes to black families, they're more likely to still live in impoverished neighborhoods that keep them disconnected from opportunities.

It's not quite a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game where rich kids get better educations, yet still get ahead even if they don't—but it's close enough. And if it keeps up, the American Dream will be just that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/


But I guess the cycle of poverty is just some imaginary made up liberal concept to get the poor and minority vote..

"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, "

I guess you missed that part... Maybe we need to force poor people to spend time on their kids eh? I mean, if we dont think they can feed them, what else are they incapable of??

 

[ginjawarrior]

"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, "

I guess you missed that part... Maybe we need to force poor people to spend time on their kids eh? I mean, if we dont think they can feed them, what else are they incapable of??

Funny how working 2 or 3 jobs cuts into family time eh?

 

[NLXSK1]

Hey Pada, let me ask you something. If a couple is poor, do you think it is responsible for them to bring kids into the world? Do you think it is right for people who are already struggling to add to their own burdens? Can we for once place a small part of the blame on the people creating the problem??

 

[ginjawarrior]

Hey Pada, let me ask you something. If a couple is poor, do you think it is responsible for them to bring kids into the world? Do you think it is right for people who are already struggling to add to their own burdens? Can we for once place a small part of the blame on the people creating the problem??

What are you suggesting? forced abortions on anyone you don't consider rich enough to have kids?

 

[ginwilly]

Funny how working 2 or 3 jobs cuts into family time eh?

I know of no uber successful people that don't work constantly. That's part of a rich kids problem growing up, daddy is always at work.

Quick, name a rich person that got there by working only 40 hrs a week. Doesn't even have to be a millionaire, just name someone you know in the top tax bracket that got there on 40 hrs per week.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I know of no uber successful people that don't work constantly. That's part of a rich kids problem growing up, daddy is always at work.

Quick, name a rich person that got there by working only 40 hrs a week. Doesn't even have to be a millionaire, just name someone you know in the top tax bracket that got there on 40 hrs per week.

Daddy and mommy working over 40 hours a week while still both having time to spend with kids?

 

[ginwilly]

Daddy and mommy working over 40 hours a week while still both having time to spend with kids?

Can't name one huh?

I grew up firmly in middle class, both parents union people. Mom only worked 48hrs a week but dad was over 60. We rarely missed a dinner together. That was my dad's way of us being a family, we had to wait for him to get home, we had to sit together at the table and we had to talk to each other.

Compare those hours to a doctor or lawyer just starting out. Hell, compare the school load of a doctor or lawyer student to a student majoring in the arts.

Some people are just better at time management and parenting than others. We should pass a law or something.

Yes, there are some shitty rich parents too.

FTR, two parents are almost always better than one. I feel this is the reason two LGTB parents do a better job of raising kids than a single hetero. If we stopped locking parents up for victimless crimes, we'd see better outcomes.

 

[ChesusRice]

Rich kids advantage starts really taking off in the connections they have in college and from their parents.
Mitt Romney anyone?

 

[ginwilly]

Rich kids advantage starts really taking off in the connections they have in college and from their parents.
Mitt Romney anyone?

I think even the rich will admit this. Rich Dad Poor Dad, Think and Grow Rich and many other books explain how you don't get rich hanging with poor people.

 

[NLXSK1]

What are you suggesting? forced abortions on anyone you don't consider rich enough to have kids?

I am suggesting that many people create problems due to their own poor choices. And that although it feels good, it is not your responsibility to wipe their ass and give them candy.

 

[NLXSK1]

Rich kids advantage starts really taking off in the connections they have in college and from their parents.
Mitt Romney anyone?

Lets just give all the rich babies to the poor people and all the poor babies to the rich people. problem solved. The rich get screwed and the poor get all the breaks...

 

[ginjawarrior]

Can't name one huh?

I grew up firmly in middle class, both parents union people. Mom only worked 48hrs a week but dad was over 60. We rarely missed a dinner together. That was my dad's way of us being a family, we had to wait for him to get home, we had to sit together at the table and we had to talk to each other.

Compare those hours to a doctor or lawyer just starting out. Hell, compare the school load of a doctor or lawyer student to a student majoring in the arts.

Some people are just better at time management and parenting than others. We should pass a law or something.

Yes, there are some shitty rich parents too.

FTR, two parents are almost always better than one. I feel this is the reason two LGTB parents do a better job of raising kids than a single hetero. If we stopped locking parents up for victimless crimes, we'd see better outcomes.

I didn't bother playing your game because it was bulshit from the start

Your anecdote about your upbringing is irrelevant, that your parents earned enough to be "middle class" and that your dads job enjoyed him the hours to manage meal times is irrelevant as well

Are you suggesting we euthanise the kids from single families? Or should we mandate new partners for them?

 

[ginwilly]

I didn't bother playing your game because it was bulshit from the start

Your anecdote about your upbringing is irrelevant, that your parents earned enough to be "middle class" and that your dads job enjoyed him the hours to manage meal times is irrelevant as well

Are you suggesting we euthanise the kids from single families? Or should we mandate new partners for them?

No but we need honest conversations about single parenting, how hard it is, why it's on the uptick, what we can do to rectify the situation, what's causing it, etc..

I was just calling your bs that the poor work too much.

Mom retired from the post office at 50, went to college to get a degree in counseling and now works with troubled youths. She has a kid in right now that has met her dad once and is one of over 30 kids he's spawned.

Stop locking people up for victimless crimes, hold people responsible for their children (how we do this is a worthy topic).

Or we could just keep making excuses for people's poor choices and hope it improves. The stats tell us the opposite is happening, and I'm pretty sure we'll continue on this path because people in this pc world refuse to talk about it.

There are many great stories of successful single parenting so we know it's possible, but it takes dedication and drive. I couldn't imagine raising a child on my own, but would like to think that if I had to, I would.

 

[tightpockt]

America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others.

That's because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on "enrichment activities" for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.

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 students," and they're staying that way.

It's an educational arms race that's leaving many kids far, far behind.

It's depressing, but not nearly so much as this:

Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the chart above from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's annual conference, which is underway.

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. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

What's going on? Well, it's all about glass floors and glass ceilings. Rich kids who can go work for the family business — and, in Canada at least, 70 percent of the sons of the top 1 percent do just that — or inherit the family estate don't need a high school diploma to get ahead. It's an extreme example of what economists call "opportunity hoarding." That includes everything from legacy college admissions to unpaid internships that let affluent parents rig the game a little more in their children's favor.

But even if they didn't, low-income kids would still have a hard time getting ahead. That's, in part, because they're targets for diploma mills that load them up with debt, but not a lot of prospects. And even if they do get a good degree, at least when it comes to black families, they're more likely to still live in impoverished neighborhoods that keep them disconnected from opportunities.

It's not quite a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game where rich kids get better educations, yet still get ahead even if they don't—but it's close enough. And if it keeps up, the American Dream will be just that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/


But I guess the cycle of poverty is just some imaginary made up liberal concept to get the poor and minority vote..

So what?

 

[Doer]

Thread Fail Alert! Make your way carefully to the nearest exit. Help those around you.

 

[ChesusRice]

We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time.
The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year — it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.

Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons. [...]
We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted.
Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy and it was about the time Mitt’s first paycheck came along. So, we were married a long time before we had any income, about five years as struggling students.

 

[ULEN]

Poor kids have the devil they need to defeat before hand because of what gets flashed in front of them since being infants (girls, cars, drugs, money). Poverty makes a difference in the world.

If the tables were turned and self happiness could not be bought on a mental nor physical level, Richie Rich would surely start spraying the poor with death which we all know has occurred on our watch on a consistent basis.