On a Plate: The fundamental factor that contributes to socioeconomic success

Another one of these posts that lets people blame their start in life for where they finished. It's amazing that many of the people in the top jobs don't deserve them, and many of the people in the bottom jobs, deserve the top jobs. As viewed through the eyes of people in the bottom jobs.

Yes your start in life gives you an advantage, but people will go out of their way to help someone that's willing and makes an effort. At no point in the RHS of that strip do you see her trying to network with anyone on the LHS side, to compensate for her disadvantage that she's identified since the first row.

I don't know what stance I should take, the privileged character didn't really work hard for his position in life but some how he is capable of still being there,how? the only answer would be that he's capable of doing his job otherwise he would've been kicked out but maybe not. The character with a poorer background tried her best, but in reality she would definitely have a job especially as a woman in STEM that comes from a poor background.

To me it feels like the author is trying to tell us that people that come from comfortable backgrounds most of the time don't deserve what they have, and that all poor people in the world who work hard don't get their due(Which is true I won't deny that) but then whose fault is it? Is it really that bad that parents are trying to offer the best for their children?

I'm sure that every parent would try to enroll their child at Harvard if they were capable through slightly less orthodox ways if they had the capabilities or prowess even though it's not fair and shouldn't do that.

I suppose the takeaway is that inputs influence outputs. I have no issues with the rich kid doing well because honestly that is the bare minimum expected from him. But that is not to say that the other kid did bad. Both tried to do the best they can with what they have. There will always be poor and rich people. Of course, the poor of today live in much better conditions than the poor 100 years ago. Nobody seems to have noticed that.

The author's background: "Toby Morris is an Auckland-based illustrator, art director, comic artist and recently the author of Don't Puke On Your Dad: A Year in the Life of a New Father. He is allergic to poison."

...I can only wonder why it's such a biased comic.

His biggest flaw is creating silos in which the parents set expectations for both children. Both of Richard's (rich) parents set high expectations, both of Paula's (poor) parents set lower expectations. What about (rich)/lower expectations, (poor)/higher expectations? What about one parent setting higher expectations and one setting lower? What about one parent from a rich background, setting low expectations, while the other parent from a poor background, setting high expectations?

It's funny how prone humans are at generalizing other humans. I've seen rich kids whose parents had low expectations, in which the rich kid turns out just as douchey as Richard, except with less fortune and success. I've seen poor kids whose parents had high expectations, turn out just as humble as Paula, except with more opportunities and optimism.

The graphic suggests Paula learned to settle when she took a low-wage job as a server, but she really learned to settle with mediocrity when her parents didn't push her to do better in high school.

If your argument is that this comic didn't include this or fully implicate that, you're missing the point. The goal of this comic isn't to fully explain the incredibly complex topic of socioeconomic differences and success. That'd be impossible in a 1 page comic.

It's supposed to make you think a little bit more about how people who "talk like they hit a homerun when they were born on third base." And how where you came from can have a significant effect on where you end up. Yes, the American Dream exists and people who works their asses off can truly achieve success, but opportunism is a key role in success, and people who can't enter that club don't get access to the same opportunities. This isn't the end all be all of socioeconomic status.

This is a simple comic. You'd be an idiot for arguing like it's anything more.

The author--glaringly--gives the poor girl a two-parent household with parents actively involved in her life. I'd bet dollars to donuts that single parenthood is the driving factor in generational poverty. The author also mis-applies "under-funding" to why school systems typically fail in the U.S. Look at Baltimore and D.C., which have among the highest expenditures per capita of all the school systems in the country yet are both basket cases. The reality is, those school systems are full of violent and aggressive youth who disproportionately haven't had the benefit of a strong father figure.

At least from my observations (I'm from a highly diverse area), poor two-parent immigrant households with actively involved parents tend to produce children who are integrated into American society and are better off socioeconomically than their parents were.

Why are inherited genetics more noble than inherited privileged?

It is a philosophical point, but everything you are is either nature or nurture, neither of them in your hands when you come into this world. Who we are today is a slow cumulation of nurture/experiences, that is determined by our initial nature and prior nurture. If you track this back to birth, life is really deterministic.

So if you are poor but inherited a great mind or work ethic, why is that more noble than the rich and weak minded, who's life was progressed by the success of his family? Both are inherited, are they not? Inheritance is the foundation of evolution, and therefore life itself ("life" being in a biological context).

I'm not arguing that we create policy to foster nepotism, but people need to appreciate the core role inheritance plays in our existence. All you can do is make the most of what is in your control.

Haha at MBAGrad...running around praising America's freedom in every other thread and then this. Please define the annual salary at which one has to give up the right to have kids.

Also if I look at your above post, you are implicitly legitimizing laws like Obamacare which curtail individual choice to benefit society as a whole. You sure you want to be in that camp? :)

Also MBAGrad I MS'ed you on the wrong post. I actually agree with the one about individual choice, keyword prisoner's dilemma

Agree. Actually made up for the MS with a SB on that post

I don't see inherited wealth as a problem in our society. When you start splitting the pie among 3 or 4 kids and then among 12-15 grandchildren and on down the line then wealth is usually pretty well devolved after 100 years or so. Inherited wealth used to be a major issue in society as only the eldest son would inherit the father's estate, hence highly concentrated generational wealth. That's just not really an issue today. If a family retains its wealth after 100 years or so then it probably means it's been a good steward of money, not a profligate spender of auspicious luxury goods.

Plus, where do estate tax dollars go to? To the government. The private sector is a more efficient investor of wealth than the government, so money staying in the hands of private individuals will ultimately create more jobs and greater opportunities for more people.