Do You Envy The Rich Kids Who Got A Shot At Their Careers Through Their Parent's Influence?

FinDroid's picture
FinDroid - Certified Professional
Rank: Gorilla | banana points 569

Monkeys, one of the best aspects about this community is that people talk about their stories and opinions in a candid way. I was reading this article which said that millennials thriving financially in America today have one thing in common- rich parents.

These Millennials have help paying their tuition, meaning they graduate in much better financial shape than their peers who have to self-finance college through a mix of jobs, scholarships, and loans. And then, for the very luckiest, they'll also get some help with a down payment, making homeownership possible, while it remains mostly unattainable for the vast majority of young adults.

Though the article largely speaks about home ownership and college tuition, it got me thinking on how a few folks leverage their family connections to land jobs, have a cushion to fall back on when the opportunities seem lacking or be naturally inclined to take risks (pursue entrepreneurship etc.).

I am not being judgemental nor am I criticizing people who were born with a silver spoon as it is almost genetic lottery at play but I am curious to know the community's thoughts on this. If you are from a well to do family, how do you view your success? If you climbed up the ladder without any support, how do you view your own growth? Did you ever envy your colleagues who have it easy in life?

Resume Review Service

  • Match with one of WSO's financial experts to get your resume reviewed.
  • We ensure that the most critical documents in your job search are ready.
  • Rigorous, iterative process with over 2,300 clients over 10 years.

Comments (123)

Aug 7, 2017

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em."~William Shakespeare, 12th Night - Act II, Scene v

    • 10
Aug 13, 2017

But does money equal greatness? If so, does being born into money really mean one has achieved greatness? I feel like its more convenient if anything.

Aug 10, 2017

This is an interesting discussion, ideally students who have financial support will be better off. As the article states, it will be much easier for them to purchase a home without student debt. Just like you, I don't judge anyone. I have friends from both ends of the spectrum and I've learned that people are just people. I have poor friends who flaunt what little money they have and rich friends who are very humble. It's all in the way they're brought up. I come from a very poor family and had to work for everything I have. My own growth has been due to smart investments and educating myself a lot more than my family and peers. That's my reality, that's my perception of my own struggle. Believe it or not, my rich friends have that as well. They view certain things in their life as struggle, which would make us scoff but it's their perspective. As a child I envied them, I wanted to be in nice cars and live in a big house. As I got older I realized that they were rich because of their lifestyle and mindset. This fantasy I fabricated of my wealthy friends quickly vanished. Now they're just people who happen to have a ton of money. Just my $0.02.

Edited for spelling and grammar.

    • 5
Best Response
Aug 7, 2017

Would I like to have the same opportunity? Of course. Do I envy them? No. In my eyes I look at it as good for them. Their family has most likely worked hard to give them the opportunity to be in that position. I hope to do the same so one day my kids or grandchildren can be in the same spot.

    • 41
Aug 11, 2017

Exactly exactly and exactly. Love this comment man, +1.

Nicest haircut than Bateman

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Aug 7, 2017

Yes. I do.

    • 2
    • 1
Aug 7, 2017

No, what's the point? Look at what you've got and make the best of it.

    • 1
Aug 7, 2017

Yea, for a few seconds, then it reminds me how much harder I have to work to succeed and I can use it as motivation.

    • 2
Aug 7, 2017
Stay.Hungry:

Yea, for a few seconds, then it reminds me how much harder I have to work to succeed and I can use it as motivation.

That also works.

Aug 7, 2017

Don't envy other people

Aug 11, 2017

I don't envy them for the money, I do / did envy them for having parents that guide (push?) them in the right direction.

You see, I went to a completely mediocre no-name school, and afterwards a pretty good business school. The first had mostly students like me: Low-to-mid middle class kids, destined for $30k-$60k industry or gov. job, and everyone were on student loans, working completely irrelevant jobs during summers. "Any job after graduation is good enough".

The career fairs at those schools are tragic. The banks that show up are usually commercial/retail banks that want personal bankers. The tech firms are the local utility firms, or whatever manufacturing plants around. Maybe once in a while some F500 satellite office will show up, and lastly tonsof small 5-20 employee companies. This in turn, means that your average student has no clue about finance / consulting / etc. jobs. They don't even know that those jobs exist.

When I went to B. School, all your usual suspects were recruiting on campus. So, SO many of the students were from upper-middle class families, usually on their parents money, free from any job obligations on the side. Many of these students had clear plans for where they wanted to work, and had been coached since Jr. HS to aim for those Finance / Consulting / Business job. Their parents probably worked in the industries, or the parents of their friends worked there.

And even if you are clueless about what you want to do, come graduation, and your career counselor will point you towards some cookie-cutter consulting jobs, citing extensive alumni networks and what not. In short: You don't even have to know about prestigious jobs, you'll get thrown in that direction either way.

These people have known since early on the importance of getting good grades, a nice relevant internship, and doing the "correct" extracurricular activities: Because they open up the doors to the correct schools, and thus the correct jobs.

But I can't blame my parents for not knowing about prestigious schools, or prestigious jobs. Most regular people have no f'ing idea about these things, and most regular people are more than happy to settle with a cushy $50k lifer job.

    • 22
Aug 13, 2017

My situation exactly. Should have taken out bigger loans to go to IU or another semi-target and would have had a shot at banking through an alumni base or on campus recruiting. All we got was geico, aflac, and (Insert Word Here) Community Bank. Lots of Gov/Agency Jobs. Tech/IT kids had it moderately better. Accounting had it made. I wonder if we went to the same undergrad.

Aug 7, 2017

I had a good amount of help from my rents growing up. We're not rich by (middle class american) standards, just pretty frugal and my parents decided that's what they wanted to spend their money on.

I'm so glad people can get a head start with help from their parents- all the bitches whining about their friends having their parents pay for more shit should shut up and work harder so their own kids will have a step up. It's comforting knowing that even if my life feels kinda pointless, at least I'm gonna put my kids in a good starting position and within a few generations my family will be boss af.

Though this is usually not worth saying because the complainypants bitching about how life isn't fair are the 20yr old girls swearing they wont have kids and sleeping with every guy they can find, destined to be desperately looking for someone to ring them in their 30s complaining now about how there are no good men and how hard it is to afford life while eating avocado toast.

At least in my experience.

Keep making that money boys, and stay away from ratchet hoes.

    • 7
Aug 7, 2017

Tell us...what did the hoes do to you?

    • 6
Aug 9, 2017

that's between me and my 4 therapists

    • 8
Aug 9, 2017

.

Aug 13, 2017

Very Elliott Rodgers-yy. Keep an eye on this kid

Aug 13, 2017

-broke virgin

Aug 7, 2017

Somewhat. I mean who wouldn't? Attend the school of your dreams. Handed powerful IBD connections. Live worry free.

That said, this is not the path I respect or find interesting.

Aug 7, 2017

Yeah.

It's basically EZ mode.

Shit like having your parents be able to pay for a flight to an interview during college helps a bit.

Ability to study more instead of working 40 hours a week in college.

It all adds up.

    • 4
    • 2
Aug 11, 2017

pretty sure the banks pay for transportation

working yea I definitely agree. Banks like to see PT jobs but more than a few hours is too much unless its prestigious af

    • 1
Aug 7, 2017

This is a very specific situation, but I have one friend with loads of connections within the world of PE. I fucking LOATHE this bastard. He was an english major at a non-target and is working PWM at a solid MM shop (think BAML, WF, etc.). First things first, he probably couldn't answer the difference between a PE / HF other than saying PE shops look for larger equity shares. He wouldn't know how long to hold a company for, hasn't ever considered making a model, and dresses like he makes 150K+ yet is being floated heavily by his parents. He wants to do PE to "diversify" himself so he can go to Booth (daddy has connections there too). Have all the connections in the world, I don't care, as long as you bust your ass like every single other person there. Oh, 0% chance he does. He usually calls it by 4 PM and boozes hard every week night.

This sparked story #2: Super wealthy girl (her grand children would never have to work a day in their lives) is now a FT IBD analyst at one of Chicago's top banks (not BB, but think Blair, Lazard, etc.). She has no experience prior and says she hates the work (really?, wealthy girl who has only worked at Daddy restaurants as a "finance" Intern doesnt like IBD hours and work load?!?! Shocker....). My heart goes out to this poor lass, taking away positions from qualified candidates, and her challenges increase ten-fold as she bears the burden of being pretty, wealthy, and naive. I play the world's smallest violin for her constantly, and pray to God that her life becomes easier and some of the other analysts remove 99% of the work from her plate. At least then it will get done by someone who doesn't think a DCF is a new up and coming makeup product line.

    • 2
    • 1
Aug 7, 2017
Deal Team Six:

This sparked story #2: Super wealthy girl (her grand children would never have to work a day in their lives) as she bears the burden of being pretty, wealthy, and naive.

Is she single? Asking for a friend.

    • 19
    • 1
Aug 8, 2017

She's drawn to prestige and an upper-echelon lifestyle ,considering your banana count, Id say you have a better shot than most. You could probably huck SBs for days w/o ever checking your balance

    • 1
Aug 8, 2017
Deal Team Six:

She's drawn to prestige and an upper-echelon lifestyle ,considering your banana count, Id say you have a better shot than most. You could probably huck SBs for days w/o ever checking your balance

Days? I haven't had to check in years....

Yeah, awesome stuff. But, if that's what it takes to get hot, young, rich chicks wet these days, I'm the dude. Or possibly @TNA.

    • 1
Aug 7, 2017

This is a great post as I was actually considering posting something similar on here. Even though I grew up poor, I've always found myself surrounded by more affluent kids and people that went to the best schools from Duke to Cornell. But being poor, I often encounter where people I know do envy people of more fortunate backgrounds. It's not even really envy, it's more that they loathe people that have more than what they have.

I succeed more when I just roll with the punches. My parents almost raised my family out of a rental in a very poor neighborhood, riddled with gang activity. They were bootstrappers and I watched us move from the rental to home ownership to a house that was finally large enough for my siblings and everything my parents had dreamed of. It was a tale of the American Dream that I think influenced me to never look to anyone or anything for help.

Being poor, I could envy or feel a loathsome attitude towards kids that always had it and still do. But I don't because I know how real the world is, in that it can be shaped into what you make it. I've seen it happen and experienced it firsthand. But being from the hood, my parents and my own view of the world did have some limits. I always kept academics in the back of my mind instead of in the forefront, because I was always ready to survive no matter what life threw at me. I thought I might need to pick up a tool bag and hustle for a piece of the pie, or work in a shitty job and grind my way to the top. I think it was a combination of seeing the many that failed around my family and that most that I knew did not have a very positive outlook on life, passing that along to me. I was also the only one of my parent's 4 kids with the ability to succeed in school, so that influenced me to believe I would be too limited in my abilities to go into a top institution.

I think the hardest part was that once I did start to compete with kids from top schools, good neighborhoods, and academically/professionally successful parents, hard work just wasn't enough! There's a cultural difference that is a 100% barrier for anyone, no matter how hard you work, unless you were influenced by people representing the professional class early in life. I noticed it when attempting to make friends, when networking, and even in class with my professors who were more impressed by the polished kids than what I was.

I don't look at it negatively, because if I hadn't let my environment influence me the way it did, I could've been part of the programs that were recruiting me as a kid for my top scores, and I know I would've interacted with much smarter kids and grew up developing more polished social skills, possibly even going to a top school in the country.

But, I think it's true that struggling creates character. Something I realize is how entitled everyone with a professional lifestyle is, and generally anyone that walked the straight line through their life, getting bumped through to wherever they end up. The fight I've put up for everything has taught me a lot about what it takes to succeed and to look at things from a different perspective.

Being poor is not inherently negative. If you think about it, geniuses are rare, but the number that succeed in spite of, through countless failures, is much more common. The same perseverance that I've practiced since learning my first steps in life, is what I use today, so I know I can figure anything out no matter how difficult. I wonder what bumper kid has the same ability?

    • 30
    • 2
Aug 7, 2017

+1

Nice work

    • 1
    • 2
Aug 8, 2017

Thanks for sharing this. :)

    • 2
Aug 7, 2017

I'm one of those guys who had his college totally paid for and got down payment assistance from parents. Should I be envied? I mean, I've been super blessed, yes, but I struggle with envying tall men, handsome men, people who were smart enough to get into Ivy League schools, good public speakers, fluent/articulate speakers, people with high metabolisms, people who can buy shirts off the rack, extroverts, people who are naturally good at math, and the list goes on.

We're all dealt a hand in life, and we can't spend our lives envious of someone else's cards. It serves no purpose; at worst, it will prevent us from succeeding in our own right.

Aug 11, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

people who were smart enough to get into Ivy League schools

We seriously still doing this on a banking forum?

Aug 11, 2017
yeezred:

We seriously still doing this on a banking forum?

Yeah, definitely. High intelligence is correlated with better health, higher income, and more wealth. Being highly intelligent (i.e. intelligent enough to get into an Ivy League school) is definitely an advantage.

Aug 11, 2017

Ivies aren't something that attract these magical intelligent beings. From my public school, many kids of average intelligence got into Ivies (admittedly the lower ones) through hard work. Don't discredit the effort people put in by just calling them gifted.

Aug 11, 2017
yeezred:

Ivies aren't something that attract these magical intelligent beings. From my public school, many kids of average intelligence got into Ivies (admittedly the lower ones) through hard work. Don't discredit the effort people put in by just calling them gifted.

I reject your premise. "Average" intelligence is around an IQ score of 100 (90-110), so I highly doubt there are any people, even at Brown, with a 100 IQ score barring extreme forms of affirmative action or large donations. Not all intelligent people do well on the SAT, but few, if any, unintelligent people do well on the SAT. Given that the SAT comprises a disproportionate share of your admissions resume, I would surmise that almost no one without superior intelligence gets admitted to Ivy League schools (with exceptions to legacy/donation admissions or other extreme outliers, such as admissions based on personal/family fame).

Aug 11, 2017

SAT is based on how much you study for it, that's why richer people statistically do better, because they can afford more coaching and thus practice more. It's hard work not intelligence (although intelligence makes it easier to score higher and there is an upper limit to what you can achieve on the SAT without higher intelligence)

    • 1
    • 1
Aug 11, 2017
yeezred:

SAT is based on how much you study for it, that's why richer people statistically do better, because they can afford more coaching and thus practice more. It's hard work not intelligence (although intelligence makes it easier to score higher and there is an upper limit to what you can achieve on the SAT without higher intelligence)

I mean, you're objectively wrong. SAT and IQ are highly correlated.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/s...
Regardless, you just admitted that there is an upward limit on how well one can do on the SAT based on intelligence. That's my entire point. Because intelligence and extremely high scores on the SAT are linked, the vast majority of students admitted to the top universities are highly intelligent.

I genuinely can't believe I'm wasting my time debating something 1) so intuitive and; 2) so objectively proven.

Aug 14, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:
yeezred:

SAT is based on how much you study for it, that's why richer people statistically do better, because they can afford more coaching and thus practice more. It's hard work not intelligence (although intelligence makes it easier to score higher and there is an upper limit to what you can achieve on the SAT without higher intelligence)

I mean, you're objectively wrong. SAT and IQ are highly correlated.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/s...
Regardless, you just admitted that there is an upward limit on how well one can do on the SAT based on intelligence. That's my entire point. Because intelligence and extremely high scores on the SAT are linked, the vast majority of students admitted to the top universities are highly intelligent.

I genuinely can't believe I'm wasting my time debating something 1) so intuitive and; 2) so objectively proven.

Aren't you the guy who objects to AA as a form of reverse racism? But your SAT scores are taken into account in order to land a scholarship at the school.

    • 2
    • 1
Aug 14, 2017
iBankedUp:

Aren't you the guy who objects to AA as a form of reverse racism? But your SAT scores are taken into account in order to land a scholarship at the school.

What are you talking about? I'm not expressing an opinion here--I'm expressing a statement of fact: your SAT score is disproportionately weighted in the application process.

Aug 14, 2017

Yes. It's a pet of the process in AA recruitment, in the sense that it starts with reaching out to students who perform well academically (typically coming from wealthier or two parent homes), are interested in pusrsuing a degree, score well on the SAT, and who wrote a compelling application and etc. Fin Aid is provided on the basis that it is a student that is academically likely to succeed.

From the Fin Aid site, paraphrasing Federal Law: "Race may be considered as part of a holistic and flexible review process". So, AA is not a race quota check in the box. In fact that is prohibited. It doesn't makes sense and it would be wrong to walk into poor neighborhoods for admissions when, statistically, these students are not likely to succeed.

As your arguing, SAT scores are testament to the student's intelligence. So these are kids who deserve an opportunity based on merit, but are also underrepresented due to cultural differences.

    • 1
    • 1
Aug 14, 2017
iBankedUp:

Yes. It's a pet of the process in AA recruitment, in the sense that it starts with reaching out to students who perform well academically (typically coming from wealthier or two parent homes), are interested in pusrsuing a degree, score well on the SAT, and who wrote a compelling application and etc. Fin Aid is provided on the basis that it is a student that is academically likely to succeed.

From the Fin Aid site, paraphrasing Federal Law: "Race may be considered as part of a holistic and flexible review process". So, AA is not a race quota check in the box. In fact that is prohibited. It doesn't makes sense and it would be wrong to walk into poor neighborhoods for admissions when, statistically, these students are not likely to succeed.

As your arguing, SAT scores are testament to the student's intelligence. So these are kids who deserve an opportunity based on merit, but are also underrepresented due to cultural differences.

Wow, I don't know how this conversation has evolved into a debate over affirmative action, but like I said 10,000 times before, race should have NO part in admissions, hiring, etc. at all whatsoever because racial motivations are immoral and evil. They were wrong in the 1950's and they are wrong now. What don't you get about my position? How many ways do I need to say that race-based admissions is wicked and its wickedness has nothing to do with the details?

Aug 14, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

Wow, I don't know how this conversation has evolved into a debate over affirmative action, but like I said 10,000 times before, race should have NO part in admissions, hiring, etc. at all whatsoever because racial motivations are immoral and evil. They were wrong in the 1950's and they are wrong now. What don't you get about my position? How many ways do I need to say that race-based admissions is wicked and has nothing to do with the details?

I think this is where your argument bothers me though. Racism didn't end in the 1950s. We're not talking about different races in racism. We're talking about ideologies around so called superior races. There's a really big difference I think people are confused by. I also hate the left's exploitation of the black movements because it furthers the misconception.

Black identity politics has really been about removing the barriers placed upon blacks that first subjected them to slavery then to segregation, which led to creating today's culture that has resulted in the worst intra race murder rate, poor graduation rates, high unemployment, etc. There's a reason blacks that are less dominatingly cultured by blacks are more successful like Barack Obama.

I don't think the problem is strictly that blacks fail because of racism today but it is because of the racism that was instituted in the 1900s and before. AA is not to reverse oppression, rather it should be looked at as an investment on an extremely undervalued asset in this country, making up the third largest racial group of the population. How trans people and gays and even women to the least extent of this group are afflicted in an equal way is beyond me.

And if you actually read the statement on the fin Aid site, it literally says the same thing I've been arguing. This is my first time looking this up though. I've read history and I recognize that by not supporting the cause is not morally correct, but it is actually a form of the racism that AA tried to protect against, these biases against blacks in support of whites.

    • 5
Aug 14, 2017
iBankedUp:

I don't think the problem is strictly that blacks fail because of racism today but it is because of the racism that was instituted in the 1900s and before. AA is not to reverse oppression, rather it should be looked at as an investment on an extremely undervalued asset in this country, making up the third largest racial group of the population. How trans people and gays and even women to the least extent of this group are afflicted in an equal way is beyond me.

Yes, it is "reverse oppression" because you're trying to correct past wrongs by harming people today who had nothing to do with the past injustice (and we're not even talking about how AA actually doesn't even help the black community at large--the policy debate is entirely different). Affirmative action even violates the principles of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

You cannot correct past injustices with current injustices. "Corruption of blood" is one of those tyrannical and evil principles that our Founding Fathers tried to prevent from becoming enshrined in American law. The fact that you cannot see how wicked it is to institutionalize racial status in American society shows that your moral compass is completely busted. And even if you accept the evil principle of corruption of blood, why do Asians suffer punishment?

Aug 14, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

Yes, it is "reverse oppression" because you're trying to correct past wrongs by harming people today who had nothing to do with the past injustice (and we're not even talking about how AA actually doesn't even help the black community at large--the policy debate is entirely different). Affirmative action even violates the principles of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You cannot correct past injustices with current injustices. "Corruption of blood" is one of those tyrannical and evil principles that our Founding Fathers tried to prevent from becoming enshrined in American law. The fact that you cannot see how wicked it is to institutionalize racial status in American society shows that your moral compass is completely busted.

Who is being harmed by correcting wrongs? The Harvard College or the Yale College or University of Texas or whatever college offering AA that people are upset about used bias whether it was direct or indirect in history. Do you think you are part of Harvard or Yale just because you happen to have ancestors who might have been part of it and thus your being hurt by the actions of those ancestors? Tell me who is being hurt?

If you don't look at it as a check in the box, you would never really know the full depth of your missing acceptance. That kind of mystery is what leads to biases subjecting minorities or blacks in the first place. There's no real basis of whites ever being subjected to this type of negative bias. In fact, there's evidence that if your race is white you've historically been helped, versus your black peers.

It's like wining about your son going to prison for murdering someone because you can't see him for Thanksgiving! Really terrible argument.

    • 3
Aug 14, 2017
iBankedUp:

Who is being harmed by correcting wrongs?

Are you serious? White and Asian people, who may be in the same socioeconomic class as a black applicant, are forced to compete on an unfair playing field. What are you talking about with me suggesting that Harvard, et al are the ones being harmed? The intellectual dishonesty...Jesus.

And why do Hispanic people benefit from Affirmative Action? When were Hispanics systemically discriminated against? Why are Asians punished for whites' past wrongs?

iBankedUp:

In fact, there's evidence that if your race is white you've historically been helped, versus your black peers.

Historically as in 1917 or 2017? Because in 2017 that's objectively and provably false.

iBankedUp:

It's like wining about your son going to prison for murdering someone because you can't see him for Thanksgiving! Really terrible argument.

What are you talking about? It's like whining that your son who didn't commit murder can't see you for Thanksgiving because he's in prison for murder.

Your position on this is evil, and it's obviously evil.

Aug 14, 2017

I think biases are real and institutional.

Historically as in 1950. Or as in 2017 because white people are wealthier and unemployment rate of whites vs blacks is 5.3% vs like 8%.

It's stupid to believe that by increasing recruitment of underrepresented people and reducing bias is the same thing as inflicting harm on someone else.

    • 1
    • 2
Aug 14, 2017
iBankedUp:

I think biases are real and institutional.

Then show me specific cases of institutional racism so that we can both protest it together. Otherwise, just claiming "institutional racism" is ghost hunting.

iBankedUp:

Historically as in 1950.

Of course. Most whites didn't benefit from that when 10% of the population was getting college degrees. Most white people today are just middle class people whose parents had no college degree. Asians didn't benefit at all.

iBankedUp:

Or as in 2017 because white people are wealthier and unemployment rate of whites vs blacks is 5.3% vs like 8%.

AA is a 50-year old policy and yet blacks are still worse off than whites. Hmm...maybe that is a commentary on AA.

iBankedUp:

It's stupid to believe that by increasing recruitment of underrepresented people and reducing bias is the same thing as inflicting harm on someone else.

That's not just what's happening. Asians and whites both have to get better grades and higher SATs for admission. Like I've said before, just recruiting qualified candidates to apply is not the same thing as setting different standards for admission based on race.

Aug 14, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds]
[quote=iBankedUp:

Historically as in 1950. Or as in 2017 because white people are wealthier and unemployment rate of whites vs blacks is 5.3% vs like 8%.

Dances with Dachshunds:

AA is a 50-year old policy and yet blacks are still worse off than whites. Hmm...maybe that is a commentary on AA.

I'll just focus on this because this is the meat of your entire argument. It's a bias that you have. 2017 Blacks are better off than 1860s blacks.

    • 2
    • 1
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp]
[quote=Dances with Dachshunds:
iBankedUp:

Historically as in 1950. Or as in 2017 because white people are wealthier and unemployment rate of whites vs blacks is 5.3% vs like 8%.

Dances with Dachshunds:

AA is a 50-year old policy and yet blacks are still worse off than whites. Hmm...maybe that is a commentary on AA.

I'll just focus on this because this is the meat of your entire argument. It's a bias that you have. 2017 Blacks are better off than 1860s blacks.

What's interesting about your morally and intellectually bankrupt pro-affirmative action argument is that when I challenged you to show me a specific case of institutional racism you failed to even attempt to provide an example.

Dec 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds]
[quote=iBankedUp:
Dances with Dachshunds:
iBankedUp:

Historically as in 1950. Or as in 2017 because white people are wealthier and unemployment rate of whites vs blacks is 5.3% vs like 8%.

Dances with Dachshunds:

AA is a 50-year old policy and yet blacks are still worse off than whites. Hmm...maybe that is a commentary on AA.

I'll just focus on this because this is the meat of your entire argument. It's a bias that you have. 2017 Blacks are better off than 1860s blacks.

What's interesting about your morally and intellectually bankrupt pro-affirmative action argument is that when I challenged you to show me a specific case of institutional racism you failed to even attempt to provide an example.

Well, right. You believe that the disparity in household income, household net worth, unemployment, and college education is due to black's own stupidity. If that's what you believe then the evidence of some institutional racism in all of our faces everyday is not plain and clear enough.

    • 2
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp:

Well, right. You believe that the disparity in household income, household net worth, unemployment, and college education is due to black's own stupidity. If that's what you believe then the evidence of some institutional racism in all of our faces everyday is not plain and clear enough.

Institutional racism absolutely existed 50 years ago and it may impact, say, the accumulated household wealth of black people today. Give me a specific example of institutional racism today. I challenge you to give me ONE example. Just one. One. One tiny example. Because socioeconomic outcomes of black people today do not prove (or disprove) the existence of institutional racism today, especially since I've provided you--in this thread--data from a liberal thinktank that shows that individual behavior impacts socioeconomic outcome.

Dec 13, 2017

Institutional racism certainly exists in our justice system. It is not the explicitness that makes the racism institutional, it's the bias in outcomes derived from race rather than context. I believe the DoJ has a number of reports out formally outlining all the specifics from court sentencing, juvenile/adult treatment/processing, to police tactics and arrest statistics that demonstrate it pretty clearly. Do you at least agree that Stop and Frisk is an example of institutional racism? That was deemed unconstitutional police practice in 2013 (I think?) due to the clear bias of stopping and searching non-white citizens. Another old example of institutional racism (this is old but demonstrates the point that race doesn't need to explicitly be a part of the policy to be racist) is the sentencing difference between possession of cocaine and crack. One got a heftier sentence with it and that same one had a much larger percentage of black users. While the law never explicitly addressed stricter sentencing of black people, that was a clear result and remains a clear example of institutional racism in the modern day (relatively, I mean at least in most of our lifetimes).

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

Dec 13, 2017
Che Rand:

Institutional racism certainly exists in our justice system. It is not the explicitness that makes the racism institutional, it's the bias in outcomes derived from race rather than context. I believe the DoJ has a number of reports out formally outlining all the specifics from court sentencing, juvenile/adult treatment/processing, to police tactics and arrest statistics that demonstrate it pretty clearly.

I don't accept this premise. I can find competing statistics that say there is no discrimination in the justice system attributable to race. Regardless, this can't be corrected through affirmative action, which is the focal point of this conversation--how affirmative action can attempt to correct for institutional racism.

Che Rand:

Do you at least agree that Stop and Frisk is an example of institutional racism? That was deemed unconstitutional police practice in 2013 (I think?) due to the clear bias of stopping and searching non-white citizens.

It is potentially an instance of institutional discrimination; then again, this heavy-handed police tactic almost certainly saved black lives (the irony of black people complaining about the police). Again, this type of injustice (if you accept the premise of it being an injustice) cannot be corrected by affirmative action. So again, that is not an argument for affirmative action, which argues that institutional discrimination--e.g. in corporations, at institutions of higher learning, in public funding for schools--prevents black people from moving up the socioeconomic ladder, which is laughable.

Che Rand:

Another old example of institutional racism (this is old but demonstrates the point that race doesn't need to explicitly be a part of the policy to be racist) is the sentencing difference between possession of cocaine and crack. One got a heftier sentence with it and that same one had a much larger percentage of black users. While the law never explicitly addressed stricter sentencing of black people, that was a clear result and remains a clear example of institutional racism in the modern day (relatively, I mean at least in most of our lifetimes).

This is a myth. Black politicians in the 1980's advocated for harsher punishments for crack cocaine because it was destroying their communities. This had nothing to do with white politicians trying to crack down on black people--it had to do with black politicians (for once) actually trying to make their communities better.

Dec 13, 2017

My post had nothing to do with affirmative action, all I was addressing was your cry for one example of modern day institutional racism. VVV

"Give me a specific example of institutional racism today. I challenge you to give me ONE example. Just one. One. One tiny example"

Please provide a source that concludes there is no discrimination in the US justice system. I'm genuinely curious to see the data and analysis. Thanks ahead.

"This is a myth."

You misrepresented what I posted. I didn't say that white or black politicians pushed for harsher crack sentencing. Because, yes, you are correct, the black caucus did lobby hard for them. My point (which you missed), is that their continuation is an example of our justice system essentially punishing perpetrators for the same drug differently, regardless of who called for it. Which many would assert, is a bit racist (regardless of intent).

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

Dec 13, 2017
Che Rand:

My post had nothing to do with affirmative action, all I was addressing was your cry for one example of modern day institutional racism. VVV

Then why were you even chiming in? You supposedly were reading the thread. The conversation is about affirmative action and why it is supposedly morally justified. I still don't think you've provided any hard proof of institutional racism, regardless of your misapplication within the topic at hand.

Che Rand:

Please provide a source that concludes there is no discrimination in the US justice system. I'm genuinely curious to see the data and analysis. Thanks ahead.

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Every...
This book tackles many of these myths. Blacks aren't over-prosecuted, blacks aren't sentenced to disproportionately longer sentences, etc. As I've always said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and stats can often be manipulated to fit a narrative, which is why you need people like Heather MacDonald to critically evaluate the claims.

Che Rand:

You misrepresented what I posted. I didn't say that white or black politicians pushed for harsher crack sentencing. Because, yes, you are correct, the black caucus did lobby hard for them. My point (which you missed), is that their continuation is an example of our justice system essentially punishing perpetrators for the same drug differently, regardless of who called for it. Which many would assert, is a bit racist (regardless of intent).

I mean, you're pretty hard pressed to argue for "institutional racism" against blacks when the outcome you are protesting was advocated by blacks. I believe the leftist, pseudo-intellectual term you are looking for is "disparate impact."

Dec 13, 2017

Why did I chime in? - LOL as I quoted, you asked for any example of institutional racism, so I chimed in. All I was doing was providing one.

While I do appreciate you posting a source to your claim, Heather MacDonald is by no means an unbiased source LOL so please, if you have any unbiased sources, do share. Her work certainly needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. Again, thanks ahead. I actually laughed out loud when you posted a link to her.

I wouldn't say I'm hard pressed to argue for institutional racism, you are the one so adamant that it is completely non-existent in today's society. All I'm trying to point out is that we are not in some post-racism utopia that you seem to think we are.

And I'm genuinely surprised that you were so ready to throw the 4th Amendment out the window. As the Supreme Court concluded, warrantless and baseless searches clearly violate civil liberties.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

Dec 13, 2017
Che Rand:

Why did I chime in? - LOL as I quoted, you asked for any example of institutional racism, so I chimed in. All I was doing was providing one.

And you failed to provide any that aren't easily debunked, if you care to challenge your assumptions.

Che Rand:

While I do appreciate you posting a source to your claim, Heather MacDonald is by no means an unbiased source LOL so please, if you have any unbiased sources, do share. Her work certainly needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. Again, thanks ahead. I actually laughed out loud when you posted a link to her.

Well, you sure seem intellectually hungry.

Che Rand:

I wouldn't say I'm hard pressed to argue for institutional racism, you are the one so adamant that it is completely non-existent in today's society. All I'm trying to point out is that we are not in some post-racism utopia that you seem to think we are.

Institutional racism is NOT the same thing as racism. There's obviously still racism in the world today and there will always be racism. But government-sanctioned and instiution-sanctioned racism is few and far between and is certaintly not the core reason that black people struggle in America today. Case in point, you can barely provide any evidence for it.

Che Rand:

And I'm genuinely surprised that you were so ready to throw the 4th Amendment out the window. As the Supreme Court concluded, warrantless and baseless searches clearly violate civil liberties.

Not quick to throw out civil liberties; I'm quick to point out that black people are the disproportionate victims of crime, and that stop-and-frisk's primary purpose was to protect the lives and property of non-white people. I'm genuinely curious how you, a leftist, views the 800 or so people--mostly black--murderered in Chicago each year, for example. Stop-and-frisk may be a civil rights violation, but allowing black kids to get caught up in the inner city killing fields seems to be the elephant (donkey) in the room as far as true civil rights violations that the left doesn't want to address. If there's any institutional racism in America it is largely how the Democratic party's slaveowners allow their political property to continue to flounder in violence and poverty.

Dec 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

Well, you sure seem intellectually hungry.

Dude, you seriously just posted a known partisan writer as evidence for your claim that discrimination in the justice system doesn't exist. Again, please post a non-partisan source. Are you familiar with a thing called "confirmation bias"?

"I'm genuinely curious how you, a leftist, views the 800 or so people--mostly black--murderered in Chicago each year, for example."

LOL I'm not "a leftist"; I'm not sure how a differing view on the nuances of racism in America would categorically make me a leftist? I'm not sure what you mean either way, though. It's a tragedy and national shame that that goes on within our borders and certainly needs acknowledgement and comprehensive solutions. I could go into my thoughts on gun control and the ineffectiveness due to nearby loosely regulated states, such as Indiana. That's a bit off topic, though. On a larger point, I think we have some common ground, there are definitely policies pushed by Democrats that have hurt our inner cities, no question from me. Just look at school segregation in so called liberal areas and the corresponding achievement gap.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

Dec 13, 2017
Che Rand:

Dude, you seriously just posted a known partisan writer as evidence for your claim that discrimination in the justice system doesn't exist. Again, please post a non-partisan source. Are you familiar with a thing called "confirmation bias"?

And what's your definition of "non-biased"? The Obama DOJ? Maybe Oberlin College? The Huffington Post? I don't know, the DNC? Honestly. Read the book. The evidence is presented to you. You can accept it or not.

Che Rand:

LOL I'm not "a leftist"; I'm not sure how a differing view on the nuances of racism in America would categorically make me a leftist? I'm not sure what you mean either way, though. It's a tragedy and national shame that that goes on within our borders and certainly needs acknowledgement and comprehensive solutions. I could go into my thoughts on gun control and the ineffectiveness due to nearby loosely regulated states, such as Indiana.

No, you're not a leftist, you're just a pro-gun control affirmative action advocate who thinks the Manhattan Institute is "partisan". Not a leftist..

Che Rand:

On a larger point, I think we have some common ground, there are definitely policies pushed by Democrats that have hurt our inner cities in varying aspect, no question from me. Just look at school segregation in so called liberal areas and the corresponding achievement gap.

There aren't "policies"--there's an entire way of life run by the Democratic party. And people like you are obsessed with the periphery--such as stop and frisk policies--and couldn't care less about the killing fields, the grinding poverty, the horrible schools, and the rank corruption--ya know, all the REAL civil rights violations.

Dec 13, 2017

I don't even know where to start. I don't hold the Manhattan Institute as a beacon of non-partisanship and a quick Google search would confirm that for you too. Considering that the Koch brothers find them to be suitable recipients of their donations, I'll hold my reserves.

"There aren't "policies"--there's an entire way of life run by the Democratic party. And people like you are obsessed with the periphery--such as stop and frisk policies--and couldn't care less about the killing fields, the grinding poverty, the horrible schools, and the rank corruption--ya know, all the REAL civil rights violations."

Jesus, that's a pretty strawy straw man lol

You criticize me for going outside the scope of affirmative action then proceed to do just that. For someone who is as "intellectually hungry" as you are, you do a very fine job shifting the conversation and misrepresenting what I have said and believe. You paint with such a broad brush it's incredible to watch unfold. I'll go out on a limb and say we have hit a wall here as there is no real discussion occurring.

I'll let it go with that. Hope you enjoy your night.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

Dec 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

Institutional racism absolutely existed 50 years ago and it may impact, say, the accumulated household wealth of black people today. Give me a specific example of institutional racism today. I challenge you to give me ONE example. Just one. One. One tiny example. Because socioeconomic outcomes of black people today do not prove (or disprove) the existence of institutional racism today, especially since I've provided you--in this thread--data from a liberal thinktank that shows that individual behavior impacts socioeconomic outcome.

Accumulated household net worth is a good example. If you break that down, household net worth is the total value of assets held or owned by the individuals. The amount that is accumulated can and will look very different for different individuals. Some were very successful because of the way the economy grew led to them acquiring more capital appreciation and income. Others didn't participate at all in the economy, except passively by being employed and seeing their income grow as they got older.

What happened from there is that the ones who participated in the economy captured a lot of the share of growth and their household net worth is very large relative to the passive participant. The former may own several assets from houses, to boats, to businesses, etc. The passive person earned less, but through some money management and marriage, they were able to finance the purchase of a house. Today, both of these people are sitting pretty well off, relative to most of the world. They own something whether it's a lot or a bit less, and so they get to benefit from the stability that ownership provides. If you look at the stats, the homeownership rate for whites is about 73% higher than it is for blacks.

What that means is, if you go back 50 years, whites were doing the right things as participants in the economy--blacks were not. When whites are bringing up children today, they are able to rely on the stability that being financially secure brings while blacks are not. Whites are able to leverage their good credit, their two income households, their net worth to provide support to their children, while blacks are not because they are trying to work multiple jobs or lack the emotional capability to support their children after growing up in a very insecure place.

The kids who were brought up in these financially secure places, often have better education from higher taxes and safer jurisdictions because there are less problems at home leading to bad behavior on the street. And of course, even if the black kid and white kid end up in the same schools and colleges, the whites, having been brought up in a better place are more prepared to focus and take their studies seriously. The cycle continues.

I know that 50 years ago institutional racism was explicitly set up to make the lives of blacks harder and disadvantaged. But what I'm pointing out is that those institutions still stand today. This country is still capitalist. There is still "freedom" and the right to personal responsibility. The country has not changed all that much and therefore, life for Americans has not changed. That means that every American has to be responsible for everything right and wrong in their life.

Our grandparents, parents, and now us, are all still part of our lives. If you look back at the institutions they were creating that all still exist today, there is little different about them. Investment income is not earned in a day. It's earned through capital appreciation over time. The policies or activities set to help steer that appreciation is what leads to wealthier investors. The reason is because of inflation and annual growth. For whites, past generations were in great shape to take advantage of how our economy and country has grown, which did not happen over night. The person who participated a little less in the economy that I mentioned earlier, might have ended up owning a home, but maybe that person was an immigrant and had nothing when he started out. Decades later, he was in a position where he could afford to purchase a home. When you look at where blacks were 50 years or 100 years ago, the ability to do the same just didn't exist. Over time, blacks are in a very disadvantaged position now.

As the country has grown, so to has the expectations of citizens. Gone are the days when a bag of tools would get you to the American Dream. Now, you must go to school, because that's where we are--that's the way the country has developed. The expectation is that anyone can do it. But for blacks, where they are may actually be still decades back in history because blacks just didn't have the opportunity to develop. Just because instiutions don't explicitly say, "don't hire blacks", does not eliminate beliefs about people that just aren't true. The kind of institutional racism that exists today does not look obvious because it's now become illegal and a stigma. Now, it's much more implicit since the institutions, including the people, are so slow to change.

I think, overtime, AA can be eliminated, as blacks continue to "catch up". But right now, the data shows that blacks are not on even footing with whites.

    • 3
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp:

Accumulated household income is a good example. If you break that down, household net worth is the total value of assets held or owned by the individuals. The part that is accumulated can and will look very different for different individuals. Some were very successful because of the way the economy grew led to them acquiring more capital appreciation and income. Others didn't participate at all in the economy, except passively by being employed and seeing their income grow as they got older.

What happened from there is that the ones who participated in the economy captured a lot of the share of growth and their household net worth is very large relative to the passive participant. The former may own several assets from houses, to boats, to businesses, etc. The passive person earned less, but through some money management and marriage, they were able to finance the purchase of a house. Today, both of these people are sitting pretty well off, relative to most of the world. They own something whether it's a lot or a bit less, and so they get to benefit from the stability that ownership provides. If you look at the stats, the homeownership rate for whites is about 73% higher than it is for blacks.

What that means is, if you go back 50 years, whites were doing the right things as participants in the economy--blacks were not. When whites are bringing up children today, they are able to rely on the stability that being financially secure brings while blacks are not. Whites are able to leverage their good credit, their two income households, their net worth to provide support to their children, while blacks are not because they are trying to work multiple jobs or lack the emotional capability to support their children after growing up in a very insecure place.

The kids who were brought up in these financially secure places, often have better education from higher taxes and safer jurisdictions because there are less problems at home leading to bad behavior on the street. And of course, even if the black kid and white kid end up in the same schools and colleges, the whites, having been brought up in a better place are more prepared to focus and take their studies seriously. The cycle continues.

I fail to see how any of this is mitigated by race-based affirmative action in 2017. You just made the argument for affirmative action based on socioeconomic status. Why on Earth should an upper-middle class or rich black person be privy to the benefits of affirmative action?

Why on Earth should Hispanics be privy to the benefits of affirmative action? They were hardly ever the victims of systemic institutional discrimination (or it was for a very small point in time). Why on Earth should Asian people get penalized for the behavior of white people's ancestors?

None of what you're saying actually answers the questions: 1) What institutional racism? 2) Why is race-based affirmative action the solution?

iBankedUp:

I know that 50 years ago institutional racism was explicitly set up to make the lives of blacks harder and disadvantaged. But what I'm pointing out is that those institutions still stand today. This country is still capitalist. There is still "freedom" and the right to personal responsibility. The country has not changed all that much and therefore, life for Americans has not changed. That means that every American has to be responsible for everything right and wrong in their life.

Our grandparents, parents, and now us, are all still part of our lives. If you look back at the institutions they were creating that all still exist today, there is little different about them. Investment income is not earned in a day. It's earned through capital appreciation over time. The policies or activities set to help steer that appreciation is what leads to wealthier investors. The reason is because of inflation and annual growth. For whites, past generations were in great shape to take advantage of how our economy and country has grown, which did not happen over night. The person who participated a little less in the economy that I mentioned earlier, might have ended up owning a home, but maybe that person was an immigrant and had nothing when he started out. Decades later, he was in a position where he could afford to purchase a home. When you look at where blacks were 50 years or 100 years ago, the ability to do the same just didn't exist. Over time, blacks are in a very disadvantaged position now.

Again, this doesn't explain race-based affirmative action. This is an argument, at best, for AA by socioeconomic status.

iBankedUp:

I think, overtime, AA can be eliminated, as blacks continue to "catch up". But right now, the data shows that blacks are not on even footing with whites.

There is ZERO evidence that race-based affirmative action has contributed to the improvement of the lives of the African American community. Not only is race-based AA evil, it's not even demonstrably effective and it rarely helps impoverished black people (it usually helps upper-middle class black people).

This is critical:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/sunday-review/re...
Black and Latino college applicants, as well as athletes and so-called legacies, receive large preferences -- the equivalent of 150 to 300 SAT points. Low-income students, controlling for race, receive either no preference or a modest one, depending on which study you believe.

Dec 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:
iBankedUp:

Accumulated household income is a good example. If you break that down, household net worth is the total value of assets held or owned by the individuals. The part that is accumulated can and will look very different for different individuals. Some were very successful because of the way the economy grew led to them acquiring more capital appreciation and income. Others didn't participate at all in the economy, except passively by being employed and seeing their income grow as they got older.

What happened from there is that the ones who participated in the economy captured a lot of the share of growth and their household net worth is very large relative to the passive participant. The former may own several assets from houses, to boats, to businesses, etc. The passive person earned less, but through some money management and marriage, they were able to finance the purchase of a house. Today, both of these people are sitting pretty well off, relative to most of the world. They own something whether it's a lot or a bit less, and so they get to benefit from the stability that ownership provides. If you look at the stats, the homeownership rate for whites is about 73% higher than it is for blacks.

What that means is, if you go back 50 years, whites were doing the right things as participants in the economy--blacks were not. When whites are bringing up children today, they are able to rely on the stability that being financially secure brings while blacks are not. Whites are able to leverage their good credit, their two income households, their net worth to provide support to their children, while blacks are not because they are trying to work multiple jobs or lack the emotional capability to support their children after growing up in a very insecure place.

The kids who were brought up in these financially secure places, often have better education from higher taxes and safer jurisdictions because there are less problems at home leading to bad behavior on the street. And of course, even if the black kid and white kid end up in the same schools and colleges, the whites, having been brought up in a better place are more prepared to focus and take their studies seriously. The cycle continues.

I fail to see how any of this is mitigated by race-based affirmative action in 2017. You just made the argument for affirmative action based on socioeconomic status. Why on Earth should an upper-middle class or rich black person be privy to the benefits of affirmative action?

Why on Earth should Hispanics be privy to the benefits of affirmative action. They were hardly ever the victims of systemic institutional discrimination (or it was for a very small point in time). Why on Earth should Asian people get penalized for the behavior of white people's ancestors?

None of what you're saying actually answers the questions: 1) What institutional racism? 2) Why is race-based affirmative action the solution?

iBankedUp:

I know that 50 years ago institutional racism was explicitly set up to make the lives of blacks harder and disadvantaged. But what I'm pointing out is that those institutions still stand today. This country is still capitalist. There is still "freedom" and the right to personal responsibility. The country has not changed all that much and therefore, life for Americans has not changed. That means that every American has to be responsible for everything right and wrong in their life.

Our grandparents, parents, and now us, are all still part of our lives. If you look back at the institutions they were creating that all still exist today, there is little different about them. Investment income is not earned in a day. It's earned through capital appreciation over time. The policies or activities set to help steer that appreciation is what leads to wealthier investors. The reason is because of inflation and annual growth. For whites, past generations were in great shape to take advantage of how our economy and country has grown, which did not happen over night. The person who participated a little less in the economy that I mentioned earlier, might have ended up owning a home, but maybe that person was an immigrant and had nothing when he started out. Decades later, he was in a position where he could afford to purchase a home. When you look at where blacks were 50 years or 100 years ago, the ability to do the same just didn't exist. Over time, blacks are in a very disadvantaged position now.

Again, this doesn't explain race-based affirmative action. This is an argument, at best, for AA by socioeconomic status.

iBankedUp:

I think, overtime, AA can be eliminated, as blacks continue to "catch up". But right now, the data shows that blacks are not on even footing with whites.

There is ZERO evidence that race-based affirmative action has contributed to the improvement of the lives of the African American community. Not only is race-based AA evil, it's not even effective.

First. It's not "race-based" affirmative action: "Race may be considered as part of a holistic and flexible review process".

And the stuff about other races is a strawman. AA is really a policy to increase diversity based on research that shows that diversity is a good thing. AA does increase diversity, and that is proven because you can look up the stats for each school's diversity.

Institutional racism exists, albeit in a lesser form, in a more implicit way than it did. That was the point I was making, and you can be blind to what I'm saying, but at least more intelligent, less emotional people will get the point.

Socioeconomic status is more a way to help poor people rather than achieve a goal, such as diversity and academic excellence. I really thing that's a worse idea.

    • 3
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp:
Dances with Dachshunds:
iBankedUp:

Accumulated household income is a good example. If you break that down, household net worth is the total value of assets held or owned by the individuals. The part that is accumulated can and will look very different for different individuals. Some were very successful because of the way the economy grew led to them acquiring more capital appreciation and income. Others didn't participate at all in the economy, except passively by being employed and seeing their income grow as they got older.

What happened from there is that the ones who participated in the economy captured a lot of the share of growth and their household net worth is very large relative to the passive participant. The former may own several assets from houses, to boats, to businesses, etc. The passive person earned less, but through some money management and marriage, they were able to finance the purchase of a house. Today, both of these people are sitting pretty well off, relative to most of the world. They own something whether it's a lot or a bit less, and so they get to benefit from the stability that ownership provides. If you look at the stats, the homeownership rate for whites is about 73% higher than it is for blacks.

What that means is, if you go back 50 years, whites were doing the right things as participants in the economy--blacks were not. When whites are bringing up children today, they are able to rely on the stability that being financially secure brings while blacks are not. Whites are able to leverage their good credit, their two income households, their net worth to provide support to their children, while blacks are not because they are trying to work multiple jobs or lack the emotional capability to support their children after growing up in a very insecure place.

The kids who were brought up in these financially secure places, often have better education from higher taxes and safer jurisdictions because there are less problems at home leading to bad behavior on the street. And of course, even if the black kid and white kid end up in the same schools and colleges, the whites, having been brought up in a better place are more prepared to focus and take their studies seriously. The cycle continues.

I fail to see how any of this is mitigated by race-based affirmative action in 2017. You just made the argument for affirmative action based on socioeconomic status. Why on Earth should an upper-middle class or rich black person be privy to the benefits of affirmative action?

Why on Earth should Hispanics be privy to the benefits of affirmative action. They were hardly ever the victims of systemic institutional discrimination (or it was for a very small point in time). Why on Earth should Asian people get penalized for the behavior of white people's ancestors?

None of what you're saying actually answers the questions: 1) What institutional racism? 2) Why is race-based affirmative action the solution?

iBankedUp:

I know that 50 years ago institutional racism was explicitly set up to make the lives of blacks harder and disadvantaged. But what I'm pointing out is that those institutions still stand today. This country is still capitalist. There is still "freedom" and the right to personal responsibility. The country has not changed all that much and therefore, life for Americans has not changed. That means that every American has to be responsible for everything right and wrong in their life.

Our grandparents, parents, and now us, are all still part of our lives. If you look back at the institutions they were creating that all still exist today, there is little different about them. Investment income is not earned in a day. It's earned through capital appreciation over time. The policies or activities set to help steer that appreciation is what leads to wealthier investors. The reason is because of inflation and annual growth. For whites, past generations were in great shape to take advantage of how our economy and country has grown, which did not happen over night. The person who participated a little less in the economy that I mentioned earlier, might have ended up owning a home, but maybe that person was an immigrant and had nothing when he started out. Decades later, he was in a position where he could afford to purchase a home. When you look at where blacks were 50 years or 100 years ago, the ability to do the same just didn't exist. Over time, blacks are in a very disadvantaged position now.

Again, this doesn't explain race-based affirmative action. This is an argument, at best, for AA by socioeconomic status.

iBankedUp:

I think, overtime, AA can be eliminated, as blacks continue to "catch up". But right now, the data shows that blacks are not on even footing with whites.

There is ZERO evidence that race-based affirmative action has contributed to the improvement of the lives of the African American community. Not only is race-based AA evil, it's not even effective.

First. It's not "race-based" affirmative action: "Race may be considered as part of a holistic and flexible review process".

And the stuff about other races is a strawman. AA is really a policy to increase diversity based on research that shows that diversity is a good thing. AA does increase diversity, and that is proven because you can look up the stats for each school's diversity.

Institutional racism exists, albeit in a lesser form, in a more implicit way than it did. That was the point I was making, and you can be blind to what I'm saying, but at least more intelligent, less emotional people will get the point.

Socioeconomic status is more a way to help poor people rather than achieve a goal, such as diversity and academic excellence. I really thing that's a worse idea.

You JUST said affirmative action is for the purpose of bridging the economic gap between blacks and whites--that was your CORE argument. When I pointed out that your position is factually and morally wrong, you change the argument for AA to be that it's about "diversity." Which is it?

Dec 13, 2017

You asked me to provide an example of institutional racism. So, I did. You said:

Dances with Dachshunds:

What's interesting about your morally and intellectually bankrupt pro-affirmative action argument is that when I challenged you to show me a specific case of institutional racism you failed to even attempt to provide an example.

Then you said:

Dances with Dachshunds:

Institutional racism absolutely existed 50 years ago and it may impact, say, the accumulated household wealth of black people today. Give me a specific example of institutional racism today. I challenge you to give me ONE example. Just one. One. One tiny example. Because socioeconomic outcomes of black people today do not prove (or disprove) the existence of institutional racism today, especially since I've provided you--in this thread--data from a liberal thinktank that shows that individual behavior impacts socioeconomic outcome.

So, I said that household networth is a good example where some form of institutional racism still exists today.

But, my argument for AA is that it's not a check in a box, but rather a part of a process. The reason schools use it is to increase diversity. And I don't think using socioeconomic status will increase diversity, at least not in the way of providing academic excellence, which is all schools' goal.

    • 2
    • 1
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp:

So, I said that household networth is a good example where some form of institutional racism still exists today.

That's NOT institutional racism. That's potentially present effects from PRIOR institutional racism. And as I've pointed out, race-based affirmative action doesn't even help the poor, so if your position is that wealth disparities can be corrected through AA then you're wrong.

iBankedUp:

But, my argument for AA is that it's not a check in a box, but rather a part of a process. The reason schools use it is to increase diversity. And I don't think using socioeconomic status will increase diversity.

I can't even describe how asinine this position is. Your definition of diversity is a bunch of rich people who look differently but think alike. But that's the kind of shallow reasoning of the far-left that I've come to expect.

Dec 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

iBankedUp:
So, I said that household networth is a good example where some form of institutional racism still exists today.
That's NOT institutional racism. That's potentially present effects from PRIOR institutional racism. And as I've pointed out, race-based affirmative action doesn't even help the poor, so if your position is that wealth disparities can be corrected through AA then you're wrong.

Definition of institutional racism:

Institutional racism is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. Institutional racism is also racism by individuals or informal social groups, governed by behavioral norms that support racist thinking and foment active racism.

Because college education is to inextricably linked to household income, there's something that's happening, that may not be causal, but it shows a pattern. People who live in financially secure places do better. The institution is set up to inherently benefit these people. To take away people's ability to generate higher net worth or income today, whether it happened 50 years ago or 10 years ago or 10 minutes ago, is very important. Because the institution was set up a long time ago, with the way it operates being in that tradition, you cannot remove the racism in which it was setup. The same way you can't change Duke's tradition of great basketball overnight is the same way you can't eliminate institutional racism overnight.

Dances with Dachshunds:

<

p> iBankedUp:
But, my argument for AA is that it's not a check in a box, but rather a part of a process. The reason schools use it is to increase diversity. And I don't think using socioeconomic status will increase diversity.
I can't even describe how asinine this position is. Your definition of diversity is a bunch of rich people who look differently but think alike

<

p>

  1. There are plenty of non-rich black people who are able to slip in every year. I know a few and there are news stories about some of these kids every year.
  2. Even if they grow in the same tradition at Harvard or in their HS, blacks and whites have different sympathies for other minorities. They also tend towards different perspectives on different cultural things like music, sports, or art. Please don't tell me I need proof, because, I really lose respect for you if you don't already know this.
    • 3
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp:
Dances with Dachshunds:

iBankedUp:
So, I said that household networth is a good example where some form of institutional racism still exists today.
That's NOT institutional racism. That's potentially present effects from PRIOR institutional racism. And as I've pointed out, race-based affirmative action doesn't even help the poor, so if your position is that wealth disparities can be corrected through AA then you're wrong.

Definition of institutional racism:

Institutional racism is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. Institutional racism is also racism by individuals or informal social groups, governed by behavioral norms that support racist thinking and foment active racism.

Geesh, I feel like I'm arguing with a really dense brick wall. Although your definition is precious, I'm not arguing that blacks didn't experience institutional racism in the past. What I'm saying--extremely clearly, for even a child to understand--is that what you are claiming (correctly) is institutional racism isn't happening today--that happened 50 years ago. Why is that so hard for you to process? Genuinely curious.

iBankedUp:

Because college education is to inextricably linked to household income, there's something that's happening, that may not be causal, but it shows a pattern. People who live in financially secure places do better. The institution is set up to inherently benefit these people. To take away people's ability to generate higher net worth or income today, whether it happened 50 years ago or 10 years ago or 10 minutes ago, is very important. Because the institution was set up a long time ago, with the way it operates being in that tradition, you cannot remove the racism in which it was setup. The same way you can't change Duke's tradition of great basketball overnight is the same way you can't eliminate institutional racism overnight.

Again, what institutional racism? You haven't presented a single instance of an individual being discriminated against at, say, Duke or Harvard. GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, in the 21st century, of institutional discrimination. ONE EXAMPLE. ONE! Why can't you do that? And how does affirmative action correct this so-called institutional racism? I just showed you the evidence--as reported by the New York Times--that AA doesn't help poor black people.

Dances with Dachshunds:

<

p> iBankedUp:
But, my argument for AA is that it's not a check in a box, but rather a part of a process. The reason schools use it is to increase diversity. And I don't think using socioeconomic status will increase diversity.
I can't even describe how asinine this position is. Your definition of diversity is a bunch of rich people who look differently but think alike

<

p>

iBankedUp:

1. There are plenty of non-rich black people who are able to slip in every year. I know a few and there are news stories about some of these kids every year.

  1. Even if they grow in the same tradition at Harvard or in their HS, blacks and whites have different sympathies for other minorities. They also tend towards different perspectives on different cultural things like music, sports, or art. Please don't tell me I need proof, because, I really lose respect for you if you don't already know this.

Where is your evidence that poor people are helped by affirmative action? Show me! You're not showing me the evidence for either institutional racism presently existing or that AA helps correct it. You're just talking out of your ass with NO EVIDENCE.

By the way, I love how leftists like you brand conservatives racist all the while making broad statements about how blacks and minorities "think" differently. Really?? Really?? That's the most absurdly racist statement I can think of. You're assuming one's DNA regarding skin color or facial features affects their worldview. That's an amazing claim.

Dec 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

Geesh, I feel like I'm arguing with a really dense brick wall. Although your definition is precious, I'm not arguing that blacks didn't experience institutional racism in the past. What I'm saying--extremely clearly, for even a child to understand--is that what you are claiming (correctly) is institutional racism isn't happening today--that happened 50 years ago. Why is that so hard for you to process? Genuinely curious.

The institutions were set up going back to at least 150 years ago. While the individuals may have different views, institutions reflect their tradition, unless the tradition is radically changed. Nothing changed from 50 years ago, except that racism was no longer accepted in society. The people who were working in those positions probably all stayed, unless the institution fired them. And the same expectations were still there.

If a black person 50 years ago didn't meet their expectations, there is no reason to believe that 50 years later their child is at the standard the institution expects. While a lot of blacks have done well in this period, there is also the misfortune that the standards once developed may have not taken into account blacks because the institution just didn't due to racism, and blacks may not have taken to practicing the standards under practice since there was no expectation to attend those universities.

Also, as time has moved on, so has the academic merits a lot of kids are showing in their applications. But as we see that whites have better net worth and income stats, it's such a direct component of the disparities between whites and blacks, that whites were practicing things blacks were not. While this may not mean that blacks are being discriminated against, the practice of selection based on merit alone is a good way to select few blacks based on lower SATs, as it's shown that blacks started with less, were discriminated against, and as a result, generally have much less today, which is shown to hurt the outcome of test scores.

You keep wanting me to further explain my point, so I keep breaking it down since this is an important issue to me, and I think trying to make it more simple will make it more clear. You can't separate tradition from a lot of these institutions. The 8 Ivy league schools all represent a tradition that has worked, but used to not work for blacks. All I'm saying is, consider the year-by-year practice of these institutions until today. Even though there's no explicit institution of racism, you still need to consider the bias that was created in the tradition of whites, which blacks had no part.

Since that time, the standards have grown with that foundation, which I'm fine with. What gives me pause is, how were blacks ever supposed to compete as whites were already halfway there, whereas blacks were only at 0? It'd be like someone explained to you the rules of a race they wanted you to enter as: they planned to start two people or animals at a starting line and said race to 100 meters out. Then when the whistle is blown, holding one of the racers back until the other reached 50 meters, then letting them go. The one who knew they wouldn't be held back would feel perfectly good about his chances of winning.

Household net worth and household income as an effect, and the disparity in those stats, are very good barometers to show how the institutions that were setup decades ago are affecting different races, still to this day. It's not necessary that on aggregate the number of wealthy blacks and whites needs to be the same, but it's true that on a relative basis, the share of wealthy individuals across the racial divide should have a much narrower gap.

Dances with Dachshunds:

Where is your evidence that poor people are helped by affirmative action? Show me! You're not showing me the evidence for either institutional racism presently existing or that AA helps correct it. You're just talking out of your ass with NO EVIDENCE.
By the way, I love how leftists like you brand conservatives racist all the while making broad statements about how blacks and minorities "think" differently. Really?? Really?? That's the most absurdly racist statement I can think of. You're assuming one's DNA regarding skin color or facial features affects their worldview. That's an amazing claim.

I don't really believe in the argument that "educators need to be responsible for helping poor people". I think society in other places should take that role. An educator's job is really to educate people to prepare them to help take society forward.

The last part gave me a pretty good chuckle. I see you live in a bubble. You're looking for something that isn't there. I'm not a leftist. This topicI just mean that minorities have more sympathy for other minorities and cultural differences around the arts or personal likes and dislikes probably reflect more about a person's heritage than any other practices, from a general standpoint.

    • 3
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp:

The institutions were set up going back to at least 150 years ago. While the individuals may have different views, institutions reflect their tradition, unless the tradition is radically changed. Nothing changed from 50 years ago, except that racism was no longer accepted in society. The people who were working in those positions probably all stayed, unless the institution fired them. And the same expectations were still there.

My God, if that's the case then give me an example of how the institutions remain racist today. Just give me an example. I hate racism. But how can I fight racism with you if all you can present to me is some spectre--some intangible concept--of institutional racism without providing any kind of evidence for it?

iBankedUp:

If a black person 50 years ago didn't meet their expectations, there is no reason to believe that 50 years later their child is at the standard the institution expects. While a lot of blacks have done well in this period, there is also the misfortune that the standards once developed may have not taken into account blacks because the institution just didn't due to racism, and blacks may not have taken to practicing the standards under practice since there was no expectation to attend those universities.

And how, SPECIFICALLY, does race-based affirmative action correct things? As I've pointed out, AA largely benefits wealthy or well-off minorities, including Latinos, who never experienced American institutional racism for any length of time. You keep making the same point over and over again and I keep pointing out that your solution doesn't work. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? How many more times does this need repeating?

iBankedUp:

Also, as time has moved on, so has the academic merits a lot of kids are showing in their applications. But as we see that whites have better net worth and income stats,

Some whites do, not all. And that's the critical point. Not every white person is equally situated, and it's incredibly close-minded--if not racist--to suggest otherwise. I dated a beautiful white girl last year who grew up in grinding poverty. Why is she lumped in with me, who grew up in relative wealth?

iBankedUp:

While this may not mean that blacks are being discriminated against, the practice of selection based on merit alone is a good way to select few blacks based on lower SATs, as it's shown that blacks started with less, were discriminated against, and as a result, generally have much less today, which is shown to hurt the outcome of test scores.

This is a complete red herring. No one is arguing that people should be judged without considering their life circumstances. What we're saying is that one's skin pigmentation should have NO BEARING AT ALL on anything.

iBankedUp:

You keep wanting me to further explain my point, so I keep breaking it down since this is an important issue to me, and I think trying to make it more simple will make it more clear. You can't separate tradition from a lot of these institutions. The 8 Ivy league schools all represent a tradition that has worked, but used to not work for blacks. All I'm saying is, consider the year-by-year practice of these institutions until today. Even though there's no explicit institution of racism, you still need to consider the bias that was created in the tradition of whites, which blacks had no part.

Again, you admit there is no institutional racism today and you've acknowledged--I think--that AA doesn't help poor black people. So.."diversity". Fake diversity.

iBankedUp:

Since that time, the standards have grown with that foundation, which I'm fine with. What gives me pause is, how were blacks ever supposed to compete as whites were already halfway there, whereas blacks were only at 0? It'd be like someone explained to you the rules of a race they wanted you to enter as: they planned to start two people or animals at a starting line and said race to 100 meters out. Then when the whistle is blown, holding one of the racers back until the other reached 50 meters, then letting them go. The one who knew they wouldn't be held back would feel perfectly good about his chances of winning.

Household net worth and household income as an effect, and the disparity in those stats, are very good barometers to show how the institutions that were setup decades ago are affecting different races, still to this day. It's not necessary that on aggregate the number of wealthy blacks and whites needs to be the same, but it's true that on a relative basis, the share of wealthy individuals across the racial divide should have a much narrower gap.

Honestly, stop writing book-length responses because 95% of what you're writing has nothing to with the the topic at hand. AA doesn't help the poor so your entire premise is wrong, so stop repeating it.

iBankedUp:

The last part gave me a pretty good chuckle. I see you live in a bubble. You're looking for something that isn't there. I'm not a leftist. This topicI just mean that minorities have more sympathy for other minorities and cultural differences around the arts or personal likes and dislikes probably reflect more about a person's heritage than any other practices, from a general standpoint.

You're definitely a leftist because you argue the same racist, pseudo-intellectual bullshit that they argue. You can label yourself a Martian for all I care. BTW, I've never seen someone write so much and say so little.

Dec 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

My God, if that's the case then give me an example of how the institutions remain racist today. Just give me an example. I hate racism. But how can I fight racism with you if all you can present to me is some spectre--some intangible concept--of institutional racism without providing any kind of evidence for it.

That's the whole point. It is intangible. But, most people don't writeoff something intangible, just because it's not something you can hold. I'm not going to accept your shortsighted, narrow view of the world, because it's unhealthy and stupid.

Dances with Dachshunds:

And how, SPECIFICALLY, does race-based affirmative action correct things? As I've pointed out, AA largely benefits wealthy or well-off minorities, including Latinos, who never experienced American institutional racism for any length of time. You keep making the same point over and over again and I keep pointing out that your solution doesn't work. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? How many more times does this need repeating?

It helps because it ensures that there's an opportunity provided to people who are not wealthy enough to tip the scales in their favor with money. The benefit is twofold, there are people in high places minorities can reach out to or look up to for a positive influence, and those who would not normally make it, may have a chance because with race as part of the process, there's an implicit intraracial competition.

Dances with Dachshunds:

Some whites do, not all. And that's the critical point. Not every white person is equally situated, and it's incredibly close-minded--if not racist--to suggest otherwise. I dated a beautiful white girl last year who grew up in grinding poverty. Why is she lumped in with me, who grew up in relative wealth?

This is the original point that got me into this in the first place. I think socioeconomic status alone eliminates diversity on campus or at least undermines it. I'm sure there are enough whites to fill campuses each year so, no reason to believe some form of that won't be the outcome.

Dances with Dachshunds:

This is a complete red herring. No one is arguing that people should be judged without considering their life circumstances. What we're saying is that one's skin pigmentation should have NO BEARING AT ALL on anything.

I get what you're saying, but in practice that's an extremely silly approach.

Dances with Dachshunds:

Again, you admit there is no institutional racism today and you've acknowledged--I think--that AA doesn't help poor black people. So.."diversity". Fake diversity.

Again, it does help. And, people from poor backgrounds may not help anyone. You need to prove that it does, and strictly because someone is poor that everyone else is better off.

Dances with Dachshunds:

You're definitely a leftist because you argue the same racist, pseudo-intellectual bullshit that they argue. You can label yourself a Martian for all I care.

Ehh..

    • 3
Dec 13, 2017
iBankedUp:

That's the whole point. It is intangible. But, most people don't writeoff something intangible, just because it's not something you can hold. I'm not going to accept your shortsighted, narrow view of the world, because it's unhealthy and stupid.

I'll translate this: "I have no evidence, just an opinion." Yeah, well, opinions are like assholes.

iBankedUp:

It helps because it ensures that there's an opportunity provided to people who are not wealthy enough to tip the scales in their favor with money.

This...doesn't...happen...That's the point...

iBankedUp:

This is the original point that got me into this in the first place. I think socioeconomic status alone eliminates diversity on campus or at least undermines it. I'm sure there are enough whites to fill campuses each year so, no reason to believe some form of that won't be the outcome.

I don't know what your race is, but this defeatist attitude is a pretty anti-black and racist attitude. Why would a white person in grinding poverty in eastern Kentucky be more likely to get admitted to a school than a poor black person in grinding poverty in [name the Democrat-run city]?

iBankedUp:

I get what you're saying, but in practice that's an extremely silly approach.

How is that a "silly approach"? How in the world is considering each person individually, blind of their skin color, a "silly approach"?

iBankedUp:

Again, it does help.

Where's your evidence for this? It's as lacking as your evidence for institutional racism. There's no evidence for this! Affirmative action doesn't help poor blacks; it overwhelmingly helps upper-middle class+ blacks and Latinos.

Dec 13, 2017

Dude you are just completely ignorant about people around you. Not ignorant in the sense that what you're saying bothers me. Ignorant in the sense that you don't have the ability to pick up on nuances happening that paint a different story than the one that you believe.

The world is not a place where individuals make up each and every decision strictly on whatever they want in their own lives. What life really moreso resembles is a statistical model, because things tend towards the mean. If millennials like rap music, the nearest 20 something near you may not, but you can assume that some of his friends do. That's called reality and it takes experience to know this, not some 100 page dusty ass turner.

So, either you live in a complete bubble where you have never experienced anything related to the topics on which you are speaking, and therefore you need to go bite rocks, or you have your head so far up your ass that you can't even smell the coffee brewing until it is being digested.

What happens in the world is that people make their decisions out of several limited options that are available to them. If someone doesn't have money, the only thing they can do is seek mentorship from someone, and better if that mentor has money, or is already in a place where the person wants to go. Those are literally the only two options. If you take away the latter, there is no way that person can have the formal. This is why using race as part of the process in AA seems like a necessity.

Also, I'm so glad that when I asked you to provide evidence that a strictly income based AA system you decided not to. Now, I can childishly do what you're doing, by saying, "I know you are, but what am I"? Have a nice fuck off dude.

    • 2
Aug 13, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:
yeezred:

Ivies aren't something that attract these magical intelligent beings. From my public school, many kids of average intelligence got into Ivies (admittedly the lower ones) through hard work. Don't discredit the effort people put in by just calling them gifted.

I reject your premise. "Average" intelligence is around an IQ score of 100 (90-110), so I highly doubt there are any people, even at Brown, with a 100 IQ score barring extreme forms of affirmative action or large donations. Not all intelligent people do well on the SAT, but few, if any, unintelligent people do well on the SAT. Given that the SAT comprises a disproportionate share of your admissions resume, I would surmise that almost no one without superior intelligence gets admitted to Ivy League schools (with exceptions to legacy/donation admissions or other extreme outliers, such as admissions based on personal/family fame).

Extreme forms of AA = pretty much all of AA

Aug 14, 2017

AA?

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Aug 7, 2017

Envy might be a strong word. I acknowledge that I need to work harder for things that might be more easily attained with influence. But even then, it is their good fortune to have good mentors and advice on how to avoid the "school boy errors". But then I remember to focus on my own game and to do the best I can so that I can pass on experience and hopefully influence (affluence?) to my next generation.

OK. Yes. A little sometimes ;-)

Working hard? Hardly working. Just kidding.. I'm smashing it!
PREP QUESTIONS -FIND THEM HERE

Aug 8, 2017

Kinda feel bad for some of them. They will never be able to get that satisfaction of surpassing the struggle and becoming self-made. Always having some thought in the back of their head whether they deserve it or could have done it by themselves.

Absolute truths don't exist... celebrated opinions do.

    • 1
    • 1
Aug 8, 2017

Not really but there was some wso success story where some guy had his dad get him Deloitte S&O & the forum shit on him so hard because he acted self-made haha

Aug 10, 2017

hahaha this sounds familiar please post the link

Aug 8, 2017

When the kid sitting next to me in class who goes out every night of the week and has a GPA in the middle 2s has interned in BB s&t every summer because of family connections I do get a little jealous. I have to work hard to get what he already has and he doesn't seem to be willing to work at all.

Aug 8, 2017

Envy is a waste of time. Every other person in my industry is in it because their father succeeded at it. Some have legitimate interests and talents, others just need something to do. Neither really negatively affect me. If anything, it makes me want to work harder so that my kids are one day able to enjoy more opportunity.

    • 1
Aug 8, 2017

Same here CRE as long as the Kids are not spoilt at the end of the day!

Aug 12, 2017
CRE:

Envy is a waste of time. Every other person in my industry is in it because their father succeeded at it. Some have legitimate interests and talents, others just need something to do. Neither really negatively affect me. If anything, it makes me want to work harder so that my kids are one day able to enjoy more opportunity.

Envy is a waste of time and energy.

It literally serves no purpose.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 1
Aug 8, 2017

Being in university currently, there are always fleeting moments of envy. After all, the children of rich parents don't really have to work as hard as I do, knowing that they will have an internship/career after their time in school ends. So while I'm sitting in the library late at night when some of my good friends are going out, yeah, I feel a little bit envious.

But, like many people on this feed have touched on, I think it's important to note that envy won't get you anywhere. Those rich kids will most likely have an easier path than I will, but does that mean I should hate them for it? If I was in the same position, you can bet your ass I would be doing the exact same thing they are. Moreover, their parents probably did the exact same thing I am doing now so they could give their children the life they never had. I don't believe I should direct vitriol at their kids for that.

One of the things I've come to realize is stewing in self-pity about my familial circumstances won't get me a job in finance. Yeah, my path is going to be more difficult than others, but if I really want it, it is the only option that I have.

    • 2
Aug 8, 2017

Not at all. Those kids got in that position because their parents probably worked extremely hard to get to that level. Everyone has to understand that we all start from somewhere and that you don't just end up where you are overnight. Would it be nice to be rich to the point where you don't have to work a day in your life and can easily get the career you want due to your parents' connections? Of course. It would make things infinitely easier for myself.

However life isn't (and will never be) ideal. Everyone has their own struggles in their daily life and you'd be surprised as to what life is truly like for kids in a financially better position, contrary to things looking perfect. Life is what you make of it and we each get dealt a different set of cards to play this game with. It's not rational to sit around and envy some rich kid, like did they ask to be put in that situation? No. It just happened to be so and they are willing to use the opportunities afforded to them. If I found myself in that situation I would be doing the same exact thing and I am sure a lot of you guys would be to.

Does it suck to see that dumb rich kid who never worked a day in his life, yet gets the elite job or gets into the school that you wanted to go to without lifting a finger? Yea of course but what are you going to do about it. Seeing other successful people doing well fro themselves motivates me to go out, work hard and grind so I can reach that same point.

    • 1
Aug 9, 2017

I agree with this.

It's not about what you know, it's who you know.

Look at the examples, would Denzel's kid have gotten the "Ballers" role if his father wasn't Denzel? Is Kate Hudson really that much better an actress than others, does her mother play into her getting roles. Would Trump/JFK have become president if their father's didn't put in work.

Everyone's dealt a different hand, just how you play the hand.

Everyone can make it to the top Mt Everest, some people have to climb to get there, others get to take the elevator.

    • 1
Aug 11, 2017
ironman32:

Everyone can make it to the top Mt Everest, some people have to climb to get there, others get to take the elevator.

Since when does MOUNT EVEREST have an ELEVATOR? Does it also have a SEX DUNGEON?

    • 2
Aug 8, 2017

Do you realize how hard it is for a parent to have money and teach their children the disciplines of life to the extent that they feel compelled to achieve good grades and make something of themselves?

Yes, they may have school paid for, but parents that get their children to become independently successful and not just be rich spoiled self-serving brats blowing all their parents cash on hookers and blow are the real winners.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Aug 9, 2017

No, I'm realistic that everyone has a different background. I think being envious of the ultra wealthy ignores the fact that I could have been born in much worse situations. I'd rather come from a middle class family and have to work my way up than be born an with HIV in Sudan.

That being said, having met plenty of wealthy folks and also managed money for wealthy families, I have a few pet peeves.

Most people who are very successful (IB, top consulting, even most entrepreneurs) almost definitely had a ton of family support, either in terms of money or mentoring or both and I do get annoyed when people refuse to acknowledge that support. I know one guy who was a total idiot that joined a brokerage his first month out of undergrad, signed half his family as clients and netted $20k in commissions his first month - then annualized that number and would brag to girls how he made $200k+/year. The most obnoxious part was you could tell he used that number to benchmark himself against his friends. Enjoy the $20k, I don't care, but for gods sake realize that you didn't do a god damn thing to earn it and any idiot born into your position would have been granted the same priviledge.

A "small loan of a million dollars" also comes to mind.

Really, pretty much anyone who has money before the age of 25 is almost definitely getting it from their parents or are in the position to get it because of family support. The 30-40% of those people who refuse to acknowledge that can fuck off. Getting closer to 30, even the folks who had support early on usually had to have drive and ambition to keep their career progressing forward.

    • 11
Aug 9, 2017

I get pretty annoyed with kids that don't realize that just because your parents didn't have a billion or millions in assets doesn't mean you weren't well off. Growing up in a home your entire life then getting the moral support of your family is the same no matter how bloated your household balance sheet becomes. If your parents can't buy your ticket to Harvard, they might be able to supply the mental and emotional support to give you the same lift. After all, a lot of rich parents end up not even having the time to give mental or emotional support. There's a big difference in growing up with not a dollar to support your future and no emotional support/mentorship from anyone and either having loaded parents or those that are there to support in many ways everyday.

    • 2
Aug 10, 2017

Good post @iBankedUp.
I'm one of those kids that while coming from a rich background did not get ANY moral or practical support whatsoever. I rather come from a poor(ER) background with parents that would care and would have at least some interest/knowledge in helping their kids succeed (by putting him on the right path).

Aug 9, 2017

Totally agree with this. I think a lot of people get a really skewed perception because they end up in echo chambers. Like, they feel average in their upper middle class community and then they feel average in their private university so they never feel like they're rich or have a leg up

Personally, I envy people who never had to make big decisions based on money - like where to attend school, what the major in, what jobs to pursue. They still need drive and ambition to get places, but they never had to do anything they didn't really want to do just to get by.

    • 2
Aug 9, 2017

Good post. I think being in a place like the US there are always paths to different things and it's just a matter of recognizing the time to achieve it may be longer if you don't have the right upbringing or background. Sure, a lot of non-targets won't get banking straight out of UG but if they did what they had to do (good grades, ECs, etc.) there's no reason why they can't eventually get ib from business school. I think this site has a problem at times with the notion that people who go to a non-target are somehow inferior when most people can't even come close to affording a 60k/yr school.

Aug 9, 2017

Interesting to see most people here aren't from affluent backgrounds - well I mean, what are you doing on WSO when your parents are bankers already. Personally, I come from a lower middle class family. The culture in my family is that parents will support u 100% in ur endeavours. Going off to college, my parents helping as much as they can but they hope that I can support them when they retire.

I have never really envied rich kids - if you had a silver spoon, good for you. I just never viewed their successes as something worth celebrating so i don't really care. Ofc i would love a car on my birthday or not having worry about running out of money but that's not the point.

It's not the rewards reaped and the end goal that counts, it's the journey towards it. I want to proud of forging a good life for myself. So when I see affluent kids flashing their cars and their successes, I really don't care because life is not about comparing who's richer - there's always going to be someone richer, or better off. But building the life you want independently and by overcoming challenges is a personal achievement and cannot be taken from you or overshadowed by others.

Aug 9, 2017

No. If they truly do not belong at the desk then they will be looking for a new job soon enough.

    • 1
Aug 9, 2017

Having a cushion to fall back on definitely helps at the very least to preserve you mentally when sh1t hits the fan. But then again, those of us (casually joining the camp) who go through the biggest lows on their own probably learn an extra thing or two along the way.

To expand on the discussion as to whether having rich parents sets you up for success - my personal observation is that it can also become a pitfall. I have people around me who have leveraged it greatly and others who are utilizing it in the wrong way a.k.a chilling and not pushing themselves at all.

Guess I focused on the post-university aspect of life here, but delving deeper might result in a book on the topic.

Edit: Not touching on the emotional support at all here, because it is way too broad.

    • 1
Aug 9, 2017

Sure, being envious of others who were gifted more fortunate hands is human nature.

That being said, once you realize (not only on an intellectual level) that expectations and desires breed a state of unhappiness, you come to the conclusion that on a general level:
happiness and satisfaction is something ** you chose**.

Having strong feelings of contempt towards someone who's family made more money or made more connections is pointless. All it shows is a lack of understanding of your own situation.

Aug 10, 2017

How do you define "rich" and "connected?" It's all relative.

The kid who graduated an Ivy with no debt but grinded his way through 10 interviews to get one job with some introductions but no major instant offers?

There are few ultra-rich, super lazy people who got everything through nepotism or bribery and truly deserve resentment. They're out there for sure. I went to school with them, I see them all the time. But they are few and far between. Most truly despisable fuckboy entitled pricks are busy railing cheese off some hooker or trying to make movies in LA somewhere.

The few who want to do IB and actually work to survive more than a couple of years are not deserving of envy. They had advantages to get there but they still worked their ass off once they were there. They didn't quit and they chose something hard. Given the choice to work half as hard and sit on daddy's money, who are you to judge them for working 90 hours beside you?

    • 1
Aug 10, 2017

I do not envy the rich kids because of money, but because of connections and network.

My parents network consists of electricians, trade hands and soccer moms. They literally do not know a lawyer and the only know like 2 doctors.

Sad because my dad worked on wall street in operations, and could have went front office but got impatient.

Aug 10, 2017

My situation has been a little different...I feel like I have experienced both ends of the spectrum....I came from a background of having extremely rich grandparents (on my fathers side) , and in tern having an immediate family that was well off. I went to a Major University, but non-target....average grades in high-school and college (think 3.0-3.1 range) . My father always pushed for me to go to law school...not exactly sure why at the time, since he was a real estate developer, but never really asked ( I mean, hey...school is paid for, law school will be paid for, so why try extra hard...) Maybe he thought I would excel in it, or he was not too happy with his work , which comes to reinforce the notion of "money doesn't buy happiness". It can make things easier, but isn't the sole answer..

I kind of floated through school doing OK. I figured at the very least I could always go work for Dad.

Second semester senior year rolls around...I'm at school and I get a phone call from my uncle (mom's brother) and could barely understand him. He informed me that my father was killed in an accident (don't want to go into details). My mother was obviously too distraught to make the call herself.

At that instant, basically everything changed. I went from not really having a care in the world to having absolutely no direction.

Having school paid for was a saving grace, but as far as family money, it was tied up in trusts and funds. Dad's side of the family was very large and there had been a lot of family infighting that I was never aware of at a young age. My point is that the income on paper wasn't liquid, so I didn't have the backing (very long story). Basically I had nothing.

So here I am...22 years old, fresh out of college. No Direction.....no financial backing , no one to turn to in a business sense ( my mom was there for emotional support). I struggled for about two years....graduating college right into the heart of the Market Crash of 2008 was rough for someone interviewing for analyst roles with REPE shops. I eventually found a paid internship position with a CRE Investment group. My guess is that they sensed my newfound determination and saw me as somewhat of a hustler, since my resume was nothing to look at twice.
I was given a chance, and I will always remember how much of a difference it made in my life. It is possible to break into certain industries without being from prestigious schools or having perfect GPAs, but it is most definitely harder. I will, however, say that there is definitely a sweeter feeling looking back.

I think about it every day how I should've tried harder and not taken so much for granted. My dad and I had a good relationship, but it puts everything into perspective. It makes you think back to all the things that were said out of anger and all the fights growing up. You realize that they were all so stupid and trivial . I love my parents dearly and I am thankful for the love my dad gave us.

The point of this post isn't for any reason other than to illustrate that at the end of the day we are all just people, and we all have our problems and hurdles we have to overcome, no matter what kind. Those rich kids you see that seem to be doing great, driving the BMW's paid for with dad's money may (and probably do) have their own problems and struggles that they are battling every single day, some of them more severe. I believe that if you work hard and grind it out, you will make your own luck and it will translate into great things. The nice house/ car is so much sweeter when you get it on your own.

    • 6
Aug 12, 2017

thank you for sharing

    • 1
Aug 10, 2017

To follow up on @CREsyndication , you never know what's behind the curtain.

People in college would ask me what my dad did, and when I told them they believed that I was one of such people who could coast through school and get a job anywhere because of daddy's finance connections. But in answering to what he "did", I left out what he was doing at the time, which was unemployed because his career had gone down in flames some years prior and my family was living on the leftover assets that were slowly bleeding away. (*Side note - no matter how high and invincible you think you are in this world, never forget that it can all get taken away in a nano second).

But many were right to think what they did with what they knew (I assumed most figured he was retired), and looking back I certainly carried myself and acted sometimes in a manner that played the part. Even more than that, I believed it myself to a degree. Despite my father's failings he still spoke as if he could easily get me a job through his connections and somehow I chose to rely on his word. Of course as graduation neared I soon learned the harsh reality that this was not true. Whether he was lying or was disillusioned himself I still don't know. But there I was with everyone save my closest friends still thinking I had every opportunity in the world, zero prospects in reality, and realizing I had fallen far behind those who had been working diligently in class and creating their own opportunities. I don't want to give the impression that I am blaming this on my father, it was my fault for insulating myself from reality and not having the drive for working harder myself earlier, which even with every opportunity available to you will always push you further along.

But I adapted to the reality of the situation, hustled and landed something ok with some persistence and luck via my own resources, and learned to leverage that to land something much better. The whole experience was sobering, and it grounded me to say the least. I am a better person, a happier person, and even though I might have had fewer opportunities than I thought I would I do believe I will be more successful in the long run from everything I've learned. In the end, I believe a good education is the most important opportunity anyone can have, it will last a lifetime and can never be taken away. I was lucky enough to have dedicated parents who were adamant about paying for mine themselves even though they weren't in a position to do so (they took out loans for me in their own names), I haven't known any others who have done the same for their kids.

    • 2
Aug 11, 2017

Why I have to waste my time envying someone. Be happy for the other success and put all your effort to be successful YOU as well! Everyone want to be rich, from the Marxist to the capitalist.
Have dreams, targets, goals is essential. Network your ass off and make some money!!

Nicest haircut than Bateman

Aug 11, 2017

Forget about envy . . . I don't care how much money you have (or don't have), if you're not in the ring getting your hands dirty nobody will respect you. Everyone knows who made it on merit and who didn't.

Aug 12, 2017

While I don't envy rich kids, I believe people are missing the broader problem here. For every affluent, well-connected kid who doesn't put in effort and gets a good job through their parents connections, there is another kid that probably worked their pants off at school to get into a good university and graduate with good grades who misses out on the same opportunity. What this ultimately results in is more and more wealthy well-connected people in the top jobs effectively pushing out hard-working poorer kids who would probably be just as good at doing the job if not better. This leads to decreased social mobility throughout time and is already a problem in many countries including the U.S. and the U.K. If you want to learn more about this issue I suggest reading the Myth of Meritocracy by James Bloodworth.

Also to people saying that the kid's parents worked hard to give them that opportunity. If we believe that equality of opportunity should exist then theoretically it shouldn't matter who your parents are. Obviously this doesn't apply in the real world so we should stop pretending that equality of opportunity actually exists.

Aug 12, 2017
S.H.]
[quote=S.H.:

This leads to decreased social mobility throughout time and is already a problem in many countries including the U.S. and the U.K.

Things aren't perfect but there is still fantastic social mobility in the West. The idea that you put forth that hard-working, educated people will remain in a lower socioeconomic cast is utterly absurd. It is unlikely that in one generation a person goes from poverty to extreme wealth, but if you graduate from high school, don't have kids out of wedlock and get a job you will not be permanently poor in America.

S.H.:

Also to people saying that the kid's parents worked hard to give them that opportunity. If we believe that equality of opportunity should exist then theoretically it shouldn't matter who your parents are. Obviously this doesn't apply in the real world so we should stop pretending that equality of opportunity actually exists.

Equality of opportunity /= what many people think it means. Equality of opportunity = access to equal rights under the law. Obviously, people are differently situated, which has been, is, and will always be the case.

Aug 12, 2017

There are actually statistics for this issue which are available in the source I put forward. While I didn't actually say that you will permanently remain poor I did say that socially mobility appears to have been decreasing over the past half a 30 to 40 years and this is well documented in the book I mentioned. By all means you will be much better off than someone without a degree but probably not on the same standing as someone from a wealthier background with the same credentials. None of what I am saying is based on opinion.

Aug 12, 2017

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The fundamental flaw with the data put forth about social mobility is that it doesn't really take into account individual behavior. While social mobility may have decreased over the last half century, that can be largely explained by individual behavior (i.e. choosing to have kids out of wedlock), not structural changes that have evolved that actively promote social immobility.

I love this piece describing research from the Brookings Institute:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-ru...
"[W]e should figure out more ways to convince young people that their decisions will greatly influence whether they avoid poverty and enter the middle class. Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

"Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year)."

In other words, 75% of people will be at least middle class if they follow a few basic steps, and 98% of people will not be in poverty.

I also think it should be noted that the size of the American middle class has decreased over the last 40 years, but that's because most of the proportion of the middle class lost has been replaced by the upper-middle class.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/484941939/a-portrait...
It should also be noted that there are 1,700 new millionaires minted in the U.S. every single day with 3.1M new millionaires to be created between 2016 and 2020 (estimated).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21...
In sum, social mobility isn't perfect in America or the West, but there is still a ton of opportunity for anyone willing to go after it, despite who your parents are.

Aug 12, 2017

So in your opinion, the reason for reduced social mobility is that there are now proportionally more idiots in the world and most of these idiots are poor while everyone who is rich is extremely intelligent and deserves to be there. I'm sure you would agree with me, however, that there are plenty of rich idiots.
I'm curious, in your day to day life, how much contact do you actually have with poor people? Also, how many of the people that you work with came from poor backgrounds?

Aug 12, 2017
S.H.:

So in your opinion, the reason for reduced social mobility is that there are now proportionally more idiots in the world

No, the facts suggest that people will not be poor if they engage in certain positive behaviors. Out of wedlock births have exploded in America among all racial groups in the last 50 years. The facts suggest that that negative behavior is likely a chief cause contributing to the decline in social mobility. People who are raised by single parents are more likely to engage in the same negative behaviors and so on throughout the generations.

The reality is, if you engage in positive behaviors in a free society--especially if you work hard and go to college--you are very likely to end up well off.

Aug 12, 2017

I agree with you. But a lot of the time people from poorer backgrounds don't have this luxury and the sad truth is most people don't care to provide them with this guidance. I myself come from a modest background and I used to believe that hard work will payoff. I have yet to see the fruits of my labour. Maybe I need to give it more time, but I can definitely say that graduating from a top uni with good marks and a technical degree hasn't opened the types of doors that I thought it would.
I certainly agree with the importance of making good decisions in your life as well as with the majority of your points. I just wanted to point out a fact that many people don't care about or aren't aware of.

Aug 14, 2017

By the way here is the definition of equality of opportunity from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se. The background assumption is that a society contains a hierarchy of more and less desirable, superior and inferior positions. Or there may be several such hierarchies. In a caste society, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is fixed by birth. The child acquires the social status of his or her parents at least if their union is socially sanctioned. Social mobility may be possible in a caste society, but the process whereby one is admitted to a different level of the hierarchy is open only to some individuals depending on their initial ascriptive social status. In contrast, when equality of opportunity prevails, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is determined by some form of competitive process, and all members of society are eligible to compete on equal terms. Different conceptions of equality of opportunity construe this idea of competing on equal terms variously."

Nothing in there suggests anything about equal rights under the law. It is purely related to how a hierarchical system is formed given a certain set of assumptions.

Aug 13, 2017

You have one life and all you can do is maximize within your own constraints. I worked 40 hours a week thru much of college to help support my family. Seems tough, but then again I was still born into the global top 10th percentile. The opportunities in this country eventually allowed me to attend an Ivy League grad school. I maximized within my own constraint set to take advantage of them, but I didn't create them. If given the choice, I wouldn't change anything nor would I trade lives with another person.

    • 1
Aug 13, 2017

No.

Aug 13, 2017

I find it a waste of time to dwell on what advantages kids from a wealthy, influential background have. Like another monkey said, their family worked to put them in that spot, and I can only hope to do the same for my future kids.

Only exception - I know one girl who has a well connected finance family, and was working at a fund managing a million dollars through her aunt after freshman year (we're both rising juniors). Then last fall, her and I both applied for a university program allowing business school students to build their Network. Does bother me that even though she already had plenty of supportive connections, she just had to go for even more, when i, with no family in finance, could have benefited more. Such is life, I guess

Aug 13, 2017

Rich kids are usually assholes.

You killed the Greece spread goes up, spread goes down, from Wall Street they all play like a freak, Goldman Sachs 'o beat.

Aug 14, 2017

I think one thing to also consider is that someone might have family connections, but in a completely irrelevant industry.

As an example, my family is very well-connected in professional sports and the entertainment industry, but that didn't really serve me in any way as I was recruiting for IB and S&T roles. I grew up well enough - went to a top public high school in a relatively affluent suburb - and there were few things my parents weren't able to provide for me, but I still had to work hard on my own to earn top grades, networking contacts, etc. because I knew that connected as my family was, the connections we had wouldn't be useful in the fields I was interested in.

I know that I grew up with resources and opportunities (academic, extracurricular) that many were not privy to and am very grateful for that, but also don't discount the work that I have put in myself and the success that I've had at this early stage in my career. I credit my parents with instilling a good work ethic and humility through their own example and encouraging me in all of my endeavors, but my dad certainly couldn't just pick up the phone and swing a job for me.

Aug 14, 2017

i envy no man
for i have seen my own face

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

Aug 14, 2017
    • 1
Aug 21, 2017
Aug 30, 2017
"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
Dec 12, 2017
    • 2
Dec 12, 2017
Dec 12, 2017
Dec 12, 2017