Americans like to believe that the modern workplace, like school, is a meritocracy. Sure, some people have a lot of money and don’t have to work, but Americans prefer to believe that, among those who do work, side-by-side in the same environment, it’s a fair competition. To their chagrin, they observe that their co-workers from wealthy backgrounds advance three times as fast, and wonder what the hell is going on. Why does one person, no more skilled than any of his co-workers, advance so effortlessly because of who his daddy is?
I don’t intend to insinuate that companies or managers are knowingly being elitist. No company or manager would intentionally give favor to one who has already enjoyed so many external advantages, especially if that person’s level of talent did not merit it. People in offices are out for themselves, not trying to preserve (or to combat) the social status quo. Rather, this is a subconscious and irresistible force, and it comes from one root cause: rich kids don’t fear the boss. That’s extremely important.
Consider two analysts at a prestigious financial firm, both 24 years old and of equal drive, intelligence, and talent. One is from a double-income family in suburban Connecticut earning $125,000 per year– a decent sum by average standards, but less than the analysts hope to be making by 26. The other’s father is a hedge fund manager earning $10 million per year. Let’s also assume, for now, that none of their co-workers or managers know either analyst’s family background, except through their behavior. The middle-class kid spends the bulk of his time trying not to offend, not to behave in a way that might jeopardize the job he worked so hard to get and could not easily replace if he lost it. He doesn’t invite himself to meetings, avoids contact with high-ranking executives, and doesn’t offer suggestions when in meetings. Thanks to the fear he experiences on a daily basis, he’s seen as “socially awkward” and “mousy” by higher-ups. Nothing recommends him, and he will not advance.
Middle-class kids generally fuck up their first few years of the career game in one of two ways. Either they fear authority tremendously, which is crippling from a career perspective and renders them devoid of creative energy, or they show an open distaste for managerial authority, described by the wealthy as having a proletarian “chip” on one’s shoulder, and fail to advance on account of the dislike they thus inspire. Even when they are cognitively aware of how to manage authority, the stakes of the career game for a middle-class striver, who will fall into humiliation and possibly poverty if he fails it, are so severe that only the well-trained and steel-nerved few can prevent these calamitously high risks from, at least to some degree, disrupting their game.
The rich kid, on the other hand, relates even to the highest-ranking executives as equals, because he knows that they are his social equals. He’ll answer to them, but with an understanding that his subordination is limited and offered in exchange for mentoring and protection. He views them as partners and colleagues, not judges or potential adversaries. Perhaps this is counterintuitive, but most of his bosses like this. (Most bosses aren’t assholes and don’t like to be feared, at all. In fact, they’d be happy to forget that they are bosses.) His career advances fast. He’s “up and coming”. This occurs even if no one has any idea that he’s from a wealthy background.
The rich kid, fearless on account of not needing to keep his job, can effortlessly walk the middle path. He’s neither a cowering weakling who crumbles at the sight of authority, nor an obnoxious brat whose sense of entitlement and dislike for managerial authority limit his progress prematurely. He respects others and himself and has an uncanny air of effortless “coolness” (by which I mean freedom from anxiety) that enables him to actually get things done. It becomes common knowledge that he’s “up-and-coming”, a rising star in his company. Even if his performance is smack-average or somewhat below, his effortless rise will not be deterred. It is assumed. With that advantage, he can concentrate on actually getting work done, yet another uncommon advantage.
This “middle path” between self-defeat and entitled arrogance is narrow– a tightrope, metaphorically speaking. It is, I should note, of equal width and tension for both rich and poor. There is no intentional preference given to one class over the other. The difference is that children of wealth traverse it at a height of one meter over a mattress, while the middle-class and poor traverse it at a height of 20 meters over a lava pit.
Thus, I have described the inevitable advantages the children of wealth hold in the career game. This assumes that there is no knowledge of their economic standing. The rich kid, even when no one knows that he is rich, still wins. He has the right air about him, and the same freedom from anxiety and free-flowing creative energy of a college student because, for him, college (i.e. the time of life in which most middle-class peoples’ lives peak) never ended. His entry-level job is not a place of stress, but a continuation of school; a place where he can learn and grow.
If the employees’ economic situations were known, it might be expected that some advantage would be conferred to the industrious “striver” from the middle class. In practice, this isn’t really true. While the worst scions of wealth, rich brats as seen in documentaries like Born Rich, disgust people and generally negate the advantages conferred by their social capital; the majority of rich kids who are well-behaved and decent are valued more highly when their circumstances are discovered. In practice, one finds that people would rather gain the connections and favors available to the rich than satisfy any small sense of altruism by extending benefits to the hard-working middle and lower classes.
What’s more, the attitude shown to the wealthy in the workplace is one of appreciation. Consider the example above, of two fairly identical analysts in a high-stress financial job, and assume that their familial economic standings are known (as is usually the case). The middle-class analyst is assumed to be there because he likes the money. This doesn’t endear him to anyone, and if he asks his boss why he isn’t getting his way in project allocation or career advancement, he can be given a reply like, “That’s why we pay you the big bucks.” (If he responds justly to that comment and makes its issuer a better person, he’ll be summarily fired and, if this action earns him a reputation, unemployable.) Such an insulting reply, except with gauche irony, would never be given to his counterpart, if his economic standing were known. By contrast, as it’s known that the rich kid has no need to work, he is appreciated for doing so. He is assumed (unlike the middle-class striver) to have a strong work ethic just because he shows up sober to work every day. He doesn’t have to go over the top to establish that he has a decent work ethic; that he is working at a level of reliability taken for granted from his middle-class counterparts is taken to prove his work ethic and stamina.
This advantage held by the wealthy, more prominent on the East Coast and outside of technology, is nearly impossible to compete against in most companies. I wouldn’t advise a person even to try. “Faking rich” is going to lead a person to seem pathetic and materialistic, not refined and free of anxiety. Moreover, feigning the cavalier attitude toward executive authority that rich kids hold effortless is very dangerous if one lacks the requisite social skills. Overdone, it can lead quickly to the unemployment line.
For the individual, I can offer no personal solution to this deep sociological problem. As far as I know, there’s none. I would advise those who are sufficiently talented to work in technology, which tends to be more meritocratic than other industries, and to avoid old-style business. Beyond that, I know of no solution.
So why did I write this essay, if I can offer no solution? First, it’s because I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for universal social justice, and I want to encourage this to happen. If I raise awareness of a defective and unfair situation, perhaps I can encourage people to change it. Second: although this is one of corporate capitalism’s milder flaws, leading a multitude to moderate disappointment but with little-to-no acute danger or loss of life, a rising awareness of the career game’s unfairness might result in less energy wasted, across the whole of society, attempting to ascend the proverbial “corporate ladder”. Establishing that a gambling house provides only rigged games is the first step toward depriving it of players, and therefore setting in motion the first stages of its destruction.
Alas, your final sentence isn’t true. “Don’t you know that blind tiger [gambling house specializing in faro, a game so even that it's practically necessary to cheat] is crooked?” “Of course I know — but what can I do? It’s the only game in town.” And in corporate capitalism, this is not only true for compulsive gamblers, but for nearly everybody.
Ah, you make quite an accurate point. Corporate capitalism is, for those whose salaries are going to be their main source of income and who wish to raise families, pretty much the only game in town. You can try a startup, but more likely than not, you’ll end up with VCs as your bosses. Or you can go into academia if you can stomach a dying industry in which a person doesn’t even choose where he or she lives (due to the shit-fest they call an “academic job market”). If you go too far out of the corporate game, you can live acceptably (as a single person willing to live at low means) but have no hope of being able to raise a family. The fact remains that, for average people, corporate capitalism pretty much is the only game in town, and a nastier and more competitive game now that the unholy trinity (health, housing, and higher education costs) have punched so many people out of the middle class for good.
We are obviously still a long way from the forceful overthrow of corporate capitalism. The former middle class has to recognize the finality of their “formerness”, in the current arrangement, before they start agitating and tearing down their oppressors. Worse yet, the dumber half of them have been led in a direction that opposes their own interests (the idiotic “Tea Party” movement). We’d be lucky to see the necessary changes come within 10 years rather than 25 or 50. I’m just an obscure blogger. I don’t expect to be able to spark revolutions, but I will leave this life some time between the next minute and several decades from now– hopefully the latter, of course– and when I do, I want to know I did my part.
It’s important to write on these issues, because if a well-made argument does not convert the good people who have been conscripted into evil armies, at least it depletes their morale. We see a nation where people make over-the-top sacrifices for these perverted, empty gods called corporations, led on by empty promises (economic security, high pay in the future) that will never be fulfilled. Anything that reduces their will to make such sacrifices so blindly, and for so little in return, is good.
We also have a system that has been cleverly disguised to look meritocratic but is every bit as much of a hereditary aristocracy as France in the time of Louis XVI. The upper classes have created a world in which their progeny actually seem quite accomplished (because their daddies bought them college admissions, internships, social connections; in other words, their entire CVs) and therefore deserving of their continuing privilege. In this way, they’ve built a society that, although deeply hypocritical and unjust, is remarkably stable in comparison to how onerous it actually is.
While generally accurate, this is a defeatist article. Many of those hedge fund managers came from regular middle class families. I personally know a couple. The wealth acquisition starts somewhere.
No one wants to play a game they cannot win.
Of course, the problem is that not everyone know the game’s rules (i.e. those explained in this post) and a bigger problem is that there are not many other games you can play.
Hello from Australia. Yes socialism works and is thoroughly enjoyable. Start by decoupling health benefits and employment, then progress from there.
Many of these issues are covered in Lubrano’s book, Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471263761,descCd-reviews.html
Oh,
BTW, I come from Spain, here we have real socialist, I have in my family people from Romania and ex-URSS, with even bigger socialism.
Do you know in practical real socialism there is exactly the same problem? only worse. Those that are born children of the powerful are powerful.
In Andalucia(south of Spain) we have a politician leader that gave one of his son an 800.000eur horse as a gift and a million dollar house. All his family work for the government, their daughters are wed with multimillionaires. Of course, he defines itself as a socialist and worker for the common people, common people himself.
We have ministers without academic career(no university degree) or experience, like health ministry occupied by Leire Pajín(34 years old) or the Civil works ministry occupied by Jose Blanco. Their only merit is “being socialist”, they are the bosses of every engineer of doctor of the state public service.
Do you want to have to be communist for having a company? like in China(>90% business owners are from the party), or today Rusia(the old communist seized all economy for their selfs).
In Rusia or Romania, communist did not have money, they have something better: POWER. You wanted something,for you or your family, you got it. You could not own anything, no houses, no cars, but you could USE whatever you wanted to use, in the name of service.
At least in USA if you are good, you have the opportunity to make money and let me tell you $100.000/year is being rich in the rest of the world(e.g tell an Argentinean about how pity you are getting $100.000 because you compare with the ultra-rich or 0.02%of the world population).
You do not need to follow the corporate ladder even, you are free to make so because you want to, a difference from socialist societies in witch other people tell you what to do or else… In Soviet Rusia you were not a good party server and you knew no job for you OR YOUR FAMILY because there is only one company you could work for, the state, and only one boss, the party.
In soviet Rusia, they decided for you what you were going to do since childhood.
Read “The perestroika” from Gorvachev to know about socialist states economy efficiency.
Social justice? Justice needs judges. It becomes more important to act as you are working for others than to really work. The perception becomes more important than reality. Thanks but no thanks.
Unfairness? is not fair that you are born American, not Chinese or Indian or African(in the statistical lottery you got lucky), you should give all your money to them if you want fairness. Never eat cow, it is not fair cows need to die so you eat them.
Another explication might be that rich kid not needing a job, do the right thing instead of the boss thing as they work lending them more opportunity.
‘Linchpin’ by Seth Godin defends this thesis that the job market has changed and that opportunities are given to (or taken by) the one that don’t follow the rules.
The beginning of the article is nice, but the end nearly fall in fatalism. Saying that a sociological and behavioral issue is unsurmountable if you’re not in the right dispositions first is just incredibly wrong. The world is changed by people doing things everyday even if the stars are never aligned; waiting a scientific approach to the world is very, very useless and a bit frightening too.
I completely agree with this. I used to be in the “middle-class” bucket for first 10 years and because of few lucky investments have moved to the no-need-to-work-for-a-living bucket. And the change in financial status is not public information. But still, I feel a lot more confident when asking for a raise or asking to work on a project that would be help me get promoted. What could go wrong? If I am qualified for the job and I ask for it, there is a good chance that I would be allowed to work on it in principle. Promotion, salary increments follow based on performance.
It gets more naked than that, too. In the media industries, unpaid internships are the way most people start. And who can afford them? http://fuckyeahfreeinterns.tumblr.com/ for so many examples.
I say, Eat the rich.
You make a good point, but things are at least very much better in America than in many countries of the world, where the rich don’t even need to dress up their privilege with achievements.
And here’s your article regendered: http://regender.com/swap/http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yes-rich-kids-already-won-the-career-game-heres-why/
I find your last paragraph slightly hollow in light of your default=maile stance. If you think in terms of the injustice to women in society still (mainly through family policies) and then read your last paragraph, I think you’ll see what I mean.
Good article. Might I suggest the ‘former’ middleclass kids catch up on their reading? Try “How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World” by Harry Browne. The book explains how to recognize and overcome common but false assumptions that unnecessarily restrict your freedom. Your readers are smart so I’m sure they’ll find a digital copy on the internets.
Very much enjoyed the post.
I advocate strongly (as it seems you do) the promotion of entrepreneurial training for the masses. However, it is very difficult to get lower and middle-class communities to release their death-grip on the apparent stability and security of the corporate (or government) ladder.
I wrote a post that touches on the need for a shift in the cultural values of whole communities to push youth toward starting their own businesses rather than being “inputs” to be used up and churned through by outdated systems.
http://isaacelias.posterous.com/startup-americans-diversity-in-tech
Here though, the rich also have an advantage that places them ahead of the game in how they view entrepreneurship. But the drama only gets better when the hero is woefully outnumbered. Here’s to the underdogs.
Class exists, but there are numerous examples of people who overcame it. The head of Goldman Sachs grew up in Brooklyn public housing not far from Al Sharpton.
In addition to technology, any kind of entrepreneurship moves you outside stultified class-based Wall Street type corporate cultures.
Class-based privileges, assumptions, and biases have been around for a long time. They have become less overwhelming over the last couple of centuries. It would be nice if current and future generations continued the improvement. The evidence of improvement over the last couple of decades does not seem very compelling.
I seem to fit this mold, so I know exactly what you’re talking about. I came from a pretty wealthy family and worked at the same (very large, public accounting) company as my dad. All of your bold points are completely true, in fact I’ve never read an essay while nodding my head going “I know!” so much.
It was a piece of cake interacting with directors/partners way further up the food chain. I was given credit for it, being as calm and collected as I was, in a world where everyone was nervous around the “management.” It seemed like second nature to me.
As people began to realize where I came from, I was treated as an “up-and-comer” for what seemed like simply showing up, like all the others on my team. There were very few people that praised me and had actually seem my work, and those that did had no bearing on my career path. It made no sense to me.
These reasons were among the many that pushed me to leave and join a much smaller company where no one knew my heritage or history. I still see the underlying effects of my upbringing helping me, but I’m in a position now where it’s more my abilities and skills that are being judged regularly. That’s the way it should be – and it is, in certain places.
Children need to be raised to balance respect for authority with respect for self. That’s a parental job. Children who are raised with a degree of self-confidence and knowledge of both their abilities and limitations with know when it is necessary to kowtow and when it is necessary to aggressively pursue a goal in a more direct manner. If your child doesn’t know that all the corporate bosses are their social equals, you’ve done something wrong. There’s a difference between giving the boss appropriate deference and thinking the boss is “better” simply due to positional authority.
In my work, I straddle two worlds: a relentlessly hierarchical church structure, and a much more free-form world that is modern IT. I can walk away from either, easily. My employers know this. I don’t flaunt it, I simply ensure that my services are both well-regarded as good value for the money, and indicate that lesser options are available to my employer (while better options are available to me.) The net result is that I have a very broad range of authority (which I use with circumspection) and my employer gets a highly-trained and experienced worker for less than what the skill-set demands in the marketplace. In short, I can fairly-well do what I want at work, provided I am meeting the needs of my employer, and I get paid for doing so. That’s about as good as any job gets. “They pay me for this? Yes, because it is worthwhile. But I can still enjoy it!”
When you walk into the casino, if you know when to bet, you can make a decent living playing blackjack. The trick is not to win too much too often. The casino has to stay in business for you to make money.
There is always another casino down the road if you win too much and get shut-out of the one you’re currently frequenting.
Grace! -Br. Rog
Your argument has some validity, but most of the advantages possessed by rich kids would also be there in the genuinely talented. They’re not scared of losing their job because they know they can easily get another one. Maybe not so much in a down economy, but it’s true most of the time.
Overall I am in agreement.
Rich Kids http://goo.gl/fb/ISdQl
Good points, but you use credibility as a professional when you use profanity in your article as a matter of course. Poor form.
Or, instead of praying for the end of capitalism as we know it, you could just encourage people to become entrepreneurs, control their own destiny and bypass this corporate ladder-climbing game altogether. My $0.02.
What do you think of the idea that accumulating some level of savings can give a non-rich kid enough of a safety net to give him enough confidence to act like the rich kid?
From my own experience in the non-rich category, I find that having savings helps a lot. I also see how the changes in my own behavior have affected my bosses very positively.
It reads nicely, but it somewhat hamstrung by your argument being predicated on the assumption that people’s personalities and airs are considerably shaped by their background.
The extent to which you initially described seems hyperbolic, though I do agree with the subsequent logic.
Pingback: Why Rich Kids Advance Farther In The Career Game..
Having worked for “The” law firm in a town where our clients were the socially connected aristocracy, the only aristocracy, I can’t imagine one of their kids working in an ordinary corporation where they had not social connection. We hired the rich kids as interns. They dads in all the other firms hired the children of our attorney’s.
These kids write letters to make requests of people in the network of the aristocracy. They write thank you letters. They get into better schools. They went to “The” private school, rather than one of the now proliferating, middle-class knockoffs. Their fraternities are for life, not Animal House beer guzzling, not just for the time they are in college. Their marriages and coming out parties are the real deal among the aristocracy.
The nightly parties that the aristocracy attends are work. There were few places where they could let their hair down. The kid was raised by the nanny and the boarding school staff. Their lives are not like those of the middle class. They can make a life of cards. They make money at the wholesale level where the middle class makes money at the retail level. The risks are different. The means are different. We live in different worlds.
I don’t know that I believe your hypothesis. There are many reasons why rich kids succeed, but I’ll accept yours in the situation where a rich kid really is working in a “normal” job.
Wow… you acknowledge that this isn’t as prominent an issue outside of the east coast and tech, but make no account for how broad a swath that leaves (isn’t the tech sector the fastest growing sector of our economy? and while some of our largest population centers are on the east coast ie New York, Philadelphia, Boston, there are are also population centers on the West Coast ie Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, plus the whole of the midwest)… not to mention the fact that “isn’t as prominent an issue” is a rather subjective way to put it, can you clarify how much less prominent? Is it worth moving to a different region of the country for better opportunities?
Additionally, as an individual who comes from a very poor background and is now working his way up inside a tech company (although not in an overtly ‘tech’ job, while I can write code in several different languages/technologies, thats not what I was hired to do, nor a direct reason for my success), I have never felt the crippling “fear” that you seem to suffer from (unless you yourself come from money, which I would be very surprised to learn). I have never particularly thought about it, but I believe that my lack of this fear stems from the fact that what I have achieved so far, I know I achieved through talent (and fortuitous timing and situations, for which I give credit to God). Since I know that I got to where I am on my merits, I feel I can get here again should I need to… therefore I don’t need to be afraid to do the job I’ve been hired to do (or to offer opinions and feedback that get me noticed).
I don’t mean this to be insulting, but ultimately this feels to me like whining… what has made America so great is that if you have talent and are willing to work hard, you can create opportunities for yourself to be successful. That doesn’t mean that someone else may not be successful WITHOUT working hard or deserving it, but it means that you can be successful in your pursuit of happiness without giving up your life or liberty. There was never a valid expectation that you DESERVED success, just that you deserved the OPPORTUNITY for success. Additionally, to speak more directly to the issue that you propose is currently facing us (that someone else will succeed instead of you because they are more advantaged): I don’t accept your thesis that EITHER he can succeed OR I can succeed… he can succeed because he’s advantaged, frankly I don’t care, but I will succeed because of my talents and abilities… and how I apply them.
Ultimately you are entitled to your opinions and you express them very well, for that I appreciate your post as there are a number of people who I encounter online who do not share your ability to communicate effectively. With that said, I do have to end by saying that while you may be fighting to overthrow the capitalist system we have in favor of a socialist one, I will be fighting against you.
Think of the characters selected for demonstration in the article. There is 1 upper middle class kid, and 1 rich kid. There is no smart successful “poor” kid like yourself. Maybe you are another group to be considered capable of leap frogging over the middle class kids & parents, and grand parents that have struggled to reach just that far. Mentally, you have less to loose since you’ve been there already.
Thats a valid point, and I think it goes to one of my points that I may not have made as clear as I could have… this analysis is far too simplistic. I recognize that a full analysis would easily full a large volume, but I think at least an acknowledgment of the complexities not being addressed in this discussion is critical to having a meaningful discussion of the issue.
Fair point. Obviously, that essay is full of simplifications and semi-fictional anecdotes. I think it describes the reality that 90 percent of people in this society face, but it’s not universal. There are definitely some companies where being from a working-class background is a social advantage, because the founders are from such backgrounds. There are others that pretty much require an upper-class background to succeed. I would only contend that the latter are, among the most well-established companies, especially in New York, more common than the former.
Mitch Kapor gave a great speech on this at Y Combinator’s 2007 Startup School where he discussed the tendency of firms to become “mirrortocracies”, in which people elevate those like them while ignoring those who are different (older, different background) instead of meritocracies.
I wonder what you’d think of my follow-up piece.
Ignoring the Marxist predictions that come toward the end of your essay, there is one main point which warrants consideration. You seem to define merit as that which exists on one’s resume, or can be described in a quantifiable manner. However, social skills are certainly an area in which one person can exceed another. Given two people with the same resume merit and differing levels of social grace are the two individuals equal? Shouldn’t we expect that two people with the same intelligence but differing social intelligence have different trajectories in life? While I’m not claiming that we have a meritocracy, I do believe that a broader notion of merit helps explain what we observe in the context of social mobility. By creating this broader notion of merit we can do better than simply argue that the game is rigged from the start. We can explore the nuances of the causal relationships which affect all the players of the game. Consider replacing social class with confidence in your essay and see how many assertions need to change.
I will say that it is unfair that the rich get to define the game. In doing so they bias it toward their continued success. But this is not a malicious act, and should not be presented as such. Every game has a creator and once the rules — explicit or implicit as they may be — are known the flaws in the game will become evident. What is perhaps most disappointing is that it is very difficult to prove that one has created a truly fair game — or even to be sure that one knows what fairness is in this complicated world.
If this topic intrigues you, take a look at this TED talk http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html
UIV
At the end, you say ” If I raise awareness of a defective and unfair situation, perhaps I can encourage people to change it.”
But that makes no sense in light of the reasons you presented for the situation. Affluent people have different “people skills” than others. They are treated differently because they behave differently. Management is primarily about people skills; therefore, those that have or acquire those skills quickest will do best.
It may seem unfair, but it’s more a case of success breeds success. When you honestly don’t care if you fail, you can shoot for the stars. When you are worried about falling, you’ll be lucky to make it up the stairs.
Rising awareness is the only thing we can do. Then change will come from within. From within millions and millions of people.
“I would advise those who are sufficiently talented to work in technology, which tends to be more meritocratic than other industries, and to avoid old-style business”
This is a good article, but that line is the most important one and probably the most crucial takeaway for any reader.
Your post’s premise is meritocracy, yet you’re suggesting that rich kids are better on merits not because of any existing social contracts that are corrupt, but just because they have a different attitude which appeals. I’d say you’re taking the side effect and trying to make it the cause for the trend, rather than understanding maybe most positions in this world are networked and the cockiness is merely rhetoric spun after to justify decisions.
Pingback: brain candy of the day – March 7th 2011 | The Iaian Blog
Strike out ‘rich’ and write in ‘self-confident’. There are poor people with the self esteem to carry themselves successfully and rich people who would surrender their fortunes to get it. In fact, most people of inherited wealth are the descendants of a poor person with balls.
Thank you for writing this: it’s important to point out that unjust situations are unjust, and that injustice can come from *systemic* causes, not just from individuals’ prejudices and cognitive biases.
Also, don’t mind the Internet-libertarian comments on Hacker News: most of them seem to have learned everything they know about socialism and anarchism from Glenn Beck.
I don’t believe in a no-win scenario.
I think “Libertarian Socialism” best summarizes the comfortable perceptions of our generation.
Interesting. I wonder if the same is true for women. For a woman to act as if she is a ‘superior’ man’s equal in the workplace isn’t well-received generally; if you’re known to be a woman of affluence, would that change?
I’ve actually noticed that women get much better results when they inflect at the end of their sentences… as if everything they say is a question for a senior leader to respond to —- not an assertion (which an ‘equal’ would freely make). The less sure and equal women act, the more receptive senior men (in particular) seem to be to their ideas, which means the more likely they’ll be to get remembered and, in turn (usually), promoted.
That said, perhaps the jokes about getting paid ‘the big bucks’ still would apply. I’d be interested to see….
There is actually a workaround to this problem. The solution is to frazzle the rich kid by, for example, anonymously reporting him to the IRS for tax evasion or hiring a private investigator to see if he cheats on his wife, or reporting him for software piracy. The idea is to introduce a level of chaos into his life that lowers the quality of his work.
Wash, rinse and repeat for any number of rich kids that you work with.
Before someone argues that this would not work, keep in mind that wealthy people have extremely complex tax returns because they earn income in complex ways.
i suddenly feel inspired to take the jump from being employed to being self employed/ or finding a job at a company which would have corporate social responsiblity ingrained into its culture.
Pingback: In which I break my own reasonable policy against “meta” posts « Michael O.Church
Who is John Galt?
This article breaks down when you look at reality. Most of the people who are rich today are not from rich families. They are from poor or middle class families. The difference is they got off their ass and did something.
Pingback: Career – The Workplace and Fear
I agree with you until the last paragraph. This type of hereditary system will not be abolished from within, since it favors those already in power. However, “our generation”, loosely understood, will topple this “gentlemens’ agreement”. It’s just that it won’t be kids on the east coast, or probably even west coast, but those in Asia. The India’s and China’s of the world are coming faster and stronger than anyone who is not genuinely top-notch could ever hope to stop.
The reason the old system will fail is simply because it is less efficient than a true meritocracy.
Thanks for sharing such insightful comments, I’ll think over them more.
rich kids dont work as hard thats why corporations dont want them, get your facts right
Libertarian socialism? Wow… Lost all credibility there.
Love,
Girl who grew up poor, does not fear the boss, but owns her boss and makes six figures.
This is a very good article which displays a solid understanding of the topic offered up for our enjoyment. Very well written, Thank you. I have no issues with the article nor do I really have any issue with the grounds you provided for writing the article but I would ask you to put the same amount of time and thought into the idea of capitalism. It is my insignificant opinion that there are very few systems that must be dismantled; as long as being part of that system is an option and not forced. I like options; diversity is fantastic. Even though the system is rigged just like a casino I like that it is there to go try. It may seem like a fools endeavor but it is a choice that people must make for themselves. The only real tragedy of these systems is that people don’t understand that they have other options and are more or less forced in. Much in the same way that many people are coherst into attending university and into struggling up the corporate ladder either by influences from friends and family or by situation.
I come from a socialist background and I can appreciate it but I also have an appreciation for the more fierce, unforgiving, wild west style capitalism. Different people like different things. Different things have different uses. I understand that where I live on this planet is a choice, something that many people will never fully understand. Right now, I am young, driven, and I want to accomplish as much as possible so I will be staying around the US and have looked at going to even more wild places. Perhaps later, if I fail or tire of my pursuits I will move to Germany, Austria, or Sweden and just live a solid, less competitive, happy existence. Is capitalism worse or better than socialism? It depends on your personal beliefs and goals and they can change over time. A question to ask is if socialism existed everywhere and your own personal goals shift, where will you go?
True, the people we see waiving signs and flags at political events clearly don’t know which way their bread is buttered; They simply sign on to whichever party feels like it is closest to them. This applies to all parties. I have met more than a few hard core tea party members, democrats and republicans that truly don’t understand what the party they support actually stands for or does. Many believe they support someone whose goals rhyme with their own beliefs however the truth is that seeing these goals through will kill what they hope to protect.
If I were going to wage war against anything I think I would go after bureaucracy. Of course I would have to acquire the correct form, submit it in triplicate, wait for comity approval etc… I cant stand it because it is forced on everyone, eats up time, money, energy and is simply inefficient. I hate that I have to admit this (I actually like many elements and motivations of socialism) but bureaucracy is a staple of socialism (IMO it is its biggest flaw.) This is an observation I cant ignore.
Sorry if anyone actually took the time to read this. It is really late and I needed a distraction. Thanks for the article.
i absolutely agree! this just echoes the studies provided by MALCOLM GLADWELL in ‘Outliers’.
Its the ‘ART of SEDUCTION’ in play – the one who WANTS it, gets it. the one who NEEDS it, dosent.
Very well written – RESPECT.
Pingback: This is so damn true – Michael Alan Miller
Interesting read, certainly true on many aspects. But attributing the rich kids attitude primarily to the fact they have a “safety net.” This helps in creating the positive attitude, but is certainly not the only factor, and of course, not having a safety net makes one more nervous, as they would rather keep their job than take a risk.
However , I’d surmise that this is a developed attitude not necessarily from money or lack of, but a set of habits and personality traits and as some have said an understanding of “the game”. And as always the environment you live in affects your opportunities, like the difference between living in a jungle and a desert, and recognizing the environment you’re in and adapting is also key to moving ahead in any type of society.
An understanding of “the game” is perhaps one of the best tools of an ambitious (a key personality trait) person, not the skills they possess or the work they’ve accomplished. This goes for any political or economic structure and is why incumbents are always favored.
Personally, I think a socialist America as you envision is frankly not possible. The living standards are far to high to provoke people to radical action like that, as well as the type of people who participate in the system (fundamental to why the system works this well in the first place), as well as the powers that be. I think the key to advancing is developing specific attitudes and habits, as well as knowledge of what you’re doing, and well thought planning. Investigate all your opportunities, there are more than you probably thought, and know what it takes to do something and keep a strong attitude. Hard work alone will sadly not help you as much as one may think, you have to put your energies into a diversity of things. If you’re the best box packer there is, then you’re always going to be a box packer!
My conclusion: where you go in life depends on what you make of it. Your attitude will dictate how you take action, such as getting that extra job, starting your own business, challenging folks, volunteering, studying, etc. What you think is going to happen, and what you beleive will happen, and where you concentrate your energies, will decide what you will get.
Pingback: Follow-up on rich kids beating the career game. « Michael O.Church
GREAT NEWS!
You don’t have to be poor to fail in life. I have known plenty of rich families – multi-millionaires – each child is a complete fuck-up. East coast, West coast. Really, the rich kid wins? Last time I checked, the only type of person who wins, is smart and skillful, & agreeably confident. All the qualities that are mentioned in the article probably correspond with a successful youth. But the net worth does not relate to one’s intelligence, creativity, social skills, etc.
Everyone has access to drugs and alcohol, as well.
Pingback: Career – The Workplace and Fear – Ego, Wealth, Abundance
Pingback: March 13: Lunch with Sean Parker, why rich kids have already won the career game, and Adjustment Bureau | Alexandru Blidaru's blog
Pingback: links for 2011-03-14 – Mindstab.net
Pingback: An Ode to JCU – They can justify everything « OZ Apps
Very interesting post and I must say very true. This is why so many Americans live beyond their means, buying cars they can’t afford, buying houses that are way larger and more expensive than they need… It’s all just an attempt to make them feel like they FIT IN with the wealthy class at work.
This is exactly why the 50+ year old generation spent EVERY PENNY they got on cars, houses, Kitchen remodels, Bathroom remodels, vacations, clothes, showing off, etc. etc. They are up to their eyeballs in debt because they have to drive around in a Jaguar or Mercedes.
The interesting thing about the “recession” that started in 2007 is that now in 2011 many people no longer care to spend money so they “look” wealthier than they really are.
The hard truth is, most rich people were BORN rich. Someone who grew up in a wealthy family acts and thinks VERY DIFFERENTLY than someone who grew up with parents who struggle with debt and work long hours just to survive.
In America today in 2011 we have two very different classes in society.
First, We have the FILTHY RICH class that has so much money they are BORN RETIRED and never have to work a day in their lives if they don’t want to. Sure a few of them will work, they are the ones who will be able to FIND a job in the new economy because their relatives OWN the company.
Second, we have the POOR Class who are taxed to death on their salary and have to pay for Health Care, Housing (that now drops in value) Education that is insanely overpriced and outdated. If you have even ONE child you will be locked into indentured servitude for the rest of your natural life. Poor Kids who borrow money to go to college will find themselves LOCKED into $50,000+ worth of debt before they even START their career. Not to mention that all the available jobs are already GONE, they went to the nephews and sons of the Rich Class.
Pingback: Business lessons learnt from Young Apprentice Season 2 Episode 1 – Frozen treats | Michelle D'israeli's blog
So where does the upper middle class come into play here. This is a very large group of individuals who may carry attributes of both the middle class and the wealthy.
For example, a person who grew up in a single income household making $400,000 per annum. They attended very good public schools in primarily well-heeled towns (weekly housekeeper and maybe a part-time nanny vs. full time live-in staff). The houses in the neighborhood average about a million vs. multi-million mansions, townhouses or condos(Greenwich Village or Upper East Side).
Where does this guy stand in your opinion?
Between the two, obviously.
Upper-middle-class people (actual upper-middle class, which starts around 95-97th percentile) tend to fear humiliation but not frank financial insecurity. They aren’t burdened by student loans or fears of poverty, but they need to work in order to maintain their lifestyles and often have an intense work ethic. The very rich know they can’t match their family fortune through work, but the upper-middle-class know they can do as well as their parents did (if they work extremely hard at it).
If you’re middle-class or below, you worry about losing your job because you can’t afford to have a loss of income for more than a month or two. If you’re upper-middle-class, you can stand not to work for a year or two (although it’ll be embarrassing to rely on your parents at 25) but you worry about gaps in your CV. If you’re actually upper-class (top 0.1%) your parents can buy you a CV.
Most of the people who actually tear it up on the corporate ladder are from backgrounds that are upper-middle-class (97-99.9th percentiles) but would be considered “rich” by average Americans, e.g. Mark Zuckerberg. That’s not because the top 0.1% don’t have even more in the way of advantages; it’s because people born into that level rarely have the work ethic or focus.
nice, rich posting and interesting discussion about kids game..
i’d love to keep my eyes on update this blog.
thanks
You really put into words what I have observed. Children of the wealthy and privilege often have a confidence and a boldness about them that helps them take on big things and big risks with much less fear of failure. I have met a few who boasted of their connections in an insulting, “I made it, why can’t you?” attitude. But I have also met some children of wealth and privilege who work very hard and attain success through improving their skills. Honesty, integrity, sincerity and hard work still shine, despite the differences in background.
Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this web site before but after browsing through some of the articles I realized it’s new to me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely happy I discovered it and I’ll be bookmarking it and checking back frequently!
You have a lovely way with words Michael. Insults and compliments become indistinguishable.
Pingback: Quora
Pingback: 情商与成事 – 无产阶级的思想包袱 | 于是得仁