Society, and concerns over it, has changed a lot over the last few decades. Gays want equal rights and marriage, environmentalists want their concerns over climate change and protection of the earth addressed, women want equal pay and opportunities, minorities want the same opportunities afforded to them that everyone else gets. Liberals (the left) tend to notice these social inequalities and move to address them and accept them so that it seems that they are moving further to the left. They really aren't.

They haven't changed their way of thinking but rather have always been more likely to accept change and incorporate it into their lives. They also tend to believe in separation of church and state.

Conservatives (the right) aren't as likely to act in the same manner. They seem to be more resistance to change, more traditional in their thinking and will in fact often try to undo forward thinking changes (in their minds) when given the chance so that it appears that they are moving further to the right. They really aren't.

Pro-choice, equal rights for the LGBTQ community are not easy for them to accept and they don 't. Conservatives also tend to be much more nationalistic and close-minded to change.

The two ways of thinking aren't really changing but society has and the liberals or the left wing move with the changes while the right wing tend not to do so, so that it appears that they are further apart.

There is no doubt that this has and is causing conflict. I don't know the answer but hopefully it doesn't tear America apart. I don't think it will.

What a pompous meme.

Sorry if it offends, but is it any more pompous than hating everyone who voted for trump or all republicans because they are in trump's party? Or any more pompous than blocking a judge solely because Obama picked him even when a judge meets many of your own party's ideals? Is it more pompous than firing an aide for publicly disagreeing with you during an election .

I feel we lack political free thinkers in both parties both as voters and representatives and it is an issue that has divided us. Some people believe in their party's rhetoric as if it is gospel and it is not.

People believe in their party's rhetoric as if it is gospel and it is not.

Actually, I think it is quite rare that people are 100% aligned with every element of the platform of the party for which they cast a vote.

Roarah, it's not offensive. Just pompous. I don't even take "the gospel" as gospel.

Cattyles I never said you do. I know you to be a free thinker. But many now and for the last nine years look at politics as "us against them". The Republican Party of no is now the democrat party of no....people here even have mentioned dropping friends and family because they exercised their right to vote. Many republicans seem to think and act and voted like Trump was running against Obama not Hillary.

I can not count how many times I read after Trump's win that thank god Obama is now finally out of office, well he would have been gone either way. I also can not count how many democrats have also said they do not want Pence anymore than trump but that is who we get. Many people only watch news stations that align with their political party solely. All I hear is "my party is better than yours" from both side for years.

Trump is not the disease he is just a deadly symptom of party induced hate and intolerance that has existed in our system of blame for far to long.

The idea that people who align with a party don't think for themselves is pompous. Good word cattyles. Of course no one agrees 100 percent with any party's platform. But understanding how politics and our government work, it is entirely reasonable to align with the party that most closely mirrors your views. It is pragmatic, which is not the same thing as too stupid to think for yourself.

Choosing values and finding a party is not what I am against I am talking about blanket hate for those with opinions contrary to yours and that is what I see as why trump has been able to rise to his position. You can not deny it exists in fractions on both sides CRL and opinion based news pieces serve only as fuel for this disdain. The two opinion pieces you posted could be and I am sure are viewed as pompous by many too. They both basically implied the conservatives do not think as well as liberals and are the issue...

Reflexively hating everyone who voted for Trump (or Obama or Bush...) is not free thinking.

The problem is the inextricably linking one's ideology to the complete and total rejection of another's ideology, and worse, the people themselves.

The problem is that so many have lost all tolerance and willingness to hear each other, and opt rather to talk past one another.

He who shouts the loudest wins.

I only posted one link in this thread. I scrolled up to check because I thought maybe I had forgotten something, but I can only find one?

The link I posted is co-authored by someone from a conservative think tank. So if that's the one you are talking about, I don't understand your interpretation of it as being inherently divisive. That authorship is one of the reasons I like that link, because it's not just some ultra liberal talking. It is about the Republican Party moving to the right, not about whether you can think for yourself or not.

If you post something that says in essence only independents can think for themselves, I think you should expect a little push back on that. It's a pretty divisive (and ironic) statement in and of itself--only people who think like I do are smart enough to think for themselves.

How many of us, from either party can name elected officials from both parties that they like? I can name an equal number of dems as republicans for contrary to what we are lead to believe there is still a common ground and some bipartisan goals. If you can not find at least two people in the opposing party that you can actually see some common ground with than you are not looking for similarities only differences.... And it seems that for too long people have been trying to only see what is wrong with the other party and not what might be right.

These two links are what I referred to.

" crl_We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

Sign up

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.bcdb55d87988

(sorry for the formatting. Gotta go do real life now.)

Like Bookmark 13 hours agoThanked by mama goose_gw zn6OH"

i do not mind the push back at all I see your points of view and am only trying to express why I posted the meme and how I see it being a valid point and maybe even an important way to get out of the mess the world is in...

Ah, one is simply imbedded in the link I deliberately posted. Cut and paste does that.

I can understand the view that politics has become very divisive in the US. I don't think that meme helps at all.

I do not particularly like that meme's end delivery but I like the idea that we can find flaws , and I wish it pointed to positives too, in both parties and ourselves

I should point out that I do not believe this to be a U.S. Only issue. The Brexit, raise of antisemitism in France, the raise of dictators like Durerte and possibly Trump, Nordic hate of immigrants are all symptoms of this same problem. .

If you look at some of the issues right now, there is some indication that the conservative shift is really a "last gasp" of conservativism around these issues.

With regard to gay equality and marriage rights, Gen X-ers and Millennials tend to be supportive. And the issue of sexual orientation, whether they support marriage equality or not, is that sexual orientation is a non-issue among most Millennials.

Broken out by age group Millennials also tend to be more pro-Choice.

So these issues will probably become complete non-issues with the loss of the remaining silent generation and as older boomers start to die.

With regard to increasing xenophobia here and in other countries, I don't know.

I think some of this has to do with the increasing income disparity in this country (and probably in other countries as well). It doesn't seem quite fair that you can randomly create some computer ap or have a hit song that also has commercial applications and suddenly be a multimillionaire with a very small amount of effort.

Pal, I was just reading about the mixed bag millennial's the other day. Mixed bag as in they think like you say but their are some in each party.

http://thelantern.com/2017/01/analysis-political-party-loyalty-hard-to-judge-among-millennials/

It doesn't seem quite fair that you can randomly create some computer ap or have a hit song that also has commercial applications and suddenly be a multimillionaire with a very small amount of effort.

Why on earth is this unfair? These are voluntary commercial transactions, no one is forcing people to give money to these ap makers or song makers. If they improve people's lives and people want to enter into transactions with them, they deserve every dollar they make! It is grossly unfair to suggest that they somehow don't deserve the money they earn in voluntary transactions just because their skills happen to have more commercial value with less effort than other endeavors!

I agree on gay rights... not so sure about abortion though.

Polls suggest Millennials seem conflicted

https://mic.com/articles/23585/75-of-millennials-are-pro-choice-and-65-are-pro-life-wait-what#.S7sXGGunr

Millennials are oddly conflicted when it comes to the legality of abortion. Researchers note, "When controlling for other characteristics, millennials are surprisingly 1.3 times more likely than older Americans to say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases" but "millennials are 1.5 times more likely than older Americans to say at least some health care providers should provide legal abortions in their community."

Americans aged 18 to 29, part of the millennial generation, also have become more pro-life than their parents, according to a Gallup poll. In 2010, 24 percent of millennials agreed abortion should remain legal in all cases, compared with 36 percent of those aged 18 to 29 in 1991.

I've always favored very few restrictions on abortion. As medical technology evolves and babies become viable with less gestation time, though, I'll be curious to see how public opinion evolves.

Pal, those millennials had better be pretty vocal-the current make-up of Congress could undo a lot of the laws they currently regard as non-issues. It isn't too difficult seeing them becoming huge issues again. In fact, the rhetoric at all levels of government and laws being passed in various states suggests those things are indeed issues. Complacency should not be their choice.

Two people I like in the Republican Party are McCain and John Kasich (and yes I know he is pro-life). I may not completely agree with their politics but I do find them to be very well spoken.

I detest trump as a man and it has nothing to do with his politics. I have detested him for 20 years and couldn't stand to which The Apprentice. He is opportunistic. That's all I have to say about him.

beagles I am not saying whether it is fair or unfair.

I am saying that the increasing income disparity in this country is causing resentment--it "seems" not quite right. And while there have always been millionaires and billionaires, it seemed that like at one point in history, in the course of business. that you had to expend more effort to become so, if you were a self-made person. It's certainly not the fault of the person who creates the app or has the hit song. I bring up the Kardashians a lot, but look at the pointless wealth of the family. It is both created by and resented by our current society.

I don't see widespread resentment for people who legit earn their money. You don't see a lot of protesting against Beyone or the creators of the angry bird ap or athletes who make a fortune. Even the Kardashians. I just don't see widespread public condemnation of the fact they are wealthy. I find them abhorrently stupid and partly responsible for our devolving culture, but they found a market to tap into and earn their money by generating commercial activity that helps not only them, but all the other people in their empire from camera men to merchandise sellers.

I think one political party tries to ferment class envy, thankfully with limited success.... IMO, the resentment is focused (and should be focused) on those who earn their money in corrupt ways (e.g. bailout takers... and bailout givers)

And I see quite a lot of resentment (rightly or wrongly) towards "elitists" who try to tell others how to live their lives.

economic disparity is a driving cause of polorization and leads to blame and hate mentality in my opinion too.

I also see the income resentment in my every day life. Generalized animosity towards people that appear to have more even if they worked hard to get there. The assumption being that they had some kind of luck or break or advantage that wasn't accessible or available to the people that are struggling.

The people that admire the Kardashians admire them for their consumption and their fame, not their income.

On the topic of attitudes regarding income inequality/wealth disparity here are a couple of links folks might find interesting. (The first is a few years old.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/americans-want-to-live-in-a-much-more-equal-country-they-just-dont-realize-it/260639/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/upshot/how-a-quest-by-elites-is-driving-brexit-and-trump.html?_r=0

Here's the thing....

People may have this ideal view of what they believe is supposed to be the appropriate distribution of wealth (like in the Atlantic article). And in a perfect world, that would be all fine and good and we could have wealth divided in those pretty little buckets the way people want...

But since wealth does not naturally distribute in an equal way since some skills are worth far more than others, the real question is:

1. What are people willing to do / give up in order create this ideal distribution of wealth that they see as fair. The U.S. would be more "equal" if we didn't have people like Google and Apple execs having so much wealth... but would anyone's lives be richer if we did not have the products these people create? It is not right or fair to take the wealth that these people have earned through creating products that so many people want and need.

2. Do people view the steps needed to achieve a "fair" distribution of wealth as "fair" or reasonable actions to take? I could evenly distribute wealth by taking it at gun point from the rich and dividing it up evenly so everyone has the same... but that doesn't seem to work out very well for societies in the long-term

There are economic incentives and personal ideologies about a whole range of issues that exist in the real world that have to be taken into account that make these abstract value questions meaningless in terms of setting policy or even necessarily attracting voters.

The democrat's lets tax the wealthy to buy you free stuff doesn't seem to be all that popular among many voters... or at least it's not winning them elections... People simply don't want to have other people's stuff taken away by the government and handed out as handouts.

They want a fair system where they have a chance to get wealthy too, through virtue of their work. And they think these trade deals and the whole way that the "elites" have structured the economy is rigging the system in an unfair way.

I think this is why the anti-immigrant message (which I abhor) is taking hold so hard. People see it as unfair that immigrants are getting perceived advantages (jobs, benefits, legal status) that they didn't "earn."

Also find it interesting that if you look at inequality of U.S. states and cities, it is often the most liberal / progressive places with the greatest inequality.

Most of the economically disenfranchised are not looking for handouts or some kind of socialist distribution of wealth. It is not that black and white.

I don't know the answer. Many people and companies that excel financially do not do so because of their continued innovation or skills. They do so because their current wealth and connections and political influence allows them to successfully manipulate our laws and systems to their advantage.

Hi beaglesdoitbetter, I think those are good questions.

1. Another way to put this might be, if there weren't so much of a monetary incentive, would these people still create these products. Personally I think the answer is yes. I believe that for the most part these innovators and executives (Brin, Jobs, Zuckerberg etc.) are not in it to become insanely rich. ("Merely rich" would be fine?)

2. Yes, that's the trick, isn't it. I think by and large the rich would willingly give money in the form of taxes or otherwise if they could get on board with how it would be spent/used.

I think abstract value questions are very important to voters. I think a large part of the reason Hillary Clinton lost is because her campaign focused on progressive abstract values and largely ignored conservative abstract values.

Also find it interesting that if you look at inequality of U.S. states and cities, it is often the most liberal / progressive places with the greatest inequality.

Yes. Why do you think that is? Do you think people in these areas might be concerned about the inequality/disparity because it is something that they personally see on an everyday basis?

I'm not sure that income disparity is the problem or if it's employment disparity. Most people want to earn enough money to put a decent roof over their head, food on the table and shoes on the feet of their children. You can't do that if you are un- or under- employed. They don't want to earn a million dollars or even $100,000, they just want to be fully employed and earn enough to provide a life for their families and themselves.

This is slightly OT but something that I wonder if it's at play as well. I heard it referred to as The A side and The B side of life (on NCIS actually - but I thought the definition was so appropriate).

It refers to people who post the best parts of their life on facebook and instagram which is the A side, but never the bad parts and the drudgery or the B side. So many people get a false idea of the lives of other people, family members, friends or co-workers because only the best parts are seen. It can set up a level of disappointment in ones own life and a wondering of what have I done wrong.

You see the fun party that they are at that they posted, but you don't see them going home to the alcoholic parent, you see them at the nice restaurant which they posted but you don't see them going home to a sibling dealing with drugs, you see them at a concert which they posted but you didn't see the fight that they just had with their partner. There is such a disconnect between what you are shown and what the reality is for many.

Many people and companies that excel financially do not do so because of their continued innovation or skills. They do so because their current wealth and connections and political influence allows them to successfully manipulate our laws and systems to their advantage.

Maybe for a VERY small percentage of companies. But generally, no. Not even close.

The list of the "1%" is very fluid and very few of the truly wealthy today got their funds through inherited wealth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2015-4

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

Unless you are able to manipulate the government to give you a monopoly or create MASSIVE barriers to entry (which is a big government problem and major argument for small government) a business will not survive if you cannot innovate.

In some important ways, the Internet and information economy has democratized the ability to build tremendous wealth if you have the right kind of intelligence and a good idea. You don't need a college degree to create an awesome app that makes you a ton of money. You can become a YouTube video star with a $100 camera even if you don't know anyone in a recording studio.

Why do you think that is? Do you think people in these areas might be concerned about the inequality/disparity because it is something that they personally see on an everyday basis?

I think it is because progressive policies / excessive government intervention help to create the very economic conditions that create inequality.

I think by and large the rich would willingly give money in the form of taxes or otherwise if they could get on board with how it would be spent/used.

I think the rich would have gotten a lot closer to solving the poverty problem by now if they didn't have to give so much money to inefficient, bloated government bureaucracies that cannot innovate and have no accountability, but if instead were able to use their funds to create private charitable solutions

They want a fair system where they have a chance to get wealthy too, through virtue of their work. And they think these trade deals and the whole way that the "elites" have structured the economy is rigging the system in an unfair way.

Yes, the American Dream.

I think the reality is that currently some start off with so many obstacles -- it is not just the economy that is rigged, but education, health care, etc. How can children learn effectively when they are hungry and homeless?

If one asked the top 1% whether they would pay more in taxes to guarantee that all children are fed, housed, and can receive basic medical care I think they overwhelmingly would say yes. The problem is that people can't agree on how to do this.

Companies and industries like big pharma, Google, GE, etc spend 100s of millions of dollars on lobbying each year. And that doesn't include "suggested" employee political donations. It's completely naive to think that the efforts don't effect bottom lines and executive salaries. Small changes in laws or regulations can have big effects on profits.

And that is not from continued innovation. It is from manipulation of the system.

The problem is that people can't agree on how to do this.

Right. And our reliance on big government instead of private charity is the reason why we have these problems.

IMO, if the government wants to do anything, they should mandate that people give away a certain percentage of their income to charity instead of to the government. They could limit this to charities that provide a service to people or animals (e.g. no buying opera houses).

A wide range of different causes would be supported since people have different interests. Creative ideas could be tried w/o bloated bureaucracy. People would be able to research to discover where their funds are going, which would force only effective solutions to survive.

Companies and industries like big pharma, Google, GE, etc spend 100s of millions of dollars on lobbying each year. And that doesn't include "suggested" employee political donations.

Hey.. I know how we could stop this! Let's cut government involvement in private business so the government is involved only to the minimum extent necessary to protect free markets. That would eliminate incentive for lobbying!!

Of course companies lobby for favorable laws. Those laws may help them to pay less in taxes or to avoid a regulation that would make products cost more, but the favorable laws aren't why Google or GE are successful companies. It's absurd to suggest they are.

beaglesdoitbetter

I don't see widespread resentment for people who legit earn their money. You don't see a lot of protesting against Beyone or the creators of the angry bird ap or athletes who make a fortune. Even the Kardashians. I just don't see widespread public condemnation of the fact they are wealthy. I find them abhorrently stupid and partly responsible for our devolving culture, but they found a market to tap into and earn their money by generating commercial activity that helps not only them, but all the other people in their empire from camera men to merchandise sellers.

*****

That's my observation, too. I don't think it's about the "haves" and "have nots". That's so last century ;-)

I think the disparity that matters now is disparity of ideology.

beaglesdoitbetter I agree with you that the government is not particularly good at this. For example what happened to the money that Zuckerberg gave to NJ public schools. He learned his lesson and now his family has their charitable foundation.

I would favor smaller government but we have built entire sectors around this behemoth what would all those people do for jobs? Maybe if there is a universal basic income in place it wouldn't be an issue. (this is a joke, sort of)

[ETA wow you type quickly]

We have built entire sectors around this behemoth what would all those people do for jobs?

They would start or work for nonprofits and scientific foundations and animal rights charities and climate reseach groups and programs to feed and educate and house kids, which would be supported by the charitable funds that are now freed up from being flushed down the toilet of the wasted government bureaucracy :)

And we wouldn't all have to fight about how much of OUR tax money goes to stuff we don't want since the people who want to fund climate research could and the people who want to fund kids breakfasts could and the people who want to fund veterans' charities could.

Beagles, you are missing my point completely. If you read my first post about the subject I said "CURRENT wealth and connections and political influence allows them to successfully manipulate our laws and systems to their advantage".

I never said lobbying makes a company successful. Of course that makes no sense. But, once you are successful as an individual or a company, you are afforded political and financial advantages that aren't readily available to the rest of the population.

Success and hard work should result in some perks. But at what point should the advantages of your success outweigh fair behavior towards others? For instance, should a company's ability to push through a favorable real estate regulation be acceptable even if the new giant office park lowers property values around the plot? I don't know the answer to that.

Off to lunch so I can't continue the discussion. Have fun!

we wouldn't all have to fight about how much of OUR tax money goes to stuff we don't want

Like no more military pork barrel projects, exactly! ;-) It sure would be nice to have a streamlined tax code that everyone could understand and laws that are intelligible. Wouldn't it be nice if large swaths of tax accountants, lawyers and government administrators were no longer necessary and these folks could go do something else?

Why do you think that is? Do you think people in these areas might be concerned about the inequality/disparity because it is something that they personally see on an everyday basis?

I think it is because progressive policies / excessive government intervention help to create the very economic conditions that create inequality.

Having thought about this a bit more I suspect it is largely correlated with the higher levels of diversity of all kinds that tends to be found in these areas.

I do think our political system's poverty solutions are failing but something different needs to be phased in and proven to be better before we dismantle what small safety nets we now have. A few days ago I would have scoffed at beagles statement that if left to their own divices the rich could have done much more to resolve poverty issues than our government but than I read about Harris Rossen and it made me cry to see how one man could change so much. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-florida.html?_r=0

I am also very interest in Rubio's and to some extent Ryan's and others' variations of ideas similar to a Guarantied Universal Basic Income as a means of providing a more economic level playing field of advantages. I am certain that if their ideas were mentioned by a liberal they would be highly praised but because of their social and religious views,which I actually disagree with, they are dismissed too quickly as possible solutions to our economic problems.

I feel these ideas might be better than raising minimum wage for lifting people out of poverty. I fear raising minimum wage will hurt the poor more than business owners because just like Costco jobs at 17 per hour greatly go to college educated second income earners in homes with above average family incomes rather than those with out an education or another earning family member so will all the other minimum wage jobs and we are left with a larger hole between classes and a larger unemployable group.

d_gw, this was what you said.

Many people and companies that excel financially do not do so because of their continued innovation or skills. They do so because their current wealth and connections and political influence allows them to successfully manipulate our laws and systems to their advantage.

This bold part is what I disagree with. I don't think that MANY people or companies excel because of their connections. They excel because they have a good or interesting idea.

Their connections can give them a boost, perhaps, in the form of allowing them to create future barriers to entry once they have created or cornered a market or to keep more of their tax dollars, but a company generally cannot become successful based on connections or government largess alone. That was my point.

Should a company's ability to push through a favorable real estate regulation be acceptable even if the new giant office park lowers property values around the plot? I don't know the answer to that.

If we cut back on government, this problem would largely be solved. The government should have basic rules in place that apply equally to everyone to protect property rights and protect free markets and shouldn't pass all these stupid laws and regulations that create barriers to entry and allow for rent seeking instead of innovation. This is a big government problem, through and through!

Wouldn't it be nice if large swaths of tax accountants, lawyers and government administrators were no longer necessary and these folks could go do something else?

YES> A thousand times yes. Let's figure out what it costs for the government to ESSENTIAL functions (military, and the things the constitution actually tells the government to do) and then figure out what percentage of income we need to tax people at to fund those functions without a deficit and do a flat tax as a percentage of income to raise the revenue, with low income people exempt.

No exceptions, no loopholes, no incentivizing or penalizing behavior through the tax code!

Then, government can require a certain percentage of income be given to a charity or charities of a person's choosing that aids people, science, or animals (no vanity projects and you cannot give to your own foundation unless you can provide clear and concrete proof of outside charitable work). People wouldn't fight so hard to get out of giving up their money if they could give it to things they care about instead of flushing it down the toilet (aka giving it to the gov).

I think pre-existing poverty, other lower socioeconomic class issues, race and things like that still create barriers that are insurmountable for many people. Athletes, performers, and the brilliant minds that can come from anywhere excepted--but these are relative rarities given the entire population. Since the average person is average, they can only perform to a certain level.

People who start out with more are simply on a different trajectory. And some people are on such a higher trajectory that it would actually be difficult for them to fall off that trajectory short of self-sabotage. I know some very average and even some below average people in terms of well-rounded intellect, performance, and work ethic, who are well above average in terms of income and position because of their starting point.

Many years after we stopped testing IQs of all students by policy it was noticed that the Gifted programs were filled by far with high middle and upper class students disportionetly. Are wealthy people actually smarter. Well some evidence says that early stimulation does increase iq up to five points and genetics also influence iq scores and smart people often do make a lot of money but the points are the difference between average and slightly above average not average and genius.

So it turns out the issue is schools' administration and teachers targeted kids with very involved ( ie well to do) parents to be tested for iq placements with in the TAG classes. Many geniuses where too poor to be even considered For testing. But when a study randomly tested both poor and affluent children the number of geniuses within the economic classes was very evenly distributed. So poverty is a great life long game changer that often keeps those with great abilities from reaching their potential and wealth and advantage allow many with average potential to shine. It is heartbreaking to me that not only is there an achievement gap among income levels but there may be many bilingual, poor and minority students being overlooked every day that are really gifted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/22/these-kids-were-geniuses-they-were-just-too-poor-for-anyone-to-discover-them/?utm_term=.8bd7aafd72fe

Of course pre-existing poverty makes success harder. I think the internet and information age has made it easier but people who start with more have an easier go of it. However, most of the wealthiest people... aka the one percenters... did something. They didn't just inherit.

In part, pre-existing poverty makes things so much harder precisely b/c we lock children of lower incomes into failing government run public schools and because our failing government-run efforts to help have created inter-generational poverty.

We've tried to have the government fix poverty for 50 years. Think it is time to admit they are terrible at improving people's lives and often make things worse... and try a different tactic.

Beagles respectfully, poverty, socially constructed by structural choice is the problem not our schools.

Poverty is why our schools do not compete. Our middle class and above out score all nations including Finland when grouped by economics but when grouped as a whole we see low scores! Poverty is the reason we look behind the rest of the OECD and nothing else! Our schools work, as proven by our high rate of college grads, we have one of the highest college completion rates in the world even though it costs more here to get a higher degree... Our economy does not work though and it is why we do not compete in the primary school stats

However, most of the wealthiest people... aka the one percenters... did something. They didn't just inherit. - beaglesdoitbetter

No, you're right, they didn't just inherit. But chances are, they are university grads just as their parents and their grandparents. Chances are their parents paid for their university degrees. Chances are their parents were able to use their own contacts to get summer jobs, internships, entry level jobs for their children.

Like pal said - it's all about the starting point.

My grandparents, all four, were university grads, my parents were as well, my DH and I are, gee you think my kids are university grads - of course they are, paid for by their parents, just like all the other parents and kids in our neighbourhood. (we're not 1%ers) but it's all about the starting point.

ETA: I will say one thing - there is a bit of a downside to this legacy though. When I graduated from high school I didn't know there were other options besides university. That's what happens when you go to an all-academic high school, the focus on options is very narrow. Even though my kids also went to all-academic high school we made sure that they knew there were other options - the trades, technical schools, etc.

I understand that the one percenters are now mostly not made up of people with only inherited wealth. I think most of the people with only some form of sustaining inherited wealth who don't do anything but live on it have been knocked out of the top brackets by new wealth.

But what I am curious about is of those 1%ers, what percentage of them grew up in poverty or the working class? What percentage of them are minorities or women? Excluding again entertainers or athletes who have natural and rare abilities that can be discovered.

Because I think although they may not have come from the one percent, I'd bet a lot of them came from the top 10%.

My sense is that if you're from a middle class family, you could feasibly become a 1% because of one thing: education.

My sense is also that it skews in favor of males.

This is just from observation and life experience.

"Institutions need to favor legacies unless they are able to eschew their donation monies."

And isn't that part of the problem? Beagles talks about letting the wealthy solve the problems of poverty through private donations. It would never happen. Warren Buffet types are exceedingly rare. If the wealthy honestly cared about those with less financial security, would they insist on tying the acceptance of their children to their monetary support of the institution? Everyone wants the best for their children, but legacies really bother me. Being nice and lovely do not equate to deserving when it comes to college admission. I am not saying they would not have been accepted on their own merits, but I would prefer that that were the case.