Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's not. I only need to look to my own network, high net worth individuals/CEOs, who have founded/are successors of major companies (as well as private equity funds, private companies where income/value is not so easily tracked). Many did come from Ivy's, but they got there by the family network/leverage as I described (not merely by some learned "skillset" or specific diploma - though this thought is comforting middle class notion that keeps the masses ever Ivy-striving and college loan indebted). There is always that chance of becoming a Silicon tech elite, developing that next multi-million app, or striving for decades in upper-middle class corporate limbo, Ivy MBA in hand, for some high-stock option executive position that never transpires. But for others (many others), leveraging whatever money, land, human capital they can acquire from their network is the path of least resistance to wealth and success.
I think this is overplayed. I know several people that aren't from a lot of wealth that have gone to Harvard or Columbia for their MBA or JDs. I know a guy from Orlando that went to Wharton for his PhD in applied statistics, worked for Google, opened up his own startup that got bought out by Apple and is now very high up in Apple. He did not come from extreme wealth, his father was a doctor and his mom was a stay at home mom, but they didn't have the type of money or connections in silicon valley that could influence people.
The guy that founded Twitter went to HS right down the street from me. I can tell you from knowing many of the people that went to DuBourg, it is 1. Not a good school and 2. Roughly 30-40% of the graduates don't even go to college immediately, so it isn't a school where networks are built.
I think this is overplayed. I know several people that aren't from a lot of wealth that have gone to Harvard or Columbia for their MBA or JDs. I know a guy from Orlando that went to Wharton for his PhD in applied statistics, worked for Google, opened up his own startup that got bought out by Apple and is now very high up in Apple. He did not come from extreme wealth, his father was a doctor and his mom was a stay at home mom, but they didn't have the type of money or connections in silicon valley that could influence people.
The guy that founded Twitter went to HS right down the street from me. I can tell you from knowing many of the people that went to DuBourg, it is 1. Not a good school and 2. Roughly 30-40% of the graduates don't even go to college immediately, so it isn't a school where networks are built.
I agree about the schools... (maybe I didn't communicate that well). Previous poster brought up Ivy's/Wharton/business school... But my point was that in moving toward the uppermost income classes (from whatever background), skillset/school/diploma is less important than it is in the lower/middle/uppermid classes. Leverage, network, marketing/sale of ideas is more important. Your examples support my point.
These are anecdotes. Of course jobs exist in all sorts of fields and people are getting them. The issue is growth and competition for these jobs. More people have spent years acquiring the skills needed for a particular profession, only to find that this profession now has a glut of applicants. So they are unemployed or working for lower wages.
Absolutely, anecdotes, but your theories don't match with the jobs I see nor do they match with the BLS unemployment and employment data. I don't think there are a lot of jobs providing for the needs of the wealthy. In fact I am not sure I even know what those jobs would be.
There is absolutely nothing new about getting training in fields where employment is poor. Years ago lots of college kids got degrees in physics since it was an exciting field full of new discoveries. Unfortunately there were no jobs. The only jobs were teaching and the competition was fierce. Getting training in a specialized area is always risky. A good education will help people to learn how to learn and how to cope, adapt and succeed.
BLS data and my anecdotal experience both indicate there are a lot of skilled jobs available. If that is not your case you might want to look at your skills and training and you might also want to consider applying outside of your immediate geographical area. Sometimes moving is the best thing you can do to find a new job and advance your career.
Actually, there is an obscure public office (in at least some parts of the West) for which property ownership appears to be a requirement. There are obscure Soil and Water Conservation Districts with boards elected on general election ballots and property ownership is required of board members.
To use your own term, those are obscure, not the norm. The point remains that non-owners are given as much voice as owners in the vast majority, if not all cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
But still, property ownership is considered by many a sine qua non of holding public office, local candidates often refer to their ownership but never refer to their renting.
Doesn't matter. As long as non-owners are not being actively discriminated against, you have no justification for saying the owners have too much power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Rental property is taxed higher than owner-occupied homes of equal value in most states; homeowners have a vested financial interest in policies that favor ownership.
Other than perhaps rent control, renters don't have a vested financial interest in policies that favor renting, because renters always must transact through a middleman who is able to capture any cost reductions. e.g. if rental property taxes were reduced to the rate homeowners pay, landlords would just pocket the savings.
This is pure supply side economics. The real world has a combination of both supply side and demand side effects. Landlords can only raise the rent to what the market will bear and if tenants decide to all buy property en masse, landlords will have to lower the rent. Even if only 1/3 of tenants do and the remaining 2/3 can't afford it because they're flipping burgers, there will still be a significant impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Also, renters are not monolithic, many are renting temporarily, and few view themselves as involuntary permanent renters.
As long as the timing of rent or buy decisions is impacted, it will have an influence on the market.
That is an out of date notion. That had some truth in the days of the robber barons when they might pass on their company ownership and management to their heirs. That is rarely the case anymore. Look at the background of CEOs from major companies. A great many of them have worked their way up through the ranks. Many also started with some strong skills with lots of successful CEOs who started from Wharton or Harvard business schools.
It is a comforting middle class notion that those who are highly successful did not deserve the success and instead connections paved the way.
CEO's are not where the money is. Take the top 500 CEO incomes. combine them. Take the top 5 hedge fund managers. Combine their income. Guess which group makes more?
Of the top 10 richest people, 6 of them inherited it.
Wawa....
I agree with your assessment. Technology, including robotics, computers and automation, have altered the meaning of work. There are other changes as well. Agriculture and ranching have become consolidated and big businesses. Production is way more efficient with much less labor. Retailing has changed. In addition to internet shopping, Walmart replaced lots of small corner stores with more convenient shopping, better prices, better quality and much, much improved selection. In the process retailing became more efficient and requires very little labor.
Everywhere you look low skilled jobs have vanished and many jobs that used to be "middle" class have also vanished. In the meantime the bottom of the economic ladder continues to grow with a huge number of low skilled, often illegal aliens.
The Great Recession has hastened all of these changes. To survive businesses had to become more efficient with lower labor costs. The economy will continue to heal, but none of the trends that have occurred will be reversed. Not only are they permanent but the rate of change continues to accelerate. This is GREAT news for those who work to get a good education and for those who are ambitious and work hard. It is HORRIBLE for those who want a good middle class salary but lack the needed education, ambition and work ethic.
I totally agree. A great many people, especially young working class and lower middle class males, refuse to accept the reality that a high school diploma or a GED is not going to get them the low-skill, decent paying kinds of job their fathers and grandfathers had. I wish this group was only illegal aliens, but it's not. Then they compound their own problems by not being able to stay off pot or booze or worse. Meanwhile, jobs for welders, auto technicians, numeric control techs etc go begging because the companies that want to hire these types of workers can't find ones who have the skills and can pass the drug screening.
Many qualified for acceptance at these schools due to their family educational upbringing/connections/financial support that gained them admittance to the prestigious feeder undergrad programs. Of course, there are always a few brilliant outliers.
It's called legacy admissions, ie, "affirmative action" for the rich and well connected, and every private college and university embraces them on both the undergrad and graduate levels. Some public colleges and universities also practice it, especially the more prestigious ones. If your father and grandfather went to Yale or Princeton, you'll probably get in even if you only have a 3.0 GPA and 1400 SAT score. Meanwhile a 100 applicants with 4.0s and 1590 SAT scores get rejection letters and get po'd at some black kid with a 4.0 and a 1589 SAT who got in because the college wanted to "diversify" its student body.
I totally agree. A great many people, especially young working class and lower middle class males, refuse to accept the reality that a high school diploma or a GED is not going to get them the low-skill, decent paying kinds of job their fathers and grandfathers had. I wish this group was only illegal aliens, but it's not. Then they compound their own problems by not being able to stay off pot or booze or worse. Meanwhile, jobs for welders, auto technicians, numeric control techs etc go begging because the companies that want to hire these types of workers can't find ones who have the skills and can pass the drug screening.
Your comments match my experience. In my area there are a lot of jobs available. The vast bulk of the clean office jobs require a college degree and of course there are lots of specialized fields which require specific training and/or experience.
In addition there are tons of jobs available for auto mechanics, carpenters, electricians and plumbers. In fact we have had to beg and plead for services from skilled carpenters, electricians and plumbers. Drugs and alcohol seem to be severe problems. Those who can avoid those issues and are willing to learn their trades and work hard can make small fortunes. I have had two friends who were plumbers. One was a neighbor who built a substantial business, sold it and retired on the millions. Another friend was younger. He had a recurrent drug problem. He started over three times. After a year or so, the money would roll in and he would slow down and start back with the drugs. The last time he did that the drugs killed him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
