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.
what is the data on truly "disadvantaged" children valuing education, getting a HS diploma, going to college, how much debt they incur, and endeavoring in a field that actually provides them with an income that allows them to amortize their debt?
Obama was poor. He valued education and learning, no one said "Hmm, I bet he can become President, let's give him a free education", as far as we know he didn't graduate from college and law school with back-breaking debt.
How did he do it?
I'm not going to engage your Obama nonsense, but I will address your first comment. Which group would you rather be in:
Your mom and dad both work, sometimes at more then one job. When folks get sick you all get sick. As a kid you help out at home as well as doing your homework and school. You have less time to socialize. Leading to a loss of important interconnections in their community. You're smart, you work hard. You get into college, and specialize in software engineering. You take on 120K in debt. Your family couldn't help at all. You have a idea though for a business. But first you need to payoff that loan, and save some money. 10 years later you manage it. You're 32. You've just begun that business.
OR
Your dad works, but your mom is there for you. Dad spends weekends with you as well. You can afford sports, and even tutors. When someone in your family gets sick they can get any OTC meds they need, and living in a larger home with separate rooms its easier to avoid everyone getting sick at once. You're smart, you work hard, and can afford the tutoring and study time to make it into a top notch school. The college money your parents put away from you allow you time to focus on school. You graduate at 22, and you take a chance. You're going to take a loan out on the small house your parents got you when you moved out. You're 22. And you've just begun your business. You are at the top of your game.
Yet you can't refute his statement. It's really telling when someone uses name calling and deflection instead of taking the time to formulate a coherent, well thought out argument. I guess that ability is truly lost to you Trumplings.
That's all you guys do anymore; call someone a derogatory name, deflect from the topic, and vanish from the thread. I almost feel sorry for you guys. Almost.
yet this was your first post on this topic. what's your coherent, well thought-out argument?
thanks - it made me realize that I forgot to put the article in a quote box. And give me the chance to repeat:
OVER HALF of the richest people in America started out with LESS THAN $1MM inherited.
Go reread the article. You're incorrect. Specifically:
Quote:
In its just-released new report, United for a Fair Economy extends this baseball analogy to last year’s Forbes 400. UFE defines as “born in the batter’s box” those Forbes 400 rich who hail from poor to middle-class circumstances. ...
About 95 percent of Americans, overall, currently live in these “batter’s box” situations. Just over a third,35 percent, of the Forbes 400 come from these backgrounds.
I didnt bother correcting you since I figured someone would get around to it. But hey, since you repeated yourself and all....
I'm not supporting illegals. I'm simply using them as an example of how people can live happily on much, much less.
The "poor" in America are rich by world standards. Billions of people would give their left arm to be as rich as the "poor" in America.
No, poor is relative to the country your living in, not the money you make.
You could make $25,000 a year in the US and live like a king in India on that salary.
But that does them no good if they live here and spend the majority of that on rent, food, and medical care, here in this country.
When tallies are taken on the richest in the world, the cost of living is ignored.
Lets redo that with the cost of living taken into account.
In India, you can get a 3 bedroom apartment for 200 bucks a month in US dollars, 50 cents for a loaf of bread and so on. Try doing that here.
A homeless person in San Francisco may pan handle $50 bucks in a day, and relative to a poor homeless person in India he is a lot richer, but at the end of the day, he is still homeless and nowhere enough money to do anything with.
Those poor illegals work under the table and send it home because it is worth a lot more there than here.
Where can the poor American send their money to get cheaper housing, food, and medical care?
Example: Some average guy comes up with a product that everybody wants. He can't make enough of them so he hires people to help him. The business grows and grows until it employs 100,000 people. The founder and owner gets filthy, all thanks to having a great idea. He gets rewarded for having and marketing something new and innovative. You've just created 100,000 jobs that likely pay very well and offer excellent benefits. That's 100,000 jobs that wouldn't exist without the guy who is now filthy rich.
The trade-off for generating prosperity is the creation of a class very rich people. You do everything you can to keep these people from having undue political and cultural power -- which may be impossible to do 100%.
It's a lot like Churchill said about Democracy: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Properly constrained and regulated Capitalism is likewise a terrible system that just happens to be better at generating wealth and lifting people out of poverty than any other system that has ever been tried.
I'm not going to engage your Obama nonsense, but I will address your first comment. Which group would you rather be in:
Your mom and dad both work, sometimes at more then one job. When folks get sick you all get sick. As a kid you help out at home as well as doing your homework and school. You have less time to socialize. Leading to a loss of important interconnections in their community. You're smart, you work hard. You get into college, and specialize in software engineering. You take on 120K in debt. Your family couldn't help at all. You have a idea though for a business. But first you need to payoff that loan, and save some money. 10 years later you manage it. You're 32. You've just begun that business.
OR
Your dad works, but your mom is there for you. Dad spends weekends with you as well. You can afford sports, and even tutors. When someone in your family gets sick they can get any OTC meds they need, and living in a larger home with separate rooms its easier to avoid everyone getting sick at once. You're smart, you work hard, and can afford the tutoring and study time to make it into a top notch school. The college money your parents put away from you allow you time to focus on school. You graduate at 22, and you take a chance. You're going to take a loan out on the small house your parents got you when you moved out. You're 22. And you've just begun your business. You are at the top of your game.
you do a fine job of defining the extremes, and creating a straw man.
on the first, I'd say there's absolutely no reason to incur $120K in debt for a software engineering degree. In NC (where I live), in-state costs annually are about $15K/year, and some of that is then paid for for the needy. Certainly other states have software engineering in their state-supported college system.
Secondly, being "forced" to wait until your 32 is ample time to start your own business, become successful and eventually make the Forbes 400...if that were somehow your goal. hell, if you've got a great idea, there's plenty of investors willing to fund it even if you're 22.
On the second ...
OTC meds are cheap, though not super-effective anyway. But I feel confident a sick family of four can get as well as the rich family on OTC meds at $30 or less. That's 1 less smartphone plan/month.
You never mentioned Poor Guy working during college, so Rich Guy doesn't focus on school any more than he does. As a matter of fact, driven Poor Guy would be studying while Rich Guy was out partying - that part would be true. Actually, smart Poor Guy would be figuring out how he could graduate in 3-3.5 years and not 4 or more.
And I'm in the top 5%, and I know of NO ONE who bought their kid a house or gave them a bunch of cash to start a business at 22.
Now, does Rich Guy have a BETTER opportunity to create greater wealth - sure. From birth through about 25 years old.
by the way, what's the "Obama nonsense" you think I was saying?
he grew up poor, no?
he went to high school at a great place, on scholarship. This was an added benefit, but are public schools that bad? I went to one, and my kids go to one. they seem to be doing just fine.
he made it through college, and he made it through law school. Am I still correct?
Are we aware of him incurring a mountain of debt in college?
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.
