The Upward Mobility Myth

[Mongoose]

If workers with a regular paycheck can't pay their bills, then they are most likely not handling their money right. I made six figures a couple years ago and I wouldn't buy some of these cars these "workers" drive. I used to know a girl who was always whining about money and I told her to sell her car - she had a $500 car payment. I wouldn't have a $500 car payment.

I don't know about the small business owners. Every situation is different with them.

They handle their money just fine. They know better than anyone else that they have to handle it well.

And really, that's besides the point. The real, more relevant fact of the matter is that they work much harder than some of the more successful people, yet somehow they're making five times less. Why shouldn't these more "successful" people have to handle their money carefully while those who have worked just as hard, if not harder, but are still struggling do? There is no upward mobility for these people, no matter how hard they work.

Upward mobility is, in fact, a myth created by the media and the wealthy through propaganda and public relations to make themselves look good while turning their workers into robots that they can easily milk.

Of course, my problem with capitalism isn't so much about how it treats people within our country, but rather how it treats the third world. But that's another story.

 

[far rider]

They handle their money just fine. They know better than anyone else that they have to handle it well.

Feel free to give an example. It's not exactly a secret that most Americans live above their means, both rich and the not so rich.

And really, that's besides the point. The real, more relevant fact of the matter is that they work much harder than some of the more successful people, yet somehow they're making five times less.

This is nonsense. People who work as hard as you say are in high demand, and are likely to be the successful ones. They become the more successful ones you appear to be envious of, but it takes some time.

Why shouldn't these more "successful" people have to handle their money carefully while those who have worked just as hard, if not harder, but are still struggling do?

Successful people do have to, and if they don't they get into as much trouble as the "poor". The difference is that successful people are successful because they handle money better. I offered three books as references. What are you basing your comments on?

Upward mobility is, in fact, a myth created by the media and the wealthy through propaganda and public relations to make themselves look good while turning their workers into robots that they can easily milk.

Two can play that game: the myth of the victimized "poor" is created by socialist/communist lobbies who have taught people to be lazy and expect everything to be handed to them (usually by the government) in an attempt to pick the pockets of people who really are successful. By taking hope away from people, they gain political power by promising the wealth of others to the lazy, promoting class envy.

Of course, my problem with capitalism isn't so much about how it treats people within our country, but rather how it treats the third world. But that's another story.

My problem with socialism is that it's inherently crooked.

I see in your profile that you are not yet 20 years old. *sigh*. Another 19 year old "socialist" who hasn't put enough time into anything to be successful at it. I daresay that I probably pay more in taxes than you earn. Of course, I have been working at this longer than you have been alive, but, hey, why should I be more successful than you are just because I have put a lifetime of work into it? Is that what you are trying to say?

Years ago we used to call this "paying your dues".

Want to be successful? Do this and I guarantee you will be successful:

Save 10% of everything you earn. If your car prevents you from saving 10%, get rid of it and take the bus. If your rent won't allow it, move someplace cheaper. If your tuition won't allow it, drop a class or two. If your girlfriend won't allow it, get one who's less shallow.

Finish college. I don't care if it takes 10 years.

Don't bother getting married until you are out of college.

Stay away from premarital sex. Kids have a tendency to put a burden on your finances, especially when you have them outside of marriage.

Don't mess with drugs and booze. They're too expensive.

Do all these things and you will be a at least a millionaire by the time you are my age.

Here's your chance. Do you want to be "successful" or do you want to whine and make excuses? By choosing to ignore this valuable advice that is really ancient in origin (see: the Bible) you are telling me you don't have what it takes to be successful - that you would rather be one of the poor, ignorant, lazy masses.

Get those books I mentioned, or at least get the "Richest Man In Babylon". It costs 7 bucks and you can read it in an afternoon.

What do you say?

Oh, and one more thing: you claim to "question everything" but you are not questioning your own political/economic dogma.

 

[nvxplorer]

Upward mobility a myth? Then can someone explain why most millionaires today are selfmade millionaires?


ON A PERSONAL NOTE:
I am the first person in my family to have a college education. I come from a family of ridge runners, laborers, and share croppers - from abject poverty where we did not have food to put on the table even with government assistance to being a college graduate with 3 degrees and comfortable middle class income (I could easily make more but chose not to).

Your post following this, speaking of the 4 million households with millionaire wealth, indicates exactly what the original poster is suggesting. You are making his case for him.

Four million households is a tiny percentage of the total population. Single digit tiny. I'd guess somewhere around 5%. We all can't be millionaires. We all can't be doctors. As someone else pointed out, our economic system requires "winners" and "losers," or...capitalists and laborers. The system is set up so that a certain number of people MUST "fail" (the vast majority, comparitively speaking).

Look at it this way. Wal-Mart will always need clerks. Those jobs will never pay (relatively) more than they do now. Even if every single person in the country received an MBA from Harvard, the economic realities of Wal-Mart would not change. What we would then have are thousands of Harvard post-graduates working as $10 per hour Wal-Mart greeters.

 

[nvxplorer]

Do you have a source for this? The U.S. government was very uninvolved in a person's life back in the 18th and 19th centuries, and a middle class existed then. People have been achieving upward mobility ever since this nation began; motivation and education are two of the most important things you can have when it comes to getting a good job, and even someone from a poor family can (but will not always) have good enough motivation to search out a good education - or if that is not possible, study on one's own. It is hard, but it can be done, and done well.

Actually, the middle class did not grow much until the mid-twentieth century. The most drastic rise in the middle class was post WWII.

Many people in this thread are missing some basic economic truths. You are correct in that education and motivation are key, but that is only part of the equation. All the education in the world is meaningless unless there is a demand for such knowledge. Demand drives everything. Today we see many people with doctorates who are working for a pittance in fields they weren't trained for. Education and motivation are a start, but only a start. Competition is another aspect. If there is only one engineering position available, but ten qualified applicants, nine people will in effect have wasted their time becoming educated in engineering.

Some posts are oversimplifying the matter. The economy is a huge, highly complex system. It involves so many factors that it cannot be reduced to education and motivation alone.

 

[nvxplorer]

Feel free to give an example. It's not exactly a secret that most Americans live above their means, both rich and the not so rich.



This is nonsense. People who work as hard as you say are in high demand, and are likely to be the successful ones. They become the more successful ones you appear to be envious of, but it takes some time.



Successful people do have to, and if they don't they get into as much trouble as the "poor". The difference is that successful people are successful because they handle money better. I offered three books as references. What are you basing your comments on?



Two can play that game: the myth of the victimized "poor" is created by socialist/communist lobbies who have taught people to be lazy and expect everything to be handed to them (usually by the government) in an attempt to pick the pockets of people who really are successful. By taking hope away from people, they gain political power by promising the wealth of others to the lazy, promoting class envy.



My problem with socialism is that it's inherently crooked.

I see in your profile that you are not yet 20 years old. *sigh*. Another 19 year old "socialist" who hasn't put enough time into anything to be successful at it. I daresay that I probably pay more in taxes than you earn. Of course, I have been working at this longer than you have been alive, but, hey, why should I be more successful than you are just because I have put a lifetime of work into it? Is that what you are trying to say?

Years ago we used to call this "paying your dues".

Want to be successful? Do this and I guarantee you will be successful:

Save 10% of everything you earn. If your car prevents you from saving 10%, get rid of it and take the bus. If your rent won't allow it, move someplace cheaper. If your tuition won't allow it, drop a class or two. If your girlfriend won't allow it, get one who's less shallow.

Finish college. I don't care if it takes 10 years.

Don't bother getting married until you are out of college.

Stay away from premarital sex. Kids have a tendency to put a burden on your finances, especially when you have them outside of marriage.

Don't mess with drugs and booze. They're too expensive.

Do all these things and you will be a at least a millionaire by the time you are my age.

Here's your chance. Do you want to be "successful" or do you want to whine and make excuses? By choosing to ignore this valuable advice that is really ancient in origin (see: the Bible) you are telling me you don't have what it takes to be successful - that you would rather be one of the poor, ignorant, lazy masses.

Get those books I mentioned, or at least get the "Richest Man In Babylon". It costs 7 bucks and you can read it in an afternoon.

What do you say?

Oh, and one more thing: you claim to "question everything" but you are not questioning your own political/economic dogma.

I don't want get involved in the communism/capitalism debate, but your reasoning is fallacious with regard to how capitalism works.

The idea that everyone can become rich is indeed a fallacy, and it runs contrary to capitalistic realities. Labor is a cost. Successful capitalistic enterprises are effective at minimizing their costs, labor being one. The $15 million CEO doesn't become a $15 million CEO by overpaying his workforce. In fact, the chances of the company's success increase if he can underpay his workforce.

Economic growth can never increase to the level required to make everyone wealthy. It is a theoretical impossibility, and in practice, would be disasterous.

A capitalistic system can be viewed like this:

At any given moment (static), for one to rise from the working class to the wealthy class, one needs to displace someone to acheive this. (zero-sum economics)

Realistically (real time), for people to elevate themselves requires economic growth. With economic growth, people can become wealthy without having to displace an already wealthy person. However, the number of people who can theoretically do so is still limited by the amount of economic growth. Some will succeed, others will fail. It's a fallacy to say everyone can succeed.

Now, the reality of what actually happens is quite different. Because of existing economic power structures, the majority of any economic growth is realized by those already on the top tier. Moving up the ladder is extremely difficult. Theoretically, capitalism is designed in a manner which promotes this - the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer. If it wasn't for anti-trust regulations, labor laws, etc., this effect of capitalism would have accelerated to the point of implosion. In fact, this has already happened in the Great Depression.

Any economic system is a huge balancing act. Upward mobility is indeed a myth. Your suggestions are valuable, but they are only suggestions. Some of them are simply not possible. You suggest saving 10% of income, but this is only possible if one is employed. Short of living on the street and eating in soup kitchens, some of your advice is unrealistic. Even where your advice can be followed, it guarantees nothing. It is irresponsible for you to make guarantees to the young person you are responding to. It is highly irresponsible to say he will be at least a millionaire.

 

[Mongoose]

I see in your profile that you are not yet 20 years old. *sigh*. Another 19 year old "socialist" who hasn't put enough time into anything to be successful at it. I daresay that I probably pay more in taxes than you earn. Of course, I have been working at this longer than you have been alive, but, hey, why should I be more successful than you are just because I have put a lifetime of work into it? Is that what you are trying to say?

Years ago we used to call this "paying your dues".

Want to be successful? Do this and I guarantee you will be successful:

Save 10% of everything you earn. If your car prevents you from saving 10%, get rid of it and take the bus. If your rent won't allow it, move someplace cheaper. If your tuition won't allow it, drop a class or two. If your girlfriend won't allow it, get one who's less shallow.

Finish college. I don't care if it takes 10 years.

Don't bother getting married until you are out of college.

Stay away from premarital sex. Kids have a tendency to put a burden on your finances, especially when you have them outside of marriage.

Don't mess with drugs and booze. They're too expensive.

Do all these things and you will be a at least a millionaire by the time you are my age.

Here's your chance. Do you want to be "successful" or do you want to whine and make excuses? By choosing to ignore this valuable advice that is really ancient in origin (see: the Bible) you are telling me you don't have what it takes to be successful - that you would rather be one of the poor, ignorant, lazy masses.

Get those books I mentioned, or at least get the "Richest Man In Babylon". It costs 7 bucks and you can read it in an afternoon.

What do you say?

What's with all this ****? Why are you painting things on me now? I make a political statement, and now you're under the assumption that I'm a lazy good-for-nothing bum with nothing to do with my life? You know nothing about me, so you better stop making judgements like that. If you're bringing this rubbish into this discussion, it's not even worth it to discuss it with you.

I'm not worried about myself, I'm worried about the rest of the world. And I certainly don't need your useless advice. I'm doing just fine. I'm in college right now with a high GPA and I'm working on a degree in physics--a field that requires a lot more work than you're making me out to be someone that would do. It's not my success that's the issue here. I'm speaking for other people. Have you ever thought about other people before?

I don't even want to be a millionaire. I don't believe happiness is found in money. I think the search for wealth is a bad path to walk down, and those who think they will find happiness in materialism are misguided. I don't consider wealthy people to be truly "successful." I only consider those who have truly given something to the world to be "successful." Most if not all of the people in this country who have been classified as "successful" have taken more from the world than they have given.

I'm simply here to state why I believe that the upward mobility theory is a myth. It has nothing to do with my personal life, and I don't see why you are bringing it into this discussion.

And what makes you think I'm a socialist? I never mentioned that here. That is one of the ideologies that appeals to me, but I certainly don't consider myself a supporter. To be honest with you, I'm torn between democratic socialism and complete anarchy.

Oh, and one more thing: you claim to "question everything" but you are not questioning your own political/economic dogma.

What makes you think I haven't? To be honest with you, I don't trust any political systems. They all have their flaws. I'm just trying to figure out which one has the least amount of flaws, and I know for a fact that capitalism isn't one of them. Oh, you may think capitalism is working, but that's only because you live in the part of the world that benefits from it. What about the citizens of China, Indonesia, Thailand, and so on, who are being exploited and enslaved by the money-making machine that is America?

 

[nvxplorer]

Mongoose,

I guess the problem with China is that no one has read "Richest Man In Babylon".

I suspect a 500,000,000 printing of the book written in Chinese is coming off the presses now (I hope the irony is obvious)

 

[Scholar in training]

The American dream isn't dead yet.

I hope Macano doesn't mind me linking to his post.

 

[far rider]

Upward mobility is indeed a myth. Your suggestions are valuable, but they are only suggestions. Some of them are simply not possible. You suggest saving 10% of income, but this is only possible if one is employed. Short of living on the street and eating in soup kitchens, some of your advice is unrealistic. Even where your advice can be followed, it guarantees nothing. It is irresponsible for you to make guarantees to the young person you are responding to. It is highly irresponsible to say he will be at least a millionaire.

Let's start with saving 10% of your income and being employed. There has been a lot of talk lately about the illegals flooding the workforce over the last few years. What do you think they are coming here for, their health?

No, they are coming here looking for work. The work my young friend here can have if he wants it, so don't talk to me about being employed. You wrote:

Even where your advice can be followed, it guarantees nothing.

Nonsense. It's simple mathematics. Take 10% of your current income, add the compound interest. If you invest wisely you can get more interest. The odds are that you will not remain at your current income level - nobody ever does. Now factor that in and see where you are in 40 years.

I think it's irresponsible of you to suggest that sensible financial advice isn't workable - there are too many people doing it.

 

[far rider]

Mongoose,

I guess the problem with China is that no one has read "Richest Man In Babylon".

I suspect a 500,000,000 printing of the book written in Chinese is coming off the presses now (I hope the irony is obvious)

Are you seriously trying to compare China to America?

 

[nvxplorer]

Let's start with saving 10% of your income and being employed. There has been a lot of talk lately about the illegals flooding the workforce over the last few years. What do you think they are coming here for, their health?

No, they are coming here looking for work. The work my young friend here can have if he wants it, so don't talk to me about being employed.

You appear to be demonstrating ignorance of economics and reality. I'm not attacking you, so don't take it personally. Your thinking is flawed. Full emplyment is never achieved. In fact, the term "full emplyment" refers to an certain rate of unemployment. (Somewhere around 3%, I believe) If the economy isn't producing jobs, it doesn't matter how determined someone is. It's really quite simple. When the economy is losing jobs, as with the first four years of this administration, those who had jobs, some highly motivated and educated, cannot find work. You are familiar with the term recession, correct?

Nonsense. It's simple mathematics. Take 10% of your current income, add the compound interest. If you invest wisely you can get more interest. The odds are that you will not remain at your current income level - nobody ever does. Now factor that in and see where you are in 40 years.

I think it's irresponsible of you to suggest that sensible financial advice isn't workable - there are too many people doing it.

Mathematics obviously isn't your strong point. You should refrain from attempting to use it (see above). There is nothing wrong with investment. That is solid advice. The problem is, you're not factoring in all the potential problems. People get laid off. People have unexpected expenses. A medical trajedy can wipe out someone's savings. If everything were as rosy as you paint it, recessions and the Great Depression would not have occurred. But, whether you want to admit it or not, these things do happen. Also, you seem to be ignorant of the basic tenets of capitalism which I referred to. Everyone can make smart financial decisions, but everyone cannot be rich. It is an impossibility. That is what I objected to (which was clear in my post). I never said sound advice was irresponsible. Why are you mischaracterizing my words? I said making guarantees is irresponsible.

Not to be flippant, but you would be wise to take a basic economics course or two.

 

[nvxplorer]

Are you seriously trying to compare China to America?

Do you seriously not get the gist of that post?

 

[far rider]

If you're bringing this rubbish into this discussion, it's not even worth it to discuss it with you.

That works for me. You weren't making much sense anyway.

I'm not worried about myself, I'm worried about the rest of the world. And I certainly don't need your useless advice. I'm doing just fine. I'm in college right now with a high GPA and I'm working on a degree in physics--a field that requires a lot more work than you're making me out to be someone that would do.

Physics, huh? Well, that certainly qualifies you for arguing with me about financial matters.

It's not my success that's the issue here. I'm speaking for other people. Have you ever thought about other people before?

I think about other people every day. They're all around me, and a lot more difficult to deal with than the nebulous "third world". Just what do you expect me to do about the "third world"? Better still, what do you think you're going to do about it? Are you going to talk about it? Raise my conciousness?

I hear a lot of talk and very little action, especially from people your age. What are you going to do, other than try to get me to salve your conscience by financing your worldview?

I don't even want to be a millionaire. I don't believe happiness is found in money. I think the search for wealth is a bad path to walk down, and those who think they will find happiness in materialism are misguided.

When you need medicine and treatment the wisdom of having money becomes clear. It comes in handy for taking care of your children and your children's children, too.

I don't consider wealthy people to be truly "successful." I only consider those who have truly given something to the world to be "successful." Most if not all of the people in this country who have been classified as "successful" have taken more from the world than they have given.

Nobody "takes" anything except socialist pickpockets who tax a man's last penny in some misguided notion that the nanny state government will somehow take care of you. We earn our money. It's easy to talk about "giving back" when you're not the one doing the giving, isn't it?

And what makes you think I'm a socialist? That is one of the ideologies that appeals to me...

I would have never guessed.

To be honest with you, I'm torn between democratic socialism and complete anarchy.

Anarchy works for me. That way if I need something I'll just kill you and take yours. No need to work.

What about the citizens of China, Indonesia, Thailand, and so on, who are being exploited and enslaved by the money-making machine that is America?

You mean by their own communistic governments, don't you?

 

[far rider]

Not to be flippant, but you would be wise to take a basic economics course or two.

Not to be flippant, but I have taken a basic economics course or two, lived through the "potential problems" you speak of, including life threatening illness, and have my own business. You present the appearance of someone who speaks from theory, not practice. These principles I have delineated are the only thing that saved me from financial ruin.

So please curb your arrogance when you talk about reality. It's very unbecoming.

 

[far rider]

Do you seriously not get the gist of that post?

Yes, I "got" it. I just thought it was ridiculous.

 

[nvxplorer]

Not to be flippant, but I have taken a basic economics course or two, lived through the "potential problems" you speak of, including life threatening illness, and have my own business. You present the appearance of someone who speaks from theory, not practice. These principles I have delineated are the only thing that saved me from financial ruin.

So please curb your arrogance when you talk about reality. It's very unbecoming.

Arrogance? It is you who are arrogant. To think that your personal experience represents anything resembling reality for others is the height of arrogance.

EVERYONE CANNOT BE RICH!

Your failure to realize this is an indication of ignorance. Ignorance is not a deragatory term. I'm not going to praise you for a well thought out post when in fact it is a poorly thought out misrepresentation of capitalism, both theoretically and in practice. Certain theories are undeniable. They hold true in practice because they are undeniable. One of them is that everyone cannot be rich. It is impossible. As impossible as you surviving a 5000 ft. fall into a burning building. Just because you have succeeded does not mean everyone can. Motivate yourself to reach the level of Bill Gates and see how far you get. Call me when you succeed.

Dig into those old textbooks of yours, and demonstrate how capital can prosper without labor. That my friend, is another impossibility. Here's another one. Labor cannot be compensated at a level which prohibits profit. Prices cannot be raised to a level which would permit this. Simple economics. Show me how much you know. If you don't realize these simple first year economics lessons, you know nothing of the subject, and are unqualified to give advice to anyone.

 

[zoink]

The idea that everyone can become rich is indeed a fallacy, and it runs contrary to capitalistic realities. Labor is a cost. Successful capitalistic enterprises are effective at minimizing their costs, labor being one. The $15 million CEO doesn't become a $15 million CEO by overpaying his workforce. In fact, the chances of the company's success increase if he can underpay his workforce.

How is becoming a subjective adjective a fallacy? And what is overpaying and underpaying, these are subjective as well.

Economic growth can never increase to the level required to make everyone wealthy. It is a theoretical impossibility, and in practice, would be disasterous.

The use of the word theoretical does make your statements sound authoritative and is rather intimidating.

Wealth is a subjective term. Not everyone can be in the highest class and there will be a lowest class. However the actual state of those who occupy those classes can not be described with a few subjective adjectives as you seem to be doing.

A capitalistic system can be viewed like this:

At any given moment (static), for one to rise from the working class to the wealthy class, one needs to displace someone to acheive this. (zero-sum economics)

Realistically (real time), for people to elevate themselves requires economic growth. With economic growth, people can become wealthy without having to displace an already wealthy person. However, the number of people who can theoretically do so is still limited by the amount of economic growth. Some will succeed, others will fail. It's a fallacy to say everyone can succeed.

A capitalist system can be viewed as anything anyone likes I guess. Wealthy, succeed, fail, these are all subjective terms.

Moving up the ladder is extremely difficult.

What ladder and how are the rungs spaced or for that matter what are the rungs?

Theoretically, capitalism is designed in a manner which promotes this - the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.

More subjective terms, rich and poor.

If it wasn't for anti-trust regulations, labor laws, etc., this effect of capitalism would have accelerated to the point of implosion. In fact, this has already happened in the Great Depression.

It all becomes clear to me now.

Sincerely,
zoink

 

[nvxplorer]

Zoink,

So your refutation to an economic argument (which you fully understand), is an English lesson?

Interesting.

 

[zoink]

In fact, the term "full emplyment" refers to an certain rate of unemployment. (Somewhere around 3%, I believe)

I believe it is more around 6% for the whole United States. My resources are not at hand at this moment, but I did a Google search and it appears to be correct. Here is a graph I did awhile back (Spelling not a strong point), 3% unemployment is a significant trough.

Sincerely,
zoink

 

[nvxplorer]

I believe it is more around 6% for the whole United States. My resources are not at hand at this moment, but I did a Google search and it appears to be correct. Here is a graph I did awhile back (Spelling not a strong point), 3% unemployment is a significant trough.

Sincerely,
zoink

Thank you for the graph. The term is fluid as are the methods of calculating unemployment.

My point to far rider was that there will always be a certain level of unemployment. Far rider implied that anyone could find a job anywhere at any time. His implication is a fallacy. The ~10% figures in your graph were not caused by people who chose to live on unemployment benefits. The economy is cyclical. Jobs are created; jobs are lost. In a recession, there are more people looking for work than the economy can employ. This is a simple fact. One cannot deny these simple facts by saying education and determination will gain employment for someone. Jobs are not created by determination. They are created by demand.