Thank goodness his trust fund increased in value sufficiently for him to write a book about the upper middle class. Perhaps he met a few members in college.
4 Likes
I don’t think there is enough uniformity in that population to agree on what toppings to put on pizza, much less how society should be structured. But it does show the problems with ruthless meritocracy: how ruthless is ruthless? What exactly is merit? How much of merit is luck? How much of luck is merit? How much do we look to the past and how much to the future? And so on.
2 Likes
Agreed!! Always nice to have someone of multi generational wealth lecture the next 9.9% of the population on the inequities of wealth, diminish their achievements and malign their desire to preserve their kids upward mobility.
Sometime hypocrisy is like pornography. Hard to define but pretty easy to recognize.
@BunsenBurner may I suggest a 
to go with your 
?
17 Likes
I hate to offer my opinion to this conversation.
Once upon a time I lived in a community that was very upper middle class with varying degrees of compensation and generational wealth.
I felt in this community that the parents I interacted with loved their children and wanted the best for them.
I think the difference was that the more wealthy parents did not seem as concerned about the money their children would earn in the future but that their children find what interests them and to find their passion. That future earnings will come but that their children are able to have experiences that make them better rounded adults.
In a way less educated and less wealthy people don’t and can’t afford to.
I think that it’s a gift you give your kids if you can. A future defined by doing what you love and getting to explore that.
27 Likes
For those with further interest in the author this is from a prior publication in the Atlantic…
“For about a week every year in my childhood, I was a member of one of America’s fading aristocracies. Sometimes around Christmas, more often on the Fourth of July, my family would take up residence at one of my grandparents’ country clubs in Chicago, Palm Beach, or Asheville, North Carolina. The breakfast buffets were magnificent, and Grandfather was a jovial host, always ready with a familiar story, rarely missing an opportunity for gentle instruction on proper club etiquette.”
I would challenge his claim of an understanding of the perspective of the 9.9% that he seeks to enlighten.
9 Likes
Perhaps the “losers” want something that they do not “lose” at, and the “winners” want something that does not require them to keep “winning” against ever increasing levels of competition indefinitely?
5 Likes
I think the topic is interesting, in spite of the author.
11 Likes
But does his background really negate his observations? I don’t think he is pretending that he hasn’t benefited from the very system he is criticizing. To me it’s better to acknowledge privilege instead of pretending it doesn’t exist. Whether or not people want to accept it, there is significant inequality in our country. Kids of the upper middle class are provided with opportunities that others just don’t have access to (my own included). Our kids are starting life’s journey on 2d or 3rd base but we want to pretend they hit a double/triple.
12 Likes
I think generalizing about 10% of American society without a more detailed recognition of the diverse circumstances, paths and trajectory of those involved is about selling books versus scholarship.
Is the discussion worth having…sure.
The author certainly in previous publications seemed to embrace his family’s aristocratic legacy but doesn’t seem to make mention of it when speaking to the 9.9% below his .1% history.
Like with most sources or commentators, if he thinks it relevant enough to avoid it, I think it is highly relevant.
8 Likes
I wonder how successful they were in their endeavors? In my admittedly limited experience, the people I have known in this situation were usually always searching but never finding self actualization. They were never financially stressed but always seemed perhaps mentally fragile. Perhaps it is because they never really had to earn what they were trying to achieve and failure had less bite. Those I am thinking of I wouldn’t classify as better rounded adults. Again it’s a small sample but looking around at the children of the rich and famous you can see similar outcomes.
2 Likes
I don’t think the article offered any insight. Why should we be surprised by human bahaviors? There’re always exceptions, of course. But generally speaking, the well-off and the merely-rich want to be richer, or at least maintain their levels of wealth (even the really-rich want to maintain their levels of wealth, although they have lesser need to get richer). With our society becoming less dynamic with fewer finanicially rewarding oppoturnities, the competitions have become more fierce. Admisision to elite colleges is one of the areas for the competitions, as those fewer opportunities demand better education and connections. Elite colleges are the places to accomplish (or try to accomplish) both.
2 Likes
Churchill’s quote that “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” comes to mind.
But he also said “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they’ve tried everything else”. It feels like some US colleges prefer to try everything else.
More seriously, I think it’s the attitude adopted by some of those who succeed in a meritocracy that is the problem. Instead of a sense that luck definitely played a role in their success, they look down on those who didn’t succeed and suggest they simply weren’t as smart and didn’t try hard enough.
13 Likes
That’s exactly the point that Michael Sandel makes.
4 Likes
I agree that his background doesn’t negate his observations.
A smoker who says smoking is bad for you isn’t wrong. To discredit the smoker’s argument because he smokes is a tu quoque logical fallacy.
7 Likes
I’ve been on this board for a long time. Way too long. There was a definite shift in attitude among parents after the 2008 crash. Before then, upper-middle-class parents were much more likely to see college as a time for academic and personal exploration and support small LACs. After, the aim was to find the place that would give your kids the best chance in a rapidly changing economy. I noticed this change even then. The desire to position your child for success in a world where success seems harder to come by is real. Especially for those who may feel their grip on the top 10% is tenuous.
26 Likes
Smoking being bad for you is based on science. The article the subject of this thread is based on stories and as a result the perspective of the storyteller is thus relevant. As I already noted, reading the piece I found myself disagreeing with pretty much everything in it in terms of the 9.9%'ers I know. Are there some who are like those depicted in the piece? Sure. But its not all of them. Don’t know for how many of them the depiction is true. But its clear the author doesn’t care in large part because there is an agenda behind it.
5 Likes
Perhaps that is why, at least these days, the desirable LACs (at least on these forums) tend to be the most selective private ones, where graduating in a not-especially-career-oriented major is less of a career limitation when connections and preferential recruiting for higher income/status jobs is more likely to be present at those LACs (versus the mostly-ignored less selective and public LACs).
In the higher income ranges, there is a lot more room for downward mobility than there is for upward mobility. But also, the tendency of many people to ratchet up spending to consume all income (with little saved for capital building to move from the labor class to the capitalist class) means that (a) upward mobility can be limited for those with high labor income but little saved capital, and (b) downward mobility that would require (relative) austerity compared to current spending is downright scary.
5 Likes
I agree with his analysis and think that there might be a turning point coming soon in the labor market. My kid is at a large state U and they are short staffed. Long lines at the eateries, mailroom, health office etc. The parents are up in arms (particularly the out-of-state ones that are paying exorbitant tuition fees, but I digress…) When I asked my kid about all this, because she never mentioned it, she told me that the students are behind the workers. The state U wants to hire cheap temporary part time workers without benefits and low pay and the students think that the U should be a fairer employer. When that happens, people will want the jobs. In the mean time the students are stepping up to make some spending money and help their community.
3 Likes
Seems like a great long term solution for the university, why would they ever raise pay and offer benefits for other “people” if the students will do the work for “spending money” instead?
But in the context of this thread, it’s another demonstration that most people are pretty focused on their own short term self-interest, not what’s best for society in the long term…
6 Likes