Don't the children of wealthy families, on average, attain more wealth in their lives than the children of poor families?
attain as in given or attain as in earning for themselves? Having a trust fund and building a business are two different things. We know most of the 1% are doctor's kids so are doctor's kids high achievers? I really don't know, but it certainly helps if you are patterning yourself after successful people and your genetics is good. Reasons for being poor: 1) Low IQ or low health 2) Economically destructive behavior (babies too early, alcohol, etc.) If you were born dumb, yes your upward moboility will be limited, but if you have talent and work ethic then the isn't much stopping you. So the question is, what fraction of the poor are poor because they are dumb? In the end achievment is personal, it comes down to your motivation and talent. I know that is contrary to your collectivist thinking, but nobody can summon some collective energy in order to accomplish a task that requires individual effort such as learning or leading. We have plenty examples of rags to riches all around us, and plenty of riches to rags. Strictly speaking you are probably correct in the sense of how large you bank account is, but that by itself is not achievement unless you started at 0.
That doesn't matter for a fair comparison. Whether an individual is of the work hard for another persuasion, or work hard for himself/herself as in the entrepreneurial persuasion, those who are born to better environment get farther on average than those born to poorer environment.
what is important is that opportunity exists for the poor, and it does to a very large degree, too much given AA and all that crap. Society should not be responsible for poor parenting, which is the primary determinant of opportunity for the poor. Rich people are probably better parents for the very same reasons that made them rich, that's not unfair. If your parents sucked, sue them.
I am convinced that there a few wrongs which should be addressed. 1. the redlining of mortgages after GIs got back from the war. Whites moved to the suburbs and the family equity was mostly the house. It was more difficult for Blacks to get mortgages. 2. There is a major risk in offering jobs to black people. If it does not work out and you fire them... there is a good chance you will be investigated by a public agency or you will get sued. I would guess most small business owners would average out the risk of about 100 grand per black person hired. You are not going to get sued every time you fire a black person but when you do it gets very expensive. so very few small businesses hire black people. a lot of knowledge is passed on to employees in small businesses. My simple summary... a. We must help blacks through college and into their first job or two. Create a tax break or immunity from suit for new hires of young people. But AA or its equivalent must end there. It should definitely not exist for grad school. People need to know well educated black people did it by merit. b. our govt programs have destroyed the black community and created incentives which reduce or penalize the need for responsible dads. Those programs must be phased out. No extra money for kids without dads unless the dads are dead. No loss of benefits if the dad gets a job until he makes enough money. Every step of the great welfare society must be set up with strong incentives to get out of the handout mode.. Just like unemployment payouts should go down each month. Eventually a job at 15 dollars an hour will be worth taking.
jem, do know how easy it is for a black person with even just average grades to get college paid for or get loans? Exhibit A- Obama There is really that few of them, some 40% of black males can't even graduate high school
And the children of the wealthy have still more opportunities, so given any two similarly intelligent and motivated individuals, the one born to more wealth will, on average, have a better life outcome than the other.