How much of your future prospects is determined by who your parents are?

[DC Al Fine]

My answer: Quite a bit of one's prospects is determined by who your parents are, but not in the sense that most socialists usually think it does. Much of one's prospects is determined by parental attitude and upbringing rather than straight up income/nepotism. In short, the rich teach their kids how to be rich.

I'm late for a meeting, so I'll elaborate later.

What are your thoughts?

[Franzl]

How would a poor family "teach" their child to be rich? That doesn't make any sense.

You're kidding yourself if you don't believe it ultimately comes down to money.

(On average, there are exceptions to every rule)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Quite a lot.

[Leftbehind]

My answer: Quite a bit of one's prospects is determined by who your parents are, but not in the sense that most socialists usually think it does. Much of one's prospects is determined by parental attitude and upbringing rather than straight up income/nepotism. In short, the rich teach their kids how to be rich.

Ah yes, it's the fault of the poor parents, and not the system that limits their options, nor the ever widening inequality that inhibits social mobility. If only they'd teach their kids to be rich.

[Franzl]

My answer: Quite a bit of one's prospects is determined by who your parents are, but not in the sense that most socialists usually think it does. Much of one's prospects is determined by parental attitude and upbringing rather than straight up income/nepotism. In short, the rich teach their kids how to be rich.

Ah yes, it's the fault of the poor parents, and not the system that limits their options, nor the ever widening inequality that inhibits social mobility. If only they'd teach their kids to be rich.

We should make that a school subject: "Getting rich". I'm sure that would level the playing field.

[Leftbehind]

Well of course they'd already have that, if the leftist union marxist revolutionary teachers would allow it.

[Indy Texas]

My answer: Quite a bit of one's prospects is determined by who your parents are, but not in the sense that most socialists usually think it does. Much of one's prospects is determined by parental attitude and upbringing rather than straight up income/nepotism. In short, the rich teach their kids how to be rich.

I'm late for a meeting, so I'll elaborate later.

What are your thoughts?

Unfortunately, parental attitude and upbringing is determined heavily by parental income. The only kids in non-rich families who have any hope of getting a leg up from their home life are the ones whose parents are poorly-paid but well-educated (think private school teachers, college lecturers, librarians, researchers).

[Redalgo]

I forgot the exact figures, and even the source because it's been awhile since I last studied social mobility, but in the United States my understanding is that 60-80% of the income most children today will procure in life is all but locked in on account of what kind of home environment and investments in their futures were made by their parents, this implying that ones financial lot in American life and position of class is only in minor part steered by deliberate choices made by the individual. Along those same lines, roughly 4/5 of Americans end up in a socioeconomic position similar to that of their parents.

So far as I can tell, it is also true that it is harder for poor folk than their relatively well-off counterparts to move up in class, and harder for rich folk than relatively poor folk to move down.

That is not to say the conditions of ones upbringing set ones future prospects in stone, per se, but it certainly tends to matter more than I reckon most laypersons in the States would claim.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Quite a lot.

(Amazing contribution, I know)

[opebo]

It is belittling this type of analysis to say simply 'who your parents are'.  It is ones position in a complex and highly effective web of social control that determines everything about one (outside, perhaps, of the wonderful egalitarianism of certain genetic disorders).  Think of human society as an ant-hive and you'll tend to understand better.

[Cassius]

My answer: Quite a bit of one's prospects is determined by who your parents are, but not in the sense that most socialists usually think it does. Much of one's prospects is determined by parental attitude and upbringing rather than straight up income/nepotism. In short, the rich teach their kids how to be rich.

Ah yes, it's the fault of the poor parents, and not the system that limits their options, nor the ever widening inequality that inhibits social mobility. If only they'd teach their kids to be rich.

Ah, blaming the non-existant system. There hasn't been 'a system' since the end of feudalism. Money obviously counts for a lot in determining your future, but some system... No.

[Leftbehind]

lol. At least you're funny.

[opebo]

Ah, blaming the non-existant system. There hasn't been 'a system' since the end of feudalism.

Really?  Society is in chaos?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ah, blaming the non-existant system. There hasn't been 'a system' since the end of feudalism.

Really?  Society is in chaos?

Technically yes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a "system."

[All Along The Watchtower]

Anyway, I would say "a great deal", and it can be mostly boiled down to socioeconomic differences.

Here are some excerpts from a study that could be illuminating:

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Education/Other/EarlyWarningConfirmed/EarlyWarningConfirmed.pdf

[PJ]

Yes, as Redalgo said, laissez-faire capitalism or even semi-regulated capitalism makes it extremely difficult to move up in society. Parents can't 'teach their children to be rich,' whatever that means. A great deal of the upper class remaining upper class is inheritance and opportunities provided through influence, something the working class does not have access to.

My answer: Quite a bit of one's prospects is determined by who your parents are, but not in the sense that most socialists usually think it does. Much of one's prospects is determined by parental attitude and upbringing rather than straight up income/nepotism. In short, the rich teach their kids how to be rich.

Ah yes, it's the fault of the poor parents, and not the system that limits their options, nor the ever widening inequality that inhibits social mobility. If only they'd teach their kids to be rich.

Ah, blaming the non-existant system. There hasn't been 'a system' since the end of feudalism. Money obviously counts for a lot in determining your future, but some system... No.

Well, I wouldn't want to see what your idea of 'a system' would be.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is no system. But there are societies, structures, hierarchies, and so on.

[Torie]

In my case, it was huge, just huge - education, income, aspiration, values, example by doing, all of which I internalized deep down inside. Temperament is also critically important, but I am not so foolish to think I would be what I'm doing, how I'm doing it, without the parental external influence. No way.

[opebo]

In my case, it was huge, just huge - education, income, aspiration, values, example by doing, all of which I internalized deep down inside. Temperament is also critically important, but I am not so foolish to think I would be what I'm doing, how I'm doing it, without the parental external influence. No way.

You are fixed within the class system like everyone else.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If I was the sole data point for social science to rely on, the conjecture would be that parents play no role in determining the prospects of their children. Sadly, I am an anomaly.

[freefair]

It's determined by the attitude and organisation of parents.
My parents have always been on low incomes but when I was a kid they always took the time to teach me proper morals, discipline me, educate me and feed my academic and personal interests and curiosity when I was very young with books and videos, encouraged me to have a relaxed yet hard-working temperament, AND allow me to have a good circle of friends and time to play and socialize with them. Going to a really good local Government High/Sixth-form helped too.
I credit them with making me capable of getting into the prestigious, historic university I'm at now.

[DC Al Fine]

My answer: Quite a bit of one's prospects is determined by who your parents are, but not in the sense that most socialists usually think it does. Much of one's prospects is determined by parental attitude and upbringing rather than straight up income/nepotism. In short, the rich teach their kids how to be rich.

Ah yes, it's the fault of the poor parents, and not the system that limits their options, nor the ever widening inequality that inhibits social mobility. If only they'd teach their kids to be rich.

We should make that a school subject: "Getting rich". I'm sure that would level the playing field.

Sorry, I kept meaning to reply to this but never got around to it.

Parental attitudes is probably the wrong phrase for what I'm trying to describe. What I mean is that there are tons of little things that parents can do that can help them be more successful in life. For example, my parents read to me as a child and encouraged me to read as I got older. One doesn't have to be rich to get a library card.

There's also parental experience. People who've gone to college can guide their children through the admissions process. Stuff like that tends to correlate more with education. Like Indy said, people like librarians and teachers tend to earn low incomes but will still improve their children's prospects.

Lastly, attitudes do play a major factor in things like investing. I'll pick on TNF here for a second. TNF said something a week or two about Atlas being "full of 1%ers" because we were talking about investing. That demonstrates an attitude of investing as "something rich people do", rather than investing as "something I do". Parents can work to put those attitudes in their kids.

This does not mean that parental income doesn't have a role to play, but I do think a lot of what is attributed to parental income is actually due to other factors.