Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent | Hacker News Reader

Lost Diamonds: How our current system is failing underprivileged talent

shift.newco.co

320 pointsnkurz349 comments

I wish I could remember where I read this, but I once heard it explained to me as this:

It's easy to deride the journey of the rich college student: 80-hour internships at Goldman Sachs, unpaid positions in government, etc. But, the things that are done by successful people are hard, as hard as walking a tightrope. The difference is that rich students walk this tightrope over a bed of pillows. Poor students walk it over an open pit of spikes.

Obviously falling off onto a cushion is easier. What's less obvious is how nerve-wracking it is to know that there are real consequences. Danger creates stress, and stress ruins results. Paradoxically, if you know you have more than one shot, you're more likely to succeed on your first try.

Family money also buys practice. As someone who grew up middle class surrounded by people above me on the social strata, the amount of activities wealthy kids get to train for life's challenges are mind boggling.

When anyone on HN sat down to their first big interview, ask yourself what practice you had with applicable social skills? (Business culture, dress, and social norms, etc.)

Now substitute someone who's never interacted with that world before, nor knows anyone from their neighborhood or social group who has.

Not to mention the additional networking opportunities provided by growing up in that environment. Even absent more formal networking events, your chances of someone at a barbecue saying "oh, you're doing X? I have a friend at BigCompany, give me your resume and I'll pass it along" are much better than someone not in that class.

The idea that "class isn't about money" is a really important one, and a distinction that isn't evident in most people's lives. I grew up in a family that was historically pretty rich and both parents had advanced degrees, but a combination of health problems and mental illness meant that for most of my childhood, we had very little money. At the same time, I went to private schools (on scholarship) my entire life, so all of my friends and acquaintances were also upper upper middle class. I'm now an adult and am extremely successful, more so than any of my acquaintances. As difficult as my childhood could be, a big part of my success is probably attributable to habits and norms I picked up from my parents.

As early as college, the amount of opportunities I've been exposed to just by impressing someone during conversation has been ridiculous. Part of this of course has been knowing my stuff, but undoubtedly it depends in part on my carriage and manner of speaking. And all of this is leaving out the direct networking opportunities inherent in the environment I grew up in.

And this is why Basic Income is the future; it doesn't help those with a bed of pillows to rely on, but it provides a bed of sod to those currently wary of spikes.

Even a bed of manure would be better than the spikes, which is good, because that's the only sort of safety net I imagine Democrats and Republicans could ever agree on providing.

The US will eventually catch up. What Bernie Sanders started will continue. People will demand living wages and family time. Excessive executive compensation will be questioned. Changes will come.

What about people that squander their BI? We need safety nets below the safety nets... At some point shouldn't we let people fail?

If an individual is unable to survive on a minimal fixed income then they are almost certainly in need of other social services.

People can still fail while on BI; it won't protect you from losing your home, for instance. BI makes failing just a little less devastating.

This is just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This is even more the case with the legal system.

Regular infractions (under-age drinking, recreational drugs, shoplifting) are minor speed bumps for kids in a middle-class family. But for a poor family, they can send people on the wrong track indefinitely.

That is a travesty of our justice system (or maybe any justice system). The more money you have, the better your lawyers, the better deals can be cut. The rich & upper middle-class will probably just get off with a slap on the wrist (if that). The poor & lower-middle class with not so many means and court appointed lawyers get the harshest sentences and are basically used as statistics for your public prosecutors promotion and advertisement.

I think that's an overly simplistic view. Are prosecutors dropping shoplifting charges for "upper middle class" people because they brought in an $1,000/hour lawyer? Real life prosecutors aren't quite so cartoon villain-y.

The bigger issue is that (1) laws are enforced more harshly in poor areas because there is pressure on prosecutors to focus on high-crime areas; (2) poor people are much more likely to be within one degree of separation of someone the cops are interested in. In many schools in poor neighborhoods, "kids are essentially assigned a gang affiliation." http://www.npr.org/2013/02/21/172593743/chicago-kids-say-the....

In an upper class suburb, a shoplifting charge is easy to dismiss as youthful indiscretion. In a gang-infested inner city neighborhood, where the perpetrator might have friends or family with known gang affiliations, it becomes very easy (if not fair or just) to see an indiscretion as a sign of something much bigger.

Yes, I believe they are.

Prosecutors try to spend their time on the cases they can win. You don't even have to be criminally charged to see how farcical the system is: just go to traffic court sometime and watch how the system handles people with lawyers.

Speaking as someone who has never gone to traffic court, can you tell me how the system handles people with lawyers versus people without lawyers?

My lawyer turned a moving violation into a no seatbelt ticket. This had zero basis in reality. I didn't get points on my licence, but still had to pay a fine.

People without lawyers didn't know that all that's really important is that you pay fines to the court. You're taking the court's time and you have to pay for it.

They tried to deny they sped, the cop said they did, and the ticket stuck.

We answered this on crypto nerd Slack but I'll repeat for the benefit of the class:

In Cook County, at least, you're given a time to appear in court. Everyone appears at that time. Cases are handled in alphabetical order. But: if you have a lawyer, your case is handled first --- the lawyers are on the clock, you see --- so there's about an hour and a half of waiting for lawyer after lawyer to come up and get their clients cases dismissed, while everyone else sits doing nothing.

How would myself or anyone else interested get on the crypto nerd slack?

I guess mail me and introduce yourself? It's not like super selective or anything.

Don't forget the human sacrifice to the crypto-god.

No but in all seriousness it's a good time if you like talking/learning/debating cryptography and general security things.

That's somewhat weak evidence for your original claim. (Which I don't dispute, but you've lowered the bar here.) How do much do outcomes differ for Mr. Zanzibar with a lawyer and Mr. Ali without a lawyer?

> Are prosecutors dropping shoplifting charges for "upper middle class" people because they brought in an $1,000/hour lawyer?

Yes, they are. It's not this blatant, but the result is the same.

First, the rich person has probably been told, repeatedly, "Shut the fuck up, and only talk to your lawyer." This is a HUGE deal and helps your end result dramatically.

Second, the rich person likely doesn't have to worry about losing their job or coordinating child care while being missing for 24 hours due to incarceration.

Third, the rich person doesn't have to worry about making bail.

Fourth, you mentioned "social separation". Agreed. The richer person likely has a closer contact to a friend inside the justice system. That helps.

Fifth, a rich person is more likely to "look" not guilty. So both the prosecution and defense negotiate with that in their heads.

Sixth, the rich person likely knows English well and understands the cultural norms. This is a significant advantage. For example, in the southwest US, more than a few Hispanics wind up pleading guilty to having underage sex thinking it's not a big deal without realizing that they're about to have a felony on their record.

Seventh, the rich person understands navigating a bureaucracy. Do NOT underestimate this skill. A lot of lower class people don't realize the power that lower level functionaries have and wind up pissing them off to their detriment. The number of times I have seen people mouthing off to someone in the probation office makes me cry.

Finally, your lawyer likely knows the inside game. He knows that this judge likes to slam young punks, so he'll try to avoid him for stupid pot offenses. He knows that this judge is getting back from vacation on this day and is likely in a good mood so he can get a better deal. He knows that this judges hates DUI's, etc.

The list goes on and on ...

So, the prosecutor doesn't actually think: "He's rich, so I won't prosecute this so hard." But at every point where a decision can go for or against, there's a bit of bias in the rich person's favor distributed throughout the system.

Eventually that multiplies up to a big advantage.

> So, the prosecutor doesn't actually think: "He's rich, so I won't prosecute this so hard." But at every point where a decision can go for or against, there's a bit of bias in the rich person's favor distributed throughout the system.

This is absolutely critical and I think best explains that undercurrent of things like "subconscious racism".

It's not villainy, prosecutors (largely) simply don't see promoting social equity as their job.

They get paid to bring successful prosecutions. That's the metric of success and lots of successful prosecutions will advance their careers.

If you can afford legal representation you get a lawyer who spends more than five minutes preparing to defend you. The prosecution is less likely to succeed, so the prosecutor is more willing to deal.

I've always wondered why we don't just get rid of private lawyers and legal teams. That way, no one has an advantage or disadvantage. Even the wealthiest get one guy chosen by the court and no other assistance whatsoever and we see lots of rich kids going to prison as a result.

But how do you get rid of legal teams? Maybe you can insist on court appointed lawyers in court, but you can't really stop people with legal knowledge selling research and advice to rich people.

> I've always wondered why we don't just get rid of private lawyers and legal teams.

Because bringing the quality of someone else's defense down does not solve the fundamental problems of the justice system.

The problem is that the justice system is unfair to the poor, PERIOD. And we need to fix that. The problem is not putting more rich kids in jail.

In my opinion, the better change is to remove things like prosecutorial discretion for juries. If the prosecution can't make the case without stacking the deck, he shouldn't be making it.

That's a poor opinion. I wonder if a prosecutor without that discretion would've ever been able to make a civil rights charge stick in 60s Alabama in any majority-white county.

I don't think so. If the lawyer pool is so terrible, there will be people with incentive to fix it, and those fixes will benefit everyone, rather than the few it benefits now.

It's not just the lawyers. It's even much more basic and mundane stuff, like fines and fees.

Say you parked your car in a wrong spot - a mistake that many people make at least once in their life. In US (and many other countries), the fine for that is a fixed amount. For some people it's pretty much chump change, while for the others it can be the difference between paying a different bill late or not.

Yet others can't pay the ticket at all, and then there's a fine for not doing that. If you're poor enough, you can easily rack up thousands of dollars in debt to the government for something as trivial as parking in a wrong spot, or having a broken taillight (which you don't have money to fix).

Then you get an arrest warrant, and that's when court fees and lawyer fees start piling in - on top of everything you've already accrued.

And, of course, because you can't post bail, they lock you up, and by the time you get out (assuming you're lucky with your public defender and do get out), you have probably lost your job. If you're especially unlucky, you may have also lost your rental, and your things have been thrown out onto the street.

Worse yet, some municipalities have learned the rules of that game, and decided that they want a cut. Ferguson is a prominent example, but it is one among many.

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fi...

How do you fix it? Well, insofar as fines are meant to be punitive, you scale them to the income of the person being fined, for example.

I knew someone who was so aggressively proud of their success, having founded and grown a successful business. He'd talk your ear off about how people like him were the ones adding value to society and how unsuccessful people are just lazy and don't try hard enough or don't take enough risks, or are just deadbeats, and how successful, hard working people are punished with taxes--you know, the standard soapbox speech. I mean, reading that description, he sounds like that cliche "Cartoon Republican Villain", but it really was that way!

What he wouldn't easily admit was how this successful business was his sixth try, having blown what, to me, seemed like a small fortune on each of his previous attempts. He always had a rich family to fall back on, living off of them while he dreamed up his next attempt to "add value." Finally (inevitably), one of them stuck, so obviously this is proof that he's self-made and his success was due entirely to his own "hard work".

If you grow up poor without a fallback, you pretty much have one shot, if you're even able to save up for that one. You mess up, and you're pretty much hosed. On the other hand, with an infinite money cushion, you get to keep shooting until you hit the target. What's the saying? Going from $0 to $1M is almost impossible--going from $1M to $2M is almost inevitable.

I see what you're saying, but to be the devil's advocate - someone at some point in the family of "Cartoon Republican Villain" was also a poor sob with a single shot to make it. The tragedy is that he forgot, or never knew about it.

Not necessarily. There's been intergenerational wealth transfer going on in continuous unbroken lines for hundreds if not thousands of years.

You've comparing the success of one poor sob with the success of a lineage of rich/poor sobs. It's much easier to be rich than to get rich, because a lineage has several shots to make it big.

When society becomes too rigid for social mobility then of course it becomes a huge problem, but at the same time, if you do become wealthy - wouldn't you want your kids to have it easier and give them any advantage you possibly can?

Grants for entrepreneurs/basic income could be a good idea to boost the chances of those at the very bottom, but it probably won't come to pass. First, who would willingly part with their own money to funnel it to those programs, except perhaps for very wealthy philanthropists, and second big business will never support it as their costs will skyrocket and retention will drop like a stone as desperate employees will be able to get the .... out. In Switzerland with direct democracy, something might happen, anywhere else - doubtful.

>wouldn't you want your kids to have it easier and give them any advantage you possibly can?

You're missing the point. It isn't that the wealthy are being incriminating for "wanting their kids to have it easier".

They're pointing out that the success for kids born into wealth is typically attributable to family money.

>They're pointing out that the success for kids born into wealth is typically attributable to family money.

That's pretty obvious to me, it wasn't obvious to you?

I don't think any of the newly rich, such as say - Zuck were hiding these facts. Zuck went to Harvard, an elite school, and got 100k from the bank of mom and dad to work on his own thing.

The issue is that this data doesn't filter to the masses. Since it doesn't filter to the masses we now have a cult of "entrepreneur porn" where anybody can grab themselves by the bootsraps and become the new Zuck. I think with a little reflection most people know that this is false, however they've deluded themselves otherwise.

If it's obvious to you, then why did you go off topic about parents' intentions with their kids?

The article is about how having safety nets only for wealthy children leads to a net loss of talent in society. What does "entrepreneurship porn" now have to do with this?

Because in my mind "entrepreneurship porn" is still relevant to this article, by pushing people who should know better than to take a risk when they can't afford to, into risking their livelihoods for uncertain gains. In an ideal world every kid can be what they want to be, but in this one its good to know your limitations as well.

That seems to be an issue you've come up with on your own, because nobody is being pushed into entrepreneurship here.

In fact, the article states that without a safety net, talented people aren't taking the risks that can generate a net benefit for society.

>> That's pretty obvious to me, it wasn't obvious to you?

There are literally dozens of "how to get rich" books, that are actually "why it's your fault that you aren't rich" books in disguise, which try to explicitly disprove that statement.

So yes, apparently, to a lot of people, it's not actually obviously true.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis - one of the biggest sources of suffering in the world.

> There are literally dozens of "how to get rich" books, that are actually "why it's your fault that you aren't rich" books in disguise, which try to explicitly disprove that statement.

Do they succeed?

Succeed in disproving? That's debatable. I would say no, many others would disagree.

Succeed in selling the book and making some decent profit for the author? I think so, judging by the sales figures.

> someone at some point in the family of "Cartoon Republican Villain" was also a poor sob with a single shot to make it.

Sure, at a time of much greater economic opportunities, (i.e. after WWII), than people starting from $0 have today.

Yes, and a bit of empirical data that one might think about in relation to this theory is the long term decline in small business starts.

>>What's the saying? Going from $0 to $1M is almost impossible--going from $1M to $2M is almost inevitable.

For the very same reasons going from $2M to $0 is easy.

It takes a lot of character to handle money and power, if you don't understand the work that goes behind it or it value. You will lose all of it soon.

Edit: Why the down votes?

I don't think it takes "character" to handle money. It's a skill like any other, and people who grow up with wealth have more opportunity to learn that skill.

What's meant by character is that your skills with money management won't tell you where to spend money when its discretionary, and what level to set your discretionary shares at.

Some people will fritter away their wealth on useless things, even if they know that they can make guaranteed returns by investing in X. Some people will continually reinvest in bad ventures, each time thinking the risk is worth it.

There's no skill to say what is too much risk. That's a judgement call that everyone has to make for themselves.

>your skills with money management won't tell you where to spend money when its discretionary, and what level to set your discretionary shares at.

Yes they will? That's an aspect of money management.

>There's no skill to say what is too much risk. That's a judgement call that everyone has to make for themselves.

By even framing the decision in these terms, you're already displaying far more experience in money management than many people have had opportunity to acquire.

It's not about opportunity, you could learn that much in an hour on /r/investing, or an afternoon of Googling "money management". It's about inclination to learn it, which requires a (very) little discipline.

Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.

Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.[1]

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Switzer

> Going from $0 to $1M is almost impossible--going from $1M to $2M is almost inevitable.

I know plenty of people who inherited money and blew it all.

Very, very few people, even children from ''rich'' families, have an ''infinite money cushion''.

People who come from poverty or communities rampant with discrimination often times have to work harder for opportunities. But hard work is hard work, and there is fierce competition at every level, no matter who you are. I hesitate to take anything away from anyone's success.

And if you think making your first million from scratch is ''almost impossible'' you should look around any suburb of Silicon Valley at the many, many immigrants who came here with nothing and have saved up that amount, or more. Lots of luck, to be sure, but lots of planning, discipline, deferred gratification, and hard work too.

If they're talking like the person that was described was talking, I absolutely would take away from their success, especially because they've never had to worry about any of the stuff that someone who doesn't come from means has to worry about.

Don't get me wrong; finding success is hard, and whenever someone does find it, it should be celebrated. But those that do find it shouldn't discount the struggles of those who aren't able to try, especially if it takes them several tried to find it themselves.

>I absolutely would take away from their success

Why? Because they are an asshole about it? That doesn't reduce their success in any way. If they have offset the losses of their previous endeavors, they have provided a net gain and it's still a success.

Because they're an asshole about it, and because they're ignoring the pure luck advantages they had which made their success possible. And it doesn't matter if they've offset the losses of their previous tries, they still took multiple tries (in and of itself not a problem), which is something most people don't get.

Let me ask a question - what does your attitude benefit you? It seems mostly to make you bitter about things that were never in your control, which seems like an unvarnished negative. Maybe you've found something more helpful.

I don't think many people have an attitude of "we need to recognize built-in advantages, and should call out people who try to play down or hide them" to benefit themselves - it's an attitude and position adopted to try to benefit those without those advantages. E.g. by showing a beneficial side of certain social safety net policies, or the downside of the default position becoming graduating with massive amounts of student debt, etc.

I'm not bitter, I just think that guy is an asshole.

With that attitude, nobody could ever take any credit for success because there is someone else that had it harder.

"Warren Buffet didn't do anything impressive because he grew up with his parents."

What a petty way to live.

Warren Buffet doesn't discourage and shit on those who haven't been able to do what he has. Again, I would discount the person's success because they're an asshole, and refusing to acknowledge that they were given many privileges and benefits by pure random luck. Buffet routinely acknowledges that he had lots of help getting to where he is today.

thats both a false dichotomy and a strawman.

Well played

Because a lot of humanity wants to shit on others' successes. It's why it's mostly futile to seek outward validation.

It depends on where one lives. Where I currently live, it takes about $25M in wealth just to get out of middle class and into lower upper class. And, to get into the true upper class requires maybe $500M to a billion. And, at that level, it is effectively infinite money (like > $250k a day in passive income, at the lowest level).

-4 in less than 30 minutes. that's a record for me. I must have said something controversial. So, glad that I could help :-)

I'm not aware of any place on earth where someone who has $24 million in wealth is considered 'middle class'.

That's $180,000 annually at a measly 0.75% interest (what my peon savings bank currently gives) for doing absolutely nothing. If you can quit your job and ride on 180k passive, risk-free income, you're not middle class.

You're not alone - trust me. Most people don't believe me.

But, then, I grew up in a place where many if not most household incomes are less than $15k / year.

It's all relative though - I have enough saved up to probably live as a rich man in probably 99% of the earth. Yet, I keep pushing myself to get into the upper class of a minuscule area of the world. It's kind of screwed up.

Sorry, I should have been stricter with my phrasing.

There is no place on earth where you can consider yourself middle class only having $24m in net worth. What you are referring to is likely a small community filled with people with net worths above $100m, but that doesn't change the class level because of what I pointed out. If you can quit your job and make 6 figures off of interest, you are not middle class anymore wherever you live.

Just because you can't afford a penthouse apartment in downtown Manhattan doesn't mean you are middle class.

I get what you're saying - but the reality is that globalization is to blame. Years ago, if one was born ambitious and able, with enough luck they'd get relatively 'rich' and most likely stop when they hit that point. Nowadays, the same type of person has to accumulate a much larger amount to feel any satisfaction. And, it doesn't help that those with wealth have clustered together.

Can you give us a hint as to where this place is? I believe that you believe this, and it may be true, but the rest of us are having a hard time figuring out where this place is that the upper class is half a billion dollars, and tens of millions only makes you middle class. Again, within a city or perhaps some particularly small but remarkably wealthy country, maybe. But which one?

Places such as the UK have a socio-economic class system where class really has rather little to do with money - upper class here means aristocracy not just rich. Money really doesn't have that much to do with it.

You're not alone - trust me. Most people don't believe me.

It might help if you actually stated where you live. As it stands, you're talking about your girlfriend who "goes to a different school". Which school, and what's her name?

Loudoun county, which is ranked as the highest income county in the US.

According to this, middle class in Loudoun county is ~$150K household income.

http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/the_loudouns_at_122...

Looking at Zillow, it's cheaper than where I live (Boulder, CO).

Thank you for clarifying. Virginia, and not Tennessee, I take it. What that means is that few, if any, in Loudon County, VA are middle-class. It does not mean that you need $25 million to be middle-class in Loudon County. It means you need to be rich to live in Loudon County.

LOL - of course many of you just seem to want to rebuke me. Makes sense, given today's culture. But, you're just adding to the problem.

Most current problems in our society stem from people getting more satisfaction out of pushing web buttons than doing real things out in the real world.

Oh, well, sucks to be many of you but I guess really good to be me. It's just really sad. Especially sad given how poor I grew up.

It's sad that you have been sucked into a life of such competitive materialism that you can't find satisfaction with a net worth less than 25m. If you grew up poor and have 20m now and are still not satisfied, there is likely no number that will ever satisfy you.

If you're earning over $180k (which you would on the interest of $24mm), you'd be in the top 0.2% of earners for Loudoun County.

That's not middle class at all.

That seems really off, considering that the top 1% (down with the 1%, etc.) make at least $428k nationwide.[1] Where are you getting the information?

[1]: http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-what-s...

I got it from here [0].

I just rechecked my numbers, and it turns out I was reading from the wrong column, earning >$180,000 a year would put you in the top 2.7%

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/loudoun-county-va/#income_dis...

I've lived in Loudoun county, VA. Your characterization of middle class in that place is totally inaccurate. There are probably less than 50 square miles on earth (if that) where a net worth of $24MM places you in the middle class.

Well then you'd know that Loudoun is a large county. I'm sure you lived in the eastern part - probably ashburn where they build dense complexes of 450k townhouses that span as far as the eye can see - to house all the 'creative class' workers who make 100k a year and feel good about themselves.

I can't reply to ap22213 for some reason, but I agree with everyone else - people are not middle class in Loudon County unless they have more than 25 million. That's clearly wrong, you don't understand what middle class means. Your next door neighbors might all have a billion, and your 15 million feels like not much, but that doesn't make you middle class, you are still rich.

In Seattle, there's this area where a bunch of billionaires live on Lake Washington. If you live next door in your 5 million dollar house to bill gates, that doesn't make you middle class. It just makes you poorer than he is.

> That's $180,000 annually at a measly 0.75% interest

Actually that 0.75 is negative in real terms (after taking off inflation currently 1.1% - not to mention taxation). A person drawing $180k would be burning their capital.

Is the $25M in US dollars? If so, that seems like plenty to be upper class in any place I'm aware of. For example, at 4% return on investment, that'd yield $1M US annually. 500K would be enough money to, e.g., rent two rooms at the Mayfair Hotel in London, or the Contemporary Hotel at Disneyland for the year and eat out every night. Maybe you live in a place more rarefied than Mayfair or Disneyland, but there aren't many of those places, so your experiences may not be typical.

>People who come from poverty or communities rampant with discrimination often times have to work harder for opportunities. But hard work is hard work, and there is fierce competition at every level, no matter who you are. I hesitate to take anything away from anyone's success.

Tell that to the kid making iPhones in the Foxconn facility. Success isn't where you are, it's how far you've come. By that metric the most successful thing you can do in life is have a father like Sam Walton.

Hard work is requisite, not satisfactory. You can dig ditches in your own yard for 14 hours a day and you aren't going to be successful. Similarly, you can start a business with your $1 million inherited wealth, but it has an extremely high probability of failing without hard work.

>Tell that to the kid making iPhones in the Foxconn facility.

I'm not even sure what your point is. GP was pointing out that competition at every level is fierce. Not sure what that has to do with the Foxconn employee. Are they known for not being competitive?

>Hard work is requisite, not satisfactory.

If you're one of the Rich Kids of Instagram, hard work doesn't seem to play much of a role in their lives.

The point about Foxconn is obvious. How many Foxconn employees have a realistic chance of topping the rich list?

Hard work, like the idea of being a self-made person, is largely a self-serving mythology.

Real hard work is doing the same shitty job for 10-12 hours a day six or seven days a week and earning barely enough to pay the rent.

That's the reality of hard work for much of the population. Fetishising the hard work of the already-rich discounts that ground truth.

> Tell that to the kid making iPhones in the Foxconn facility.

The kid in the Foxconn facility is better off if he works there than if he did not have any job. If it were otherwise he would quit the job (since the kid is a poor worker, but not a slave). So indeed having a job at Foxconn lead to a better (though still bad) life for the kid. The kid should rather complain at his parents that they, as poor people, gave life to him - they should know that because of their poverty he would lead a miserable life and hazarded the consequences.

Most of the successful immigrants I personally know who have made it in silicon valley came from families with money or power back home.

I mean, there are other stories to, of course, but the student visa and then technical visa course is one mostly reserved for people who come from well off families.

(I am not trying to knock anyone or diminish their achievements, some of these people have worked hard and achieved a lot. I am just saying that if you can get a student visa or a technical work visa, you probably did not come from a poor or powerless family.)

85% of American millionaires are self-made. Source: "The Millionaire Next Door" book.

85% of wizards are educated at Hogwarts. "Harry Potter" book.

Hogwarts isn't even the largest school, that'd be Uagadou.

Woah I didnt know there were other schools and the world was so rich. Thats cool. My numbers were incorrect.

I hope theres more of a fleshing out of the harry potter world in future books or movies.

An mmo would be pretty tight lol.

Wheres the ACTUAL study? Or did the author just call up 5 rich dudes?

Seriously are we taking this number as legitimate.. simply because it comes from a BOOK?

Is that how low our scientific standards have become?

Frickin Pixar verified that talking cars exist. Good enough for me!

The book describes the studies they used. (Correction, it's 80%. I had misremembered it.) You can get the book for $2.50 from Amazon, not a bad investment if you are interested in the topic.

The numbers are not correct or even science.

Its one dude who uses that number to sell his pop psychology book.

Heres a blog from the author about where he gets his numbers:

'In my thirty plus years of surveying and studying millionaires'

http://www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-milliona...

A blog post of a couple of paragraphs does not give any information about the rigor, correctness, or value of the contents of a book.

That's exactly what OP is trying to point out. It's easy to be "self-made" when you can get a million dollar loan from your dad to get your real-estate business off the ground. It's easy to be self-made when your dad works at Seattle's most prestigious law firm and can arrange an introduction with IBM's PC hardware division. It's significantly more difficult to be self-made when you have no connections and no capital.

I don't understand. none of those examples are 'self-made'

In US, 'self-make' means 'privileged'

What's your definition of self-made? I like "Someone with significant wealth who didn't receive inheritance or trust fund money."

Someone with significant wealth who reached 18 without any cash/value other than what he earned himself. Meaning self-funded university studies, pretty hard in US from what I heard. Would earn great respect not only from me.

In more lenient fashion, somebody on top of this who finished university without debt, and no money apart from self-earned.

But they're still usually counted as such. Both Donald Trump and Bill Gates are regularly touted as "self-made" Xillionaires. And, at least in terms of that book, we don't know what definition of self made is used, or how they counted it.

That's the point. They're saying that those 85% of self-made American millionaires aren't as "self-made" as they claim.

Like me: I could talk about starting with almost nothing in my bank accounts, getting a job, working through the ranks, buying a home, and working toward my first million... conveniently leaving out all the advantages that I've had to get me to this point (cultural expectation that I'd go to college instilled in me from a young age, a family well-off enough to support that financially, uninterrupted time to work on the hobbies that grew into a career, etc).

Quanticle seems to be relating the origins of Donald Trump and Bill Gates. Donald describes his fortune as self-made. Bill Gates has been described as self-made. It's true, if you only consider that their wealth is much greater than any gift they've ever received. It's false from the perspective that anyone could do it with enough hard work.

Honestly no one is self-made. People who don't have financial cushions still rely on others to back their idea and hard work.

Problem is everyone on HN is talking about how to make millions when that's backwards mentality because then you'll never be satisfied. People need to strive for modest salaries and things that benefit society and the planet not filling one's pockets.

> People need to strive for modest salaries and things that benefit society and the planet not filling one's pockets.

It's a lot easier to do projects that benefit society and the planet if you have millions in your pocket that you can spend/invest on them (say for paying employees or simply having financial runway).

There is some truth in what parent is saying though. We have reach a point in the West were a comfortable life is basically possible for everyone. However, we still have the bullish culture from after the war that paints a guy that want a simple life as some sort of loser.

So we go on holiday and marvel at the simple life of artisans, farmer or other, but we teach our children that such a lifestyle is a failure.

Everybody who thinks that their salary is too large is free to donate a large(r) part of the salary to things that he cares of. So if you think you earn a more modest salary, do so. The problem is that most people who talk of "more modest salaries" mean "others should have more modest salaries". Better call this envy.

> So we go on holiday and marvel at the simple life of artisans, farmer or other.

I surely don't.

> We have reach a point in the West were a comfortable life is basically possible for everyone. However, we still have the bullish culture from after the war that paints a guy that want a simple life as some sort of loser.

And what made it possible that leading a comfortable life is basically possible for everyone? Surely not the people who want a simple life.

I can accept that technology has become too complicated for most people to grasp. I am among the first to accept this as a problem. But if this is your opinion, start to develop technology that is easier to grasp instead of complaining how complicated anything has become. The same holds for laws, too.

> And what made it possible that leading a comfortable life is basically possible for everyone? Surely not the people who want a simple life.

But is pushing everyone to push the boundaries even if they are not driven or motivated not counterproductive at some point ?

Well I may be biased by living in London and working in the financial industry, where personal enrichment seems to be the only accepted way of life. But all the scheming that is done to be on top is definitively keeping competent people out of the loop. Keeping your job is a more valuable skill that excelling at your job, and you don't need much corporate experience to know that there is a very thin overlap between the 2. I see people that are great with children, amazing artists, ... that are just grinding at their job just to keep living a life where they can afford the socially acceptable brand of car, clothes and activities, but dream of the day when they can spend more than a few hours a month doing what they are really good at.

More generally, what about all the support jobs ? Tech is very far away to replace teacher or nurses. Those jobs are loser jobs in a world that only value "potentially world changing career". You are more likely to become a millionaire as a random Goldman Sachs cannon fodder as you are as a nurse. What kind of criminal parent would encourage their kid to teach instead of getting a degree that let them into finance ?

These are two insightful and underrated points. I'm going to store them away somewhere if you don't mind. Have an up vote!

> Keeping your job is a more valuable skill that excelling at your job, and you don't need much corporate experience to know that there is a very thin overlap between the 2.

This is true in most companies, not just finance. The fact that these 2 activities are orthogonal and require entirely different skill sets is one of the more frustrating aspects of corporate life, giving rise to: very talented people who end up grinding away as drone#19221 because they aren't great at "managing upward" and smooth talkers who BS their way into higher and higher roles.

> I see people that are great with children, amazing artists, ... that are just grinding at their job just to keep living a life where they can afford the socially acceptable brand of car, clothes and activities, but dream of the day when they can spend more than a few hours a month doing what they are really good at.

Again, welcome to work everywhere. For most people, a job is the thing you do for money so you can live, and save up to finally do what you are good at or love when you're old and retired.

> People need to strive for modest salaries

So true. In today's US economy just simply having a salary, period, is something one must strive for. Continuity and regularity of compensation has become difficult to obtain.

We wouldn't have nice things like computers, coffee, indoor plumbing, jeans, books, teeth, etc. if people were satisfied with modest salaries and not filling their pockets.

Yes we would. Long before capitalism was invented the great creators of the world made great strides with inventiveness. While necessity is certainly the mother of invention, there's no limit to human curiosity.

Examples: Arabic numerals, Da Vinci, Mozart, Galileo, Maxwell, Einstein, Turing, etc. That's where a lot of those modern things come from.

Then along comes the capitalists to exploit the true discoveries for personal gain. Mass produce this-and-that, destroy the environment, etc. Build atomic bombs.

I'm curious about when you believe capitalism was "invented". Post-Einstein?

If you are born in the Western World, it is like starting a marathon 5 km away from the finish line and still be in the same race than the one starting at the beginning.

When you start thinking everything you get for free, even just in a lower middle western family, compared to someone born in a war torn village in Africa, the concept of "self-made" becomes really meaningless.

That's why a stable government that protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is necessary. The opportunity flows from that.

Gates was already a multimillionaire from Microsoft before the DOS deal. IBM also went to Gary Kildall first.

Bill Gates was probably a multimillionaire from the day he was conceived.

No need to guess. Biographies of Gates and Microsoft are plentiful.

Read this book if you want the sources, they are cited there and are too many to list here.

The point is that most folks that "make it" have some advantages from the start. Their parents might not have been rich, but decently well off. Went to decent schools, were able to make business contacts and network. Might not have had to work while in school either. If their business failed, it didn't mean they were sleeping on people's couches: They had a room at their parents if it got that bad, but they could usually weather the storm.

Again, contacts help with that.

The folks growing up in poverty don't have much of that. Schools are by chance, and often folks work through college so there isn't as much time for networking. Besides, networking costs money. If this person fails, they are simply homeless.

Simply moving up to lower middle class takes some work.

Sure, they are possibly "self-made", but they weren't fighting lack of opportunity.It is simply easier to make it if you have a good foundation.

(0% of families dissipate their wealth within three generations. This suggests that there is a constant up welling of people who accumulate wealth. The proposition that there is some fixed group of rich people sitting at the top is absurd.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873246624045783346...

Edit: the actual figure is 90%

For other people struggling to read this comment: "(" is on the same key as "5" on Azerty keyboards.

It's also a capital 9. I'm so ashamed. The number is supposedly 90%.

Oh, my bad, I got confused with the brackets (which are not on a digit key). I really should have checked. See, we all make mistakes!

Did you know you can edit your post? I think yours deserve it.

It appears that after a certain amount of time the edit capability is unavailable.

There is a force not unlike gravity, constantly pulling on all outliers, reverting them to the mean over time. However, that does not imply the outliers do not "sit at the top" and heavily impact whatever group in which they are the outliers.

The median inheritance is $50k. Is it possible that very large inheritances are more likely to keep accumulating?

There are many exceptions http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/19/the-wealthy-in-flo...

The Chinese proverb for this is 富不過三代 which literally means "wealth does not pass three generations". It's allegedly ancient.

well... He/she clearly said that:

p(success|rich) > p(success|poor)

and never implied that:

p(success|rich) = 1

I didn't read that as "if you have $1M you'll almost certainly go to $2M", so much as "if your business has already earned $1M in profit then it's almost certain to continue to earn another $1M in profit". And likewise, it's not talking about having $1M in savings from a lifetime of hard work.

Think of a business as being like an engine. Until you get the engine started and running under its own power, it's just costing you time and effort and money. Once it's running, it generates money at an accelerating rate. The $1M cutoff here is a proxy for "the engine is running."

  >going from $1M to $2M is almost inevitable.

If that were true, I could easily borrow it now and make my way there.

Average market return is 7%[0], with a competent money manager and a few years it is virtually inevitable statistically. You can do exactly what you describe, but if you don't have the assets to back it up they won't loan it to you, nor would you be able to make the payments.

[0]http://www.thesimpledollar.com/where-does-7-come-from-when-i...

Ironically, very few money managers manage to even do as well as the S&P 500. Everyone thinks they can do better, and wind up falling short.

If you have the ability to borrow $1M, I'd argue you're already there. I know people who can't open a fucking checking account.

Yeah, but borrowing it would fall under the "going from $0 to $1MM" part.

In terms of net assets, no it's not. It's going from $0 to, say, -$50,000 as now you owe interest.

But in terms of having money, it is. You now have $1MM to do stuff with, whereas before, you didn't. That $1MM can be put to work, or used to buy better tools or hire better employees. That's something you couldn't do when you had no money.

If I were given a interest free million dollar loan it wouldn't be hard to invest it and have two million in a few decades. Compounding interest is the key.

It actually kinda disturbs me in a way how easy it is to make money when you have money.

Wealthy people tend to have different attitudes about money than others, which has a strong influence on their ability to accumulate wealth. This is expounded upon in the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad". It's worth a read, especially for people who are not wealthy but aspire to it.

If you're not wealthy and aspire to it, I'd suggest not starting with a book from somebody who uses a made-up story to explain luck, giving fundamentally flawed advice.

Instead, realize that the odds are against you: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poor...

And then work to acquire basic financial literacy. Which requires reading quite a few books. Here's a good starter list: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/03/07/building-a-pers...

You might also be interested in Byron Tully's _The Old Money Book_. He's from an old-money background himself, and while his investment advice is unsophisticated, his advice on everything else is pretty much on the dot.

I did not agree at all. In my experience it's much easier to make 1 million then it is to invest 1 million and make another million.

Also there are many startups that require zero investment capital and if you do not have a family and you minimise your expenses you can leave on very very little. If you do have a family it's more difficult but still possible.

'Its easier to make a million starting from zero than make a million starting with a million' is the essence of what you just said.

This is easily the dumbest thing Ive ever heard on this site. Seriously.

Can we guild and save this somehow?

He may be talking about loaning the first million from bank.

Maybe, but I would argue it's probably a bit easier to get a $1m loan if you already have $1m in assets to use as leverage.

Are you talking from your own experience? I am. I made a million dollars and it wasn't easy but it was actually a lot more difficult to invest $1 million and make more money with it. I personally found it a lot more difficult.

I think most people greatly underestimate the difficulty in investing money successfully.

If you are talking about the amount of time invested ... yes of course there is a lot less time spent investing. However if you are talking about the probability of success I would argue It's not as high as you would think to take $1 million and turn it into $2 million.

So are you arguing that once you make a million, there are factors that will stop you from getting to 2 million? Kind of confused how it could get harder to make more money. Once you are at a million you can leverage that money as well as doing whatever it is you did to make the original money..

Yeah but the point of the post had nothing to do with the difficulty of investing....what are you even going on about?

>>I did not agree at all. In my experience it's much easier to make 1 million then it is to invest 1 million and make another million.

Really. Let's hear your formula.

Because the stock market returns 7% per year on average after inflation, which means it takes about 10.2 years for $1 million to become $2 million. What's even better is that this happens behind the scenes - you don't have to do any work for it.

So what's your formula for getting from zero to $1 million in 10 years without doing any work?

Lotto!!

There is no guarantee the stock market will return money in the future. The past does not equal the future and in fact some experts predict that the stock market will return around 3% on average going forward. Also even if the average return was 7% most people have achieved much less than that.

Obviously it's less effort to invest in the stock market so if you're talking about the amount of effort then yes investing is easier

>>There is no guarantee the stock market will return money in the future.

It will always return money as long as it exists. How much it will return is debatable.

>>Obviously it's less effort to invest in the stock market so if you're talking about the amount of effort then yes investing is easier

Uh, you said, "In my experience it's much easier to make 1 million then it is to invest 1 million and make another million."

What is this about, if not effort?

uhhh, then shouldn't you constantly be taking $0 and turning it into $1M?

>He'd talk your ear off about how people like him were the ones adding value to society

To take this sentence slightly out of context: There's nothing wrong with providing a service people find useful and are willing to pay you for, however this moral high ground is extremely abrasive to the soul. If someone really cared about "adding value to society," or the future of human welfare -- human rights are on the decline in our own country. Journalists are being openly, publicly and illegally prosecuted (Pete Santilli), peaceful protesters are being removed with military-style raids (Dakota pipeline protests), and whistle-blowers are being hunted by our government for revealing unconstitutional, illegal government surveillance (Snowden), while our government funds illegal wars (Syria), through arming of totalitarian and human-rights-oppressing regimes (SA), while also funding other human-rights-oppressing foreign states with funds equal to that of the Manhattan Project, adjusted for inflation (criticizing which country this is feels like a thought crime though). This all strikes me as more fitting of a nation state we associate with corruption than the USA, but we're all too busy with our day jobs to consider how hard people fought for what we take for granted, and how easily it can and is being taken away. There's a lot that is great about the USA, but as the 2016 elections draw closer and nothing seems to surprise me anymore, every time I hear this argument it just really bothers me because it feels like nobody seems to give a shit about actually "adding value to society."

>> What's less obvious is how nerve-wracking it is to know that there are real consequences. Danger creates stress, and stress ruins results. Paradoxically, if you know you have more than one shot, you're more likely to succeed on your first try.

I think this depends on the person. Some people work better under pressure, others not. There is a real danger of postponing, procrastination, and not taking things seriously if you have a comfortable life already.

I meet many successful people from very poor backgrounds who complain to me about their children being lazy and much less motivated than they were.

The danger on the poor person is astronomically bigger than the one on the comfortable person no matter how you slice it. A lot of the time the comfortable person is just expected to do more without a good reason for it.

A successful person from a poor background an outlier, so you would expect the personalities and attitudes of their children to revert to the mean.

That is all the more reason to praise and appreciate those individuals that come out ahead, despite such circumstances. But I would say it's not a reason to excuse and attribute poor performance due to difficult circumstance, which is generally the type of thing such a story/explanation is used for. And it's unfortunate that it's used for such a narrow use-case, when it could rather be used to inspire.

If I think circumstances are the problem, I'm much more interested in addressing the circumstances than trying to inspire somebody. The one special inspired case is the narrow use-case, not the other way around.

I am "half-way" privileged, for my country standards (Brazil), I am part of a tiny elite, having college education, a sister that went to do masters on MIT, money to buy a computer that for brazillian standards is very high end (even if I had to buy the chassis from a junkyard).

Also knowing english is a rarity, coding, even less, both, even more uncommon (when I worked in a company that had 50 coders, only 5 knew english!)

I did things, that I know that more talented people never would, for example moving "out of the blue" to another city to attempt to create an startup, or build an arcade machine and code it with money out of my pocket so I could later use this to get a job (it worked, I did got a job with that).

This was because I knew, that if I failed, (and I actually did failed...) I had a place to return to, my parents home is not awesome, but I know I won't starve there, even if I had several weeks eating only mandioca that grows in our yard (the root that people use to make what is called in US "tapioca"), the fact I DO have a yard to grow food is already a rarity (in urban areas) in first place.

Yet, frequently people ask me: "Why you don't move?" or "why you don't attempt a job in Canada/Japan/Singapore?" or "Why you don't go for a masters/doctor/phd?"

The answer is always the same: my net worth is negative, although I won't starve, I can't risk more, having a boring job, even if just a cashier job or something like that, that pay my debts, is better than risking more debt, because here in Brazil personal bankruptcy doesn't exist, and compound debt is common, getting more debt can mean getting eternally in debt, and I want to avoid that fate, I have "richer" family members that fell to it, and their lives are absolutely screwed up (for example: I have uncles that own huge farms, yet spend most of their time hiding in distant cities, and placing their money in "strangers" bank accounts to avoid it being immediately seized, I have farmer uncle that struggle to eat because every time he has money, someone seizes it before he can buy food, and his farm is "frozen" by the government that wants it as tax payment, with taxes worth more than the farm itself)

It's a small point, but personal bankruptcy really does exist in Brazil. The rules are different from the US (may be even better for poor people), and sometimes surprising. But it does exist, and lawyers will help you if you ever need it.

I've read a OAB statements that what exists is "personal insolvency".

If you prove that (yes, you have to prove it, including hiring lawyers and all to do that), then you can't own or manage business for 5 years, all your assets are sold, and all future earnings are used to pay debts.

Also, you can't use banking services and credit cards for 10 years, and can't do any commercial transactions for 5 years.

The deal is so bad, but so bad, that in many Brazillian states the amount of people that ever tried that, is zero.

Yes, it sucks. But if you ever see yourself in a position where you can not pay your debits, I strongly recommend you to talk to a lawyer.

The main reason people don't declare insolvency is because there are better options. But I don't know enough to advise people about them - by a wide margin.

It's too easy to generalize this as a lack of money problem. Certainly lack of money is a factor, but so is attitude and character. There are plenty of examples of people from lower income backgrounds rising above their backgrounds even with setbacks along the way because they persevered through difficulties. There are also plenty of examples of people who failed and squandered lots of opportunities. There's an element of detached elitism in the idea that spreading around more money is going to solve a lot of those problems.

As far as I can tall, people from underprivileged backgrounds make it through socializing and sleeping with people from privileged backgrounds as often as possible. Rich people attract opportunities (and are opportunities.) Being near them gives you your best chances, and your best opportunity in life to befriend those people is in university.

> There are also plenty of examples of people who failed and squandered lots of opportunities.

Rich people fail all the time. They fail up nearly as often as they fail down, though. And if they avoid drug problems, they never fail out.

Yes, there are tales. But that's all they are: Tales. They're not statistically significant. And you can have all the "attitude and character" in the world, but if you've got a family to feed and shelter, most people are going to take the rational course of action and get a job so they can provide for that family, rather than take the riskier path.

As I've posted before, my old minister used to say "We can have all of the morals we can afford"

You are also partially describing stereotype threat (there's more to it than that).

Stereotype threat is yet another victim of the replication crisis - i.e. it probably doesn't exist. It's repeatedly failed to replicate. Funnel plots show significant evidence of publication bias.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/85192141/2013-ganley.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat#Failures_to_...

https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/tag/stereotype-threat...

As a first generation college student who is now an adjunct professor, I woulds extend the tightrope metaphor: many of those who grow up rich have known about the tightrope their whole life, have seen how everyone around them has managed it, and have been trained to do it. Many of us who grew up poor grew up not knowing anything about tightrope walking until we were thrown on it, didn't have anyone to teach us about it because no one we knew had ever done it, and didn't even know how to get to the other end.

That's the real issue: example. It's like the plumber who bills the customer $20,000 for tapping a steam valve with a wrench, not because of the tapping, but for the expertise of knowing where to tap.

Kids from rich families are exposed to a lot more information and guidance. I went the route of investment banking, et cetera, and I was flying blind a lot of the time.

There was an a-ha moment when I realized that advice from my parents was about as good as random advice, because sometimes they didn't really have a good mental model for my life and career.

I took a lot of bad advice before this became clear to me.

Meanwhile, one of my buddies could lean on his family for advice because they went the business route before he was born.

It's not the cushion, it's the coach on the other side of the rope that makes the difference.

Respectfully, this is kinda BS.

Your average American kid has already won a genetic lottery. Being born and raised in America is already great.

I grew up the kid of immigrant parents from an African country and I am an immigrant myself at 5 years old. I have a great job at a major well known tech company in a technical programming position.

I'm not the kid that got straight A's. I was the smart fuckup. I almost flunked out of high school. I dropped out of college. I could barely program worth a damn out of college. It was hard work learning not only how to program but, all of the other skills that college didn't teach but, are critical to a working professional programmer (git for instance).

Now, I'll argue there weren't a bed of nails. There were a bed of pillows. I had to move back in with my parents multiple times through my twenties. I thought back then that I was walking over a pit of spikes but, it turns out I wasn't.

Today is much different than even a decade ago, so much more than a generation ago.

You can teach yourself how to program. You can work a minium wage job while you teach yourself. You can't do it in LA, SF, NYC but, you can live in the parts of the US that no one talks about and learn.

It takes time and dedication but, one can do it.

I fully financially supported my brother for two years and he didn't learn or do really anything with that time other than barely pass a bad coding bootcamp and then struggle to find a job with that inadequate education.

The greater difference is the person and their perseverance than economic circumstances. As a poor person who made it by screwing up again and again and again and again. Unless I have astronomical luck, I really don't think it's that hard.

Seriously, if you have the intelligence to program, you should be able to find a minimum wage job or what I did, work nights doing security. I learned programming (reading programming books and coding) while I watched warehouses, trucking depots and the gate at gated communities. It was still a fuckton of hard work but, the hard part was the programming not figuring out how I was going to feed myself.

Maybe I'm somehow this unicorn of blind exceptionalism but, while I felt depressed and that it was hard at the time, it doesn't feel that hard now. I just kept working and it was more of less inevitable. Even today, I keep telling my brother that if he keeps working at it, it will eventually work.

> Seriously, if you have the intelligence to program, you should be able to find a minimum wage job or what I did, work nights doing security.

Minimum wage work may be enough to sustain someone who has a high school diploma, but well does that work for someone who did go to school, sank tens of thousands in loans, and then had to leave before finishing, assuming they have no support network?

I don't understand you talking about genetic lotteries and then using the phrase "if you have the intelligence to program".

I grew up outside of the US and I wouldn't trade that for being an average American kid at all. Being an average American kid, from what I've seen, is a lot worse than growing up in many other countries, even if overall conditions are better. There seems to be a stronger trend of immigrants making it in the US than Americans themselves making it in the US.

> I had to move back in with my parents multiple times through my twenties.

A lot of Americans have a social policy of not allowing their child to live with them past the age of 18...

Americans also assume they need to college, you skipped that entire bag of worms.

Immigrants often have advantages they don't appreciate, such as being able to see the system from the outside and simply solve it, especially given that immigrants are unusual people in general, while Americans look at the system from the inside and are molded by it, and look at it as reality itself. There are plenty of people like that in the country one immigrates from, too, but those are not the immigrants.

Perseverance is a skill, a habit one develops. I think it's worth considering what circumstances in someone's life make learning that habit easier or harder.

>all of the other skills that college didn't teach but, are critical to a working professional programmer (git for instance).

Any good CS college program will teach you version control. I learned it in college first day.

(Not specifically git because that didn't exist when I went to college)

Yeah, but you have to pay for good CS college programs, usually. Or spend a lot of effort to find them for cheap or free (and learn enough to be able the good ones from the bad ones first).

Your story is a perfect illustration of "anecdotes are not data", and self-selection bias.

Think about it: the reason why you're telling us the story is that you have succeeded. If you didn't, you probably wouldn't be hanging out here on NH.

And so we have your success story, but we don't know how many people persevered just as much, but didn't succeed because the curve was just too steep for them.

So there's no practical way to gauge your exceptionalism from this story, or derive any practical conclusion from it. Most importantly, we don't know if your success was 90% hard work and 10% luck, or 10% hard work and 90% luck.

(Note, this isn't to imply that you didn't have to work hard. What this means, rather, is whether working as hard as you did guarantees success, or merely buys you a ticket to the lottery, in which you still have a fairly low chance of winning, despite all that hard work. The latter is the "10% hard work and 90% luck" case.)

And it's especially hard to self-evaluate. When you have heavily invested in all that hard work, psychologically, you're that much more likely to attribute your success to it rather than external factors, and you start thinking of it as "inevitable". The reason is that success as a result of hard work fits our notion of fairness (which ethologists say is hard-wired pretty deep on biological level) very well, and so we automatically assume a causative link between the two, on the basis that the world is "inherently fair": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Going by the "one shot" metaphor, if poor folks even get that shot, it might just be a hand-load where the case, slug, and powder were all scavenged by sweeping the floors at the firing range, and the primer inherited from a dead relative.

You're more likely to hit what you're aiming at if you're not worried about whether you're going to blow up your favorite hand when you pull the trigger.

Sort of. It's not just that, it's that though the things successful people do are hard, underprivileged people also have to try hard just to get to the entry point. Getting people to even look at you or recognize that you could do the job is itself an extra measure of labor before the job even begins.

At what point does one have to start to be considered independently successful?

- You inherited a lot of wealth and a CTO position at a father's company

- Parents gave you money and bought you stuff

- Parents gave you a place to live

- At least you had one parent

- Being an orphan, at least you were born in a first-world country

- At least you were born at all, thanks to the medical care in a third world country

So, unless you are an orphan from remote parts of Africa who built a Fortune 10 company from scratch your success is not your own? We all owe it to the girl who invented the wheel. But then maybe she had a rich parent who gave her stone carving tools to play as a child, so that's not really an achievement, is it?

I would say Parents gave you money is when most would consider your success tied to your parents.

Is that because the majority of us happen to fall just below that rung and want to consider our success "real"?

Exactly. It's like the old saying "An alcoholic is someone who has one more drink than I do."

One could make the argument that everyone in the US has more priviledge than someone stuck in Syria in the midst of a civil war.

FYI the first wheels were wooden, it is common misconception that the wheel was invented in the stone age. Human civilization invented farming and pottery many centuries before the invention of the wheel

That it correct. My comment was intended to be more of an allegory than a foray into ancient history.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to make.

No-one is entirely independently successful, but there is a big gap between (for example) someone whose parents give them nothing, and someone whose parents "lend" them $1 million to get started.

It often happens that those parents in addition to $1m also "lend" a vast amount of knowledge of how certain social structures and systems work, and how to operate efficiently within them. They also can serve as a "trust provider", which is a great thing to have when executing business transactions.

If given the opportunity to choose between those things and the money, I would take the "inside knowledge" every time. So even if (for some reason) you decide to limit the amount of money parents can "lend" to their children, it still won't solve the issue of disparity.

p.s. You think Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos got to where she was couple of years ago (before the fiasco unfolded) just because her father, a former Enron employee, gave her some money?

That sounds like an interesting experiment. My parents provided neither money, nor knowledge on social structures.

Personally, I'd take the money. I can learn social structures, I can't "learn" a giant pile of bootstrap money.

> Personally, I'd take the money. I can learn social structures, I can't "learn" a giant pile of bootstrap money.

But if you already know the social structures, you don't need to learn the pile of money. You can just go ask for it!

It very much depends on the society in question. The value of social capital has a different price tag in cash (in a sense of how much real value you can derive by leveraging it) in different places.

I don't think anyone is truly independently successful. We might be able to make rough comparisons that one person is more independently successful than another, but we all share in the success and failure of other people.

I think it's more constructive to talk about whether or not people took full advantage of the opportunities that they had and whether they had more and better opportunities than others.

The fact that you found so many external factors contributing to success are maybe an indication that measuring the degree to which success is your own doesn't yield very interesting data.

I would argue that the only purpose/use of this measure is to deny that we should expand the of people benefiting from external factors of success. But I'm quite biased on this issue, so maybe you have another use for this data ?

Author here. Thanks for reading and for sharing this analogy—it very aptly captures the sentiment. Thanks for that.

I just wanted to say that not only was this post extremely difficult to write, but I really hesitated to publish it. When we start talking about privilege or lack-thereof, the conversation generally veers towards comparisons, which is only natural. If you grew up more fortunate than someone else, you say, "Wow, I can't imagine what that must have been like," whereas if you grew up less so: "I grew up with less than this guy or this girl and I'm not complaining" or whatnot. While that's a natural first instinct, I think we can, and must, move beyond that, to have real discussions.

I definitely had more opportunities and grew up in much more fortunate circumstances than many people. As some people have pointed out, just being born in America and having a mostly stable home was very fortunate. Just because I grew up poor, I don't claim to know or understand your circumstances, unique set of challenges, or anything about growing up as an orphan in middle America, a black kid in Compton in a broken home, or a refugee fleeing a war-torn country. But we shouldn't be comparing the sharpness of spikes or depths of the abyss below us— we should be focused on getting as many kids across as we can, and providing safety nets to as many as possible. Talking about these things is hard, but I think it's a good start.

Glad you published it, Mr. Tran. Thanks!

I happen to volunteer at a drop-in center in my town's family public housing project. As it happened, I saw your article shortly after my colleagues and I had wrangled $1000 for a poor immigrant kid on short notice.

It was a tuition payment for a program for high school kids at one of our local world-renowned medical schools.

So, I was able to send your article to my colleagues, the kid, and her mother saying "this is why we do what we do."

Now we have to support this kid while she participates in this program. Hopefully she'll talk to us about what she's going through, and put any shame aside.

Almost anybody reading this can do something to help open up opportunity. It doesn't have to be a grand gesture requiring megabucks. If you don't have time to get organized, give some money to the scholarship fund at your local community college. If you do have time to get organized, call the guidance counselor at your local high school and ask if there's a support program for first-generation college-bound students or something similar.

Who knows? Maybe you'll meet somebody who ends up taking a trip to Sweden one day to collect a Nobel Prize. You can say "I knew her when."

>Paradoxically, if you know you have more than one shot, you're more likely to succeed on your first try.

True and I'll give an example of a technique I use (which is somewhat common) when recording vocalists in the studio.

The singer will get in the booth and I'll ask them to sing a run-through. Even say "we're not recording this one." But of course we are recording. And many times it's this rehearsal take that ends up being the best one.

> if you know you have more than one shot, you're more likely to succeed on your first try

That is most likely also one of the reasons, why there are more (successful) Entrepreneurs in the US than in Europe. At least in Germany, when your first startup fails, you are broke and nobody will give you any funding any more (not to forget, that to get your first funding, is much harder in Germany).

> Obviously falling off onto a cushion is easier.

The whole notions of cushion and spikes is relative too. For some having a roof above your head might sound like a blessing. I will probably hang myself (metaphorically speaking) than go back and stay with my parents thought I will get a house and food twice a day.

Large mass of those so called "privileged" people perhaps have to take equal amount of stress even though in absolute terms we might think they are better off.

Sometimes, knowing that you have no fallback position, can be motivating. Someone growing up in a cushy life may never be motivated to try very hard at anything. Someone growing up with hardship may be highly motivated to create a better life for themselves.

Another way I've heard this put is imagine you have a classroom. "Success" is a bucket at the front of the classroom. Now, every kid gets a ball and tries to hit the bucket. The privileged ones at the front have greater odds of hitting success no matter their skill level. Some underprivileged kids from the back may hit success but the odds against them are much greater.

This is actually the opposite.

OP reasoning is more -

Everyone is at the back.

Everyone has a bucket of balls to try with.

Except underprivileged people get an electric shock when they miss.

The really poor also don't have the rope.

This article had me in tears. I grew up so poor I often didn't have shoes and wore dollar-store flip flops in the winter.

Deadbeat dad, opiate addict mother. I was shuffled constantly from relative to relative, friend's house to friend's house. I had some very supportive teachers, including one who paid for my AP tests and SATs. I got an offer to a university in the UC system. Life was looking up!

In the last semester of my senior year, my stepmom kicked me out of my dad's house. I shuffled back and forth between friends' houses, too embarrassed to explain the situation to an adult. I had to sleep rough a few times and got pneumonia from not having a whooping cough vaccination. I coughed so hard my ribs cracked. I missed a class where I had to turn in a midterm, my teacher wouldn't accept it late ("you kids always make up excuses"), I couldn't get a doctor's note because I hadn't been to the doctor. Welp, failed the class. The university rescinded my admission for the failed grade. I lost all my scholarships. I ended up bouncing around homeless shelters for a few months while I recovered my health.

Eventually, I went to community college, transferred to a top 10 university. Now I work at Amazon as an SDE and make well over six figures. Happy ending, right? Well, no -- for years, I blamed myself for "blowing" that university opportunity. I felt horrible. I felt so ashamed.

Well, now you can forgive yourself and be proud of what you've accomplished and will continue to.

Internalized fear of abandonment, shame, and undervaluing of self-worth... Takes years of work to undo, even after you've made it.

My story is similar to the parent comment - not as severe, but close.

I'm doing well now, but I suffer deeply from impostor syndrome and am constantly waiting to be fired, or cast out or sent back to the bread line, even though, rationally, I know that these are not likely, or even possible outcomes.

You can't divorce yourself from your own past, no matter how high you climb or far you run to escape it.

Fuuuuck dude.. You elaborated more eloquently than I ever could have.

Reality: I've been making more than $200K USD since I was about 27

Mentality: I'm one day away from being homeless.

I've been in therapy for 5 years but I've never touched this thought process yet. I think I need to.

>Mentality: I'm one day away from being homeless.

Exactly that. A while ago, I had to move. I just collapsed. It brought back too much about being kicked out over and over again. And yet, I can't seem to stop moving. I've lived in four states and two countries and I'm only 25. I think after being homeless so long I am just eternally homeless.

I'm forcing myself to accept that I deserve good things, so I got an amazing apartment downtown in my city that has an incredible view. The plan is to renovate this apartment and make it a home.

The mentality was so bad that for the last 15 years, I didn't even have a bed. I would just sleep on the floor.

Last year, by fluke, I ended up in a place where I had a regular bed. It was foreign to me.

All kinds of fucked up.

Q: "What's the most important human drive?"

A: "Familiarity."

Sometimes you've just got to fake it til you make it. Since the real world is working okay for you now I feel this advice is appropriate. I've been there. Heck, I'm there now. I'm looking for a new apartment and I have to convince myself it's okay to rent a nice one! LOL

-----

edit: I read your other post talking about PTSD and, yeah, do look into therapy. There are lots of different kinds out there. I recommend going to a few people before settling down with one or two. And even then if they're not helping, keep looking. There is a huge variability in people who hang out a shingle as therapists. Some are magic, others not so much, and it's different for each person who will be able to help them the most. Speaking from experience here. :) Good luck, God bless, and hand in there.

I've done lots of therapy. Really! It's very sweet how worried everyone in this thread is about me, but maybe I've painted a dire picture.

Time heals all wounds. I'm only 25, it's only been 6.5 years since I was last homeless. Even though it hasn't been too much time, I already feel quite a bit better:

* I used to have anxiety attacks and heart palpitations nearly nightly; now, it happens maybe 2x a year.

* "Money isn't everything - unless you don't have it." Without financial stress (yay corporate programmer salary!), I am much calmer and happier. Most people on HN are men so I don't know if you will understand this, but women (at least in the US) are often pressured to go into a "do-gooder" career. People look at me like I'm a snail when I say that I care first and foremost about being financially independent, but I've learned to ignore it.

* I've completely cut out toxic family members and learned to ignore any asshole that says "you will regret not having a relationship with ____ when he/she is gone"/"the bible says 'honor thy mother and thy father'" etc. If you say these things to someone coming from a family of abuse, you are very tone deaf. No one cuts family out of their life on a whim.

* Everyone talks about "not being a victim", but for me it was a very healing thing to admit that there were a bunch of bad situations where I was surrounded by bad people and did nothing wrong. Maybe it was pride that kept me from admitting this. Maybe shame. Maybe misplaced affection. Whatever the reason, once I shook this off I was able to move on.

In summary: it's okay to admit you've been a victim. It's okay to cut toxic people out of your life. It's okay to be selfish and "materialistic" sometimes. It's okay to ignore people judging you for things that they cannot understand.

Once I learned these life lessons, I left behind a lot of my issues. The more "physical" ones, such as startling easily and having nightmares, are relatively lightweight compared to the more insidious psychological damage caused by years of living with addicts and being treated like my needs were secondary to those of everyone around me.

I don't know if anyone reading this could be in the same situation as my teenage self, but if you're out there: please tell everyone trying to use you to go kick rocks. Know that you can do a lot of very awesome things, as long as you keep your mind open. And you are not "broken"! I won't lie and say Nietzsche was right about "what doesn't kill you" -- but you're never broken, not until you give up. Don't do that.

Before my first comment, I hadn't seen this comment.

I am your age, you make more than me, and I came from much less dire straights...

In a way, many people could even envy your experiences for the drive it gives you. I have toxic family members and I can tell you from experience that a drug addict in the family is an extra anchor to a sinking boat.

> please tell everyone trying to use you to go kick rocks

Some people think they have 'friends' but really they need to learn this lesson.

I almost have a guilt that I grew up with any amount of money at all and would be very willing to do anything for others, thinking I owed it to them.

You've learned some really important lessons through your life, and you're an inspiring person to have read about.

Thanks again for sharing.

>I almost have a guilt that I grew up with any amount of money at all and would be very willing to do anything for others, thinking I owed it to them.

I never, ever resent people for having had a good upbringing. I always feel happy for people who have two functional parents, who had food and clothing and love. It reminds me that such a life is possible, the world isn't always a terrible place, and there's no point in sinking into cynicism and despair.

I think the best thing that you can do for people who are worse off than yourself is live a model life, one in which you treat people decently, have strong personal boundaries, and love your family and friends. When you are older and you have kids, invite your kids' friends over for dinner. I cannot explain how much it meant to me as a kid to see a family that was loving and happy. It gave me hope and made me realize that my situation was not normal and not OK. "Teach a man to fish" and all that -- my friends' parents taught me to have standards for how families should treat each other, which is why I left mine.

I replied to rubberstamp because I want people to know that they should feel no shame in cutting out toxic family and friends if it is what you need to do.

Also, because I like working at Amazon and it gets a metric tonnnn of HN hate :)

Alright! (Whew) you're rockin it. :-D

> Reality: I've been making more than $200K USD since I was about 27

> Mentality: I'm one day away from being homeless.

In the US those two things are not always exclusive, unfortunately.

Of course, life is difficult and we continue on. "Giving back" can help. If the rational mind cannot persevere, perhaps consider therapy. Nothing to be ashamed of.

I'd love to talk to people in a similar situation. I just feel very out of place all the time. Imposter Syndrome is not quite right, but close enough.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, it sounds like. You have my sympathies.

I've just learned to live with it, and try to manage my anxiety by refocusing the intrusive thoughts into some kind of "mana well" where i use it as energy to work harder, or center me more or as a tool to remind myself how far I've come, etc. To try to let the beast be my pet so to speak.

That can be kind of its own trap too, in a meta kind of way - if i get in that "place" where im using fear to fuel me, I can start to reinforce the fear itself and tattoo it even more on my psyche.

Ultimately its just part of who I am. I've learned to accept it.

It's also a strength. I can work circles around almost anyone, and in the face of some problem at work, no matter how "serious" it is - compared to the very real adversities I've overcome in my life, work domain problems are an idyllic wet dream by comparison.

The emotions are still there though. They kind of hang like a spectre. That's just life though, I suppose. Memory is a funny thing.

I feel like this all the time.

I feel like I'm always having one last chance at anything life and it will be curtains should I fail, despite knowing fairly well such a thing might never come to pass.

I find the opposite - I'm deeply ashamed about growing up in poverty and rarely admit it. When it comes up, I find it creates distance between myself and my co workers. They get uncomfortable and I always feel like they think I am judging them somehow.

I don't seem poor anymore: thousands of dollars on dental care, I dress OK, I have a fairly polished accent now. I don't talk to most of my family. My old friends live several thousand miles away and their world of drug abuse, poverty, and dysfunction is now one I only experience via the occasionally post I read on my Facebook feed.

The PTSD remains -- the anxiety attacks in the middle of the night when I think I hear yelling, the flinching and heart palpitations when a co-worker sneaks up on me as a joke. I feel ashamed to mention this as well, because PTSD seems to have become a fashionable affliction to claim to have, like Celiac disease. I look for all intents and purposes like a normal 20something white girl. The few times I mentioned PTSD I actually saw someone eye roll. They don't know about flashbacks to homeless shelters, finding people OD'd in bathrooms, being attacked for just existing.

I think the social circles I now move in have made all of this unmentionable. I am glad the author of this piece is at least bringing it up and talking about it. The isolation I feel among co workers and friends now is often very intense.

As a I mentioned above, please consider therapy. It's not perfect, but you deserve to find some happiness. There may be some groups where you can find people with similar backgrounds, such as drug-survivors (al-anon etc).

Also, time may heal. I'm old enough that my unhappy adolescence now feels like a dream, even though there are some lasting effects.

I'm with you in a lot of this. I grew up poor and all I've known is poverty. I clinch my pennies but I'm generous when I'm able. But I do have a very real awareness of my impending doom, be it a financial mishap or whatever.

If it wasn't for 'Obama Care' I wouldn't be on Strattera for my ADD. Nor would've I been suggested this [1] for my anxiety, by my doctor. It's helped me significantly, a DIY assistance for coping with anxiety.

I have a mild form PTSD. When you said 'flashbacks...middle of the night screaming'. It triggered an affirmation that I do have PTSD. I've been struggling with this idea for quiet some time but...it's mild and not constant. I know you're not a doctor nor do I want to get into all the details but growing up in an abusive/malnorished home, it's very real. Heck, I became homeless as an adult too.

Finally, I want to gently suggest you look into getting help. Meaning, a shrink. Either doing talk therapy or consider medications, if they are truly needed. Keep in mind, it's not a black/white science. You'll need to experiment with your treatment to find what suits you best. I went on 4 different ADD meds before Strattera was a solid fit. Adderall helped but...the side effects were bad. Also, soonish, I've be working with someone to help aid my psychological restoration. ADD, anxiety, depression, PTSD, and assertiveness will be my topics that I'd like to tackle because even though I'm doing decent now, I do need a helping mind to help me navigate through these issues/challenges in my life.

[1] - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/160623918X/ref=oh_aui_sear...

I came from a poorer background too. To this day I find it hard for me to connect with people. I get the anxiety too, and have been spared the severe ptsd. I don't have any sage words of advice or opinions, just wanted you to know you're not alone.

There is nothing to be ashamed of something you had no say in. People judge all the time on anything and everything. You should stop caring about being judged and always try to do the right thing. You should be proud of how you did yourself despite loss of opportunities.

Do you have a psychologist? Maybe you could spend some of those six figures to clear the air with someone about all of this instead of telling people they are making asses out of themselves.

I understand you're quite pressured socially to 'fit in' with all the other people that make the same money you do... In fact social pressures to look as if you are well off is a big issue in our time.

What I find interesting is that your upbringing is really that unmentionable. In my opinion, your experiences give you a drive few could ever hone. Your rags to riches story may indeed garner you more true friends than you know. Sharing your personal story is inspiring to many and can help others deal with their own problems.

Don't be ashamed of where you come from. Be proud that you have risen above. You should see yourself as an example that it CAN be done, and that despite all of your hardships, here you are, working for one of the big guys, able to share your experiences for others to learn.

Best of luck to you in the future.

You should be proud.

There are a lot of people who fight hard battles and don't win in the end.

It says something good about you that you overcame a bad initial hand, as well as a blindside tackle late in your college career.

Also, it may be the case that others in your social circle had similar experiences, but like you, they don't feel comfortable mentioning it.

Have you read 'Into the Magic Shop'?

[1]: http://intothemagicshop.com/

I am sorry you had such a tough time. I think your dad and mom are also the victims in this. If they had money they wouldn't have turned out that way. There are only so many things you can do to make money and sometimes no matter how hard you try, you wouldn't get a job. When you have less money people are very vulnerable to being negative and become depressed. Its so hard to escape from it without proper support, which is almost non-existent in the US. Its just how the US system is. Contrast it with canada and uk or some nordic countries where there is some good social support like in healthcare. You don't have to tell others if they perceive it badly. In my experience only those who were poor can empathize with your situation. I wish you will move away from amazon. I hear horrible stories about how they treat their low level employees.

>I think your dad and mom are also the victims in this.

They had plenty of money. Some people are just bad people. Sometimes these people are someone's parents. You do not know the situation and believe me, you are making a bit of an ass out of yourself.

>I wish you will move away from amazon. I hear horrible stories about how they treat their low level employees.

I'm treated very well here. Amazon depends greatly on the team: mine is a very laid-back, exciting team and we do not have on call. Again, you're making an ass out of yourself.

I wasn't trying to be an ass. I was just saying that poor people have it tough than people without money. As you point out, sometimes even people with money cannot get themselves out of bad choices. I refuse to believe people are born either good or bad. Its the environment people were exposed to and the will power to do the right thing even when its hard that make people good and bad. People do bad things because it takes some effort to do the right thing.

Also about amazon, I wasn't trying to judge you or anything. I was just pointing put how amazon treat their low level employees like shit. Yes there are real costs to running a business. Your amazon team being great workplace for you is a good thing. Your team and the low level employees in warehouses all work for the same person, Jeff Bezos. If you were Jeff, and this came to your notice, would you actually do something about the bad working conditions of low level employees? They are humans after all and they are trying to make a living. Just because this is the only job they can do, doesn't mean they can be treated lowly. If no one reacts to it, then it will continue to be status quo(not advocating violent/rude confrontation). Agree to disagree.

For a year or so I've been keeping an ad hoc record (a text file!), to the best of my ability, of all my financial losses due to personal mistakes - so, moving out of my old apartment a month late was a 1200$ mistake, and dropping and breaking my phone was a 200$ one. I'm also trying to keep track of very risky behavior that didn't become an actual financial loss: driving in NYC during the blizzard last year didn't actually lead to my car being damaged, or to requiring a tow, but the chance of one of those happening was at least substantial, probably 20-50% - so it's a financial error of a few hundred dollars, maybe, anyway (this doesn't have to be precise).

I've learned from this that I lose far more money to incidental errors than I realized. Lots of small expenses like parking tickets, breaking things, misplanning my day and paying for Lyft/Uber or other luxuries to make up for lost time, buying things I already own, etc - it all really adds up.

But a few days ago I mentioned this to a friend, and after a second of thought she just said, "well, isn't it nice that all your mistakes can just be fixed with money?"

did you remind her that you were only tracking financial mistakes?

I should've finished with how it hit me: that I found the statement pretty powerful because, indeed, most of everything that had gone wrong or been stressful in my life that year was in that file. It was a reminder of how fortunate I've been.

Yes, not looking for sympathy but as a note for others. Recently a loved one of mine passed away very quickly, which I missed, and it put everything in perspective. No amount of money in the world (times ten) can fix such a mistake.

I'm sorry for your loss. There's much more to the world than money. There's also many more ways to make a mistake than financial misfortunes.

I have to say, this all sounds extremely familiar. I didn't reach the same conclusion by consciously tracking expenses; it was actually in the process of fixing of one of those mistakes by throwing money at it when it suddenly hit me: "What would I be doing right now if I were living paycheck to paycheck? That would have been much, much more painful. Oh..."

Another way of thinking about this is the phrase: it's expensive being poor.

If you don't have the excess income to absorb these small mistakes/oversights/misfortunes then there are secondary effects (job loss, civil fines, court fees, etc.) that can destroy you financially.

Edit: butchered my phrase

"expensive being poor", you mean?

No its the Sam Vimes boot theory.

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars.

Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness"

A real word example is my Barbour jacket cost around $600 but it will last 30 years

One doesn't acquire multiple millions (or more) by buying expensive, high-quality items.

Clearly, this is not the primary driver of wealth accumulation.

It is if it save you money over the longer term

I just bought a 600 dollar pair of boots, the primary features being quality build,materials, and the ability to re-sole - they will last me 30 years if I take care of them.

The destruction is emotionally as well. My experience with having no money - the stress was very real.

When I took a problem-solving class in college, they broadly categorized problems into three types (allegedly in increasing order of difficulty to solve): problems that can be solved with money, problems with processes, and problems with people.

Seems pretty weak. You need all three to do anything. Seems like a weak backdoor argument that "money doesn't matter when it comes to the hard things" (as long as your hard things don't take money)

The key takeaway I had from that course was "money can solve more problems than you think, so it should be the first problem-solving strategy that you consider".

This was pretty counter-intuitive in college, when I always felt like I didn't have enough money, but just knowing that this was a possible way of solving many classes of problems changed the way I approached decision-making in my later life (e.g. when picking my first job out of college).

Did the class have a book?

I can relate to this. Growing up poor and originally working in nonprofits out of college I experienced a lot of stress about money and about making the kind of mistakes you listed. Getting a parking ticket was a huge deal. Today I am much more financially comfortable and I don't think I'm less responsible, just less stressed about the consequences of when I eventually make a common mistake like misreading a parking sign.

I call this my 'idiot expense' account, after this Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Idiot+Expense

I'm in France and I sometimes notice that USA articles focus only on underpriviledged talent. Why only the talents? It's a bit like rape is fought against, except in prisons because they're lower-grade citizen. Or like articles describing unwarranted violence from the SWAT teams: "The family was playing poker, they got busted for illegal gaming, 3 died" will trigger fewer reaction than "The SWAT team killed the dog." US articles often focus on a subset of the unpriviledged population.

Let's recall that our civilization needs to take care of everyone, even if they're not talented or guilty at some level. Not everyone is cute, but everyone needs to be saved.

"everyone needs to be saved"

Unfortunately, the prevailing social zeitgeist in the US is that not everyone deserves to be saved- you have to earn the right to be deemed worthy enough to be saved, and really if you find yourself in a position where you need to be saved then it's probably your own fault and you should bootstrap your way out of it. The puritanical mindset is very, very strong and all-prevailing in the US.

>>Unfortunately, the prevailing social zeitgeist in the US is that not everyone deserves to be saved- you have to earn the right to be deemed worthy enough to be saved, and really if you find yourself in a position where you need to be saved then it's probably your own fault and you should bootstrap your way out of it. The puritanical mindset is very, very strong and all-prevailing in the US.

I wasn't sure how to parse this exactly but I was curious if you are actually correct here so I had a look at the General Social Survey[0]. The closest thing I could find to your post was the question of "EVERYONE SHOULD LOOK OUT FOR SELF"[1] and it looks like 67.7 percent of Americans disagree with that statement. In light of that fact, how do you defend your contrary position?

[0]http://sda.berkeley.edu/gss [1]Put EQUAL1 as the row variable then click "Run the table"

Maybe the people who took that survey are acting out of self interest?

How you frame the question can produce vastly different responses.

That said, I'd say the perception of Americans being selfish has more to do with our terrible electoral system in which the incentives are such that we elect politicians that, in aggregate, portray a more selfish representation of our populace than really is there. This is how you get polls saying large majorities of Americans believe in Issue X, but you have Congressmen and POTUS arguing over whether or not to implement Issue X.

>>How you frame the question can produce vastly different responses.

Here are some of the questions on the GSS:

In our society everyone must look out for himself. It is of little use to unite with others and fight for one's goals in politics or in unions. 67.7 percent disagreed

It is the responsibility of government to meet everyone's needs, even in case of sickness, poverty, unemployment, and old age. 57.3 percent agreed

If social welfare benefits such as disability, unemployment compensation, and early retirement pensions are as high as they are now, it only makes people not want to work anymore. 54 percent disagreed

Note that the GSS is cited more often academically than any other survey other than the US census so it carries some weight.

That first statement is hard to agree with because it takes an all-or-nothing stance in a broad manner (must + little use). Most people will disagree because there is probably a "I don't 100% agree" reaction to it. You'd probably get the same reaction going in the opposite direction.

In our society everyone must work together to succeed. It is of little use to try and effect change alone as one person cannot make a difference in politics or work.

Meanwhile, the other two statements are much more direct on the stance being questioned. The examples are the only open ended part as interpretations can differ between people, but they are still clear enough to get the intended meaning across.

>>Most people will disagree because there is probably a "I don't 100% agree" reaction to it.

I was trying not to be too wordy in my post but the "disagree" is actually 2 categories split between "mostly disagree" and "strongly disagree" so that covers the "I don't 100% agree" people. Note that there's also "strongly and somewhat agree" categories.

Here's the upshot of this thread. The OP I was replying to made a reference to the "prevailing zeitgeist" in America believing people should be "saved" only if they prove their worth. I checked the most widely respected social survey and it contradicts that assertion by a wide margin. As far as the questions being biased or people 100 percent agreeing as has been mentioned, either a couple of random internet commenters are right or the most cited source in mainstream social science[0] is. Personally I'll go with the latter.

[0]http://gss.norc.org/About-The-GSS

I think paraphrasing to reduce wordiness made the GSS seem far less objective in your comment. I'm sure you'd agree that losing that nuance, for someone who doesn't know much about the GSS, makes that question look... questionable.

The community on HN is here for good discussion so I don't think you need to worry about writing too much. Especially if it helps people understand.

Empathy is a dying sentiment in this country.

We've made the horrible mistake of conflating "success" with morality; i.e. "the poor are just lazy", or "this wealthy person is automatically a paragon of good judgement"

And then we've compounded the mistake by conflating morality with correctness.

It's a human problem, not a modern-day nor US-only one. It seems we're all intrinsically prone to the "Just World" hypothesis.

Consider the historical examples -- widely spread over cultures and times -- of where the wealthiest and most powerful people are assumed not just to be "good people", but God-approved or even proto-deities themselves.

> Not everyone is cute, but everyone needs to be saved.

I logged back in after months to upvote this comment. We often fall short of our ideals, but their value is still worth striving for.

agree completely, the thrust of the article is that "we need to do more to find these diamonds in the rough", what about the kids that are not so lucky to have been born with the kind of mental capacity that makes them find school so easy? do we just throw them to the wolves?

Fine that "diamonds" should be fostered as it is much better for society as a whole that gifted people use those gifts to their fullest extent, but we should not lose track of the fact that not everybody has been born with the same capabilities, and giving everybody equal opportunities is not the same thing as making sure everybody can live a fulfilling and decent life no matter if their IQ is 50 or 150.

I agree with you - and if everyone spoke with this candor I wouldn't have a problem helping.

The problem is that instead of saying what you've said, we try to help AS IF everyone is talented.

Everyone is equally intelligent, hard working, etc. Everyone has equal potential is something ingrained to us as Americans.

Then later, when people make boneheaded decisions etc, we want to fix those mistakes AFTER the fact. That's BS as far as I'm concerned.

If we were just honest and said hey, let's devise ways for helping everyone at different levels (not just levels of money), I could get on board. When we're constantly bombarded with misguided diversity initiatives, bailing out of irresponsible borrowers (be it individual or corporate), and adults who don't know how to interact with law enforcement, it becomes way way harder to get buy.

Most people are very hesitant to admit that because they recognize that there are a host of people who would act upon that admission to promote malicious policies

I guess I'm an old fashioned US citizen and resist your sentiment. I'm of the opinion that if you grab a random adult, inspect them, ask them about their lives, look at their health, abilities, check out their finances, family, and all the rest - then you'll come to the conclusion that, for the vast majority, they themselves are best able to take care of themselves.

"Our civilization needs to take care of everyone" is simply impossible when there's a disaster and people are on their own. If our opening bid is "we (civilization) will take care of you, <random capable adult>", then I believe we set people up to be helpless when they are stranded. It's presupposed weakness.

Conversely, when people have freedom to make their own choices on how they conduct their lives, those self-support muscles and brains are strengthened. It's agency, it's people power.

What is a challenge for me with this philosophy is, how should we then help legitimately disadvantaged, sick, threatened people in society to survive and thrive if we assume most people can take care of themselves? At the bottom, obviously there are street urchins who are not cute and do need saving.

Perhaps the social safety net needs to be retooled to apply the most intense resources at the very bottom and then trail off rapidly such that resources are not spread too thin. This might focus the drive of capable, healthy individuals to take care of themselves as government service offerings would supply an uncomfortable/barely tolerable living.

People in real dire straits, like the homeless, need the most resources in my opinion. Homelessness should be declared illegal so that civil liberties aren't an issue when we force these people to work or become wards of the state if they are not capable.

I don't understand the freedom arguments in favor of the homeless; I would argue purely from a public health standpoint we (civilization) have the right force these people out of their predicament.

It's best for a person to take care of themselves, but it's foolish to expect that when they never got the resources, whether that's financial, mental, educational...

> Homelessness should be declared illegal so that civil liberties aren't an issue when we force these people to work or become wards of the state if they are not capable.

I think that's called slavery. That seems like the direct opposite of giving people agency and, if anything, the attitude that created all these problems in the first place.

USSR tried outlawing homelessness at one point, I think, but there wasn't exactly a job shortage or someone trying to make money off of the desperate.

> I think that's called slavery. That seems like the direct opposite of giving people agency and, if anything, the attitude that created all these problems in the first place.

People aren't given agency by other people, they're born with it. Agency can be denied a person though, especially when they break serious-enough laws. That's all I'm talking about. Now I just need to convince enough people to agree with me that scoffing the "must live in a domicile" law dips into the felony range of crimes.

I contend it's not humane to allow people to live on the street. It's in no one's interest for people in the community to live dangerously like that. Depending on the person's situation, a break from their downward spiral might set them on a path back upward. There's no guarantee the individual will be helped by incarceration, but it's needed for the health of the community.

And incarceration due to homelessness wouldn't be permanent, they didn't murder anyone by sleeping on the street. Obviously, jailing a person for homelessness doesn't fit the crime, too.

Case workers would have to decide what to do with people depending on their situation. Return them to their family? Send them to a workhouse to do their time on the farm? Put them in a home to get medical or mental care? I think this is where the social safety net needs the $$$ concentration. You think the prison industrial complex shouldn't extend to the homeless? Ok, let's write the laws that way: every dollar a person earns at a workhouse goes to them once they leave the house.

Agency is an illusion of our neurology. Our thoughts and actions are determined (or at least constrained within a small set of random possibilities) at any given moment by our genetics and our past environment.

I agree, I cannot find weakness in your arguments. I wish I could upvote you more than once. :)

"Illusion" strikes me as having a negative connotation, though. Could we say "Agency is the result of computation in our neurons" instead? We run simulations in our sleep to solve for problems we encountered the previous day. We're simulating things all the time with our computers.

We're not mindless automata, I'm sure. Although 'mind' could just be explained by the small set of random possibilities you refer to. But, I suspect that because I can ponder about what you've written and not segfault and die means I'm not mindless.

> People aren't given agency by other people, they're born with it.

That's most certainly not true. How much agency does an infant have? How much agency does a human raised illiterate far away from civilization have? I would say that humans definitely get a significant amount of their agency from society and their parents.

The agency of an individual human is very much dependent on what kind of information they were exposed to and other factors, but not all humans have the same level of agency.

Sure, a small child, infant, and nascent zygote human are helpless and cannot be self-sustaining. Great point. I'll restrict myself to adults who have the capability to act upon the world for this discussion from here on out.

> How much agency does a human raised illiterate far away from civilization have?

Is your definition of agency in this context,

* the state of being in action or of exerting power; operation, or

* a means of exerting power or influence; instrumentality?

Nothing in those definitions have anything to do with literacy or society. It seems to me that an adult far away from civilization has as much agency as his brains and muscles can deliver: there's no rules for that person to be concerned with other than laws of nature. They're able to exercise their raw humanity.

Obviously, such an adult lacks the amplifying powers of chemicals, electricity, computers, transport, etc that we have. But, who are we to judge the power/potential/quality of a feral human adult in the wild to do incredible things with his environment? Agency is a trait, not a quantity, and that's why it's a birthright. (It can be denied a person, however.)

Just do some thought experiments. What's the most powerful thing you could imagine yourself accomplishing before you died if we dropped you off in the wilderness with nothing but the clothes on your back? Don't just stop at "curl up and die", really shoot for the moon. I came up with some amazing things.

Now, if you were to argue that humans have nearly limitless potential but are impotent to realize that potential without the work of others, then I'd say you're on to something really profound and worth exploring and optimizing for, philosophical.

But, I think what you've stated here is that an individual apart from society somehow has diminished agency. You're either confusing concepts or underestimating man.

USSR actually did outlaw homelessness, and unemployment as well.

But at the same time, it guaranteed everyone a roof over their head, and a job; and that any job would pay enough to survive on. And it actually delivered on all those promises, at least at its economic heyday (roughly mid-60s to Perestroika).

Still, not exactly a good society to live in. The flip side of being guaranteed a job is that you couldn't turn one down. Even if you had to relocate, say.

Because the American dream is to reward merit, ignoring provenance. The American dream says nothing about providing good lives to those without merit.

Also normally merit is defined to include "hard working", not merely "talented". I think there's less sympathy for lazy talent than vice versa.

The USA also has a tradition of storytelling about underdogs rising to become champions. These stories resonate in part because almost all people can relate to the underdog in one way or another.

In other words, the underprivileged talent is a form of the American everyman.

The most important thing nobody teaches lower class people is how to work "the system."

"work hard" is the catch phrase everybody shouts from the roof tops.

It's a lot like tax filing / accounting, or hiring a lawyer for a public trial.

In the case of the lawyer, society has recognized how absolutely hopeless it would be to defend yourself in criminal court, and the law entitles every individual to an attorney. A lawyer helps you navigate the 'courts system'.

Tax filing is similar but less extreme. You can make a simple error on your taxes, or grossly overpay without an accountant. An accountant helps you navigate the 'tax system'.

Everyone with some level of wealth understands the value of a good lawyer or a good accountant.

To make it simple: when you're coming from poverty there are many important things that "you don't know that you don't know". Coming from wealth, you have the advantage of "knowing about what you don't know".

So, what they need is some sort of advocate to show them the ropes. Sounds doable, if approached respectfully. Vaguely reminds me of the book "Rich dad, poor dad."

> what they need is some sort of advocate

In brief, because I'm at my day job: no. That is not the right approach. That is the approach that gets one labeled an elitist and a snob. It's not appreciated by the little people you're trying to help.

The correct approach is one which maximizes agency. This will have a wider variance of success, but will be received far better.

That's why I wrote "respectfully".

Offering aid without first having been asked for it could be considered disrespectful, condescending, etc.

Do you honestly believe I'd advocate forcing or pressuring people? How bout a little less defeatism.

No, I'm thinking something like coaching for people who are looking for a way up.

Honestly, a lot of this kind of coaching belongs as a mandatory class in school.

Very simply, there's a reason the rural joke goes like this:

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

It's just not appreciated. If you want to genuinely assist, you have to find ways that cohere with the culture and traditions of the place you're trying to support.

The Outsider from California is an old meme. It's captured in this very very popular postcard found throughout Montana/Idaho:

http://duckboy.com/postcards/all-postcards/more-californians...

I'm willing to bet based on certain comments earlier this year, the Outsider from NYC is a similar figure in the eastern part of the US. And, of course, "DC" or "Washington" is similarly vilified across the nation.

So, you're an advocate coming in from your position of privilege: you are, in humor, an alien, and you purport to teach the people, in all best of intentions, how to do better. It's not that you're wrong. You just can't get to where you want from here without profound and deep disruption.

Does this make sense here?

If this is the sort of thing that interests you, you'll want to be looking at working with the local civic minded community pillars. Pastors, teachers, principals, mayors, doctors, etc. People with influence and understandings of the local culture. People with generational roots, bluntly.

There is a fierce, fierce, fierce independence and individualism: coming in and telling people how to live isn't appreciated.

This is, by the by, virtually a Hollywood stereotype- the well intentioned urbanite helping out the rurals. :-)

I don't know that I have much more to say on HN... if you want to take up this thread at length, my email is in my profile. :-)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

The only way some people will learn to listen is by failing on their own.

Ehhh, I dunno:

> The schtick behind the Rich Dad books was that Kiyosaki was sharing secret money-making strategies of the wealthy with his wage slave readers. The tips ran the gamut from ridiculous to illegal and downright hurtful and included advocating for insider trading, arguing for the purchase of multiple real estate properties with little or no money down and telling followers they could purchase stocks on margin via unfunded brokerage accounts.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/10/10/rich-dad-...

I only read one of them, but it advocated no such things.

Basically it told the story of a father who encouraged entrepreneurship (thinking big) vs. one that focused on stability and benefits above all else (thinking small). In fact we see the same story play out day to day on HN.

This is a huge point. The knowledge (social, interpersonal, financial, image) gap between 'comfortably poor' and 'white collar professional' is deep and broad. College is valuable in that it makes - can make - the difference between a broad gap and a narrow gap. Most of that is not the substance of the courses, but the substance of the collegiate community.

Often I have difficulty coming up with the appropriate words to describe to my peers brought up in the professional environment how very different life is when you're not in the white collar world.

I agree with you but you picked bad examples.

I can hire an accountant, I can hire a lawyer. I can't hire someone to interact with other people for me in a way that gives off the "I'm one of you" vibe.

Just to offer a slight counter-point re: privilege.

Where I grew up, telling someone "I want to go to vocational school instead of college" was no different from telling them "I want to be a prostitute when I grow up". Hell, even joining any form of armed service was extremely frowned upon.

In many cases, this led to otherwise bright, gifted people becoming "failures" because they were too afraid to do what they wanted and instead followed the socially acceptable path (college) where they never had any hope of succeeding. They struggled to finish useless degrees they never wanted, earned a decent chunk of debt in the process, and ended up with soul-crushing jobs, the main benefit of which was the fact that they earned enough money to continue showing up at their soul-crushing job for many years to come.

Hooray, privilege!

Being against military service sounds like the 110iq librarian in a town full of low 95 iqers. Some of he smartest kids I know (many from very good backgrounds) went west point then 11b and now are flying up management fast track in some prestigious industries. Many kids from poorer backgrounds have also done the same, but they weren't in my peer group. Aristocrats and elite political families send their kids to do military service. Sounds like middle class +1 standard deviation nonsense attitude was prevalent there

Exactly this! I joined the military at 17 and turned 18 during the summer I graduated high school. I am now completing my PhD in mathematics and work as a data scientist for a small economic development firm.

Edit: you can disregard this comment now as the article and title are updated to the (much better) originals.

It's a good story, but the title is fairly misleading. It sounds like he did "mess up" a few times. But ultimately he persevered thanks to a tenacious teacher. It seems the real message is to keep pushing forward, even if you stumble.

Clicking through to the original Medium article suggests that Vox is responsible for the title since the original is much better.

Thanks. The original title by the author:

"Lost Diamonds -- How a financial aid form almost convinced me I wasn’t good enough and how our current system is failing underprivileged talent"

I find the other currently front page topic somewhat related:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12603748

"How Anxiety Warps Your Perception"

Headlines are usually picked by an editor not the author. In this case the author had even already published another version of the piece with a different headline "Lost Diamonds, How a financial aid form almost convinced me I wasn’t good enough and how our current system is failing underprivileged talent".

Can we discuss the content of the piece now?

I think that this depends on the definition of "messing up" - he missed a financial aid window in 6th grade, and something as trivial as filing a form late had a tangible impact on a year of his life. I think that his point is that this experience conditioned him to view risk quite differently from wealthier peers. I would disagree that "pushing forward" is a valid prescription - the counterfactual "without Mrs. Harris and Head-Royce" leaves him on a different trajectory.

Thanks, we've updated the link and title from http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/first-person/2016/9/27/13062....

... no, I think it's more important to take away that our system is keeping a lot of people at 0.1x when they could be 10x, not that a few 1.2xers could become 3xers if they really pushed it.

While it's clearly true that more privileged kids have opportunities to recover from mistakes, there is also a worrying trend where even those kids seem to think they can't possibly make a mistake (get a C, do poorly on a standardized test)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-sili...

I can attest this problem is insidious and pervasive through-out society. Not just in the U.S., but globally. Separate from the moral issue of children growing up in disadvantaged environments, this is an economic problem, and a problem for the advancement of humanity. There is so much hidden value in masses of people that have no way deliver this value due to circumstances. I know anecdotally, you can point to individuals who made it despite these setbacks, but this is not the norm statistically by far.

What would happen if we found a way to lift these people up?

How much better off would everyone be economically by the value these hidden 'diamonds' create? (and by everyone I mean even the wealthy)

How much faster could humanity be advancing in general?

From a practical and factual perspective, ignoring this, or just waving it off as 'the best rise no matter what', is so damaging and counterproductive that it is actually holding back everything.

This is precisely the reason why affirmative action/outreach efforts should be based on socioeconomic status, not race or gender.

This vietnamese guy has hard a much harder time of it than any black, middle class, female growing up in a nice middle class suburb, but he's the one who's discriminated against during college admission and job interviews, and applications for scholarships and coding academies and such.

I couldn't agree more. That's how it is where I live and there aren't many brilliant people who are barred from getting good education because of financial problems.

This is an interesting article to read and think alongside:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160928-how-anxiety-warps-y... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12603748

The poignant comment for me: "You don’t take it for granted because you understand you’re playing by someone else’s rules. Even today, Ricky and I often feel like that. Given the long odds we beat to get here, sometimes in our heads, our world feels very fragile; at any moment, the clock could strike midnight."

Very much like an underlying anxiety and background survival-threat.

I never went to Stanford or to an elite school. I don't feel that I grew up excessively poor, but I was fortunate that I grew up in a household where we didn't excessively bought All The Things. (That came later in a period in my life when I made enough to indulge in consumer goods for a few years).

What I'm most grateful for was a period in my life where I was working deep with meditation and shamanic practices to address very intense emotions -- including that feeling of "our world fees very fragile". I don't know where that came from, and yet it would pop in from time to time. There is also a path out of that where the world opens up and you realize this inner freedom -- to play, to laugh, to love, going beyond simply surviving from one day to the next.

It's also evident in this story that another challenge that faces many poor kids is a simple lack of knowledge about what career and education options are available to them. I applied for college on time because my mom made sure I did. It wasn't high on my priority list.

What if on top of that you were not born in the U.S?

I feel like this all the time. I was born in Colombia. I managed to get scholarships for all my education from school to PhD and managed to study abroad. But it was not easy. I still feel like I am not good enough, I even feel I am getting old to learn new things. I feel undeserving which can not be good for starting the PhD studies.

The universities where I studied in Colombia are just as good as any university in the U.S or Europe and proof of this is that I managed to get a masters in CS in France and will start my PhD in Sweden (sometime now since there's an immigrant crisis). But as people from the "3rd world" we are often overlooked and underestimated.

I felt very touched by this article and gave me hopes for my future and only makes me want to be younger to take evn better decisions in life.

This article made me cry. I feel for those folks who are so poor (the parents in this article, and the kids), everyone should have a decent life, a chance to earn enough money to get an education, or have access to eduction. This kind of thing is an enormous loss of potential for humanity, for these folks that can't get access to education. It's for people like that that we should look into making college much less expensive if not free.

I am from a poorer, less developed southern state. I went to a high school with a lot of poor people. I was lucky enough to go to college, my parents had both been so I had an enormously easier time than most folks, including money to pay for it plus an expectation that I would go. Whenever I have gone back to high school reunions, I feel so sorry for those people that were never able to go to college, or develop their potential.

We need to stop finding lost diamonds and start giving poor people in general more opportunities. People talk about rising tides lifting all boats, but ties flow in at the bottom and lifts things higher.

This american's life's episode "Three Miles" (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/550/t...) won the reporter her Peabody award and is one of the most touching and haunting stories on pretty much the same topic.

Wow, this story resonated with me. I also have parents who were Chinese minority in north Vietnam. And my dad in fact had 16 siblings as well. And some of those siblings now live in Oakland.

Anyway, I recall growing up there was an incident that almost knocked me off course. My parents had been paying for a private school for years, and they let me know it was very, very, expensive. Even with a discount, pretty much everything was going to this school for me and my brother. They ran a restaurant, so food was cheap. Not a lot of other expenses, my dad somehow always knew a regular who could get a car or HiFi cheaply for us. I dressed like a slob.

So I applied to go to a government school. I knew it was going to be a culture shock, not only because they tended to speak the local language instead of English, but if it was so burdensome on the family, perhaps it was worth it. I had a friend who wanted to do that and actually did.

I mentioned it to a classmate of mine, and he told me not to. The best part of the school was high school, and we'd both be better off for university by staying there. A number of kids has gone to top universities from there. His family weren't rich either, also on a massive discount. So I mulled it over and stayed. My parents were supportive.

High school turned out to be worthwhile, despite some weird international school issues. I got into competitive maths, skipped a year in it, and generally did quite well socially. Got good marks, and went on to a top uni in the UK.

Which was also a bit of a culture shock. The mentioned buddy came for a visit and he told me he saw people walking around in top hats. There was definitely a lot of privilege around. One buddy invited me to his house, down the street from where Shakespeare grew up. This was a second home, his parents mostly lived in Italy, curating art. Guess how little I could speak about that.

Events seemed to cost a fortune, but it wasn't really the money that was weird, it was knowing how to dress. Some people seem to be born with the knowledge of what black tie means. And how to behave while wearing it. There were all sorts of conventions and special lingo that in retrospect seem trivial, but as a young kid you don't want to stray too far from the norm.

Anyway, one does survive such traumas. There are always people around who are very interested in your story, and understanding that people come from different backgrounds. It's not like the toffs actually hate you, a lot of them are quite curious.

Extend this to doing something stupid and illegal as a white kid, or a black kid.

Having gone to a school with an extremely high barrier of entry (in the terms of admission tests not financially) I would say that bright & motivated companionship was what pushed me forward. Pooling talent helps to develop it in many ways.

At the same time some of the best/most braised education systems come from countries with a "level playing field" public school systems such as Finland.

To me the main question is if developing talent by pooling it together is in conflict with achieving high average student development. And if so, which one of those should be the goal as a society?

I've read countless articles like this one but for some reason, this is the first one where I felt like I personally connected with the story.

I benifitted from systems hat supported school choice. I hope uS governments (local, state, and federal) support the same. Active and interested parents with active and interested teacher with options to align students with the best educational solutions can only be good for students.

Wow. Seldom has an article hit so close to home.

I grew up American-poor (household income < $10k in 1980s). I've felt this almost every day of my life. From my point of view I've had to work so much harder for results that are very mediocre relative to the stereotypical HN crowd. I've never had any sense of security. Always felt like the other shoe was about to drop.

I had to work any job I could find as a kid to buy near-obsolete computers to hack on. That was probably good for me.

We tell ourselves that smart kids get scholarships, but that's a half-truth. Some do, some don't. I was valedictorian, had a 4.0 GPA, 99th percentile on every academic test, and applied for scholarships. I got a half-ride to a decent state school. I had to work 30 hrs/wk at a stressful job to make up the rest and pay for used books. A major auto accident was enough, financially and psychologically, for me to drop out. None of that was good for me, and I've occasionally regretted not being able to pursue academics further.

My parents never had any money, and never taught me anything about money beyond "don't spend any". I taught myself as much as I could about finance, but I've found that there are money traps absolutely everywhere. Corporations are very eager to take your money for nothing if you're less than extremely vigilant. Sub-optimal mobile plans, auto-renew subscriptions, lack of health insurance, bank fees, gotchas in employment contracts... such things are ultimately in your power to some degree, but it's a constant hostility against you, and if you're not battling, you're potentially losing tens of thousands, often for literally nothing in return.

I was homeless a lot as a young adult. I still don't have an especially stable living situation.

I've had a great career, and I'm a somewhat sought-after "senior" developer. That in itself is an opportunity. Where I come from, $50k/yr is called "good money", and people know how to live like princes on that. The figures tossed about in any discussion of developer comp would make my childhood friends kill themselves (or kill me).

I once managed to save $100k in cash. I used it to try to start a business, but it failed. I've tried to start companies 3 times. I'm trying to start one now, with no money and a failing laptop. Of course I have the option of getting a good job if I need to.

That's enough details. They don't matter that much. What matters to me is how it feels. To know that it's taken me 5 times as long to get to the same place. That the results I get have always been below what I know my potential is. I'll never give up. It's hard to contemplate, so now I meditate it away so it won't stop me from trying. The point is I've worked really, really hard, and now I'm 40, and the success I hope for is still in the future.

Gladwell's entire podcast that is mentioned in the article is excellent and well worth your time if you have not heard it already. IIRC it was 10 episodes.

Well, maybe we don't need that much talent on earth.

Real life 101: all people deserve respect even if not given by life the opportunity to express their talent when not that many talents are needed to make the world goes round.

Invert the classroom to deliver much more value to more people. College should be for socializing, small groups, labs and certification.

> As Gladwell points out, it’s often only possible for poor kids like me to reach their potential when we have a champion who can not only show us the way but help carry us there.

This is just how simple it is.

And the ones that get help are not the ones that need it, which leads to bad results. VCs are not interested in funding poor people, whatever their abilities or vision.

VCs invest in Stanford grads, where 90%+ of the students are from well off backgrounds (look it up). Why? So if something goes wrong they can say to their LPs "It's not my fault, they went to Stanford!"

A young Steve Jobs would have a harder time raising money today than he did in the 70's. And he'd have a harder time than any random person who got into Stanford - where the admissions program is easily gamed by the wealthy and connected and the graduation rate is 95%.

The limited help available is all being directed at the ones that need and utilize it the least.

The upside for poor people is that being poor forces ones to grow as a person. Steve Jobs used to walk across town to eat free food at the hare krishna temple...no wealthy person could ever imagine what deep reservoirs of drive a thousand humbling experiences can create in a person. It's something you would wish for your child despite the pain required.

> We as a society need to do more to not only find these lost diamonds

Ok, mr. author, what are _you_ doing? Or by "we" did you mean "everybody else"?

"I couldn't mess up even once". Except he did. And yet it worked out. So clearly the headline is an exaggeration.

Was the most notable part of the article to you the headline writer's word choice?

well, it is the headline .. the premise of the story and the headline should not contradict each other

Generally speaking you state a thesis then give supporting evidence. Making a strong statement and then immediately disproving it stands out.

Click bait gonna click bait I suppose.

When there is nothing constructive to add, especially when an ideological nerve is struck, pedantry and semantics take over.

I think it is the feeling that you can't mess up that this references and which persists.

My past was a single mother, deadbeat dad, welfare and food banks.

Now I have a comfortable six-figure income and have been employed for over two decades.

I still feel like I'm one bad break away from being on the streets.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean you feel like you're only one bad break away, emotionally, but rationally you know you're not? Or do you mean you still are actually one bad break away, for some reason?

Emotionally and quite illogically.

You can take the kid out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the man.

I grew up in a stable working class family where I was encouraged to study, and feel the same way. Why do all articles like this assume it's related to an upbringing in poverty?

Because if you belong to a stable middle class family, it's not only not true, but has never been true for you for a moment?

But, as discussed, this article is about feelings not truths.

Feelings dictate how one acts. Even if you can fail, if you feel you can't, that is going to affect quite a bit how you approach things, or if you approach them at all.

Right, so how is that different for someone who grew up poor than for someone who grew up not poor?

That's what the entire discussion and article are about.

No it's not, the unspoken assumption of the article is that it's specific to poor people.

What is 'not true'? That I can fall to where I came from when I fuck up? Why would it be less true for me than for someone else?

I just pray to God and am thankful for everyday I can sleep in my bed and feel relatively sure I can sleep in it tomorrow.

He got a second chance where most people in his position wouldn't. He got lucky - his point is that most people don't get a second chance. Also, I think more than the facts of the matter, he's talking about the feeling of not being able to mess up even once. Also the fact that he was haunted by that one mistake - not getting some trivial forms in on time could have ruined his life. Pretty harsh if you think about it.

This seems to me to be a great example of why school choice is important. Those opposed to school choice would have this kid staying in a falling school to serve their social agenda.

I get it, we should make all schools "good schools," but while we're waiting for that to happen, must the smart and motivated be the pawns?

What happens when everyone chooses the same good school?

What happens when everyone wants to buy a particular car or a particular phone?

You wait two weeks while they make some more.

My high school valedictorian chose MIT. He was denied, while the #8 student got accepted due to affirmative action. Choice is often an illusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com