Via the excellent Rob Henderson, who just finished a session teaching "Forbidden Courses" at University of Austin, is this Vox article about the semi-rich. It does indeed identify an important group culturally and economically, and even dimly senses what they are all about. Yet it is mostly an excellent exercise for those looking for "unproven assertions and unwarranted assumptions which lead to the conclusions that were clearly hoped for by the author." Take your blood pressure medication first.
This is not a new thing. In talking over the years with carpenter and home renovation contractors they could always spot the truly rich and the faux rich. Its the old "if you have to ask how much the yacht costs....".
ReplyDeleteNow money is more widely distributed (a good thing) but status is not as clearly bought. Having a child graduate from the Ivy League is still status, but the path is not clear now. The old money to correct prep school route has been disrupted by the DEI gang to some degree.
The article is rather vague about who these people are and where their money came from. Stewart believes that it is not from any merit of their own, which brings to mind "rich grand-dad" on the clean side of the spectrum and "mobsters and politicians" on the other--but if there were examples I didn't see any. Perhaps the author believes that any wealth is unmerited?
ReplyDeleteI'd like a chance to make up my own mind.
The business about having been part of "the child rearing game" rang very sour.
It's not about how much you have (the article says) but how you think, and hard work and advancement through the meritocracy is a flawed concept without merit. How to criticize without being specific, and get away without having to defend against something being refuted. But it is clear that meritocracies and capitalism are bad concepts. One wonders if the author could bring themselves to accept a paycheck. But: What are the author's life goals, and how are those coming along by the way?
ReplyDeleteTaken out of the context meant to disguise it, the author slipped up here and let his intent show:
ReplyDelete"...living and working more in accordance with what I think..."
Hehehe.
ReplyDeleteI think the real difference is between the "full"-rich, who have capital, and the "semi"-rich, who only have large current incomes.
ReplyDeleteIf you have income but no capital, then you have to scramble to ensure your children also have large incomes. The differences cited in the article are explained.
Even if you have a large income, it's hard to save and invest enough to have your savings produce an income stream of about the same size as your pay. E.g., if you make $N a year (pre-tax), and the interest/dividend stream from savings is about 2% (a long-term approximation to the rate you can get while the capital base grows with inflation),you would need capital of ($N * 50) to replace your pay. That's not an amount you can save up. If you heroically saved a quarter of your pre-tax pay over a 40-year working life, you'd only have $N*10 (a real accounting would have to adjust for raises, inflation, and compounding but the point remains: it's very hard to create capital from income).
@JohnB -- I can't claim any expertise in economics and correct me if I'm wrong... what you are saying is that living 'paycheck to paycheck' isn't that much different between the 'semi-rich' and the 'poor' except in the amenities? Meaning that neither group accumulates capital... or wealth?
ReplyDeleteThe book looks...odd. I think the author should travel, like, to Fitchburg.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, his "9.9%" are not necessarily 9.9% by number. For example, he mentions competitive childrearing, with nannies. Now, it seems there are 30 million families with children under 18 in the US. (statistia) There are 217,000 nannies (zippia.) (We are only looking for estimates, not accuracy, ok?)
Divide 30 million by 217,000, and I end up with 138. So only one out of 138 families could actually have a full time nanny. So from the start, his definition of the "9.9%" is off base. It's like the "0.7%" in terms of employment of nannies.
Having witnessed some families with nannies, I would not say that it's the road to success for the next generation. It's really tricky when you place your child in the hands of another adult, who may not share your values. That nanny has to have the power to discipline the child. It's fraught with issues.
All the education, tutors, and summer camps in the world will not help if your child is not smart enough. Reversion to the mean is real.
And, last, off the cuff impression, I think he's talking about people working as consultants and executives, not entrepreneurial plumbers, oil rig workers, merchant mariners or real estate developers.