
How rich kids already won the career game - violetmae
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yes-rich-kids-already-won-the-career-game-heres-why/
======
zeemonkee
"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of
corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic,
libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for
universal social justice."

That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their
parents....read some literature from 100 years ago, for example by the Fabians
or other socialist writers. This little blasted thing called human nature
always seems to screw things up....

Regarding the main point of the OP, I have a counterexample. I have a friend
whose career has never taken off, who usually gets fired after a few months,
and has never acquired any useful skills beyond blustering self-confidence.
Why ? His father is a multi-millionaire who has arranged every job he's had,
and bailed him out of every financial difficulty. He's never had to work a day
in his life and has absolutely no ambition or drive.

That's not saying all rich kids suffer from what you might call the George W.
Bush syndrome - but taking away the need to make money can also make people
over-confident and lazy.

~~~
danssig
>That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their
parents

That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it
stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any
scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment
programming and how much is "human nature".

~~~
zeemonkee
> That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it
> stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural,
technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile
phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my
lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but were not
commonplace yet.

> I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have
> any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is
> social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human
nature less so.

~~~
danssig
>The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological
breakthroughs in my lifetime

I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very _large_
impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast
off.

>Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human
nature less so.

I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be
that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were
overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking
back our freedoms from the elite few of our day.

Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more
greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander
the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a
twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.

~~~
PakG1
>> I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large
impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast
off.

Unfortunately, revolutions are nothing new. Bigger revolutions happened in the
past quite impactfully without such technologies. These technologies perhaps
add benefit in the arms race to better organize against government's controls
for infrastructure, institutions, and society.

>> I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might
be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that
were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history
taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day. Now you could say that
even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just
show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have
gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn
everyone else what he was up to.

The same technology that people use for freedom, powers that be can use for
more nefarious purposes. Technology in of itself is amoral and neutral. It's
rather about who uses it more effectively. Today, the general populace perhaps
has an advantage in that they're maybe more savvy than governments. Not
necessarily will be the case all the time though. And besides that, it depends
on whether people would love what Alexander stood for and would actually
prefer to follow him. Look at what happened in Germany. Nobody better cite
Godwin's Law here. Mein Kampf is seriously a great example of how a single
idea, communication, or piece of media can rally the people to a cause that
people in hindsight realized was incorrect. Technology can likewise be played
by both sides.

~~~
jacques_chester
> Unfortunately, revolutions are nothing new. Bigger revolutions happened in
> the past quite impactfully without such technologies.

3 major drivers of the European revolutions of the 1840s (the longest period
of sustained, international revolutions in history) were newspapers, trains
and telegraphs. Like today's internet, they were loosely controlled by the
state. Information could pass from capital to capital within hours, sometimes
within minutes.

The key dynamic is not the medium of transmission; it is whether the state has
yet managed to control it.

------
ShabbyDoo
Of the 100+ comments so far, relatively little has been said about the benefit
to one's career of knowing upper class (or even just upper middle class)
social rules. I'm not referring to the obvious ones like which fork to use at
a restaurant but rather to the more subtle ones like what constitutes
appropriate small talk. A 23 year-old from any socio-economic background might
not have sufficient knowledge to contribute in a particular high-level meeting
with a client. However, the kid from the upper class background is more likely
to have proven in subtle ways that he is unlikely to be an embarrassment. So,
the upper SES kid gets to attend the meeting as a learning experience. That
the kid might be able to relate socially to the client (I went to Ivy XYZ with
your neighbor's son, etc.) is icing on the cake.

~~~
nlz1
This is dead on. I had a summer internship with a prestigious law firm. During
the initial meet and greet between the interns and partners, one of my fellow
interns admitted to not working after college in favor of "just traveling the
world, surfing." To my shock, the partner was impressed by this answer. I was
dumbfounded.

(PROTIP: usually "traveling the world surfing" is only possible if you are
independently wealthy or willing to live like a hobo).

~~~
johngalt
Why would this shock you? Don't _you_ find it interesting/impressive?

~~~
haploid
I am not particularly impressed with people who, by virtue of being born into
money, spend years of their lives engaged in various unproductive pursuits.

I do find it interesting that someone named johngalt would be impressed by
someone living the benefits of unearned wealth. Perhaps you should have
adopted a more appropriate username. Were philiprearden and jamestaggart
taken?

~~~
johngalt
While it's not what I would choose for my kids, the money isn't uneared. His
parents or ancestors earned it and spending it on him is what they want to do.
It's not like he took it from them by force? FYI, objectivists are also
allowed to buy birthday presents for their toddlers.

Do I find the idea of traveling the world and surfing interesting? Yes I do.
Would I consider that adequate job experience? Not at all.

Remove the chip from your shoulder. Someone who wasn't you was able to do
something fun. Don't be jealous of that.

~~~
IDisposableHero
_While it's not what I would choose for my kids, the money isn't uneared. His
parents or ancestors earned it_

Oh, come on. You're just spliting hairs. I'm not jealous of it, but in no way
is it earned.

------
ShabbyDoo
When I used to interview a lot of college kids, I found that I could guess
accurately within a few minutes of conversation which had lived in a dorm/frat
house/whatever and which had lived at home while going to college. The
differences in social skills and worldliness/perspective were immense. Was
this due to the effects of being surrounded by a bunch of relatively ambitious
young people or was it due to the socio-economic selection bias inherent in
the decision to live at home while attending school? Although I have read
nothing to back up this claim, I presume that there is a positive correlation
between high family income and the decision to go "away" for college. Living
with one's parents implies going to a local college/university vs. the one
which is a tight fit with one's goals. Also, it seems that those kids who live
at home socialize with their local friends who, more often than not by virtue
of still living in the town where they grew up, are less ambitious and
worldly. Causation is hard to tease out, but correlation is definitely
present, at least based on my sampling from doing college interviewing in the
Cleveland area (another cause of selection bias, of course).

~~~
mediacrisis
I'd imagine this pattern would depend on locality. For example, I live in CT
and went to school in RI. I chose to live at home to save taking out
additional loans for room and board, but I wasn't really separated from campus
life, or even college towns for that matter (My parents lived by an art school
and a state college).

However, were I do to the same in an area with fewer educational institutions
per sq. mile, I may not have had that experience.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
I agree. Let's take Boston as the extreme example of where one could choose a
nearly "optimal" college while still living at home. Local availability of
good education options coupled with the high cost of off-campus housing in the
area probably makes the adverse selection bias I observed in Cleveland much
weaker in Boston. In Ohio, off-campus housing is generally cheaper than living
in a dorm room. However, I'm told that dorms are coveted at places like NYU
because the universities effectively subsidize rents compared to market rates.

------
scrrr
Exactly same dynamics as in dating: If you appear like you've been single for
a year, you'll have a difficult time. If you look like you just came back from
the bedroom of a runway model you'll be surrounded by women.

The key here is attitude. While your upbringing influences that, you can
always make a choice to be the relaxed rich kid. Even if your parents' income
says differently.

~~~
JonnieCache
Yep. This is the same reason that would-be underage drinkers are always asked
for ID every time they try and go to the bar, right up until the day they
reach the drinking age.

From that point on you're never asked for ID. The bartender can tell from your
walk, your gaze and your speech that you have it, just like before they could
tell that you didn't.

~~~
Duff
The bartender does that only until he gets busted by a police sting operation.

A good friend of mine had his nascent teaching career destroyed when he some
confident-looking 20 year old chick dropped a 6 pack of Bud Light on the
counter of the store he managed part-time. He didn't bother asking for ID
(which he was typically pretty strict about) and was led out in cuffs.

He received a conditional dismissal after 3 years of probation, but explaining
a 3+ year career gap ("So, why did you quit teaching after 6 months to fix
cars?") takes you off the fast track.

~~~
run4yourlives
Where the hell do you live, Singapore? That law is draconian.

~~~
jacoblyles
Welcome to America. We were founded by Puritans.

~~~
billybob
How much do you actually know about Puritans? Most of what I learned about
them in high school came from works of fiction. It was a pretty unfair
picture, in retrospect.

------
CaptainDecisive
The article seems to me a just-so story. The author might be ignorant of the
rich kids who end up as drug addicts or at the very least entirely
economically unproductive simply because they can. They've got nothing to
loose by not kowtowing to the bosses but nothing to gain by working hard
either as they've already got everything laid on a plate for them.

However I think there often _is_ something different in the attitudes of
people with rich and poor upbringings. But from the article the kid whose
parents earn $125,000 and who was bright and went to a top tier school will
likely have all the doors open to him and the self confidence to take
advantage of it. Any attitude difference above that level of income is mostly
accounted for by individual personality and intelligence. Someone however who
was born to a working class family and grew up surrounded by people in blue
collar jobs might not have the confidence or social network to climb as high.
Or at least the path is noticeably steeper.

And on a personal note, I disagree with the comment _"He has the right air
about him, and the same freedom from anxiety and free-flowing creative energy
of a college student because, for him, college (i.e. the time of life in which
most middle-class peoples’ lives peak) never ended."_ At university things
were just starting to get really fun. I'm mid thirties now and looking forward
to the fun that's around the corner. Not only is the glass half full, but it's
champagne and the cute waitress is coming round with refills.

~~~
robeastham
I whole heartedly agree with this, it also really felt like the post author
was describing a really specific situation. Perhaps one where he was that
middle class guy and the other guy was someone who just got the raise he
wanted. I don't know, but the whole article came across as trying to blame
failure to thrive on forces outside of one's control. In fact it might be more
to do with bravery, personality and intelligence. I'm from a middle class
background and have never had a problem saying what I think to senior
management right up to CEO level, I am from a contracting background though
and so perhaps I've never settled in one place long enough to get scared of
losing my job.

Anyway from what the original poster describes I think someone in this
particular middle class guys position would find working for a web technology
company much more rewarding and fulfilling. Corporate structure tends to be
less top down and more open and inclusive. For anyone in this position who is
thinking of moving jobs perhaps they'd like to refactor their résumé using my
new app:

<http://www.mightycv.com/>

Invites will be sent out soon.

~~~
robeastham
I'm guessing the downvotes are because I've crossed the line I was worried
about in this post:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287643>

Apologies, I really didn't want to come across as being spammy.

------
grammaton
"The difference is that children of wealth traverse it at a height of one
meter over a mattress, while the middle-class and poor traverse it at a height
of 20 meters over a lava pit."

I notice no one is commenting on this part. Namely, that for children of
financial privilege, the risk/reward ratio for a career is markedly skewed
compared to their middle class peers.

~~~
wmil
It's largely true, but depressing and unfix-able.

It's really bad with jobs that expect you to "pay your dues" at the beginning,
yet still socialize with co-workers at restaurants after work. People from a
more modest background are seen as anti-social when they really just have a
cash flow problem.

There's a negative feedback loop.

~~~
chernevik
It's fixable.

Financial security and social familiarization aren't the only sources of
confidence. Understanding of skills' value, faith in the ability to learn new
skills, curiousity about what others find valuable and willingness to provide
it -- no one who has these has much deep anxiety about pleasing the boss. If
the boss likes them, great! If not, they're happy to move somewhere that
appreciates what they add. Confidence is out there for anyone willing to learn
and work.

------
michaelchisari
Much of this essay is based on the idea of social capital,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital>

I've found a lot of people, especially in the upper- and upper-middle classes,
often deny the importance of social capital, but I find it to be very
important.

Someone from wealth can lose all of their money, and still have the social
capital necessary the maintain their class status.

~~~
scott_s
My problem with the essay is that the author assumes complete causation
between social capital and real capital. He goes from socio-economic status to
personality traits without acknowledging at all what he has done.

------
numeromancer
He missed some of the other reasons a son-of-a-rich is more likely to have it
better in the workplace: experience with business. A SOR is more likely to
have grown up around people who talk the talk of high finance, and have
friends with the same experience. They are more comfy with those in the
business, and those in the business are more comfy with them, because they can
speak the same language.

My father worked in a factory, as a member of a union, and I grew up not
having the first clue about how the market or business works.

In technical fields, those who grow up in the middle class probably know
someone with intricate technical knowledge, and who is a master of their art,
even if it is a mechanic, electrician or HVAC repairman, and have picked up at
least the feel of the technical jargon from them.

Slightly related, on This American Life over the week-end, they interviewed
several people who work in finance at some of the firms who were bailed out by
TARP, and they all swore that they had _their_ high-paying job because of
their superior talent, and deserved to get payed their tax-payer inflated
salaries because they were smarter than most other people. They all complained
that Pres. Obama was a meanie to big businesses, trying to tell them what to
do and all, and should just leave them alone.

------
hartror
I think this article is preaching to the wrong crowd here on HN. A
entrepreneur is by definition an upstart, an usurper who is out to break the
conventions. You can't do this by being a quite yes man.

That said what percentage of entrepreneurs, successful or not come from rich
backgrounds? This article's ideas would apply two fold to the startup arena
where you cannot get anywhere simply by running on the hamster wheel.

~~~
ramanujan
Relatedly, 60% of NBA Stars are bankrupt within 5 years after retirement:

    
    
      http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3469271
    
      Filing for bankruptcy is a long-standing tradition 
      for NBA players, 60% of whom, according to the Toronto 
      Star, are broke five years after they retire. 
    

So it's not completely true that wealth is an advantage that cannot be
squandered. And in the US there was a saying that used to be more popular --
"from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations".

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/11...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/1178345.stm)

    
    
      But many more smaller figures of the Robber Baron age 
      made immense fortunes, took no care of them, were not 
      of a generous or philanthropic nature, handed the money 
      on as a life belt to their sons who then squandered it, 
      so much so that their sons returned to the shirtsleeves 
      in which grandfather had landed in the United States.
    

To the extent that the unusual combination of traits required to create
enormous wealth is at all heritable, it is certainly _imperfectly_ heritable.
This is augmented by the fact that when you have large families, the wealth is
divided among all children. So insofar as we think of income mobility as a
good thing, it's actually abetted in part by highly imperfect heritability and
large family size.

(Not driving at any particular point here, just some interesting links of
relevance to thinking on income mobility).

~~~
smackfu
"NBA star" != "NBA players"

~~~
PakG1
That's true enough, parent should have been more careful in word choice. But
it doesn't change the fact that even the worst players get paid a significant
amount of money and should be able to retire just fine, if they knew how to
manage their money.

~~~
smackfu
I was going to argue with this but after some research, NBA players really do
get decent minimums. In other sports, you can be the last pro who managed to
not get cut and only get $100k per year, which is nice but isn't "retire after
five years of it" money either. In the NBA, the minimum salary for a rookie is
still $490k and it goes up to $788k after one year. That really is "retire
after five years of it" money.

------
ig1
Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK there's no statistical
difference between earnings 3.5 years after university graduation due to
parental background once you adjust for university/degree subject.

(children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go into good universities
or study high-earning subjects, but if they do then they'll earn as much as
their better off peers)

~~~
notahacker
That's quite an interesting observation I don't seem to have seen trumpeted
(enough) during the battles over tuition fee increases. Do you have a citation
for it?

~~~
ig1
I don't have the citation to hand, but I'm pretty sure the research came from
the Sutton Trust who specialize in this area.

------
clueless123
As a citizen of both worlds, I'll say the authors story rings very true. When
I first came to the US, I did totally entitled from years of being upper class
in a small third world country.. it took me several years to realize that I
was now a very small fish in a huge pond where opportunities didn't just
materialized for you and problems easily faded away.

20 years later I find myself moved up to a pretty good on that big pond mainly
because of good opportunities in the tech industry but I would strongly agree
with the author that a lot of that success was achieved through the Mojo that
a complete lack of fear of failure gives you.

------
pg
The career game is not nearly as important now as it was a couple decades ago,
though. Now you can easily opt to be judged directly by market, by starting
your own company. Customers don't know or care what your social origins are.

~~~
apsec112
_Wow_ , that's a slanted view of the world!

Outside of the software industry, which is a tiny (~1%) portion of the
economy, what has changed since 1995? Suppose you're an investment banker, and
you hate your boss, as most investment bankers do. Want to start your own
investment bank? How? You need to have connections to upper management at lots
and lots of companies, so you can arrange deals. And very few people have
that.

Or, suppose you're an accountant. Can you start your own accounting practice?
Sure, maybe, it's not a crazy idea. But is it really any different than it was
15 years ago? You still need to get a reputation, build up a client list,
market yourself well, etc. Not much has really changed.

Or, even, suppose that you're in another, non-software tech industry, like
pharmaceuticals. That's way _harder_ than it was 15 years ago, because of
tighter FDA regulation. Just try getting a drug to market with less than
$100,000,000 in capital, and very few people can raise that kind of capital.

~~~
johngalt
Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to
go start your own shop. If you're really better than the boss you hate people
will flock to you. Make sure the clients see you as a go-getter.

That investment shop will have every banker arguing that they deserve a
gigantic compensation package. Add's a lot of overhead that you won't have
starting out.

Accounting: Like most professional services the web has revolutionized
accounting. You can now trivially have your accounting done anywhere in the
world. How about you start your own shop by hiring and managing overseas
workers? Or how about a cadre of accountants based in a low cost area of the
US? Since 1995 other industries have been transformed by technology MORE than
the tech sector. Netflix/iPod/Kindle anyone?

You've got me on pharmaceuticals, but it seems that regulation is the key
here. I doubt communism would help with that.

~~~
jbooth
"Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list
to go start your own shop."

That's actually the one action where a non-compete is universally and
trivially enforceable in all 50 states. As I understand it, IANAL.
Additionally, it's unethical if you believe in that sort of thing. So, bad
idea.

Not sure what communism has to do with anything. At all.

~~~
johngalt
If you sign a non-compete, are you surprised that it's difficult to go out and
found a competing organization? If you can't manage starting your own
investment firm, then you apply what you've learned as a banker to a different
slice of the pie. Fundamentally you're looking at ways it won't work rather
than looking at ways it can work.

"Not sure what communism has to do with anything. At all." The article?
Specifically mentioned communism as the solution to these problems? If you're
pointing to regulation as a barrier to entry then what the article recommends
wouldn't help.

EDIT: Excuse me it advocates the universal solidarity of social justice to
promote the overthrow of capitalism in the name of _socialism_ whew, good
thing I caught that. Someone could have confused socialism with communism.

~~~
jbooth
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago>

------
watty
This was an whiny and awful post about "life isn't fair". The socially
outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward
counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a
wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills. It isn't discrimination
until you start hiring the less wealthy (with less skills) because of the fact
that they're less wealthy.

~~~
Alex3917
"This was an whiny and awful post about 'life isn't fair'."

It wasn't whiny at all.

"The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his
socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he
came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills."

This was the author's point.

~~~
watty
No, his point was that rich kids have better attitudes, skills and perceived
work ethic which is simply not true.

"Middle-class kids generally fuck up their first few years of the career game
in one of two ways." - really??

~~~
Alex3917
"His point was that rich kids have better attitudes, skills and perceived work
ethic which is simply not true."

I mean I can point you to any number of academic studies confirming this, e.g.
Hart & Risley's Meaningful Differences book.

Or just go to any elite private university and compare the kids who are there
during summer session with the kids who are there during the rest of the year.
The only real difference is SES, as you can't apply financial aid to summer
session classes, and you also can't be there if you need a job over the
summer. And yet the kids are completely different than the ones who are there
during the regular school year.

~~~
jobu
You could probably say the same thing about the summer session at most
universities. The kids willing to give up their summers for education have a
different level of drive than the ones that attend the rest of the year.

Not that summer session is always the best course of action. An internship
will go a lot further toward most careers than a few extra classes.

~~~
Alex3917
"The kids willing to give up their summers for education have a different
level of drive than the ones that attend the rest of the year."

Not really, if anything it takes less drive. It's vastly easier to take
classes over the summer (when classes are usually easier), and then do your
internships in fall or spring when there's no competition. The only reason not
everyone does this is that it wouldn't be financially viable.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Since when can you not apply financial aid to summer classes? When I was in
college (10 years ago), the rule was 2 semesters/year.

Summer usually wasn't viable because class selection is limited. For example,
Quantum Mechanics 1 is fall semester, Quantum Mechanics 2 is spring semester,
and you need both to graduate.

------
TGJ
Wow does this ring true to me. I'm working at wal-mart for gas money while
going to college. I had a customer call and complain and I had to go talk to
management. Such a scary ordeal since I need this job. I have nothing to fall
back on, with no gas money, no degree. My fate is in their hands and that is
the most sickening feeling I've ever had. But this is temporary. When I'm done
with college, wal-mart customers are going to get a piece of my mind since I
won't be worrying about getting fired.

The guy is right, when you have everything to lose at the slightest mistake,
you don't take chances.

~~~
haploid
"When I'm done with college, wal-mart customers are going to get a piece of my
mind since I won't be worrying about getting fired."

Right, because having a college diploma is equivalent to guaranteed
employment.

------
yurylifshits
I see the similar dynamics between American citizens and immigrant workers.
Immigrants, in general, are more risk-averse. They do not want to lose a work
visa or to disrupt the green card process. As a result, they become yes-men
and avoid challenging and unsolicited projects. Of course, it is not always
the case, but I feel that in general Americans have some psychological
advantage in career advancement.

~~~
gaius
It's more subtle than that. Let's say you get 100 risk points to spend. An
American might say, I'll spend 75 points on setting up my own business. An
immigrant would say, I've already spent 50 risk points on coming to America, I
don't have 75 to spare.

~~~
yurylifshits
Non-American can not legally start a business without a green card or getting
a work visa for his startup (extremely hard to get)

~~~
gaius
Yeah - but you are saying that immigrants are risk-averse and that's simply
not true - just they have allocated their risk differently than you.

~~~
digitaltothem
I agree. I think that immigration itself is a risky undertaking. One has to
abandon everything familiar, which is by no means easy, regardless the
difficult circumstances. Besides, all the rich kids in the US today we are
discussing and capitalists are the descendants of immigrants. I would not say
that immigrants are risk-averse, but I think that obtaining a visa or green
card mainly keep them from entrepreneurial ventures. Or maybe language
barriers.

~~~
noilly
Actually my experience growing up in NYC (and this may be an outlier, but I
see it elsewhere) is that immigrants are _more_ likely to be entrepreneurial
because traditional employment is off limits due to language, cultural, and
educational barriers–and sometimes outright discrimination. That's why there
are New York archetypes of Korean green grocers, Chinese dry cleaners, Greek
diner owners, etc (albeit these are rapidly shifting). The large number of
Jewish-owned businesses in NY speaks to the historical discrimination against
Jews (and not just some stereotypical belief about business acumen). Not
exactly social networking and cloud computing, but entrepreneurship
nonetheless.

------
lwhi
TL;DR - Self-confidence makes a difference to success in life. People who come
from privileged backgrounds naturally exude confidence.

------
Tycho
tl;dr: people with FU Money perform better in their jobs

I suppose on the other hand you have to consider that rich kids have less
motivation to succeed than middle/lower class people, if they already have all
the material things they can realistically desire

(the article also didn't site any studies to back up its statistics or claims,
so you have to take it at face value)

~~~
Maro
I'm not rich, neither can I cite evidence to back this up, but looking around
in my circle of friends, I don't agree with you.

Rich(er) kids have just as much drive to work on interesting products, find
new solutions to problems, etc. And they have the added benefit of not having
to worry about making a baseline salary on the side, they can ask their
parents to bootstrap them, to find first clients, etc. Sure you can say that
there are some who are slacking off on their parents money, but then again
there are also middle class/poor kids who don't do anything useful in life.

~~~
Tycho
Allow me to rephrase then: to the extent that lack of comfort/possessions
motivates people to strive for better, rich kids will experience less
motivation from that source. Of course they can always find motivation from
other sources. I suppose you could also argue that everyone is motivated to
maintain their current standards of living, rather than (or more than) elevate
to something higher. So rich kids will find it unacceptable to settle for a
middling income.

------
rickdangerous1
I'll always hire a middle class guy with something to prove over an ivy
leaguer. The fire in the belly is what resonates with me the most. They work
harder and don't take success for granted.

------
trooon
"rich kids don’t fear the boss."

So true. And if you start acting like a boss, you'll start being treated like
one. Of course, this is a tricky business (as Michael mentions), and a lot
depends on your role and the company's culture. But with the right approach, a
mix of social skills and "knowing your stuff", it's possible. Especially in
the field of technology.

------
Symmetry
Yes, being rich can make you confident which can do well for your career. But
there are plenty of other unfair advantages that also bring confidence, like
height or good looks. And then there are really horribly unfair things like
intelligence.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
I'm tall and am/was arguably somewhat good looking. I don't get many, if any,
advantages from this because I grew up as and am a pretty serious geek. Now
that I'm older I have better social skills, but because of how I turned out I
never got the benefits of this. Without the proper attitude even looks aren't
helpful. It took me a long time to learn proper social skills and I feel ten
years behind my peers. This is typical in technology. I wont even go into how
tech is this ghetto that rich kids never bother with anyway, they are just on
the fast track to management.

On the other hand money is concrete and real. If I had 5 million in the bank
my attitude would be 100% different. I wouldn't be considered geeky, I'd be
geek-chic and eccentric. I wouldn't have most of the anxities I have now
because I know money can buy me almost everything I need.

Sorry, but large sums of money are nowhere comparable to less tangible gifts
like height or looks. One buys me a home the other maybe gets me an occasional
second glance.

I'll also toss in that thinking of yourself as a social peer with your bosses
is a huge benefit. The book "Outliers" explores this. Well-off kids are raised
to be assertive and have a sense of entitlement. They just do better in life.
They can defend these attitudes by saying "I come from a well off family, just
as wealthy as you. I went to the same school as you and your kids and my
parents know the same people. I was taught to get my way and that my parents
will protect me with their riches."

Lately, coincidentally, I have a lot in common with my current bosses. The
social parts take care of themselves and its a huge benefit without me putting
in a lot of effort. I don't feel the divide between them and me as much as at
my previous jobs. I have a small amount of savings that can help me get by if
I get fired or laid off. If this is how rich kids feel at age 23 when entering
the workforce then they have a HUGE advantage.

~~~
haploid
Seconded. The claim that height is some sort of social, sexual, or financial
advantage is absurd.

~~~
jamesteow
Women prefer men who are taller than them. I rarely if ever see a woman with a
man shorter than her.

~~~
haploid
This is likely due to the fact that American men average a few inches taller
than American women. Biology and statistical sampling plus a little bit of
confirmation bias.

------
rdouble
This seems totally fictional. If the deck was really so stacked, why would a
super rich kid be working as an entry level analyst with the plebes in the
first place?

~~~
robgough
Because then they've been seen to be humble enough to have worked their way up
from the bottom... so they can all feel like they've fairly got to the top of
the company, and earned it too.

The implication of this article is that the odds were stacked in their favour
not necessarily just through explicit intentions of the higher ups, but
through the difference in their inherent attitude.

~~~
rdouble
Well, that sucks. I thought the whole point of being born rich was that you
get to do cool stuff like drink blood out of Abraham Lincoln's skull with Dick
Cheney and the Winklevoss twins, and leapfrog the corporate ladder. Spending
your 20s making Powerpoint presentations with the less fortunate would be a
total bummer.

~~~
robgough
You only really need to take credit for the work, I took from the article that
you don't actually need to be very good.

I for one am blending a bit of both. From a lower-middle class background and
being content to be less than average at my job. For some reason it isn't
working out as well as I hoped :P

------
Eliezer
Wow did that last paragraph ruin the article.

------
scott_s
Using an anecdote as data is bad enough. Using a _madeup_ anecdote is even
worse.

------
donohoe
{citation needed}

------
BrandonM
I never realized how poor I was until I started seeing articles like this.
Growing up in rural Ohio, my dad made something like $15-20K to support a
family of 5. It's a completely different world for someone who has a $40K+
student loan and a substantial amount of credit card debt hanging over him the
day he's done with college.

------
zmitri
I think it's unfortunate that they mention rich, yet don't mention the
advantage of coming from an entrepreneurial family. Whether rich or not, if
your parent is self-employed or an entrepreneur it will have a huge impact on
how you take on corporate jobs versus someone who's parents didn't start their
own company.

~~~
danssig
I'm not sure how much that matters. It is something new in the last century
that most people assuming "working" means working for some company, no?

~~~
zmitri
From my experience it matters a lot. When you grow up in an entrepreneurial
environment you see ups and downs and realize and are less concerned with job
security, bureaucracy, and more prone to innovate, or at least for
opportunities to spin something off yourself. This article was written was the
last century in mind, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

~~~
danssig
What I mean is, everyone used to be entrepreneurs and most switched right over
to the mentality that you have to "get a job". Why would modern entrepreneur
children have a different view?

------
nazgulnarsil
"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of
corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic,
libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for
universal social justice."

so, did you just take poli-sci to learn buzzwords and impress dumb chicks? I'm
guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material. Before you call a
fortune 500 company a "brutal authority" you might want to _READ A FUCKING
BOOK_.

~~~
ovi256
Nice personal attack right there. Try addressing his argument next time. And
FYI, sociologically speaking, most corporations are brutal psychopats.

~~~
ramanujan
Absolutely agree with you that he should address his argument.

That said, this is almost too obvious to point out, but it happens to be true
that the Soviet Union and Communist China (and Vietnam, Cambodia, etcetera)
murdered 100 million+[1] in the name of "building socialism", and it is quite
possible that the original poster knows people from those countries who lost
loved ones to socialism/communism.

Seen in this light, I'm not saying that OP's phrasing was the way to go, but
it's understandable that there are people frustrated by this all too common
style of ignorance. It's not idealistic to _actually_ support socialism in
2011, it's simply ignorant.

At the risk of reductio ad Hitlerum, certainly an offhand comment in favor of
"rational, libertarian Nazism" would have dominated response to the essay, yet
we find it acceptable for educated people to make offhand[2] complimentary
references to a polar opposite ideology that actually killed many more people.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-
Repression...](http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-
Repression/dp/0674076087)

[2] Or in this case, direct rather than offhand

~~~
calibraxis
Perhaps you are not familiar with the terminology... In most of the world,
"libertarian" means libertarian socialism. The historically correct meaning.
Some right-wingers in 1950's US appropriated the term to mean extreme
capitalism. Discussed earlier:

([http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-
and...](http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-and-i-am-a-
socialis))

The usual claims against communism don't apply, as libertarian socialists
historically opposed both communism and capitalism. (In the senses you mean.)

~~~
warrenwilkinson
The link you provided does not talk about the word 'libertarian' at all, other
than its author calling himself a Libertarian Socialist.

~~~
calibraxis
I'm sorry, you're correct, I should have linked to the HN discussion, where
steveklabnik does a good job explaining. I was very distracted and rushed when
posting.

(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1653063>)

------
ozziegooen
It's not where you are. It's where you're going.

I liked this article, but my experiences have been different. From what I've
seen, it seems like broad career choice is also incredibly significant; and
that's something rich kids often get wrong (from the perspective of an
entrepreneur). They want to have happy lives in prestigious jobs, and there
lies the problem. They want stability instead of the ability to change
something.

Now I'm studying abroad, and have met up with a bunch of rich kids. They all
want to party. Sure, if I get a job with them it's possible they'll do better
than me. So I won't get a job with them.

Let's look at the top entrepreneurs right now. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark
Zuckerberg. All of them were well-to-do but weren't rich. But that didn't
matter for them at the time. Because their ambition was far more powerful than
their income.

~~~
cma
<http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/>

Gates already had a million dollar trust fund.

~~~
ozziegooen
Fair enough, but that's 1/3.

Of course, none of the three were exactly poor, and all grew up with
programming backgrounds. We'll see who takes charge these next 20 years.

~~~
svdad
Zuck went to Philips Exeter. Boarding in 2011, that's $40,000 a year his dad
shelled out for high school; non-boarding, still $31,000. OK, it wasn't
today's dollars, but aying he wasn't "exactly poor" is an understatement.

Going to school somewhere like that is one of the experiences that develops
precisely the attitude the blogger is talking about.

------
njharman
If you are so "controlled" by your generalized/stereotyped upbringing you
don't deserve to lead/manage.

~~~
grammaton
Arguably many of the people who lead/manage now don't deserve to.

------
ecaradec
Another explication might be that rich kid not needing a job, do the right
thing instead of the boss thing as they work lending them more opportunity.

'Linchpin' by Seth Godin defends this thesis that the job market has changed
and that opportunities are given to (or taken by) the one that don't follow
the rules.

The beginning of the article is nice, but the end nearly fall in fatalism.
Saying that a sociological and behavioral issue is unsurmountable if you're
not in the right dispositions first is just incredibly wrong. The world is
changed by people doing things everyday even if the stars are never aligned;
waiting a scientific approach to the world is very, very useless and a bit
frightening too.

------
johngalt
You're right it's hopeless and unfair. We are all losers that should stop
trying immediately. We should spend our time wishing for impossible utopian
communism that will somehow arbitrarily add fairness. Then we can complain
that we aren't as tall as other people, or as strong.

Or we could act like winners. Turn the tables and determine where life is
unfair _in your favor_ and play that game, or at least push the game closer to
that direction. Rich kids are pushed into certain roles/behaviors as well.
There are risks that they fear that you do not.

------
chegra
ok... I think the problems lies in trying to control something out of our
locus of control. We can't control the rich having an advantage, so much
thoughts shouldn't be given to such matters[as related to personal
advancement, not social]. What's within our control[concern] we have the
quality of our work, how much we take initiate, building a social network etc.

I find the author built a prison for himself by attacking the problem through
an avenue he has no control over.

------
MatrixBai
Yes, rich kids already take the whole world. I know this far before because
I'm a Chinese lives in China Mainland. I'm not sure what's the real career
game in western country, but I know the Chinese one. Rich kids inherit
everything from their parents the most important thing is social relations
which is very important in China.Other kids work for them. That's it.

------
keytweetlouie
Do you have any evidence or case studies to back up your claim? That rich kids
earn more than middle class kids on average?

------
petervandijck
Rich family drives 5-year old to doctor's visit. Mom: "Remember honey, you can
ask the doctor anything you want, and if he does something you don't like just
tell him no."

Poor family drives 5-year old to doctor's visit. Mom: "Remember honey, be
respectful and do as the doctor says. And be quiet or there will be trouble."

From an actual study.

------
giardini
Wouldn't it be better to attempt to cast these ideas in an evolutionary
biological framework rather than in a typical static classical rich-poor,
capitalist-marxist, liberal-conservative values framework that we use in
voting? Might something more closely approximating the truth be revealed by
doing so?

------
enduser
This specifically has to do with fear, social fear, and how it plays out in
the workplace and in one's relationships.

You cannot change your social background, but you can choose to recognize and
transcend fear. You can treat everybody respectfully as a social equal
regardless of your background.

Meditation helps.

------
mikecane
I recommend Lubrano's book: Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams
[http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047126376...](http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471263761,descCd-
reviews.html)

------
VaedaStrike
The idea that rich kids are more liberated is wrong headed. It's'simply
myopic. There's'not even an attempt to explore the inherent advantages of the
"other."

Insight a rich kid can never have being merely one of dozens that shot into my
fatigued head.

------
presidentender
I am fearless because I was poor and it ain't so bad. Being born middle-class
must suck.

~~~
svdad
You have a point. In finance especially, I think being middle class is about
the worst position to be in. If you're poor, you get into finance because
you're fearless and hungry and worked your ass off. You work on the trading
floor and get along fine.

If you're rich, it's like the OP said -- you get into finance because you have
casual confidence and connections. You probably already know your boss or some
of his colleagues socially, or your dad belongs to the same yacht club. And
your boss likes you because you're just like him.

If you're middle class, though, you aren't hungry because you were actually
pretty comfortable growing up, and you don't have the connections because your
dad is an accountant at a mid-sized manufacturing company and doesn't have a
yacht. So you're screwed.

------
michaelochurch
Wow. I'm thrilled that this essay has received so much attention. I went from
50 pageviews per day, on average, to 20,000 in one day. I'm very busy with
work and I don't have time for a point-by-point reply to everyone, even though
there are a lot of great comments here and many deserve replies. I just don't
think I will get to it in a timely fashion.

To address some of those critiques, last night I wrote a follow up to this
essay here: [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/follow-up-
on-...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/follow-up-on-rich-kids-
beating-the-career-game/) .

------
usejoy
Holly Crap. People that go around here don't question capitalism. They dream
to sell their souls to the highest bidder. And than when water and food are so
crappy (because of the corporate masters) they will give all money to health
corporations. Oh my....

~~~
endtime
You're surprised that people on an entrepreneurship website are capitalists?

~~~
usejoy
No i am surprised that people with intelligence and vision for technology,
don't think outside the box when is needed. For me there is no panacea for
society. Part of my life was in Socialism, another in Democracy /
Corporatocracy and believe when i say that in two cases for normal hardworking
and talented individual there is no hope. The solution is to take what's good
from both of them, for example public healthcare (from communism) and free
market (from capitalism). And make politicians responsible for every penny
that they are willing to take against public interest. But what i know...

~~~
btipling
The public interest may not be in the public's interest. Inequality may not
always be a bad thing. The focus shouldn't be on the gap between the haves and
have nots, the focus should be on the dire situation of the poor without
worrying about the lives of those better off.

~~~
rick888
What bothers me is that the only solution to bridge the "income inequality" is
to take money from the rich and just give it to the poor.

Beyond the mentally and physically unable (which is a very low percentage),
poverty is a result of poor life choices. This is what freedom gives us: the
ability to succeed or fall flat on our ass due to our own choices, which is
why we will always have poverty in our current system.

~~~
jarek
> Beyond the mentally and physically unable (which is a very low percentage),
> poverty is a result of poor life choices.

Oh, how I want to see you tell that to a 15 year old born in a ghetto.

~~~
rick888
"Oh, how I want to see you tell that to a 15 year old born in a ghetto."

The truth hurts sometime. If we continue to ignore it, nothing will ever
change.

~~~
jarek
No, I actually literally want to see you say that, in real life, face to face,
to a 15 year old human. Bonus points if it's a girl.

