Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bob_Sconce t1_is8egwb wrote

First of all, I LOVE that this article is putting the conclusion up-front, like newspapers used to do, instead of trying to force readers to read through. Maybe it's because they don't have ads.

Secondly, here's the conclusion:

>In a study of more than 8,000 professionals and higher-level managers, researchers found that those who came from a wealthy background were much more likely to move around the UK, and live in some of the most affluent areas, compared to those from working-class backgrounds.

That's a really odd definition of 'success.' Look at "professionals and higher-level managers" and, instead of defining success as "being a professional or higher-level manager," define it as "moving around the UK."


seedanrun t1_is95u25 wrote

I think the point is that wealthy people are more likely to move to an area with good schools and jobs - while less wealthy are more likely to stay put.

That said - their conclusion that you can help the poor by giving them more access to better area does not seem the true solution. If your parents understand credit cards, mortgages and investing - then they will pass that information on to their children. And if your parents do NOT understand those thing -they are a struggle to learn by trial and error on your own. I honestly thing having financially wise parents can not be replaced by going to a good school. They don't teach financial wisdom at school.


Bob_Sconce t1_is9wvjq wrote

Except that it's comparing two groups of wealthy people -- they're all "professionals and upper management."

I think the more likely reason is that those who grew up in working-class families have tighter connections to their extended families. As a result, they are less likely to move away.


Ineedavodka2019 t1_isa504m wrote

Why would they have tighter connections to their extended families? So to increased need to rely on them? Why wouldn’t a “professional” have a similar need? (Honest question, the answer seems obvious but I wanted to see your opinion.)


Bob_Sconce t1_isaaz6b wrote

I have no idea. Maybe it's because their working-class families rely on them more. Maybe it's because as people become wealthier, they become more self-centered or develop more of an "anything for the job" ethic. Maybe it's because working-class families tend to pressure their family members to stay put more than "professional" families do.

I'm in the US. My grandparents were I think what we'd call "working class." My father was an attorney and we lived 15 minutes from my mother's family, and 90 minutes from my father's. My siblings and I are all professionals and we all live 400+ from where we grew up (my sister is 2500+ miles). So, I see the dynamic in my own life. However, our experience could easily be distinguished just by time -- maybe people moved less in the past than they do now.

I'm also a little skeptical of the ability to test the hypothesis when the subject population are all on a 80,000 square mile island.


Ineedavodka2019 t1_isak78m wrote

I am also in the US and have a similar experience although my grandparents came from working class and then my grandfather was a partner in a large firm. My parents went backwards to working class.All of them stayed near family. Now my husband and I are professionals and live in his hometown (far from my family), however, his siblings live around 2 hours away and not near any family and are also professionals. In our town there are many working class families, I would even say the majority of households, and I think some of why they stay put is due to lack of perceived opportunities and a sense of doing what they know. I think a lot of people kind of just do what they were brought up to know. Similar to financial literacy.


Wonderful_Mud_420 t1_isahw53 wrote

Not sure how broad it goes and how different it is in the U.S. but finance was thought in my university. It WAS an elective for me and the professor didn’t even study finance! He became wealthy through his business and sold it off for millions.

Not sure if it gets more in depth than what he thought us but basically 1)Invest to grow wealth, can be in stocks or your own business 2) Use credit cards and loans as leverage not as a temporary fix to your immediate cravings, an example I use is, I use my business credit to buy materials for a project way before and pay it all off during the first progress payment, only do this if you have a solid contract and know the clients/contractors have the money for it 3) Live way below your means, I save 25% of my income, can do 50% but i prefer my own place but it can be done with more sacrifice 4) Build skills that will help a lot of people, reason software engineers are paid a bunch is because they can automate many tasks that sometimes would take a whole staff to do [im not a software engineer]

Is there anything else about money that the affluent are teaching their kids that we can’t just learn on our own? They have money and connections to start them off quicker but that’s life and opportunities are not evenly distributed


seedanrun t1_isb43vg wrote

There is a huge number of useful money skills and techniques, but they vary depending on how you invest and your life style. The basics that class hits are the most important and universal- that class seems exactly what is needed.

And the guy teaching it IS a successful retired wealthy person. I think having someone who actually lived it is key which would be hard to find for every school.


cratermoon t1_is97rc7 wrote

You've touched on something important, though. Who defines what "success" means? If your definition of success is "what people who have a lot of money say is success", and "having a lot of money" is a marker for being in the class of "successful" people, then yes.

People whose lives align with the definition of success will certainly be more likely to succeed. But at some point we've hit a circularity, where success is defined as what successful people achieve.