General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica Has A New Aristocracy
http://www.businessinsider.com/america-has-a-new-aristocracy-2015-1When the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination line up on stage for their first debate in August, there may be three contenders whose fathers also ran for president. Whoever wins may face the wife of a former president next year. It is odd that a country founded on the principle of hostility to inherited status should be so tolerant of dynasties. Because America never had kings or lords, it sometimes seems less inclined to worry about signs that its elite is calcifying.
Thomas Jefferson drew a distinction between a natural aristocracy of the virtuous and talented, which was a blessing to a nation, and an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, which would slowly strangle it. Jefferson himself was a hybrid of these two types a brilliant lawyer who inherited 11,000 acres and 135 slaves from his father-in-law but the distinction proved durable.
When the robber barons accumulated fortunes that made European princes envious, the combination of their own philanthropy, their children's extravagance and federal trust-busting meant that Americans never discovered what it would be like to live in a country where the elite could reliably reproduce themselves.
Now they are beginning to find out, because today's rich increasingly pass on to their children an asset that cannot be frittered away in a few nights at a casino. It is far more useful than wealth, and invulnerable to inheritance tax. It is brains.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/america-has-a-new-aristocracy-2015-1#ixzz3PpDiGG7G
daleanime
(17,796 posts)handmade34
(22,755 posts)interesting but wrong-headed.....
this is troubling:
Unions and their Democratic Party allies will howl, but experiments in cities such as battered New Orleans have shown that school choice works
one attached comment:
another:
Kids from poor backgrounds do not graduate college at anywhere close to the same rate as those from wealthy families. The argument falls flat with the assumption that poor kids are not as intelligent as wealthy kids.
Low-income students who scored between 1200 and 1600 on their SATs were half as likely to finish college than their counterparts in the top 25 percent of the income distribution
Having poor parents results in intelligent kids having an uphill battle to graduate college. These are facts, we can argue the why.
The obvious is students not having to work as much if your parents can provide greater financial support, leaving more time for school.
Some believe children from homes of parents that did not graduate college, are simply scared of trying a major university out of fear, since their social group does not include anyone with relevant experience.
Some believe parents that did not attend college simply do not know how to provide emotional support for something they themselves did not experience. When the student fails an exam, a low income parent might say "well, perhaps you are not college material", while the college educated parents are questioning study habits and hiring a tutor.
Some believe it is simply a difference in expectations placed on the student by the parent. If the parent has a masters degree, they likely expect their child to also attain a masters degree, while parents with only a high school education only expect the same for their children.
This gets more complicated when realizing success in life is not as tightly correlated with intelligence as some other factors.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Has a lot of libertarian muckety-muck in it against teachers and teachers unions. Zoiks.
What today's aristocracy has passed down to its children is MONEY and wealth -- same as yesteryear. And in today's political world, that buys influence, swarms of lobbyists and lawyers --- and politicians - who in turn (de)regulate and legislate in their favor so they can keep and hoard more money and wealth. Look at the Kochs. Those boys didn't earn a dime of their wealth. It was inherited. Then more of it gained, hoarded and hidden through sociopathic political swindling, manipulation of regulation via politicians they bought and who pass laws that favor them and their wealthy, gilded brethren. They aren't so much smart as they are unmitigatedly greedy and bottomlessly evil. There's a difference between predatory evil and intellect, for God's sake. Today's political, social and economic punditry would do well to recognize that -- and to talk about it rather loudly. But unfortunately, they are also pimps for the global likes of the Kochs too (who give them millions each year NOT to).
It's not about brains. Look at Donald Trump. He's the walking epitome of that fact. The article seems to want to sell the idea that it's education which is at the root of our inequality, and of our social, economic and political problems. Education is absolutely an economic issue, but not in the ways or for the reasons the article seems to want to assert, IMO. If we are to have true equality, then every citizen, regardless of social status, personal or parental wealth, where they live should be able to get a good education in a public school system that doesn't operate on corporate dollars sucked up from the public trough (but rather on public dollars that exclude corporate influence as much as possible) and on mindless test scores (typically utilized as an excuse to turn schools and the public money they should get over to corporations).