NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that various US posters here seem awefully optimistic when it comes to becoming rich.
And I thought to myself: Why?

Well, here's some data on how Americans see class in general.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html
Particularly the "American Attitudes" poll would be of interest, as well as the interactive graphic on income mobility.

And here's what The Economist says about the American Dream:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=4148885
But there are three big problems with this rosy view. The first is that America has never been as socially mobile as Americans like to believe. According to a long-term research project carried out at the University of Michigan, led by Gary Solon, America's score on social mobility is not particularly high or low, but middling.

That does not sound too bad. But it means that, if you are among the poorest 5% of the population, your chances of achieving an average income are only one in six. If you are among the poorest 1%, they become very dim indeed. Moreover—and this was the most surprising thing about the study—despite America's more flexible labour markets, social mobility there is no longer greater than in supposedly class-ridden Europe, and if anything it seems to be declining.

A study by Katharine Bradbury and Jane Katz for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found that in the 1970s, 65% of people changed their social position (that is, moved out of the income bracket in which they had started the decade). In the 1990s, only 60% did. Not a huge change, but consistent with Mr Solon's study showing that the correlation between parents' and children's income is even closer now than it was in the 1980s. The authors also found decreasing amounts of social mobility at the top and the bottom. This is squeezing the middle class. Americans may be sorting themselves into two more stable groups, haves and have-nots. This is the same trend that geographical mobility has been encouraging. Decreasing mobility may one day come to erode Americans' faith in the fairness of their economy.
If you're numerically inclined, here's studies:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gsolon/workingpapers/trends.pdf by Solon
http://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedbrr/y2002iq4p2-5nv.12no.4.html by Bradbury and Katz

What do you think?
Is the American Dream becoming a thing of the past?

Capitalist propaganda is prevalent.

This is my main objection to capitalism. In a meritocratic society, it is great - if everyone is given an equal opportunity then it is fair that some have greatly more than others.

However, America clearly isn't a meritocratic society. We all know that lazy and stupid people can succeed and hard working intelligent people can fail in America. Just look at George Bush - would he have succeeded had he being born to a poor family? It also seems the more capitalist people want even less equality of opportunity - with the whole thing about taking money away from public schools.

I read that Sweden has the highest social mobility rate in the world, with it making little difference where you start off in life - everyone had a chance to succeed. Therefore, people should be calling Sweden the land of opportunity, not America, unless you are talking about opportunity for the advantaged.

I'm sure this topic will be jumping when the members of this forum that believe capitalism is the best thing ever hit this thread.

I'm sure this topic will be jumping when the members of this forum that believe capitalism is the best thing ever hit this thread.
Why? The study just shows that most people start in the same class that they can defend their place in, so if anyone should make a lot of noice over it it is social darwinists. Since I generally despise social darwinism I prefer to keep this as quiet as possible.

What do you think?
Is the American Dream becoming a thing of the past?

The American Dream has always been a myth, but people don't see it because they assume that the converse of the dream is also true - that is, if someone remains poor it's because they deserved to be poor/haven't done anything to help themselves, rather than a societal failure.

However, America clearly isn't a meritocratic society. We all know that lazy and stupid people can succeed and hard working intelligent people can fail in America. Just look at George Bush - would he have succeeded had he being born to a poor family? It also seems the more capitalist people want even less equality of opportunity - with the whole thing about taking money away from public schools.

Just look at 99.99% of politicians if you wan't to see the death of meritocracy.

I read that Sweden has the highest social mobility rate in the world, with it making little difference where you start off in life - everyone had a chance to succeed. Therefore, people should be calling Sweden the land of opportunity, not America, unless you are talking about opportunity for the advantaged.

Sweden only has 9 million people who are very ethnically homogenous, a flat growth rate and little migration. The reason they are so equal is because they don't grow and thereby put pressure on their social programs.

Sweden only has 9 million people who are very ethnically homogenous, a flat growth rate and little migration. The reason they are so equal is because they don't grow and thereby put pressure on their social programs.
But the point is that poor people in Sweden have a much higher chance of becoming rich than poor Americans.
Whether or not more new poor people immigrate or are being born is a another matter.

And pressure on the social programs is only an issue if the programs are either underfunded or badly designed.

But the point is that poor people in Sweden have a much higher chance of becoming rich than poor Americans.
Whether or not more new poor people immigrate or are being born is a another matter.

They have a higher chance because there aren't as many poor people, nor are there many people immigrating to the country which would inflate the number of poor people. We can't really tell what Sweden would be like if its population were, say 50 million.

And pressure on the social programs is only an issue if the programs are either underfunded or badly designed.

Sweden's most definitely aren't; they're so well designed that the tax rates for corporations are effectively over 20% lower than they are in the US even though the official rate is higher. They know modern economics and globalization, and know how to use it to their advantage.

The trend we are seeing here is not the effect of capitalism in America but the effect of America's retreat from capitalism. "Free Market" is the sort of think that politicians advocate to get ellected and elliminate once they are in office.

They have a higher chance because there aren't as many poor people, nor are there many people immigrating to the country which would inflate the number of poor people. We can't really tell what Sweden would be like if its population were, say 50 million.
What's your rationale for that? I was under the impression they actually survey single people, not total numbers for this data.

The trend we are seeing here is not the effect of capitalism in America but the effect of America's retreat from capitalism. "Free Market" is the sort of think that politicians advocate to get ellected and elliminate once they are in office.
Then why is it that "socialist" Europe has pretty much the same social mobility index, even though it has in general much more comprehensive welfare programs etc...

Because we (the US) are becoming more like Europe. Unfortunately and regrettably.

Because we (the US) are becoming more like Europe. Unfortunately and regrettably.
Then why is it that the US apparently never had a particularly high Mobility Index?

This is my main objection to capitalism. In a meritocratic society, it is great - if everyone is given an equal opportunity then it is fair that some have greatly more than others.

However, America clearly isn't a meritocratic society. We all know that lazy and stupid people can succeed and hard working intelligent people can fail in America. Just look at George Bush - would he have succeeded had he being born to a poor family? It also seems the more capitalist people want even less equality of opportunity - with the whole thing about taking money away from public schools.

I read that Sweden has the highest social mobility rate in the world, with it making little difference where you start off in life - everyone had a chance to succeed. Therefore, people should be calling Sweden the land of opportunity, not America, unless you are talking about opportunity for the advantaged.
*claps* very good :fluffle:
(i especially like your point about george bush lol :D)


and interesting stuff, Leonstein :)

The trend we are seeing here is not the effect of capitalism in America but the effect of America's retreat from capitalism. "Free Market" is the sort of think that politicians advocate to get ellected and elliminate once they are in office.


How about that now! Rhetoric! I love reading rhetoric! The period of American history that had the freest trade was also the period that had the least class mobility and the greatest rich-poor gap. If anything, a restricted economy allows for more mobility. Your district can ban the entrances of Wal Marts, you can get economic compensation for starting a small business. Monopolies (the ultimate product of free trade) are banned, meaning you can try your hand at any industry or field you wish. Yet despite all this, class mobility is still difficult. My recommendation, give the property to everyone and class will vanish completely. Communist that I am.

The trend we are seeing here is not the effect of capitalism in America but the effect of America's retreat from capitalism. "Free Market" is the sort of think that politicians advocate to get ellected and elliminate once they are in office.
Capitalism and 'free market' are not synomonous. I see nothing in your post that supports the notion that the US is retreating from capitalism, much less that such a happenstance is causing a lack of economic class mobility.

Because we (the US) are becoming more like Europe. Unfortunately and regrettably.


Hey, how about this one now? America in the 60's had it's highest period of class mobility. The economy in this time was the most socialistic. The labor unions were at their strongest. I also thought that Affirmative Action (so obviously socialist) has increased the upward mobility of the American black population! Seems as though socialism seems to work!

Then why is it that the US apparently never had a particularly high Mobility Index?
Are you reading a diferent artical? Could you post it if you are? The Economist peice said that this was a recent (last few decades) trend.....

How about that now! Rhetoric! I love reading rhetoric! The period of American history that had the freest trade was also the period that had the least class mobility and the greatest rich-poor gap. If anything, a restricted economy allows for more mobility. Your district can ban the entrances of Wal Marts, you can get economic compensation for starting a small business. Monopolies (the ultimate product of free trade) are banned, meaning you can try your hand at any industry or field you wish. Yet despite all this, class mobility is still difficult. My recommendation, give the property to everyone and class will vanish completely. Communist that I am.

Did you notice that all those 'Robber Barons' that hte anti-trust laws were supposed to stop HAD competitors and WERE nuvoriche?

Hey, how about this one now? America in the 60's had it's highest period of class mobility. The economy in this time was the most socialistic. The labor unions were at their strongest. I also thought that Affirmative Action (so obviously socialist) has increased the upward mobility of the American black population! Seems as though socialism seems to work!

Actually Affirmative Action is'nt working so well at all. And the economy has become progressively more regulated since FDR. That is to say it is more regulated now than it was in the '60s

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gsolon/workingpapers/trends.pdf

I think I posted the wrong Solon paper...

Anyways, look at the data, you'll see that the trend is there, but that the change is not great.

Actually Affirmative Action is'nt working so well at all. And the economy has become progressively more regulated since FDR. That is to say it is more regulated now than it was in the '60s


We didn't know as much now as we knew then. And it lately has been de-regulated in certain fields while environmental, social and governmental regulations have increased. Right now, businesses have more independence than they did in the Mid 60's. Consequently, the quality of life then was better than it was now, and we have the labor movement to thank for this.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gsolon/workingpapers/trends.pdf

I think I posted the wrong Solon paper...

Anyways, look at the data, you'll see that the trend is there, but that the change is not great.

Well that's an interesting paper by two Economists? I'm guessing that someeconomists will agree with and others won't.

We didn't know as much now as we knew then. And it lately has been de-regulated in certain fields while environmental, social and governmental regulations have increased. Right now, businesses have more independence than they did in the Mid 60's. Consequently, the quality of life then was better than it was now, and we have the labor movement to thank for this.

1. What does "We didn't know as much now as we knew then." mean? Were you intending to use a different tense somewhere? I'm nnot being a grammer Nazi I just don't know what you mean,\.
2. The only major industry deregulation we've had recently was the t-com and it worked pretty well.
3. Many "environmental, social and governmental regulations" effect industry.

Well that's an interesting paper by two Economists? I'm guessing that some economists will agree with and others won't.
Nope, it's econometrics - there's nothing to disagree with.
Economists from all sides used samples of people for many years, measured what their parents made, and then followed their lives. It's the most unbiased thing you can do, and if it were, econometrics has mathematical ways of showing you that it is.
Read it, and tell me what you think is wrong about it.

Nope, it's econometrics - there's nothing to disagree with.
Economists from all sides used samples of people for many years, measured what their parents made, and then followed their lives. It's the most unbiased thing you can do, and if it were, econometrics has mathematical ways of showing you that it is.
Read it, and tell me what you think is wrong about it.

I skimmed. So far at pg. 9 they're discussing how they modified the data from the PSID. It's humorous in that htey begin by saying how they disliked dozens of other economists sampling of the same data. Then instantly begin modifying their sampling of the data to fit the premise. I could go further but my issues with economics is actually a whole new topic. Besides I'm not going to drudge through the whole thing unless someone is paying me to.....

It's humorous in that they begin by saying how they disliked dozens of other economists sampling of the same data.
But their problem is not the data, and that's the important bit.
The research conducted so far on intergenerational mobility trends has produced wildly divergent estimates. In this paper, we argue that this confusing array of evidence is an artifact of imprecise estimation, which in turn has stemmed from inefficient use of the available data. By drawing more fully on the information in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we generate more reliable estimates of the recent time-series variation in intergenerational mobility. For the most part, these estimates do not reveal major changes in intergenerational mobility.
That's just Econ-Speak for "I'm smarter than you guys".
Their method seems to be okay though - although I've only done an intro-course into Econometrics so far.

Then instantly begin modifying their sampling of the data to fit the premise.
In the next section, we reanalyze the PSID in a way that uses all available years for each sampled son and daughter. By making more efficient use of the available data, we are able to obtain more reliable estimates of changes in intergenerational mobility over time.
No, they're not remodelling though, they're just taking the lot of it and merging it together.

I could go further but my issues with economics is actually a whole new topic.
I'd like to hear it...you should start a thread about it. :D

The fact is in the US is that you make your own destiny. Yes of course there are things in life that put up obstacles and open doors. But overall control of your life course is up to you.

There will always be those that either dont want to work hard and achieve a good income. I have been to countries where this is not the case. Where it is very possible that however hard you try the system of that nation will keep you down. I dont think the people living in capitalistic style systems really understand the differences until they view the opposite for themselves.

The statistics field is just numbers that may tell you some things but they dont tell the whole story. I wouldnt read to much into a university profs study. I being an older American and experienced a good number of ups and downs in business and life. I know that it is possible to come from the bottom and rise near the top. You have to be capable mentally and sometimes physically to achieve what you want. Not everyone is willing to put in the effort. Therefore you get mixed results.

Overall I do know that Americans as a general whole are tough and resilliant group of people. I personally have faith in my fellow sisters and brothers in there ability to achieve the best for themselves. Something I do however see lacking in certain other nations that I have been to. Names withdrawn to protect the trolls.

There will always be those that either dont want to work hard and achieve a good income. I have been to countries where this is not the case. Where it is very possible that however hard you try the system of that nation will keep you down.
So you're confident to go against the evidence to keep your ideas intact?

And I really couldn't give a stuff about the trolls, because in the one European country where I lived some people made it, some didn't.
If you're attributing it to the system there, and in America to the people, then isn't that a double standard?

It's a clear argument for improving the American education system.

The fact is in the US is that you make your own destiny. Yes of course there are things in life that put up obstacles and open doors. But overall control of your life course is up to you.

....Of course it is. That's the single most idiotic statement I've heard this month. Let me explain. No matter who you are, where you are, your life will always be up you. You make choices. These 'obstacles' you talk about are things that can alter your life without a choice from you, some nations have less than the US, some third-world countries have more. The US does not magically give you the right to 'chart your own course', or anything like that. More the opposite. The US has a horrible class gap, corrupt politicians, a severe lack of education; in fact, I'd say you guys are pretty disadvantaged.


There will always be those that either dont want to work hard and achieve a good income. I have been to countries where this is not the case. Where it is very possible that however hard you try the system of that nation will keep you down. I dont think the people living in capitalistic style systems really understand the differences until they view the opposite for themselves.

Yup. Good job on making yourself look like a racist! People always want to better themselves. Capitalism simply allows for greater class gaps. 'ZOMG! DEM DAM AFWIKANS DAWNT WUNT 2 WURK HARD!!! lololol'. Of course nobody wants to work hard. If someone walked up to me, and offered me ten million dollars a year, to live as I wish, on the condition I didn't work, do you honestly think I would refuse? We work to survive, and better ourselves. Countries don't magically have lazy people, there are lazy people everywhere.



The statistics field is just numbers that may tell you some things but they dont tell the whole story. I wouldnt read to much into a university profs study. I being an older American and experienced a good number of ups and downs in business and life. I know that it is possible to come from the bottom and rise near the top. You have to be capable mentally and sometimes physically to achieve what you want. Not everyone is willing to put in the effort. Therefore you get mixed results.

Yup. Damn straight. They only went to university for 4-5 years, and studied what they are talking about exclusively, yet, on your word, we cna accept "it is possible to come up from the bottom to the top". Hey, thanks for showing us a universally accepted truth which we all know, and making yourself look rather silly. Of course not everyone is willing to put in the effort. Lazy people will be poor, however, people born into rich families will almost automatically stay rich. It's the different between climbing a ladder and going down a slide. It's very easy to go down, and hard to go up.


Overall I do know that Americans as a general whole are tough and resilliant group of people. I personally have faith in my fellow sisters and brothers in there ability to achieve the best for themselves. Something I do however see lacking in certain other nations that I have been to. Names withdrawn to protect the trolls.

Right. So, you've proven yourself to be a racist, someone who probably puts the Bible as gospel truth, no matter what, someone who's probably never left their home in their life, and someone who has no idea what they're on about.

Americans are not a 'tough and resilient group of people'. To the rest of the world, we consider you a bunch of illeducated, crybaby pussies. The conservatives try to look tough, and the 'liberals' try to appease them.

Americans are no more tough and resilient than say, the Chinese. They work hard, long hours, with little pay, for foreign companies, are mistreated, do not get government funding if they have more than one child, and eat poorly, for the most part. The Chinese have proven themselves to be tough and resilient, and shoulder on, despite their troubles.

Now, let's see what the Americans did.... Oh wait, that's right! They came in at the end of WWII, waited for everyone to waste themselves dying, when they could've saved millions more lives involving themselves earlier! Good job guys! You really make us proud! I mean, with all the third-world countries you've oppressed, people you've slaughtered, democratically elected leaders you've taken down and put a dictatorship in their place to make them more "Pro-American", and the idiotic leaders you elect, you must be 'tough and resilient', right? Right?

Lazy people will be poor, however, people born into rich families will almost automatically stay rich. It's the different between climbing a ladder and going down a slide. It's very easy to go down, and hard to go up.
*claps* yeah i think that about sums it up
have a cookie :)

a true meritocracy, as so many people appear to believe america or - by extension - capitalism naturally is, requires equal opportunities and equal chances to suceed. that is by no means true in capitalism (or america). simple.

Actually Affirmative Action is'nt working so well at all. And the economy has become progressively more regulated since FDR. That is to say it is more regulated now than it was in the '60s
regulation of the economy and socialistic welfare and wealth redistribution programmes aren't necissarily the same (though they do usually come in the same package... evidently not always though)

Overall I do know that Americans as a general whole are tough and resilliant group of people. I personally have faith in my fellow sisters and brothers in there ability to achieve the best for themselves. Something I do however see lacking in certain other nations that I have been to. Names withdrawn to protect the trolls.

HEIL ZE AMERICAN MASTER RACE! Death to all sub human Europeans!

Just in Marrakech's defense here...don't misinterpret him - he's not one of those fundamentalist types.

....Of course it is. That's the single most idiotic statement I've heard this month. Let me explain. No matter who you are, where you are, your life will always be up you. You make choices. These 'obstacles' you talk about are things that can alter your life without a choice from you, some nations have less than the US, some third-world countries have more. The US does not magically give you the right to 'chart your own course', or anything like that. More the opposite. The US has a horrible class gap, corrupt politicians, a severe lack of education; in fact, I'd say you guys are pretty disadvantaged.



Yup. Good job on making yourself look like a racist! People always want to better themselves. Capitalism simply allows for greater class gaps. 'ZOMG! DEM DAM AFWIKANS DAWNT WUNT 2 WURK HARD!!! lololol'. Of course nobody wants to work hard. If someone walked up to me, and offered me ten million dollars a year, to live as I wish, on the condition I didn't work, do you honestly think I would refuse? We work to survive, and better ourselves. Countries don't magically have lazy people, there are lazy people everywhere.




Yup. Damn straight. They only went to university for 4-5 years, and studied what they are talking about exclusively, yet, on your word, we cna accept "it is possible to come up from the bottom to the top". Hey, thanks for showing us a universally accepted truth which we all know, and making yourself look rather silly. Of course not everyone is willing to put in the effort. Lazy people will be poor, however, people born into rich families will almost automatically stay rich. It's the different between climbing a ladder and going down a slide. It's very easy to go down, and hard to go up.



Right. So, you've proven yourself to be a racist, someone who probably puts the Bible as gospel truth, no matter what, someone who's probably never left their home in their life, and someone who has no idea what they're on about.

Americans are not a 'tough and resilient group of people'. To the rest of the world, we consider you a bunch of illeducated, crybaby pussies. The conservatives try to look tough, and the 'liberals' try to appease them.

Americans are no more tough and resilient than say, the Chinese. They work hard, long hours, with little pay, for foreign companies, are mistreated, do not get government funding if they have more than one child, and eat poorly, for the most part. The Chinese have proven themselves to be tough and resilient, and shoulder on, despite their troubles.

Now, let's see what the Americans did.... Oh wait, that's right! They came in at the end of WWII, waited for everyone to waste themselves dying, when they could've saved millions more lives involving themselves earlier! Good job guys! You really make us proud! I mean, with all the third-world countries you've oppressed, people you've slaughtered, democratically elected leaders you've taken down and put a dictatorship in their place to make them more "Pro-American", and the idiotic leaders you elect, you must be 'tough and resilient', right? Right?

Obviously your the one thats the racist here my friend. You have totally taken my whole statement way out of context. You are just trying to promote anti-American sentiment on the boards. You also think that im Christian. Wrong, but so is your post. Try trolling somewhere else.

HEIL ZE AMERICAN MASTER RACE! Death to all sub human Europeans!

Wasn't it a German who said something like that, and started that bit of unpleasantness in Europe?

Not an American.

I've lived in Germany and in the US, and I can tell you that if you're in the middle class, you have a lot more social mobility in the US than you have in Germany.

I've lived in Germany and in the US, and I can tell you that if you're in the middle class, you have a lot more social mobility in the US than you have in Germany.
And I challenge you to prove that. The data doesn't seem to suggest it, and it seems like one can't trust subjective judgement here because of this whole "American Dream" perception.

And I challenge you to prove that. The data doesn't seem to suggest it, and it seems like one can't trust subjective judgement here because of this whole "American Dream" perception.

In the US, the middle class, as long as they stay employed, gets to borrow money at low interest to buy property, which to date has only accrued in value far over the initial borrowed amount.

Technically, many people in the US middle class stand to become millionaires, if on paper only.

I might add also that when I was in Germany, you couldn't get work as a programmer (for instance) unless you had a computer science degree. There was no such thing as changing your career midstream (as so many people can do here in the US). It appeared that as soon as you were slated to go to gymnasium, you had a chance in life - everyone else was nailed to the floor as far as social mobility goes.

Here, a guy who was never good in school can make money as a metals trader, or a real estate broker - or can even change his mind in mid career, take a few classes, and become a programmer. It's nowhere near as flexible in Germany.

The flexibility isn't for everyone in the US. But, according to the wage model that is the gold standard for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the primary factor in how mobile you are and how much you'll make in the US is not race, nor your parents' wages - it's your final level of education at age 23.

If you have some college (at least a couple of years), you're on the up side of the curve. If you don't, the best wages you'll make in your life, in real dollars adjusted for inflation, will be at age 18 - it's all downhill from there.

Your next major indicator of wage earning and career mobility is whether or not you're a woman.

The Social Security Administration came to the same conclusions, and accepts the same wage model. It's the only model accepted in court for wage loss or wage prediction.

In the US, the middle class, as long as they stay employed, gets to borrow money at low interest to buy property, which to date has only accrued in value far over the initial borrowed amount.

Technically, many people in the US middle class stand to become millionaires, if on paper only.
And in Germany people can't borrow money for low interest and expect some sort of return from it? Taxes have been cut quite a bit, and rather controversially, short term investment isn't taxed at all anymore in the country.

I might add also that when I was in Germany, you couldn't get work as a programmer (for instance) unless you had a computer science degree. There was no such thing as changing your career midstream (as so many people can do here in the US). It appeared that as soon as you were slated to go to gymnasium, you had a chance in life - everyone else was nailed to the floor as far as social mobility goes.
That used to be like that, but they're introducing new schools that have all three types integrated. That gives every kid the opportunity to change as time goes by.
But true, if you don't go to university, your chances of becoming rich are smaller than if you do. Both in Germany and in the US.

Here, a guy who was never good in school can make money as a metals trader, or a real estate broker - or can even change his mind in mid career, take a few classes, and become a programmer. It's nowhere near as flexible in Germany.
Used to be. They've changed the market quite a bit over time.
Nonetheless, this data that primarily shows the correlation between parent's and children's income doesn't suggest that the US is performing much better than Western Europe.
That being said, the school system in Germany is woeful right now, and apparently much worse than in most countries. So perhaps it's not the most representative of samples.

The flexibility isn't for everyone in the US. But, according to the wage model that is the gold standard for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the primary factor in how mobile you are and how much you'll make in the US is not race, nor your parents' wages - it's your final level of education at age 23.
Well, it ultimately depends on whether the education you get depends on your parents' wages.

the lessening social mobility is a result of complacent poor because of the welfare state. When all is provided why work?

the lessening social mobility is a result of complacent poor because of the welfare state. When all is provided why work?
Did you actually look at any of the data?
There seems to be no clear relationship between the size of the welfare system and social mobility, as the US is doing no better than Europe, despite paying less welfare.

Well, it ultimately depends on whether the education you get depends on your parents' wages.

Mine didn't pay for me.

I worked my way through college, and didn't live at home. My parents provided no support.

Later, I enlisted in the Army - just to do it - and when I came out, I worked my way through law school.

I've been out and living on my own since I was 18, and never had any help from my parents. Nor did I leave home with some huge pot of money. Nor have I inherited any wealth.

indeed Sierra, opportunity is there for those willing to work and take advantage. people are also free to be indolent

Mine didn't pay for me.
Mine aren't paying either. Tight-Arses...:p

Mine aren't paying either. Tight-Arses...:p
What I liked about it was that they weren't telling me how to live my life. Money from parents usually comes with a cost...

Mine didn't pay for me.

I worked my way through college, and didn't live at home. My parents provided no support.

Later, I enlisted in the Army - just to do it - and when I came out, I worked my way through law school.

I've been out and living on my own since I was 18, and never had any help from my parents. Nor did I leave home with some huge pot of money. Nor have I inherited any wealth.


And in what way would that not have been possible in allegedly class-obsessed Europe?
To give you the example of my brother : He went to Hauptschule first, continued on with Realschule after passing the necessary test, did an apprenticeship to become a carpenter, went back to FOS after finishing that to get his Abitur, went to nursing college and is now preparing to study medicine at university.
Where is the major obstacle you were talking about? Even the dreadfully obsolete German school system allows people to get back into education at any level and at any stage of their life, and does even more than that by encouraging people by offering financial assistance.

And in what way would that not have been possible in allegedly class-obsessed Europe?
To give you the example of my brother : He went to Hauptschule first, continued on with Realschule after passing the necessary test, did an apprenticeship to become a carpenter, went back to FOS after finishing that to get his Abitur, went to nursing college and is now preparing to study medicine at university.
Where is the major obstacle you were talking about? Even the dreadfully obsolete German school system allows people to get back into education at any level and at any stage of their life, and does even more than that by encouraging people by offering financial assistance.

It wasn't too flexible in the 1980s in Germany.