This article is full of more holes than extruded polystyrene. To avoid writing a book, I'll focus just on this one paragraph:
"In free market societies, individuals are highly unlikely to remain in the same economic position as their grandparents. So poor families don’t tend to stay poor and rich families don’t tend to stay rich: capitalism is the opposite of a class-based system. The simple reason for these continual changes in social status is that while one can inherit wealth, holding onto it isn't so easy. Other contributors to social status, like making friends and earning a reputation for virtue or talent, can’t be inherited at all. Why do you think the Kennedys have gone into politics? They can't hack it in business, that's why. How well is the Ford clan doing holding onto the wealth Henry Ford created? The Fords are one of the most successful wealthy families, yet their firm is nearly bankrupt, with a negligible stock value, and it has burned up tens of billions of their dollars over the last two decades. Has the Picasso clan been dominating the art world lately?"
To begin, the example of the Fords is a fine case of how this isn't true. The Fords may not be as successful at business as Henry, but they remain, despite their alleged lack of ability, wealthy business owners. No one would call the Fords "middle class."
I can also look at myself. Despite it being "highly unlikely," I'm still at the same socio-economic status as my paternal grandfather. So is my father. In fact, I can trace the paternal line of my family to the founding of Rhode Island colony, and back to England, to the father of Edward the Heretic, who was the last man burned at the stake in Merry England.
Every single one of these WIghtmans was middle class. They were preachers, land speculators, librarians, photographers, and the sort of American farmers that were called "pillars of the community." The only near miss was William Alonzo Wightman, who contracted syphilis, went insane, and died in an asylum. But, thanks to his extended family, his children were able to retain their middle-class status. Fourteen generations of unbroken "highly unlikely" events.
Contrast this with my paternal grandmother. The Woodhursts can also be traced back to the 18th century, mostly by looking at the roles of work houses and poor farms. The only exception was my grandmother, who, alone among her family, went to college, entered the middle class, and married my grandfather. Eighteen generations, seventeen of them "highly unlikely" cases of not changing socio-economic status.
A lot more goes into social status than simply having a talent for making money. I have both the math and the psychology background to be pretty good at it. But to enter the world of the wealthy I'd need something more. Aside from a desire to do so, I'd also need connections, experience in speaking the language of finance, and money. The number one reason new business ventures fail--which the majority of them do--is that they are under-capitalized. Which is as much to say, the main reason most who try don't break into the ranks of the wealthy is that they aren't already wealthy.
Bea Woodhurst's case illustrates another interesting point. Change of social class almost always entails loss of relationships. When Bea went to college, she did it alone, without looking back. Or so she told the story. But another part of it was that her father had laid the groundwork for her. He'd made the transition from farm laborer to skilled laborer, and by getting a job as a servant to a wealthier family--he was a chauffeur--he exposed her to middle-class culture. Be that as it may, she still had to leave her family behind. She pulled it off. When you're poor, all you have is each other. Those who have nothing must give up even what they have, for hope of change.
So, yeah, it is possible to advance yourself in a capitalist society. But it is, to borrow a phrase, "highly unlikely."
No comments:
Post a Comment