<p>The brothers stayed close, the whole family stayed close–although the early poverty has taken a toll on their health, IMHO. </p>
<p>The brother did go up several classes to solid middle class, nowhere near the stratospheric level of FIL. Likewise, the Bs children and grandchildren have not had the benefits of that new wealth (my children vs Bs grandchildren). The differences in health, education, social and economic standing are vast-- and widening at an astounding pace.</p>
<p>There isn’t a happy vs unhappy correlation in their case. H’s family had a ball–but H’s parents are amazing people with hearts the size of small continents. Also, keep in mind, it wasn’t an overnight deal. It was a step by step climb, through every levvel of economic class. For example, when H went to Private U, his father said he didn’t know how he would pay the tuition because it didn’t fit into their budget. (He never told H). H didn’t have super luxuries in his childhood.</p>
<p>In fact, the bulk of FIL fortune came after I married H, as FIL was nearing fifty.</p>
<p>H didn’t marry a rich woman, but he did marry a woman from a generations-old upper middle class background, ie generations of private schooling, generations of business success, generations of university education. </p>
<p>There is insider knowledge in the higher classes. Besides being a confidence booster, that knowledge has tangible financial rewards.</p>
<p>I have my doubts about one of the underlying points of the NYT piece: that social mobility in the US is declining. The studies for which I saw summaries (admittedly not the studies themselves…) had some pretty big flaws, including these:
Immigrants were excluded. I could go on about this, but it seems self explanatory. The Latino or East Asian who arrives broke, builds a business and sends his son to Harvard is excluded from the study.
Fathers and sons are both considered at age 30, to keep consistent with data from 40+ years ago. Interesting, and perhaps all they could do, but at 30 a man of 1960 was well into what might be a permanent career. Today, his son might just be finishing grad school…
Woman aren’t considered. This is always a bad idea, and even more so today when family income is so heavily dependent on two incomes…</p>
<p>One study I read suggested that France has higher social mobility than the US. I know this is ludicrous from personal observation.</p>
<p>The mobility studies need to be taken with 10-lb grain of salt.</p>
<p>The NYT series does not deny the rags to riches stories or that people can’t be happy in the class they are in. I don’t believe they have any agenda other than to say that, class exists and it can be a barrier to moving up. Personally, I would call that a point of view, not an agenda. I suggest you go watch the interactive of Della for a deeper understanding of what the series is about.</p>
<p>The study did not suggest that France has a higher mobilility rate than the U.S. It shows that Scandinavian countries do. In the chart, France was below the U.S. And the four factors they used to define class were education, income, occupation and wealth. </p>
<p>Again, I didn’t see anything in the series that said upward mobility is not possible. It just seemed to be saying that achieving it is a slow process and might take several generations to accomplish. And beyond the discussion of upward mobility, the series was pointing out some of the differences and effects of class. I thought it was quite thought provoking and found a lot of truth in each article - I’ve seen evidence of the differences in class and how it affects decisions, beliefs and values - I’ve seen it in my own life and right here on this forum.</p>
<p>I didn’t pay much attention to the source for the times, but if it excluded women, its completely useless. Who held the jobs that Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina hold(held) 30 years ago?. Not to mention thousands of other positions in law, medicine and business. Excluding women at a time when they came to make up a huge part of the workforce is going to skew any result designed to measure the men.</p>
<p>[I’ve made the point before that (I believe) a lot of the so-called “increase in inequality” of incomes is the direct result of opportunities for women over the past 30 years.]</p>
<p>There are some good letters to the times today about that article.</p>