I read a recent article that linked persistent poverty to family role models, exactly what John was saying. The wealthy stay wealthy through the generations in part because their parents teach them all the skills needed to thrive in the world. The poor stay poor, because the parents don't have time to spend on developing their child. For example, my Uncle and Aunt emigrated from a Communist country. They came here and each worked 3 jobs for over 40 years. They had no time for their son. My parents raised their son for many years and taught him the skills he needed. Long story short, he grew up to be a very successful upper middle class citizen. My brother and I have both move into the top 1% from parents who were VERY middle class. It boils down to one primary thing, parenting. If the parents are there and have the time, ability, and desire to do the parenting, then the child has a high probability to succeed. If the parents are divorced, working several jobs, and have no time or ability to do the parenting, then the child will face staggering odds of improving from the previous generation.
So is it the chicken or the egg? Is it poverty or is it the parenting? I think it's more the parenting. i've known some very poor people who made sure their kids got the early parenting they needed, despite enormous odds. It's an interesting debate, though, because the answer really could be either way. Who really knows? |
