# The Glass Floor Not The Glass Ceiling



## Dellas (Feb 20, 2020)

*The ‘Glass Floor’ Is Keeping America’s Richest Idiots At The Top*
Elites are finding more ways to ensure that their children never run out of chances to fail.

In 2014, Zach Dell launched a dating app called Thread. It was nearly identical to Tinder: Users created a profile, uploaded photos and swiped through potential matches.

The only twist on the formula was that Thread was restricted to university students and explicitly designed to produce relationships rather than hookups. The app’s tagline was “Stay Classy.”


Zach Dell is the son of billionaire tech magnate Michael Dell. Though he told reporters that he wasn’t relying on family money, Thread’s early investors included a number of his father’s friends, including Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff.

The app failed almost instantly. Perhaps the number of monogamy-seeking students just wasn’t large enough, or capping users at 10 matches per day limited the app’s addictiveness. It could also have been the mismatch between Thread’s chaste motto and its user experience. Users got just 70 characters to describe themselves on their profiles. Most of them resorted to catchphrases like “Hook ’em” and “Netflix is life.”

After Thread went bust, Dell moved into philanthropy with a startup called Sqwatt, which promised to deliver “low-cost sanitation solutions for the developing world.” Aside from an empty website and a promotional video with fewer than 100 views, the effort seems to have disappeared.

*And yet, despite helming two failed ventures and having little work experience beyond an internship at a financial services company created to manage his father’s fortune, things seem to be working out for Zach Dell. According to his LinkedIn profile, he is now an analyst for the private equity firm Blackstone. He is 22.*

*America has a social mobility problem. Children born in 1940 had a 90% chance of earning more than their parents. For children born in 1984, the odds were 50-50.*

Most accounts of this trend focus on the breakdown of _upward_ mobility: _*It’s getting harder for the poor to become rich. But equally important is the decline of downward mobility: The rich, regardless of their intelligence, are becoming more likely to stay that way.*_

“There’s a lot of talent being wasted because it’s not able to rise, but there’s also a lot of relatively untalented people who aren’t falling and end up occupying positions they shouldn’t,” said Richard Reeves, a Brookings Institution researcher and the author of “Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It_._″

According to research carried out by Reeves and others, the likelihood of the rich passing their status down to their children — “stickiness,” in economist-speak — has surpassed the likelihood of poor children remaining poor.

“If we were becoming less of a class-bound society, stickiness at the top should have gone down,” Reeves said. “But the evidence shows that it’s gone up.”

This phenomenon — Reeves calls it “the glass floor” — has taken on a new political urgency. *Over the last two years, Donald Trump has put his family members in charge of child care policy and Middle East peace. Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian board membership has highlighted how corporations and foreign governments seek to influence elected officials through their children.

And who can forget Koch nephew Wyatt *and his line of $79 floral button-ups?

But billionaire heirs are only a tiny part of the problem. Over the last 30 years, nearly every institution of social mobility, from education to work to government spending, has been systematically tilted toward the wealthy. Rather than sending our most brilliant minds up the income ladder, America is ensuring that the wealthy, no matter their mediocrity, retain their grip on the highest rung.

“The sense that there’s a self-sustaining and self-dealing group at the top isn’t wrong,” Reeves said. “When you create a ‘meritocratic’ selection process where the production of merit is increasingly skewed by parental income, you end up with a hereditary meritocracy.”

*The rich, in other words, are not sending their best. And the more institutions they control, the more of their kids will be running the country.*

*Elite Entrenchment Goes Far Beyond The Ivy League*
Last month, a Duke University study revealed that *43% of white Harvard students were not admitted on merit. *They were ALDCs: recruited athletes, legacies, students on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff. *The “dean’s interest list” is a roster of applicants with ties to wealthy donors.*

The study — and the racial discrimination lawsuit that forced Harvard to reveal its admissions data — demonstrated the extent to which elite universities concentrate the privilege of their already-privileged students. To pick just a few representative statistics, children from the top 1% of the income distribution are 77 times more likely to attend Ivy League schools than the poorest 20%. Harvard’s class of 2022 includes more legacy students than African American students.
But when it comes to social mobility, the outsized scrutiny of the top-tier colleges conceals a much larger problem. Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Princeton admit only a tiny number of students each. In 2016, the University of Washington enrolled more low-income applicants than the entire student bodies of all four colleges combined. Among the nation’s top 10% of income earners, fewer than 1 in 20 attended the tiny number of “Ivy-plus” universities. Even if those elite schools enrolled low-income students exclusively, America’s abysmal social mobility statistics would barely budge.

The more important engine of elite entrenchment is the group of selective colleges that sit one rung lower in the rankings. More than half the children of the top 0.1% of income earners attend these schools, compared with fewer than 1 in 50 poor children.

Having a college degree is most beneficial to the kids who aren’t that smart.Richard Reeves, Brookings Institution researcher
*Over the last 20 years, selective universities have become just as dominated by the wealthy as the elite colleges — while receiving a fraction of the attention. Notre Dame, the University of North Carolina and the University of Southern California, for example, admit higher percentages of legacy students than Princeton. Thirty-eight colleges — including upper-crust *mainstays Colgate and Tufts — admit more students from the top 1% than from the bottom 60%. At Washington University in St. Louis, the worst offender, the ratio is 3-to-1.

“These aren’t just elite institutions, they’re elitist institutions,” Reeves said. “They end up serving the children of today’s elite rather than preparing tomorrow’s elite.”


*Public colleges are subject to the same trend. In 2017, University of Georgia students had a median family income of $129,800. Two-thirds of the students at the University of Michigan came from the *richest fifth of the income distribution; just 1 in 30 came from the poorest fifth.

“This is what inherited wealth looks like for the top 20%,” Reeves said. “You don’t save your money and give it to your kids as a bequest. You spend it on your kids so they don’t need the bequest. It’s an upfront investment.”

But as universities tilt their admissions toward the wealthy, Reeves said, they aren’t just leaving talented low-income students behind. They’re also lifting mediocre rich students up. A 2005 study found that wealthy middle-schoolers with the lowest standardized test scores were more likely to graduate from college than poor middle-schoolers with the highest scores. Students with average SAT results are nearly six times more likely to be admitted to top-tier universities if their parents are alumni. One of Reeves’ studies found that 43% of the members of upper-class households had skills and intelligence that predicted lower incomes.

“Having a college degree is most beneficial to the kids who aren’t that smart,” Reeves said. Intelligent kids will have thousands of opportunities to demonstrate their skills. Less-talented kids, on the other hand, have to rely on credentials that make them _seem_ intelligent — high SAT scores, top-tier diplomas and corporate internships.

As elites take over selective colleges, invest more in test-prep courses and reserve entry-level jobs for their peers, they will continue to monopolize these credentials for themselves.

*Elites Are Becoming More Insular*
*The U.S. economy produces fewer secure, well-paying jobs than it used to. Most American industries are consolidating into a few dominant players. Technology, globalization and outsourcing have pushed entry-level and support roles out to low-wage workers.*

This leaves a growing number of Americans competing for a shrinking number of jobs. And all the evidence indicates that corporations are reserving them for people who are already wealthy.

In 2016, researchers sent hundreds of résumés to high-end law firms. They were identical in degrees and grade-point averages, but researchers tweaked the extracurricular activities to make some candidates seem rich (sailing, classical music) and others seem poor (track and field, country music). *At the end of the study, upper-class men had been invited to 12 times more interviews than lower-class men. *

Other studies have found similar class-based sorting practices in elite professions. In a 2012 survey, more than half the hiring managers in corporate law and finance firms said “cultural fit” was their No. 1 criterion for assessing candidates in job interviews. Some human resources managers screened out qualified candidates who had the “wrong” extracurricular activities. Others admitted to throwing out applicants without elite college credentials.

And then there’s the nepotism. According to a 2011 study, 70% of boys born into the top 1% of income earners ended up working at their father’s company at some point in their lives, a larger percentage than other income brackets. In 2006, researchers found that nearly one-third of new CEOs were hired through a family connection.

There’s a fixed number of people who will be upper class in the future, and elites have the tools to make sure that their children are among them. But the more power they have and the more they’re worth, the more damaging it will be to everyone else.Joseph Fishkin, author of “Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity”
There is, of course, nothing special about human beings showing favoritism to their friends and relatives. But, according to Joseph Fishkin, a University of Texas at Austin professor and the author of “Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity,” the rise of inequality has created a vicious cycle. The harder life gets for people at the bottom of the income distribution, the more desperate elites become to preserve their status for their children.

“The greater the inequality, the greater the impact on opportunity,” Fishkin said. “There’s a self-fulfilling class anxiety among the middle- and upper-middle class because they sense that the spaces are scarce now. There are fewer secure jobs. And the scarcer they are, the more valuable they are.”

And though it may be understandable for wealthy parents to use their power to insulate their children from downward mobility, the broader effect of this trend could be severe. According to Reeves, dozens of studies have estimated the negative effects of failing to tap into the talents of low-income students. Far fewer, however, have considered the drag on the gross domestic product caused by unintelligent CEOs and Ivy League HR staffers hiring people just like themselves.

“No one is in favor of downward mobility,” Reeves said. “But if there isn’t enough circulation of elites at the top of their professions, you’re going to get stagnation.”

There is also the question of diversity. If social mobility continues to fall, America’s ruling class will become increasingly insular, considering almost exclusively the perspectives of wealthy heirs and elite college graduates. Already, 90% of families that earn over $118,000 per year are white. Of the 102 new senators and representatives elected in 2018, more than half attended the most selective colleges in the country. Eight of the nine Supreme Court justices graduated from just two law schools.

America is at risk of entrenching a ruling class that looks even less like a meritocracy than it does now. Just 22% of the Forbes 400 inherited less than $1 million in family wealth. One-quarter of the Forbes 1,115 are related to at least one other person on the list.⁠ According to a 2014 study, members of the top 1% inherited an average of $2 million each; members of the top 10% inherited $618,000.

“There’s a fixed number of people who will be upper class in the future, and elites have the tools to make sure that their children are among them,” Fishkin said. “But the more power they have and the more they’re worth, the more damaging it will be to everyone else.”

In 2012, Zach Dell was featured on the Rich Kids of Instagram social media account, growling at the camera as he ate a four-course meal on a private jet. His sister Alexa, now a “branding consultant” for the dating app Bumble, captioned the picture “Snachary en route to Fiji.”

After the picture was widely mocked online, Alexa and Zach shut down their media accounts and have made few public statements since. In a rare interview five years later, Alexa was asked about the advice she got from her father growing up.

“Hard work,” she said, “is really the foundation of success.”


----------



## kupenda (Feb 20, 2020)

This is fascinating. Thank you!


----------



## RoundEyedGirl504 (Feb 20, 2020)

Not surprising. I clocked this fresh out of college 15 years ago. There were those of us who had to go through the standard recruiting process and the other people who miraculously did not meet the GPA and other standards but whose uncles/fathers/etc played golf with the shot callers. And those people were gently counseled into management level positions in other sectors at some point.


----------



## Keen (Feb 20, 2020)

RoundEyedGirl504 said:


> Not surprising. I clocked this fresh out of college 15 years ago.* There were those of us who had to go through the standard recruiting process and the other people who miraculously did not meet the GPA and other standards but whose uncles/fathers/etc played golf with the shot callers. And those people were gently counseled into management level positions in other sectors at some point*.



Those same people are quick to let you know they pulled themselves by their bootstrap. Some of our boots don't have straps. Some of us don't even have boots.


----------



## madamdot (Feb 20, 2020)

Yes! This is particularly clear in DC where contacts are everything. I've met a number of people in top positions with very little experience or smarts. But they went to top colleges and if you ever work on a project with them you know they are not smarter than you and in some cases they are dumber than rocks.


----------



## sunnieb (Feb 20, 2020)

OMG!

As I've worked my way up through the ranks in the Fed, it's ridiculous how many nimcumpoops out here!

@madamdot so true!  We get a team together to work on a major project and they sit there looking like a deer in headlights.  The rest of us are rockin and rollin using standard terms and processes, but Ivy League don't have a clue. Not all of them, but enough of them are like this.


----------



## NijaG (Feb 20, 2020)

Not surprised. US whites are just reverting to what their ancestors and modern version (Western European) are doing.

Fiefdom and Serfdom but in the form of Corporate mergers and alliances.  (which will progressively get ruled by a downward spiral of their not-so-smart progeny) who will make things more uncomfortable for the masses until another type/form of revolution happens.

Que.... history repeating itself in uprisings and war globally.


----------



## Kanky (Feb 21, 2020)

Dellas said:


> Already, 90% of families that earn over $118,000 per year are white.



They make a good point about how rich kids fail up but this is part is just weird. This is a normal income for a married couple with regular old jobs. This is what a teacher and a retail store manager might earn together, so I’m not sure what this has to do with elites. Maybe it’s here so that delusional barely middle class white folks will continue to think that they have more in common with the rich than the poor?


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 21, 2020)

Kanky said:


> They make a good point about how rich kids fail up but this is part is just weird. This is a normal income for a married couple with regular old jobs. This is what a teacher and a retail store manager might earn together, so I’m not sure what this has to do with elites. Maybe it’s here so that delusional barely middle class white folks will continue to think that they have more in common with the rich than the poor?


The average family makes nowhere near that.


----------



## Kanky (Feb 21, 2020)

Kurlee said:


> The average family makes nowhere near that.


If you are talking about single mothers and their kids then maybe not. But married parents are easily in that household income range and there is nothing elite about it. The average salary for a teacher is about 60k.  That’s also pretty close to average for police officers, nurses, IT workers ect. This is not an elite household income at all. This is middle class for married folks.


----------



## UmSumayyah (Feb 21, 2020)

Kanky said:


> If you are talking about single mothers and their kids then maybe not. But married parents are easily in that household income range and there is nothing elite about it. The average salary for a teacher is about 60k.  That’s also pretty close to average for police officers, nurses, IT workers ect. This is not an elite household income at all. This is middle class for married folks.


Cultural norms have consequences and this is one. 

Adding extra obstacles is not a good idea.


----------



## LivingInPeace (Feb 21, 2020)

In *2019*, *median household income* in the *United States* was $63,030.00.


----------



## GreenEyedJen (Feb 21, 2020)

Kanky said:


> If you are talking about single mothers and their kids then maybe not. But married parents are easily in that household income range and there is nothing elite about it. The average salary for a teacher is about 60k.  That’s also pretty close to average for police officers, nurses, IT workers ect. This is not an elite household income at all. *This is middle class for married folks.*



No. It is not.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 21, 2020)

Kanky said:


> If you are talking about single mothers and their kids then maybe not. But married parents are easily in that household income range and there is nothing elite about it. The average salary for a teacher is about 60k.  That’s also pretty close to average for polhing.ice officers, nurses, IT workers ect. This is not an elite household income at all. This is middle class for married folks.


  Who said anything about elite? Divorced/single/widowed parents are the only poor people in society? IF the average family was making this kind of money, poverty wouldn't be a thing. People wouldn't be struggling to own homes or be in so much debt.  The median income levels for families are nowhere near 120k. The "working poor" and "disappearing middle class" are a thing for a reason . Oy.

ETA: And don't forget to consider the shift towards multi-generational living due to the gig economy/millenials going back home/marrying later + cost of living + health care + wage stagnation....if people had it like that, we wouldn't be seeing these trends.


----------



## Kanky (Feb 21, 2020)

GreenEyedJen said:


> No. It is not.


Did you read that report?

“Real median family income was $78,646.”

Half of families make more than this. It is very middle class and normal for married parents to make 100k a year or so.


LivingInPeace said:


> In *2019*, *median household income* in the *United States* was $63,030.00.


Which means that half make more. When you consider all of the single people, widows, retirees, ect in the lower half it should be very to see why 118k is still very middle class for married parents.


----------



## Kanky (Feb 21, 2020)

Kurlee said:


> Who said anything about elite? Divorced/single/widowed parents are the only poor people in society? IF the average family was making this kind of money, poverty wouldn't be a thing. People wouldn't be struggling to own homes or be in so much debt.  The median income levels for families are nowhere near 120k. The "working poor" and "disappearing middle class" are a thing for a reason . Oy.
> 
> ETA: And don't forget to consider the shift towards multi-generational living due to the gig economy/millenials going back home/marrying later....if people had it like that, we wouldn't be seeing these trends.


 @ “Who said anything about elite?” The whole article is criticizing the elites. Which is why including some random white folks with middle class dollars makes no sense in an article about the children of tech billionaires and people buying their way into Harvard.

https://datacenter.kidscount.org/da.../37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/any/365


----------



## GreenEyedJen (Feb 21, 2020)

Kanky said:


> Did you read that report?
> 
> “Real median family income was $78,646.”
> 
> ...



Okay. Half make $79k. So it’s NOT normal to make $100k. It’s “normal” for a family to make $79k. $11k more is a large difference.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 22, 2020)

Kanky said:


> @ *“Who said anything about elite?” The whole article is criticizing the elites. *Which is why including some random white folks with middle class dollars makes no sense in an article about the children of tech billionaires and people buying their way into Harvard.
> 
> https://datacenter.kidscount.org/da.../37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/any/365


Elite in regard to constructing the 118k income level as elite. The data above also includes all kinds of families—married, divorced, single parent...Let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## Kanky (Feb 22, 2020)

UmSumayyah said:


> Cultural norms have consequences and this is one.
> 
> Adding extra obstacles is not a good idea.



It is sad that we are so far gone that we don’t know what middle class for married people even looks like.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 22, 2020)

Kanky said:


> *It is sad that we are so far gone that we don’t know what middle class for married people even looks like.*


But...... the source you posted says the median income for families is $74,200. It also defines
median annual income for families with own children under age 18 living in the household as:  _including the householder's (head of the household) children by birth, marriage, or adoption._ This includes all family formations and doesn't specify the kind of family.

The data you posted also says: _The median income is the dollar amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups--half with income above the median, half with income below it._ This means that if you were to carve out a middle class, the range of values for a "middle class" would have some values below $74,200, right around it and then above it.

Simply put, the data doesn't support your 118k figure, so ....why are you shading folks because the data says otherwise? Why are you so committed to believing something that doesn't bear out in federal census data ?  How did this turn into a discussion about the marrieds vs. the unmarrieds. Lawd.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 22, 2020)

Anyway, back to the article....we need to find alternative ways to compete.The game is rigged.


----------



## Kanky (Feb 22, 2020)

Kurlee said:


> But...... the source you posted says the median income for families is $74,200. It also defines
> median annual income for families with own children under age 18 living in the household as:  _including the householder's (head of the household) children by birth, marriage, or adoption._ This includes all family formations and doesn't specify the kind of family.
> 
> The data you posted also says: _The median income is the dollar amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups--half with income above the median, half with income below it._ This means that if you were to carve out a middle class, the range of values for a "middle class" would have some values below $74,200, right around it and then above it.
> ...



I guess I should not have assumed that people would click through and actually read the data.


It is about married vs unmarried in part because most children live in two income households with parents who know that 100k is pretty much middle class. Therefore it doesn’t make any sense at all to attack these people as part of the “game rigging elite”. Doing so is actually detrimental to the cause of unrigging the game because that is how you get regular people to defend the elites. 

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/finc-03/2019/finc03_1_2_1.xls

Have a look at the median incomes listed here for married parents and you will see that 118k is still very much in the middle class for married parents range.

It is great to know that the game is rigged, but if you don’t where specifically the problem lies then you can’t form any effective solutions. You aren’t going to be able to convince most of America that married couples making a little over 6 figures are part of the game rigging elite, because they are living that life and they know better.


----------



## Kanky (Feb 22, 2020)

Kurlee said:


> But...... the source you posted says the median income for families is $74,200. It also defines
> median annual income for families with own children under age 18 living in the household as:  _including the householder's (head of the household) children by birth, marriage, or adoption._ This includes all family formations and doesn't specify the kind of family.
> 
> The data you posted also says: _The median income is the dollar amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups--half with income above the median, half with income below it._ This means that if you were to carve out a middle class, the range of values for a "middle class" would have some values below $74,200, right around it and then above it.
> ...



BTW- Including all kinds of families and coming up with 75k as a median income is less useful because that includes young single people working their first jobs, retirees on social security and pensions, single parents ect and isn’t as accurate of a reflection of typical family incomes. The more detailed data actually supports my position that 118k is middle class for married people.

Anecdotally, the fact that two regular old jobs will get you to this income range should be enough for people to realize that 118k is middle class. This article is basically claiming that when a teacher marries a cop and has two children that they suddenly stop being middle class and become part of the oppressive, game rigging elite. That’s just silly.


----------



## Brwnbeauti (Feb 22, 2020)

Kanky said:


> If you are talking about single mothers and their kids then maybe not. But married parents are easily in that household income range and there is nothing elite about it. *The average salary for a teacher is about 60k.  That’s also pretty close to average for police officers, nurses, IT workers ect.* This is not an elite household income at all. This is middle class for married folks.


Averages are deceptive. Mode would be more helpful, the mode is not 60 for these professions. Maybe IT.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 22, 2020)

Kanky said:


> I guess I should not have assumed that people would click through and actually read the data.
> 
> 
> It is about married vs unmarried in part because most children live in two income households with parents who know that 100k is pretty much middle class. Therefore it doesn’t make any sense at all to attack these people as part of the “game rigging elite”. Doing so is actually detrimental to the cause of unrigging the game because that is how you get regular people to defend the elites.
> ...


When you look at the disaggregated data, there's a 20k+ gap for Black and Hispanic married couples, with Asians on par or with a higher median income than Whites. With that said, it's common sense that two incomes are better than one, but issues like the one in the OP are multifactorial and given the historical context, marriage status alone cannot account for this locking out of the upper rungs of society.  

Families making in an around 100k are nowhere near elite and that was never my point, especially since Black couples are actually only making about 80-86k.   What I'm saying is BECAUSE the game is rigged and given the historical and social context, Black folks need to be playing a different game.  That is it. That is all. It's clear that we are world's apart on this, though and that's ok.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 22, 2020)

Brwnbeauti said:


> Averages are deceptive. Mode would be more helpful, the mode is not 60 for these professions. Maybe IT.


Very! When you disaggregate the data, you can sometimes begin to see a very different picture.


----------



## nyeredzi (Feb 22, 2020)

LivingInPeace said:


> In *2019*, *median household income* in the *United States* was $63,030.00.


Households come in different sizes. A single person living alone counts as a household. So does a family with 6 kids. Median household income for a household with 4 people is significantly higher than that. According to this table from the justice department, it is $94,984 (I copy-pasted into a spreadsheet and did the average of those medians)
https://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20191101/bci_data/median_income_table.htm

And that's the whole country, including cheap states. As seen from the table above, it's higher in expensive states, like the one I live in, Maryland, where it is nearly $126,000.


----------



## nyeredzi (Feb 22, 2020)

The median income discussion aside, I do take the point that the top 1-20% occupy the bulk of students in most elite and just-under-ivy-plus schools and a non-trivial number of these people are not in on merit. This has likely always been the case, but there are fewer and fewer good economically secure jobs, and so now it's more of an issue because the supposed route to one of these now few secure jobs , i.e. going to a good college, has too many of its positions taken up by the richest people, with or without merit and similarly, positions of power within corporations are also often the result of nepotism, where the wealthiest people favor their family.

Like, I wonder have the percentages  when it comes to college admissions. I have a feeling that they've always been for "the elite", whatever that is/was. It's just that economic security used to not be so dependent on going to college.


----------



## GreenEyedJen (Feb 22, 2020)

Kurlee said:


> But...... the source you posted says the median income for families is $74,200. It also defines
> median annual income for families with own children under age 18 living in the household as:  _including the householder's (head of the household) children by birth, marriage, or adoption._ This includes all family formations and doesn't specify the kind of family.
> 
> The data you posted also says: _The median income is the dollar amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups--half with income above the median, half with income below it._ This means that if you were to carve out a middle class, the range of values for a "middle class" would have some values below $74,200, right around it and then above it.
> ...



It doesn’t even matter at this point. Before going to law school, I was a sociologist and a QA manager FOR the Census Bureau. I remember going into a meeting and coming out so frustrated, and my boss said “at the end of the day, statistics say what the person interpreting them wants to say”. 
The other poster has already decided what she wants the statistics to say.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 22, 2020)

GreenEyedJen said:


> It doesn’t even matter at this point. Before going to law school, I was a sociologist and a QA manager FOR the Census Bureau. I remember going into a meeting and coming out so frustrated, and my boss said “at the end of the day, statistics say what the person interpreting them wants to say”.
> The other poster has already decided what she wants the statistics to say.


Very true!


----------



## MamaBear2012 (Feb 25, 2020)

Kanky said:


> If you are talking about single mothers and their kids then maybe not. But married parents are easily in that household income range and there is nothing elite about it. The average salary for a teacher is about 60k.  That’s also pretty close to average for police officers, nurses, IT workers ect. This is not an elite household income at all. This is middle class for married folks.



Yep, DH is a teacher. I was a social worker (now turned SAHM). Two of the professions that most people talk about not making any money. We were making around that much when I was working. Middle class married folks.


----------



## BrickbyBrick (Feb 25, 2020)

Kurlee said:


> Anyway, back to the article....we need to find alternative ways to compete.The game is rigged.




Which is why Bernie Sanders is getting traction in the race.  He’s trying to break the game itself.


----------



## UmSumayyah (Feb 26, 2020)

BrickbyBrick said:


> Which is why Bernie Sanders is getting traction in the race.  He’s trying to break the game itself.


I doubt he will win.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 26, 2020)

UmSumayyah said:


> I doubt he will win.


He just might. Folks are tired. Especially younger folks that are being crushed under the weight of things not working or changing for them.


----------



## BrickbyBrick (Feb 26, 2020)

I doubt he will win as well but he is getting enough attention to maybe get the nomination but probably wont have enough votes to win the election. America as a whole ain't there yet with him. I for one have reservations about how his healthcare plan would be implemented, no matter how nice it sounds. I need more details.


----------



## UmSumayyah (Feb 26, 2020)

Did you see the debate last night?


----------



## Kanky (Feb 26, 2020)

BrickbyBrick said:


> I doubt he will win as well but he is getting enough attention to maybe get the nomination but probably wont have enough votes to win the election. America as a whole ain't there yet with him. I for one have reservations about how his healthcare plan would be implemented, no matter how nice it sounds. I need more details.



I don’t think that he will win either. Middle class families tend to already have good healthcare benefits. We already have health insurance for poor people and the elderly. He needs to convince middle class parents that they will be better off with Medicare for all, and so far he hasn’t done that.





MamaBear2012 said:


> Yep, DH is a teacher. I was a social worker (now turned SAHM). Two of the professions that most people talk about not making any money. We were making around that much when I was working. Middle class married folks.



Thank you for this. I won’t bother getting back in to the middle class family income discussion because people have made up their minds, but not understanding this can lead to all kinds of poor decisions and unnecessary struggle. When people don’t really get how much it costs to own a home in a good school district, raise kids in a typical middle class/upper middle class way then   they set themselves up for failure.

Not understanding how the typical family lives also leads politicians to make crappy policy decisions. A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. The GOP thought it made sense to give people lower taxes, a tiny increase in their paychecks but smaller to nonexistent tax refunds. Lots of people use tax refund checks as a savings vehicle and had plans for that money. This lead to people paying less taxes and being mad about it.  They were out of touch with how a good chunk of the country lives. 

I think that Bernie’s healthcare plan is kind of like that. If you are a typical middle class family with good employee benefits then where is the benefit to Medicare for all?


----------



## UmSumayyah (Feb 26, 2020)

BrickbyBrick said:


> I doubt he will win as well but he is getting enough attention to maybe get the nomination but probably wont have enough votes to win the election. America as a whole ain't there yet with him. I for one have reservations about how his healthcare plan would be implemented, no matter how nice it sounds. I need more details.


Imo Trump will be reelected so folks better try to get ready.

If Bernie wins he will be a disaster or ineffectual so folks better get ready.

Some politicos are saying that Bernie at the top will be a disaster down ballot.  House, Senate, and 1600 may all be red come Spring 2021


----------

