@SylvainDe
In the US, 60% of all wealthy people were not born wealthy. 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the 3rd generation, and it's 95% by the fourth generation.

This is real information. This draws a picture of the real world. A witty quip with an analogy to a game that demonstrates a miniscule understanding of how it really works and only serves to reenforce ones own world view is not a picture of the real world.
@aral

@fm
And do you have the same stats for people below ... Say 35?

Also, you state that for wealthy people. Nice but it seems to me like the following:
Of all people who won the lottery, more than 70% paid 5[insert currency name here] for a ticket. To bee meaningful, you would need to add the percentage of the population sait wealthy people represent.
@aral

@fm @aral
To make sure I'm fair, I'm not saying effort has nothing to do with it also. To rise in the capitalist world you need connections and dedication. But connections come easy to some and are almost impossible to acquire if you come from a rural area or a segregated community.

@SylvainDe
This is a baseless claim. I know people that became better off than their childhood selves without connections. I know more people moving up in life from rural areas than from urban ones, and in rural areas than in urban ones.

Connections are not as important as education and aptitude, and there's some luck involved of course. People of West Virginia by and large aren't moving up, but it isn't because they don't rub elbows with the elites, it is because their education sucks. Texas in contrast is a very rural state and there used to be a saying that everyone from Texas is a millionaire.
@aral

@fm
Soooo would you say that if you came from west virginia you would need more luck to overcome what people from texas got by "birthing there"?

And to get back to the generation components. Would you say that overall, education gets better when you are a low income child or worse?

@aral

@fm @aral
If so, for the first part and worse ( at least in relation to upper revenue education) on the second. We seem to agree on the facts. The reasoning is another issue

@SylvainDe
I don't have a clue what you said here lol. I doubt anyone does. I agree, our reasoning differs dramatically.
@aral

@SylvainDe
Yes, being born where you're born, and in the family, community and culture you're born into is pure luck. So is being born into a wealthy family or a poor one. But you have to be competent to earn wealth and you have to be competent to keep it. If you're incompetent and born poor you probably won't build much of anything. If you're incompetent and rich you'll probably squander it. I'm not saying that anyone can overcome anything with sheer competence, but most people have the opportunities around them to build a life they'd be happy with if they use those opportunities wisely.

I'd say education is like any service, you get what you pay for. And I'd add to that, the public education system in the US is a grift and our poor aren't getting what we pay for. But I'll also point out that there was a time when you got no education at all unless you could afford it, or unless you were very driven to teach yourself.
@aral

@fm
We seem to agree on facts then.

So if you are young now, you get worse education than the earlier generation. Since property is something you either acquire or inherit, you did not inherit and, because of education deficit have a lot less opportunity to acquire.

Seems a lot like @aral 's original message. Maybe with less monopoly imagery and profanity.
@aral

@SylvainDe
I wouldn't say you get a worse education than the previous generation. There's more information availability to us today than there was to our parents. I'd say the onus is on you to learn, but that has always been the case, it is just more evident now.
@aral

@SylvainDe
How is age relevant here? Age is not a concrete demographic. People that are 35 will be 40 soon. Toddlers are broke, is that an injustice? People start their lives young, build them as they age, and if they're competent, they may build the life they want at some point in their adulthood. It is the nature of time.

What percentage of the population is rich can be relevant, but can also be misleading. "Getting rich" is not everyone's idea of success. Also, what percentage of people are successful can be dependent on the competence and education of the overall populace. There are a lot of variables, so many in fact that slapping a "percentage of people that are wealthy" on something doesn't really tell you much. It gets totally meaningless when you determine what "wealthy" means based on what percent of the population it is.

No, just knowing how frequently random persons cycle in and out of different classes is enough to demonstrate upward mobility.
@aral