Comments on: Poor little rich kids Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: AdamLazer Tue, 14 May 2013 20:57:04 +0000 The problem is that government runs education and like all things that government touches it has deteriorated to the point of meaninglessness and worthlessness. Education has been hijacked so that schools are now political indoctrination centers.

By: JL4 Tue, 14 May 2013 18:04:28 +0000 Sorry? These kids are “at-risk” for what – the dreaded mediocrity of middle-class? At risk for a degree from a respected state university rather than an Ivy League college? And that threat stresses them into drug abuse, depression, lack of achievement, and the therapist’s couch?

So their parents have benefited from the current system to the point that their kids can’t achieve the same prestigious status, no matter how much money they invest in education.

I grew up in an upper-middle to upper-class (and beyond) neighborhood, and I lived around the exact kind of kids this article references. Their issues are *all* about the prestige of success, so, yes, it is about flashy cars and designer clothing, mansions, manicured lawns and lofty job titles.

I heard for decades that the “less fortunate” were less fortunate *precisely because* they made bad choices; that the sky was the limit if you tried hard enough to make the most of what opportunities you have, or the American Dream, no matter your humble beginnings. If you weren’t one of the “haves” then it was your own fault for not trying. Okay. So they should just go out and try harder and they’ll achieve what they want, right? No? But that’s how it’s supposed to work for the rest of us.

Now they’re learning that inherited success isn’t a given within an economy that has been systematically destroyed by rampant, profit-at-all-cost, corporate greed and is now backfiring on them. Sort of cannibalistic in a roundabout way.

So, what should we do about these well-heeled, well-educated kids who are at-risk just like inner-city kids? A solution? Anybody?

I have one. How about a nice dose of “Welcome to the real world, boys and girls! Money Can’t Buy Happiness. Suck it up”.

By: Kevin574 Tue, 14 May 2013 18:04:11 +0000 Can you please support the following paragraph? There are no results reported elsewhere in the article that justify the conclusion.

“It can be tempting, particularly if you don’t happen to be raising children in one of the hothouse communities Dr. Luthar studies, to dismiss this hyper-education as a frivolous, albeit painful, form of conspicuous consumption, like cosmetic surgery or flashy cars. But the truth is that these parents and children are responding rationally to a hyper-competitive world economy.”

By: frdp Tue, 14 May 2013 15:59:56 +0000 This is the result of thinking that money is the answer to everything!

By: RussKlettke Tue, 14 May 2013 13:23:44 +0000 I see the downside of privilege in healthcare in adults as well: someone I know had a heart attack while out for a run. This is someone who is 60 and has approached health very proactively for decades — excellent weight, nutrition, exercise, social and family relationships all intact. But she was on calcium supplementation and Fosamax to proactively address osteoporosis (she was given the dubious diagnosis of “osteopenia,” which is a created condition care of Merck and Fosamax). An anomalous calcium blockage almost killed her. Her doctor has taken her off those meds and she now is in good health once again. Osteopenia is a non-disease that middle and upper class women in the U.S. seem to be experiencing in an epidemic, because they are fearful of the decline they saw in their mothers. It’s a false cure for a false disease.

By: ACBirch Mon, 13 May 2013 23:29:12 +0000 Another thing to look at is the market difference not just in the cost of education, but in the methods of education available to the elite. Instead of modeling the public school system’s education on that of the most successful private schools, we bombard middle and low income students and teachers with high pressure standardized testing that is almost completely alien to the students in wealthy private schools. One of the reasons the U.S. appears to do so poorly on standardized tests to gauge global education, is that the best educated students don’t take the same tests, and if they do, it is rarely at the same frequency.

The form of elite education is vastly different than that of public education. This seems to indicate not just systemic inequality issues. Rather a design intended to provide the wealthy with an education that provides them the skill set to prepare them for roles as business and political leaders. Public education seems to be geared toward creating the wealthy’s workforce.

This is not to say that extraordinary individuals cannot overcome their sub standard education. The question is, should they?

By: kiwibird Mon, 13 May 2013 23:03:33 +0000 Flashrooster you should get into politics you have a lot to contribute.

By: _Historian Mon, 13 May 2013 16:31:58 +0000 Elites are inevitable. Lenin himself struggled to conceive of a practical way in which the state will eventually dissolve itself. Income inequality is also inevitable, take for instance Russia’s attempt of monetizing labor during the interwar period. The most devout socialists, of which it appears the author is a moderate variety, could not find a solution income inequality and or the imminent presence of an elite. Precluding children from well-off families to take advantage of the resources available to them in order to get a great education infringes on the very basic right of property, is, quite frankly, an act of barbarity in our day and age, and is inefficient considering the needs of the economic eco-system of a state, which requires neuro-surgeons as well as waitresses who will serve the neuro-surgeon at a restaurant. The waitress does not need a college degree to serve tables, and the state does not need her to have a college degree so that she hopes to get a neuro-surgeon’s job while being dissatisfied with the state and going to protests. We must look at the bigger picture and understand that inequality makes it possible for the society to function.

By: theAntagonist Mon, 13 May 2013 14:35:00 +0000 @OneOfthesheep
I agree with your views on income inequality. Though I have to say, there have been systems in past cultures that had total income equality, or at least something very close to such a system.
Cuba and the former Soviet Union, for example, use and used very regulated systems. This is common in very leftish, socialistic systems. The philosophy is that people work together for the benefit for the state, and if the state benefits they will benefit too.
Which sounds pretty great, yet is not.

One of the largest disadvantages in my opinion is that a large level of equality removes the incentive of greatness and innovation.
You see, in the US, everybody wants to be a rockstar. They want to be the next Warren Buffet, Richard Branson or Mark Zuckerburg (or at least the smart kids). This incentive, accompanied by the promise of wealth creates the a need to become more competitive and innovative.
If there were no such ‘reward’ for achieving greatness, greatness would no longer be achieved.

However, if you want to create a system that is better regulated through restructure I would not get my hopes up. I feel that a large disadvantage of a democratic system is that the masses truly rule, and that means that there will always be a very strong voice for the lower class, which tends to be much larger than the upper class. This translates into every government, which translates into legislation, which translates into economic disadvantages to those with the incentive for innovation and greatness.

By: Ananke Mon, 13 May 2013 07:55:21 +0000 OneOfTheSheep: Iran was once, what US is today. As you can see, there is always end of the lesez fair capitalism…you just need to learn history. Russia in the beginning of 20 century – great fast growing capitalism, then came the communism. And I can give you many more examples.