"The difference is that children of wealth traverse it at a height of one meter over a mattress, while the middle-class and poor traverse it at a height of 20 meters over a lava pit."
I notice no one is commenting on this part. Namely, that for children of financial privilege, the risk/reward ratio for a career is markedly skewed compared to their middle class peers.
It's really bad with jobs that expect you to "pay your dues" at the beginning, yet still socialize with co-workers at restaurants after work. People from a more modest background are seen as anti-social when they really just have a cash flow problem.
Financial security and social familiarization aren't the only sources of confidence. Understanding of skills' value, faith in the ability to learn new skills, curiousity about what others find valuable and willingness to provide it -- no one who has these has much deep anxiety about pleasing the boss. If the boss likes them, great! If not, they're happy to move somewhere that appreciates what they add. Confidence is out there for anyone willing to learn and work.
To comment: is he saying that the things you need to do to advance your career inside a large institution are actually risky? I don't think so, it's more like he's saying the non rich live in constant fear of getting sacked for stepping out of line, and this fear itself stops them advancing their career, rather than the inherent risk of any career gambit. As such, his point is somewhat tenuous.
I know someone from a background like that. I don't think he's really smarter,more skilled, or even more confident in 99% of situations. But in those few it's like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - he can step out over the pit fully sure he'll be ok.
You can't learn that kind of confidence. You have to truly believe you will be just fine.
A rich child has a much higher standard to live up to, and much more to lose. If I'm an eight figure trust fund kid and I screw up bad I end up being middle class. If I'm middle class and screw up I end up middle class.
> If I'm middle class and screw up I end up middle class.
No, you end up working a crappy part time job at a call center with no benefits and no future, desperately trying to convince yourself that you're still middle class because you work a telephone instead of a mop.
So the real issue here is that everyone wants to be "better". It's not about rich people, it's that you think you're too good to clean things for a living. In your view, who deserves to work that mop?
There is nothing wrong with working a mop. Median Janitor salary is $25k, if you and your wife are both janitors, you have a $50k/yr household. You can pay the bills and give your family a middle class lifestyle. Probably still better than the life you were raised in.
Conversely a child of wealth that loses it all will have a significantly more difficult time giving his children the same life that he had. Someone who has a lot also has more to lose.
Given the handle I assume debating this with you is a losing proposition, but - it's not a matter of how far you fall, relatively. The middle class person who falls into poverty may lose the ability to feed themselves. The wealthy person who falls into the middle class does not.
That said, I would rate it as highly unlikely that a truly wealthy individual could end up falling into the middle class through anything short of titanic ineptitude.
I notice no one is commenting on this part. Namely, that for children of financial privilege, the risk/reward ratio for a career is markedly skewed compared to their middle class peers.