Income Inequality is a result of Individual Effort/Choices

[Clementine]

Top Ten Lists :: Highest Paying Jobs
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com
With all this recent ado about income inequality and the plight of the poor, I think we need to ask a simple question. That question is "What choices led them to become poor?" Liberals love to think of people as completely out of control of their financial state. That is 100% bogus. For starters this list clearly shows that the wealthy members of society largely got that way through a lot of education and hard work. Note that almost all of the top average salaries are in the medical field. The CEOs that liberals deride are actually #22 on the list. For the most part, the difference in income is largely a result of years of education and their rigor. Liberals love to talk about the unemployed college grads as signs of corporations "being greedy", but students who major in something rigorous like engineering or math do fine. It's the students who do cakewalk grievance/liberal studies majors who do poorly. Thus, careers like engineering/actuaries are around the $100,000 mark for average salary. Postgraduate degrees in legitimate fields like medicine, as well as MBAs, also do very well.
The moral of the story here is that entering the coveted "1%" can be attained simply by earning a medical degree and working for some number of years. Getting to the top 10%(about $125,000/year in household income) could be attained very easily by an average engineer with a spouse as a schoolteacher. This doesn't sound to me like a problem of people exploiting others to get to the top. It appears that wealth simply indicates that someone made smart decisions in life regarding their education. One argument against this is that college is too expensive for poor families. While this is partially true, the reality is that Pell Grants/federal student loans have driven up college prices(government action to lessen inequality actually increased it as is often the case ); the impact of this dis-proportionally hits the middle class, as poor students qualify for a lot of financial aid at most schools. That being said, getting good grades in high school makes college much, much more affordable. Since none of these careers requires an Ivy League degree, a state university, which offers lots of scholarships to top students, is the best bet. I know that any student who gets a National Merit Finalist (about 220+ on the PSAT, scores vary depending on state) automatically gets a full ride to schools like University of Alabama and University of Central Florida. Even state schools that don't offer full rides still tend to offer full-tuition for good students with high grades/test scores(top schools like UC Berkeley and University of Virginia are exceptions).

On the flip side, what causes people to earn low levels of income, particularly below the poverty line? Most people who fall into poverty don't do any of these three things - wait until 21 to get married/not have kids before marriage, graduate high school, and having a full-time job. I understand that the last one may have some factors beyond a person's control, but the first 2 are 100% a result of your choices. And people in the lowest income rungs violate all three norms, on average. And those in poverty because they don't have jobs are partially victims of the Obama economy, but personal choices still influence it greatly. Graduates from Purdue University Calumet in engineering, an affordable, not-very-selective school, have next to a 100% chance of getting a job. It's the dropouts and lousy major recipients that have problems.

Liberals, all I'm trying to get at is this: the income inequality that you bemoan is a result of inequality in effort and ability. Clearly, careers make a huge difference on people's income, and you simply can't equate a doctor and a garbage truck driver. Let's stop resenting success and try to emulate the "evil rich" rather than castigate them.

So what caused the crash in 2008 that put so many people out of work and trashed our economy? Personal choices? Gally-damn, the turnip truck just swung through here and you fell off.

That didn't cause all the poverty we have. I know a few people who made stupid choices and will pay for it for a long time. Face it, some people just aren't desirable to employers because of their lack of education, lack of skills, criminal records and even their appearance. If someone walks into your business with no high school diploma, a prison record and has piercings and tattoos all over their body, would you hire them in favor of someone who finished school, stayed out of trouble and looks presentable? Face it, they will not have income equality because they don't have effort equality.

I am so sick of these young people walking around with their pants falling down, talking crap, dropping out of school and committing crimes. If they end up poor, who is to blame?

Would you like to give up part of your paycheck to support one of those violent idiots playing the knock out game? I don't, yet I bet we are supporting many undeserving punks who put forth no effort to improve their lives.

I find it strange that people are in minimum wage jobs for 10 years with no raises. It's unbelievable. My kids always found jobs since they were teens and now that they graduated college, they work at even better jobs. And they are paying for their own student loans, which are substantial. Why the hell can't other people do that? It wasn't a big deal. It just meant actually giving a shit about school, not breaking laws, respecting the community and actively doing something to better their lives. Then they were accepted at the college, applied to get the loans and then worked to pass the courses. There is no excuse for others not doing that. Many even get big grants to pay for their school to make it even easier. All they have to do is show up and learn.

I have little patience with people who do the opposite, then later expect the same opportunities as those who worked hard to earn them.

Granted, there aren't as many jobs available thanks to Obamacare, but we've seen this lack of effort for decades. When a person makes one bad decision after another and keeps getting bailed out by tax payers, there is little incentive for people to get their shit together and try. It's so damn easy to take advantage of welfare programs that some find it preferable to work.

 

[francoHFW]

Opportunity and fair tax for the nonrich have taken a nosedive under pander to the rich Reaganism, nitwits...

 

[Avatar4321]

Its a result of us all being different. the only way all our incomes would be the same is to force all of us to be the same. That would result in alot of destruction.

 

[regent]

Hoover tried to convince the American people this same premise in 1932, self reliance and all that drivel. Hoover even lauded the apple-sellers on the streets as the new businessman. There are a number of factors that go into an individual's economic well-being, health, education, skills, age, inheritances, the nation's economy, and on and on, many factors the individual has no control over, but if we can make the case that it all depends on the individual we feel better, and maybe even a little superior.

 

[oldfart]

Income Inequality is a result of Individual Effort/Choices

By and large, this premise is correct. There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, your lot in life was earned by the decisions you made throughout it.

The by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income. I guess everyone made bad choices in choosing their parents. And America is at the bottom of the developed world in economic mobility. There goes American exceptionalism. Americans are the world's worst at choosing life paths to rise in the world.

So Libertarians are adolescent sociopaths by choice?

 

[expat_panama]

...by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income...

The loopy extreme left love to say that, but their big mistake is trying to say it's the only determinant. They need to explain why say, black immigrant families from central Africa get more education and higher incomes than blacks born in the U.S.

 

[The Rabbi]

...by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income...

The loopy extreme left love to say that, but their big mistake is trying to say it's the only determinant. They need to explain why say, black immigrant families from central Africa get more education and higher incomes than blacks born in the U.S.

Never mind the children of poor or middle class people who became very wealthy. THey cant explain it. It is a secular form of Calvinistic predetermination to the Left.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Luck is certainly part of the equation, the majority of that luck being who your parents are. However I believe the choices you make plays a much bigger role and people are too quick to lay someone's lot in life on "they never had a chance" type excuses.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A good teacher should probably get 100k per year. Certainly it wouldn't be wrong.

For a job that only requires a bach degree, has a couple months off per year, and serves up a nice pension for a secure early retirement?

The pool of people who can be be teachers is quite large, so it isn't a 100k job.

 

[The Rabbi]

A good teacher should probably get 100k per year. Certainly it wouldn't be wrong.

For a job that only requires a bach degree, has a couple months off per year, and serves up a nice pension for a secure early retirement?

The pool of people who can be be teachers is quite large, so it isn't a 100k job.

The Left has its own idea of what "should" and "shouldn't" be. I dont know what they base it on. Not reality, that's for sure.

 

[expat_panama]

...The Left has its own idea of what "should" and "shouldn't" be. I dont know what they base it on. Not reality, that's for sure.

It's not based on how they'd want to spend their own money, it's based on how they'd imagining spending your money...

 

[oldfart]

...by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income...

The loopy extreme left love to say that, but their big mistake is trying to say it's the only determinant. They need to explain why say, black immigrant families from central Africa get more education and higher incomes than blacks born in the U.S.

1. I said "far greatest determinant" not only determinant. It explains 88% of the r-squared in the regression equation. If you are going to reply directly to me, please reply to what I actually posted, not to your straw man. And you "learned" logic where again?

2. For the last sentence, I believe we have the same answer, culture. If you want to have a debate about that, you could start by giving us a narrative of what the cultural differences are between the two groups and how that explains any variation in education and income.

HINT: All ethnic groups show higher achievement among recent arrivals compared to third and fourth generation Americans. It's called self-selection. Those most willing and motivated to seek opportunity are those who migrate.

 

[The Rabbi]

...by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income...

The loopy extreme left love to say that, but their big mistake is trying to say it's the only determinant. They need to explain why say, black immigrant families from central Africa get more education and higher incomes than blacks born in the U.S.

1. I said "far greatest determinant" not only determinant. It explains 88% of the r-squared in the regression equation. If you are going to reply directly to me, please reply to what I actually posted, not to your straw man. And you "learned" logic where again?

2. For the last sentence, I believe we have the same answer, culture. If you want to have a debate about that, you could start by giving us a narrative of what the cultural differences are between the two groups and how that explains any variation in education and income.

HINT: All ethnic groups show higher achievement among recent arrivals compared to third and fourth generation Americans. It's called self-selection. Those most willing and motivated to seek opportunity are those who migrate.

That is a deterministic view of achievement that is at odds with observable phenomena and posits that people are incapable of achievement in certain settings. This is clearly wrong.

 

[Sallow]

Top Ten Lists :: Highest Paying Jobs
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com
With all this recent ado about income inequality and the plight of the poor, I think we need to ask a simple question. That question is "What choices led them to become poor?" Liberals love to think of people as completely out of control of their financial state. That is 100% bogus. For starters this list clearly shows that the wealthy members of society largely got that way through a lot of education and hard work. Note that almost all of the top average salaries are in the medical field. The CEOs that liberals deride are actually #22 on the list. For the most part, the difference in income is largely a result of years of education and their rigor. Liberals love to talk about the unemployed college grads as signs of corporations "being greedy", but students who major in something rigorous like engineering or math do fine. It's the students who do cakewalk grievance/liberal studies majors who do poorly. Thus, careers like engineering/actuaries are around the $100,000 mark for average salary. Postgraduate degrees in legitimate fields like medicine, as well as MBAs, also do very well.
The moral of the story here is that entering the coveted "1%" can be attained simply by earning a medical degree and working for some number of years. Getting to the top 10%(about $125,000/year in household income) could be attained very easily by an average engineer with a spouse as a schoolteacher. This doesn't sound to me like a problem of people exploiting others to get to the top. It appears that wealth simply indicates that someone made smart decisions in life regarding their education. One argument against this is that college is too expensive for poor families. While this is partially true, the reality is that Pell Grants/federal student loans have driven up college prices(government action to lessen inequality actually increased it as is often the case ); the impact of this dis-proportionally hits the middle class, as poor students qualify for a lot of financial aid at most schools. That being said, getting good grades in high school makes college much, much more affordable. Since none of these careers requires an Ivy League degree, a state university, which offers lots of scholarships to top students, is the best bet. I know that any student who gets a National Merit Finalist (about 220+ on the PSAT, scores vary depending on state) automatically gets a full ride to schools like University of Alabama and University of Central Florida. Even state schools that don't offer full rides still tend to offer full-tuition for good students with high grades/test scores(top schools like UC Berkeley and University of Virginia are exceptions).

On the flip side, what causes people to earn low levels of income, particularly below the poverty line? Most people who fall into poverty don't do any of these three things - wait until 21 to get married/not have kids before marriage, graduate high school, and having a full-time job. I understand that the last one may have some factors beyond a person's control, but the first 2 are 100% a result of your choices. And people in the lowest income rungs violate all three norms, on average. And those in poverty because they don't have jobs are partially victims of the Obama economy, but personal choices still influence it greatly. Graduates from Purdue University Calumet in engineering, an affordable, not-very-selective school, have next to a 100% chance of getting a job. It's the dropouts and lousy major recipients that have problems.

Liberals, all I'm trying to get at is this: the income inequality that you bemoan is a result of inequality in effort and ability. Clearly, careers make a huge difference on people's income, and you simply can't equate a doctor and a garbage truck driver. Let's stop resenting success and try to emulate the "evil rich" rather than castigate them.

Well this completely ignores things like say...history.

You'd be completely right, however, if everyone born was born with the exact same environment.

But that's not the case and you are completely incorrect.

 

[Sallow]

Luck is certainly part of the equation, the majority of that luck being who your parents are. However I believe the choices you make plays a much bigger role and people are too quick to lay someone's lot in life on "they never had a chance" type excuses.

For most of this country's history, the good amount of the wealth accrued has been a result of ruthlessness, exploitation, theft, and criminality. Laws and regulations have been crafted as a result of that activity. But..it's never resulted in a reconciliation of the bad behavior. Quite the opposite. Those who have benefitted, passed on their wealth to their descendants.

So, what we've had is weak attempts at parity. And those attempts are constantly under attack by the right who are in the pocket of the well monied.

That generally doesn't last.

 

[jasonnfree]

Top Ten Lists :: Highest Paying Jobs
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com
With all this recent ado about income inequality and the plight of the poor, I think we need to ask a simple question. That question is "What choices led them to become poor?" Liberals love to think of people as completely out of control of their financial state. That is 100% bogus. For starters this list clearly shows that the wealthy members of society largely got that way through a lot of education and hard work. Note that almost all of the top average salaries are in the medical field. The CEOs that liberals deride are actually #22 on the list. For the most part, the difference in income is largely a result of years of education and their rigor. Liberals love to talk about the unemployed college grads as signs of corporations "being greedy", but students who major in something rigorous like engineering or math do fine. It's the students who do cakewalk grievance/liberal studies majors who do poorly. Thus, careers like engineering/actuaries are around the $100,000 mark for average salary. Postgraduate degrees in legitimate fields like medicine, as well as MBAs, also do very well.
The moral of the story here is that entering the coveted "1%" can be attained simply by earning a medical degree and working for some number of years. Getting to the top 10%(about $125,000/year in household income) could be attained very easily by an average engineer with a spouse as a schoolteacher. This doesn't sound to me like a problem of people exploiting others to get to the top. It appears that wealth simply indicates that someone made smart decisions in life regarding their education. One argument against this is that college is too expensive for poor families. While this is partially true, the reality is that Pell Grants/federal student loans have driven up college prices(government action to lessen inequality actually increased it as is often the case ); the impact of this dis-proportionally hits the middle class, as poor students qualify for a lot of financial aid at most schools. That being said, getting good grades in high school makes college much, much more affordable. Since none of these careers requires an Ivy League degree, a state university, which offers lots of scholarships to top students, is the best bet. I know that any student who gets a National Merit Finalist (about 220+ on the PSAT, scores vary depending on state) automatically gets a full ride to schools like University of Alabama and University of Central Florida. Even state schools that don't offer full rides still tend to offer full-tuition for good students with high grades/test scores(top schools like UC Berkeley and University of Virginia are exceptions).

On the flip side, what causes people to earn low levels of income, particularly below the poverty line? Most people who fall into poverty don't do any of these three things - wait until 21 to get married/not have kids before marriage, graduate high school, and having a full-time job. I understand that the last one may have some factors beyond a person's control, but the first 2 are 100% a result of your choices. And people in the lowest income rungs violate all three norms, on average. And those in poverty because they don't have jobs are partially victims of the Obama economy, but personal choices still influence it greatly. Graduates from Purdue University Calumet in engineering, an affordable, not-very-selective school, have next to a 100% chance of getting a job. It's the dropouts and lousy major recipients that have problems.

Liberals, all I'm trying to get at is this: the income inequality that you bemoan is a result of inequality in effort and ability. Clearly, careers make a huge difference on people's income, and you simply can't equate a doctor and a garbage truck driver. Let's stop resenting success and try to emulate the "evil rich" rather than castigate them.

So what caused the crash in 2008 that put so many people out of work and trashed our economy? Personal choices? Gally-damn, the turnip truck just swung through here and you fell off.

That didn't cause all the poverty we have. I know a few people who made stupid choices and will pay for it for a long time. Face it, some people just aren't desirable to employers because of their lack of education, lack of skills, criminal records and even their appearance. If someone walks into your business with no high school diploma, a prison record and has piercings and tattoos all over their body, would you hire them in favor of someone who finished school, stayed out of trouble and looks presentable? Face it, they will not have income equality because they don't have effort equality.

I am so sick of these young people walking around with their pants falling down, talking crap, dropping out of school and committing crimes. If they end up poor, who is to blame?

Would you like to give up part of your paycheck to support one of those violent idiots playing the knock out game? I don't, yet I bet we are supporting many undeserving punks who put forth no effort to improve their lives.

I find it strange that people are in minimum wage jobs for 10 years with no raises. It's unbelievable. My kids always found jobs since they were teens and now that they graduated college, they work at even better jobs. And they are paying for their own student loans, which are substantial. Why the hell can't other people do that? It wasn't a big deal. It just meant actually giving a shit about school, not breaking laws, respecting the community and actively doing something to better their lives. Then they were accepted at the college, applied to get the loans and then worked to pass the courses. There is no excuse for others not doing that. Many even get big grants to pay for their school to make it even easier. All they have to do is show up and learn.

I have little patience with people who do the opposite, then later expect the same opportunities as those who worked hard to earn them.

Granted, there aren't as many jobs available thanks to Obamacare, but we've seen this lack of effort for decades. When a person makes one bad decision after another and keeps getting bailed out by tax payers, there is little incentive for people to get their shit together and try. It's so damn easy to take advantage of welfare programs that some find it preferable to work.

There aren't that many jobs available because of Obamacare which has only barely began you say. The economic meltdown about five years ago of course didn't have an adverse effect on the job market at all, correct?

 

[Toro]

The OP is false.

Analogizing the individual to a cohort is empirically wrong.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Income Inequality is a result of Individual Effort/Choices

By and large, this premise is correct. There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, your lot in life was earned by the decisions you made throughout it.

The by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income. I guess everyone made bad choices in choosing their parents. And America is at the bottom of the developed world in economic mobility. There goes American exceptionalism. Americans are the world's worst at choosing life paths to rise in the world.

So Libertarians are adolescent sociopaths by choice?

Classic ad hominem. I will grant you that parental income matters, but it matters for 2 primary reasons:
1) Parents who have a lot of income tend to be more involved in their children's education. This leads to them doing better in that regard.
2) Parents who have a lot of income tend to be more intelligent(this is a correlation; I'm not saying all wealthy people are intelligent, but it is a correlation). Since intelligence is about half genetic, this does make a difference in cognitive ability.


So yes, having high parental income gives you a head start, but many of the most successful in our society came from modest means. The vast majority of billionaires grew up in middle-class households, and most children of billionaires don't tend to earn particularly large incomes. The tasks to enter the top decile or centile of income are hardly insurmountable. It just requires education and diligence. Look, I'm in 11th grade and I have a 4.0 unweighted GPA(with Honors/AP classes) and got a 227 on my PSAT, which qualifies me for a National Merit Scholar(thus I'm eligible for scholarships to places like University of Alabama and UCF). My mom's a schoolteacher and my dad's self-employed. We're certainly not poor, but we're definitely not even close to the richest in the community either. In fact, plenty of the kids from the richest households tend to be poorer students as they tend to be spoiled.

Look, calling me names won't change these basic facts.

 

[oldfart]

The by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income. I guess everyone made bad choices in choosing their parents. And America is at the bottom of the developed world in economic mobility. There goes American exceptionalism. Americans are the world's worst at choosing life paths to rise in the world.

So Libertarians are adolescent sociopaths by choice?

Classic ad hominem.

In the broadest sense, yes. But more appropriately it is sarcasm. I realize boards are bad media for rhetorical devices, but it is worth it to maintain these distinctions.

I will grant you that parental income matters, but it matters for 2 primary reasons:
1) Parents who have a lot of income tend to be more involved in their children's education. This leads to them doing better in that regard.
2) Parents who have a lot of income tend to be more intelligent(this is a correlation; I'm not saying all wealthy people are intelligent, but it is a correlation). Since intelligence is about half genetic, this does make a difference in cognitive ability.

The reasoning you give works passably well in looking at the top third from the bottom third, but it is already breaking down at the quintile level. By the time you are looking at the top 5% compared to the next top 5%, it has disappeared. At the top the wealth effect is explained only by nepotism, connections, and wealth itself.

As for the intelligence argument, there is a correlation between intelligence and economic success, but I'm sure you would argue that the causality runs from intelligence to success. There is no evidence that children of the wealthy are any more intelligent than children with basic material upbringing from poor or average families.

And finally, economic mobility in America has been decreasing for several decades. How do your arguments explain the time series data?

Look, I'm in 11th grade and I have a 4.0 unweighted GPA(with Honors/AP classes) and got a 227 on my PSAT, which qualifies me for a National Merit Scholar(thus I'm eligible for scholarships to places like University of Alabama and UCF). My mom's a schoolteacher and my dad's self-employed. We're certainly not poor, but we're definitely not even close to the richest in the community either. In fact, plenty of the kids from the richest households tend to be poorer students as they tend to be spoiled.

I congratulate you on your success and wish you well. With your parents' backgrounds you should have fun in life.

Look, calling me names won't change these basic facts.

I don't recall calling you any names. If you think so, re-read my posts. Does your school have a debate team? That's the best way to learn rhetoric. argumentation, and logic.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

The by far greatest determinant of who will be in the top quintile of income is parental income. I guess everyone made bad choices in choosing their parents. And America is at the bottom of the developed world in economic mobility. There goes American exceptionalism. Americans are the world's worst at choosing life paths to rise in the world.

So Libertarians are adolescent sociopaths by choice?

Classic ad hominem.

In the broadest sense, yes. But more appropriately it is sarcasm. I realize boards are bad media for rhetorical devices, but it is worth it to maintain these distinctions.




The reasoning you give works passably well in looking at the top third from the bottom third, but it is already breaking down at the quintile level. By the time you are looking at the top 5% compared to the next top 5%, it has disappeared. At the top the wealth effect is explained only by nepotism, connections, and wealth itself.

As for the intelligence argument, there is a correlation between intelligence and economic success, but I'm sure you would argue that the causality runs from intelligence to success. There is no evidence that children of the wealthy are any more intelligent than children with basic material upbringing from poor or average families.

And finally, economic mobility in America has been decreasing for several decades. How do your arguments explain the time series data?

Look, I'm in 11th grade and I have a 4.0 unweighted GPA(with Honors/AP classes) and got a 227 on my PSAT, which qualifies me for a National Merit Scholar(thus I'm eligible for scholarships to places like University of Alabama and UCF). My mom's a schoolteacher and my dad's self-employed. We're certainly not poor, but we're definitely not even close to the richest in the community either. In fact, plenty of the kids from the richest households tend to be poorer students as they tend to be spoiled.

I congratulate you on your success and wish you well. With your parents' backgrounds you should have fun in life.

Look, calling me names won't change these basic facts.

I don't recall calling you any names. If you think so, re-read my posts. Does your school have a debate team? That's the best way to learn rhetoric. argumentation, and logic.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to me as an "adolescent sociopath. Never mind; I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I do agree with you that having very wealthy parents can help, depending on the parents, if it means that large amounts of wealth transfer to you or that connections ensure you a job. Of course people who are the children of famous politicians have a connection advantage. And I will grant you that connections do matter when it pertains to become an executive. Getting to the very, very top(as in the millions upon millions range), in general, requires good luck and a lot of skill. What my thread was about was why some people make the top 1-10% and others don't. Career choice clearly is important for this. Doctors do very, very well for themselves and can make the top 1% fairly readily, especially with a two-income household. The top 10% can be achieved with a degree in many STEM fields. I do agree that there is decreasing income mobility, but the majority of people of low socioeconomic backgrounds who have high intelligence tend to go to college(The book, "The Bell Curve" has some stats on this). The high price of college does hurt, but that was largely caused by the federal government getting involved in student loans.

Look, nepotism/connections mean a lot for executive positions. But a lot of those in the top incomes (the top 5% that you are speaking of, for instance) get there through other career fields. It may be harder to move up income-wise than it used to, but it is still hardly an insurmountable task.

Even more importantly, the fight about income inequality is often not about people who can't crack the top 1%, but more about people who can't crack the top 50%. My thesis is that personal choices are very important in determining how much income people earn in the vast spectrum of income. Parental income is important, but a lot of that correlation is because it is a quasi-proxy for other factors like education and IQ.

The IQ of the top 50% is higher than the IQ of the bottom 50% in socioeconomic terms. The correlation between intelligence and income among adults is well-documented. Thus, since IQ is largely inherited, it follows that there is a correlation between IQ of these people's children and their socioeconomic success.

You made interesting points, and they do make a difference, but the central thesis still holds.