Why Affluent Parents Put So Much Pressure on Their Kids(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why Affluent Parents Put So Much Pressure on Their Kids
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/pressure-affluent-parents/417045/
33 comments
Palo Alto is an anomaly and an outlier.
There were a spate of teen suicides at the area's high schools, with a lengthy report by the Atlantic.
If Silicon Valley schools are a pressure cooker then Palo Alto is 5X that.
Parents working in high-pressure jobs who think the entire world revolves around tech and consciously and unconsciously passing on those messages to their kids.
A couple years back I was at this place called Hacker Dojo, it is a co-working space, an older, nerdier WeWork, and has a storied history in the Valley. There was this startup camp for kids - teaching 13 year olds how to pitch companies, are you kidding me?
Let kids be kids.
I agree and disagree with your example. As a child, I was very big into entrepreneurship. Running lemonade stands at the pool, making bootleg tech-deck finger snowbords, tried starting what could have been Dropbox in high school with a classmate. Took classes on business accounting and such in high school.
Having a for-kids course isn’t bad... forcing your kids into it sure is.
Having a for-kids course isn’t bad... forcing your kids into it sure is.
> Having a for-kids course isn’t bad... forcing your kids into it sure is.
As anyone who has been to one of these Bay Area high schools can tell you, it’s not so much forcing your kids into something that is the problem (plenty of parents do this all across the country for a variety of things). I think the high schools themselves have a massive culture problem where kids who really should just be doing things they find enjoyable in their free time feel like they have to do so many things they don’t enjoy just to keep up with everyone else. Even at 13, I’m sure many kids had drank the kool-aid and truly believed that doing that course was helping them get ahead in life. All this attitude does is create a massive rat-race where kids are just trying to get the best CV for college applications. I honestly think this seriously stunts the development of these kids, as no one is doing something just because they find it enjoyable.
As anyone who has been to one of these Bay Area high schools can tell you, it’s not so much forcing your kids into something that is the problem (plenty of parents do this all across the country for a variety of things). I think the high schools themselves have a massive culture problem where kids who really should just be doing things they find enjoyable in their free time feel like they have to do so many things they don’t enjoy just to keep up with everyone else. Even at 13, I’m sure many kids had drank the kool-aid and truly believed that doing that course was helping them get ahead in life. All this attitude does is create a massive rat-race where kids are just trying to get the best CV for college applications. I honestly think this seriously stunts the development of these kids, as no one is doing something just because they find it enjoyable.
That’s just it - I loved a lot of boring, dry stuff as a teen too. I went to competitions doing CAD and 3d animation. Some kids will gladly take a school bus for 6 hours to compete in CAD, and that’s fine. But man, if I made my kids do that… They’d learn to resent me pretty quickly.
If you have a natural inclination for it, more power to you.
And it seems like you really enjoyed it.
When it becomes the be all and end all, as it is in these parts, then it robs you of your childhood.
People that work in these "elite" sectors (consulting, finance, tech, law, medicine, etc.) know that the competition is fierce, and that even with _a lot_ of help, there's really no guarantee to get your kids there.
Affluent people earn big incomes but have correspondingly big expenses. Big houses, flash cars, eating at fancy restaurants, etc. All those behaviours are status competitions. e.g. my car is faster, more expensive, etc.
Thus in turn, their children are also part of their status as success. Having a child who went to an Ivy League and works at a top NY firm is accorded far more allure of success than somebody who dropped out and travels with a backpack painting landscapes. Even if the latter leads a far happier, healthier, more sustainable life.
Thus in turn, their children are also part of their status as success. Having a child who went to an Ivy League and works at a top NY firm is accorded far more allure of success than somebody who dropped out and travels with a backpack painting landscapes. Even if the latter leads a far happier, healthier, more sustainable life.
I kind of know (and believe) that inequality is growing. But reading this article makes me actually think the opposite: isn’t that actually a good example the equality is there? That is, the “affluent” simply realise that their place in life isn’t fixed and that if their kids wanted to have the same life as them those kids would need to work their butt off? In such a case I am very much not disappointed with the fact that affluent kids are also trying to work for that “space underneath the sun”.
It's a sign that it is rising, they are scared that their children will not be able to maintain their lifestyle without reaching their level of success. If the world were more equal it'd more or less be same difference.
I wouldn't say it is a sign that is a rising. It makes sense to me that a parent would want to encourage and instill the same behaviors in their children that they used to reach success.
“if their kids wanted to have the same life as them”
What child, or even young adult, knows what “life” they want?
Children know what they have experienced growing up. Perhaps their family members lives and a few friends, probably in the same social-economic group. And that’s basically it.
They would naturally default to their current experience as a goal if asked, but what life do the kids actually want? The answer takes maturity the children don’t have. So adults step in to try to ensure the kids at least have the option of treading water from a class standpoint. Probably some parent ego in there too. Leads to a hypercompetitive parent-driven child experience for the wealthier classes and had, in the 60s/70s in the US, eventually led to rebellious self-directed life changes (good/bad) by the affluent youth. The idea that the rich kids could and should make their own personal choices with their lives, independent of societal or parental expectations, was a very dominant theme in late 1960s/early 1970s US/Western European culture.
Takes a special type of person to make downward mobility work, but it can be done. Usually faith, spirituality and the arts play a big role, as well as the hide of a rhinoceros. Addictions are another route, but that’s not really making it work in my definition.
Because working your butt off is foolish if the only “space underneath the sun” you eventually earn is a burial plot. As a great truth, the opposite is also true of course.
What child, or even young adult, knows what “life” they want?
Children know what they have experienced growing up. Perhaps their family members lives and a few friends, probably in the same social-economic group. And that’s basically it.
They would naturally default to their current experience as a goal if asked, but what life do the kids actually want? The answer takes maturity the children don’t have. So adults step in to try to ensure the kids at least have the option of treading water from a class standpoint. Probably some parent ego in there too. Leads to a hypercompetitive parent-driven child experience for the wealthier classes and had, in the 60s/70s in the US, eventually led to rebellious self-directed life changes (good/bad) by the affluent youth. The idea that the rich kids could and should make their own personal choices with their lives, independent of societal or parental expectations, was a very dominant theme in late 1960s/early 1970s US/Western European culture.
Takes a special type of person to make downward mobility work, but it can be done. Usually faith, spirituality and the arts play a big role, as well as the hide of a rhinoceros. Addictions are another route, but that’s not really making it work in my definition.
Because working your butt off is foolish if the only “space underneath the sun” you eventually earn is a burial plot. As a great truth, the opposite is also true of course.
In my town, the high school kids are more likely to die from suicide than from automobile crashes.
It's a high pressure environment.
Everyone trying to fix this, but the perception of everything riding on getting into the good university is a message that is difficult to push against... in this zip code where half of the adults have master's degree or PhD.
It's a high pressure environment.
Everyone trying to fix this, but the perception of everything riding on getting into the good university is a message that is difficult to push against... in this zip code where half of the adults have master's degree or PhD.
> In part, this is because of what sort of people make up America's elite today: not the owners of family businesses but professionals with impressive educations. Family businesses are heritable; education, by contrast, is not.
It seems that by 'rich' the article referred to professionals with high salary. I am not sure how much I will call rich someone that needs to work on a job to continue having an income. 'Prosperous', 'well off' sounds more accurate, but English is not my mother tongue.
My point is that the rich, the ultra-wealthy, can pass assets and business to their descendants and can pay their children's way into exclusive institutions.
I prefer a society were everybody have a minimum well being guaranteed and better off people just have some more luxuries.
It seems that by 'rich' the article referred to professionals with high salary. I am not sure how much I will call rich someone that needs to work on a job to continue having an income. 'Prosperous', 'well off' sounds more accurate, but English is not my mother tongue.
My point is that the rich, the ultra-wealthy, can pass assets and business to their descendants and can pay their children's way into exclusive institutions.
I prefer a society were everybody have a minimum well being guaranteed and better off people just have some more luxuries.
> I prefer a society where everyone have min well being and better off people have some luxuries
^ people will still fight tooth and nail for the luxuries even if the basic floor of existence keeps rising. It's like that proverb of the dogs, it's not enough that we succeed, cats must fail. I assume it had to do with the competition of passing on your genes.
^ people will still fight tooth and nail for the luxuries even if the basic floor of existence keeps rising. It's like that proverb of the dogs, it's not enough that we succeed, cats must fail. I assume it had to do with the competition of passing on your genes.
Not really, that's cultural. In the recent past, status was also associated with professions that made a positive contribution toward society such as doctors. Nowadays you're a respected leader if you own a big ass yacht even if it's luck. The longer term trend was this material wealth but I blame that on inequality, which is rising now.
It used to be the case more that the ultra rich didn't work; but nowadays they often have a lot of wealth generating assets + high paying jobs - 'homoploutia', as coined by Branko Milanovic
Someone earning more than ~$400k per year puts them in the top 1% of income earners. They earn more than 99% of the population.
And you’re saying these people aren’t rich?
And you’re saying these people aren’t rich?
A lot of them aren’t “culturally rich”. They grew up upper middle class (so a stable home life and a solid education with family support but no expectation of inherited wealth) and strongly value education and work ethic.
I would actually argue that this is a good thing. A society benefits when its most capable members continue to work hard.
I would actually argue that this is a good thing. A society benefits when its most capable members continue to work hard.
Inheriting a house is inherited wealth, your baseline assumptions for wealth are completely divorced from reality.
Not sure what “culturally rich” means, but if the problem is income I equality, the top 1% need to pay more taxes.
You could also use the term “leisure class”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Cl...
I generally agree about taxes, in particular an estate tax on wealth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Cl...
I generally agree about taxes, in particular an estate tax on wealth.
In which sense they are the most capable?
Is a bathtub full if it just got started filling at a high rate?
Often people use 'affluent' to refer to high flow, as opposed to rich/wealthy (high stock).
a lot of these professionals could be making 7 or 8 figures a year. they don’t “have” to work. they choose to.
and there’s much more people in this elite strata than if you only count the traditional ultra wealthy
and there’s much more people in this elite strata than if you only count the traditional ultra wealthy
There are a total of 358k people in the US that earned $1M+ in 2020. Seems like a very small population to be talking about out of a country of 330M. There are probably only ~20k people earning $10M+.
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
There is a vast difference between earning mid six figures and “could be earning 7 or 8 figures”. And there is a vast difference in lifestyle between those who can maintain their lifestyle by doing nothing and those who have to grind to maintain it.
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
There is a vast difference between earning mid six figures and “could be earning 7 or 8 figures”. And there is a vast difference in lifestyle between those who can maintain their lifestyle by doing nothing and those who have to grind to maintain it.
Well, it’s always easier to just make someone else do something to attain you things in life. Not that high up on the status totem pole? Make your kid climb it. It’s just easier. Not that rich for that house? Make sure your kid brings you in on that new house. Never went to college, but always wanted to be a doctor? Make your kid do it. Force them to, drop all your bullshit onto them.
A boss is a boss, dominance is dominance.
A boss is a boss, dominance is dominance.
That’s one way to look at the phenomenon. Parents want to have their kids achieve what they could not achieve due to mistakes or because of bad mentoring. They want to give a leg up for their kids. If one wants to win a game that has outsized prizes, people train for it, and they teach kids and grandkids, etc.
Sure, if kids can’t cope up with their pressures, either parents have to give up or some of these kids end up committing suicide.
Sure, if kids can’t cope up with their pressures, either parents have to give up or some of these kids end up committing suicide.
While I totally believe that undue pressure from parents would cause kids to be unhappy the narrative that follows to justify that pressure is total non-sense. I mean they are literally claiming that anyone that doesn't manage to go to an ivy league school for college will be destine to live in poverty.
It's almost like this article is a subtle dig as merit based admissions. Back in the day you you could get into an ivy league school because of who you are now those poor kids have to work for it, and it makes them stressed, poor them. Surprised they didn't advocate for getting rid of standardized testing.
It's almost like this article is a subtle dig as merit based admissions. Back in the day you you could get into an ivy league school because of who you are now those poor kids have to work for it, and it makes them stressed, poor them. Surprised they didn't advocate for getting rid of standardized testing.
On raising kids, Vonnegut wrote: "you have to be kind".
Economic reasons might be a large factor, but they are not the only one. There is a lot of this even in places where there is much less competition. People want to see their kids succeed, and that alone can trigger a lot of things. I am not completely innocent, although nothing egregious because I know that reacting to your fears will mostly end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. But even knowing this it can get the best of you if you see them failing at something out of laziness too many times. If I have a "job" with my kids, it's to give them an opportunity to find their passion, but this is much more than shipping them off to some practice. On the other hand looking at it as a job is highly likely the wrong way.
Economic reasons might be a large factor, but they are not the only one. There is a lot of this even in places where there is much less competition. People want to see their kids succeed, and that alone can trigger a lot of things. I am not completely innocent, although nothing egregious because I know that reacting to your fears will mostly end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. But even knowing this it can get the best of you if you see them failing at something out of laziness too many times. If I have a "job" with my kids, it's to give them an opportunity to find their passion, but this is much more than shipping them off to some practice. On the other hand looking at it as a job is highly likely the wrong way.
I think it’s absolutely a job. I often reflect on how much my grandparents did for my parents and how much they did for me. My obligation is not to make my kids more successful than me, but if I can help them find what they want to do in life and how to make that happen, I’ll have succeeded at that job.
[2015]