Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Lucern · 10-21-2004, 06:44 AM

That's an interesting point VulcanRider, and I'm glad you disagree - it makes me find support for my position! What I learn in lecture isn't at my fingertips after all.

I had not heard of TMND. It seems to be a unique and valuable work in studying a group that few study: the nouveau rich. However, due to my own murky language, I believe I directed your attention off of the broader point I was trying to make. I said 'wealth' and talked about the 'super rich', but I should have talked about social mobility among all Americans. So I'm talking about the billionaires, the penniless, and everyone in between here. 3.3% of households aren't the norm.

I tried to find some good information on the book, and it seems quite popular among groups that promote the acquisition of personal wealth (investment clubs, and the like). The number of copies sold approach the number of nouveau rich in America. I also found it in the book-lists of ethics classes for discussions of wealth acquisition and materialism. What I didn't find is a serious critique of TMND as a work of important social science. I don't know what kind of claims the authors make inside, but time and time again (even by a committee of the House of Representatives) I saw it used to singlehandedly assert that working up from very little is a reality that is attainable for all but the poorest Americans. I can't claim to know what the book says, but I read that it is written in a self-help style that refers to economic underachievers; more or less implies behavioral reasoning that explains why so few attain the status of his millionaires (by wasting money). While this holds appeal from just looking at our materialist culture, what kind of basis can there be for this claim? I read that his study was on a segment of the upper class, so the aforementioned common claims about this book can't explain "the rest" of us; it can only hypothesize.

In sum: from what I've read: I think the book's focus does not allow for such a broad claim about the whole of society, though you definately have a point about that small sliver of lower-upper class noveau rich. Of course, you didn't make the claim about the whole of society - I'm just supporting the broader position I intended to take. The most interesting point I read about the book is that 80% of those surveyed worked up to wealth. I'd like to see more research on that.

These links may provide a more wholistic view of American social strata. Data, social factors, and policy factors seem, to me, to point to a reality of limited but present social mobility - and not in the ways expected by any myth of a meritocratic social hierarchy. Note that in some instances, social mobility is in downwards over decades, especially among the working class. If you read only one, I'd pick the Frontline interview.

Collection of interesting raw statistics:
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/...borstats.shtml
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/..._Data.html#p41
Another focus on millionaires:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/000405.php
Forbes being snotty about the Super Rich, Old Money and New Money
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/10...50a_print.html
Op-Eds of strong relevance:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-01.htm (Guardian)
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...0105&s=krugman (Liberal Alert - the Nation)
An Interview with a sociologist who studied social mobility since the late 70's:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../roseintw.html
An old academic understanding of social mobility in all its archaeic glory:
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/D.../SOCMOBLT.HTML
And the jackpot, this has an article that involves TMND, and none have commented yet. It has many articles of various quality from numerous sources.
http://socialclass.org/

And finally, behold! the same topic occurred on another forum. IW'ers of all flavors are infinitely superior to the orks and trolls of this forum

Seriously, read the quality of the commentary on that thread and this one. The difference between an elementary school yard and Cambridge

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/414/

10-21-2004, 06:44 AM	#52
Lucern Quintesson Join Date: August 28, 2004 Location: the middle of Michigan Age: 43 Posts: 1,011	That's an interesting point VulcanRider, and I'm glad you disagree - it makes me find support for my position! What I learn in lecture isn't at my fingertips after all. I had not heard of TMND. It seems to be a unique and valuable work in studying a group that few study: the nouveau rich. However, due to my own murky language, I believe I directed your attention off of the broader point I was trying to make. I said 'wealth' and talked about the 'super rich', but I should have talked about social mobility among all Americans. So I'm talking about the billionaires, the penniless, and everyone in between here. 3.3% of households aren't the norm. I tried to find some good information on the book, and it seems quite popular among groups that promote the acquisition of personal wealth (investment clubs, and the like). The number of copies sold approach the number of nouveau rich in America. I also found it in the book-lists of ethics classes for discussions of wealth acquisition and materialism. What I didn't find is a serious critique of TMND as a work of important social science. I don't know what kind of claims the authors make inside, but time and time again (even by a committee of the House of Representatives) I saw it used to singlehandedly assert that working up from very little is a reality that is attainable for all but the poorest Americans. I can't claim to know what the book says, but I read that it is written in a self-help style that refers to economic underachievers; more or less implies behavioral reasoning that explains why so few attain the status of his millionaires (by wasting money). While this holds appeal from just looking at our materialist culture, what kind of basis can there be for this claim? I read that his study was on a segment of the upper class, so the aforementioned common claims about this book can't explain "the rest" of us; it can only hypothesize. In sum: from what I've read: I think the book's focus does not allow for such a broad claim about the whole of society, though you definately have a point about that small sliver of lower-upper class noveau rich. Of course, you didn't make the claim about the whole of society - I'm just supporting the broader position I intended to take. The most interesting point I read about the book is that 80% of those surveyed worked up to wealth. I'd like to see more research on that. These links may provide a more wholistic view of American social strata. Data, social factors, and policy factors seem, to me, to point to a reality of limited but present social mobility - and not in the ways expected by any myth of a meritocratic social hierarchy. Note that in some instances, social mobility is in downwards over decades, especially among the working class. If you read only one, I'd pick the Frontline interview. Collection of interesting raw statistics: http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/...borstats.shtml http://www.faireconomy.org/research/..._Data.html#p41 Another focus on millionaires: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/000405.php Forbes being snotty about the Super Rich, Old Money and New Money http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/10...50a_print.html Op-Eds of strong relevance: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-01.htm (Guardian) http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...0105&s=krugman (Liberal Alert - the Nation) An Interview with a sociologist who studied social mobility since the late 70's: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../roseintw.html An old academic understanding of social mobility in all its archaeic glory: http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/D.../SOCMOBLT.HTML And the jackpot, this has an article that involves TMND, and none have commented yet. It has many articles of various quality from numerous sources. http://socialclass.org/ And finally, behold! the same topic occurred on another forum. IW'ers of all flavors are infinitely superior to the orks and trolls of this forum Seriously, read the quality of the commentary on that thread and this one. The difference between an elementary school yard and Cambridge http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/414/