Is America The Land of Opportunity ?

[Locrian]

It is important to note though: since the scale is a sliding one, one person doing better does not automatically imply another is doing worse.

Exactly my point - using the methods we've been using - the fifths divisions - it would look like they were, even though they weren't.

This is where using the fifths thing breaks down again - a better measure for the purpose of this thread would be relative to the poverty line, an arbitrary "middle class" living condition, and an arbitary wealthy living condition. But such numbers are harder to find. My examples covered it though: I demonstrated that it is relatively easy to make significantly more money and thus significantly improve your living conditions.

Definately, I would agree that defining whether you are improving your conditions by comparing with the poverty line to be a far, far more functional measure.

As for your example... well, maybe. You definitely showed that one person could do it, and suggested hypothetically that others could. Even if we drop all the fifths, I'm still wary of it as an example. First, it seems to me that giving up the opportunity to live where you want, giving up the opportunity for free speech on a wide range of issues, giving up the opportunity to choose where you want to work and for how long (along with other opportunities lost), only to gain the opportunity to make money - does this really show that america is the land of opportunity? This, to me, doen't make much of a case.

Secondly, examples are, well, examples. I could give an example of someone who just didn't have the opportunity to change social class. For instance, they were born in the slums and shot to death before 16. Would this show that america is not the land of opportunity?

I appreciate your point of view on the topic. Still, I don't think any kind of substantial case has been made in this thread. I don't mean to just be critical and not contribute - you see, the problem I have with the statement "America is the land of Opportunity" is that I'm not sure whether it can be proven or disproven at all, or even that is has much meaning.

 

[russ_watters]

To elaborate somewhat on my point here, the point is, essentially, to dispel the common myth (so commmon that its a cliche) that "you can't get ahead [in this town/city/country/world]" and explore the implications of this (ie, if "you can't get ahead" on your own, then the government should help you). It is related to the similar misconception that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer."

In any case, I think I've shown that not only can you "get ahead," but its actually relatively easy.

 

[the number 42]

Do you listen to nothing?

Huh? This is like two blind guys arguing over the colour of a booger.

There are very few kids and certainly no stockbrokers in Downtown LA. It's barely started to become a residential neighborhood in the last 5 years. Young professionals and USC students. That's it.

Heck, my dad grew up in East LA. That's the bad part. His mom stabbed his neighbor and his brother was shot. He's done fine. It isn't easy, but the opportunity is there. He even has a government job. That should warm your heart - the government helping people get out of the ghetto.

Cool. I get the point. Downtown L.A.? I LOVE it, okay?

I am just picking the name as one I have heard, probably from 80s gangsta movies, as you said before. Great. My point is coming from a downbeat area - not an ex-downbeat area - puts you at a disadvantage. Your dad has done fine - well done to him, genuinely. But surely you know better than most the point I am making, that the people with the most money are those from middle class backgrounds rather than the ghettos (not ex-ghettos). Surely we agree on this general rule?

 

[loseyourname]

I'm just playing with you, 42. I could care less what you think of LA. And yes, I agree. People that live in nice neighborhoods generally have more money than people who live in bad neighborhoods. Except of course in Manhattan, where people will pay $4000 a month for a studio with no indoor plumbing.

 

[the number 42]

I'm just playing with you, 42. I could care less what you think of LA. And yes, I agree. People that live in nice neighborhoods generally have more money than people who live in bad neighborhoods. Except of course in Manhattan, where people will pay $4000 a month for a studio with no indoor plumbing.

Agghh! What do you know about Manhattan? My granny OWNS Manhattan!
etc etc. Just funnin'.