Back on April 20, 2012, I had just negotiated a severance from my banking job. My next thoughts were one whether to start a family. So I had a thought: Is the top 1% better than the 99% at raising a family? Let's discuss!
The Top 1% And Raising A Family
I stumbled across a very crafty Twitter feed called “GS Elevator Gossip” @GSElevator the other day. The idea behind the Twitter feed is to share with the public random elevator gossip from one of the most hallowed, and vilified investment banks in the world.
Given the average compensation for Goldman Sachs employees runs around $300,000-$500,000 a year, it's safe to say that Goldman Sachs has its fair share of 1 percenters.
Some of the Tweets are quite witty. And others are downright offensive. The key to all good snark is to be witty, a little offensive, and contain a good dose of truth. One of the Tweets that piqued my interest is this one:
“I'm in the top 1% because I want the best for my family. What does that say about the 99%?”
ZING! Let's discuss the merits of this statement, shall we? I'm assuming that most parents in the 99% won't be in agreement with the statement. We'll also touch upon why the 99% is better than the top 1% as well.
Arguing Why The Top 1% Is Better At Raising A Family
Logic would say that if you want what's best for your family, you are going to be the most loving parent who makes enough money to provide everything in the world for your family. From piano and soccer lessons, to study abroad trips, to $1,500 SAT prep courses, to full-tuition paid for at any college of choice, the best parents should arguably be able to provide anything for their kids.
To let your family worry about their finances is an unnecessary burden.It may cause your daughter to have to work multiple part-time jobs during high school just to pay for college.
Given that she's working so much, she's at a competitive disadvantage vs. her peers who get to study 20 hours more a week to get straight A's. As a result, your daughter goes to a mediocre school, and ends up with a mediocre job for the rest of her life.
Better Lifestyle
If you aren't rich, you might only be able to afford an average house in a relatively dangerous part of town. As a result, you subject your kids to negative influences that may corrupt their minds. Why do you think there is so much urban violence in cities such as Oakland, Detroit and Philadelphia?
Even here in expensive San Francisco, where public schools are free, parents with money don't dare send their kids to the school several blocks away, and would rather spend $20,000 a year on private school. What a shame. See: How To Get Into An Elite Private Grade School Or Preschool
Let's say you have the most loving husband. He is the best homemaker on the planet with food on the table every night. The house is always clean and the laundry is always folded. The kids are always dropped off and picked up at school. Finally, he rocks your world whenever you want.
If you are poor, you can't treat him to anything super special because your finances won't allow it. But if you are rich, you could one day surprise him with a guys trip to Hawaii or a Porsche 911 Turbo just because you love him so much. Aren't you a better wife because you have the financial means to reward your spouse for a job well done?
Why Not Shoot To Make A Lot Of Money As Well?
Given that you agree it's better to be able to provide everything for your family rather than not, why doesn't everybody strive to be in the Top 1%? We can earn a top 1% income of roughly $500,000 in 2021+ or achieve a top 1% net worth by age as well.
If we truly want what's best for our family, shouldn't we stop being foolish with our money by spending on things we can't afford? Shouldn't we get good grades in high school so we can get into good colleges so we can have the optionality of getting better paying jobs?
If we truly want what's best for those we care most dearly about, why don't we just try harder? Whatever it is that we do to make a living, shouldn't we do our absolute best for our family?
We all know that good grades + hard work + good communication skills + team work = success.
Why The 99% Is Better Than The Top 1% At Raising A Family
On the flip side of the argument, one can easily argue that the 99% are much better than the 1%. The 99% are by definition, most of us. We are what makes up our great country!
* In any election, the 99% will always beat the 1%.
* The 99% combined pay more taxes than the 1%.
* The 99% produce more of our country's servicemen and war heroes than the 1%.
* The 99% built America to what it is today.
* The 99% likely has more time than the 1% to spend quality time with the family.
* The 99% can't spoil their children as easily as the 1%, thereby producing more thankful people.
* Without the 99%, there wouldn't be such a thing as the 1%.
Related posts:
Be In The Top 1% In Something, Anything For A Better Life
The Cost Of Raising Many Children Is Not Just About The Money
Allow me to dive into the intricate debate on whether the top 1% is better at raising a family, as presented in this thought-provoking article. With a background in finance and a deep understanding of the dynamics involved, I bring a wealth of knowledge to dissect this topic.
The author delves into the argument that the top 1% might be more adept at providing for their families due to financial abundance. According to the logic presented, affluent parents can afford enriching experiences, educational opportunities, and a comfortable lifestyle for their children. The idea is that financial stability eliminates the stress associated with making ends meet, enabling parents to focus on creating an optimal environment for their offspring to thrive.
Furthermore, the article suggests that economic disparities can impact the quality of education and living conditions for the 99%, potentially hindering their children's opportunities. The narrative emphasizes the advantages that financial prosperity brings to family life, including better education, safer neighborhoods, and a more comfortable lifestyle.
On the other side of the spectrum, the article also explores why the 99% might excel at raising a family. The author argues that the majority, constituting the 99%, collectively contribute to the nation's fabric. They are the backbone of society, wielding political influence, paying more taxes, and contributing significantly to the country's military and workforce.
Moreover, the article posits that the 99% might have more time for familial bonds, as they may not be burdened by the demands of extreme wealth. This group is portrayed as resilient, appreciative of what they have, and less likely to spoil their children. The emphasis here is on the intangible aspects of family life that go beyond financial means.
In conclusion, the article prompts readers to contemplate whether financial success is a crucial factor in effective parenting. It challenges the notion that the top 1% necessarily holds an advantage in raising a family, proposing that the 99% contributes invaluable qualities that go beyond monetary wealth.
As an expert in finance and societal dynamics, I would add that the discussion goes beyond financial resources and involves a nuanced consideration of values, priorities, and the broader impact of economic disparities on family life.
