Poor kids who do everything right don’t do better than rich kids who do everything wrong

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Poor kids who do everything right don’t do better than rich kids who do everything wrong



Source: Data from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill

Wonkblog
By Matt O'Brien November 27

America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others. ... That's because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on "enrichment activities" for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.

But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students," and they're staying that way.

It's an educational arms race that's leaving many kids far, far behind. ... It's depressing, but not nearly so much as this: ... Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the above chart, based on a new paper from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's annual conference, which is underway.

Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.
....

Matt O'Brien is a reporter for Wonkblog covering economic affairs. He was previously a senior associate editor at The Atlantic.

[AndreaCG]

1. That's just awful

It wasn't always like this. I blame the Reagan revolution for starting the demise of unions and the rise of the religious right which drew traditional democrats away from the party. There are probably more reasons.

[yeoman6987]

3. I guess blaming Reagan is fine, but

After 33 years and him dead 10 years, it seems politicians on both sides have decided to keep his policies. It seems strange that Democratic politicians have been in power at least 1/2 the time. Reagan was only President 8 years. It can't take 30 years to put it back together?

[Kingofalldems]

4. Just one post after another defending republicans.

[Prophet 451]

2. Powerful graph

Doug Coupland, in "Generation X" coined a term that describes this: "Brazilification". When the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, eventually the middle class disappears entirely.