zlacker

I looked through the article but couldn't find a study to back your claim. Can you please look link directly to a study that specifically looks at the most successful members of the underprivileged and compares them to the laziest members or the upper class? I know a good deal about social mobility and your claim reads like something somebody made up.

Edit: in fact, the Wikipedia article directly contradicts your claim, saying "Looking at larger moves, only 4% of those raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults. Around twice as many (8%) of children born into the top quintile fell to the bottom" - suggesting that the best of the underprivileged are far more successful than the laziest of the over-privileged.

>>will42+(OP)
I will try to find the actual study link.

Percentages hides values:

"However, because US income inequalities have increased substantially, the consequences of the "birth lottery" - the parents to whom a child is born - are larger today than in the past. US wealth is increasingly concentrated in the top 10% of American families, so children of the remaining 90% are more likely to be born at lower starting incomes today than the same children in the past. Even if they are equally mobile and climb the same distance up the US socioeconomic ladder as children born 25 years earlier, the bottom 90% of the ladder is worth less now, so they gain less income value from their climb ... especially when compared to the top 10%."

And, those who fall from the top quintile are likely starting at the 80% point and not the 95% point.