| You miss the point of the article, which is that it's not victimology to understand that social mobility depends on a lot more than talent or hard work, and that you have to be either young or naive to believe that that's all it takes. I'm currently reading a biography of one of the most famous and successful British rock bands. The core of the band met at a famous public school. They had: 1. Spare money to buy instruments and equipment, including vans and cars 2. Plenty of rehearsal opportunities - often in very large country houses or grand cottages where they stayed for free 3. Direct access to successful people in their immediate social circles 4. No immediate financial pressures. (Not that they were rich. But they were never in danger of starving or becoming homeless.) They happened to be very talented. But without those opportunities the talent would not have been enough, and they would have had to join most of their peers in ordinary jobs. Class is a network of opportunities that is denied to outsiders. It's also about learned social confidence within the network. A few 'Well I made it so you can too' anecdotes are beside the point. A few people always do make it, no matter what. The real issue is the number who don't, in spite of best efforts and hard work, and of the talent and hard work wasted in a culture of low social mobility. The failures never appear in Fortune, but they're out there in their millions. |