While as stated above, I do object to calling a household with an income > 165K rich - once the 'R' word becomes 'high earners' then a different pattern emerges in my mind, at least.

'Higher earners' applies to those that are presumably in the occupations where the combination of luck and innate intelligence have brought them to a certain level - thus giving credence to the argument that hereditary factors are coming into play for their offspring.

However, the picture is obviously complicated by cultural factors, too. Those imbued with the a cultural ethos in which hard work and effort are valued tend to do better. And they do better regardless of race which is quite obviously hereditary.

The fact that high intelligence is found at all income levels (see Genius Denied) lends further weight to the argument that cultural factors play a large part in determining whether or not a child with high intelligence reaches his/her potential. It is simply untrue to say and the children of low earning households will automatically be stupid, right?

I think that more than anything else it comes down to parental values. 'High earners' tend to be people that have been to college and naturally expect the same from their children. I do not really understand why responsible parents that actively engage their children so that they can reach their potentials have to be pilloried.

I can tell you all that we in our household are not 'rich' and that we only have one child specifically because we will not be able to afford to put more than one through a decent college and we do not want to raise servants indentured to financial institutions (lenders). We also tend to spend money on supplementary books, trips to museums, hikes etc (things that do not cost an inordinate amount of money btw) instead of the latest electronic gizmo/hand held game platform or fashions.

Last edited by madeinuk; 05/01/13 04:18 AM.
Become what you are