Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The New Aristocracy

Tribal reservations within the US geographical boundaries such as Pine Ridge are their own sovereign nations with their own form of government. Ironically the population you mention is poor, but somehow choosing to afford enough alcohol to damage their offspring. This is tragic. Meanwhile, I am aware of many organizations funneling care to Pine Ridge.

It seems we agree?

I would not be opposed to the intellectual exercise of refuting an argument on its merits. But rather than an argument with merits, I see strong statements of opinion:
No. But I see your question as revealing a possible misunderstanding or conflation of the concepts of:
- voting to elect Congress,
- Congress voting on the budget.

No. But I feel that your question may be baiting and an attempt to veer the conversation off-topic.

I would anticipate that elected representatives would continue to analyze the amount of taxes likely to be collected and available to the US government to budget for spending on various programs and services... and weigh that against the burgeoning National Debt... then attempt raising taxes, which tends to trigger taxpayer feedback.

Allocating more money to public education does not necessarily invest in children by providing more teachers, aides, materials, etc... but may instead result in higher payments to teacher's unions, salaries, benefits, more layers of government bureaucracy, administrative red tape, etc.

In the US the average government school teacher's salary:
- exceeds average personal income,
- is the largest part of most government school budgets,
- may be part of a compensation package which also includes life-long post-retirement benefits.



As others have acknowledged upthread, the experiences related in the OP's article do not describe life in mainstream America. I personally do not resent the successes of others, but find them inspirational. I applaud the significant philanthropic efforts of the Davidsons, in creating the Davidson Institute for Talent Development (including this gifted issues discussion forum), following their business success.

Totally on the US part, of course! I wouldn’t agree on the taxpaying bit of it (IF it were up to me in anyway..) but I’ll get to that.

True, strong on the opinion part but bit weak on the argument part here. The argument I felt was implied was that if one agrees on the values of fairness and equality of opportunity, though not outcome - and if we disagreed on the first one, there wouldn’t be any point in talking at all, and would have assumed that the second is such a quintessential American value it’s not in question either - there needs to be some government engagement in levelling the playing field, in providing services for those children whose families can’t provide for them (as opposed to somehow compel high SES families to provide fewer services for their own children, which I think we would all agree is a ludicrous proposition).
I understand you do not oppose support for low SES children, but feel that philanthropist engagement is preferable because it doesn’t remove agency for the wealthy the way mandatory taxation does. I argue that philanthropy is wonderful, but also spotty, unpredictable and arbitrary and thus can’t provide the stability of support that children from high SES backgrounds get from their parents but children from low SES backgrounds lack.
Example: If a highly capable low SES student makes it into a top US university that meets full need, they’ve got it made. But it is a tiny proportion of low SES kids that even has a shot, and with acceptance rates hovering between 5 and 20%, even lower than that for regular decision, it is a minuscule proportion of low SES kids that can profit, and it’s totally unpredictable. What the vast majority of college bound low (and middling, actually) SES kids would need is their state schools meeting full need, from community colleges to the flagship because that is where almost all of them will end up. Only government funding could provide that predictability.

And then you’d have to go further and further back in these children’s life to offer them the chance to get that far.

I agree that Pine Ridge isn’t an example that can be generalised, just one of the worst ways you can deprive the children of a community of opportunities forever. Wherever you want to apportion blame, the children don’t carry any, but bear the consequences...

You can look at any drug and crime riddled neighbourhood anywhere else. Much progress has been made on tackling the crime part (with the attendant social and economic problems of large scale incarceration) but very little on the public health, education and jobs part.

If the US still being the global beacon of opportunity and social mobility that it used to be is something one cares about (one can care about that without being a US citizen, you know) it matters what other countries do, because the Atlantic article provides graphs that show that internationally, the US is falling behind on these measures.

No misunderstanding. As elected members, they are responsible to the voters, not just the taxpaying voters. Historically, there is a lot of precedent of the franchise being granted according to economic standing, land holding, tax brackets etc.

Not meant to be baiting, meant to engage you in the discussion! Not the same thing for me. If you feel it is the same thing for you, I apologise.


See above. In reality, high SES voters and in particular rich donor voters will have more influence on spending decisions. The question is whether these rescissions then serve the country as a whole.

Strawman! Who is talking about teacher salaries or claiming that raising them is “spending money wisely?” Take the example of high quality preschool provision, which HAS been proved to improve life outcomes in respect to years stayed on school, employment, income, incarceration etc (in fact, turning citizens into taxpayers who might otherwise not have been!), recouping every dollar spent several times over. Win win.
Interestingly, and more on the topic of this forum in general, these programs have been shown to NOT raise IQ scores permanently. Those will stubbornly drop back to pre-program levels. So, the genetic advantage of the „aristocracy“, as far as it goes (which is probably not as far as is being claimed) remains untouched.



Fully agreed. And all gifted kids, high or low SES, deserve focused support. I just wonder how many kids outside the privileged classes referenced on the Atlantic article are being reached.

I partially agree. But I would say that ALL kids (not just gifted kids) deserve support, affirmation, validation... leading to internal locus of control.

As previously mentioned by several posters upthread, the experiences related in the OP's article (top 0.1-10% range of household incomes) do not describe life in mainstream America.

Through extensive taxpayer-funded public services and programs, as well as private foundations, endowments, charities, non-profit organizations, many hours of pro-bono work, and volunteerism... there is outreach providing a safety net to virtually all who wish to live the American Dream of upward socioeconomic mobility through their own hard work, dedication, perseverance, struggle, sacrifice, learning from setbacks/failures. And then lending a helping hand to others.

I found the numbers a bit surprising. It is obviously that the top 0.1% is very wealthy but the next 9.9% are more affluent that I expected. According to the article, in 2016, you would need to be a millionaire (net worth of 1.2 million) to even reach the bottom of the top 10 percent.