Do people generally have an unrealistic expectation of how their life will pan out?

SugarHigh

"Most American's don't see themselves as struggling for survival, but rather as temporarily embarrassed millionaires".

A quote from last weeks Bill Maher's show. It is odd how so many lower class Americans continuously vote against their own interest in favor of the interests of rich because they sincerely believe that one day they will be millionaires.

It's seem there is this idea in the back of a lot of peoples heads that one day they will somehow be rich or famous. Even if there is no rational reason to think this and even if they are making no action to make this happen.

Are they just blinded by optimism?

IK09

they're a rare cross-breed of genuinely stupid and hopelessly optimistic. They are not only stupid enough to act out of the interest of someone else who they idolise, but are optimistic enough to believe that some day, they will become one of the idolised.

Its a sad affair really

jmn89

IK09 wrote: »

they're a rare cross-breed of genuinely stupid and hopelessly optimistic. They are not only stupid enough to act out of the interest of someone else who they idolise, but are optimistic enough to believe that some day, they will become one of the idolised.

Its a sad affair really

Hey, it's human to covet. In order for there to be millionaires, there must be thousands who aren't but aspire to be. Why be a millionaire unless it inspires jealousy, envy, ambition? Part of day-to-day existence for the vast majority people is the urge to better oneself, even if you don't take active steps to do so.

Optimism and idealism are important commodities - I wish I had more of either one. Where would society be without ambition and ambitious people? We'd be living in caves until dying in our mid-20s and picking ticks out of each other's natal clefts.

I've definitely seen evidence of this. I asked my mum once what she wanted to be when she younger. She said she had always wanted to be a secretary, although she never actually became one. My dad started work at 16 in a manual labor sort of job and never left it. There wasn't much scope for third level education back then, so it stands to reason that my generation (I'm 20), would be slightly more ambitious in our hopes for work, such as journalism, science, technology, engineering, maths etc.

It seems however that instead of expanding our ambitions to adapt to our greater scope of opportunity, we've latched onto popular culture's view of society instead. Shows like X Factor where some girl who normally sings into her hairbrush gets plucked out of her bedroom and onto a stage in front of adoring fans and tv cameras. Films where a normal guy uses nothing more than his good nature and a fortunate series of events to become the most popular guy in town, becomes successful. I mean, watch Legally Blonde! Some ditsy blonde wins a court case due to her knowledge of perming and goes on to be the be renowned in her profession?! I love films with happy endings, but it seems that they effect some people in a serious way.

I have quite a few friends who are trying to get into the music, acting or dance industry, yet only one or two of them are going about it in a sensible way. Take a look at LA. A town with a large population of successful actors/actresses, but an absolutely massive population of people who are unemployed or working in minimum wage jobs because they're convinced that they can make it in acting, and wont need to keep their low wage job for long.

People who have high expectations and succeed are just that, successful. So we hear about them. People who have high expectations and fail, who are probably the majority, are never heard of. I think a lot of people's views are definitely skewed due to this. Even friends of mine who aren't looking to become famous, who are just doing degrees like me, often talk about their field of study as though they're guaranteed jobs in it right out of college. Things don't just happen that way, you have to try damn hard to make them happen, and even then you need a bit of luck on your side.

I always got the impression that the USA is a "make something big of yourself" kind of place as opposed to the sniping we have here. Bit of hard work and you can climb up to the top.
It's natural to dream and have aspirations especially if you're in a hard place.

And then of course you have the rise of the xfactor and britain's got talent and all these shows, where just any everyday person can suddenly be rich and famous. Suddenly it all seems to be even more within our reach. And everyone thinks they're due that lucky break.

SugarHigh

bluewolf wrote: »

I always got the impression that the USA is a "make something big of yourself" kind of place as opposed to the sniping we have here. Bit of hard work and you can climb up to the top.
It's natural to dream and have aspirations especially if you're in a hard place.

Yes it's good to have aspirations but is social mobility in the USA that easy? Is it easier for the current generation than it was for the baby bloomers?

It's seems some people almost view becoming rich as their right when the fact is if you are born poor you are much more likely to die poor than rich. It isn't just about working hard either because of the advantages the person who is already rich would have like better education and parents who have a more wealthy social network.

Even if you get a law degree are you going to be able to compete with the other kid who got a law degree but has parents who are well connected in the legal profession?

And then of course you have the rise of the xfactor and britain's got talent and all these shows, where just any everyday person can suddenly be rich and famous. Suddenly it all seems to be even more within our reach. And everyone thinks they're due that lucky break.

I agree and think these shows are very misleading to kids because it's gives an impression that social mobility is easy.

Depending on what profession you are in social mobility can be near impossible. In UK politics there are only 2 MP's who don't come from wealthy backgrounds and that's because they got in through Grammar schools which have now been closed down. They are also both set to retire soon. There was a BBC program which claimed that social mobility for the current generation in politics is worse than the baby bloomers.

UK politics is completely about who you know and where you were educated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9448084.stm

The wealth gap is also widening in the USA and the UK. London has teh alrgest wealth of any city in the developed world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8636000/8636022.stm

The UK currently has largest wealth gap in 40 years.

The wealth gap between black and white Americans has grown 4 times between 1984 and 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8690329.stm


It used to be possible to start at the bottom of a company and work your way up but is that really still possible? It seems people are plucked from outside the company from colleges so if you start at the bottom your likely to stay close to there.

miec

Hi Op

In relation to your question about American's being overly optimistic or believing they can better their situation, I believe it is a deeply embedded belief in their culture. I did a seminar on early American literature (covering both native american literature and early writings from the puritans) it was interesting stuff but determinism was a huge belief factor, these people came to a land with the belief that they were going to create an utopian society (now I won't get into the whole politics of how they achieved that - as we all know they eroded the native american way of life) but they all had that belief of self determining their life. Also the puritan way of life was looking inward, analyzing their souls for providence (I believe that is the word) or signs of God's grace (I believe this why they are drawn to psychoanalysis or soul searching more so than other other cultures). Also Benjamin Franklin was the first or earliest and most famous classic rags to riches story, the poor boy who has done well. This motif is recurring in American history / culture. In ways it can be disingenuous to people as a whole because it could give them false hopes and they could be easily suckered by scammers but... for me personally I subscribe to it. I hate the idea of sticking to my limitations, my background, my class etc. It is so limiting and utterly depressing. Maybe trying to achieve a goal or better myself is a waste of time / energy but it at least gives hope. The thing is I have already achieved things way beyond my expectations and that is the thing about being human, some of us find a nice comfy rock and stay under it, that suits them, for others we need keep discovering new terrains, push ourselves etc. I think both ways are viable but suited to each individual. I think here in Ireland we can lean to the overly pessimistic about our options and the Americans can be overly optimistic in their options, I guess it is finding that happy medium.

irishh_bob

true-or-false wrote: »

I've definitely seen evidence of this. I asked my mum once what she wanted to be when she younger. She said she had always wanted to be a secretary, although she never actually became one. My dad started work at 16 in a manual labor sort of job and never left it. There wasn't much scope for third level education back then, so it stands to reason that my generation (I'm 20), would be slightly more ambitious in our hopes for work, such as journalism, science, technology, engineering, maths etc.

It seems however that instead of expanding our ambitions to adapt to our greater scope of opportunity, we've latched onto popular culture's view of society instead. Shows like X Factor where some girl who normally sings into her hairbrush gets plucked out of her bedroom and onto a stage in front of adoring fans and tv cameras. Films where a normal guy uses nothing more than his good nature and a fortunate series of events to become the most popular guy in town, becomes successful. I mean, watch Legally Blonde! Some ditsy blonde wins a court case due to her knowledge of perming and goes on to be the be renowned in her profession?! I love films with happy endings, but it seems that they effect some people in a serious way.

I have quite a few friends who are trying to get into the music, acting or dance industry, yet only one or two of them are going about it in a sensible way. Take a look at LA. A town with a large population of successful actors/actresses, but an absolutely massive population of people who are unemployed or working in minimum wage jobs because they're convinced that they can make it in acting, and wont need to keep their low wage job for long.

People who have high expectations and succeed are just that, successful. So we hear about them. People who have high expectations and fail, who are probably the majority, are never heard of. I think a lot of people's views are definitely skewed due to this. Even friends of mine who aren't looking to become famous, who are just doing degrees like me, often talk about their field of study as though they're guaranteed jobs in it right out of college. Things don't just happen that way, you have to try damn hard to make them happen, and even then you need a bit of luck on your side.

all that seperates the likes of ronan keating and the other 99 like him who never made it is luck , having high hopes is important but you need a little bit of blooming

Eliot Rosewater

SugarHigh wrote: »

It is odd how so many lower class Americans continuously vote against their own interest in favor of the interests of rich because they sincerely believe that one day they will be millionaires.

I think it's all-too-easy to dismiss people who vote for politicians you disagree with as ignorant. And I don't think you can say it's naivety either. If there is a naive optimist vote it's far from being an election decider.

SugarHigh wrote: »

The wealth gap is also widening in the USA and the UK. London has teh alrgest wealth of any city in the developed world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8636000/8636022.stm

The UK currently has largest wealth gap in 40 years.

The wealth gap, in isolation, is irrelevant. If in 2000 Mr. A earns €18,000 and Mr. B earns €56,000, and in 2010 they earn €22,000 and €64,000 respectively (real constant euro), then the wealth gap has increased but both men are better off. The wealth gap also fails to describe the reasons as to why the gap is growing, and whether those reasons are necessarily bad. If Mr B's income increase is a result of a business enlargement which also resulted in taking on a new member of staff, then that income increase can only be a good thing.


I have mixed feelings about the core issue here: that of peoples' attitude towards their future. I've very recent experiences of people my age (i.e, students) with different levels of determination and optimism. Some students I meet have a real proactive attitude towards their future, and they succeed very nicely. Others - even the smartest students - can be very complacent, and willing to just let life take them wherever it happens to go.

I don't see many problems with social mobility from where I'm standing, as success in university primarily hinges on academic prowess and determination, as opposed to social standing. While I accept that social factors influence peoples' attendance of university in the first place, I find that when in university success is spread about irrespective of background. I also think it's a lot less skewed towards the well off than secondary school is.

SugarHigh

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think it's all-too-easy to dismiss people who vote for politicians you disagree with as ignorant. And I don't think you can say it's naivety either. If there is a naive optimist vote it's far from being an election decider.

Who said I disagree with the politicians they are voting for? I was questioning their motive for voting against their own interest. I don't believe they are voting out of ignorance about what they are voting for. They understand that they are voting against their own interest but they do it anyway and yes people voting against their own interest does swing votes.

Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.

What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

I was making the point that I believe this is down to the optimism that they believe one day they won't be a position that health care benefits them and they will be the one paying for it. Some people put it down to the fact they resent being told what to do.

The wealth gap, in isolation, is irrelevant. If in 2000 Mr. A earns €18,000 and Mr. B earns €56,000, and in 2010 they earn €22,000 and €64,000 respectively (real constant euro), then the wealth gap has increased but both men are better off. The wealth gap also fails to describe the reasons as to why the gap is growing, and whether those reasons are necessarily bad. If Mr B's income increase is a result of a business enlargement which also resulted in taking on a new member of staff, then that income increase can only be a good thing.

I see the point you are trying to make that living standards improve but I was talking about social mobility which is of course negatively affected by a larger wealth gap. A bigger gap is like increasing the distance between the rungs of the social mobility ladder.

The kind of job you are likely to end up is largely decided by the wealth of your parents. It's now harder to work your way up in a company than it was in the 60's. Social mobility has decreased.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNRP8xc5aFA

I have mixed feelings about the core issue here: that of peoples' attitude towards their future. I've very recent experiences of people my age (i.e, students) with different levels of determination and optimism. Some students I meet have a real proactive attitude towards their future, and they succeed very nicely. Others - even the smartest students - can be very complacent, and willing to just let life take them wherever it happens to go.

I don't see many problems with social mobility from where I'm standing, as success in university primarily hinges on academic prowess and determination, as opposed to social standing. While I accept that social factors influence peoples' attendance of university in the first place, I find that when in university success is spread about irrespective of background. I also think it's a lot less skewed towards the well off than secondary school is.

you are playing down the fact that rich children are more likely to go to university even if it's free. You are also ignoring the fact that once you get your degree the person with the better connections will be more successful. The child with rich parents is more likely to have these connections because they were made by their parents just like the example I used of Nick Clegg.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SugarHigh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree but I'm not sure how that's relevant to what you quoted. I asked was social mobility easier.

These shows also illustrate that only a handful out of thousands of entrants can actually be successful.

True but I don't think that's what people will focus on. They don't imagine themselves as the losers.

Can you back up that claim, please?

It was said during a bbc2 program called posher and posher. So I can't link to it and may not have remembered it correctly.
but
23/29 cabinet members are millionaires

66 per cent of the cabinet were privately educated, while that's only true of seven per cent of the country at large. Oxford, which over the years has supplied us with 26 Prime Ministers, has also supplied us with 100 of our current MPs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-tv-posh-and-posher-why-public-school-boys-run-britainbbc2br-the-joy-of-teen-sexchannel-4-2195284.html

This so-called "wealth gap" is irrelevant. The poorest in society are still better off than they ever have been.

How is the wealth gap irrelevant to social mobility? This isn't a discussion on living standards so the poorest in society being better off is actually an irrelevant point to make.

The wealth gap is the distance you ahve to climb to move from one class to the other so obviously the bigger the climb the harder it is going to be.

Of course. Why do you think it isn't? Currently, a black man who is the son of a single mother is president of the United States.

This is a stick that get's used to beat African Americans who are held back by their situation. It's basically saying "If he can do then why can't you".. What you are completely ignoring is the insane odds of a black person becoming president.

The fact it happened doesn't change this. The fact life formed on earth doesn't change the massive odds that were against it happening.

Why are black people getting relatively poorer than their white counterparts? The gap is 4 times larger than in 1984.
The fact they are relatively richer than black people from the 70's doesn't change this fact.

HivemindXX

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I've very recent experiences of people my age (i.e, students) with different levels of determination and optimism. Some students I meet have a real proactive attitude towards their future, and they succeed very nicely. Others - even the smartest students - can be very complacent, and willing to just let life take them wherever it happens to go.

Do any of those with a proactive attitude fail? I'm willing to bet that some will. I'm also willing to bet that some of the complacent students will fall in to a brilliant life either by luck or because of family connections.

It's basically all just tilting the odds in your favour. If you're hard working you are more likely to succeed. You might not. It is certainly possible to be hard working and still end up in a bad situation. Having someone tell you that Barack Obama did better with worse is not really relevant and kind of insulting.

It's equally insulting for someone to claim that they are totally victims of their circumstances and bear no blame for their situation themselves. A bad background no more forces you in to a life of crime and drug addiction than hard work guarantees you can be president of the US.

It's common for people to talk about Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and how they are billionaires after dropping out of college. There's even a wikipedia page. There's no page for college dropouts who end up working dead end jobs. I wonder why not.

The famous American dream is often summed up as "with hard work and dedication you can succeed beyond your wildest dreams". It should really be "with hard work and dedication you could succeed beyond your wildest dreams but you probably won't. You are much more likely to end up with a pretty comfortable and happy life but don't pin your hopes on having an MTV Cribs episode set in your house".

The problem is this. The impression is created that anyone can become extremely rich and successful. When you don't (which you almost certainly won't) you can feel somehow cheated. In the old days you pretty much had to imagine how the royalty lived. Now you can see video of Michael Jordans sports car collection and read about the ensuite bathroom that's the size of your whole house.

So, I do think that some people have an unrealistic expectation. They read emotive slogans about the American dream and take them too seriously. They see pretty obscene levels of consumerism in the "celeb" magazines and they want that. They read about someone just like them who is plucked out of their life and elevated to extreme heights of wealth and success and they think that can happen to them too.

The majority of people are more realistic. Their goals are far more achievable and they are more likely to be happy. If all you want from life is a loving family, a fulfilling job that you like and enough income to live comfortably you are far more likely to be happy than someone who wants to be the next Bill Gates. Chances are you'll be just as happy if not happier than the actual Bill Gates as well.

Having a few people who want to be the next billionaire industrialist is pretty good for society though. If you want to work your ass off developing new technology I promise not to be the least bit jealous of your private jet if you succeed.

irishh_bob

HivemindXX wrote: »

Do any of those with a proactive attitude fail? I'm willing to bet that some will. I'm also willing to bet that some of the complacent students will fall in to a brilliant life either by luck or because of family connections.

It's basically all just tilting the odds in your favour. If you're hard working you are more likely to succeed. You might not. It is certainly possible to be hard working and still end up in a bad situation. Having someone tell you that Barack Obama did better with worse is not really relevant and kind of insulting.

It's equally insulting for someone to claim that they are totally victims of their circumstances and bear no blame for their situation themselves. A bad background no more forces you in to a life of crime and drug addiction than hard work guarantees you can be president of the US.

It's common for people to talk about Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and how they are billionaires after dropping out of college. There's even a wikipedia page. There's no page for college dropouts who end up working dead end jobs. I wonder why not.

The famous American dream is often summed up as "with hard work and dedication you can succeed beyond your wildest dreams". It should really be "with hard work and dedication you could succeed beyond your wildest dreams but you probably won't. You are much more likely to end up with a pretty comfortable and happy life but don't pin your hopes on having an MTV Cribs episode set in your house".

The problem is this. The impression is created that anyone can become extremely rich and successful. When you don't (which you almost certainly won't) you can feel somehow cheated. In the old days you pretty much had to imagine how the royalty lived. Now you can see video of Michael Jordans sports car collection and read about the ensuite bathroom that's the size of your whole house.

So, I do think that some people have an unrealistic expectation. They read emotive slogans about the American dream and take them too seriously. They see pretty obscene levels of consumerism in the "celeb" magazines and they want that. They read about someone just like them who is plucked out of their life and elevated to extreme heights of wealth and success and they think that can happen to them too.

The majority of people are more realistic. Their goals are far more achievable and they are more likely to be happy. If all you want from life is a loving family, a fulfilling job that you like and enough income to live comfortably you are far more likely to be happy than someone who wants to be the next Bill Gates. Chances are you'll be just as happy if not happier than the actual Bill Gates as well.

Having a few people who want to be the next billionaire industrialist is pretty good for society though. If you want to work your ass off developing new technology I promise not to be the least bit jealous of your private jet if you succeed.

good post but perhaps it takes too negative of an attitude towards the so called american dream , its a dream and i think the countrys attitude is one of , everyone should be encouraged and allowed to follow thier dreams , following the correct steps ( if thier are any ) towards achieving success is no guarentee of achieving the actual dream though , luck is one of the most important factors in a persons life when it comes to determining whether or not they suceed , no one can succeed without a decent amount of it and i dont buy into the boring cliche about how you make your own luck , if you made your own luck , it wouldnt ( by definition almost ) be luck , merley good descision making , that guy from monaghan who was working in christchurch new zealand was the victim of bad luck , ditto , those yong irish female doctors who were flying home from brazil on that doomed air france flight a few years ago , an example of good luck might be the young woman who was being bungled into a boot by the notorious rapist murphy , only for a few guys who were out hunting , to stumble across the incident

HivemindXX

I think the phrase "you make your own luck" means that you work to create opportunities for your lucky break and that when something lucky does happen you work hard to take the maximum advantage of it.

So, someone who's book becomes a best seller, gets a multi-book deal, movie deal and becomes wealthy was lucky, but if they hadnt written the book in the first place they'd still have nothing. Similarly if they sat back after the success of the first book and cashed their royalty checks they might end up merely well-off and not rich, rich, rich.

The "american dream" used to mean that if you worked hard you would end up with a good life and it was largely directed at immigrants or those from poor environments who were likely, if they were smart and hard working, to see an enormous improvement for themselves and their children over what their parents had. This is still true I think.

However I suspect that now the "american dream" is more about becoming one of the top 1% and it's just not realistic for the vast majority of people.

irishh_bob

HivemindXX wrote: »

I think the phrase "you make your own luck" means that you work to create opportunities for your lucky break and that when something lucky does happen you work hard to take the maximum advantage of it.

So, someone who's book becomes a best seller, gets a multi-book deal, movie deal and becomes wealthy was lucky, but if they hadnt written the book in the first place they'd still have nothing. Similarly if they sat back after the success of the first book and cashed their royalty checks they might end up merely well-off and not rich, rich, rich.

The "american dream" used to mean that if you worked hard you would end up with a good life and it was largely directed at immigrants or those from poor environments who were likely, if they were smart and hard working, to see an enormous improvement for themselves and their children over what their parents had. This is still true I think.

However I suspect that now the "american dream" is more about becoming one of the top 1% and it's just not realistic for the vast majority of people.

for every U2 , thier are a thousand other bands who werent in the right venue on the right night when paul mc guiness walked in , the other 100 bands might have been just as good a musicians , worked just as hard etc , you can work hard and still no opportunitys present themselves , anything that is beyond your control yet ends up working in your favour is luck , the rest is just good descision making

johnnyskeleton

SugarHigh wrote: »

A quote from last weeks Bill Maher's show. It is odd how so many lower class Americans continuously vote against their own interest in favor of the interests of rich because they sincerely believe that one day they will be millionaires.

It's seem there is this idea in the back of a lot of peoples heads that one day they will somehow be rich or famous. Even if there is no rational reason to think this and even if they are making no action to make this happen.

Are they just blinded by optimism?

I'm not sure that they think they will some day be rich. I think they take the view that they are only entitled to what they have earned and don't believe in the more European system of voting yourself rich. In much the same way, many rich Europeans support social causes not because they need to avail of such services but because they believe it is right.

Moomoo1

HivemindXX wrote: »

The "american dream" used to mean that if you worked hard you would end up with a good life and it was largely directed at immigrants or those from poor environments who were likely, if they were smart and hard working, to see an enormous improvement for themselves and their children over what their parents had. This is still true I think.

My wife's family know quite a few of those immigrants, people who left Russia for the US in the 90's. Now, most of them work very hard. They have to: if they do not they will not survive. Some have indeed have become _very_ successful. But many, despite giving it their all, find themselves working in several jobs just to stay afloat. Of course, the real killer is health costs: if you job has no insurance program then falling ill usually means ruin no matter how hard you work.

Their parents in the USSR had guaranteed healthcare, education and housing - all for free. And they didn't have to work several jobs to make ends meet. I am not sure the children live better than the parents.

ArtSmart

yes.


yes they do.


what's the alternative?

'my life won't be what i want it to be'...?

Blisterman

Well I see the opposite problem every day in England. People with absolutely no motivation, whose biggest ambition is to get a council house and live off the dole. I'd much rather sit on my deathbed having not succeeded in big ambitions, thinking At least I gave it my best shot" than to have not tried at all.